Nevada Lithium Files Preliminary Economic Assessment Technical Report on Bonnie Claire Lithium Project, Reporting US$6.83 Billion After -Tax NPV, 32.3% After -Tax IRR & 2.8 Year Capital Payback
Page 1 of 15
Nevada Lithium Files Preliminary Economic
Assessment Technical Report on Bonnie
Claire Lithium Project, Reporting US$6.83
Billion After -Tax NPV, 32.3% After -Tax IRR &
2.8 Year Capital Payback
Vancouver, British Columbia – September 9 , 2025 – Nevada Lithium Resources Inc. (TSXV: NVLH;
OTCQB: NVLHF; FSE: 87K) (“ Nevada Lithium ” or the “ Company ”) is pleased to announce that it has filed
on SEDAR+ an independent Technical Report entitled “Preliminary Economic Assessment NI 43-101
Technical Report , Bonnie Claire Lithium Project , Nye County, Nevada” (“ PEA ”).
The PEA has been prepared by Global Resource Engineering Ltd., (“ GRE ”) of Denver Colorado and Fluor
Enterprises, Inc. (“ Fluor ”) of Greenville, South Carolina, with technical input from Kemetco Research Inc.
(“ Kemetco ”) of Richmond, British Columbia, and Kinley Exploration LLC (“ Kinley ”) of Overland Park,
Kansas. The PEA has an effective date of March 31, 2025 and an issue date of July 28, 2025 . The PEA
incorporates a new Mineral Resource Estimate (“ Mineral Resource Estimate ”), with an effective date of
March 31, 2025.
Nevada Lithium’s CEO, Stephen Rentschler, comments:
“ W e a re plea sed to announce that we have filed an upda ted PEA on Sedar+ that reflects
the latest work on our lithium/boron project in Nevada. Over the last three years, with the
discovery and expansion of the Project’s high- grade l ithium/boron l ower z o ne, our
t ec hnical teams have genera ted a n expanded understanding of the potential value at
Bonnie Claire. This understanding is reflected in the results of the PEA we have
announced today.
The PEA concludes that Bonnie Claire could produce more than 62,300 tonnes of lithium
carbonate and 129,500 tonnes of boric acid annually, over a 61 -year mine life. Bonnie
Cl aire’s investment metrics show a 32.3% after tax IRR, a capital payback of 2.8 yea rs, and
a capital intensity of $34,080/tonne lithium carbonate. A $1,973/tonne boric acid by -
product credit generates a $6,800/tonne lithium carbonate operating cost.”
H e c ontinued, “Bonnie Claire has emerged a s one of the world’s largest a nd highest grade
s ed imentary hosted l ithium a nd b oron deposits, a nd remains o pen for expansion. 1 The
1 See: https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/projects/bonnie-claire-lithium-project-us/?cf-view, https://www.mining.com/featured-
article/ranked-worlds-largest-clay-and-hard-rock-lithium-projects-2/, and Lithium Equity Market Report published by RFC Ambrian
Page 2 of 15
p o tential for even higher grades and volumes could positively impact the PEA economics
already demonstrated. In addition, the Company has identified several areas for potential
value enhancement, including ore beneficiation, additional critical minerals, a nd reagent
pricing. New tax provisions in the recently passed US HR1 “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” could
also potentially enhance the PEA investment metrics.
We remain focused on creating shareholder value with the next steps in the development
of this asset, located in one of the world’s premier mining jurisdictions, Nevada, USA.”
Bonnie Claire PEA Highlights:
• $6.829 billion after -tax Net Present Value (“ NPV ”) at an 8% discount rate
• Annual production of 62,354 tonnes of lithium carbonate (Li 2CO3) and 129,533 tonnes of boric
acid per year over a 61 year mine- life
• 32.3% after -tax Internal Rate of Return (“ IRR ”)
• $2.125 billion initial capital costs, including $354 million in contingency
• Capital intensity of $34,080/tonne Li 2CO3
• Payback period of 2.8 years
• $24,000/tonne Li 2CO3 and $950/tonne boric acid price assumptions
• Operating cost of $6,800/tonne Li 2CO3
• All-in sustaining cost of $7,936/tonne Li 2CO3
• Break-even price (0% IRR) of $8,560/tonne Li 2CO3
The Company is evaluating multiple areas for optimization of Project economics. These areas include ore
beneficiation, additional critical mineral production, reagent pricing, and tax impacts generated by
provisions in the recently enacted US HR1 (“ One Big Beautiful Bill Act ”).
PEA Overview and Financial Analysis
Bonnie Claire is a sediment -hosted lithium deposit comprising a lower zone (“ Lower Zone ”) and an upper
zone (“ Upper Zone ”), encountered at different depths. The Lower Zone is characterized by high lithium
and high boron grades, while the Upper Zone is characterized by moderate lithium and low boron grades.
Because of the relative positive impact to economics of the higher g rades, the PEA is based on the mining
and extraction of mineralised material from the Lower Zone. The mining and extraction of Upper Zon e
material is not examined in the PEA but could be revisited as a separate project in the future.
The PEA contemplates an underground operation using a Hydraulic Borehole Mining (“ HBHM”) method
producing at 8,000 tonnes/day, or 2.92 million tonnes/year of >4,500ppm Li material from the high- grade
Lower Zone. Mineralised material will be processed by whole- ore agitated tank leaching using sulfuric
acid. After processing, the residual mineralised material will be stored as dry -stack tailings on the Project.
Results for the Project are:
dated November 2023, all of which were prepared by arm’s length parties to the Company. Current internal company estimates support
the reports referenced above.
Page 3 of 15
• $6.829 billion after -tax NPV at an 8% discount rate
• Annual production of 62,354 tonnes of Li 2CO3 and
129,533 tonnes of boric acid per year, with a potential 61 year mine- life
• 32.3% after -tax IRR
• $2.125 billion initial capital costs ($354 million in contingency)
• $24,000/tonne Li 2CO3 and $950 /tonne boric acid price assumptions
• Payback period of 2.8 years
• Operating cost of $6,800/tonne Li 2CO3
• All-in sustaining cost of $7,936/tonne Li 2CO3
• Break-even price (0% IRR) of $8,560/tonne Li 2CO3
• 85% overall lithium recovery, with 48% overall boron recovery
Cautionary Statement:
The PEA is preliminary in nature and is based on numerous assumptions, and some Inferred mineral resources are
used in the economic analysis. Inferred mineral resources are considered too speculative geologically to have
economic considerations applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as mineral reserves. No mineral
reserves have been estimated. There is no guarantee that Inferred resources can be converted to Indicated or
Measured resources and, as such, there is no guarantee that the Project economics described herein will be
achieved.
Mineral Resources were estimated using the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (CIM) Standards
on Mineral Resources and Reserves, Definitions (2014) and Best Practices (2019) prepared by the CIM Standing
Committee on Reserve Definitions and adopted by CIM Council (the “ CIM Definitions ”).
Mineral Resources are stated for the first time under NI 43 -101 standards of disclosure and verified by independent
Qualified Persons (as such term is defined in NI 43 -101). See the section of this news released titled “QP Disclosure”
for further details.
Mineral Resources are not Mineral Reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability. There is no certainty
that all or any part of the Mineral Resources will be converted into Mineral Reserves. Inferred Mineral Resources are
that part of a Mineral R esource for which quantity and grade or quality are estimated on the basis of limited geological
evidence and sampling. Geological evidence is sufficient to imply but not verify geological and grade or quality
continuity. It is reasonably expected that the majority of Inferred Mineral Resources could be upgraded to Indicated
Mineral Resources with continued exploration.
Sensitivity Analyses
Sensitivity of the Project was evaluated to changes in lithium carbonate price, lithium grade, capital costs,
and operating costs, these results are shown in Table 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3. The cash flow model is most
sensitive to changes in lithium carbo nate price and lithium grade, is moderately sensitive to changes in
capital cost, and least sensitive to changes in operating costs.
Page 4 of 15
Table 1: Bonnie Claire Lithium Project Sensitivity Analysis
Variable
% of Base Case
80% 90 % 100% 110% 120%
NPV8 (million $)
Capital Cost $7,238 $7,033 $6,829 $6,624 $6,420
Operating Cost $7,732 $7,280 $6,829 $6,378 $5,926
Lithium Price $4,337 $5,583 $6,829 $8,075 $9,321
Lithium Grade $5,031 $5,930 $6,829 $7,728 $8,627
IRR
Capital Cost 39.2% 35.4% 32.3% 29.7% 27.5%
Operating Cost 35.3% 33.8% 32.3% 30.8% 29.3%
Lithium Price 24.0% 28.2% 32.3% 36.3% 40.1%
Lithium Grade 26.4% 29.4% 32.3% 35.1% 37.9%
Note: IRR (internal rate of return) and NPV (net present value) are both shown after -tax
Figure 2: Bonnie Claire Lithium Project NPV@8% Sensitivity to Varying Lithium Carbonate Price, Lithium
Grade, Capital Costs, and Operating Costs
Page 5 of 15
Figure 3: Bonnie Claire Lithium Project IRR Sensitivity to Varying Lithium Carbonate Price, Lithium Grade,
Capital Costs, and Operating Costs
Capital Costs
The capital costs for the first 40 years of production are summarized in Table 4. The initial capital costs
total $2,125 million, which includes $354.1 million in contingency.
Table 4: Bonnie Claire Lithium Project Capital Cost Summary
Item 1000s $
Mine Capital
Borehole Mining Production Equipment $231,900
Borehole Mining Equipment Replacement $363,030
Support Equipment $6,182
Support Equipment Replacement $12,442
Total Mine Capital $613,554
Infrastructure Capital
Access Roads $4,000
Facilities $38,791
Security $650
Utilities $116,775
Fuel System $7,457
Surface Water Management $10,000
Slurry Transport to Plant $6,921
Water Return to Mining $4,455
Tailings Facility $30,119
Page 6 of 15
Item 1000s $
Freight and Tax $23,232
Total Infrastructure Capital $242,401
G&A Capital
Owner's Costs $26,815
Bonding $11,213
Drilling and Metallurgical Testing $5,000
Feasibility Study/Pilot Project $30,000
Construction Insurance $10,000
Permitting $5,000
Total G&A Capital $88,028
Laboratory Capital
Facility and Equipment $4,973
Total Laboratory Capital $4,973
Plant Capital
Processing Facility $704,405
Sulfuric Acid Plant $175,835
Other Costs and Indirects $489,583
Total Plant Capital $1 ,369,824
Working Capital $90,935
Sustaining Capital $6,297
Contingency $476,861
Total Capital Costs $2,892,873
Operating Costs
Operating costs for the Project are summarized in Table 5.
Table 5: Operating Cost Summary
Area
Average Annual
(1000s $)
($/tonne
Li 2CO 3)
Mine $113,614 $1,822.07
Processing $376,455 $6,037.36
G&A $7,259 $116.41
Contingency $49,733 $797.58
Boric Acid Credit ($1 23,0 56) ($1 973.50 )
Total Operating Costs $424,004 $6,799.92
Page 7 of 15
Mineral Resource Estimate
The PEA incorporates a new Mineral Resource Estimate, which has an effective date of March 31, 2025.
Mineralisation remains open to the NW, NE and SE, increasing in grade and overall thickness in those
directions.
The Mineral Resource Estimate comprises separate estimates of the Lower Zone, characterised by high
grade lithium and boron and the Upper Zone, characterised by moderate- grade lithium and boron.
Lower Zone
The Lower Zone forms a shallowly -dipping sheet approximately 300 -350m thick, intersected between
approximately 500 -850m depth, and remains open to the NW, NE and SE. The mineral resource estimate
for the Lower Zone is presented in Table 6. The base- case mineral resource is reported at an 1,800 ppm
cut-off, based on a reasonable prospect of economic extraction using the underground HBHM method,
assuming a 60% HBHM Recovery.
Table 6: Bonnie Claire Lower Zone Mineral Resource Estimate With 60%
Borehole Mining Recovery
Class
Lithium Boron
Mass
(Million
Tonnes)
ID2 Li
Grade
(ppm )
Li
(Million
Tonnes)
Li
Carbonate
Equivalent
(Million
Tonnes)
Mass
(Million
Tonnes
B Grade
(ppm )
B (million
Tonnes)
Boric Acid
Equivalent
(Million
Tonnes
Indicate d 275.85 3,519 0.971 5.167 275.85 10,758 2.968 16.973
Inferred 1,561.06 3,085 4.816 25.634 1,561.06 9,593 14.976 85.654
1. The effective date of the Mineral Resource Estimate is March 31, 2025.
2. The Qualified Person for the estimate is Terre Lane of GRE.
3. Mineral Resources are not Mineral Reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability.
4. Mineral Resources are reported at a 1,800 ppm Li cutoff, an assumed lithium carbonate (Li 2CO3) price of $20,000/tonne, 5.323 tonnes of
Li2CO3 per tonne Li.
5. The Boric Acid Equivalent calculation assumes 5.719452 tonnes of boric acid per tonne of boron.
6. Numbers in the table have been rounded to reflect the accuracy of the estimate and may not sum due to rounding.
Upper Zone
The Upper Zone forms a sub -horizontal sheet extending from surface to about 425ft (130m) depth, and
remains open to the NW, NE and SE. The mineral resource estimate for Upper Zone is presented in Table
7. The base -case resource is reported at a 900ppm cut- off, based on conventional open- pit methods.
Page 8 of 15
Table 7: Bonnie Claire Upper Zone Mineral Resource Estimate Within a
Constraining Pit Shell
Class
Lithium Boron
Mass
(Million
Tonnes)
ID2 Li
Grade
(ppm )
Li
(Million
Tonnes)
Li
Carbonate
Equivalent
(Million
Tonnes)
Mass
(Million
Tonnes)
B Grade
(ppm )
B (Million
Tonnes)
Boric Acid
Equivalent
(Million
Tonnes
Indicated 188.08 1,074 0.202 1.075 188.08 2,140 0.403 2.302
Inferred 451.10 1,106 0.499 2.655 449.88 1,911 0.860 4.918
1. The effective date of the Mineral Resource Estimate is March 31, 2025.
2. The Qualified Person for the estimate is Terre Lane of GRE.
3. Mineral Resources are not Mineral Reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability.
4. Mineral Resources are reported at a 900 ppm Li cutoff, an assumed lithium carbonate (Li 2CO3) price of $20,000/tonne, 5.323 tonnes of
Li2CO3 per tonne Li, 75% recovery, a slope angle of 18 degrees, no royalty, processing and G&A cost of $26.52/tonne, mining cost of
$3.52/tonne, and selling costs of $100/tonne Li 2CO3.
5. The boric acid equivalent calculation assumes 5.719452 tonnes of boric acid per tonne of boron.
6. Numbers in the table have been rounded to reflect the accuracy of the estimate and may not sum due to rounding.
Mining Methods
The Preliminary Economic Assessment is based on the application of the HBHM method to a high- grade
subset of the Lower Zone of the Bonnie Claire deposit. No mining method has been applied to the Upper
Zone, due to moderate lithium grades, but this may be revisited in the future.
Kinley was asked to establish a reasonable and economic mining strategy utilizing HBHM within Bonnie
Claire lithium resource deposit to extract lithium in a continuous, efficient, cost effective and safe
manner in the targeted higher -grade zone from 450 meters to 900 meters deep.
HBHM technology is a surface- based mining method that uses a high- pressure water jet to
disaggregate the mineralization and then evacuate the slurrified material back to surface, in this case
via a hydraulic airlift method.
Kinley’s analysis took into consideration that the mineralization is highly plastic and with the assistance
of jetting and pumping would likely flow. With this information, coupled with the significant cost of
backfilling and then the consideration of subsidence, Kinley evaluated HBHM without backfilling and
using directional drilling from a stable position.
The current mining application considered would be to directionally drill a single large diameter
production well centered under the targeted resource section to be mined (Figure 8). The well would be
drilled with an 85 -meter offset from the center of the target mine section.
Construction of the production well would be to case the well to within 6 to 18 meters of the projected
bottom of the resource to be mined. The bottom section would then be mined out to open an initial