TORONTO, Oct. 12, 2018 /CNW/ - Desert Lion Energy
Inc. (TSXV: DLI) (OTCQB: DSLEF) ("Desert Lion" or the
"Company") is pleased to announce its maiden Mineral
Resource estimate ("MRE") completed for its Namibian Lithium
project. The MRE was prepared by independent consultants The MSA
Group (Pty) Ltd. ("MSA") of South
Africa.
Highlights:
- 3.0 Million tons at a grade of 0.63% Li2O in the
Indicated category at a 0.20% Li2O cut-off
- 5.8 Million tons at a grade of 0.53% Li2O in the
Inferred category at a 0.20% Li2O cut-off
- Rubicon deposit remains open downdip, and there is significant
potential to delineate additional deposits within the Mining and
Exploration licenses.
- Estimate based on 264 holes, totaling 21,400 meters of
drilling, 49 pits totaling 104m and
65 channel samples
- Results expected to enhance and support robust economics due to
the Project's proximity to high quality existing infrastructure and
low-cost operating environment in Namibia
- With the positive results of the MRE, the Company intends to
issue its Preliminary Economic Assessment prior to the end of
October 2018
"We are very pleased with the maiden Mineral Resource estimate
as the results show the potential for the Company to establish a
significant pegmatite-hosted lepidolite lithium project," commented
Tim Johnston, CEO of Desert Lion.
The Project's at or near surface mineralization, proximity to high
quality existing infrastructure and the low-cost operating
environment in Namibia provide
significant advantages as we continue to develop the project
towards completion of the Preliminary Economic
Assessment."
Geology and Mineralisation
The Project is located in the southern Central Zone of the
Damara Belt in which other deposits have been discovered and
exploited. Included amongst these deposits are Li-Be, Sn and
tourmaline-bearing Lithium Cesium Tantalite (LCT) type family
pegmatites and U-bearing Niobium Yttrium Fluorine family pegmatitic
leucogranites, which have been intruded into the tightly folded
supracrustal rocks of the Damara Supergroup.
The pegmatites of the Damara Orogen occur in five major belts
with those in the Southern Tin and Karibib Pegmatite Belts
containing large, well zoned Li-Be- gem tourmaline bearing LCT
type. The Karibib Pegmatite Belt contains numerous LCT occurrences
and workings, with the Rubicon and Helikon pegmatites being classic
examples of highly fractionated and well zoned LCT type
pegmatites.
At Rubicon a series of stacked sub parallel pegmatites intrude a
variable dioritic and pegmatitic granite sequence with the Rubicon
Main pegmatite body forming a prominent ridge which strikes
approximately 1,200m northwest and
dips between 20° and 65° to the northeast; with dips averaging 45°
near surface but flattening to about 18-25° at depth.
The Rubicon Main pegmatite (Figure 1) consists of two
ellipsoidal well zoned, Li-mineralised bodies developed around two
quartz cores and surrounded by a zone of quartz-feldspathic
pegmatite. At Rubicon, the main lithium minerals present are
lepidolite and petalite. Historical mining has also produced waste
dumps and slimes dumps that contain lithium mineralisation
predominantly hosted in lepidolite, with minor petalite and
tantalite.
The historical Helikon workings expose a a series of stacked,
sub parallel LCT type pegmatites that have been intruded into
marbles and calc silicates of the Karibib Formation. The five
pegmatites (Helikon 1-5) that form part of the MRE have in the past
been exploited for lithium bearing minerals (lepidolite, petalite
and amblygonite), tantalite as well as beryl. Helikon 1, located
750m to the south of Helikon 2 – 5,
is the largest exposed pegmatite at the Project with a strike
length of 350m, an average thickness
of 65m and dips 70° to the north. The
Helikon 2 – 5 pegmatites define a discontinuous strike length of
some 1,700m with steep but variable
dips and thicknesses.
Mineral Resource Estimate
The maiden Mineral Resource estimate comprising the Rubicon,
Rubicon Slimes, Helikon 1, Helikon 2, Helikon 3, Helikon 4 and
Helikon 5 deposits was based on assay and geological/mineralogical
data generated from three phases of channel, pitting, diamond and
reverse circulation drilling completed by the Company since
2017.
The Mineral Resource was estimated using The Canadian Institute
of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (CIM) Best Practice Guidelines
(2003) and is reported in accordance with the 2014 CIM Definition
Standards, which have been incorporated by reference into National
Instrument 43-101 – Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects
(NI 43-101). The Mineral Resource is classified into Inferred and
Indicated categories. Both hard rock and slimes Mineral Resources
are reported with an effective date of 01
October 2018
The hard rock Mineral Resource is based on a cut-off grade of
0.2% Li2O. High-level
cost and revenue assumptions have been used, the QP considers that
the mineralisation at this cut-off grade will satisfy reasonable
prospects for eventual economic extraction (RPEEE).
The Mineral Resource for the hard rock deposits is stated as
follows:
|
Deposit
|
Resource
Category
|
Cut-off
(%Li2O)
|
Tonnes
(thousands)
|
Li2O
(%)
|
Ta2O5 (ppm)
|
Rubicon
|
Rubicon
Main
|
Indicated
|
0.20
|
3,006.9
|
0.63
|
70
|
Rubicon
Main
|
Inferred
|
0.20
|
1,600.9
|
0.58
|
67
|
Helikon
|
Helikon 1
|
Inferred
|
0.20
|
2,030.0
|
0.62
|
105
|
Helikon 2
|
Inferred
|
0.20
|
215.6
|
0.56
|
180
|
Helikon 3
|
Inferred
|
0.20
|
294.7
|
0.48
|
75
|
Helikon 4
|
Inferred
|
0.20
|
1,510.1
|
0.38
|
47
|
Helikon 5
|
Inferred
|
0.20
|
179.2
|
0.31
|
44
|
TOTAL
|
Rubicon +
Helikon
|
Indicated
|
0.20
|
3,006.9
|
0.63
|
70
|
Rubicon +
Helikon
|
Inferred
|
0.20
|
5,830.4
|
0.53
|
53
|
1.
|
The Mineral
Resource is stated as at 1 October 2018.
|
2.
|
The Mineral
Resource is depleted by surface and underground excavations where
available.
|
3.
|
All tabulated data
has been rounded and as a result minor computational errors may
occur.
|
4.
|
Mineral Resources
which are not Mineral Reserves have no demonstrated economic
viability.
|
5.
|
Preliminary
mineralogical work has demonstrated that the lithium mineralogy is
dominantly lepidolite. Test work indicates that mineralogical
separation of the lepidolite and petalite is possible under
laboratory conditions.
|
6.
|
For determination
of reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction the
following assumptions have been applied:
|
|
a. Mining costs of USD 3.31/t ore and USD
2.41/t waste,
|
|
b. Crushing, milling and concentration cost
of USD 110/t (run of mine), to produce a 4% Li2O
lepidolite concentrate; 25%
Ta2O5 concentrate and a 4%
Li2O petalite concentrate.
|
|
c. Processing cost USD 2,050/t (lithium
carbonate),
|
|
d. Transport cost of USD 15/t product to
port.
|
|
e. Revenue of USD 330/t for 4%
Li2O lepidolite concentrate, USD 43,000/t for 25%
Ta2O5 concentrate, USD 400/t for 4%
Li2O petalite concentrate and USD 13,000/t for lithium
carbonate.
|
In addition to the hard rock deposits, a Mineral Resource is
reported for the Rubicon Slimes. The Mineral Resource is reported
for the total slimes deposit. The Li2O block estimates
are all greater than 0.20% Li2O, which MSA considers has
reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction, particularly
given the bulk mining, non-selective nature of slimes reclamation.
The Mineral Resource is classified into the Inferred and Indicated
categories.
The Mineral Resource for the slimes deposit is stated as
follows:
|
|
Resource
Category
|
Tonnes
(thousands)
|
Li2O
(%)
|
Ta2O5 (ppm)
|
Rubicon
|
Rubicon
Slimes
|
Indicated
|
62.2
|
0.97
|
82
|
Rubicon
Slimes
|
Inferred
|
7.2
|
0.80
|
85
|
1.
|
The Mineral
Resource is stated as at 1 October 2018.
|
2.
|
The Mineral
Resource is volume is estimated from topographic and drilling
data.
|
3.
|
All tabulated data
has been rounded and as a result minor computational errors may
occur.
|
4.
|
Mineral Resources
which are not Mineral Reserves have no demonstrated economic
viability.
|
5.
|
For determination
of reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction the
following assumptions have been applied:
|
|
a. Mining cost of USD 1/t
slimes.
|
|
b. Milling and concentration cost of USD
110/t (slimes), to produce a 4% Li2O lepidolite
concentrate; 25% Ta2O5 concentrate and a
4% Li2O petalite concentrate.
|
|
c. Processing cost USD 2,050/t (lithium
carbonate).
|
|
d. Transport cost of USD 15/t product to
port.
|
|
e. Revenue of USD 330/t for 4%
Li2O lepidolite concentrate, USD 43,000/t for 25%
Ta2O5 concentrate, USD 400/t for 4%
Li2O petalite concentrate and USD 13,000/t for lithium
carbonate.
|
Rubicon
A total of 142 DD and RC holes were drilled on a general
50m x 50m grid totaling over 10,000m, including 35 channel samples. The
Rubicon Main pegmatite has been delineated over a strike length of
1,200m and to a modelled downdip
extent of 280m from surface. The
deposit remains open down dip to the north east.
The Rubicon Slimes, comprising of tailings residue from previous
operations was estimated through a total of 36 pits totaling
54.3m, 8 RC drill holes totaling
42m and 5 trenches totaling
7.2m (Figure 1).
Helikon 1
DD and RC holes were drilled on a staggered 40m x 20m grid
where 50 holes were drilled for a total of 3,760m including 36 channel samples. Drilling has
delineated the Main Helikon 1 pegmatite for a strike length of
approximately 450m and to a modelled
downdip extent of 70m from surface
(Figure 2).
Helikon 2 – 5
Helikon 2, 3, 4 and 5 represent a series of semi continuous, sub
parallel pegmatites that exhibit steep, but variable dips. Diamond
drilling was completed on broad 40m
centers along strike with step out holes being located where
possible. A total of 71 DD holes were drilled totaling 7,700m, and included 28 channel samples taken
Helikon 2, 3 and 4.
Estimation Methodology
Rubicon
A geological model of the Rubicon Main
pegmatite was constructed by MSA in Leapfrog Geo. Internal
pegmatite domains were interpreted based on geological logging
which was further refined from assay data. The pegmatite and
internal domains were imported into Datamine Studio 3 for block
model construction and estimation. Grades were estimated into the
pegmatite and internal domains by means of ordinary kriging
(depending on the availability of data and semi-variogram
stability) or inverse distance weighting.
Specific gravity (SG) determinations have been carried out on
Rubicon diamond drill core. The majority of these were completed on
fresh pegmatite material by utilizing the Archimedes principal of
weighing samples in air and then again following submersion in
water. An average SG was estimated for each of the modelled domains
and assigned in the block model for tonnage calculations.
The Mineral Resource is classified as Indicated where geological
continuity is assumed between drill holes, and where blocks have
been estimated within the first search volume (derived from the
Li2O% semi-variogram range), are within a drill hole
spacing of 50 m by 50 m and are not extrapolated more than
25 m beyond assay data. Inferred
Mineral Resources are defined as those blocks in which geological
continuity is implied but cannot be verified, due to drill hole
spacing beyond the 50 m grid and
beyond the semi-variogram range. Blocks extrapolated beyond
25 m from data are classified as
Inferred Mineral Resources.
A volume model of the Rubicon Slimes was constructed by MSA in
Leapfrog Geo. The volume model was imported into Datamine for block
model construction and estimation. Grades were estimated into the
volume by means of inverse distance weighting. A constant SG value
of 1.53 was applied for the estimation of tonnages.
Areas where the slimes were drilled at a spacing of closer than
20 m by 20
m were classified as Indicated Mineral Resources, the
remaining area of the model within the drilling grid was classified
as Inferred Mineral Resources. Inferred Mineral Resources were
extrapolated for a maximum distance of 50
m from the nearest hole intersection.
Helikon 1
A geological model of the Helikon 1
pegmatite was constructed by MSA in Leapfrog Geo. Internal
pegmatite domains were interpreted based on geological logging
which was further refined from assay data. The pegmatite and
internal domains were imported into Datamine Studio RM for block
model construction and estimation. Grades were estimated into the
pegmatite and internal domains by means of inverse distance
weighting as the data did not support the calculation and modelling
of stable semi-variograms for use in estimation.
Specific gravity (SG) determinations were carried out on drill
core utilizing the Archimedes principal. An average SG was
estimated for each of the modelled domains and assigned in the
block model for tonnage calculations.
The Mineral Resource is classified as Inferred as there are
insufficient data to model spatial continuity. The spacing of data
is sufficient to imply, but not verify, geological continuity and
some mineralized zones are informed by only a single drill
hole.
Helikon 2 – 5
Geological models of the Helikon
2-5 pegmatites were constructed by MSA in Leapfrog Geo. Internal
pegmatite domains were interpreted based on logging which was
further refined from assay data. The pegmatite and internal domains
were imported into Datamine Studio RM for block model construction
and estimation. Grades were estimated into the pegmatite and
internal domains by means of inverse distance weighting as the data
did not support the calculation and modelling of stable
semi-variograms for use in estimation.
Specific gravity (SG) determinations were carried out on drill
core utilizing the Archimedes principal. Average SG values were
estimated for each of the modelled domains and assigned in the
block models for tonnage calculations.
The Mineral Resources are all classified as Inferred as there
are insufficient data to model spatial continuity. The spacing of
data is sufficient to imply, but not verify, geological continuity
and some mineralized zones are informed by only a single drill
hole.
MSA recommends that the next phase of exploration includes
infill drilling at both Rubicon and Helikon 1-5 in order to
increase geological confidence with an aim of reporting Measured
Mineral Resources and possibly upgrading portions of the Inferred
Mineral Resources, as well as extending the Rubicon Mineral
Resource at depth. The potential to discover and delineate
additional LCT type pegmatites within the company's Mining License
and surrounding licenses is considered high following progress made
to date by the Company's exploration team (please refer to DLI
Press Release 15 August 2018 "Desert
Lion identifies prospective LCT pegmatite corridor and provides
update on exploration activities".)
Mineralogy
In order to better quantify the proportions
of lepidolite and other lithium bearing minerals, the Company took
a total of 481 samples from all deposits and completed assay
validated X Ray Diffraction ("XRD"); comprising 121 samples from
Rubicon and 360 samples from the Helikon 1-5 core samples. The
lithium minerals identified by the XRD are lepidolite, petalite,
cookeite, with traces of amblygonite at Helikon and traces of
spodumene at Rubicon. The cookeite is only present in samples
containing petalite and its content is directly proportional to the
petalite content and is interpreted as an alteration product of the
petalite.
Rubicon
Figure 6 plots the lithium mineral
proportions normalized to 100% and shows the relative increase in
the proportion of lepidolite relative to other lithium minerals
with increasing Li2O content. The high petalite contents
from in the last two high grade samples were from pure petalite
zones which tend to form small discontinuous patches within the
pegmatite.
Figure 7 below shows the relative proportions of the lithium
minerals for samples containing greater than 0.2% Li2O
with lepidolite (82%) being the dominant lithium mineral, followed
by petalite (12%), cookeite (6%) and traces of spodumene.
Helikon 1-5
Figure 8 plots of the lithium
mineral proportions normalized to 100% and shows the relative
increase in the proportion of lepidolite relative to other lithium
minerals with increasing Li2O content; amblygonite
present in some samples at higher Li2O contents.
Figure 9 below shows the relative proportions of the lithium
minerals in the samples containing greater than 0.2%
Li2O with lepidolite (85%) being the dominant lithium
mineral, followed by petalite (10%), cookeite (4%) and traces of
amblygonite.
Quality Control
Desert Lion has used four internationally accredited analytical
laboratories for the preparation and analyses for the samples used
in the Mineral Resource estimation: ALSChemex (Canada), SetPoint Laboratories (Johannesburg), Scientific Services
(Cape Town) and ACT Laboratories
(Canada), each of which is
independent of Desert Lion. Over and above the laboratory quality
assurance quality control ("QA/QC") routinely implemented by all
labs using pulp duplicate analysis, Desert Lion has developed an
internal QA/QC protocol which utilizes Certified Reference
Materials ("CRMs"), blanks and coarse crush duplicates on a
systematic basis with the samples shipped to the analytical
laboratories, as follows: 1 standard, 1 duplicate and 1 blank are
inserted every 30 samples (giving an average of c.10%). ALSChemex
was used as a check lab for SetPoint analyses, and the results show
an acceptable correlation to support the accuracy of the SetPoint
results.
In the QP's opinion the results of the QAQC program are
acceptable and the data therefore suitable for Mineral Resource
estimation and reporting according to National Instrument 43-101 –
Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (NI 43-101).
Qualified Persons
The MRE inputs were prepared by The MSA Group, a company
independent from Desert Lion. Anton
Geldenhuys, Pr.Sci.Nat and Michael Cronwright, Pr.Sci.Nat,
both from MSA are independent Qualified Persons as defined by
National Instrument 43-101. Mr. Geldenhuys and Mr. Cronwright have
reviewed and approved the technical information pertaining to the
Mineral Resource estimate and the geology in this news release.
The effective date of the MRE is 1
October 2018 and the supporting technical report prepared in
accordance with the National Instrument 43-101 Standards of
Disclosure for Mineral Projects, which supports the MRE, will
be filed on SEDAR within 45 days from this date.
About Desert Lion Energy
Desert Lion Energy is an emerging lithium development company
focused on building Namibia's
first large-scale lithium mine to be located approximately 210 km
from the nation's capital of Windhoek and 220 km from the Port of Walvis
Bay. The Company's Rubicon and Helikon mines are located within a
301 km2 prospective land package, with known lithium
bearing pegmatitic mineralization. The project site is accessible
year-round by road and has access to power, water, rail, port,
airport and communication infrastructure.
Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements
This news release contains "forward-looking information"
within the meaning of applicable securities laws. Generally, any
statements that are not historical facts may contain
forward-looking information, and forward-looking information can be
identified by the use of forward-looking terminology such as
"plans", "expects" or "does not expect", "is expected", "budget"
"scheduled", "estimates", "forecasts", "intends", "anticipates" or
"does not anticipate", or "believes", or variations of such words
and phrases or indicates that certain actions, events or results
"may", "could", "would", "might" or "will be" taken, "occur" or "be
achieved." Forward-looking information includes but is not limited
to statements and expectations regarding: the targeted additional
deposits within the Company's mining and exploration licences; the
potential for the results to support an economical project; the
timing for completion of the Preliminary Economic Assessment; and
the Company's planned work program for the Project and its
exploration and development schedule and timetable. ;
Forward-looking information is based on certain factors and
assumptions management believes to be reasonable at the time
such statements are made, including but not limited to, continued
exploration activities, lithium and other metal prices, the
estimation of initial and sustaining capital requirements, the
estimation of labour and production costs, the estimation of
mineral resources, assumptions with respect to currency
fluctuations, the timing and amount of future exploration and
development expenditures, receipt of required regulatory approvals,
the availability of necessary financing for the Project, permitting
and such other assumptions and factors as set out herein.
Forward-looking information is subject to known and unknown
risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause the actual
results, level of activity, performance or achievements of the
Company to be materially different from those expressed or implied
by such forward-looking information, including but not limited to:
risks related to changes in lithium prices; sources and cost of
power and water for the Project; the estimation of initial capital
requirements; the lack of historical operations; the estimation of
labour and operating costs; general global markets and economic
conditions; risks associated with exploration, development and
operations of mineral deposits; the estimation of initial targeted
mineral resource tonnage and grade for the Project; risks
associated with uninsurable risks arising during the course of
exploration, development and production; risks associated with
currency fluctuations; environmental risks; competition faced in
securing experienced personnel; access to adequate infrastructure
to support exploration activities; risks associated with changes in
the mining regulatory regime governing the Company and the Project;
completion of the environmental assessment process; risks related
to regulatory and permitting delays; risks related to potential
conflicts of interest; the reliance on key personnel; financing,
capitalization and liquidity risks including the risk that the
financing necessary to fund continued exploration and development
activities at the Project may not be available on satisfactory
terms, or at all; the risk of potential dilution through the
issuance of additional common shares of the Company; the risk of
litigation.
Although the Company has attempted to identify important
factors that cause results not to be as anticipated, estimated or
intended, there can be no assurance that such forward-looking
information will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future
events could differ materially from those anticipated in such
information. Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance
on forward-looking information. Forward-looking information is made
as of the date of this presentation and the Company does not
undertake to update or revise any forward-looking information this
is included herein, except in accordance with applicable securities
laws.
Mineral Resources are not Mineral Reserves and do not have
demonstrated economic viability. There is no certainty that all or
any part of Mineral Resources will be converted to Mineral
Reserves.
Inferred Mineral Resources are based on limited drilling
which suggests the greatest uncertainty for a resource estimate and
that geological continuity is only implied. Additional drilling
will be required to verify geological and mineralization continuity
and there is no certainty that all of the Inferred Resources will
be converted to Measured and Indicated Resources.
NEITHER TSX VENTURE EXCHANGE NOR ITS
REGULATION SERVICES PROVIDER (AS THAT TERM IS DEFINED IN THE
POLICIES OF THE TSX VENTURE EXCHANGE) ACCEPTS RESPONSIBILITY FOR
THE ADEQUACY OR ACCURACY OF THIS RELEASE
SOURCE Desert Lion Energy