Cypress Begins Drill Program at Dean Lithium Claystone Project in Clayton
Suite 1610 - 777 Dunsmuir Street, Vancouver, BC, Canada, V7Y 1K4
www.cypressdevelopmentcorp.com
TSX Venture Exchange Symbol: CYP
Email: [email protected]
Telephone: (604) 687-3376
Facsimile: (604) 687-3119
NEWS RELEASE
February 14, 2017
Cypress Begins Drill Program at Dean Lithium Claystone Project
in Clayton Valley, Nevada, Completes Water Solubility Study
Vancouver, BC - Cypress Development Corp. (TSX -V: CYP) (OTCBB: CYDVF)
(Frankfurt: C1Z1) (“Cypress” or the “Company”) is pleased to announce it has
commenced mobilization of a drilling program to explore for depth extensions of
outcropping lithium mineralization in uplifted basin evaporite bearing mud stone and
claystone at its 2,700 acre “Dean” Project located in the central Clayton Valley of
Nevada.
Cypress Clayton Valley Lithium Project, Nevada location map:
http://www.cypressdevelopmentcorp.com/i/maps/CYP-Clayton-topo-satalite-small.jpg
The Company's Dean Project is located to the immediate east of lithium brine wells
belonging to the Albemarle Silver Peak Mine with Cypress' Glory Project lo cated to
the immediate south and Advantage Lithium ’s/Nevada Sunrise's project located to
the immediate north.
Extensive sampling by Cypress at the Dean Project has identified strong lithium
mineralization up to 3,700 ppm lithium (1.98% lithium carbonate e quivalent) in a
highly soluble uplifted lakebed mudstone and claystone in the 2 square kilometer
Frontera Verde Zone that averages 1,500 ppm lithium (0.80% lithium carbonate
equivalent) at surface.
Outcropping lithium-rich mudstones at Dean Project:
http://www.cypressdevelopmentcorp.com/i/photos/DEAN-
CYP_Clayton_Valley_Lithium_Mineralized_Claystone.jpg
The U.S. Bureau of Land Managemen t has approved 12 exploration drill hole
locations into the Dean Frontera Verde Zone. Cypress plans to drill the 12 vertical
holes using NQ diamond drill core methods of approximately 2 inch diameter core .
Morningstar Drilling of Three Forks, Montana will complete the drilling. Drilling is
expected to begin on or about February 15, 2017.
In addition to planning and starting the Dean drill program, Cypress has been closely
analyzing the chemistry of the known mineralized rocks by conducting a detailed
study comparing Cypress’ original assays ( total extraction four -acid assays) to the
2
results of selective leach extraction deionized water assays. Deionized water is water
of neutral pH and is basically identical to rain water or distilled water.
The finding of the study can be summarized as extremely encouraging for the
planning of future more advanced lithium extraction investigations. The results of this
latest study are presented below.
Analysis of Deionized Water Leach Assay Results from Dean Lithium Project
Summary:
A total of fifty surface samples from the Dean property have been analyzed by ALS
Chemex’s lab in Reno, Nevada using method ME-MS03. This method involves using
deionized water as the leach agent for extraction of easily soluble minerals and other
element ions that are present in the prepared rock sample pulps.
The purpose of this work was an initial evaluation of extraction of lithium and other
elements from the samples using water only. The important questions to answer in
this study were the solubility of lithium in water and also the solubility of other
associated evaporite elements such as sodium, potassium, magnesium and calcium.
Data, Methodology and Results:
The core data for this study were assay results from two fundamental ly different
assay procedures. The methods are;
1. ME-ICP61 method known as a four acid assay as it uses a mixture of acids to
completely dissolve the sample in a highly corrosive solution of acids. The
resulting solution is then analyzed for the amounts of in dividual elements
present, here expressed as percent (%). This assay method produces a
complete accounting of the make-up of the rock being assayed, nothing is left
behind. This is known as complete digestion.
2. ME-MS03 method which uses only deionized w ater as the leaching solution.
Assay results from this method will be entirely dependent of the solubility, in
water, of the minerals or ion complexes that occur in the sample. This method
will not extract elements from many minerals including sil icates, sulfides,
carbonates etc.
The results of this study are formed by comparing the assays from these two very
different methods for the elements of importance in the Clayton Valley ; lithium (Li),
magnesium (Mg), calcium (Ca), potassium (K) and sodium (Na).
An ideal outcome of a water leach assay would be a large percentage extraction of
lithium along with a low percentage extraction of other evaporite elements, especially
magnesium and calcium, versus the assays of these elements in the four acid
method.
The results of the fifty deionized water leach assays show exactly that, strong
extraction of lithium with very low extraction of magnesium and calcium. The water
and soluble element “synthetic brine” produced for assay from the samples has very
3
similar chemistry to that of reported chemistry of production brines from the Clayton
Valley and to brines reported by Pure Energy Minerals within their northern resource
area.
This similarity of the “synthetic brine” from the Cypress deionized water leach assay
(ALS Chemex method ME-MS03) compared to production and resource brines in the
Clayton Valley is most clearly seen in the ratios of lithium vs. other e vaporite
elements in solution. These ratios are the standard reporting structure for the
evaluation of the chemical quality of brines worldwide. In particular, relatively high
amounts of lithium in comparison to the amount of magnesium and calcium in
solution th at are critical parameters in evaluating the suitability of a brine for
processing using both traditional and new-era lithium production processes.
For Cypress, the comparison of the lithium to calcium, sodium, potassium and
magnesium ratios for our deionized water leach brine, or synthetic brine, to the same
ratios for both production brines and bri nes included in lithium resource estimates
within the Clayton Valley is of critical importance in providing a first order estimation
of the suitability of these synthetic brines for lithium extraction processing using
either the tradition al evaporation and precipitation process similar to Albemarle’s
Silver Peak Mine or for possible processing in one of the new processes being
developed by Pure Energy Minerals.
Cypress used public data that exists for a number of samples of these production
and resource brines for this study . These data c ame from Pure Energy’s July 28,
2015 NI 43-101 Technical Report on its Clayton Valley South lithium project and from
subsequent news releases by Pure Energy Minerals. The inclusion of chemical data
on Albemarle’s production brines was possible by examining public data on these
brines which are reported as part of Albemarle’s annual reporting requirements to the
Nevada Department of Environmental Protection and to the State of Nevada Water
Resources.
The key results of th e Cypress solubility study are presented below beginning with a
side by side comparison of assays (in percentage) of the important elements in the
rock samples as reported by ALS Chemex for the two different assay methods. The
pairs of numbers for each me thod represent the average for the fifty samples in the
study:
Water Solubility of Lithium from Surface Rock Samples Comparison of Assays
from Four Acid Digestion and Distilled Water Methods:
Lithium Magnesium Calcium Potassium Sodium
ME-
ICP61
ME-
MS03
ME-
ICP61
ME-
MS03
ME-
ICP61
ME-
MS03
ME-
ICP61
ME-
MS03
ME-
ICP61
ME-
MS03
Li Li Mg Mg Ca Ca K K Na Na
0.12% 0.05% 2.12% 0.14% 4.87% 0.11% 4.54% 0.29% 3.59% 2.90%
The results from the table above show that the deionized water leach assay method
would result in a water solution containing an average of 0.05% Li, 0.14% Mg, 0.11%
Ca, 0.29% K, and 2.9% Na. These results are compared to other basin brine
chemistries below in this study. The values are straight assay values for the
elements as found in the deionized water solution used in the assay procedure.
4
The study looked at the solubility of each of the important elements in a fashion
which compares the complete extraction of each element in the four acid method
versus the partial extract using only deionized water.
As the chart below clearly shows, two elements, lithium and sodium, show strong
solubility into water versus a four acid solution while the remainder of the elements
show remarkably low solubility in water versus a four acid solution. The difference is
significant and the result is that a water solution is created which contains
approximately 42% of the lithium and 81% of the sodium of the original rock but
contains only trace amounts of the undesirable elements magnesium, calcium and
potassium, all of which are less than 1%.
Solubility in Deionized Water vs. 4 Acid Digestion:
Element % Solubility
Lithium
42.00%
Magnesium 0.07%
Calcium 0.02%
Potassium 0.06%
Sodium 81.10%
The table below compares the soluti on chemistry of the Dean deionized water
“synthetic brine” produced by ALS Chemex during the ME -MS03 assays to actual
production and resource brines in the Clayton Valley. Note that the lithium value for
the water leach solution from Dean claystones is mo re than double that of the Pure
Energy brine and is four times that of the Albemarle production brine.
Element Dean Claystones CV-1 (@700 feet) Well 392
Lithium % 0.047 0.0204 0.012
Magnesium % 0.140 0.0464 0.031
Calcium % 0.110 0.0835 0.039
Potassium % 0.290 0.3660 0.220
Sodium % 2.90 4.14 2.50
Cypress Pure Energy Albemarle
The data is significant when comparing the chemistry of the Cypress synthetic brine
with two examples of bri nes from the Clayton Valley. As can be seen in the chart
above, the Cypress synthetic brine is materially higher in lithium tha n the resource
brine of Pure Energy Minerals or the production brine of A lbemarle’s Silver Peak
Mine.
The results needed to be viewed in relation to the other elements to more clearly see
if th ese three different solutions containing lithium and other elements are truly
similar. To do this , Cypress looked at ratios of lithium with the other elements in
each s ample. This produce d the critical metal ratios which are used for the
evaluation of the processing characteristics of brines in terms of efficiency of lithium
extraction from the mineral brines.
5
The metal ratios for each of the three mineral brines are presented below:
Ratio Dean Claystones CV-1 (@700 feet) Well 392
Mg/Li 2.98 2.27 2.58
Ca/Li 2.34 4.09 3.25
K/Li 6.17 17.94 18.33
Na/Li 61.70 202.94 208.33
Cypress Pure Energy Albemarle
Conclusions:
The ratio data above compares in a n effective way the chemistries of a synthetic
brine made from surface outcropping claystones on the C ypress Dean property with
basin brines of the Clayton Valley. The ratios suggest that the synthetic brine is
chemically very similar to the two selected basin brines . This is particular true in the
critical magnesium/lithium (Mg/Li) ratio where the total range of values for the three
solutions falls within a narrow range.
The following points are apparent and supported by the mineral solubility data:
1. It appears that a lithium bearing mineral solution that is chemically similar to
the production and resource brines of the Clayton valley can be produced by
the leaching of surface exposed evaporate stratigraphy in water.
2. Comparison of ratios with other important elements also shows the Dean
“Synthetic Brine” to compare favorably with basin production brines.
3. The data provide s further strong support for the idea that the production
brines of the basin are being continuously recharged by leaching of lithium
and other elements from the uplifted and exposed former lake basin
sediments that outcrop in a wide be lt along the east margin of the Clayton
Valley.
4. This recharge mechanism strongly supports the importance of the
outcropping and buried claystones as a very significant lithium source rock.
Our chemistry work -up as presented here shows how rain water woul d
extract lithium and sod ium from the uplifted, mineralized basin sediments at
much higher rates than the extraction of magnesium and calcium. This
process would neatly account for the chemistry of basin production brines
versus the chemistry of source rock claystones.
5. The potential for the existence of ground water mineral brines under and
immediately adjacent to the exposed belt of lithium rich rocks is high as the
water flow pathways for the recharge system are likely to be vertical as well
as horizontal.
6
Don Huston, President of Cypress Development, stated: “Assays from surface
sampling at the Dean Project have returned extremely encouraging results in the
form of widespread high lithium mineralization hosted within highly reactive and
soluble rock units. We have now completed detailed analysis of the results of several
different assay methods as a first order study of potential extraction methods of the
lithium from the host rock sequence . Th is study highlights the similarity of the
solutions made f rom dissolving the surface claystone in water compared to
production brines of the basin. The results of the study strongly indicate that recovery
of lithium from a solution from the outcropping evaporates and water could potential
be done by methods currently being used in the Clayton Valley and by new methods
under development by Pure Energy Minerals and others.”
Robert Marvin, PGeo, Exploration Manager for Cypress Development Corp., is the
qualified person as defined by National Instrument 43 -101 and has approved of the
technical information in this release.
About Cypress Development Corp.:
Cypress development Corp is a publicly traded lithium and zinc exploration company
that continues to acquire and develop potentially viable mineral projects in the State
of Nevada, U.S.A.
Cypress is very active in Clayton Valley, Nevada with its team committed to
systematically exploring its propert ies for both a lithiu m-brine resource and
expanding exploration relating to the potential for a lithium resource that exists within
the large area of non-hectorite “claystones” discovered at surface that has seen
recent high lithium assays recovered from these same “claystones”.
Cypress Development Corp. has approx. 33.4 million shares issued and outstanding.
To find out more about Cypress Development Corp. (TSX -V: CYP), visit our website
at www.cypressdevelopmentcorp.com.
CYPRESS DEVELOPMENT CORP.
“Don Huston”
DONALD C. HUSTON
President
For further information contact myself or:
Don Myers
Director
Cypress Development Corp.
Telephone: 604-687-3376
Toll Free: 800-567-8181
Facsimile: 604-687-3119
Email: [email protected]
NEITHER THE TSX VENTURE EXCHANGE NOR ITS REGULATION SERVICES
PROVIDER ACCEPTS RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ADEQUACY OR ACCURACY OF THE
CONTENT OF THIS NEWS RELEASE.
7
This release includes certain statements that ma y be deemed to be "forward -looking
statements". All statements in this release, other than statements of historical facts, that
address events or developments that management of the Company expects, are forward -
looking statements. Although management belie ves the expectations expressed in such
forward-looking statements are based on reasonable assumptions, such statements are not
guarantees of future performance, and actual results or developments may differ materially
from those in the forward -looking stat ements. The Company undertakes no obligation to
update these forward -looking statements if management's beliefs, estimates or opinions, or
other factors, should change. Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from
those in forward -looking statements, include market prices, exploration and development
successes, continued availability of capital and financing, and general economic, market or
business conditions. Please see the public filings of the Company at www.sedar.com for
further information.