mineral resource estimates for the falchani lithium ... · 18/4/2019 · mineral resource...

© Copyright Mineral Corporation Consultancy (Pty) Ltd This document is for the use of Plateau Energy Metals Inc. only and outside of the purposes legislated under provincial and other

securities laws or as otherwise stipulated in the client’s contract may not be transmitted to any other party, in whole or in part, in any form without the written permission of Mineral Corporation Consultancy (Pty) Limited.

Mineral Corporation Consultancy (Pty) Ltd Homestead Office Park P O Box 1346 Tel: +27 11 463 4867 Reg. No. 1995/000999/07 65 Homestead Avenue Cramerview Fax: +27 11 706 8616 Trading as: The Mineral Corporation Bryanston 2021 South Africa 2060 South Africa email: [email protected]

www.mineralcorp.co.za

MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES FOR THE FALCHANI LITHIUM PROJECT IN THE PUNO DISTRICT OF PERU

Prepared for Plateau Energy Metals Inc. under the Guidelines of National Instrument 43-101 and accompanying

documents NI 43-101.F1 and NI 43-101.CP

By The Mineral Corporation, Bryanston, South Africa

Effective Date: 01 March 2019

Report No: C-MYI-EXP-1727-1134 [Publish Date]18 April 2019

Signed “Stewart Nupen”

BSc (Hons), FGSSA Pr Sci Nat, Qualified Person 18 April 2019

mailto:[email protected]

i

© Mineral Corporation Consultancy (Pty) Ltd Report No. C-MYI-EXP-1727-1134, 18 April 2019 MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES FOR THE FALCHANI LITHIUM PROJECT IN THE PUNO DISTRICT OF PERU

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................................. 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................... 4 RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS ........................................................................................................................ 4 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION ...................................................................................................... 5

Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 5 Mineral Tenure ......................................................................................................................................... 5

Regulatory mechanism ............................................................................................................................ 5 Property and title ...................................................................................................................................... 5 Environmental regulations ........................................................................................................................ 5 Granting of mining concessions ............................................................................................................... 5 Work programme for mining concessions ................................................................................................ 6 Mining concession description ................................................................................................................. 6 Conclusions and limitations ...................................................................................................................... 6

ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSIOGRAPHY ..................... 9 Access to site ........................................................................................................................................... 9 Access to land .......................................................................................................................................... 9 Climate ..................................................................................................................................................... 9 Local Resources ...................................................................................................................................... 9 Infrastructure ............................................................................................................................................ 9 Physiography ........................................................................................................................................... 9

HISTORY ............................................................................................................................................................. 10 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 10 Previous Regional Exploration ............................................................................................................... 10

Instituto Peruano de Energia Nuclear .................................................................................................... 10 UNDP/IAEA ............................................................................................................................................ 10

Previous Ownership ............................................................................................................................... 10 Uranium price fluctuations ...................................................................................................................... 10 Macusani Yellowcake ............................................................................................................................. 10 The Cameco-Vena Joint Venture ........................................................................................................... 11 Azincourt buys Minergia ......................................................................................................................... 11 Macusani purchases Minergia ................................................................................................................ 11 Macusani changes name to Plateau Uranium Inc. ................................................................................. 11 Plateau Uranium Inc. changes name to Plateau Energy Metals Inc. ...................................................... 11

Previous exploration ............................................................................................................................... 11 GEOLOGICAL SETTING AND MINERALIZATION .............................................................................................. 13

Regional Geology ................................................................................................................................... 13 Local Geology ........................................................................................................................................ 13 Property Geology ................................................................................................................................... 16

Geological description ............................................................................................................................ 16 Mineralization Model .............................................................................................................................. 17

DEPOSIT TYPES ................................................................................................................................................. 18 EXPLORATION .................................................................................................................................................... 18 DRILLING ............................................................................................................................................................. 19

Drilling programme ................................................................................................................................. 19 Drilling methodology ............................................................................................................................... 19 Sample recovery and core ..................................................................................................................... 19

SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES, AND SECURITY ................................................................................... 21 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 21 Sampling methods ................................................................................................................................. 21 Sampling recovery ................................................................................................................................. 21 Sample quality ........................................................................................................................................ 21 Sample preparation, assaying and analytical procedures ...................................................................... 21

Sample preparation ................................................................................................................................ 21 Sample delivery procedures ................................................................................................................... 21 Sample preparation and analysis ........................................................................................................... 21

Analytical quality assurance and control (QAQC) procedures................................................................ 22 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 22 Standard data ......................................................................................................................................... 22 Duplicate data ........................................................................................................................................ 23 Blank data .............................................................................................................................................. 24 Conclusions............................................................................................................................................ 25

Sample database ................................................................................................................................... 25 Overall adequacy statement................................................................................................................... 25

DATA VERIFICATION .......................................................................................................................................... 26 Site visit .................................................................................................................................................. 26

ii


Drillhole locations ................................................................................................................................... 26 Geological observations ......................................................................................................................... 26 Re-sample campaign analyses .............................................................................................................. 26 Limitations or failure to conduct such verification, and the reasons for any such limitations or failure ... 26

MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING ............................................................................. 27 Initial test work on lithium within uranium Mineral Resources (2016) ..................................................... 27 Test work on Lithium-rich Tuff by TECCMINE........................................................................................ 27 Test work on Lithium-rich Tuff by ANSTO .............................................................................................. 27

Baseline sulphuric acid leach and lithium carbonate precipitation.......................................................... 27 Alternative lithium extraction methods .................................................................................................... 27

Conclusions............................................................................................................................................ 27 MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES ................................................................................................................... 28

Drillhole database .................................................................................................................................. 28 Geological modelling methodology ........................................................................................................ 28

Identification of mineralized zones ......................................................................................................... 28 Structural interpretation of the mineralized zones .................................................................................. 28 Wireframe creation ................................................................................................................................. 31 Surface topography ................................................................................................................................ 31

Grade estimation methodology .............................................................................................................. 34 Compositing strategy ............................................................................................................................. 34 Classical statistics .................................................................................................................................. 34 Variography ............................................................................................................................................ 34 Block model parameters ........................................................................................................................ 37 Search criteria ........................................................................................................................................ 37

Mineral Resource estimates ................................................................................................................... 37 Model constraints ................................................................................................................................... 37 Geological losses ................................................................................................................................... 37 Density determinations ........................................................................................................................... 37 Cut-off grade .......................................................................................................................................... 38 Mineral Resource classification .............................................................................................................. 38

Mineral Resource statement. ................................................................................................................. 38 Reconciliation ......................................................................................................................................... 39 Reasonable Prospect for Economic Extraction ...................................................................................... 39

Mining considerations ............................................................................................................................ 39 Recovery methods ................................................................................................................................. 39 Project infrastructure .............................................................................................................................. 40 Market assessment ................................................................................................................................ 40 Environmental ........................................................................................................................................ 41 Capital Costs .......................................................................................................................................... 41 Operating Costs ..................................................................................................................................... 41 Indicative cost analysis .......................................................................................................................... 41

MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES ...................................................................................................................... 46 MINING METHODS ............................................................................................................................................. 46 RECOVERY METHODS ...................................................................................................................................... 46 PROJECT INFRASTRUCTURE ........................................................................................................................... 46 MARKET STUDIES AND CONTRACTS .............................................................................................................. 46 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, PERMITTING, AND SOCIAL OR COMMUNITY IMPACT .................................. 46 CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS .................................................................................................................. 46 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................................................... 46 ADJACENT PROPERTIES .................................................................................................................................. 46 OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION ................................................................................................ 46

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 46 Basis for determination of the target for further exploration at Tres Hermanas ...................................... 46

Delineation of potential target area extent .............................................................................................. 46 Delineation of potential target area volume ............................................................................................ 46 Estimation of potential grades of mineralization ..................................................................................... 46

Potential quantity and grade of the target for further exploration ............................................................ 47 INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................................... 49 RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................................................ 49 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................................... 50

iii


LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Locality Plan ..................................................................................................................................................... 7 Figure 2: Mineral Tenure Plan ......................................................................................................................................... 8 Figure 3: History of ownership of Plateau Energy Metals .............................................................................................. 12 Figure 4: Regional geological setting............................................................................................................................. 14 Figure 5: Local geology ................................................................................................................................................. 15 Figure 6: Illustrative photograph of Upper Rhyolite contact with the Upper Breccia (local stratigraphy as inset) .......... 16 Figure 7: Upper Breccia in core (top) and Lithium-rich Tuff in core (bottom) ................................................................. 17 Figure 8: Drilling configuration ....................................................................................................................................... 19 Figure 9: Locations of drillhole platforms ....................................................................................................................... 20 Figure 10: Error Deviation plot for lithium standards........................................................................................................ 23 Figure 11: Mean Deviation plot for Field and Laboratory Duplicates ............................................................................... 24 Figure 12: Analytical results for Field and Laboratory Blanks .......................................................................................... 24 Figure 13: Geological and analytical log for PCHAC04-TV (left) and Geological and analytical log for PCHAC09-TV (right)

....................................................................................................................................................................... 29 Figure 14: Structural plan for the base of LRT1 ............................................................................................................... 30 Figure 15: Isometric view of the geological model (not to scale) ..................................................................................... 31 Figure 16: South to North cross section (A’-A) showing geological model and drill data (Refer to Figure 9 for section line

location) .......................................................................................................................................................... 32 Figure 17: South to North cross section (B’-B) showing geological model and drill data (refer to Figure 9 for section line

location) .......................................................................................................................................................... 33 Figure 18: Histograms for mineralized zones .................................................................................................................. 35 Figure 19: Variograms for mineralized zones .................................................................................................................. 36 Figure 20: Preliminary process flow sheet (Source: Plateau Energy Metals) .................................................................. 39 Figure 21: Lithium carbonate price 2015-2018 (Source: Lithium Americas, 2018) .......................................................... 41 Figure 22: Indicative cost per tonne of product at differing grades and stripping ratios ................................................... 42 Figure 23: South to North lithium grade cross section (A’ to A in Figure 24) ................................................................... 43 Figure 24: South to North lithium grade cross section (B’ to B in Figure 24) ................................................................... 44 Figure 25: Mineral Resource classification plan .............................................................................................................. 45 Figure 26: Tres Hermanas target for further exploration .................................................................................................. 48

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Mining concessions .......................................................................................................................................... 6 Table 2: Drilling programme summary ......................................................................................................................... 19 Table 3: Summary of QAQC samples .......................................................................................................................... 22 Table 4: Independent analysis from the Falchani Project ............................................................................................. 26 Table 5: Lithological units and mineralized zones used in geological model and Mineral Resources .......................... 28 Table 6: Variogram modelling results ........................................................................................................................... 37 Table 7: Search criteria (applied to all mineralized zones) ........................................................................................... 37 Table 8: Mineral Resource estimates for the Falchani Project (1 March 2019) ............................................................ 38 Table 9: Mineral Resource estimates for the Falchani Project (September 2018) ....................................................... 39 Table 10: Assumptions used in cash cost analysis ........................................................................................................ 42 Table 11: Statistics for trench samples at Tres Hermanas ............................................................................................. 47 Table 12: Tres Hermanas exploration target potential.................................................................................................... 47

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Drillhole Intersections ............................................................................................................................... 51 Appendix 2: Cross Sections ......................................................................................................................................... 56

1


SUMMARY

This report documents the results of the Mineral Resource estimates for the Falchani Lithium Project (Falchani or the Project), on behalf of Plateau Energy Metals Inc. (Plateau Energy Metals), by Mineral Corporation Consulting (Pty) Limited (The Mineral Corporation). Falchani is an exploration property located on the Macusani Plateau, Puno District of Peru and falls within licenses held by Macusani Yellowcake S.A.C (Macusani Yellowcake), formerly Global Gold S.A.C, which is controlled and 99.5% owned by Plateau Energy Metals. Plateau Energy Metals has a number of other exploration properties on the Macusani Plateau, which are primarily uranium exploration properties, and for which Mineral Resources have been declared. The combination of Plateau Energy Metals’ exploration properties on the Macusani Plateau is referred to as the Macusani Project Area (MPA). Mineral Resource estimates have previously been reported for the Project, in September 2018, in The Mineral Corporation’s Report C-MYI-EXP-1727-1103 (The Mineral Corporation, 2018). The Mineral Resource estimates herein comply with the CIM Definition Standards (May, 2014) on Mineral Resources and Reserves (the CIM Definition Standards) as incorporated, by reference, in the National Instrument 43-101 - Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (NI 43-101). The lead Qualified Person (QP) for this report is Stewart Nupen, a Director of The Mineral Corporation. The MPA is located approximately 650km east southeast of Lima and about 220km by the Interoceanica Highway from Juliaca in the south. The town of Macusani is some 25km to the southeast of the MPA. The Mineral Corporation has confirmed that Macusani Yellowcake (and hence Plateau Energy Metals) has the right to explore and exploit “minerals”, which would include lithium, over the Falchani Project. The Project falls within two concessions, namely Falchani and Ocacasa 4. The Mineral Corporation has relied on information that has been provided by Plateau Energy Metals and the Peruvian government online mineral concession database in this regard. The QP has not interrogated the legal aspects of the mineral rights for the properties and concessions and cannot therefore express a legal opinion as to the ownership status of the mining concessions. Peruvian law does not vest surface rights with mineral rights and any proposed development requires the developer to purchase the surface rights or negotiate an appropriate agreement with the surface rights owners to have access to the property. Plateau Energy Metals has working agreements with a number of communities within the MPA, which are required to facilitate exploration at the Falchani Project. The concessions are located in the Carabaya Province, Puno District of south-eastern Peru in the Andes Mountains. The Andes represents a large anticlinorium deformed by a series of faults and intrusions, with the flanks of this superstructure made up of the coastal Mesozoic and eastern Palaeozoic Age belts. In the MPA, late Tertiary tuffs, ignimbrites and associated sediments are preserved in a NW-SE trending graben. The uranium and lithium occurrences in the Macusani Plateau are associated with Pliocene and Miocene epoch Quenamari Formation tuffs, ignimbrites and interbedded sediments. The petrography of the samples indicates that the acid volcanics can have varying composition from rhyolite to dacite to latite, which supports the likely presence of stratigraphic layering of the volcanic pile. This is further supported by the marked lithium zonation noted in the near vertical drillhole core and the “mantos”, or zones of sub-horizontal uranium mineralization are associated with elevated lithium abundance. At Falchani, the lithium-rich volcanic tuff unit is interpreted to be sub-aerial and the transitional Li-rich breccias are interpreted to have been deposited in a crater lake volcano-sedimentary environment. The Mineral Resource estimates are based on some 14 816m of drilling from 51 drillholes. Sampling was carried out at varying sampling intervals and all samples were composited to create 2.5m downhole composites that were used throughout the estimation process. The QP considers the sampling methods, sampling recovery and sample quality to be acceptable. The procedures undertaken by the laboratory were noted to be of a high standard, and appropriate for the analysis of lithium. The QAQC results indicate that acceptable levels of accuracy and precision, and no contamination, have been obtained by the laboratory. Finally, the validation undertaken on the sample database found no deficiencies in the capture and storage of information. With respect to data verification, the QP undertook a site visit to the Falchani Project in May 2018, during which, outcrops of the tuff and breccia units were visited, and the drilling and sampling operations observed. The procedures undertaken by the geologists on site, were found to be appropriate for the style of mineralization. The Mineral Corporation visited the CERTIMIN laboratory in Lima, where all of the lithium analyses for the Falchani Project have been undertaken. An independent set of samples were randomly selected from the storage facility in Macusani and these were re-analyzed, and the results showed good correlation with the original results. The database is thus considered sufficiently reliable to be used to inform the Mineral Resource estimates.

2


Preliminary metallurgical test work has been completed on material from the Falchani Project, initially by TECMMINE, in Lima and subsequently by the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organization (ANSTO). The ANSTO testwork indicates recoveries of up to 90% of the contained lithium, using a sulphuric acid leach, at 90-95°C. Lithium carbonate of 99.7% purity (battery grade) was precipitated.

More recently, Plateau Energy Metals has initiated the investigation of alternatives to the use of a sulphuric acid leach, including the use of high temperature sulphation roast.

The Mineral Corporation would consider the test work undertaken to date on the Falchani Project to be preliminary in nature, and not necessarily representative of the whole Project. However, they are considered to be sufficient for the purposes of assessing if there are Reasonable Prospects for Economic Extraction of lithium at the Falchani Project, and the results provide a good indication that a metallurgical process for the extraction of lithium could be reasonably expected with additional work.

The sub-horizontal lithium mineralization occurs within a lithium-rich tuff (Lithium-rich Tuff), which varies in thickness from 50m to 140m. The Lithium-rich Tuff has been subdivided into the LRT1, LRT2 and LRT3 zones. In addition, lithium mineralization has been modelled in an upper (Upper Breccia or UBX) and lower breccia (Lower Breccia or LBX), which occur in the immediate hangingwall and footwall of the Lithium-rich Tuff, respectively. The top of the UBX and base of the LBX form a natural lithological cut-off, which occurs at a lithium grade of approximately 0.1% Li2O.

The mineralized zones are interpreted to broadly take the form of a basin, which dips gently to the north-northeast. Three north-south trending faults are interpreted, with throws of between 10m and 50m. The upper and lower bounding surface for each of the zones identified were constructed utilizing Datamine's Strat3DTM modelling software, applying Inverse Distance (ID) interpolation of the zone thickness.

Classical statistics was undertaken to identify the statistical distribution of the lithium grades, and identify any outliers. No cutting or capping was deemed necessary. Well-structured variograms, typically with a horizontal range of between 250m and 500m and a nugget / sill ratio of approximately 30% were obtained for the zones. Ordinary Kriging was employed for the lithium grade estimates, which were estimated into a 25m X 25m X 5m block model.

The edges of the Mineral Resource model have been constrained to a maximum horizontal extrapolation distance of 100m from the last borehole intersection. In addition, the model has been constrained using the surface topography. An intrusion has been encountered in the drilling on Platform 19 and Platform 19A that defines the southern extent of the Mineral Resources. The thickness estimates for the mineralized zones thin to the east and the extent of the Mineral Resources have been extended only to where the thickness of the LRT1 is approximately greater than 5m. The deposit remains open to the north and west of the current resource model due to the current extent of drill coverage.

The geological and grade continuity at Falchani is robust. The Mineral Corporation has based its Mineral Resource classification on the geostatistical confidence associated with the lithium estimates, which have been modified by the QP into practical geological model polygons.

The QP considers has applied geological losses to the Mineral Resource estimates. The geological losses vary from 5% to 10%, depending on an assessment of the potential for alternative geological interpretation to result of lower tonnages estimates, informed by the proximity of data and the surface topography. A block cut-off grade of 1000ppm Li (or approximately 0.2% Li2O) has been applied to the block model.

On the basis of the methodology described, the Mineral Resource estimates are the following:

Category Zone Metric tonnes

(Mt) Density Li (ppm) Li2O (%) Li2CO3 (%)

Contained Li2CO3 (Mt)

Indicated

UBX 6.23 2.4 1510 0.33 0.80 0.05

LRT1 7.47 2.4 3709 0.80 1.97 0.15

LRT2 22.03 2.4 3300 0.71 1.76 0.39

LRT3 13.03 2.4 3690 0.79 1.96 0.26

LBX 12.16 2.4 1816 0.39 0.97 0.12

Total 60.92 2.4 2954 0.64 1.57 0.96

Inferred

UBX 13.77 2.4 1730 0.37 0.92 0.13

LRT1 24.01 2.4 3346 0.72 1.78 0.43

LRT2 62.30 2.4 3155 0.68 1.68 1.05

LRT3 37.24 2.4 3325 0.72 1.77 0.66

LBX 122.75 2.4 2275 0.49 1.21 1.49

Total 260.07 2.4 2706 0.58 1.44 3.75

Minor discrepancies due to rounding may occur. Li (ppm) grade cut-off of 1000 Li (ppm) was applied Tonnes are Metric Li Conversion Factors as follows: Li:Li2O=2.153; Li:Li2CO3=5.323; Li2O:Li2CO3=2.473

Geological losses of 5% or 10% have been applied, based on interpreted geological structure and data density. The average geological loss is 6%.

3


No Mineral Reserves have been estimated for any of the Projects to date. The QP considers that there are reasonable prospects for the economic extraction of the lithium Mineral Resources provided in this estimate. This view is based on an assessment of reasonable geological, mining, processing, marketing, environmental, legal, social and economic parameters. Certain aspects of the assessment have been assisted by GBM Mining Engineering Consultants Limited’s (GBM) Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA) for the exploitation of the uranium Mineral Resources within the MPA, at the Company’s Macusani Uranium Project undertaken in 2016, particularly infrastructure, power, water and access. It is considered likely that an open pit mining method would be utilized at the Falchani Project. The completed uranium PEA provides an open pit mining cost ($2.40/t) for both mineralized material and waste, which is considered to be a reasonable assumption for the assessment of Reasonable Prospects for Economic Extraction. The Mineral Corporation has derived an estimated processing cost, based on the preliminary acid leach process design utilized for the ANSTO test work. In addition, costs for crushing and milling to provide the feed for an acid leach have been considered. With respect to Environmental Studies, Permitting and Social Impact, The Mineral Corporation is not aware of any issues related to the extraction of lithium which would be materially different from those already considered for the proposed uranium operation. In Peru, lithium is considered a ‘non-metal’ with a substantially more streamlined permitting process. A simplistic assessment of the market for lithium carbonate was undertaken. For the purpose of considering Reasonable Prospects for Economic Extraction, The Mineral Corporation has assumed a long-term lithium carbonate price of $US12 000/t, in real 2018 terms. This long-term price is aligned with the current and recent spot and contract prices and is considered a reasonable long-term estimate. The long-term price forecast has been benchmarked against other public domain long term price estimates and is considered reasonable. The revenue per tonne provided by the lowest lithium grade in the Mineral Resource, should be able to cover the estimated cash costs to mine and extract lithium and precipitate lithium carbonate, given the indicative assumptions provided. The Mineral Corporation is therefore of the opinion that there are Reasonable Prospects for Economic Extraction of the Mineral Resource. In addition to the Mineral Resources estimates described above, Plateau Energy Metals has identified the potential continuation of lithium mineralization to the south-west of the current Mineral Resource area, in an area known as Tres Hermanas. On the basis described in Section 24 of this report, the QP considers it appropriate to discuss this area as a target for further exploration. The potential quantity and grade of the target for further exploration has been estimated as being between 7.5Mt and 12.5Mt, at a Li grade of between 1 250ppm and 3 650ppm. A potential target for future exploration is not a Mineral Resource estimate, is conceptual in nature, and is used where there has been insufficient exploration to define the target as a Mineral Resource and where it is uncertain if further exploration will result in the target being defined as a Mineral Resource. It is recommended that the preliminary test work programme undertaken continue to be expanded, to incorporate a greater geographical spread of samples, and to consider the different zones identified in the Mineral Resource estimates. A PEA for the lithium Mineral Resources for the Falchani Project should be undertaken, to include refinements to the processing workflow, and to incorporate the mining, processing, infrastructure and environmental aspects of the Project. Additional density measurements, for the zones within the Mineral Resource, and for the Upper Rhyolite are required; and are currently being completed. Given the robust geological continuity demonstrated in the drilling results to date, additional drilling in the areas identified as Inferred Mineral Resources should be undertaken to upgrade these Mineral Resources to the Indicated category. The outcrop trench sampling and field mapping undertaken in the Tres Hermanas area to date indicate that exploration drilling in this area is warranted.

4


INTRODUCTION

This report has been prepared by Mineral Corporation Consulting (Pty) Limited (The Mineral Corporation) on behalf of Plateau Energy Metals Inc. (Plateau Energy Metals), a company listed on the TSX Venture Exchange. The report documents the results of lithium Mineral Resource estimates undertaken for the Falchani Project (Falchani or the Project). Mineral Resource estimates have previously been reported for the Project, in September 2018, in The Mineral Corporation’s Report C-MYI-EXP-1727-1103 (The Mineral Corporation, 2018).

The Falchani Project falls within licenses held by Macusani Yellowcake S.A.C (Macusani Yellowcake). which is controlled by Plateau Energy Metals. The Project is situated on the Macusani Plateau, a region of Peru which has been actively explored for uranium since the 1980s, and more recently for lithium. Plateau Energy Metals also controls several other properties on the Macusani Plateau, as described in Section 4.2. The combination of Plateau Energy Metals exploration properties on the Macusani Plateau is referred to as the Macusani Project Area (MPA).

The Mineral Resource estimates herein comply with the CIM Definition Standards (May, 2014) on Mineral Resources and Reserves (the CIM Definition Standards) as incorporated, by reference, in the National Instrument 43-101 - Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (NI 43-101). The report is intended to be read in its entirety along with the appendices referred to throughout.

The Qualified Person (QP) for this report is Stewart Nupen. The QP meets the requirements of the South African Council for Natural Scientific Professional (SACNASP) in order to allow him to act as a Qualified Person under the requirements of the SAMREC Code, as recognized by the CIM.

The information used to compile this report was provided by Macusani Yellowcake in Lima and Isivilla (Peru) during site visits by the QP and in some cases via electronic transfer. A site visit was undertaken by QP in May 2018 to Macusani Yellowcake’s offices in Lima, to the CERTIMIN Laboratory in Lima and to the Falchani Project.

In the preparation of this report, The Mineral Corporation has exercised reasonable skill, care and diligence. The opinions, findings and estimates contained herein are those of The Mineral Corporation and are based on information provided to The Mineral Corporation by Plateau Energy Metals and/or its associates, and is described in Section 3 of this report. The Mineral Corporation’s reasonable enquiries found no reason to doubt the completeness, accuracy or reliability of the information provided and The Mineral Corporation accepts no liability for the accuracy or completeness of the information and data provided by Plateau Energy Metals and/or its associates.

The Mineral Corporation’s opinions, findings and estimates reflect various techno-economic conditions, assumptions and interpretations (prices, currency exchange rates and other conditions) as at the effective date of this report that can change significantly over a relatively short period of time, and with respect to new information. As such, the information and opinions in this report may also be subject to change.

RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS

The Mineral Corporation is a South African company with international affiliations which is comprised of 20 professional staff and many associates offering expertise in a wide range of geoscientific and mining disciplines. The Mineral Corporation has a demonstrated track record in undertaking independent assessments of exploration projects and in preparing qualified and competent person’s reports and independent studies on behalf of exploration and mining companies and financial institutions globally.

In addition to the QP, the following employees of The Mineral Corporation contributed to the report:

• Efet Banda (Geological modelling): BSc Geology and Physics, Pr.Sci.Nat, MGSSA

• Lynne Soulsby (Mineral Tenure): BA (Hons) Sociology

• Russell Heins (Processing): BSc (Hons) Minerals Engineering, C.Eng, FSAIMM With respect to Mineral Tenure (Section 4), The Mineral Corporation has relied on information that has been provided by Plateau Energy Metals. This information is believed to be correct to the best of the QP’s knowledge and it would appear that no information has been intentionally withheld that would affect the contents of this report. It is noted that the QP has not interrogated the legal aspects of title or mineral rights for the properties and concessions and cannot therefore express a legal opinion as to the ownership status of the mining concessions.

Neither The Mineral Corporation nor any of its agents or consultants employed in the preparation of this report has any beneficial interest in the assets of Plateau Energy Metals. The Mineral Corporation has been paid professional fees and will continue to be paid these fees for this work in accordance with normal professional consulting practices.

5


PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION

Introduction

Peru is divided into 24 “Departments”, each of which is subdivided into provinces and districts or regions. The Plateau Energy Metals concessions are located in the Carabaya Province which is a province of the Department of Puno in the south-eastern part of Peru. The Carabaya Province is divided into ten districts or regions. It is bounded to the north by the Madre de Dios Region, on the east by the Sandia Province, to the south by the provinces of Azángaro, Melgar and Putina and on the west by the Cusco Region. The capital of the province is Macusani. The people in the province are mainly indigenous citizens of Quechua descent. Quechua is the language which the majority of the population (84%) learn to speak from childhood, while 15% of the residents use the Spanish language and <1% communicate in Aymara. The locality of the MPA is shown in Figure 1. The portfolio comprises the amalgamation of those rights held by Plateau Energy Metals, and includes the Falchani Project, along with six uranium Complexes (Figure 2). The MPA is located approximately 650km east southeast of Lima and about 220km by road from Juliaca in the south. The town of Macusani is some 25km to the southeast of the Macusani Plateau. The MPA covers a total area of 93 000 hectares. The survey reference system utilized for this report is Universal Transverse Mercator, Zone 19S, using the WGS 1984 datum, hereafter referred to as WGS84 UTM Zone 19S. The MPA concessions lie between the co-ordinates 320 000 and 340 000 East and 844 4000 and 846 7500 North.

Mineral Tenure

Regulatory mechanism

Mining in Peru is primarily regulated by national laws and regulations enacted by the Peruvian Congress and the executive branch of government. The principal legal framework on mining is set forth in the 1992 General Mining Law and its amendments to promote the development of the mineral resources of the nation. The mining sector is regulated by its Law and Regulations on Organization and Functions, pursuant to which the Ministry of Energy of Mines (MEM) was created. It is the principal government entity that, together with its various offices, departments and agencies, is responsible for the mining sector in Peru. The MEM is a member of the executive branch of government, and is responsible for putting in place specific policies and rules governing the matters in its jurisdiction, namely energy, hydrocarbon and mining activities. Investment promotion laws, the Peruvian tax regime and environmental framework are other components of the Peruvian mining landscape. Concessions are granted for exploration, exploitation, beneficiation, auxiliary services and transportation by the MEM. No concessions are required for reconnaissance, prospecting or trading.

Property and title

The general mining law defines and regulates different categories of mining activities according to stage of development (prospecting, exploitation, processing and marketing). The ownership of mineral claims is controlled by mining concessions which are established using UTM coordinates to define areas of interest and measured in hectares. While the holder of a mining concession is protected under the Peruvian Constitution and the Civil Code, it does not confer ownership of land and the owner of a mining concession must deal with the registered land owner to obtain the right of access to fulfil the production obligations inherent in the concession grant. It is important to recognize that all transactions and contracts pertaining to a mining concession must be duly registered with the Public Mining Registry in the event of subsequent disputes at law.

Environmental regulations

The General Mining Law, administered by the MEM, may require a mining company to prepare an Environmental Evaluation (EA), an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), a Program for Environmental Management and Adjustment (PAMA) and a Closure Plan prior to mining construction and operation.

Granting of mining concessions

MEM grants mining concessions to local or foreign individuals or legal entities, through a specialized body called The Institute of Geology, Mining and Metallurgy (INGEMMET). A mining concession grants its holder the right to explore and exploit minerals within its area and the key characteristics include:

• Concessions are exclusive, freely transferable and mortgageable;

• Location is in WGS84 UTM Zone 19S;

• The aerial extent of concessions ranges from 100ha to 1 000ha;

6


• Granted on a first-come, first served basis, without preference given to the technical and financial qualifications of the applicant;

• With the exception of mining concessions granted within urban expansion areas, the term of a mining concession is indefinite but with restrictions and an objective based criteria including payment of annual license fees of US$3 per hectare. Failure to pay the applicable license fees for two consecutive years will result in the termination of the mining concession;

• A single annual fee is payable; and

• Access to the property must be negotiated with surface land owners.

Work programme for mining concessions

A work programme and expenditure schedule have to be presented in Year 7 of the life of a mining concession to the MEM and penalties are incurred for under expenditure. By Year 12 of the life of a mining concession, it is expected that exploitation should be ongoing; if this is not the case, then justification has to be presented to the MEM and an extension of 6 years may be conferred (Henkle, 2014). The work programme budget and expenditure defined in the “objective based criteria” for Macusani Yellowcake was approximately US$3.8m against a budget of US$5m.

Mining concession description

The Mineral Resources in this report fall within two mining concessions, as shown in Table 1. As described in Section 6.3, Macusani Yellowcake is controlled and 99.5% owned by Plateau Energy Metals. Table 1: Mining concessions

Mining Concession Code Mining Concession Name Date Conferred Area (ha) Owner

010320205 Falchani 13/10/2005 700 Macusani Yellowcake S.A.C.

010215005 Ocacasa 4 11/07/2005 1 000 Macusani Yellowcake S.A.C.

It should be noted, that Plateau Energy Metals also holds the mining concessions in the immediate vicinity of the Falchani Project, and thus mineral tenure should not represent an impediment to the extension of the Mineral Resources, should additional exploration take place. For the purpose of this Mineral Resource estimate, The Mineral Corporation is satisfied that the right to explore and exploit “mineral substances” includes lithium.

Conclusions and limitations

The Project is within a valid mining concession. Plateau Energy Metals, and its subsidiaries, have a demonstrated track record of managing the mineral tenure for a number of projects in Peru over several years and The Mineral Corporation has no reason to believe that the mineral tenure for the Project is not secure. The Mineral Corporation has restricted its review of the Mining Concession held by Macusani Yellowcake to checking the individual license boundaries on plans against those depicted on the mining concession outputs from the MEM. No legal reviews of the validity of the process Macusani Yellowcake went through to obtain the mining concessions, have been undertaken, nor has an attempt been made to understand the various company structures and ownerships prior to transfer to Macusani Yellowcake.

7


Figure 1: Locality Plan

8


Figure 2: Mineral Tenure Plan

9


ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSIOGRAPHY

Access to site

The MPA is located approximately 650km east south-east of Lima and about 220km by road from Juliaca to the south. The nearest towns to the MPA are Macusani (25km to the south-east) and Corani (14km to the north-west). The Interoceanica Highway (IH) is a system of tarred/sealed roads that link the ports of San Juan and Ilo on the west coast of Peru over the Andes Mountains to the west side of Brazil (Figure 1). The IH passes within 10km to 15km to the east of the MPA. Two unpaved roads connect the Project to the IH and other unpaved roads, generally in good condition, connect the various sites within the MPA to one another. These roads are accessible during the dry season in two wheel drive vehicles. The closest airport to the MPA is located at Juliaca. The facility is in good condition and services daily flights from Lima and Cusco.

Access to land

The issue of land tenure is of increasing significance in Peru, particularly as the national cadastral system for agricultural land ownership is not always accurate. Peruvian law does not vest surface rights with mineral rights and any proposed development requires the developer to purchase the surface rights or negotiate an appropriate agreement with the surface rights owners to have access to the property. At present the company has working agreements ("convenios") with the following communities within the MPA: Chaccaconiza, Isivilla, an independent Cooperative (Imagina), Quelccaya and various independent small land holders. The agreement with the community of Chaccaconiza was renewed and will expire in December 2019 and can be renegotiated. The agreement with the community of Isivilla expires in June 2019 and can also be negotiated. Until sanctioned otherwise the agreement with the Cooperative and the small land holders is open ended and based on the progress achieved by exploration.

Climate

The climate on the Macusani Plateau is characterized by two distinct seasons – the wet season (which starts in September but peaks from January to April) and the dry season (May to September). The rainy season is controlled by tropical air-masses and the dry winters by subtropical high pressure. While the exposed eastern slopes of the Andes receive more than 2 500mm of rain annually, the average rainfall for the Carabaya Province varies between 600mm to 1 000mm. The period between May and August is characterized by very dry conditions and cold nights. Significant electrical storm activity is common in the wet season and moisture falls in the form of rain, hail and, occasionally snow. Temperatures range from 19°C in November to -10°C in July. While temperatures are mild, high ultraviolet readings are common in the middle of the day. These climatic conditions and the altitude dictate that the area is vegetated by coarse scrub and grasses.

Local Resources

Peru has a robust mining economy with many operations exploiting copper, gold, iron ore, lead, molybdenum, rhenium, silver, tin and zinc, as well as industrial minerals and mineral fuels (coal, natural gas and crude oil). Founded on this mining culture, it is thus reasonable to assume that a workforce consisting of skilled and semi-skilled people could be sourced for the Project.

Infrastructure

While there are currently no electricity supplies to the Project, there are non-industrial transmission lines servicing the local communities, and a 138KV transmission line is located some 20km to the east of the MPA. At this time, the supply of water is derived from local river courses and wells. In its 2014 Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA) for Plateau Energy Metals’ uranium projects, GBM Mining Engineering Consultants Limited (GBM) was of the view that the area has access to sufficient water resources for the purposes of mining operations (Short et al, 2014).

Physiography

The Macusani Plateau is part of the relatively flat Altiplano of the Eastern Cordillera of the Andes Mountain Range, except where incised narrow canyons exist with a relief of up to 250m. The canyon walls are steep with slope angles up to 60°, with some sections being vertical. The elevation of the Plateau ranges between 4 330m and 4 580m above mean sea level.

10


HISTORY

Introduction

While the Mineral Resources for the Falchani Project are lithium Mineral Resources, the MPA as a whole contains both lithium and uranium potential, as described in previous technical reports for the other Complexes being developed by Plateau Energy Metals. Furthermore, the geological understanding and exploration history of the Macusani Plateau is founded on exploration for uranium, and as such, a description of both lithium and uranium exploration efforts are appropriate here.

Previous Regional Exploration

Instituto Peruano de Energia Nuclear

In 1975, the uranium and nuclear activities in Peru were placed under the control of the Instituto Peruano de Energia Nuclear (IPEN). A five-year exploration plan (1976-1981) was initiated with the aim of identifying and developing resources in the country. The Macusani East area was the most studied area in southern Peru by IPEN. After IPEN discovered the first 60 uranium showings in 1978, systematic radiometric prospecting and trenching were carried out over an area of approximately 600km2, culminating in the discovery of numerous additional uranium showings (Young, 2013).

UNDP/IAEA

From mid-1977, a long-term United Nation Development Programme/International Atomic Energy Agency (UNDP/IAEA) project was initiated consisting of regional reconnaissance over selected areas. The results of most of the work were negative except for those from a car-borne radiometric survey of the Puno Basin where a significant discovery was made near Macusani in the southern Cordillera Oriental, north of Lake Titicaca. Anomalies were found in the volcanic and interbedded sediments of the Upper Tertiary age Macusani volcanics and the Permian age Mitu Group (Young, 2013). In the same exploration phase, additional anomalies were located to the south-southwest near Santa Rosa in Tertiary age porphyritic rhyolites and andesites. These (and other discoveries in the Lake Titicaca region) concentrated the exploration in the area. A helicopter spectrometric survey of selected areas was completed in 1980 in Muñani, Lagunaillas and Rio Blanca as an IAEA/IPEN Project and a fixed wing survey was completed in an adjacent area by IPEN. Numerous uranium anomalies were discovered. In 1984, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development’s Nuclear Energy Agency and the IAEA sponsored an International Uranium Resources Evaluation Project Mission (IUREP, 1984) to Peru. The mission estimated that the Speculative Resources of the country fell within the range of 6 000 to 11 000t of uranium.

Previous Ownership

Uranium price fluctuations

To a large extent, the cyclical nature of uranium exploration on the Macusani Plateau has been driven by the fluctuating price of the commodity since the mid-1980s. During the collapse of prices in the 1980s and in the wake of the Three Mile Island accident, there was little incentive for exploration and mining companies to explore for uranium. However, the uranium prices experienced a spectacular rise between 2001 and 2008 during which time junior mining companies mobilized their campaigns by staking properties over prospective ground. Amongst these early explorers was Vena Resources Inc (Vena) who acquired seven concessions in the Macusani Plateau as well as additional concessions elsewhere in Peru (Henkle, 2011). In 2006, Vena commenced scintillometer prospecting, radon and surface outcrop mapping over various IPEN uranium showings. Global interest in uranium declined in the wake of the Global Economic Crisis of 2008/2009 and, more so, in the aftermath of the Fukushima Dailchi nuclear disaster in March 2011.

Macusani Yellowcake

Macusani Yellowcake Inc. was a Canadian uranium exploration and development company focused on the exploration of its properties on the Macusani Plateau. The Company was incorporated in November 2006 and was created through the amalgamation of privately held Macusani Yellowcake Inc. and Silver Net Equities Group, a TSX Venture Capital pool company. The Company owns a 99.5% interest in the Peruvian concessions through Macusani Yellowcake. Macusani has been actively exploring in the Macusani area since 2007.

11


The Cameco-Vena Joint Venture

In 2007, Cameco Corporation (and its wholly owned subsidiary Cameco Global Exploration Limited (Cameco)) entered into a joint venture with Vena with the objective of jointly exploring for uranium in Peru. Minergia S.A.C was formed as the joint venture vehicle, with Cameco providing the funding and Vena undertaking the exploration management. The ownership was founded on 50% shareholding in favor of each party. The combined portfolio covered an area of 14 700ha. The details of this transaction are summarized by Henkle (2014).

Azincourt buys Minergia

During November 2013, Azincourt Uranium announced that it had entered into a definitive share-purchase agreement with joint-venture partners Cameco and Vena to acquire full ownership of the resource-stage Macusani and other exploration projects. In January, 2014, Azincourt announced that the acquisition of Minergia S.A.C. had been completed.

Macusani purchases Minergia

Macusani Yellowcake Inc. and Azincourt Uranium Inc. announced in September 2014 that they had completed the acquisition by Macusani of Azincourt’s adjacent uranium properties located on the Macusani Plateau. Under the terms of the transaction, Macusani acquired 100% of Azincourt’s Peruvian subsidiary, Minergia S.A.C. Arising from this transaction, there was a consolidation of mining concessions within the MPA.

Macusani changes name to Plateau Uranium Inc.

On April 30, 2015, Macusani Yellowcake Inc. changed its name to Plateau Uranium Inc. Young (2015) reported consolidated uranium Mineral Resources estimates for six mineral Complexes that fell under the Plateau Uranium umbrella. In May 2016, the Mineral Resources for two of the Complexes (Kihitian and Isivilla) were updated to include lithium and potassium (The Mineral Corporation, 2016). Subsequently, the name of the Peruvian operating company was changed from Global Gold S.A.C. to Macusani Yellowcake S.A.C., which holds all the MPA mineral concessions.

Plateau Uranium Inc. changes name to Plateau Energy Metals Inc.

In March 2018, Plateau Uranium Inc. changed its name to Plateau Energy Metals. A summary of the transactions which form the history to Plateau Energy Metals is provided in Figure 3.

Previous exploration

No meaningful exploration, apart from the regional exploration described in Section 6.2, was undertaken prior to 2017 on the Falchani Project. All of the exploration initiatives which inform these Mineral Resource estimates are described in Section 9 and Section 10 of this report.

12


Figure 3: History of ownership of Plateau Energy Metals

13


GEOLOGICAL SETTING AND MINERALIZATION

The Macusani concessions are located in the Carabaya Province, Puno Department of south-eastern Peru in the Andes. The Andes are a geographical feature formed by active mountain building processes driven by plate tectonics.

Regional Geology

A common geological feature of orogenic belts is that they are usually structurally and stratigraphically complex. In the Puno region of Peru, mainly Paleozoic sediments (520-250Ma old) that were formed on the western Brazilian Craton (Figure 4) have been highly deformed by thrusting and folding due to the westwards movement of the South American tectonic plate (Brazilian Craton) over-riding the Pacific tectonic plate (Nazca Plate) along the western margin of the Americas over the last ±150Ma. This occurred when the breakup of the Americas from the African and European continents occurred, with the development of the Atlantic Ocean. The main geological units are shown in Figure 4 with the Oceanic Trench forming the western margin of the South American plate. The tectonic history has led to the older sediments being bounded by westward dipping thrusts, intense folding and intrusions of dykes, batholiths and being affected by volcanic activity at various times (Henkle, 2014). The Andes represents a large anticlinorium complicated by a series of faults and intrusions, with the flanks of this superstructure made up of the coastal Mesozoic and eastern Palaeozoic belts. The Andes represent the Late Tertiary and Quaternary rejuvenation by block faulting of an eroded, early Tertiary folded mountain range which occupied the axis of Palaeozoic and Mesozoic geosynclines. Topographically the mountains consist of a central dissected plateau, the Intermontane Depressions and Altiplano enclosed by narrow ranges, the Western Cordillera and the Eastern Cordillera as depicted in Figure 4.

Local Geology

In the MPA, late Tertiary tuffs, ignimbrites and associated sediments are preserved in a NW-SE trending graben. Much of the Early Tertiary and Mesozoic cover was eroded prior to deposition of the pyroclastics so they were deposited in part directly on the Palaeozoic rocks including Late Palaeozoic intrusives (Hercynian granites) and extrusives (Mitu volcanics). The known uranium occurrences in the MPA identified by IUREP are associated with these Pliocene and Miocene epoch Quenamari Formation tuffs, ignimbrites and interbedded sediments. Other uranium mineralization was indicated by IUREP (1984) to be hosted in acidic volcanic rocks of rhyolite composition that covers large areas of the Macusani Plateau in horizontally bedded formations from surface to a depth of about 100m but these appeared to be lenticular or confined to fracture zones (Young, 2013). The geological map of the area (Figure 5) indicates that all of the uranium Complexes are underlain by rocks of the Neogene Period, Quenamari Formation (dated between 22.5Ma to 1.8Ma). The youngest rocks (Pliocene Epoch) are known as the Yapamayo Member and these outcrop over most of the MPA. The older Sapanuta and Chacacuniza Members (Miocene Epoch) underlie the Yapamayo Member. The outcropping rocks within the Falchani Project are interpreted to be mostly of the Sapanuta Member (Figure 5). A description of the structural interpretation which supports the Mineral Resource estimates is provided in Section 14.2.2.

14


Figure 4: Regional geological setting

15


Figure 5: Local geology

16


Property Geology

Geological description

The uranium mineralization at the other Complexes within the MPA are interpreted to be hosted in shallowly dipping acidic tuffs, with pyroclasts from sub-macroscopic to 60mm in size. The main minerals constituting the tuff are quartz, orthoclase and plagioclase in a groundmass of amorphous glass. Crude bedding is evident in some outcrops, and is based on strata containing larger and smaller pyroclasts. The petrography of the samples analyzed by Thatcher (2011) indicated that the acid volcanics (crystal lapilli tuffs) can have varying composition from rhyolite to dacite to latite which supports the likely presence of stratigraphic layering of the volcanic pile as noted in Section 7.2 and by Cheilletz et al (1992). Limited mineralogical work has been undertaken on samples from the Falchani Project to date, but the understanding of the stratigraphy has evolved through exploration mapping and drilling programmes. However, in the immediate vicinity of the boreholes drilled at Falchani, the youngest rocks would appear to be these described in the field by the Plateau Energy Metals as the Upper Rhyolite. The Upper Rhyolite forms prominent outcrops (Figure 6), and demonstrates a crude bedding, and appears to have a shallow dip to the north-northeast. Outcrops of the Upper Rhyolite have a similar appearance to the acidic tuffs of the Yapamayo and Sapanuta Members of the Quenamari Formation, which host the uranium mineralization. This together with the fact that the Falchani Project is mapped as being underlain by the Sapanuta Member of the Quenamari Formation, support the interpretation.

Figure 6: Illustrative photograph of Upper Rhyolite contact with the Upper Breccia (local stratigraphy as inset)

Below the Upper Rhyolite is the Upper Breccia, which separates the Upper Rhyolite from the Lithium-rich Tuff. The Upper Breccia is not well defined in outcrop but is very distinctive in core. The Upper Breccia contains angular clasts of volcanic material, in a very fine groundmass (Figure 7 - top). The Lithium-rich Tuff is a light grey to white, very fine grained rock, with prominent layering (Figure 7 - bottom). Although the Lithium-rich Tuff has been further sub-divided, on the basis of its chemistry (Section 14.2.1), these subdivisions are not immediately recognizable in outcrop or in core, and the term Lithium-rich Tuff is used to describe the whole unit, between Upper Breccia and Lower Breccia. The contact between the Lithium-rich Tuff and the Lower Breccia is less marked than the Upper Breccia. The Lower Breccia has been identified in outcrop in the Tres Hermanas trenches, and has been interpreted from drilling. The thickness of the Upper Breccia varies from 10m to 20m, while the thickness of the Lithium-rich Tuff varies in drilling from 50m to 140m. The Lower Breccia unit is variable in thickness, but recent drilling has indicated that the Lower Breccia unit can reach thicknesses of up to 175m and contains large (up to 20m) blocks of Lithium-rich Tuff.

17


Figure 7: Upper Breccia in core (top) and Lithium-rich Tuff in core (bottom)

Mineralization Model

7.3.2.1 Mineralization model in the Uranium Complexes

Li et al (2012) suggests that the uranium mineralization was formed by leaching of volcanic glass, apatite and monazite, transported as uranyl phosphate complexes and precipitated as autunite (Ca(UO2)2(PO4)2.6-8H2O) and subordinate weeksite (K2(UO2)(Si2O5)3 4H2O) in fractures formed in response to tectonic uplift. U-Pb ages of the meta-autunite indicate initiation of the uranium mineralization at circa 1Ma, long after the cooling of the last volcanic eruptions and promote a genetic model that relies on an inter-play of the geomorphology, groundwater movement and its evaporation. Elevated levels of lithium have previously been identified in the uranium host rocks, as described in The Mineral Corporation (2016), in which the lithium Mineral Resources for the uranium Complexes were estimated. Thatcher (2008 and 2011) did not to recognize any of the typical lithium minerals (spodumene, lepidolite or hectorite) from limited hand specimens, but did identify significant clay alteration in the ground mass of the crystal lapilli tuffs of rhyodacitic composition. In the case of the uranium Complexes, the lithium is interpreted to be a primary component of the acidic tuffs and the majority of the Li mineralization was interpreted to be located in the groundmass of remaining volcanic glass and secondary clay. It is reasonable to assume that the alteration producing the uranium mineralization, via leaching of the volcanic glass, apatite and monazite, would also have had, to a certain extent, some impact on the original lithium mineralization.

7.3.2.2 Mineralization model at the Falchani Project

Limited mineralogical or petrological studies have been undertaken to date, however, additional mineralogical work has commenced. The interpretation of the geological environment and lithium deportment at the Project is based on observations in drill core and outcrop, and the analysis of lithium and other element distributions in the exploration results to date.

18


The Upper Breccia, Lithium-rich Tuff and Lower Breccia show remarkably consistent vertical zonation of lithium, strontium, cesium and other elements. The highest concentration of lithium is at the top and bottom of the Lithium-rich Tuff. The Lithium-rich Tuff, and the transitional Upper and Lower Breccias are interpreted to have been deposited in a technically active, crater-lake environment, where the breccias represent the transition from the rhyolitic ash-flows above and below, and the Lithium-rich Tuff, represents a period of sub-aerial deposition. This is supported by the regular layering observed in the tuff, and the angular clasts of the breccia. The lithium mineralization is thought to be primary, although alteration and enrichment by groundwater or hydrothermal fluids in the interim has not been ruled out. The reason for the elevated lithium concentration, relative to the surrounding acidic tuffs will be further investigated by Plateau Energy Metals. As with the lithium in the uranium Complexes, typical lithium minerals are not visible in hand specimen, and it is interpreted that the majority of the lithium is located in the glassy, siliceous groundmass of the tuffs. The relatively early-stage understanding of the lithium deportment means that an assessment of the potential extractability of lithium needs to be based on metallurgical tests at this stage. This is described in Section 13.

DEPOSIT TYPES

Lithium minerals are commercially exploited from three principal sources – brines, pegmatites and the clay mineral hectorite. Lithium rich brines are formed through the chemical weathering of volcanic lithium bearing rocks by hydrothermal fluids usually restricted to basins in areas of high evaporation, forming lithium carbonate minerals such as zabuyelite. Close to 70% of the world’s lithium brine deposits are situated in the borders of Chile, Bolivia and Argentina (Lithium Triangle) area. The Lithium Triangle contains the largest brine source lithium deposits such as Salar de Atacama, Sala de Uyuni and Salar de Homebre Muerto. Lithium minerals such as spodumene, petalite and lepodolite are found in coarse crystalline hydrothermal pegmatites, formed by the crystallization of post magmatic fluids. Lithium containing pegmatites are rare and are generally associated with tin and tantalite. The style of lithium mineralization for the Macusani region is very different to these types of deposits, as it is interpreted to be inherent within the glass-rich acidic volcanic tuffs. At Falchani, the lithium-rich volcanic tuff unit is interpreted to be sub-aerial and the transitional Li-rich breccias are interpreted to have been deposited in a crater lake volcano-sedimentary environment.

EXPLORATION

Uranium exploration activities in Peru were initiated on the back of the work of IPEN in the 1970s and 1980s. Uranium anomalies were found near Macusani in the Upper Tertiary volcanics and the Permian Mitu Group by the UNDP/IAEA project. The typical exploration rationale for the Macusani region involves the delineation of potential uranium anomalies through a combination of regional geological interpretation and surface radiometric techniques in order to delineate targets for further investigation through drilling. Macusani Yellowcake has conducted ground-based radiometric surveys from a hand-held scintilometer over large portions of its properties as a guide for its drilling programmes. Exploration was initiated at the Falchani Project as a result of a radiometric anomaly. In addition to the radiometric information, Plateau Energy Metals have undertaken surface sampling and at the end of April 2018, had collected some 180 samples, which were analyzed for lithium. The surface samples were not used in the Mineral Resource estimate, but provide additional confidence, combined with recent drilling, that the Lithium-Rich Tuff extends to surface, as has been modelled in the geological model. The total number of boreholes drilled at the Falchani Project, at the end of January 2019, was 51.

19


DRILLING

Drilling programme

Two diamond drilling programmes have been undertaken at the Falchani Project. The first campaign was initiated in 2017, and the second programme continued to the end of December 2018. In total, 51 drillholes have been drilled by Macusani Yellowcake, as shown in Table 2 from 15 platforms. Table 2: Drilling programme summary

Deposit Number of Drillholes

Length of Drilling (m)

No. of Samples(excluding QA/QC)

Total 51 14 816 9 102

Drilling methodology

Due to drill access limitations, the drilling was mainly undertaken from a series of platforms, with anything from two to nine drillholes being drilled radially from each platform (Figure 8).

Figure 8: Drilling configuration

The platform spacing resulted in mineralized zone intersection separation distances ranging from 50m to up to 200m. The platform and drillhole locations are shown in Figure 9, which also shows the drillhole platforms which informed the September 2018 Mineral Resource estimates, and those which have been added to inform the current Mineral Resource estimates. Additional representative logs, drill plans and cross sections are provided in Figure 13 to Figure 18. A summary of the drillholes intersections used in the Mineral Resources estimate is provided in Appendix 1 and a set of cross-sections is provided in Appendix 2.

Sample recovery and core

The drilling conditions in the Lithium-rich Tuff were good, however, within the Upper and Lower Breccias, more difficult conditions were encountered. The core recovery over the length of the drillholes ranged from 85% to 100%, with an average of 97%, indicating that the overall core recovery is acceptable.

20


Figure 9: Locations of drillhole platforms

21


SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES, AND SECURITY

Introduction

The data which informs these lithium Mineral Resource estimates are derived from the exploration efforts of Macusani Yellowcake, which is controlled by Plateau Energy Metals.

Sampling methods

Whole core (over the entire length of the drillhole) was sampled. Individual samples varied from a minimum of 0.5m to a maximum of 1.0m, with a mean of 0.9m. Selection of the length to sample was based on visual observation of the mineralization and assisted by radiometric measurements.

Sampling recovery

Core from these deposits was scrutinized by the QP during the May 2018 site visit and, although the overall quality of the core recovered was good, there are zones, particularly within the Upper and Lower Breccia, where drilling conditions are difficult, and the core recovery is relatively poor. The perception gained by scrutiny of the core available on site was that, although the core could in some cases be somewhat blocky, the core recovery in the Lithium-rich Tuff was good, and the core pieces fitted together well in the core boxes prior to sampling. In the Upper and Lower Breccias, the core recovered was often broken, and an assessment of core recovery was difficult. The overall core recovery was 97%. Given the overall thickness of the mineralized zones, the consistent lithium grade within the zones and the relatively good core recovery, it is considered unlikely that any bias related to core recovery could be introduced.

Sample quality

As the entire core was sampled, the sample taken from the core box is considered representative. Whole core was sampled in order to minimize the risk of sample loss. Thus, the method of sampling the whole core is sound, even though no intact library sample was retained. A comprehensive photo archive has been retained however, along with the sample reject material.

Sample preparation, assaying and analytical procedures

Sample preparation

Sample preparation occurred on site at a mobile field station which was located close to the drill rigs and periodically re-located. Once logged and photographed, the entire core identified for sampling was placed into a sampling bag. The pre-marked aluminium tag was stapled to the sample bag. Sample depths were recorded together with a basic geological description on a sampling reconciliation log. This log was later captured into an Excel spreadsheet. Quality control samples in the form of standards were inserted at the permanent field office located in the village of Isivilla. These standards were prepared by Macusani Yellowcake and certified by ALEPH Group & Asociados S.A.C. Metrologia de las Radiaciones (Radioactivity Measuring Techniques) by having check analyses of the standards completed at CERTIMIN SA (CERTIMIN), which was previously known as the Centro de Investigación Minera y Metalủrgica (CIMM), laboratory in Lima.

Sample delivery procedures

The complete sample batch, accompanied by a senior representative of the Macusani Yellowcake exploration team, was sent by road to the town of Juliaca. The samples entered the CERTIMIN LIMS system at this point. From the preparatory laboratory in Juliaca, the pulverized samples were transported by CERTIMIN, to the main CERTIMIN Laboratory in MiraFlores, Lima, by either road or as air freight. The Mineral Corporation examined the sample receiving facilities at all three laboratories and found them to be well organized. It would appear that the chain of custody of the Macusani Yellowcake samples from site to final analysis is reasonably secure.

Sample preparation and analysis

Sample preparation and analysis was carried out through the CERTIMIN Laboratory.

22


11.5.3.1 Preparation Laboratory (CERTIMIN - Juliaca)

The samples were weighed on delivery and entered into the LIMS system. Drying was completed over a 12 hour period at 100˚C. Crushing was done by two jaw crushers; the first to 6mm and the second to 2.5mm. Crushing was completed when the sample was 100% <2.5mm. Laboratory standards were entered into the stream after the first jaw crusher. The jaw crushers were flushed with quartz, some of which were sent to the Lima offices for analysis on a regular basis. One certified reference material, one blank sample and two duplicate samples were incorporated into each batch of 50 samples delivered to CERTIMIN for laboratory analytical quality assurance and control (QAQC). These results were given to Macusani Yellowcake on the analysis certificates. After homogenization, the crushed sample was riffle split to an approximate 250g sample that was pulverized by a ring mill. The ring mill was flushed with quartz after approximately every five samples or if there was a marked color change in the crushed material. The preparation facility strives to have the pulverized material at 85% <200 mesh grain size. The jaw crushers, riffles and ring mills are all cleaned with compressed air and are located within sub-housings to keep contamination to a minimum. The reject material is kept on site but will eventually be transported to the Macusani Yellowcake warehouse in Lima.

11.5.3.2 Acid Digestion and final analysis (CERTIMIN - MiraFlores)

The pulverized material was manually homogenized. Wet samples were dried before an approximate 0.20g aliquot (±0.02g) sample was spooned out and digested with a mixture of HCl+HNO3+HF+HClO4 acid over a period of 8hrs. The concentration of lithium was determined from the acid digested liquid by inductively coupled plasma - mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) for abundances of 0.05ppm to 10 000ppm (1%). Any results greater than 10 000ppm were re-analyzed via inductively coupled plasma - optical emission spectrometry (ICP-OES). The latter instrument would require a new acid digest to be completed on an aliquot of 0.25g. The ICP-MS and ICP-OES equipment is calibrated daily with three appropriate standards. The methods undertaken by CERTIMIN to prepare and analyze the samples for lithium are considered acceptable by The Mineral Corporation. As described in Section 12.1, the QP undertook a site visit to the CERTIMIN Laboratory in Lima, and walked through the acid digestion and ICP-MS sections. The laboratory was well organized and professional.

Analytical quality assurance and control (QAQC) procedures

Introduction

The data which informs these lithium Mineral Resource estimates was generated by Plateau Energy Metals, or its subsidiaries, since the initiation of exploration on the Falchani Project in 2017. Plateau Energy Metals inserted standards, blanks and duplicate (Field) samples into the sampling streams, in addition to those inserted by the laboratory, in order to assess the accuracy and precision of the lithium analytical results. A summary of the overall statistics for the QAQC samples is shown in Table 3. Table 3: Summary of QAQC samples

No of samples Duplicates Standards Blanks

% QAQC Field Laboratory Field Laboratory Field Laboratory

10 517 264 307 54 148 54 232 10%

Standard data

The results for the Field and Laboratory Standards have been analyzed using Error Deviation plots, where Error Deviation is calculated as follows:

𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 𝐷𝑒𝑣𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 =𝑋𝑎𝑛𝑎𝑙𝑦𝑠𝑖𝑠 − 𝑋𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑟𝑑

𝑋 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑟𝑑𝑥100

The Error Deviation results are portrayed in Figure 10. Positive results indicate an over-estimation, while negative results indicate an under-estimation of grade. With this technique, an Error Deviation within the ±10% range is considered to signify acceptable levels of accuracy by the laboratory.

23


Figure 10: Error Deviation plot for lithium standards

The bulk of the results for both the Field and Laboratory Standards fill within the ±10% range and all of those which fall outside are for the very low concentration lithium standard. The results for the standards inserted for lithium are considered acceptable.

Duplicate data

The results for Field and Laboratory Duplicates have been analyzed using the Mean Deviation method, where Mean Deviation as calculated as follows (where Xa and Xb are duplicate pairs):

𝑀𝑒𝑎𝑛 𝐷𝑒𝑣𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 =0.5 ∗ (𝑋𝑎 − 𝑋𝑏)

𝑀𝑒𝑎𝑛(𝑋𝑎, 𝑋𝑏)𝑥100

The result of the lithium Mean Deviation analysis is shown in Figure 11.

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

- 1 000 2 000 3 000 4 000 5 000 6 000 7 000 8 000 9 000 10 000

Err

or

De

via

tio

n (%

)

Expected value of standard (Li ppm)

FIELD LAB

24


Figure 11: Mean Deviation plot for Field and Laboratory Duplicates

The Mean Deviation results show good reproducibility of lithium analysis, for both Field and Laboratory duplicates, and The Mineral Corporation would consider the analytical precision to be acceptable for lithium.

Blank data

The analytical results for blanks submitted are shown in Figure 12. As would be expected, the Laboratory Blanks return values below the detection limit of >0.1 Li ppm. The Field Blanks show low levels of lithium. The levels of lithium returned are not considered material, when compared with the anticipated lithium grades within the Project.

Figure 12: Analytical results for Field and Laboratory Blanks

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

- 1 000 2 000 3 000 4 000 5 000 6 000

Me

an

De

via

tio

n (%

)

Result of primary analysis (Li ppm)

FIELD LAB

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1 916

23

30

37

44

51

58

65

72

79

86

93

100

107

114

121

128

135

142

149

156

163

170

177

184

191

198

205

212

219

226

235

242

249

256

263

270

277

284

Li (

pp

m)

Number of blank samples

FIELD LAB

25


Conclusions

The Mean Deviation results show good precision and the Error Deviation for the lithium standard was generally below 5% which signifies acceptable levels of accuracy by the laboratory. The blank control sample results reported negligible Li concentrations. The Mineral Corporation concludes that the results of the inserted QAQC samples are acceptable for lithium Mineral Resource estimation.

Sample database

The Mineral Corporation received the drillhole logging results as a series of Microsoft Excel files. The same data was also provided in the form of a Microsoft Access database. The data from the database was imported in Datamine Studio™ for further analysis. A check on the accuracy of the transposition of approximately 5% of the sample results from assay certificate to database was completed by The Mineral Corporation, and no transcription errors were identified.

Overall adequacy statement

The QP considers the sampling methods, sampling recovery and sample quality to be acceptable. The procedures undertaken by the laboratory were noted to be of a high standard, and appropriate for the analysis of lithium. The QAQC results indicate that acceptable levels of accuracy and precision, and no contamination, have been obtained by the laboratory. Finally, the validation undertaken on the sample database found no deficiencies in the capture and storage of information. The database is thus considered sufficiently reliable to be used to inform the Mineral Resource estimates.

26


DATA VERIFICATION

Site visit

The QP visited the Falchani Project in May 2018, during which, outcrops of the tuff and breccia units were visited, and the drilling and sampling operations observed. In addition, the QP also visited the CERTIMIN laboratory in Lima, where all of the Lithium analyses for the Falchani Project have been undertaken. An independent set of samples were randomly selected from the storage facility in Macusani.

Drillhole locations

In addition to validating collar positions, the drilling, logging and sampling procedures were scrutinised for two drillholes in progress during the site visit. The procedures undertaken by the geologists on site, were found to align with the description of the geological logging and sampling procedures described in Section 11.

Geological observations

The core from five drillholes, selected by the QP, was viewed in the Macusani coreyard, together with representatives of Plateau Energy Metals. The geological units identified in the logs were found to be readily recognizable in core, and no discrepancies between the core viewed, and the geological logs provided, were found. A noticeable, and consistent pattern in lithium, cesium and rubidium concentrations was evident, when the analytical logs and the lithological logs were viewed together - this prompted the subdivision of the Lithium-rich Tuff into the three units described further in Section 14.2.1.

While on site, outcrops of the Lithium-rich Tuff, the Upper Breccia and the overlying rhyolites were observed. Although a cover of scree prevents the direct observation of the contacts between the units, the occurrence of the tuff is clearly identifiable on the basis of the color of the scree. In outcrop, the tuff appears to be consistent in thickness and dip / dip direction.

Re-sample campaign analyses

Twenty-one samples from three boreholes were randomly selected by the QP. The sample rejects from these samples were re-submitted to CERTIMIN, and to the ALS laboratory in Lima. The samples selected were a mixture of high, medium and low lithium grades. The results are shown in Table 4, that show a reasonably good correlation between the original result and the re-sampling.

Table 4: Independent analysis from the Falchani Project

Borehole Number & Sample From (m)

To (m)

Original (Li ppm)

Re-analysis - CERTIMIN (Li ppm)

Re-analysis - ALS (Li ppm)

PCHAC-03-TV-42 36.00 37.00 345 325 363

PCHAC-03-TV-43 37.00 38.00 358 343 360

PCHAC-03-TV-44 38.00 39.00 338 348 351

PCHAC-03-TV-45 39.00 40.00 345 356 354

PCHAC-03-TV-46 40.00 41.00 351 362 351

PCHAC-03-TV-47 41.00 42.00 344 359 351

PCHAC-03-TV-48 42.00 43.00 344 342 355

PCHAC-08-TNE-110 81.00 82.00 1 822 1 719 1 710

PCHAC-08-TNE-111 82.00 83.00 1 980 2 203 2 160

PCHAC-08-TNE-112 83.00 84.00 2 517 2 752 2 810

PCHAC-08-TNE-113 84.00 85.00 2 919 3 145 3 360

PCHAC-08-TNE-114 85.00 86.00 3 245 3 565 3 650

PCHAC-08-TNE-115 86.00 87.00 4 126 3 714 3 570

PCHAC-09-TV-84 76.00 77.00 448 462 460

PCHAC-09-TV-85 77.00 78.00 471 447 470

PCHAC-09-TV-86 78.00 79.00 442 494 480

PCHAC-09-TV-87 79.00 80.00 455 460 470

PCHAC-09-TV-88 80.00 81.00 454 447 470

PCHAC-09-TV-89 81.00 82.00 430 423 425

PCHAC-09-TV-90 82.00 83.00 422 421 430

PCHAC-09-TV-91 83.00 84.00 387 397 410

Average 1 073 1 099 1 112

Limitations or failure to conduct such verification, and the reasons for any such limitations or failure

None.

Overall adequacy statement

The procedures in place at the CERTIMIN laboratory meet current industry standards and requirements and in the opinion of the QP, the results are adequate for the purposes used with regards to data verification in this report.

27


MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING

Initial test work on lithium within uranium Mineral Resources (2016)

Plateau Energy Metals (then Plateau Uranium Inc) first undertook test work to investigate the extraction of lithium within the uranium Mineral Resources at the Colibri and Corachapi Complexes, on the Macusani Plateau. The results of that test work were described by The Mineral Corporation (2016), the 43-101 Technical Report supporting the inclusion of lithium within the uranium Mineral Resources. The initial indications from the leach test work, which were undertaken at an in-house laboratory in Lima, and subsequently by K-UTEC AG Salt Technologies (K-UTEC) in Germany, reported recoveries of up to 86% and 73% respectively, utilizing a sulphuric acid lixiviant heated to 250°C. The test work undertaken on the nearby uranium Mineral Resources does not have a direct bearing on the Falchani Project, however the proximity and nature of the lithium in the Colibri Complex, which is hosted in acidic volcanics, prompted Plateau Energy Metals to undertake similar tests on material from the Falchani Project.

Test work on Lithium-rich Tuff by TECMMINE

Plateau Energy Metals reported the results of test work undertaken by TECMMINE, a Peruvian metallurgical consulting company based in Lima, in April 2018. The initial test work was undertaken on a 7.4kg sample of the outcrop of the Lithium-rich Tuff from the Falchani Project with an average grade of 3846 ppm Li. Leach results of 75-79% of the contained lithium were reported, using sulfuric acid at 88°C. Atmospheric leaching using hydrochloric acid was also undertaken by TECMMINE in Peru and reported in October 2018. The results showed that comparable extraction of lithium of 88% is achievable at 92°C for 12 hours using material milled to 150 micron (µ). Since the initial test work, additional samples were provided by Plateau Energy Metals to TECMMINE, from various outcrops identified on Falchani East and Falchani West. The metallurgical test work focused on sulfate leaching, chloride leaching, sulfation baking and roasting, and informs the continuing test work described in 13.3.2.

Test work on Lithium-rich Tuff by ANSTO

Baseline sulphuric acid leach and lithium carbonate precipitation

Leach test work was undertaken on a sample taken from outcrop samples of the Lithium-rich Tuff, as reported by Plateau Energy Metals in May 2018. The work was undertaken in Sydney by the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organization (ANSTO), in an effort to demonstrate 'proof of concept' for the extraction of lithium and the precipitation of a lithium carbonate product, utilizing atmospheric leaching. The sampled was milled to a P80 150 micron (µ) and leached with a 48 hour residence time at 90-95°C in sulfuric acid. The recovery of lithium to the leach solution was 90%. Plateau Energy Metals subsequently announced (19 July 2018) that ANSTO had progressed the leach solution to a lithium carbonate product, with a lithium carbonate purity of 99.7%. The specifications of the lithium carbonate produced were reported to compare favorably with typical industry specifications.

Alternative lithium extraction methods

Plateau Energy Metals announced in October 2018 that it has initiated further test work to investigate alternatives to the baseline sulfuric acid leach, utilizing outcrop samples from various areas of Falchani East and Falchani West. Extraction of up to 71% lithium was achieved utilizing a high temperature sulfation roast, at 900-1000°C for two hours, followed by a water leach at 50°C for 18 hours. Extraction of up to 74% lithium was achieved by baking at 150°C for 4 hours, followed by a water leach at 30°C for 24 hours. Plateau Energy Metals have indicated that since these results were published, additional test work has taken place at both TECMMINE and ANSTO, exploring different methods, experiment conditions and parameters and that these results will be incorporated into the PEA for the Falchani Project.

Conclusions

The Mineral Corporation would consider the test work undertaken to date on the Falchani Project to be preliminary in nature and not necessarily representative of the Project as a whole. However, the average grade of the outcrop sample compares well with the lithium grades in the Mineral Resource, and for the purposes of assessing Reasonable Prospects for Economic Extraction of lithium at the Falchani Project, the baseline sulfuric acid leach and lithium carbonate results provide a good indication that a metallurgical process for the extraction of lithium could be reasonably expected with additional work.

28


MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES

Drillhole database

The drillhole database described in Section 11.8 was the primary source of data for the Mineral Resource estimates.

Geological modelling methodology

Identification of mineralized zones

The local geology of the Project has been described in Section 7.3. The subhorizontal lithium mineralization occurs within the Lithium-rich Tuff, which varies in thickness from 50m to 140m, and the Upper Breccia and Lower Breccia, which occur in the immediate hangingwall and footwall of the Lithium-rich Tuff, respectively. The breccias and tuff are found within a sequence of rhyolites. The rhyolites above the tuff and breccia units are described as the Upper Rhyolites, and the rhyolites below the tuff and breccia are described as the Lower Rhyolites. Table 5 contains the main lithologies, their sub-units, and the codes assigned to them for geological modelling and, where applicable, for the Mineral Resource estimates. Table 5: Lithological units and mineralized zones used in geological model and Mineral Resources

Lithological units

Description Sub-units

Zone code

Upper Rhyolite Non-mineralized unit overlying the Upper Breccia - not included in Mineral Resource estimate

n/a URH

Upper Breccia Mineralized zone - included in Mineral Resource estimates n/a UBX

Lithium-rich Tuff Mineralized zone - included in Mineral Resource estimates. Subdivided into three sub-units.

Upper LRT1

Middle LRT2

Lower LRT3

Lower Breccia Mineralized zone - included in Mineral Resource estimates n/a LBX

Lower Rhyolite Non-mineralized unit below the Lower Breccia - not included in Mineral Resource estimate

n/a LRH

The Upper Rhyolites, Upper and Lower Breccia and Lithium-rich Tuff are readily identifiable in core. As shown in, Table 5 the Lithium-rich Tuff has been sub-divided into the LRT1, LRT2 and LRT3. This sub-division is based on the patterns of lithium, cesium and rubidium concentrations visible in the analytical results, and these sub-divisions are not readily identifiable in core. Figure 13 shows two typical geological logs from the Falchani Project. The lithological control of the lithium abundance, as well as the cesium, rubidium and other trace elements, is noticeable.

Structural interpretation of the mineralized zones

The mineralized zones are interpreted to form a broad basin, dipping gently to the north-north east. The zones are thinnest on the edge of the basin and are thicker towards the centre. Three north-south striking faults have been interpreted, with throws of between 10m and 50m. The position and orientation of one of the faults is informed by the north-south oriented valley, which is in the central part of the Falchani Project. The position and throw of the other two faults are informed by drilling, and it is interpreted that they have the same north-south orientation. A structural plan of the base of the LRT1 is shown in Figure 14. The QP considers the structural interpretation to be a reasonable basis on which to build the Mineral Resource estimates. The occurrence of other structures, particularly east-west or near east-west structures cannot be ruled out. The relative confidence in the structural interpretation has been considered in the application of geological losses (Section 14.4.2) and the Mineral Resource classification (Section 14.4.5).

29


Figure 13: Geological and analytical log for PCHAC04-TV (left) and Geological and analytical log for PCHAC09-TV (right)

30


Figure 14: Structural plan for the base of LRT1

31


Wireframe creation

The Mineral Corporation imported the drillhole data contained in Plateau Energy Metals Microsoft Access database into Datamine Studio™. Modelling codes (Table 5) were assigned to each borehole, on the basis of the lithological description provided by Plateau Energy Metals, and the analytical patterns described above. The upper and lower bounding surface for each of the zones identified were constructed utilizing Datamine Strat3D™ modelling software, applying Inverse Distance (ID) interpolation of the zone thickness. For those boreholes where analytical results were not yet available, only the Upper and Lower Breccia intersections (and hence the thickness of the Lithium-rich Tuff) was utilized for modelling, and the position of the sub-units of the Lithium-rich Tuff was estimated from the thickness of these units in nearby boreholes. The result of the geological modelling is shown in cross section in Figure 16 and Figure 17. The QP is satisfied that the geological model is a robust representation of the volumes and geometry of the mineralized zones. As is common when estimating zone thicknesses into blocks, there are occasions where the contact between two zones in a borehole is not absolutely honored in the geological model; however, these instances are not considered to materially influence the volumetric estimates.

Surface topography

The surface topography used to constrain the Mineral Resource model was generated using Google Earth™ by Plateau Energy Metals. A mesh of co-ordinated elevation points was digitized, and the points exported to Datamine Studio. Although a high-resolution topography should be sourced for detailed mine planning in the future, the QP is satisfied that the topographic surface generated by Plateau Energy Metals is sufficiently detailed to allow robust estimates of Mineral Resource tonnages. An isometric view of the geological model is provided in Figure 15. Figure 15: Isometric view of the geological model (not to scale)

32


Figure 16: South to North cross section (A’-A) showing geological model and drill data (Refer to Figure 9 for section line location)

33


Figure 17: South to North cross section (B’-B) showing geological model and drill data (refer to Figure 9 for section line location)

34


Grade estimation methodology

Compositing strategy

Downhole, length-weighted composites of 2.5m in length were generated within each of the mineralized zones. The dip of the mineralized zones is relatively shallow, and the drillholes are drilled in a variety of different directions. The intersection angle between the drillhole and mineralized zone is therefore variable. As a result of the shallow dip, and variable intersection angle, the 2.5m downhole composites are considered appropriate, and the risk of introducing a bias to the Mineral Resource tonnages by using high-angle intersections is negligible.

Classical statistics

The nature of the lithium grade distribution was analyzed through histograms. The histograms for all of the mineralized zones are shown in Figure 18. It can be noted that the lithium grade distribution in the majority of the zones approximate a normal distribution, and that no outliers or anomalous intersections are shown on the histograms. As a result, no cutting or capping of the 2.5m bench composites was deemed necessary. Furthermore, as a result of the normal distribution, it was appropriate to undertake geostatistical analysis in normal space (as described in Section 14.3.3).

Variography

Variography was undertaken on the 2.5m composites, in normal space. As the composites were of equal-length, it was appropriate to utilize the lithium grade directly in the variography, as opposed to utilizing an accumulation of lithium over a length of the sample. Omni-directional variograms were investigated, within 5m layers of each mineralized zone, with the average variogram for all of the layers being modelled. Well-structured variograms, with a horizontal range of between 250m and 500m and a nugget / sill ratio of approximately 30% were obtained for the zones. The modelled variograms are provided in Figure 19 and summarized in Table 6. It can be noted that second-order stationarity is achieved for these variograms, and hence it was considered appropriate to utilize Ordinary Kriging for the estimation of grade.

35


Figure 18: Histograms for mineralized zones

36


Figure 19: Variograms for mineralized zones

37


Table 6: Variogram modelling results

No. Zone Nugget X and Y Range (m) Sill

1 UBX 628 571 240 1 010 421

2 LRT1 26 933 700 269 334

3 LRT2 30 000 250 90 000

4 LRT3 220 645 500 428 587

5 LBX 104 326 370 1 043 264

Block model parameters

Ordinary Kriging was undertaken for lithium grades, into a block model of 25m X 25m X 5m (X:Y:Z).

Search criteria

The search criteria in Table 7 were applied for the estimates. A 3-stage search strategy was applied. The first search range approximated the range of the variogram in X and Y. If insufficient samples were found in this search, a second and / or third search was employed. The range in Z was kept relatively short, in order to honour the grade zonation identified in the boreholes. Table 7: Search criteria (applied to all mineralized zones)

Search X and Y Range (m) Z Range (m) Min Samples Max Samples Search Angle 1 Search Angle 2

1st Search 250 20 5 20 Dip Direction Dip

2nd Search 500 40 5 20 Dip Direction Dip

3rd Search 1250 100 5 20 Dip Direction Dip

Mineral Resource estimates

Model constraints

The edges of the Mineral Resource model have been constrained using the following criteria (Figure 25):

• A maximum horizontal extrapolation distance of 100m from the last borehole intersection;

• The location where the surface topography cuts the mineralized zones;

• An unmineralized intrusion has been encountered in the drilling on Platform 19 and Platform 19A. This intrusion defines the interpreted southern extent of the Mineral Resources;

• A thin (5cm) intersection of tuff was encountered in Platform 5 and no tuff was encountered in Platform 7. The thickness estimates for the mineralized zones take into account this apparent thinning to the east, which is interpreted to represent the approaching edge of the crater lake. The eastern extent of the Mineral Resources has been constrained to where the thickness of the LRT1 is approximately 5m, to take into account a practical mining limit; and

• A control drillhole was created to the north of PCHAC 14, in order to constrain the northern flank and honor the geological interpretation that the zones thin towards the north.

The Mineral Resources have been extended across the valley between the Falchani East and Falchani West. Evidence for the continuity of the mineralization is provided by the outcrop of the Upper Breccia on the east- and west- facing slopes of the valley. Platform 25 and Platform 10 were drilled on the edge of the valley and provide further evidence of the continuity of mineralization in the valley area.

Geological losses

The continuity of the lithology and grade within the Mineral Resource area constrained by the features described in Section 14.4.1 is noteworthy. Nonetheless, the QP has considered it appropriate to apply geological losses to the tonnages within the Mineral Resource constraints. In general, a 5% geological loss has been applied, to take into account potential losses due to faulting. Two areas have been identified where the risk to the tonnage estimates is considered higher than normal, due to a combination of limited drilling data and the close proximity of the mineralized zones to the surface topography. In these two areas, which include the valley area between Falchani East and Falchani West, a geological loss of 10% has been applied. The average volume-weighted geological loss applied in the Mineral Resource estimate is 6%.

Density determinations

A uniform density of 2.4t/m3 has been applied to derive the tonnage estimates from the modelled volume. The density is based on 8 field samples collected by Plateau Energy Metals, which were analyzed by means of a pycnometer, at the CERTIMIN laboratory in Lima.

38


The density database which supports the Mineral Resource estimates is not extensive. It should be noted however, that uniform density estimates have typically been employed for Mineral Resource estimates in other Projects on the Macusani Plateau, and dataset is considered sufficient for the Indicated Mineral Resource category. Additional density measurements would improve the confidence in the tonnage estimates and would be required for Measured Mineral Resources.

Cut-off grade

Two types of cut-offs have been applied. The application of a lithological cut-off determined the top of the UBX, and to the base of the LBX. This is a natural lithological boundary, which corresponds with a lithium grade of around 0.1% Li2O (460ppm Li), and this boundary was applied during the definition of the geological wireframes. The lithium grade within the five mineralized zones constrained by the top of the UBX and the base of the LBX is consistently and significantly above 0.1% Li2O. A block cut-off grade of 1000 ppm Li was applied, informed by the discussion in Section 14.7.8.

Mineral Resource classification

Mineral Resource classification was informed by geostatistical confidence, as expressed in the block Kriging Efficiency (KE), after giving consideration to the confidence in the supporting database (Section 11.8). KE is defined as follows:

KE = Block Variance − Kriging Variance

Block Variance

Using the criteria for utilizing KE for Mineral Resource classification provided by Mwasinga (2001), blocks with:

• KE < 0.3 can be classified as Inferred;

• KE >0.3 but <0.5 can be classified as Indicated and;

• KE > 0.5 can be classified as Measured. KE plots for each zone were used as a guideline and a final set of Mineral Resource classification polygons was determined by the QP, which took the following into account:

• The need for practical and contiguous polygons for planning;

• The proximity to surface geological mapping; The resulting Mineral Resource classification is shown in Figure 25.

Mineral Resource statement.

The Mineral Resource estimates are shown in Table 8. Table 8: Mineral Resource estimates for the Falchani Project (March 1, 2019)

Category Zone Metric tonnes



Indicated

UBX 6.23 2.4 1 510 0.33 0.80 0.05

LRT1 7.47 2.4 3 709 0.80 1.97 0.15

LRT2 22.03 2.4 3 300 0.71 1.76 0.39

LRT3 13.03 2.4 3 690 0.79 1.96 0.26

LBX 12.16 2.4 1 816 0.39 0.97 0.12

Total 60.92 2.4 2 954 0.64 1.57 0.96

Inferred

UBX 13.77 2.4 1 730 0.37 0.92 0.13

LRT1 24.01 2.4 3 346 0.72 1.78 0.43

LRT2 62.30 2.4 3 155 0.68 1.68 1.05

LRT3 37.24 2.4 3 325 0.72 1.77 0.66

LBX 122.75 2.4 2 275 0.49 1.21 1.49

Total 260.07 2.4 2 706 0.58 1.44 3.75

Minor discrepancies due to rounding may occur. Li (ppm) grade cut-off of 1000 Li (ppm) was applied Tonnes are Metric Li Conversion Factors as follows: Li:Li2O=2.153; Li:Li2CO3=5.323; Li2O:Li2CO3=2.473

39


Reconciliation

The prior Mineral Resource estimate (September 2018) for the Falchani Project (The Mineral Corporation, 2018) is provided in Table 9. Table 9: Mineral Resource estimates for the Falchani Project (September 2018)

Zone Metric tonnes



Indicated

UBX 5.77 2.4 1 259 0.27 0.67 0.04

LRT1 6.89 2.4 3 667 0.79 1.95 0.13

LRT2 19.75 2.4 3 236 0.70 1.72 0.34

LRT3 8.18 2.4 3 611 0.78 1.92 0.16

Total 40.58 2.4 3 104 0.67 1.65 0.67

Inferred

UBX 9.44 2.4 1 589 0.34 0.85 0.08

LRT1 14.17 2.4 3 681 0.79 1.96 0.28

LRT2 43.18 2.4 3 254 0.70 1.73 0.75

LRT3 20.45 2.4 3 551 0.76 1.89 0.39

LBX 34.46 2.4 1 486 0.32 0.79 0.27

Total 121.70 2.4 2 724 0.59 1.45 1.76

Minor discrepancies due to rounding may occur. A lithological boundary cut-off was applied, at or around 0.1% Li2O Tonnes are Metric Li Conversion Factors as follows: Li:Li2O=2.153; Li:Li2CO3=5.323; Li2O:Li2CO3=2.473

Reasonable Prospect for Economic Extraction

The QP considers that there are reasonable prospects for the economic extraction of the lithium Mineral Resources provided in this estimate. This view is based on an assessment of reasonable geological, mining, processing, marketing, environmental, legal, social and economic parameters, which are discussed herein. The assessment of some of these factors has been assisted by the completed GBM PEA of the uranium Mineral Resources within Plateau Energy Metals mining concessions.

Mining considerations

No mining studies have been undertaken at the Falchani Project, however, given the fact that the Mineral Resources outcrop at surface, are relatively thick, and have a shallow dip, it is likely that mining would be initiated in an open pit.

Both surface and underground mining were considered in GBM's PEA, and the PEA utilized an open pit mining cost of US$2.40/t for mineralized material and US$2.40/t of waste mined for its open pit optimization.

The Mineral Corporation has reviewed a set of geological cross-sections of the Mineral Resource model, and on the basis of an overall slope angle of 55°, it would appear that the stripping ratio in an open pit could vary from as little as 1:1 (Mineral Resource tonne / waste tonne) to a maximum of 6:1.

The above broad assumptions are considered sufficient for the purpose of assessing Reasonable Prospects for Economic Extraction of the Mineral Resource.

Recovery methods

The test work undertaken by ANSTO and described in Section 13, utilized a preliminary acid leach flowsheet to produce lithium carbonate has as shown in Figure 20.

Figure 20: Preliminary process flow sheet (Source: Plateau Energy Metals)

40


Should the process flow provided be utilized, the overall processing route would need to include both crushing and milling. Notwithstanding that these were preliminary in nature, and that the process flow is likely to be investigated further in a future PEA for lithium, the test work indicates that battery grade lithium carbonate can be produced from material from the Falchani Project, utilizing conventional lithium processing steps and provides the following assumptions:

• An indicative lithium recovery of range of 85-90%;

• Indicative acid consumption of 153kg/t of material processed; and

• An indicative acid cost of US$15/t processed. The services required for the processing plant would include power, water and reagents. The supply of power and water were assessed in the GBM PEA for uranium and are not considered to be material impediments. Sulphuric acid would be the main reagent required, and it is likely to be procured from within Peru. The cost of these services has been included in the processing cost assumption. A high-level estimate of the cost of processing has been made, to inform the assessment of Reasonable Prospects for Economic Extraction. This estimated cost is US$35/t treated, which includes the cost of crushing and milling, acid leach at or around 90°C, and the precipitation of lithium carbonate.

Project infrastructure

The project infrastructure to support the Falchani Project is anticipated to be essentially the same as for the proposed uranium operation.

Water is likely to be pumped from a local water source in the valley up to a raw water dam. Water treatment facilities would be required on site. The raw water supply is assumed to be of good quality such that no expensive treatment will be required.

The 138kV San Gaban power line runs near the MPA and it has been assumed that the power line is at 138kV. An extension of the power line will be required to reach the project site and any connection will be subject to negotiation with the supply authority.

It is likely that most equipment and materials will arrive containerized at Callao (Peru’s main port, located near Lima) or a more southern port such as Ilo with suitable handling facilities (Figure 1). Containers would be driven to site. The route is likely to include access via the Interoceanico Highway, from the city of Juliaca to the town of Macusani.

The connecting roads between the highway and the MPA would require significant upgrade and even rerouting to handle the proposed project generated traffic. In addition, access roads to various facilities such as the tailings dam and sulphuric acid storage would have been considered.

It is reasonable to assume that a workforce consisting of skilled and semi-skilled people could be locally sourced for the Project.

Market assessment

An assessment of the market for lithium was undertaken in order to support the assumptions for Reasonable Prospects of Economic Extraction thereof.

Lithium is an extremely light energy metal, which can be used in application where size and weight are important, such as in car batteries. Approximately 50% of the world consumption is of lithium in the form of lithium carbonate, with the rest being made of up of lithium hydroxide, lithium chloride and lithium bromide.

According to the United States Geological Survey, 87% of lithium reserves are hosted by brine deposits, with the balance attributed to hard rock deposits, mainly from pegmatites, but also from petalite and lepidolite. Major brine lake deposits occur in South America in the so-called “Lithium Triangle” Argentina, Bolivia, and Chile, and additionally, lithium from brines is sourced from China and the US (Nevada). Global production of lithium in 2014 was estimated to be 36kt.

According to Meyer et al (2015), the lithium carbonate market is the most useful form for gauging the state of the lithium market, as there is no exchange-based price for lithium metal, and supplier’s contract directly with consumers. Between 2005 and 2015, lithium carbonate prices averaged in the region of $5 000/t. More recently, a significant increase in the lithium carbonate price has been widely reported (Figure 21), as a result of an increase in the market acceptance of electrical and hybrid vehicles.

41


Figure 21: Lithium carbonate price 2015-2018 (Source: Lithium Americas, 2018)

For the purpose of considering Reasonable Prospects for Economic Extraction, The Mineral Corporation has assumed a lithium carbonate price of $12 000/t, in real, 2018 terms. While higher than the 2005 – 2015 average, this is aligned with current market price. This price is the same as the lithium carbonate price assumption made by Lithium Americas, in its recently published Pre-feasibility study for the Thacker Pass Project (Lithium Americas, 2018).

Environmental

With respect to Environmental Studies, Permitting and Social Impact, The Mineral Corporation is not aware of any issues related to the extraction of lithium which would be materially different from those already considered for the proposed uranium operation.

Capital Costs

Capital costs have not been explicitly considered in the assessment of Reasonable Prospects for Economic Extraction. However, while the Macusani Plateau is at a high altitude, the regional and local infrastructure is well-developed and there are other significant mining operations at similar altitudes within Peru, including Minsur's San Rafael tin mine. The GBM PEA on the uranium project had an initial direct capital estimate of US$250m in 2016 terms. Given the regional and local infrastructure, the QP is of the view that the Falchani Project should be able to support the capital required to access the necessary power and water, and construct the roads and processing plant.

Operating Costs

The operating costs which have been considered in the assessment of Reasonable Prospects for Economic Extraction are those included in Table 10.

Indicative cost analysis

The analysis presented herein is provided in order to support The QP’s assessment of Reasonable Prospects for Economic Extraction, such that these estimates could be justifiably included as Mineral Resources. Caution should be used when interpreting the results presented in this section, as the results have not been the subject of a pre-feasibility or feasibility study and thus should not be interpreted as having demonstrated economic viability. The Mineral Corporation has estimated the cost per tonne of product for a range of lithium grades from the cut-off grade (1 000ppm Li) to the anticipated average of the Lithium-rich Tuff (3 400ppm Li), at the maximum anticipated stripping ratio (6:1) and at an average stripping ratio (1:1). The other assumptions utilized to estimate the cash cost for producing Li2CO3 are shown in Table 10, and the results of the analysis are shown in Figure 22.

0

10 000

20 000

30 000

20

15

/07

20

15

/09

20

15

/11

20

16

/01

20

16

/03

20

16

/05

20

16

/07

20

16

/09

20

16

/11

20

17

/01

20

17

/03

20

17

/05

20

17

/07

20

17

/09

20

17

/11

20

18

/01

20

18

/03

20

18

/05

20

18

/07

20

18

/09

Li2

CO

3 U

S$/t

(>

99.5

%, C

hin

a)

(US

$)

Historical price

Long term price assumption ($12 000/tonne)

42


Table 10: Assumptions used in cash cost analysis

Unit Assumption Source

Mining Cost US$/t (Rock) 2.4 GBM PEA 2016

Stripping ratio Waste tonnes:Mineralized tonnes 1:1 to 6:1 QP estimate

Mining recovery US$/t (ROM) after loss 0.95 GBM PEA 2016

Processing cost US$/t (Treated) 35 QP estimate

Recovery Li2CO3 85% TECMMINE and ANSTO test work

Environmental, admin etc US$/t (Li2CO3) 10 GBM PEA 2016

Port and product transport (road)

US$/t (Li2CO3) 50 GBM PEA 2016

Shipping US$/t (Li2CO3) 10 Market analysis

Figure 22: Indicative cost per tonne of product at differing grades and stripping ratios

This high-level analysis would indicate that all of the material above the Mineral Resource cut-off grade has Reasonable Prospects for Economic Extraction, under the long-term forecast price of US$12 000/t of lithium carbonate, and hence their inclusion in the Mineral Resource estimate is justified. The indicative cost at the lowest grade and highest stripping ratio (“A” in Figure 22), can be interpreted as a worst-case scenario. As can be expected, the indicative project economics improve at higher grades and lower stripping ratios.

43


Figure 23: South to North lithium grade cross section (A’ to A in Figure 24)

44


Figure 24: South to North lithium grade cross section (B’ to B in Figure 24)

45


Figure 25: Mineral Resource classification plan

46


MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES

No Mineral Reserve estimates have been undertaken for the Falchani Project. As such, Sections 16 through to Section 22 are not applicable.

MINING METHODS

Not applicable as only Mineral Resources have been estimated. Refer to Section 14.7.1.

RECOVERY METHODS

Not applicable here as only Mineral Resources have been estimated. Refer to Section 14.7.2.

PROJECT INFRASTRUCTURE


MARKET STUDIES AND CONTRACTS


ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, PERMITTING, AND SOCIAL OR COMMUNITY IMPACT


CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS

Not applicable here as only Mineral Resources have been estimated. Refer to Section 14.7.6 and 14.7.7.

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS


ADJACENT PROPERTIES

The only other explorer of significance within the region is Fission Energy Corporation (Fission), whose portfolio of properties in the Macusani area resulted from a spin-out from Strathmore Minerals in 2007 (Fission Energy Corporation, 2010). In April 2013, Fission announced the arrangement whereby Denison Mines Corporation acquired all the outstanding common shares of Fission and the spin-out of certain assets into a new exploration company, Fission Uranium Corporation. Nine claim blocks encompassing 51km2 are held in the Macusani area (Fission Uranium Corporation, 2014).

OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION

Introduction

Plateau Energy Metals has identified the potential continuation of lithium mineralization, in the MPA, to the south-west of the current Mineral Resource area, in an area known as Tres Hermanas. On the basis of its proximity to the current Mineral Resource area, and the apparent similarity in style of mineralization, the QP considers it appropriate to discuss this area as a target for further exploration, as described in the NI43-101. As required by the NI43-101, the potential quantity and grade of the target for further exploration has been expressed as a range.

Basis for determination of the target for further exploration at Tres Hermanas

Delineation of potential target area extent

The Tres Hermanas area has three prominent ridges, which are interpreted to be outcropping Lithium-rich Tuff. Based on a combination of field mapping and review of satellite imagery, the potential extent of the outcropping Lithium-rich Tuff has been defined. This extent is shown in Figure 26.

Delineation of potential target area volume

The potential volume of the exploration target was derived by modelling a floor of the target, based on the elevation of the outcrop extents, and by modelling a topographic surface, based on 0.5m surface contours. The resulting approximate thickness of the exploration target area is shown in Figure 26, and ranges from 10m to 60m.

Estimation of potential grades of mineralization

No exploration drilling has been carried out within the exploration target, however, two approximately 120m long trenches have been sampled within the area, with each trench sample being 2.5m in length. The statistics for the trench samples which were logged as either breccia or tuff are provided in Table 11.

47


Table 11: Statistics for trench samples at Tres Hermanas

Number of samples

Total sampled length in breccia or tuff (m)

Lowest grade in breccia or tuff (Li ppm)

Highest grade in breccia or tuff (Li ppm)

Average grade of breccia and tuff (Li ppm)

Trench 1 27 68 660 4 411 3 174

Trench 3 23 95 649 4 686 3 303

It should be noted that the representivity of the trench samples is not clear at this stage, and neither is the relationship between the orientation of mineralization and the orientation of sampling. However, the range of grades and average grades align well with those of the Mineral Resource estimates, and hence it is reasonable to use the lowest and highest grades of the Mineral Resource estimates as defining the lower and upper grade ranges for the exploration target.

Potential quantity and grade of the target for further exploration

The potential target for future exploration at Tres Hermanas is provided in Table 12. It is noted that a potential target for future exploration is not a Mineral Resource estimate, is conceptual in nature, and relates to an area where there has been insufficient exploration to define the target as a Mineral Resource and where it is uncertain if further exploration will result in the target being defined as a Mineral Resource. Table 12: Tres Hermanas exploration target potential

Category Tonnes (Mt) Grade (Li ppm)

Exploration Target 7.5 – 12.5 1 250 – 3 650

The QP is of the opinion that there is sufficient information available to describe the Tres Hermanas area as a potential target for future exploration. This is supported by:

• the local geology in the exploration target area being similar to the Mineral Resources area

• the close proximity to, and interpretation of, the area as a possible southwest extension of the Mineral Resource area

• analyses from trench samples indicating the presence of lithium in grade ranges similar to the Mineral Resource area

It is recommended that detailed geological mapping be carried out within the exploration target area to increase geoscientific confidence, in particular an understanding of the structural complexity of the exploration target area. It is recommended that Plateau Energy Metals commission a drilling campaign to further test the extents of this lithium occurrence hence determining any constraints on the potential within the exploration target area.

48


Figure 26: Tres Hermanas target for further exploration

49


INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS

A geological model has been built and lithium grade estimates have been undertaken in order to update the Mineral Resources for the Falchani Project. The lithium mineralization is found within a Lithium-rich Tuff and transitional Li-rich breccias, which are interpreted to have been deposited in a crater lake volcano-sedimentary environment. Appropriate exploration and QAQC protocols have been found to be in place, and no concerns with the results of the QAQC programme have been identified. The QP has validated the exploration data by means of a site visit, and by independent sampling. The estimation approach adopted by The Mineral Corporation has been informed by the vertical zonation apparent in the lithium grade distribution in drillholes, and The Mineral Corporation has estimated lithium grades into a block model, by Ordinary Kriging. The geological and grade continuity at the Falchani Project is robust, and the Mineral Resource classification has been determined based on the geostatistical confidence in the lithium estimates, which was subsequently modified by the QP into practical polygons. The structural model which supports the estimates is considered appropriate for the Mineral Resource classification selected, however, the existence of additional geological structures cannot be discounted. Geological losses of 5% or 10% have been applied to the Mineral Resource estimate, based on an assessment of the risk posed to the estimates, by the combination of data density, interpreted faulting and the proximity of surface topography. The prospects for economic extraction of the Mineral Resource estimates have been assessed and are considered reasonable. The QP has included an assessment of the potential quantity and grade of target for future exploration in an area to the southwest of the current Mineral Resources, known as Tres Hermanas. This assessment is not a Mineral Resource estimate.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Mineral Corporation makes the following recommendations:

• It is recommended that the preliminary test work programme undertaken continue to be expanded, to incorporate a greater geographical spread of samples, and to consider the different zones identified in the Mineral Resource estimates;

• A PEA for the Falchani Project should be undertaken, to include refinements to the processing workflow, and to incorporate the mining, processing, infrastructure and environmental aspects of the Project;

• Additional density measurements, for the zones within the Mineral Resource, and for the Upper Rhyolite are required;

• Given the robust geological continuity demonstrated in the drilling results to date, additional drilling in the areas identified as Inferred Mineral Resources should be undertaken to upgrade these Mineral Resources to the Indicated category;

• The trench sampling and field mapping undertaken in the Tres Hermanas area to date indicate that exploration drilling in this area is warranted, to test the exploration target identified.

Plateau Energy Metals have indicated that budgets of US$0.45m for the PEA and US$1.0m for the additional exploration, have been provided.

50


REFERENCES

Cheilletz, A., Clark, A.H., Farrar, E, Pauca, G.A., Pichavant, M., Sandeman, H.A., 1992. Volcano-Stratigraphy and 40Ar/39AR Geochronology of the Macusani Ignimbrite Field: Monitor of the Miocene Geodynamic Evolution of the Andes of Southeast Peru. Tectonphysics, 205 (1992) 307-327, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam. Henkle W.R. Jr, 2011. Updated Technical Report of the Macusani Uranium Exploration Project Department of Puno, Peru, Prepared for Minergia S.A.C, October 2011. Henkle W.R. Jr, 2014. Updated Technical Report of the Macusani and Muñani Uranium Exploration Projects Department of Puno, Peru, Prepared for Azincourt Uranium, May 2014. International Uranium Resources Evaluation Project, 1984. Orientation Phase Mission, Summary Report, Peru. OECD Nuclear Energy Agency and International Atomic Energy Agency, Paris, 1984. Li, V., Clark, A.H., Kurtis Keyser, T., Stefan, L., Cuba, W., Brisbin, D., O’Connor, T., 2012. The uranium deposits of the Macusani district, Puno, southeastern Peru: a new ore-genetic model. Poster presentation, Soc., Econ., Geol., Lima, Sept 23-26 2012, Unpublished. Lithium Americas, 2018. Investor Presentation, August 2018. Downloaded from: http://lithiumamericas.com/_resources/presentations/corporate-presentation.pdf Meyer, J., Sergey, R., Ferguson C., Beardsmore, S., Lithium Market Overview. SP Angel Corporate Finance LLP, December 2015. Short, M., Apelt, T., Young, D.R., Mounde, M., 2014. Macusani Yellowcake Project, Preliminary Economic Assessment. GBM Project Number: 0501. Report Number 0501-RPT-001. Short, M., Apelt, T., Young, D., Mounde, M., 2016. Macusani Yellowcake Project, Preliminary Economic Assessment. GBM Project Number: 0501. Report Number 0501-RPT-001. 2014. Thatcher, E.C., 2008. A petrographic and Mineralogical Investigation of a Sample of Tuff from Peru with Particular Reference to the Uranium Mineralisation Present. Unpublished report by Microsearch cc, Johannesburg, October 2008. Thatcher, E.C., 2011. Petrographic Investigation of Four Outcrop Samples of Uranium Mineralised Rock from the Altiplano of Peru, and the detailed Mineralogical Investigation of one of these. Unpublished Report by Microsearch cc, Johannesburg, March 2011. Young, D.R., 2010. Update to Mineral Resource Estimates of the Colibri Project held by Global Gold S.A.C. in the Puno District of Peru, The Mineral Corporation Report No. C-MYI-COL-731-592, April 2010. Young, D.R., 2011. Update of the Mineral Resources of the Colibri Project held by Global Gold S.A.C. in the Puno District of Peru, The Mineral Corporation Report No C-MYI-COL-731-686, 20 September 2010 as amended March 4, 2011. Young, 2015. Consolidated Mineral Resource estimates for the Kihitian, Isivilla and Corani Uranium Complexes controlled by Plateau Uranium Inc, in the Puno District of Peru. Prepared for Plateau Uranium Inc and published under the Guidelines of the National Instrument 43-101 of the TSX. Report No: C-MYI-MRU-1568-960, June 2015. The Mineral Corporation, 2016. Mineral Resource estimates for the Chilcuno Chico, Quebrada Blanca, Tantamaco and Isivilla deposits in the Puno District of Peru, updated to include lithium and potassium. Prepared for Plateau Uranium Inc and published under the Guidelines of the National Instrument 43-101 of the TSX. Report No: C-MYI-MRU-1647-990, May 2016. The Mineral Corporation, 2018. Mineral Resource estimates for the Falchani Lithium Project in the Puno District of Peru. Prepared for Plateau Energy Metals Inc and published under the Guidelines of the National Instrument 43-101 of the TSX. Report No: C-MYI-EXP-1727-1103, September 2018.

51


Appendix 1: Drillhole Intersections

52


Drillhole From To Downhole length (m)

Azimuth Dip Zone Li (ppm)

PCHAC 01-TNE 104.39 125.13 20.74 55 55 UBX 965

PCHAC 01-TNE 125.13 152.78 27.65 55 55 LRT1 3796

PCHAC 01-TNE 152.78 182.95 30.17 55 55 LRT2 3396

PCHAC 01-TNW 96.14 111.86 15.72 355 55 UBX 1375

PCHAC 01-TNW 111.86 123.09 11.23 355 55 LRT1 3425

PCHAC 01-TNW 123.09 143.55 20.46 355 55 LRT2 3248

PCHAC 01-TSE 72.20 83.78 11.58 130 60 UBX 1004

PCHAC 01-TSE 83.78 99.03 15.25 130 60 LRT1 3865

PCHAC 01-TSE 99.03 117.93 18.90 130 60 LRT2 3312

PCHAC 01-TSW 78.14 82.24 4.10 265 55 UBX 870

PCHAC 01-TV 73.46 88.23 14.77 180 90 UBX 1034

PCHAC 01-TV 88.23 107.32 19.09 0 90 LRT1 3846

PCHAC 01-TV 107.32 127.77 20.45 0 90 LRT2 3230

PCHAC 02-TSE 95.50 104.00 8.50 135 60 UBX 1518

PCHAC 02-TSE 104.00 116.00 12.00 135 60 LRT1 3685

PCHAC 02-TSE 116.00 126.00 10.00 135 60 LRT2 3621

PCHAC 02-TSE 126.00 138.00 12.00 135 60 LRT3 3634

PCHAC 02-TSE 138.00 149.60 11.60 135 60 LBX 1323

PCHAC 02-TV 83.30 95.00 11.70 0 90 UBX 1717

PCHAC 02-TV 95.00 113.00 18.00 270 90 LRT1 3962

PCHAC 02-TV 113.00 145.00 32.00 0 90 LRT2 3392

PCHAC 02-TV 145.00 168.00 23.00 180 90 LRT3 3890

PCHAC 02-TV 168.00 193.00 25.00 0 90 LBX 810

PCHAC 03-TE 71.38 85.89 14.51 90 60 UBX 1782

PCHAC 03-TE 85.89 97.61 11.72 90 60 LRT1 3758

PCHAC 03-TE 97.61 115.44 17.83 90 60 LRT2 3701

PCHAC 03-TE 115.44 127.92 12.48 90 60 LRT3 4059

PCHAC 03-TE 127.92 142.00 14.08 90 60 LBX 1892

PCHAC 03-TSW 54.00 67.00 13.00 230 55 UBX 810

PCHAC 03-TSW 67.00 87.00 20.00 230 55 LRT1 3316

PCHAC 03-TSW 87.00 116.00 29.00 230 55 LRT2 3338

PCHAC 03-TSW 116.00 141.00 25.00 230 55 LRT3 3794

PCHAC 03-TSW 141.00 154.00 13.00 230 55 LBX 1463

PCHAC 03-TV 52.90 67.73 14.83 0 90 UBX 1563

PCHAC 03-TV 67.73 84.48 16.75 180 90 LRT1 3656

PCHAC 03-TV 84.48 100.13 15.65 0 90 LRT2 3415

PCHAC 03-TV 100.13 119.36 19.23 180 90 LRT3 3656

PCHAC 03-TV 119.36 131.99 12.63 90 90 LBX 1139

PCHAC 04-TV 119.69 130.38 10.69 90 90 UBX 1604

PCHAC 04-TV 130.38 143.85 13.47 0 90 LRT1 3759

PCHAC 04-TV 143.85 195.43 51.58 270 90 LRT2 3199

PCHAC 04-TV 195.43 214.48 19.05 0 90 LRT3 3769

PCHAC 04-TV 214.48 231.67 17.19 182 90 LBX 1685

PCHAC 05-TV 160.00 160.05 0.05 0 90 LRT3 -

PCHAC 06-TE 76.00 87.00 11.00 90 60 UBX 3322

PCHAC 06-TE 87.00 94.50 7.50 90 60 LRT1 3257

PCHAC 06-TE 94.50 102.00 7.50 90 60 LRT2 3303

PCHAC 06-TE 102.00 117.00 15.00 90 60 LRT3 3532

PCHAC 06-TE 117.00 123.50 6.50 90 60 LBX 1731

PCHAC 06-TN 60.50 63.00 2.50 0 60 UBX 2727

PCHAC 06-TN 63.00 71.75 8.75 0 60 LRT1 3315

PCHAC 06-TN 71.75 87.75 16.00 0 60 LRT2 3380

PCHAC 06-TN 87.75 98.00 10.25 360 60 LRT3 3477

PCHAC 06-TN 98.00 107.00 9.00 0 60 LBX 771

PCHAC 06-TV 60.30 66.10 5.80 4 90 UBX 3388

PCHAC 06-TV 66.10 76.10 10.00 0 90 LRT1 3582

PCHAC 06-TV 76.10 97.00 20.90 182 90 LRT2 3545

PCHAC 06-TV 97.00 104.00 7.00 0 90 LRT3 3928

PCHAC 07-TV 167.74 169.20 1.46 0 90 LRT3 1451

53




PCHAC 08-TNE 63.20 85.09 21.89 55 70 UBX 1375

PCHAC 08-TNE 85.09 102.42 17.33 55 70 LRT1 3515

PCHAC 08-TNE 102.42 175.83 73.41 55 70 LRT2 3143

PCHAC 08-TNE 175.83 207.76 31.93 55 70 LRT3 3608

PCHAC 08-TNE 207.76 236.03 28.27 55 70 LBX 2829

PCHAC 08-TV 52.99 83.07 30.08 0 90 UBX 1252

PCHAC 08-TV 83.07 87.45 4.38 90 90 LRT1 3869

PCHAC 09-TNW 120.50 130.50 10.00 325 55 UBX 1477

PCHAC 09-TNW 130.50 148.00 17.50 325 55 LRT1 3611

PCHAC 09-TNW 148.00 225.00 77.00 325 55 LRT2 3313

PCHAC 09-TNW 225.00 257.00 32.00 325 55 LRT3 3563

PCHAC 09-TNW 257.00 309.00 52.00 325 55 LBX 1183

PCHAC 09-TV 96.19 108.96 12.77 0 90 UBX 1453

PCHAC 09-TV 108.96 131.01 22.05 0 90 LRT1 3731

PCHAC 09-TV 131.01 204.14 73.13 0 90 LRT2 3177

PCHAC 09-TV 204.14 223.87 19.73 0 90 LRT3 3716

PCHAC 10-TV 33.50 42.00 8.50 0 90 UBX 1203

PCHAC 10-TV 42.00 57.00 15.00 0 90 LRT1 3736

PCHAC 10-TV 57.00 109.00 52.00 0 90 LRT2 3202

PCHAC 10-TV 109.00 121.70 12.70 0 90 LRT3 3495

PCHAC 10-TV 121.70 140.00 18.30 90 90 LBX 1125

PCHAC 12-TV 21.00 33.40 12.40 0 90 UBX 1829

PCHAC 12-TV 33.40 52.00 18.60 0 90 LRT1 3277

PCHAC 12-TV 52.00 70.00 18.00 0 90 LRT2 1368

PCHAC 12-TV 70.00 73.00 3.00 0 90 LRT3 3589

PCHAC 12-TV 73.00 83.00 10.00 270 90 LBX 1140

PCHAC 12-TW 19.00 25.00 6.00 270 55 UBX 1307

PCHAC 12-TW 25.00 32.00 7.00 270 55 LRT1 2659

PCHAC 12-TW 32.00 36.00 4.00 270 55 LRT2 1053

PCHAC 12-TW 36.00 48.00 12.00 270 55 LRT3 2517

PCHAC 12-TW 48.00 59.00 11.00 270 55 LBX 1796

PCHAC 13-TV 36.50 42.50 6.00 0 90 UBX 1350

PCHAC 13-TV 42.50 67.00 24.50 0 90 LRT1 3051

PCHAC 13-TV 67.00 118.00 51.00 0 90 LRT2 2811

PCHAC 13-TV 118.00 135.00 17.00 0 90 LRT3 2628

PCHAC 13-TV 135.00 143.00 8.00 0 90 LBX 1839

PCHAC 13-TW 58.70 84.00 25.30 270 55 UBX 1114

PCHAC 13-TW 84.00 120.00 36.00 270 55 LRT1 3158

PCHAC 13-TW 120.00 150.00 30.00 270 55 LRT2 2558

PCHAC 13-TW 150.00 174.00 24.00 270 55 LRT3 3410

PCHAC 14-TV 8.00 9.00 1.00 0 90 UBX 3136

PCHAC 14-TV 9.00 23.00 14.00 270 90 LRT1 3370

PCHAC 14-TV 23.00 49.00 26.00 0 90 LRT2 3119

PCHAC 14-TV 49.00 74.00 25.00 90 90 LRT3 3640

PCHAC 14-TV 74.00 179.00 105.00 90 90 LBX 2620

PCHAC 14-TW 8.00 12.00 4.00 270 55 UBX 3240

PCHAC 14-TW 12.00 49.00 37.00 270 55 LRT1 2795

PCHAC 14-TW 49.00 67.00 18.00 270 55 LRT2 3207

PCHAC 14-TW 67.00 90.00 23.00 270 55 LRT3 2922

PCHAC 14-TW 90.00 344.80 254.80 270 55 LBX 2884

PCHAC 16-TNE 151.00 155.00 4.00 45 60 UBX 2139

PCHAC 16-TNE 155.00 160.00 5.00 45 60 LRT1 3344

PCHAC 16-TNE 160.00 167.00 7.00 45 60 LRT2 3525

PCHAC 16-TNE 167.00 174.00 7.00 45 60 LRT3 3307

PCHAC 16-TNE 174.00 182.50 8.50 45 60 LBX 1035

PCHAC 16-TV 130.00 141.00 11.00 90 90 UBX 2930

PCHAC 16-TV 141.00 151.00 10.00 0 90 LRT1 3447

PCHAC 16-TV 151.00 164.00 13.00 270 90 LRT2 3541

PCHAC 16-TV 164.00 174.00 10.00 0 90 LRT3 3897

54




PCHAC 16-TV 174.00 205.00 31.00 0 90 LBX 1172

PCHAC 17-TV 99.50 105.50 6.00 0 90 UBX 2147

PCHAC 17-TV 105.50 122.00 16.50 270 90 LRT1 3710

PCHAC 17-TV 122.00 140.00 18.00 270 90 LRT2 3545

PCHAC 17-TV 140.00 158.00 18.00 0 90 LRT3 3893

PCHAC 17-TV 158.00 171.00 13.00 90 90 LBX 1607

PCHAC 19A-TS 0.00 12.00 12.00 245 55 LRT3 3375

PCHAC 19A-TS 12.00 27.20 15.20 245 55 LBX 1035

PCHAC 19A-TV 0.00 12.00 12.00 0 90 LRT3 3085

PCHAC 19A-TV 12.00 31.00 19.00 0 90 LBX 1657

PCHAC 1-TSW1 58.50 78.00 19.50 215 55 UBX 1718

PCHAC 1-TSW1 78.00 97.00 19.00 215 55 LRT1 4020

PCHAC 1-TSW1 97.00 142.00 45.00 215 55 LRT2 3595

PCHAC 1-TSW1 142.00 187.00 45.00 215 55 LRT3 3945

PCHAC 1-TSW1 187.00 212.00 25.00 215 55 LBX 1523

PCHAC 23-TV 0.00 12.00 12.00 0 90 LRT3 2368

PCHAC 23-TV 12.00 25.00 13.00 0 90 LBX 818

PCHAC 25-TV 0.00 6.00 6.00 0 90 LRT2 3494

PCHAC 25-TV 6.00 32.30 26.30 270 90 LRT3 3424

PCHAC 25-TV 32.30 42.00 9.70 0 90 LBX 407

PCHAC 29-TN 23.00 28.00 5.00 360 60 UBX 806

PCHAC 29-TN 28.00 40.00 12.00 360 60 LRT1 3558

PCHAC 29-TN 40.00 58.00 18.00 0 60 LRT2 3393

PCHAC 29-TN 58.00 79.50 21.50 0 60 LRT3 3532

PCHAC 29-TN 79.50 90.00 10.50 0 60 LBX 809

PCHAC 29-TV 22.15 30.00 7.85 0 90 UBX 3730

PCHAC 29-TV 30.00 40.00 10.00 0 90 LRT1 3376

PCHAC 29-TV 40.00 55.00 15.00 0 90 LRT2 3351

PCHAC 29-TV 55.00 73.00 18.00 180 90 LRT3 3766

PCHAC 29-TV 73.00 80.50 7.50 180 90 LBX 825

PCHAC 30-TSW 128.70 130.00 1.30 250 55 UBX 3760

PCHAC 30-TSW 130.00 133.00 3.00 250 55 LRT1 4121

PCHAC 30-TSW 133.00 138.00 5.00 250 55 LRT2 4072

PCHAC 30-TSW 138.00 143.00 5.00 250 55 LRT3 3720

PCHAC 30-TSW 143.00 174.00 31.00 250 55 LBX 1319

PCHAC 32-TNW 28.50 49.50 21.00 315 55 UBX 1536

PCHAC 32-TNW 49.50 50.50 1.00 315 55 LRT1 3237

PCHAC 32-TNW 50.50 51.50 1.00 315 55 LRT2 3190

PCHAC 32-TNW 51.50 52.50 1.00 315 55 LRT3 2981

PCHAC 32-TNW 52.50 117.50 65.00 315 55 LBX 3126

PCHAC 32-TV 15.50 24.00 8.50 0 90 UBX 1555

PCHAC 32-TV 24.00 27.00 3.00 0 90 LRT1 2316

PCHAC 32-TV 27.00 33.00 6.00 0 90 LRT2 2704

PCHAC 32-TV 33.00 38.00 5.00 2 90 LRT3 2885

PCHAC 32-TV 38.00 68.00 30.00 0 90 LBX 2736

PCHAC 32-TW 21.00 23.00 2.00 270 55 UBX 2761

PCHAC 32-TW 23.00 27.00 4.00 270 55 LRT1 3680

PCHAC 32-TW 27.00 31.00 4.00 270 55 LRT2 3167

PCHAC 32-TW 31.00 35.00 4.00 270 55 LRT3 3602

PCHAC 32-TW 35.00 41.00 6.00 270 55 LBX 2183

PCHAC 33-TV 103.50 121.50 18.00 0 90 UBX 824

PCHAC 33-TV 121.50 131.00 9.50 0 90 LRT1 2747

PCHAC 33-TV 131.00 145.00 14.00 0 90 LRT2 2331

PCHAC 33-TV 145.00 160.50 15.50 0 90 LRT3 1805

PCHAC 33-TV 160.50 317.00 156.50 2 90 LBX 2619

PCHAC 33-TW 125.60 129.00 3.40 270 55 UBX 2513

PCHAC 33-TW 129.00 134.00 5.00 270 55 LRT1 3816

PCHAC 33-TW 134.00 139.00 5.00 270 55 LRT2 3680

PCHAC 33-TW 139.00 145.50 6.50 270 55 LRT3 3511

55




PCHAC 33-TW 145.50 246.00 100.50 270 55 LBX 1938

PCHAC 36-TV 18.00 26.00 8.00 270 90 UBX 1050

PCHAC 36-TV 26.00 31.00 5.00 0 90 LRT1 2581

PCHAC 36-TV 31.00 39.00 8.00 270 90 LRT2 3699

PCHAC 36-TV 39.00 45.00 6.00 0 90 LRT3 3815

PCHAC 36-TV 45.00 73.50 28.50 0 90 LBX 2105

PCHAC 36-TW 15.20 25.00 9.80 270 55 UBX 1151

PCHAC 36-TW 25.00 31.00 6.00 270 55 LRT1 3416

PCHAC 36-TW 31.00 35.00 4.00 270 55 LRT2 3512

PCHAC 36-TW 35.00 48.00 13.00 270 55 LRT3 3290

PCHAC 36-TW 48.00 174.00 126.00 270 55 LBX 2345

PCHAC 41-TV 75.50 78.50 3.00 90 90 UBX 679

PCHAC 43-TV 104.50 114.50 10.00 0 90 UBX 1586

56


Appendix 2: Cross Sections

57


58


59


60


61


62


63


64


65


66


67


68


69


70


71


72


mineral resource estimates for the falchani lithium ... · 18/4/2019 · mineral resource...

Documents