Independent Review of Phase One Lithium in Clay R&D Completed
Independent Review of Phase One Lithium in Clay R&D Completed
-FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE-
Montréal, July 24, 2019 – St-Georges Eco-Mining Corp. (CSE: SX) (OTC: SXOOF) (FSE:
85G1) is pleased inform its shareholders that it has received the Independent Review of its Phase
I report titled “Bonnie Claire Metallurgical Evaluation and Process Development .” The
Company has communicated this information to its client, Iconic Minerals (TSX-V: ICM).
In December 2017, the Company entered into an agreement with Iconi c Minerals ltd that called
for St-Georges to develop an extraction process that would allow Iconic to economically exploit
the lithium resources discovered at Iconic’s 100% owned Bonnie Claire lithium deposit. ( For
details, please refer to St-Georges’ Press Release dated December 7, 2017) . The agreement has
three delivery milestones. The delivery of the current Independent Review Report constitutes the
conclusion of the Stage 1 Benchmark and calls for the issuance of 2,000,000 of Iconic’s common
shares to St-Georges. Iconic has also met its other obligations derived from this agreement by
participating in St-Georges’ private placement in January 2019 for CAD $100,000.
St-Georges’ Research & Development Vice-President, Enrico Di Cesare commented: “(…) T he
development team is looking forward to progressing the technology further (…) knowing that the
process works and can be independently executed is very encouraging. We are currently able to
leach between 99.97% and 100% of the lithium in solution (...) the on ly improvement possible at
this stage is to reduce processing time and the size of the feedstock with improved concentration.
significantly improve what was developed in Phase I, covered by this report. (…) We are
designing the pilot plant to keep a maximu m of flexibility to improve the initial steps of the
process. (…) We are looking forward to the big challenge that putting a 25t/w pilot plant in place
represents for us. (…) The reception we have had from the local communities approached is very
positive. People understand the need to produce lithium at low costs, and they embrace our
commitment to green technology. The government support we have received until now is beyond
what we would have normally expected. (…) We are now at the stage to increase and formalize
our relationships with higher-learning and public R&D entities. We are hopeful that it will allow
for even more innovation down the road (…)”
Summary of the Report
The objective of the process development by St -Georges Eco-Mining ltd was to rec over lithium
from the Bonnie Claire deposit.
SGS Lakefield Laboratory performed an elemental analysis and crys talline analysis of the
material that was received. The results indicated that the lithium was in a spodumene
(LiAlSi2O6) crystal form, and no chlorides were present. This suggests that the lithium is not the
residue of brines from a land-locked salt lake.
Recovery of lithium was tried with water, sulphuric acid, hydrochloric acid, and mixed acid
leaching. All obtained poor results at room temper ature and no pressure. Best results were at
higher temperatures for sulphuric acid , indicating a high -pressure roasting was required f or this
material. This is standard for this mineral but not practical at these concentrations. Sulphuric
acid with high t emperature, pressure, and roasting at conc entrations of 0.1% lithium or 0.2%
lithium (after air classification) is not practical.
Nitric acid was tried for selective leaching with positive results. At low temperature and with no
pressure, 100% of the lit hium was put into solution while avoiding the leaching of metals and
most of the other elements. Other leached materials were carbo nates (1/2 of the present iron wa s
found under carbonate form) and salts (Mg, Ca including sodium and lithium). With the expected
mined volume of over 7 million tons annually for 20,000 tons of lithium hydroxide produced,
this type of leaching strategy could help keep capital costs down by, amongst other things,
allowing for the design of a low-cost leach tank.
Concentration me thods were tested with early-stage results that call for further tweaking and
calibration. The air classification trials were able to remove half of the gangu e. The report
delivered to Iconic contains a separate independent report in whic h these tests were
independently performed and validated by Netzsch GmbH. The trials will be continued with a
focus on optimizing de-agglomeration and on crystal form optimization. Flotation trials were not
conclusive at this early stage. The selective lea ching results allowed the C ompany to plan
additional developments in Phase II. The use of resin for the purification of the lithium might be
pursued on the resulting leached material and in a parallel extensive test with an electrolysis pilot
plant to be set up to provide t he industry with samples for market acceptance . The latter being a
key to funding the project in the future.
Recovery of lithium was also tried with water, sulphuric acid, hydrochloric acid, and mixed acid
leaching. All obtained poor results at room temper ature and no pressure. Best results were at
higher temperatures for sulphuric acid , indicating a high -pressure roasting was required f or this
material. This is standard for this mineral but not practical at these concentrations. Sulphuric
acid with high t emperature, pressure, and roasting at conc entrations of 0.1% lithium or 0.2%
lithium (after air classification) is not practical.
Testing Results
SGS Lake field Laboratory was then approached for characterization and preliminary leaching
trials to better determine the strategy for development and approach going forward , and to get a
second opinion on the crystalline form of the lithium. An i ndependent characterization report
made by SGS Lakefield Laboratory is in Appendix A of the Phase I report delivered to Iconic.
Table 1: Crystalline Mineral Assemblage (SGS Lakefield)
Sample Major
(>30%Wt)
Moderate
(10%-30%Wt)
Minor
(2%-10%Wt)
Trace
(<2%Wt)
Head Assay
Bulk
-
potassium-feldspar, plagioclase,
quartz, analcime, calcite
I/M, illite, mica,
heulandite, spodumene
*halite, *siderite,
*magnetite, *chlorite
Clay Fraction I/M illite, (quartz), (potassium-feldspar) (heulandite) *chlorite
*tentative identification due to low concentrations, diffraction line overlap or poor crystallinity
*I/M – illite-montmorillonite mixture
Brackets indicate non-clay minerals present in the clay fraction.
The presence in clays of spodumene (the most common mineral form of lithi um in hard rock
lithium resources) may indicat e that it has been collected over centuries in the dried lake by the
erosion of lithium-bearing hard rock formations as fine clay-sized particles.
Table 2: XRD Crystal Structure (SGS Lakefield)
Mineral Head Assay
(wt %)
Orthoclase 25.8
Albite 16.6
Quartz 12.2
Analcime 12.1
Calcite 10.7
Illite-Montmorillonite 5.3
Phlogopite 4.1
Spodumene 3.2
Illite 3.1
Heulandite 2.8
Halite 1.3
Siderite 1.2
Magnetite 1.1
Clinochlore 0.6
Total 100
Spodumene repr esents approximately 3.2% by weight , and typical crystal form is LiAlSi2O6.
Lithium in this crystal form represents 3.7% by total weight. This correlates closely to the 0.1%
lithium readings that have been measured during resource estimates confirming the crystalline
form.
A chemical element distribution was also performed to tr y to predict options to c reate an
economical and environmentally viable solution for the recovery of the resource.
Table 3: Chemical Element Distribution (SGS Lakefield)
Name Assay¹ SQD² Delta Status
Oxygen 40.3 47.9 -7.55 Both
Silicon 25.1 26.2 -1.08 Both
Aluminum 6.35 7.09 -1.55 Both
Calcium 5.08 4.44 0.64 Both
Potassium 4.23 4.27 -0.03 Both
Sodium 3.41 3.28 0.13 Both
Iron 2.24 2.13 0.11 Both
Carbon - 1.41 -1.41 SQD
Magnesium 1.13 1.15 -0.02 Both
Chlorine - 0.76 -0.76 SQD
Hydrogen - 0.27 0.27 SQD
Fluorine - 0.18 0.18 SQD
Lithium 0.11 0.12 0.01 Both
Phosphorus 0.03 - 0.03 XRF
Titanium 0.22 - 0.22 XRF
Manganese 0.09 - 0.09 SRF
¹ Values measured by chemical assay.
² Values calculated based on mineral/compound formulas and quantities identi fied by semi-quantitative XRD.
The usual form of lithium present in typical brines is easy to dissolve in water. The common
forms of lithium associated with hard rock resource are spodumene LiAlSi2O6 and lepidolite
K(Li,Al,Rb)2(Al,Si)4O10(F,OH)2 which require aggress ive leach ing with high temperature and
roasting. As the economic recovery of the lithium would be severely hampered, a leaching trial
was performed at ambie nt temperature with conventional leaching options. Initial tests ha ve
shown that high temperature an d roasting would be necessary with conventional leaching
methods.
Table 4: Summary of Leach Tests
Test Lixiviant Solids Extractions (%)
Test Sample Temp Lixiviant Li Ca Mg
L-001
NV Clay
Comp Amb Water 2 0 0
L-002
NV Clay
Comp Amb H2SO4 11 15 8
L-003
NV Clay
Comp Amb HCl 7 92 4
L-004
NV Clay
Comp 80 H2SO4 15 14 9
L-005
NV Clay
Comp 80
H2SO4 +
Thiourea 40 16 40
Water Leach (L-001)
A lithium salt w ould normally be leached or dissolved in water. L-001 test demonstrates tha t
only 2% of the total li thium was recovered in solution , and a total of 11% weight loss of the
solids occurred. This indicates that only actual salts were dissolved in the water. A typical brine
would have allowed most of the lithium and salts to be recov ered in water which is no ticeably
not the case here. A water wash could reduce the impurities in the solution simplifying the total
purification steps by reducing sodium , for exampl e. Saturated salt water may help with
concentrating lithium fines during froth flotation and may be achieved by water recirculation.
Sulphuric Acid Leach (L-002, L-004, L-005)
At ambient temperature, test L-002 leached 11% of the lithium . With the temperature at 80⁰C
test L-004 with 15% of the lithium recovered provided the best results with s ulphuric acid. This
follows the logic of hard rock lithium minerals chemical recovering with high temperature
pressurized leach after roasting with conventional metho ds. Purification and neutralization
efforts are costly even with a 6% total lithium concentrate . At the concentrations being
discussed, the chemical usage and shee r size of the process plant , it would doubtfully be
economical.
Mixed acid was also tried wi th elements added to the sulphuric acid in test L-005. At 80⁰C, this
did improve the recovery of lithium to 40% but also increased other elements not targeted to be
leached. Even with mixed acid , the testing trend indicated high -temperature pressure vessels
would be needed . This would be very costly with low concentrations of lithium in addition to
leaching many impurities that would complicate the purification steps. The main advantage with
sulphuric acid is that calcium is precipitated as gypsum, thus eliminating one of the impurities.
Hydrochloric Acid Leach (L-003)
Test L-003 was only a little better than water leach ( L-001) with 7% of the total lithium
recovered and almost all the calcium. In this case , it is expected that increasing the temperature
would improve results, but more impurities would probably be leached at the same time. Mg and
Ca leached at the highest rate with HCl (Ca remains in solution with HCl).
Magnesium (Mg) and Calcium (Ca) cause problems for the recovery of lithium with resins and
organics. Conventional resins with brine s typical ly have a ratio of 6 to 1 for M agnesium to
Lithium before efficiency is severely diminished. This has led to the development of new resins
to operate in less favorable ratios. In the case of using acids , the chemical costs can become
prohibitive even if a resin for purification is found with unfavorable ratios.
St-Georges’ Process: Selective Leaching with Nitric Acid
Leaching with a passivating acid normally used to clean steel and passivate the welds of stainless
steel was performed in the hope of selectively removing the m agnesium (Mg) and all the salt
metals like sodium (Na), calcium (Ca), lithium (Li) and magnesium (Mg).
The initial results with a 4 -hour leach showed that all the salt metals and carbonate formations
leached easily. This follows the lo gic of cleaning acid and leaves most of the other elements
behind, such as silica (Si), alumina (Ai), potassium (K).
Multiple 1-hour leach tests confirmed the leaching of 100% of the lithium leaving behind
most of the leac hable elements from other acids s uch as potassium (K). The only loss of
lithium that occurred during some of these tests was due to the water in the filter with the
solids and represented less than 0.03% of the total lithium value . It also corresponds
directly to the water retained with t his type of fine material. Additional trials are being
performed with reduced time of contact and temperature to optimize the lithium-bearing
fines leaching.
The lithium in the super fines leached completely in each test performed with n itric acid. The
trials to selectively optimize leaching the lithium with less calcium and magnesium are expected
to be performed in the third quarter of 2019. It is expected that calcium can be reduced partially
by filtering the coarser cal cium formation as per SGS results and partially with less contact time
with the acid. The same for magnesium. New samples will be treated once received.
Considering the results obtained, St -Georges is working on strategic partnerships for new
organics mediums and resins that can work with nitric acid to selectively collect the lithium , as
well as for electrolysis with nitric acid mediums. The C ompany also started to work on
optimizing a new technology related to filter presses to reduce the facility size and environmental
footprint, and to decrease chemicals usage and waste disposal. The new filter press design will
be completed and available for viewing within two months. It is too early to know if this
development initiative will result in intellectual property that can be patented.
Yves Caron P.Geo. (OGQ #548) a Qualified Person under the National Instrument 43 -101
has reviewed and approved the technical content of the current press release
ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
“Vilhjalmur Thor Vilhjalmson”
VILHJALMUR THOR VILHJALMSON, PRESIDENT
About St-Georges
St-Georges is developing new technologies to solve some of the most common environmental
problems in the mining industry.
The Company controls directly or indirectly , through r ights of first refusal, all of th e active
mineral tenures in Iceland. It also explores for nickel on the Julie Nickel Project & for industrial
minerals on Quebec’s North Shore and for lithium and rare metals in Northern Quebec and in the
Abitibi region. Headquartered in Montreal, St -Georges’ stock is listed on the CSE under the
symbol SX, on the US OTC under the Symbol SXOOF , and on the Frankfurt Stock Exchange
under the symbol 85G1.
Cautionary Statements Regarding Forward-Looking Information
Certain statements included herein may constit ute “forward-looking statements.” All statements
included in this press release that address future events, conditions, or results, including in
connection with the prefeasibility study, its financing, job cre ation, the inv estments to complete
the project and the potential performance, production, and environmental footprint of the
ferrosilicon plant, are forward -looking statements. These forward -looking statements can be
identified by the use of words such as “may”, “must”, “plan”, “believe”, “expect”, “estimate”,
“think”, “continue”, “should”, “will”, “could”, “intend”, “anticipate”, or “future”, or the
negative forms thereof or similar variations. These forward -looking statements are based on
certain assumptions and analys es made by management in light of their experiences and their
perception of historical trends, current conditions, and expected future developments, as well as
other factors they believe are appropriate in the circumstances. These statements are subject to
risks, uncertainties, and assumptions, including those mentioned in the Corporation’s continuous
disclosure documents, which can be found under its profile on SEDAR ( www.sedar.com). Many
of such risks and uncertainties are outside the control of the Corporation and could cause actual
results to differ materially from those expressed or implied by such forward -looking statements.
In making such forward -looking statements, management has relie d upon a number of material
factors and assumpti ons, on the basis of currently available information, for which there is no
insurance that such information will prove accurate. All forward -looking statements are
expressly qualified in their entirety by the cautionary statements set forth above. The
Corporation is under no obligation, and expressly disclaims any intention or obli gation, to
update or revise any forward -looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future
events or otherwise, except as expressly required by applicable law.
Neither the CSE nor its Regulation Services Pro vider accept responsibility for t he adequacy or
accuracy of this release.