Thacker Pass FS 11022022

Feasibility Study
National Instrument 43-101

Technical Report for the
Thacker Pass Project
Humboldt County, Nevada, USA
Effective Date: November 2, 2022
Prepared by:
Daniel Roth, P.E., P.Eng. (M3) Walter Mutler, P.Eng. (EXP)
Laurie Tahija, QP-MMSA (M3) Kevin Bahe, P.E. (Sawtooth)
Eugenio Iasillo, P.E. (Process Paul Kaplan, P.E. (NewFields)

Engineering LLC)
Kevin Martina, P.Eng. (Wood) Tyler Cluff, RM-SME (Piteau)
Benson Chow, RM-SME (Sawtooth) Bruce Shannon, P.E. (ITAC)

Lithium Americas Corp.
Feasibility Study, National Instrument 43-101 Technical Report
for the Thacker Pass Project, Humboldt County, Nevada, USA
Date and Signatures Page

The effective date of this report is November 2, 2022. The report issuance date is January 31, 2023. The
Qualified Persons (QPs) do not believe that material changes have occurred with the assumptions or base
data from the effective dates to the report’s date of issuance. See Appendix A, Feasibility Study Contributors
and Professional Qualifications, for certificates of qualified persons. These certificates are considered the
date and signature of this report in accordance with Form 43-101F1.
Page ii
Table of Contents
Date and Signatures Page .......................................................................................................................... ii
Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................................... iii
List of Figures and Illustrations .............................................................................................................. vii
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................... x
1 Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Property Location, Description and Ownership .................................................................. 1
1.3 Geology ............................................................................................................................... 1
1.4 Deposit Types ..................................................................................................................... 2
1.5 Exploration .......................................................................................................................... 2
1.6 Drilling ................................................................................................................................. 2
1.7 Sample Preparation, Analyses and Security ...................................................................... 3
1.8 Data Verification .................................................................................................................. 3
1.9 Metallurgical Testing ........................................................................................................... 4
1.10 Mineral Resources and Reserves ....................................................................................... 5
1.11 Mine Methods...................................................................................................................... 6
1.12 Recovery Methods .............................................................................................................. 7
1.13 Infrastructure ....................................................................................................................... 8
1.14 Market Studies and Contracts............................................................................................. 9
1.15 Capital and Operating Costs ............................................................................................. 10
1.16 Financial Model ................................................................................................................. 12
1.17 Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................................................ 13
2 Introduction and Terms of Reference ........................................................................................ 16
2.1 Sources of Information ...................................................................................................... 16
2.2 Description of Personal Inspections.................................................................................. 19
2.3 Units, Currency and Terms of Reference ......................................................................... 21
3 Reliance on Other Experts .......................................................................................................... 26
4 Property Description and Location ............................................................................................ 27
4.1 Property Description.......................................................................................................... 27
4.2 Mineral Tenure .................................................................................................................. 30
4.3 Nature and Extent of Interest and Title ............................................................................. 32
4.4 Royalties, Rights and Payments ....................................................................................... 33
4.5 Environmental Liabilities ................................................................................................... 33
4.6 Permitting .......................................................................................................................... 33
4.7 Other Factors or Risks ...................................................................................................... 34
4.8 Conclusions....................................................................................................................... 34
5 Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure, and Physiography ........................ 35
5.1 Physiography .................................................................................................................... 35
5.2 Accessibility....................................................................................................................... 35
5.3 Climate .............................................................................................................................. 35
5.4 Local Resources ............................................................................................................... 37
5.5 Infrastructure ..................................................................................................................... 37
5.6 Water Rights ..................................................................................................................... 38
6 History ........................................................................................................................................... 39
6.1 Ownership History ............................................................................................................. 39
6.2 Exploration History ............................................................................................................ 39
Page iii
6.3 Historic Production from the Property ............................................................................... 40

7 Geological Setting and Mineralization ....................................................................................... 41
7.1 Regional Geology.............................................................................................................. 41
7.2 Geologic History of the McDermitt Caldera ...................................................................... 42
7.3 Mineralization .................................................................................................................... 44
8 Deposit Types............................................................................................................................... 49
8.1 Lithium Mineralization ....................................................................................................... 49
8.2 Basis of Exploration .......................................................................................................... 49
9 Exploration ................................................................................................................................... 51
9.1 Thacker Pass .................................................................................................................... 51
9.2 Additional Exploration ....................................................................................................... 53
10 Drilling ........................................................................................................................................... 54
10.1 Type and Extent of Drilling by LAC ................................................................................... 54
10.2 Additional Drilling in Thacker Pass Deposit ...................................................................... 58
10.3 Surveying .......................................................................................................................... 59
10.4 Accuracy and Reliability of Drilling Results ....................................................................... 59
11 Sample Preparation, Analyses, and Security ............................................................................ 60
11.1 LAC Site Sample Preparation ........................................................................................... 60
11.2 Laboratory Sample Preparation ........................................................................................ 61
11.3 Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 62
11.4 Density .............................................................................................................................. 62
11.5 Quality Control .................................................................................................................. 67
11.6 Qualified Person Statement .............................................................................................. 73
12 Data Verification ........................................................................................................................... 74
12.1 Site Inspection................................................................................................................... 74
12.2 Data Verification Procedures ............................................................................................ 76
12.3 Drill Core and Geologic Logs ............................................................................................ 76
12.4 Verification of Drill Hole Survey ........................................................................................ 76
12.5 Verification of Analytical Data ........................................................................................... 79
12.6 Geological and Block Modelling ........................................................................................ 79
12.7 Mine Design and LOM Plan .............................................................................................. 80
12.8 Data Adequacy.................................................................................................................. 81
13 Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing .......................................................................... 82
13.1 Ore Collection for Metallurgical Testing ............................................................................ 82
13.2 Metallurgical Test Work by Area ....................................................................................... 88
13.3 Beneficiation and Leaching Variability Study .................................................................. 113
13.4 Specific Gravity ............................................................................................................... 116
13.5 Metallurgical Test Work Conclusions .............................................................................. 117
14 Mineral Resource Estimates ..................................................................................................... 118
14.1 Thacker Pass Deposit ..................................................................................................... 118
14.2 Comments ....................................................................................................................... 145
15 Mineral Reserve Estimates ....................................................................................................... 146
15.1 Pit Optimization ............................................................................................................... 146
15.2 Mineral Reserves and Cutoff Grade ............................................................................... 148
15.3 Waste .............................................................................................................................. 150
15.4 Stripping Ratio................................................................................................................. 150
15.5 Mineral Reserve Estimate – EIS Pit ................................................................................ 151
Page iv
15.6 Comments ....................................................................................................................... 151

16 Mining Methods .......................................................................................................................... 152
16.1 Pit Design ........................................................................................................................ 152
16.2 Mine Plan ........................................................................................................................ 153
16.3 Mining Operations ........................................................................................................... 162
16.4 Equipment Selection ....................................................................................................... 164
16.5 Personnel Requirements ................................................................................................ 166
16.6 Fuel ................................................................................................................................. 167
16.7 Drilling and Blasting ........................................................................................................ 167
16.8 Dewatering ...................................................................................................................... 169
17 Recovery Methods ..................................................................................................................... 170
17.1 General Description ........................................................................................................ 170
17.2 Process Design Criteria .................................................................................................. 172
17.3 Process Description ........................................................................................................ 176
17.4 Reagents ......................................................................................................................... 182
17.5 Plant Water ..................................................................................................................... 185
17.6 Power .............................................................................................................................. 186
17.7 Air Service ....................................................................................................................... 187
17.8 Quality Control ................................................................................................................ 188
17.9 Sampling ......................................................................................................................... 188
17.10 Auxiliary Systems ............................................................................................................ 188
17.11 Process Control Philosophy ............................................................................................ 189
18 Project Infrastructure................................................................................................................. 190
18.1 Overall Site General Arrangement .................................................................................. 190
18.2 Process Plant General Arrangement .............................................................................. 190
18.3 Reagents, Consumables and Shipping........................................................................... 191
18.4 Ancillary Buildings ........................................................................................................... 191
18.5 Site Access ..................................................................................................................... 193
18.6 Raw Material Logistics.................................................................................................... 195
18.7 Power Supply .................................................................................................................. 196
18.8 Sulfuric Acid Production .................................................................................................. 202
18.9 Water Supply................................................................................................................... 203
18.10 Waste Rock and Tailings ................................................................................................ 204
19 Market Studies and Contracts .................................................................................................. 208
19.1 2021 and 2022 Synopsis ................................................................................................ 208
19.2 Supply and Demand Forecast ........................................................................................ 208
19.3 Pricing ............................................................................................................................. 209
19.4 Pricing Forecast .............................................................................................................. 209
19.5 Contracts ......................................................................................................................... 210
19.6 Qualified Person Statement ............................................................................................ 210
20 Environmental Studies, Permitting, and Social or Community Impact ................................ 211
20.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 211
20.2 Permitting Pre-Planning Process .................................................................................... 211
20.3 Federal, State, and Local Regulatory Permitting Requirements .................................... 213
20.4 Summary Schedule for Permitting, Approvals, and Construction ................................... 217
20.5 Current Permitting Status ................................................................................................ 217
20.6 Community Engagement ................................................................................................ 217
20.7 Environmental Baseline Studies ..................................................................................... 220
20.8 Waste Rock, Gangue, and Tailings Facility Management .............................................. 228
20.9 Social or Community Impacts ......................................................................................... 230
20.10 Mine Reclamation and Closure ....................................................................................... 231
Page v
21 Capital and Operating Costs ..................................................................................................... 233

21.1 Capital Cost Estimate...................................................................................................... 233
21.2 Sustaining Capital Costs ................................................................................................. 244
21.3 Operating Cost Estimate ................................................................................................. 247
22 Economic Analysis .................................................................................................................... 262
22.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 262
22.2 Methodology.................................................................................................................... 262
22.3 Input Data........................................................................................................................ 263
22.4 Cash Flow ....................................................................................................................... 269
22.5 Sensitivity Analysis.......................................................................................................... 273
23 Adjacent Properties ................................................................................................................... 276
24 Other Relevant Data and Information ...................................................................................... 277
24.1 Project Execution Plan .................................................................................................... 277
24.2 Limestone Quarry............................................................................................................ 280
24.3 Transload Facility ............................................................................................................ 285
25 Interpretation and Conclusions ................................................................................................ 290
25.1 Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve Estimate .......................................................... 290
25.2 Mining .............................................................................................................................. 290
25.3 Infrastructure ................................................................................................................... 291
25.4 Environment .................................................................................................................... 291
25.5 Economics....................................................................................................................... 291
25.6 Metallurgy........................................................................................................................ 292
26 Recommendations ..................................................................................................................... 295
26.1 Environmental Permitting ................................................................................................ 295
26.2 Mining .............................................................................................................................. 295
26.3 Exploration ...................................................................................................................... 295
26.4 Metallurgical Testing ....................................................................................................... 296
26.5 Infrastructure ................................................................................................................... 298
26.6 Limestone Quarry............................................................................................................ 298
26.7 Execution Strategy Impact .............................................................................................. 298
27 References .................................................................................................................................. 300
Appendix A – Certificates of Qualified Persons .................................................................................. 309
Page vi
List of Figures and Illustrations

Figure 1-1 Overall Site General Arrangement ...................................................................................... 8
Figure 4-1 Regional Location Map ..................................................................................................... 28
Figure 4-2 Map of Lithium Americas Corp. Mineral and Surface Control in the Vicinity of the Thacker
Pass Project ...................................................................................................................... 29
Figure 5-1 Photograph of the On-Site Meteorological Station, Including Tower, Solar Power Station,
and Security Fence ........................................................................................................... 36
Figure 7-1 Regional Map Showing the Location of the McDermitt Caldera in the Western US......... 42
Figure 7-2 Simplified Geological Map of the Southern Portion of the McDermitt Caldera and the
Thacker Pass Project ........................................................................................................ 43
Figure 7-3 Interpreted and Simplified Sample Log for Drill Hole WLC-043, Li Assay Data, Alteration
Phases Identified by X-ray Diffraction, and Thin Section Imagery ................................... 45
Figure 7-4 Assay Lithium Content Plotted Against Clay X-Ray Diffraction Data from Drill Holes WLC-
043, WLC-006, and WLC-067........................................................................................... 47
Figure 9-1 Locations of Seismic Surveys Conducted in 2017............................................................ 52
Figure 9-2 Results from one of the Seismic Test Lines (A-A’) ........................................................... 53
Figure 10-1 Drill Hole Map of Thacker Pass Deposit ........................................................................... 56
Figure 10-2 Photograph of Core after Geologic Logging ..................................................................... 57
Figure 11-1 Half Core Sawed by a Diamond Blade ............................................................................. 60
Figure 11-2 Workflow Diagram for Geological Samples ...................................................................... 61
Figure 11-3 Dry Bulk Density Sample Locations .................................................................................. 65
Figure 11-4 Smectite, Mixed Zone and Illite Dry Bulk Density Histogram from MacTec (2008), AMEC
(2011), WLC (2010-2011), ALS (2010-2011), and BARR (2019) Geotech Studies ......... 66
Figure 11-5 LAC Blank Results ............................................................................................................ 68
Figure 11-6 LAC Drilling QA/QC Results (4,230 Li Standard) ............................................................. 70
Figure 11-7 LAC Drilling QA/QC Results (3,378 Li Standard) ............................................................. 71
Figure 11-8 LAC Drilling Duplicate Results .......................................................................................... 72
Figure 12-1 Site Inspection Pictures .................................................................................................... 75
Figure 12-2 Drill Hole Verification Locations ........................................................................................ 78
Figure 12-3 Independent Verification of Lithium Grades Distribution................................................... 79
Figure 13-1 Bulk sample drill hole locations (WLC-202, WLC-204, WLC-197, WLC-136, WLC-112 and
WLC-118) .......................................................................................................................... 84
Figure 13-2 Bulk material sampling ...................................................................................................... 85
Figure 13-3 Sample Locations for Leach Variability Study .................................................................. 87
Figure 13-4 Lithium distribution in clay and gangue (SHRIMP analysis) ............................................. 89
Figure 13-5 Smectite and illite fines separation in a pilot crossflow separator .................................... 92
Figure 13-6 PSD’s and partition coefficients of illite and smectite in the hydraulic classifier ............... 93
Figure 13-7 Pilot decanter centrifuge results........................................................................................ 95
Figure 13-8 Large Scale Beneficiation Pilot Plant Process Flow Diagram .......................................... 97
Page vii
Figure 13-9 Log Washer and Attrition Scrubber ................................................................................... 98

Figure 13-10 Primary Cyclone, Hydraulic Classifier and Dewatering Screen ........................................ 98
Figure 13-11 Thickener and Decanter Centrifuge .................................................................................. 99
Figure 13-12 Coarse Gangue Rejection ............................................................................................... 100
Figure 13-13 Campaign #3 Thickener Underflow (50% Smectite / 50% Illite) ..................................... 101
Figure 13-14 Large batch lithium leach extraction, Li ≥ 2,500 ppm, 0.5 acid dose .............................. 102
Figure 13-15 Actual lithium leach extraction percentage vs model prediction ..................................... 103
Figure 13-16 Continuous v batch lithium leach extraction ................................................................... 104
Figure 13-17 Lithium leach kinetics at various temperatures ............................................................... 104
Figure 13-18 Lithium leach extractions for 75 µm and 38 µm particle sizes ........................................ 105
Figure 13-19 Local CaCO3 & vendor purchased comparison of pH vs limestone addition.................. 107
Figure 13-20 Pilot membrane filter press and resultant filter cake ....................................................... 108
Figure 13-21 Wash consumption vs lithium wash recovery tests ........................................................ 109
Figure 13-22 Dynamic Thickener Testing at FLSmidth ........................................................................ 110
Figure 13-23 Calculated Versus Measured Head Grade for Leach Testing ........................................ 114
Figure 13-24 Ore Depth (m) Versus Li Extraction (%) ......................................................................... 115
Figure 13-25 Mine Plan Year Versus Li Extraction (%) ........................................................................ 115
Figure 13-26 Comparison of Measured Versus Predicted Extraction .................................................. 116
Figure 14-1 Drilling Utilized for the Resource Estimate ..................................................................... 119
Figure 14-2 Seven Fault Blocks Zones Used for Grade Estimation for the Thacker Pass Deposit ... 121
Figure 14-3 Lithological Cross-Sectional Views ................................................................................. 122
Figure 14-4 Histogram of Native Lithium Grade Versus Composited Database Lithium Grade ........ 125
Figure 14-5 Mineralized Zone Cross-Sections ................................................................................... 126
Figure 14-6 Histogram of Composited Database Lithium Grade Versus Cell Declustered Lithium Grade
........................................................................................................................................ 127
Figure 14-7 Block B, C, D, E, F, and G Omnidirectional Variograms in the Sub-Horizontal Plane and
Downhole Variogram....................................................................................................... 129
Figure 14-8 Ordinary Kriged Model vs Composited Declustered Database Histogram ..................... 133
Figure 14-9 Scatter Plot of Lithium from the Block Model Versus the Composited Database ........... 134
Figure 14-10 HERCO Plots by Domain ................................................................................................ 135
Figure 14-11 Swath Plot Comparison of Lithium Grades ..................................................................... 137
Figure 14-12 Histogram Distance to Sample ....................................................................................... 140
Figure 14-13 Histogram Number of Holes ............................................................................................ 141
Figure 14-14 Histogram Number of Samples ....................................................................................... 142
Figure 14-15 Classified Resource Block Model ................................................................................... 143
Figure 14-16 Cross-Sectional View of Classified Block Model ............................................................ 144
Figure 15-1 EIS Pit Shell .................................................................................................................... 147
Figure 16-1 Highwall Angles.............................................................................................................. 153
Page viii
Figure 16-2 Kilograms of Lithium Recovered per tonne of ROM Feed at Initial Cut .......................... 154
Figure 16-3 Initial Cut ......................................................................................................................... 156
Figure 16-4 Five Year Advance (Including Cross Pit Ramps) ............................................................ 157
Figure 16-5 10 Year Advance............................................................................................................. 158
Figure 16-9 Basalt and tuff zones near the pit area ........................................................................... 168
Figure 17-1 Overall Simplified Process Flowsheet............................................................................. 171
Figure 18-1 Overall Site General Arrangement .................................................................................. 190
Figure 18-2 Process Facility General Arrangement (Phase 1 Only) .................................................. 192
Figure 18-3 Site Entrances ................................................................................................................. 193
Figure 18-4 Route Junction Satellite View ......................................................................................... 194
Figure 18-5 Thacker Pass Water Supply System .............................................................................. 204
Figure 18-6 CTFS Conceptual Design ............................................................................................... 207
Figure 19-1 Lithium market balance 2020-2040................................................................................. 209
Figure 20-1 Plan of Operations and Exploration Area Permitted Boundaries.................................... 212
Figure 21-1 Raw Materials Cost (40-Year LOM – Base Case) .......................................................... 251
Figure 21-2 Raw Materials Cost (Years 1-25 of 40-Year LOM) ......................................................... 252
Figure 21-3 Distribution of mining and tailings management Operational Cost (40-Year LOM – Base
Case) ............................................................................................................................... 257
Figure 21-4 Distribution of mining and tailings management Operational Cost (Years 1-25 of 40-Year
LOM Case) ...................................................................................................................... 257
Figure 22-1 Total Mined, Ore Processed and Lithium Carbonate Production by Year ...................... 267
Figure 22-2 Total Annual Revenue by Year ....................................................................................... 268
Figure 22-3 Undiscounted Annual Cash Flow .................................................................................... 270
Figure 22-4 Cumulative Discounted Cash Flow ................................................................................. 270
Figure 22-5 Sensitivity Analysis of Various Variables, After-Tax NPV, 8% Discount Rate ................ 273
Figure 22-6 Sensitivity Analysis of Various Variables, After-Tax IRR, 8% Discount Rate ................. 274
Figure 24-1 Limestone Quarry pit outline ........................................................................................... 282
Figure 24-2 Limestone Quarry cross section A-A' .............................................................................. 283
Figure 24-3 Transload Facility Site General Arrangement ................................................................. 287
Page ix
List of Tables
Table 1-1 LAC Drill Holes Provided in Current Database for the Thacker Pass Deposit ................... 3
Table 1-2 Mineral Resources Estimate as of November 2, 2022 ....................................................... 5
Table 1-3 Mineral Reserves Estimate as of November 02, 2022 ....................................................... 6
Table 1-4 Development Capital Cost Estimate Summary ................................................................. 10
Table 1-5 40-Year LOM Sustaining Capital Estimate Summary (Base Case) .................................. 11
Table 1-6 First 25 Years of 40-Year LOM Sustaining Capital Estimate Summary ........................... 11
Table 1-7 Operating Cost Estimate Summary (40-Year LOM – Base Case) ................................... 11
Table 1-8 Operating Cost Estimate Summary (Years 1-25 of 40-Year LOM Case) ......................... 12
Table 1-9 Production Scenario (40-Year LOM – Base Case) ........................................................... 12
Table 1-10 Production Scenario – (Years 1-25 of 40-Year LOM Case) ............................................. 12
Table 1-11 Economic Evaluation – Lithium Carbonate Plant (40 Year LOM – Base Case) ............... 13
Table 1-12 Economic Evaluation – Lithium Carbonate Plant (Years 1-25 of 40-Year LOM Case) .... 13
Table 2-1 List of Qualified Persons, Professional Designations and Site Visit Dates....................... 16
Table 2-2 Qualified Person Areas of Responsibility .......................................................................... 17
Table 2-3 Previously Filed Technical Reports................................................................................... 18
Table 2-4 Abbreviations and Acronyms ............................................................................................ 21
Table 4-1 Thacker Pass Project UM Claims Owned by LAC ............................................................ 30
Table 5-1 Annual Precipitation at the Thacker Pass Project Site (in cm) ......................................... 37
Table 7-1 Chemical Analyses of Thacker Pass Smectite and Illite Clay Concentrates .................... 48
Table 10-1 LAC Drill Holes Provided in Current Database for the Thacker Pass Deposit ................. 54
Table 11-1 Bulk Density Sampling Program Summary by Lithology .................................................. 64
Table 11-2 Average Density Values .................................................................................................... 66
Table 12-1 Drill Hole Survey Verification ............................................................................................ 77
Table 13-1 Corresponding hole locations, depths and bulk bags collected ........................................ 83
Table 13-2 Bulk bags used for metallurgical testing ........................................................................... 85
Table 13-3 Samples for Variability Study ............................................................................................ 88
Table 13-4 Summary of materials characterization testing (FLSmidth) .............................................. 89
Table 13-5 Attrition Scrubbing Test by LAC ........................................................................................ 90
Table 13-6 Li and mass distribution of 50/50 clay slurry blend post attrition scrubbing, “intense” vs “mild
+ intense” .......................................................................................................................... 91
Table 13-7 Process design criteria for classification, 75µm separation size, 70/30 illite/smectite blend
.......................................................................................................................................... 91
Table 13-8 Solid-Liquid Separation test results 50/50 illite/smectite blend ......................................... 94
Table 13-9 Campaign 1 to 3 Material Balance Results ....................................................................... 99
Table 13-10 Campaign 4 Material Balance Results ............................................................................ 100
Table 13-11 Lithium leach % extraction of illite and smectite vs sulfuric acid dose............................ 101
Page x
Table 13-12 Lithium extractions for various acid dose scenarios ....................................................... 102
Table 13-13 Lithium leach extractions of various 70/30 illite/smectite blends .................................... 103
Table 13-14 Limestone purity analysis of local grab samples ............................................................ 105
Table 13-15 CaCO3 consumption to achieve pH 3.5 in neutralization slurry ...................................... 106
Table 13-16 Data for neutralization batches using CaCO3 and Mg Precipitation solids ..................... 108
Table 13-17 SNF Maximum Thickener Underflow Operating Density ................................................ 109
Table 13-18 Variability Study Leach Parameters ................................................................................ 114
Table 13-19 Specific Gravity Ranges .................................................................................................. 116
Table 14-1 Drill Holes Used in the Grade Estimation Model............................................................. 118
Table 14-2 Native Samples Statistics ............................................................................................... 123
Table 14-3 Block Model Origin .......................................................................................................... 124
Table 14-4 Composite Samples Statistics ........................................................................................ 124
Table 14-5 Variogram Summary ....................................................................................................... 128
Table 14-6 Average Density Values Used in the Resource Model ................................................... 133
Table 14-7 Cutoff Grade Inputs ......................................................................................................... 138
Table 14-8 Pit Optimizer Parameters ................................................................................................ 138
Table 14-9 Resource Classification .................................................................................................. 142
Table 14-10 Mineral Resources Estimate as of November 2, 2022 ................................................... 145
Table 15-1 Pit Optimizer Parameters ................................................................................................ 146
Table 15-2 Lithium Losses ................................................................................................................ 150
Table 15-3 Mineral Reserves Estimate as of November 02, 2022 ................................................... 151
Table 16-1 Pit Geometry ................................................................................................................... 152
Table 16-2 Waste Material ................................................................................................................ 162
Table 16-3 Mine Quantities Summary (tonnes in millions unless noted) .......................................... 163
Table 16-4 5-Year Average Mine Quantities Summary (tonnes in millions unless noted) (Continued)
........................................................................................................................................ 164
Table 16-5 Major Equipment Specifications...................................................................................... 165
Table 16-6 Support Equipment ......................................................................................................... 165
Table 16-7 Scheduled Hours by Fleet ............................................................................................... 166
Table 16-8 Personnel List ................................................................................................................. 166
Table 17-1 Process Design Criteria – Beneficiation through Neutralized Tailing ............................. 172
Table 17-2 Process Design Criteria – Purification Plant ................................................................... 173
Table 17-3 Major Process Equipment – Beneficiation/Classification/Filtering .................................. 174
Table 17-4 Major Process Equipment – Purification Process ........................................................... 175
Table 17-5 Reagent Consumption (40-Year LOM – Base Case) ..................................................... 184
Table 17-6 Reagent Consumption (First 25 Years of 40-Year Case) ............................................... 184
Table 17-7 Plant Water Use .............................................................................................................. 185
Page xi
Table 17-8 Steam Use ...................................................................................................................... 185

Table 17-9 Power Demand by Area (based on Equipment List for DFS Load Study (Rev N, supplied
by ITAC) .......................................................................................................................... 186
Table 17-10 Metallurgical Accounting Sampler Summary, Major Process Inlets/Outlets ................... 188
Table 17-11 Process Control Sampler Summary................................................................................ 188
Table 18-1 Life of Mine Primary Raw Material Logistics Scheme..................................................... 195
Table 18-2 System Voltages ............................................................................................................. 198
Table 18-3 Motor Voltages ................................................................................................................ 198
Table 18-4 Electrical Load Breakdown ............................................................................................. 199
Table 18-5 Electrical Load Generation vs. Import ............................................................................. 199
Table 18-6 Project Power Demands ................................................................................................. 200
Table 18-7 Design and Requirement Volumes for Stockpiles and Facilities (Millions of Cubic Yards)
........................................................................................................................................ 205
Table 19-1 Lithium Price Forecast (Q3 2022) .................................................................................. 210
Table 20-1 Key Community Engagement Summary ......................................................................... 217
Table 20-2 Summary of Background Groundwater Profile 1 Exceedances ..................................... 224
Table 21-1 Development Capital Cost Estimate Summary ............................................................... 234
Table 21-2 Sustaining Capital Estimate Summary (40-Year LOM – Base Case)............................. 234
Table 21-3 First 25 Years of 40-Year LOM Sustaining Capital Estimate Summary ......................... 235
Table 21-4 Capital Cost Spend Schedule ......................................................................................... 236
Table 21-5 Capital Cost Summary by Phase and Area .................................................................... 237
Table 21-6 Work Breakdown Structure and Associated Responsibilities ......................................... 238
Table 21-7 Composite Trade Labor Rates ........................................................................................ 240
Table 21-8 Owner’s Cost Summary .................................................................................................. 243
Table 21-9 Summary of Sustaining Capital Costs for Mine, Plant, and Sulfuric Acid Plant ($M) ..... 245
Table 21-10 CTFS and CGS Expansion Area and Costs ................................................................... 246
Table 21-11 Reclamation Costs .......................................................................................................... 246
Table 21-12 Lithium Americas Labor Requirements and Average Annual Cost Summary (40-Year Base
Case) ............................................................................................................................... 248
Table 21-13 Raw Material Purchase and Delivered Pricing ............................................................... 249
Table 21-14 Raw Material Annual Consumption (40-Year LOM Base Case) ..................................... 250
Table 21-15 Raw Material Annual Consumption (Years 1-25 of 40 Year LOM) ................................. 250
Table 21-16 Average Annual Power Cost (40 Year LOM – Base Case) ............................................ 252
Table 21-17 Average Annual Power Cost (Years 1 to 25 of 40 Year LOM) ....................................... 252
Table 21-18 Factored Maintenance Annual Allowances ..................................................................... 253
Table 21-19 General and Administrative Costs (40 Year LOM – Base Case).................................... 253
Table 21-20 General and Administrative Costs (Years 1 to 25 of 40 Year LOM) ............................... 254
Table 21-21 Mining and Clay Tailings Operating Cost Estimate (40-Year LOM Base Case) ............ 256
Page xii
Table 21-22 Mining and Clay Tailings Operating Cost Estimate (Years 1-25 of 40 Year LOM) ......... 256
Table 21-23 Battery Limits for Mining Contractor Operating Cost Estimate ....................................... 258
Table 21-24 Clay and Salt Tailings Battery Limits .............................................................................. 258
Table 21-25 Mining Estimation Methodology ...................................................................................... 259
Table 21-26 Average Lithium Process Operating Costs (40 Year LOM – Base Case) ...................... 259
Table 21-27 Average Lithium Process Operating Costs (Years 1-25 of 40 Year LOM) ..................... 260
Table 21-28 Average Sulfuric Acid Plant Operating Costs (40 Year LOM – Base Case)................... 260
Table 21-29 Average Sulfuric Acid Plant Operating Costs (Years 1-25 of 40 Year LOM).................. 260
Table 21-30 Project Operating Cost Summary (Years 1-40 Life of Mine – Base Case)..................... 261
Table 21-31 Project Operating Cost Summary (Years 1-25 of 40 Year LOM) ................................... 261
Table 22-1 Initial Capital Costs Summary ......................................................................................... 265
Table 22-2 Sustaining Capital Summary........................................................................................... 266
Table 22-3 Operating Costs Summary (40-Year LOM – Base Case) ............................................... 266
Table 22-4 Operating Costs Summary (Years 1-25 of 40 Year LOM) .............................................. 266
Table 22-5 Average Production Values (40 Year/Base Case).......................................................... 267
Table 22-6 Average Production Values (Years 1-25 of 40-Year LOM)............................................. 267
Table 22-7 Total Annual Production and Revenue (40 Year LOM – Base Case) ............................ 268
Table 22-8 Total Annual Production and Revenue (Years 1-25 of 40 Year LOM) ........................... 268
Table 22-9 After-Tax Financial Model Results (40 Year LOM – Base Case) ................................... 271
Table 22-10 After-Tax Financial Model Results (Years 1-25 of 40 Year LOM) .................................. 271
Table 22-11 Financial Model ............................................................................................................... 272
Table 22-12 After-Tax NPV at 8% ($ Millions) and IRR ...................................................................... 274
Table 22-13 NPV for Various Discount Rates (40-Year LOM)............................................................ 275
Table 24-1 Overview Schedule ......................................................................................................... 279
Table 24-2 Delivered Limestone tonnes (LS).................................................................................... 280
Table 24-3 Delivered and ROM tonnes ............................................................................................. 281
Table 24-4 Pit shell material quantities and quality ........................................................................... 283
Table 24-5 Limestone Delivery Cost per tonne ................................................................................. 284
Page xiii
1 Summary
1.1 Introduction
Lithium Nevada Corp. (LNC), a wholly owned subsidiary of Lithium Americas Corp. (LAC), is advancing the
Thacker Pass Project (hereafter referred to as “the Project”), which was formerly known as the Lithium
Nevada Project or Stage I of the Kings Valley Lithium Project. The Project is 100% owned by LNC. The
terms “LNC” and “LAC” are used throughout the report to denote the owner of the Project.
The Project encompasses the mineral claims that were formerly referred to as the Stage I area of the Kings
Valley Lithium Project and includes lithium (Li) claystone mining at the Thacker Pass Deposit. This
Technical Report presents the results of a Feasibility Study evaluation of the Project.
M3 Engineering & Technology Corporation (M3) was commissioned by LAC to prepare this Technical
Report. In preparing this Report, M3 has relied upon input from LAC and information prepared by a number
of qualified independent consulting groups particularly regarding regional geology, geological mapping,
exploration, and resource estimation. See Section 2 for a full discussion of contributors to this study.
The economic analysis is based on Q3 2022 pricing for capital and operating costs.
1.2 Property Location, Description and Ownership

The Project is located in Humboldt County in northern Nevada, approximately 100 kilometers (km) north-
northwest of Winnemucca, approximately 33 km west-northwest of Orovada, Nevada, and 33 km due south
of the Oregon border. It is situated within 44 North (T44N), Range 34 East (R34E), and within portions of
Sections 1 and 12; T44N, R35E within portions of Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16,
and 17; and T44N, R36E, within portions of Sections 7, 8, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 29,
and encompasses approximately 4,236 hectares (ha).
Section 6 of this Technical Report further describes the history of the Project, and Section 1.1 also describes
ownership in brief.
1.3 Geology
The Project is located within an extinct 40x30 km supervolcano named McDermitt Caldera, which was
formed approximately 16.3 million years ago (Ma) as part of a hotspot currently underneath the Yellowstone
Plateau. Following an initial eruption and concurrent collapse of the McDermitt Caldera, a large lake formed
in the caldera basin. This lake water was extremely enriched in lithium and resulted in the accumulation of
lithium-rich clays.
Late volcanic activity uplifted the caldera, draining the lake and bringing the lithium-rich moat sediments to
the surface resulting in the near-surface lithium deposit which is the subject of the Project.
The Thacker Pass Deposit sits sub-horizontally beneath a thin alluvial cover and is partially exposed at the
surface. The sedimentary section consists of alternating layers of claystone and volcanic ash. Basaltic lavas
occur intermittently within the sedimentary sequence. The moat sedimentary section at the Project site
overlies the indurated intra-caldera Tuff of Long Ridge. A zone of silicified sedimentary rock, the Hot Pond
Zone (HPZ), occurs at the base of the sedimentary section above the Tuff of Long Ridge.
Clay in the Thacker Pass Deposit includes two distinct types of clay mineral, smectite and illite. Smectite
clay occurs at relatively shallow depths in the deposit and contain roughly 2,000 – 4,000 parts per million
(ppm) lithium. Higher lithium contents (commonly 4,000 ppm lithium or greater) are typical for illite clay
Page 1
which occurs at relatively moderate to deep depths and contain values approaching 9,000 ppm lithium in
terms of whole-rock assay.
1.4 Deposit Types

Lithium enrichment (>1,000 ppm) in the Thacker Pass Deposit and deposits of the Montana Mountains
occur throughout the caldera lake sedimentary sequence above the intra-caldera Tuff of Long Ridge. The
exact cause for the lithium enrichment in the caldera lake sediments is still up for debate. The presence of
sedimentary carbonate minerals and magnesium-smectite (hectorite) throughout the lake indicates that the
clays formed in a basic, alkaline, closed hydrologic system.
It is likely that two primary mechanisms play a role in the genesis of the deposit: (1) neoformation of smectite
in a closed lake, rich in lithium due to the leaching of nearby and underlying volcanic glass (Benson et al.,
2017b); and (2) alteration of a portion of the smectite-bearing clays to illite during intracaldera hydrothermal
alteration associated with the uplift of the Montana Mountains.
Caldera lake sediments of the McDermitt Caldera contain elevated lithium concentrations compared to
other sedimentary basins. Exploration results support the proposed model and have advanced the
understanding of the geology of the Thacker Pass Deposit.
1.5 Exploration
Exploration programs have been carried out in the McDermitt Caldera since 1975, including the drilling
campaigns identified in Section 1.6. A collar survey was completed by LAC for the 2007-2008 drilling
program using a Trimble GPS (Global Positioning System). The topographic surface of the Project area
was mapped by aerial photography dated July 6, 2010, by MXS, Inc. for LAC using Trimble equipment for
ground control. In addition to drilling in 2017, LAC conducted five seismic survey lines along a series of
historical drill holes to test the survey method’s accuracy and resolution in identifying clay interfaces.
1.6 Drilling
The Thacker Pass Deposit area has been explored for minerals since the 1970s by different companies
and drilling campaigns. Table 1-1 categorizes the different drilling campaigns, number of holes drilled, and
type of drilling utilized. Drilling methods were compared to test for sample bias, using core drilling as the
standard. Rotary, sonic, and reverse circulation drilling all showed slight sample biases when compared to
core drilling. Only HQ core holes were used for resource modeling to minimize the chance of sample bias.
The drilling techniques, core recovery, and sample collection procedures provided results that are suitable
for use in resource estimation. There are no drilling, sample, or recovery factors that materially impact the
accuracy and reliability of results. The data is adequate for use in resource estimation.
Page 2
Table 1-1 LAC Drill Holes Provided in Current Database for the Thacker Pass Deposit
Drilling Number Number used in
Type Hole IDs in Database
Campaign Drilled Geological Model
PC-84-001 through PC-84-012, PC-84-015
24 Rotary 0
Chevron through PC-84-026
1 Core PC-84-014c 0
WLC-001 through WLC-037, WLC-040
230 HQ Core 227
through WLC-232
7 PQ Core WPQ-001 through WPQ-007 0
LAC 2007-2010
5 HQ Core Li-001 through Li-005 0
8 RC TP-001 through TP-008 0
2 Sonic WSH-001 through WSH-002 0
LAC 2017-2018 144 HQ Core LNC-001 through LNC-144 139
Notes: Holes WLC-040, WLC-076, WLC-183, LNC-002, LNC-012, LNC-081, LNC-083, and LNC-110 were not used in the Resource Estimate due to
proximity to other core holes.
1.7 Sample Preparation, Analyses and Security

The drilled core was securely placed in core boxes and labelled at site. The boxes of drilled core were then
transported to the secure LAC logging and sampling facility in Orovada, Nevada, where they were
lithologically logged, photographed, cut, and sampled by LAC employees and contractors. The samples
were either picked up by ALS Global (ALS) by truck or delivered to ALS in Reno, Nevada by LAC
employees.
Once at ALS, the samples were dried at a maximum temperature of 60ºC. The entire sample was then
crushed with a jaw crusher to 90% passing a 10-mesh screen. LAC used ALS Global’s standard ME-MS61
analytical package for all of the samples collected which provides analytical results for 48 elements,
including lithium. Certified analytical results were reported on the ICP-MS determinations.
Blank samples were used to check for cross-contamination between samples at the lab. Standard samples
consisting of a high grade and a low grade lithium bearing claystone from the Project area were used to
test the accuracy and precision of the analytical methods used at the lab. Duplicate samples are used to
check the precision of the analytical methods of the lab and were taken every 30.5 m of core (i.e., they were
collected downhole every 100 feet (ft)).
1.8 Data Verification
1.8.1 Mineral Resources

Certified laboratory certificates of assays were provided in pdf (Adobe Acrobat Portable Document Format)
as well as comma separated value (csv) formatted files for verification of the sample assays database.
Sample names, certificate identifications, and run identifications were cross referenced with the laboratory
certificates and sample assay datasheet for spot checking and verification of data. No data anomalies were
discovered during this check.
Quality Assurance / Quality Control (QA/QC) methodology utilized by LAC and results of these checks were
discussed between LAC geologists and the QP.
Geologic logs, Access databases, and Excel spreadsheets were provided to the QP for cross validation
with the Excel lithological description file. Spot checks between Excel lithological description sheets were
performed against the source data with no inconsistencies found with the geologic unit descriptions.
Page 3
Verification of the block model was performed by the creation of a geostatistical model and the review of its
various outputs. Histograms, HERCO grade tonnage curves, and swath plots were created and analyzed
to validate the accuracy of the block model.
Based on the various reviews, validation exercises and remedies outlined above, the QP concluded that
the data is adequate for use for resource estimation.
1.8.2 Mineral Reserves

The Mineral Reserves QP reviewed the following as part of the mine planning, cost model and Mineral
Reserves data verification.
 Geotechnical: slope stability study completed by BARR Engineering in 2019 was reviewed.
 Mining Method: open-pit mining with limited blasting has been reviewed and assessed with
geotechnical reports.
 Pit Optimization: the pit limits were established based on the Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) pit extents and physical features. The final pit shell was verified to provide a positive economic
value.
 Mine Design: ramp, bench and face angle parameters were validated by geotechnical reports.
 Production Schedule: the production schedule was validated based on reasonability.
 Labor and Equipment: estimations for equipment sizes, capacity, availability and utilization were
reviewed for reasonability.
 Economic Model: model was reviewed and demonstrated economic viability for the project.
 Facilities and Materials: facilities and materials located within the reserve pit boundary will be re-
located when access to those areas are required during mining.
1.9 Metallurgical Testing

Extensive metallurgical and process development testing has been performed both internally at LAC’s
Process Testing Center (PTC) and externally with vendors and contract commercial research organizations.
Data collected from test programs has been used for flowsheet development, various equipment selection,
definition of operating parameters and development of process design criteria. The most relevant
metallurgical test data are discussed in Section 13.
The ore samples used for all metallurgical testing were collected from the proposed pit at the Thacker Pass
Deposit. The samples spatially represent the ore body, with material collected from both undisturbed upper
smectite horizons and uplifted faulted blocks that represent deeper illite horizons.
Conclusions of test work from the key areas are listed below:
 Attrition Scrubbing: test work has demonstrated that attrition scrubbing is effective to liberate
lithium containing clays from coarse gangue material. A two-stage scrubbing circuit is used for the
process design.
 Classification: conventional hydrocyclones followed by hydraulic classifiers are used to separate
clay from gangue mineralization. Coarse gangue mass is estimated to align with estimated pit ash
content (around 34% of total mass). Based on bench tests and pilot scale testing, approximately
92% of lithium contained in Run-of-Mine (ROM) is projected to be recovered to the lithium bearing
clay slurry at a separation size of approximately 75 µm.
 Solid-Liquid Separation (Thickening and Dewatering): clay slurry will be dewatered in two
stages, a high-rate thickener to achieve 20% to 25% solids by mass followed by decanter
centrifuges to generate a discharge slurry of approximately 55% solids by mass.
 Leaching: an acid dose of 490 kilograms (kg) sulfuric acid per tonne leach feed solids provided
the maximum amount of lithium extracted from smectite and illite clay types. The metallurgical test
data supports a lithium leach extraction ranging from 85 to 87%.
Page 4
 Neutralization: ground limestone and recycled solids from the magnesium precipitation circuit
have proven effective to neutralize any residual acid in the leached slurry. Limestone reagent
efficiency from nearby sources has been confirmed.
 Neutralized Slurry Filtration: solid/liquid separation of neutralized slurry is achieved in a seven-
stage counter current decantation (CCD) coupled with plate and frame filter press circuit. The filter
cake is not washed. The filtrate recovered is directed back to the CCD circuit to wash the leached
residue. The solubilized lithium removal efficiency in the seven stage CCD and filtration circuit is
calculated to be approximately 99%.
 Magnesium and Calcium Removal: tests have demonstrated that on average 79% of magnesium
in neutralized brine can be removed via crystallization, and the remainder is treated by addition of
milk-of-lime in the magnesium precipitation circuit, reducing the magnesium content to 5 ppm.
Calcium is then removed by precipitation with sodium carbonate, and a final ion exchange (IX) step
is used to polish the brine and bring divalent ions and boron concentrations down to trace levels.
 Lithium Carbonate Production: a three-stage circuit for lithium carbonate (Li2CO3) production is
necessary to achieve battery quality product. Crystals produced had little to no agglomerates
present.
 Zero Liquid Discharge (ZLD) crystallization: it has been demonstrated that sodium and
potassium are removed as sulfate salts in a ZLD crystallization system without crystallization of
lithium sulfate.
Refinement and further optimization to the process continue to be made as required.
1.10 Mineral Resources and Reserves
1.10.1 Mineral Resources

The Mineral Resources estimate for the Thacker Pass Deposit is summarized in Table 1-2. Mineral
Resources have been classified per the CIM 2014 Definition Standards and estimated using the 2019 CIM
Best Practice Guidelines. This resource estimate uses a cutoff grade of 1,047 ppm lithium.
Table 1-2 Mineral Resources Estimate as of November 2, 2022

Tonnage Average Li Lithium Carbonate
Category
(Mt) (ppm) Equivalent (Mt)
Measured 534.7 2,450 7.0
Indicated 922.5 1,850 9.1
Measured & Indicated 1,457.2 2,070 16.1
Inferred 297.2 1,870 3.0
Notes:
1. Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
2. Mineral Resources are inclusive of 217.3 million metric tonnes (Mt) of Mineral Reserves.
3. Mineral Resources are reported using an economic break-even formula: “Operating Cost per Resource Tonne”/“Price per
Recovered Tonne Lithium” * 10^6 = ppm Li Cutoff. “Operating Cost per Resource Tonne” = US$88.50, “Price per
Recovered Tonne Lithium” is estimated: (“Lithium Carbonate Equivalent (LCE) Price” * 5.323 *(1 – “Royalties”) *
“Recovery”. Variables are “LCE Price” = US$22,000/tonne Li2CO3, “Royalties” = 1.75% and “Recovery” = 73.5%.
4. Presented at a cutoff grade of 1,047 ppm Li.
5. A resource economical pit shell has been derived from performing a pit optimization estimation using Vulcan software.
6. The conversion factor for lithium to LCE is 5.323.
7. Applied density for the mineralization is 1.79 t/m3 (Section 11.4)
8. Measured Mineral Resources are in blocks estimated using at least six drill holes and eighteen samples within a 262 m
search radius in the horizontal plane and 5 m in the vertical direction; Indicated Mineral Resources are in blocks estimated
using at least two drill holes and six to eighteen samples within a 483 m search radius in the horizontal plane and 5 m in
the vertical direction; and Inferred Mineral Resources are blocks estimated with at least two drill holes and three to six
samples within a search radius of 722 m in the horizontal plane and 5 m in the vertical plane.
9. Tonnages and grades have been rounded to accuracy levels deemed appropriate by the QP. Summation errors due to
rounding may exist.
Page 5
1.10.2 Mineral Reserves

The Mineral Reserves estimate for the Thacker Pass Deposit are based on an approved permitted pit shell
developed in 2019 for the EIS. The Mineral Reserves are a modified subset of the Measured and Indicated
Mineral Resources. A cutoff grade variable of kg of lithium extracted per run-of-mine (ROM) tonne was
used to develop the Mineral Reserves for a 40-year mine plan producing a total life of mine (LOM) plant
leach ore feed of 154.2 million dry tonnes. The leach ore feed is the ROM ore dry less the ash dry tonnes.
The cutoff grade variable, kilograms of lithium extracted per tonne of ROM feed, is estimated using formulas
and variables developed by LAC and is applied to each individual block of the geologic block model. The
cutoff grade estimation is 1.533 kg of lithium recovered per tonne of ROM feed.
Overall reserve ore and waste tonnages are modeled using Maptek’s geologic software package.
Waste consists of various types of material, including basalt, volcanic ash, alluvium and clay that does not
meet the ore definition or the cutoff grade described above.
The classified Mineral Reserves are summarized in Table 1-3 for the 40-year permitted pit. This estimate
uses a maximum ash percent cutoff of 85% and a cutoff grade of 1.533 kg of lithium extracted per tonne of
ROM feed. Additionally, a 95% mining recovery factor is applied. A dilution percentage was not applied.
Table 1-3 Mineral Reserves Estimate as of November 02, 2022

Category
(Mt) (ppm) Equivalent Mined (Mt)
Proven 192.9 3,180 3.3

Probable 24.4 3,010 0.4
Proven and Probable 217.3 3,160 3.7
Note:
1. Mineral Reserves have been converted from measured and indicated Mineral Resources within the feasibility study and
have demonstrated economic viability.
2. Reserves presented at an 85% maximum ash content and a cut-off grade of 1.533 kg of lithium extracted per tonne run of
mine feed. A sales price of $5,400 US$/t of Li2CO3 was utilized in the pit optimization resulting in the generation of the
reserve pit shell in 2019. Overall slope of 27 degrees was applied. For bedrock material pit slope was set at 47 degrees.
Mining and processing cost of $57.80 per tonne of ROM feed, a processing recovery factor of 84%, and royalty cost of
1.75% were addition inputs into the pit optimization.
3. A LOM plan was developed based on equipment selection, equipment rates, labor rates, and plant feed and reagent
parameters. All Mineral Reserves are within the LOM plan. The LOM plan is the basis for the economic assessment within
the Technical Report, which is used to show economic viability of the Mineral Reserves.
4. Applied density for the ore is 1.79 t/m3 (Section 11.4).
5. Lithium Carbonate Equivalent is based on in-situ LCE tonnes with 95% recovery factor.
rounding may exist.
7. The reference point at which the Mineral Reserves are defined is at the point where the ore is delivered to the run-of-mine
feeder.
1.11 Mine Methods

The mining method chosen will use hydraulic excavators loading a fleet of end dump trucks. The fleet will
be used for all material excavation and haulage. The material hauled includes ore, waste, and attrition
scrubber reject waste. The attrition scrubber waste is oversized material removed after the ore is mixed
with water.
Mining and material handling will be contracted through Sawtooth, a subsidiary of North American Coal
Corporation (NAC). A mine plan has been developed to maximize recovered lithium carbonate over the life
of mine.
Page 6
The mine design and mine plan are based on the approved EIS permit pit shell. The truck and excavation
fleet will develop several offset benches to maintain a geotechnically stable highwall slope. The bench
heights are designed to enable the mine to have multiple grades of ore exposed at any given time, allowing
flexibility to deliver different types and grades of ore to be blended as needed and to maintain an illite to
smectite ratio feed rate in the 30:70 to 70:30 range.
The annual production rate is based on varying ore feed rates determined by the availability of sulfuric acid
for the leaching process. Phase 1 (years 1-3) has an annual ore leach feed rate of 1.7 million dry tonnes
and Phase 2 (years 4 to 40) has an annual leach ore feed rate of 4.0 million dry tonnes. The following is a
summary of the Life-of-Mine production:
 585 million total tonnes mined which includes the following:

o 233 million wet tonnes of recovered ore (95% ore recovery assumed)
o 352 million wet tonnes of total waste
 327.6 million wet tonnes of in situ waste (basalt, alluvium, waste)
 12.3 million wet tonnes of ore loss
 11.9 million wet tonnes of rehandle
o Strip ratio 1.51:1 (total waste: recovered ore) on a wet tonnage basis
 245 million wet tonnes of in situ ore
o Strip ratio 1.34:1 (in situ waste: in situ ore) on a wet tonnage basis
 Pre-production period of three years
 Years 1-40 mining approximately 3.7 million tonnes (Mt) of lithium carbonate (2.7 Mt of lithium
carbonate recovered by the process plant)
In the first five years, the mine waste will primarily be hauled to the out-of-pit waste storage area. After five
years, the mine waste will primarily be dumped back into the empty pit. Mine waste will also be used for
construction fill material. Ore will be hauled to a run-of-mine stockpile located to the south of the pit. The
attrition scrubber reject material will be hauled to the out-of-pit waste stockpile or back into the empty pit.
1.12 Recovery Methods

The current flow sheet, material balance, and process design criteria (PDC) for the Project have been
developed from metallurgical test work and a steady-state process model built in Aspen® Plus software.
Design criteria, major equipment, reagent and utility consumptions, and overall recovery estimates used for
lithium carbonate production forecasts provide the basis for the Project economic model. The process flow
sheet consists of five key areas: beneficiation, leaching and neutralization, CCD and filtration circuit,
magnesium and calcium removal (i.e., purification) and lithium carbonate production. In beneficiation, the
lithium concentration of ore is on average, upgraded from approximately 3,153 ppm to approximately
4,438 ppm. Lithium is then leached from process slurry by sulfuric acid (H2SO4), with an average leach
extraction of approximately 86.2% over the life-of-mine.
Major waste products include coarse gangue from beneficiation, neutralized leach residue filter cake,
magnesium sulfate salts, and sodium/potassium sulfate salts. The filter cake and salts will be conveyed to
a clay tailings filter stack facility which will be progressively reclaimed during the life of the Project. On
average, nearly 19,000 tonnes per day (t/d) of cake and salts will be generated. Coarse gangue is generated
at an average rate of 4,400 t/d.
There are five major areas contributing to lithium losses in the process plant:
 Beneficiation: lithium associated with rejected coarse gangue mineralization, loss is estimated at
8%
 Leach: lithium not leached from the ore; loss is estimated at 10 to 15%
 CCD and filtration: lithium lost in entrained moisture within the filter cake, lithium loss is
approximately 0.5-1.5%
Page 7
 Magnesium sulfate (MgSO4) and sodium and potassium sulfate salts: lithium is lost in residual
mother liquor remaining on the crystals. Based on test data and typical separation and wash
efficiencies, the loss estimates
o for the magnesium crystallization circuit is 0.25-1.5% and
o for the ZLD crystallization circuit 1-4%
Recovery of lithium during operations will fluctuate with varying ore mineralization and ore chemistry.
1.13 Infrastructure
The mining and Processing Plant operations are located within the McDermitt Caldera in northwest Nevada.
Raw water is sourced via aquifer-fed wells seven miles east of the processing plant. The layout
contemplates a total of two new entrances and utilizing one existing entrance from SR-293 onto the Project
site. See the overall site general arrangement in Figure 1-1. The Project is planned to be constructed in two
phases. To support lithium carbonate production as discussed in Section 17, Phase 1 will consist of a single
sulfuric acid plant with a nominal production rate of 3,000 tonnes per day sulfuric acid. Phase 2 will begin
three years later with the addition of a second sulfuric acid plant with an additional nominal production rate
of 3,000 t/d.
Figure 1-1 Overall Site General Arrangement
Source: M3, 2022
1.13.1 Raw Materials

Raw materials for the Project are to be delivered to the site by over highway trucks during Phase 1 and
Phase 2. Approximately 108 trucks per day will make raw material deliveries to the site. A local rail-to-truck
transloading facility located in Winnemucca will allow for transfer of most raw materials for delivery to the
Project site.
Page 8
1.13.2 Sulfuric Acid Plant

Phase 1 and Phase 2 will each have a single sulfuric acid plant capable of producing a nominal 3,000 t/d
(100 weight % H2SO4 basis) of sulfuric acid by the double contact, double absorption process. Liquid sulfur
is delivered to site by truck and is unloaded into storage tanks. The sulfuric acid generated is stored and
then used in the process plant. The acid plant will also generate power. Additional power will be purchased
and delivered to site.
1.13.3 Clay Tailings Filter Stack (CTFS)

At full plant production, up to approximately 20,300 dry t/d of clay tailings and salts will be generated over
a 40-year period, resulting in a total quantity of 272 million dry tonnes (328 million cubic yards or 250.7
million cubic meters (Mm3)) requiring secure disposal. The Clay Tailings Filter Stack (CTFS) is designed
for a total quantity of 290.5 million dry tonnes (a volume of 350.4 million cubic yards or 267.9 Mm3) and can
be expanded as needed to store material needing containment.
1.13.4 Power
Demand loads for Phase 1 and Phase 2 are 75.4 megawatts (MW) and 66.4 MW respectively, for a
combined total of 141.8 MW demand during Phase 2. Power will be generated at the sulfuric acid plant
from the steam generated from excess heat along with a maximum anticipated import load of 51.9 MW (455
gigawatt hours per year (GWh/year)). Thacker Pass is located in the service territory of Harney Electric
Cooperative (HEC). A 115 kilovolt (kV) line passes through the site. Since the Nevada power market is
regulated, LAC will purchase all imported power from HEC. HEC infrastructure to support this import load
will need to be improved. HEC has a full requirements long-term contract to purchase 100% power from
Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) through NV Energy. BPA has power available to sell, but constraints
on existing transmission infrastructure to deliver the power to the HEC system are still being studied by NV
Energy.
1.13.5 Water
Phase 1 and Phase 2 water demand is approximately 3.5 Mm3 (2,850 acre-ft) per year and 7.0 Mm3
(5,700 acre-ft) per year respectively. Water will be supplied from an existing well in the Quinn River Valley.
Lithium Americas has a leasing agreement for Phase 1 water rights and is awaiting a hearing decision from
the Nevada Division of Water Resources (NDWR) to transfer water rights to the water well location in 2023.
Phase 2 water rights have been partially secured and plans to pursue other opportunities to acquire the
remainder of the water requirements.
1.14 Market Studies and Contracts

Lithium demand displayed significant growth in 2021 and 2022 due to strong consumer demand for electric
vehicles, with lithium carbonate pricing outpacing lithium hydroxide on the spot market. Contract pricing is
expected to continue to significantly increase for battery-grade lithium chemicals with market demand
balancing between lithium hydroxide and lithium carbonate towards the end of the decade. Near-term and
mid-term pricing is expected to rise as demand outpaces supply with not enough lithium chemical
production to ease market tightness. Long-term pricing for lithium chemicals is expected to be supported
by unprecedented market demand combined with lack of supply as pressure from customers to incorporate
carbon-neutral and sustainable technologies. These market conditions incentivize and support CAPEX-
intensive greenfield projects.
The pricing forecast for lithium carbonate is based on the Wood Mackenzie third quarter 2022 lithium price
outlook. Lithium carbonate pricing is set at $24,000 US$/t for each year for the financial model and the
Resource Estimate was based on $22,000 US$/t lithium pricing.
Page 9
1.15 Capital and Operating Costs

The capital cost estimate for the Project has been prepared by M3, Industrial TurnAround Corporation
(ITAC), LNC, and third-party contractors in accordance with the scope of the Project. The capital cost
estimate covers post-sanction early works, mine development, mining, the process plant, the transload
facility, commissioning and all associated infrastructure required to allow for successful construction and
operations. Development capital costs are as shown in Table 1-4.
Table 1-4 Development Capital Cost Estimate Summary

Description Ph1 Costs (US$ M) Ph2 Costs (US$ M) Responsible
Mine
Equipment Capital (Contract Mining) 0 0.0 Sawtooth
Mine Development 51.1 26.3 Sawtooth
Contingency (13.1%) 6.7 3.4 Sawtooth
Total Mine 57.8 29.7
Process Plant and Infrastructure
Costs (Direct & Indirect) 1,735.4 1,398.5 M3/ITAC/EXP
Contingency 227.3 183.2 EDG
Total Process Plant & Infrastructure 1,962.7 1,581.7
Offsite – Transload Facility
Costs (Direct & Indirect) 69.0 27.1 Owner/Savage
Contingency 9.0 3.5 Owner/EDG
Total Offsite Transload facility 78.1 30.6
Owner’s Costs
Costs 149.8 75.6 Owner
Contingency 19.6 9.9 Owner/EDG
Total Owner’s Costs 169.4 85.5
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT CAPITAL 2,268.0 1,727.5
Table 1-5 shows life of mine sustaining capital costs for the base case. Table 1-6 shows sustaining capital
for the first 25 years of the 40-year life of mine.
Page 10
Table 1-5 40-Year LOM Sustaining Capital Estimate Summary (Base Case)
*LOM Costs
Description Responsible
(US$ M)
Mine
Equipment Capital 264.3 Sawtooth/M3
Mobile Equipment
Equipment Capital 26.6 Owner
Process Plant 822.9 Owner
Sulfuric Acid Plant 244.2 EXP
CTFS and CGS 149.0 Owner
Offsite Transload Facility
Transload Facility 3.4 Owner
TOTAL SUSTAINING CAPITAL $1,510.2
Contract Mining Capital Repayment $48.8 Sawtooth/M3
* Phase 2 capital costs are not included in sustaining costs
Table 1-6 First 25 Years of 40-Year LOM Sustaining Capital Estimate Summary
Description *LOM Costs (US$ M) Responsible
Mine
Mobile Equipment
TOTAL SUSTAINING CAPITAL $628.4
Contract Mining Capital Repayment $48.8 Sawtooth/M3
Operating costs were developed by Sawtooth Mining, LAC, and M3. Annual operating costs are
summarized by operating area: Mine, Lithium Process Plant, Sulfuric Acid Plant, and General &
Administrative (G&A). Operating costs in each area include labor, maintenance materials and supplies, raw
materials, outside services, among others. Average operating costs at $7,198/tonne of lithium carbonate
produced, or $480.7 million per annum for all 40 years (or $6,743/tonne and $471.4 million the first 25
years). The process operating costs are based on Q1-Q4 2022 pricing. See Table 1-7 and Table 1-8.
Table 1-7 Operating Cost Estimate Summary (40-Year LOM – Base Case)
Annual Average
Area $/tonne Product Percent of Total
($-M)
Mine 76.4 1,144 16%

Lithium Process Plant 214.6 3,213 45%
Liquid Sulfuric Acid Plant 175.4 2,627 36%
General & Administrative 14.3 215 3%
Total $480.7 7,198 100%
Page 11
Table 1-8 Operating Cost Estimate Summary (Years 1-25 of 40-Year LOM Case)
Area Annual Average ($-M) $/tonne Product Percent of Total
Mine 71.7 1,026 15%

Lithium Process Plant 215.9 3,088 46%
Liquid Sulfuric Acid Plant 169.4 2,424 36%
General & Administrative 14.3 205 3%
Total $471.4 6,743 100%
1.16 Financial Model

An economic analysis was carried out using a discounted cash flow (DCF) model, which was prepared by
LAC with input from M3, ITAC, and EXP U.S. Services Inc. (EXP). The final financial model used to generate
numbers in this report was audited and managed by M3, with reliance on third party experts for individual
components. Annual cash flow projections were estimated for forty years based on the life of mine plan,
estimates of capital expenditures, production costs, taxes, royalties, and sales from lithium carbonate
production. The only revenue stream is sales of lithium carbonate.
Any investments in the Project to date are not amortized in the model.
Production profiles outlined in this technical report are limited to the Company’s Proven and Probable
Mineral Reserves. The production and financial outcomes from these reserves are summarized in Table
1-9 to Table 1-12. A sensitivity analysis has shown the Project is more sensitive to the lithium price than it
is to either CAPEX or OPEX.
Table 1-9 Production Scenario (40-Year LOM – Base Case)
Category Units Value

Operational Life years 40
Mine and Process Plant Operational Life years 40
Ore Reserve Life years 40
Average Annual EBITDA $-M / yr 1,093.5
After-tax Net Present Value (NPV) @ 8% Discount Rate $-M 5,726.9
After-tax Internal Rate of Return (IRR) % 21.4%
Payback (undiscounted) years 5.4
Note: Includes capital investments in years up to production
Table 1-10 Production Scenario – (Years 1-25 of 40-Year LOM Case)

Average Annual EBITDA $-M / yr 1,176.2
After-tax NPV @ 8% Discount Rate $-M 4,950.1
Page 12
After-tax IRR % 21.2%

Table 1-11 Economic Evaluation – Lithium Carbonate Plant (40 Year LOM – Base Case)
Annual Lithium Carbonate Production k-tonnes 66.8
Metallurgical Recovery % 73.2%
Ore Reserves Production Scenario years 40
Annual LCE Mined k-tonnes 91.3
Table 1-12 Economic Evaluation – Lithium Carbonate Plant (Years 1-25 of 40-Year LOM Case)

Annual Lithium Carbonate Production k-tonnes 69.9
Metallurgical Recovery % 73.3%
Annual LCE Mined k-tonnes 95.4
1.17 Conclusions and Recommendations
1.17.1 Conclusions
Based upon analysis, interpretation and results of exploration, engineering, and environmental permitting
carried out for the Project the following conclusions have been made:
 Mineral Resource Estimate: The mineralization is at surface and made up of a claystone and ash
mix that can be free dug with minimal blasting while using conventional mining equipment. The
Mineral Resource estimate was updated in 2022 to 534.7 Mt of Measured Resource averaging
2,450 ppm Li for 7.0 Mt of lithium carbonate equivalent, 922.5 Mt of Indicated Resource averaging
1,850 ppm Li for 9.1 Mt of lithium carbonate equivalent and 297.2 Mt of Inferred Resource averaging
1,870 ppm Li for 3.0 Mt lithium carbonate equivalent. This resulted in a 229% increase in tonnage
and 130% more lithium carbonate equivalent. A cutoff grade of 1,047 ppm Li and an open pit shell
were used to constrain the resource estimate based on break even economics.
 Mineral Reserve Estimate: The Mineral Reserve estimate was estimated from a 40-year pit
designed to satisfy ore delivery requirements. The overall average lithium content mined is
3,160 ppm from 3,180 ppm Li Proven and 3,010 ppm Li Probable. Total ore is 217.3 Mt, of which
192.9 Mt are Proven reserves and 24.4 Mt are Probable. As a result, the total Proven and Probable
Reserves of lithium carbonate equivalent is 3.7 Mt from 3.3 Mt lithium carbonate equivalent Proven
and 0.4 Mt of lithium carbonate equivalent Probable.
 Environmental Permits: There are no identified issues that would prevent LAC from achieving all
permits and authorizations required to commence construction and operation of the Project based
on the data that has been collected to date. The BLM has approved the Plan of Operations and
issued its ROD. In Q1 2022, NDEP issued the two final environmental permits required for
construction. The Water Pollution Control Permit (WPCP) was issued by Nevada Division of
Page 13
Environmental Protection-Bureau of Mining, Regulation and Reclamation (NDEP-BMRR). LAC and

NDEP discussed an initial WPCP where operations would not take place below the 4,840 feet
above mean sea level elevation, which is fifteen (15) feet above the pre-mining regional water table
until further evaluations are completed that show that mining below the water table will not degrade
the waters of the state. The Class II Air Quality Operating Permit was issued by NDEP-BAPC.
 Metallurgical Processes: Metallurgical processes have been engineered from pilot testing, bench
scale testing, and modeling to produce lithium carbonate using conventional unit operations
arranged in a novel flowsheet. Phase 1 production capacity is designed for a nominal 40,000 t/y
and an additional 40,000 t/y for Phase 2, for a combined designed nominal capacity rate of
80,000 t/y of lithium carbonate.
 Water and Power: Water required for construction and production during Phase 1 is secured, in the
amount of 3.5 Mm3 (2,850 acre-ft) per year. Power demand for Phase 1 and Phase 2 is engineered
and the required import load of 52 MW is identified. Power is assumed to be imported from local
utilities with infrastructure upgrades required before Phase 1 production begins.
 Capital Requirements: Capital costs are based on Q1-Q3 2022 pricing. CAPEX spending for
Phase 1 will begin three years before production begins and will include one acid plant, the
necessary civil works and infrastructure to support Phase 1 production rates. Phase 2 capital
spending will begin in year 4 through 7 and will add a second acid plant and duplicate the necessary
processing facility equipment. Phase 1 will require $2,268 million in capital and Phase 2 will require
$1,728 million for a combined capital total of $3,996 million. Sustaining capital and mine capital
repayment over a 25-year mine life totals $628 million. Sustaining capital and mine capital
repayment costs over 40 years total $1,510 million.
 Operating Costs: Cost inputs into the model are from Q1-Q4 2022. Any investments in the Project
to date are not amortized in the model. The average unit operating cost per tonne of lithium
carbonate mined and produced is expected to be $7,198 for the 40-year LOM (base case) and
$6,743 for the 25-year case.
 Economic Results: Based on Q1-Q4 2022 capital and operating cost pricing, the economic analysis
of the Project includes:
o Production of 2.7 Mt of sellable lithium carbonate over a 40-year period.
o Initial capital requirement of $3,996 million to construct Phase 1 and Phase 2 over a seven-
year period.
o Average annual production costs per tonne of lithium carbonate over a 40-year period are
$7,198.
o Average annual production costs per tonne of lithium carbonate over a 25-year period are
$6,743.
o Average price per tonne of lithium carbonate over a 40-year period is forecasted to be
$24,000.
o Average annual EBITDA over a 40-year period is $1,094 million.
o Average annual sustaining capital and mining capital repayment over a 40-year period is
$36 million.
o The economic indicators, after taxes, with an 8% discount rate for the 40-year base case
are $5,727 million NPV, 21.4% IRR, with an undiscounted payback period of 5.4-years.
1.17.2 Recommendations
 Secure financing for the Project for the construction and execution of Phase 1 and Phase 2.
 Finalize contracting of an Engineering, Procurement, and Construction Management (EPCM) firm
for Project execution.
 Continue detailed engineering for the Project and perform value engineering to further reduce costs
and reduce risks.
Page 14
 Perform additional geological and exploration studies to identify, or convert, additional illite
mineralization within the Mineral Resources and Reserves.
 Evaluate and improve lithium extraction from various mineralized clays; smectite, illite and mixed
zones.
 Confirm CCD of neutralized clay tailings followed by filtration achieves consistent recoveries versus
bench scale filtration testing summarized in this report.
 Complete BPA System Impact Study to determine when sufficient import power can be available.
 Determine power contingency plans for commissioning and potentially reduced capacity during
early plant operations without power import from BPA.
 Secure water required for Phase 2 in the amount of 3.5 Mm3 (2,850 acre-ft) per year.
 Perform additional geotechnical investigations to source construction materials available on site.
 Complete additional laboratory testing on tailings materials to further understand variability in the
materials.
 Initiate a bulk density study to gather samples for density analyses to further determine variability
in the bulk densities throughout the ore body.
 Develop a low-grade standard for lithium assays to be included in the QA/QC sampling program.
 Develop a standard and blank sampling program QA/QC for deleterious elements.
Page 15
2 Introduction and Terms of Reference

This Technical Report was prepared at the request of Lithium Americas Corp., a company incorporated
under the laws of British Columbia, Canada, trading under the symbol “LAC” on the Toronto Stock
Exchange and the New York Stock Exchange with its corporate office at 300 – 900 West Hastings Street,
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, V6C 1E5. Work was carried out in cooperation with Lithium Nevada
Corp. (LNC), a wholly owned subsidiary of Lithium Americas Corp. (LAC), formerly known as Western
Lithium USA Corp (WLC).
This document provides a summary of the feasibility study evaluation of LAC’s Thacker Pass Project (the
Project) and focuses on the Thacker Pass Deposit (the Deposit), formerly Stage I of the Kings Valley Project
or Lithium Nevada Project. Excluded from this Technical Report are resource statements from the Montana
Mountains deposit (formerly Stage II deposit of the Lithium Nevada Project), as LAC’s focus is on
developing a project of scale in Thacker Pass. The claims owned by LAC that are north of the Thacker
Pass Project in the Montana Mountains do not form part of this mineral project.
This report was prepared in the format stipulated by National Instrument 43-101 Standards of Disclosure
for Mineral Projects (NI 43-101) applicable in Canada. Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves estimation
is based on the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (CIM) 2019 Estimation of Mineral
Resources and Mineral Reserves Best Practice Guidelines (2019 CIM Guidelines). Definitions of Mineral
Resources and Mineral Reserves are as set out in the 2014 CIM Definition Standards for Mineral Resources
and Mineral Reserves.
2.1 Sources of Information

M3 Engineering & Technology Corporation (M3) was commissioned by LAC to prepare this Technical
Report. In preparing this report, M3 and Industrial TurnAround Corporation (ITAC) provided engineering
services and have relied upon input from LAC and information prepared by a number of qualified
independent consulting groups particularly regarding regional geology, geological mapping, exploration,
and resource estimation. Through its subsidiary LNC, LAC has contracted with Sawtooth, a subsidiary of
The North American Coal Corporation (NAC), which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of NACCO Industries,
Inc. (NYSE: NC), to provide resource and reserve estimation for this technical report. NAC has reviewed
and signed off on the work provided by Sawtooth. EXP U.S. Services Inc. (EXP) reviewed the sulfuric acid
plant and power plant. NewFields Mining Design & Technical Services (NewFields) contributed to work on
environmental and tailings facilities. Wood Canada Limited (Wood) reviewed segments of metallurgy and
the process as well as environmental concerns. EDG, Inc. (EDG) participated in the preparation of some
cost elements of the estimate.
M3, Sawtooth, NACCO, NewFields, Wood, EXP and Piteau are independent companies and not associates
or affiliates of LAC or any associated company of LAC. Table 2-1 lists the Qualified Persons (QP) involved
with authoring this report. Table 2-2 lists the sections each QP is responsible for.
Table 2-1 List of Qualified Persons, Professional Designations and Site Visit Dates
Name of Qualified
Designation Company Date of Site Visit
Person
Daniel Roth P.E., P. Eng. M3 April 13, 2021
Laurie Tahija QP-MMSA M3 No site visit
Benson Chow RM-SME Sawtooth November 8, 2018, September 13 and 14, 2022
Process Engineering,
Eugenio Iasillo P.E. No site visit: Reno Laboratory Visit Only
LLC
Page 16
Name of Qualified
Designation Company Date of Site Visit
Person
No site visit: Reno Laboratory Visit Only
Kevin Martina P. Eng. Wood
(December 1-3, 2021)
August 12 & 13, 2019, September 13 & 14,
Kevin Bahe P.E. Sawtooth
2022
EXP U.S. Services
Walter Mutler P. Eng. November 2, 2022
Inc.
Paul Kaplan P.E. NewFields No site visit
Tyler Cluff RM-SME Piteau March 7-8, June 8, and November 7-9, 2022
Bruce Shannon P.E. ITAC October 18, 2020
Table 2-2 Qualified Person Areas of Responsibility

Qualified Description of
Section Section Name Subsections
Person Responsibility
1 Summary All QPs - -
2 Introduction Daniel Roth - -
3 Reliance on other Experts Daniel Roth - -
4 Property Description and Location Benson Chow - -
Accessibility, Climate, Local
5 Resources, Infrastructure and Benson Chow - -
Physiography
6 History Benson Chow - -
Geological Setting and
7 Benson Chow - -
Mineralization
8 Deposit Types Benson Chow - -
9 Exploration Benson Chow - -
10 Drilling Benson Chow - -
Sample Preparation, Analyses
11 Benson Chow - -
and Security
12 Data Verification Benson Chow - -
ROM feed through
All except for Sections
Mineral Processing and neutralized tails as
13 Eugenio Iasillo 13.2.4.1, 13.2.4.3, 13.2.5.1 to
Metallurgical Testing well as magnesium
13.2.5.3
precipitation
Magnesium sulfate
crystallization to
production of final 13.2.4.1, 13.2.4.3, 13.2.5.1 to
Kevin Martina
product, excluding 13.2.5.3
magnesium
precipitation.
14 Mineral Resource Estimates Benson Chow - -
15 Mineral Reserve Estimates Kevin Bahe - -
16 Mining Methods Kevin Bahe - -
Section 17.1, Tables 17-1
and 17-3 and corresponding
ROM feed through parts of 17.2.1 in Section
neutralized tails as 17.2, 17.3.1 to 17.3.4,
17 Recovery Methods Laurie Tahija
well as magnesium 17.3.5.2, 17.3.8, 17.4.1 to
precipitation. 17.4.3, 17.4.6, corresponding
parts of 17.4.10 and 17.4.11,
and 17.5 to 17.11.
Page 17
Qualified Description of
Section Section Name Subsections
Person Responsibility
Tables 17-2 and 17-4 and
Magnesium sulfate
corresponding parts of 17.2.1
crystallization to
in Section 17.2, Sections
packaging of final
Kevin Martina 17.3.5.1, 17.3.6, 17.3.7,
product, excluding
17.4.4, 17.4.5, 17.4.7, 17.4.8,
magnesium
17.4.9 and corresponding
precipitation
parts of 17.4.10 and 17.4.11.
Access, water
supply, site & 18.1, 18.2, 18.3, 18.4, 18.5,
18 Project Infrastructure Daniel Roth
process plant 18.6, and 18.9
arrangement
Bruce
Power supply 18.7
Shannon
Sulfuric acid
Walter Mutler 18.8
production
Waste rock and
Paul Kaplan 18.10
tailing disposal
19 Market Studies and Contracts Daniel Roth - -
General
Environmental Studies, Permitting All except for 20.7.4.1 to
20 Paul Kaplan environmental and
and Social or Community Impact 20.7.4.6
permitting
Tyler Cluff Water Sections 20.7.4.1-20.7.4.6
Process and
All except for 21.1.3, 21.2.1
21 Capital and Operating Costs Daniel Roth infrastructure capital
and 21.3.
costs
Process operating Section 21.3 except 21.3.3.1
Laurie Tahija
costs and 21.3.3.3
Kevin Bahe Mining costs 21.1.3, 21.2.1, 21.3.3.1
Sulfuric acid plant
Walter Mutler 21.2.1, 21.3.3.3
costs
22 Economic Analysis Daniel Roth - -
23 Adjacent Properties Benson Chow - -
Other Relevant Data and Project Execution
24 Daniel Roth 24.1
Information Plan
Kevin Bahe Limestone Quarry 24.2.1 to 24.2.4
Limestone Quarry
Paul Kaplan 24.2.5, 24.2.6
Permitting
Daniel Roth Transload Facility 24.3.1, 24.3.2
Transload Facility
Paul Kaplan 24.3.3
Permitting
25 Interpretation and Conclusions All QPs - -
26 Recommendations All QPs - -
27 References N/A - -
The Mineral Resource estimate is based on an exploration drilling program conducted in 2007 – 2010 and
2017 – 2018. Prior versions of the Mineral Resource were reported in previously filed technical reports as
shown in Table 2-3.
Table 2-3 Previously Filed Technical Reports

Preparer Issuer Title Effective Date
Kings Valley Lithium Project, Nevada USA
AMEC Western Lithium Corporation June 1, 2008
NI 43-101
Page 18
Preparer Issuer Title Effective Date

NI 43-101 Technical Report Kings Valley
AMEC Western Lithium Corporation December 15, 2008
Lithium Nevada, USA
Kings Valley Project NI 43-101 Technical
Report Preliminary Assessment and
URS Western Lithium Corporation December 31, 2009
Economic Evaluation Humboldt County,
Nevada
NI 43-101 Technical Report Stage II (South
GeoSystems Western Lithium Corporation Lens) Resource Estimate Kings Valley May 15, 2010
Project
Preliminary Feasibility Study Kings Valley
Tetra Tech Western Lithium Corporation January 27, 2012
Lithium Project
Updated NI 43-101 Technical Report Kings
Tetra Tech Western Lithium Corporation April 30, 2014
Valley Property Humboldt County, Nevada
Independent Technical Report for the
SRK Lithium Americas Corporation May 31, 2016
Lithium Nevada Property, Nevada, USA
Independent Technical Report for the
Advisian Lithium Americas Corporation Thacker Pass Project, Humboldt County, February 15, 2018
Nevada, USA
Technical Report on the Pre-Feasibility
Advisian Lithium Americas Corporation Study for the Thacker Pass Project, August 1, 2018
Humboldt County, Nevada, USA
The current Mineral Resource has an effective date of November 2, 2022.
2.2 Description of Personal Inspections

Daniel Roth visited the site on April 13, 2021. He reviewed the areas for the process plant, tailings facility,
the water supply line, and highway tie-ins.
Mr. Benson Chow visited LAC’s Thacker Pass Project site on November 8, 2018 and September 13 and
14, 2022. The purposes of the visits were to complete a QP data verification, site inspections, and
independent verification of lithium grades. No material changes to the exploration drilling or site conditions
have occurred on site since. During the visits, Mr. Chow completed the following tasks:
 Visited the Project location to better understand the local geomorphology and layout.
 Visited the active exploration drilling rig to observe the HQ core drilling, core handling, and core
transportation. Additional conversations with the exploration geologists included detailed
discussions regarding the core lithology being drilled.
 Visited the LAC core shed located near the Project site to review the core storage facility, core
logging procedures, core splitting procedures, and sample preparation procedures. While at the
core shed, LAC’s geologists were actively logging core and LAC’s technician was splitting core. A
general conversation about the QA/QC program was conducted with LAC’s Senior Geologist.
 Visited the onsite meteorological station to review security, access and general conditions of the
station.
 Observed bulk sampling of clay/ash material for testing at LAC’s Technical Center from the 2022
auger sampling program.
 Collected samples from the 2022 bulk sampling program for independent verification of the
clay/ash lithium grades.
 Verified drill hole collar locations and elevations.
 Visited LAC’s Lithium Technical Development Center in Reno, NV.
 Performed a laboratory audit of ALS Reno Laboratory where LAC sends samples for analytical
testing preparations.
Page 19
Mr. Kevin Bahe visited LAC’s Thacker Pass Project site from August 12-13, 2019 and September 13-14,
2022, to complete a QP data verification site inspection. Additionally, Mr. Bahe toured the pilot plant lab in
Reno, NV on July 25, 2019 and LAC’s Technical Center in Reno on September 15, 2022. No material
changes to the mining location or site conditions have occurred on site since. During the visits, Mr. Bahe
completed the following tasks:
 Mr. Bahe visited the Project location to better understand the general layout of the mining area,
dump areas, and plant area.
 During the site visit, Mr. Bahe observed BARR engineering drilling cores for the pit slope stability
study. Drilling was being done in the initial pit development area. Mr. Bahe was able to inspect
cores and see lithology.
 During the visit to LAC’s pilot lab, Mr. Bahe observed ore processing steps through the
development of clay cake. Mr. Bahe gained a better understanding of the ore processing.
 Observed bulk sampling of clay/ash material for testing at LAC’s Lithium Technical Development
Center from the 2022 auger sampling program.
 Toured LAC’s new Technical Center.
 Toured the ALS Reno laboratory where LAC sends samples for analytical testing procedures.
 Assisted in collection of samples from the 2022 bulk sampling program for independent
verification of the clay/ash lithium grades.
 Visited the LAC core shed located near the Project site.
Bruce Shannon of ITAC visited the site on October 18, 2020. He reviewed the on-site facilities as well as
off-site support facilities, including:
 Locations of the proposed processing plant and mine entrances off NV293,
 Location of attrition scrubbing and mine operations and waste rock storage areas,
 Weather station,
 Numerous test drills,
 Location of the CTFS,
 Existing fencing and discussed improvements to Pole Creek Rd for primary access for construction
equipment and materials,
 Water system secondary booster pump station site,
 115 kV power lines and their proximity to the new 115 kV to 15 kV substation at the plant site,
 Well field,
 Well field power distribution line location (and where it will need to pass over or under washes,
roads and hills),
 Sites of the secondary well and primary booster pump and tank,
 Primary well site,
 Transload site, rail line, roads, and power lines in Winnemucca, and
 Pilot plant and labs in Reno.
Walter Mutler of EXP visited the site on November 2, 2022. The highlights of his visit were as follows:
 Visited the Project site to better understand the location of the sulfuric acid and STG power plants
and their ancillaries for both Phase 1 and 2.
 Determined that, considering the timeline of the acid plant construction is an earlier activity, there
should be a minimum obstruction during the construction of the SAP/Power Plant, as the work will
be under green field and grassroots conditions.
 Some of his other findings included:
o Due to soft clay native topsoil, compaction of the area inside Project battery limits and
roads should be considered, particularly in high-traffic roads and where heavy lifting items
will take place.
Page 20
o The road clearance between the finish road elevation and the powerlines should be
confirmed before any oversize transportation, as all construction traffic must cross the 115
kV high-voltage power line.
 Visited LAC’s Lithium Technical Development Center in Reno and observed the installation of the
pilot plant upstream portion of the process (i.e., ore separation, scrubbing, and thickening).
Mr. Tyler Cluff has frequently visited the Project site, including March 7-8, June 8, and November 7-9 during
2022. During the June visit he provided a tour for a surface water hydrology group. In November, he
retrieved quarterly piezometric data, serviced equipment, and surveyed springs and surface water.
Eugenio Iasillo has not performed a site visit but instead visited the laboratory in Reno to review the
metallurgy in December 2021.
Kevin Martina has not performed a site visit but instead visited the laboratory in Reno to review the
metallurgy in December 2021.
Laurie Tahija has not performed a site visit due to her work on process design.
Paul Kaplan has not performed a site visit due to his focus on environmental and permitting review which
primarily takes place off site.
2.3 Units, Currency and Terms of Reference

All units used in this report are metric unless otherwise stated. Currency in this report is in United States
Dollars (US$) unless otherwise specified. Table 2-4 lists the abbreviations for technical terms used
throughout the text of this report.
Table 2-4 Abbreviations and Acronyms

Abbreviation/Acronym Description
' feet, minutes (Longitude/Latitude)
" inches, seconds (Longitude/Latitude)
% percent
< Less Than
> Greater Than
° Degrees of Arc
°C Degrees Celsius
°F Degrees Fahrenheit
µm Micrometer (10-6 meter)
3D Three-Dimensional
AACE Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering International
AAL American Assay Laboratory
ACOE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
ActLabs Activation Laboratories
Ai Bond abrasion index
ALS ALS Global
amsl above mean sea level
ARDML Acid Rock Drainage and Metal Leaching
ARO Annual Reclamation Obligation
ARPA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
As Arsenic
BAPC Bureau of Air Pollution Control Contacts
BFW Boiler Feed Water
Page 21
BLM Bureau of Land Management
BMRR Bureau of Mining Regulation and Reclamation
BPA Department of Energy’s Bonneville Power Administration
BWi Bond ball mill work index
CaCO3 calcium carbonate
CaO Quicklime
CAPEX Capital Expenditure or Capital Cost Estimate
CCD Counter Current Decantation
CGS Coarse Gangue Stockpile
Chevron Chevron USA
CIM Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum
cm centimeters
CO2 Carbon dioxide
CoG cutoff grade
CPE Corrugated Polyethylene Pipe
Cs Caesium
CTFS Clay Tailings Filter Stack (Tailings Storage Facility)
CWi Bond impact work index
CY cubic yard(s)
DCDA Double Contact Double Absorption
DCF discounted cash flow
DCS Distributed Control System
deg. C or oC Degrees Celsius
DMS data management system
DOE Department of Energy
DOI Department of the Interior
DTB draft tube baffle
EA Environmental Assessment
EBITDA Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization
EDG EDG, Inc.
EDR Engineering Design Report
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
EPC Engineering, Procurement, and Construction
EPCM Engineering, Procurement, and Construction Management
ESA Endangered Species Act
ET evapotranspiration
EXP EXP U.S. Services Inc.
Fe2(SO4)3 Ferric sulfate
FEDINC Florida Engineering and Design, Inc.
FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement
FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact
FRP Fiberglass Reinforced Polymer
ft feet or foot
G&A General & Administrative
g/cm3 grams per cubic centimeter
g/l or g/L grams per liter
GMS Growth Media Stockpile
gpm Gallon(s) per minute
GPS Global Positioning System
Page 22
GRR Gross Revenue Royalty
GWh/year gigawatt hours per year
h hour
H2S hydrogen sulfide
H2SO4 sulfuric acid
ha hectares
HAP hazardous air pollutants
Hazen Hazen Research
HCT humidity cell test
HDPE High Density Polyethylene
HEC Harney Electric Cooperative
HMI human machine interface
HP horsepower
HPTP Historic Properties Treatment Plan
HPZ Hot Pond Zone
Standard “Q” wire line bit size. 96 mm outside hole diameter and 63.5 mm core
HQ
diameter.
HRS heat recovery systems
Huber J. M. Huber Corporation
Hz Hertz
ICP Inductively Coupled Plasma Spectrometer
ICP-AES Inductively Coupled Plasma Atomic Emission Spectroscopy
ICP-MS Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectroscopy
in inch or inches
IRR Internal Rate of Return
ITAC Industrial TurnAround Corporation
IX Ion Exchange
K Potassium
KCA Kappes Cassiday & Associates
kg kilograms
km kilometer
kt thousand tonnes
kV kilovolt
kW kilowatt(s)
kWh kilowatt hour(s)
LAC Lithium Americas Corporation
LCE Lithium Carbonate Equivalent
LCT Lahontan cutthroat trout
LFP Lithium Ferro Phosphate
LHCSL low hydraulic conductivity soil layer
Li Lithium
Li2CO3 Lithium carbonate
LiHCO3 lithium bicarbonate
LNC Lithium Nevada Corporation
LOM Life of Mine
M million
m meter
M3 M3 Engineering & Technology Corporation
m3/h cubic meters per hour
Page 23
Ma million years ago
MCY million cubic yards
mg/L milligrams per liter
MgSO4 Magnesium sulfate
Mining Act Mining Act of the United States of America
MLLA Mineral Lands Leasing Act
mm millimeters
Mm3 million cubic meters
Mo Molybdenum
MOA Memorandum of Agreement
MOL milk of lime
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
Mt million tonnes
MVR Mechanical Vapor Recompression
MW megawatt
MWh megawatt hour(s)
MWMP Meteoric Water Mobility Procedure
Na Sodium
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAC North American Coal Corporation
NDEP Nevada Division of Environmental Protection
NDOT Nevada Department of Transportation
NDOW State of Nevada Department of Wildlife
NDWR Nevada Division of Water Resources
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NewFields NewFields Mining Design & Technical Services
NFPA National Fire Protection Association
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
NOI Notice of Intent
NOx nitrogen oxides
NPV Net Present Value
NRV Nevada Reference Values
OPEX Operational Expense or Operating Cost Estimate
P&ID piping and instrumentation diagram
PCS Plant Control System
PDC Process Design Criteria
PFS Pre-feasibility Study
pH measure of acidity
Ph1 Phase 1
Ph2 Phase 2
PoO Plan of Operation
ppm parts per million
Standard “Q” wire line bit size. 122.6 mm outside hole diameter and 85 mm
PQ
core diameter.
PSD particle size distribution, Prevention of Significant Deterioration
PTC Process Testing Center
QA/QC Quality Assurance and Quality Control
Qal Quaternary Alluvium
QP Qualified Person
Page 24
Rb Rubidium
RC Reverse Circulation
RO reverse osmosis
ROD Record of Decision
ROM Run-of-Mine
Sample ID Sample Tags
SAP Sulfuric Acid Plant
Savage Savage Companies (transloader)
Sawtooth Sawtooth Mining, LLC
Sb Antimony
SCR Selective Catalyst Reduction
SHRIMP Sensitive High Resolution Ion Microprobe
SO2 Sulfur dioxide
SRC Saskatchewan Research Council
SRK SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.
STG steam turbine generator
t Tonne (metric)
t/a Tonnes per annum (metric)
t/d Tonnes per day (metric)
t/m3 Tonnes per cubic meter
t/y Tonnes per year (metric)
TDS total dissolved solids
TIC total installed cost
UCS unconfined compressive strength
UM Unpatented Mining
US EPA US Environmental Protection Agency
US$ US Dollars
US$/t United States Dollars per tonne
USBM United States Bureau of Mines
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service
USG MODFLOW-USG (a water balance model)
USGS United States Geological Survey
UTM Universal Transverse Mercator
WBS Work Breakdown Structure
WEDC Western Energy Development Corporation
WLC Western Lithium USA Corporation
Wood Wood Canada Limited
WPCP Water Pollution Control Permits
WRSF Waste Rock Storage Facility
wt.% percent by weight
WWRSF West Waste Rock Storage Facility
XRD X-Ray Diffraction
YOY year-over-year
ZLD Zero Liquid Discharge
Page 25
3 Reliance on Other Experts

In cases where the study authors have relied on contributions from third parties, the conclusions and
recommendations are exclusively those of the particular QP. The results and opinions outlined in this
Technical Report that are dependent on information provided by third parties are assumed to be current,
accurate and complete as of the date of this report.
Information received from other experts has been reviewed for factual errors by the Qualified Persons. Any
changes made as a result of these reviews did not involve any alteration to the conclusions made. Hence,
the statements and opinions expressed in these documents are given in good faith and in the belief that
such statements and opinions are not false and misleading at the date of these reports. These experts were
relied upon for the following information:
 The aerial topography was provided by GeoTerra in their report entitled, “Lidar Technical Report,
Kings Valley Lithium, Presented to US Geomatics, Inc., Submitted by GeoTerra, 860 McKinley
Street, Eugene, OR 97402, December 15, 2017.”
 The Qualified Persons have relied on other experts for property ownership and mineral tenure.
Regarding mineral tenure to the property set forth in Section 4.2, the QPs have relied entirely, and
without independent investigation, on the title opinion of Richard Harris, an attorney with Harris &
Thompson (now Harris, Thompson and Faillers), dated February 6, 2013. The title opinion was
updated and supplemented by the updated title opinion of Mr. Harris, dated November 18, 2016.
Thomas P. Erwin also issued a Mineral Status Report on May 18, 2020.
Page 26
4 Property Description and Location

4.1 Property Description
The Project is located in Humboldt County in northern Nevada, approximately 100 km north-northwest of
Winnemucca, about 33 km west-northwest of Orovada, Nevada and 33 km due south of the Oregon border
as shown on Figure 4-1. The area is sparsely populated and used primarily for ranching and farming. A
total of 117 people live in Orovada, Nevada, according to the 2020 US Census for Orovada CDP, Nevada.
More specifically, the Project is situated at the southern end of the McDermitt Caldera Complex in Township
44 North (T44N), Range 34 East (R34E), and within portions of Sections 1 and 12; T44N, R35E within
portions of Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17; and T44N, R36E, within portions
of Sections 7, 8, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 29. The Project area is located on the United
States Geological Survey (USGS) Thacker Pass 7.5-minute quadrangle at an approximate elevation of
1,500 m.
The Project area encompasses approximately 4,236 ha within the Plan of Operations (PoO). Figure 4-2
shows the location of the Project and the unpatented mining claims owned or controlled by LAC and
property owned by LAC in northern Humboldt County, Nevada. The property lies within and is surrounded
by public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
Page 27
Figure 4-1 Regional Location Map
Page 28
Figure 4-2 Map of Lithium Americas Corp. Mineral and Surface Control in the Vicinity of the
Thacker Pass Project
Page 29
4.2 Mineral Tenure

A list of the unpatented mining claims (UM Claims) owned or controlled by LAC in northern Humboldt
County, Nevada, is presented in Table 4-1. These claims include the Project area and are shown in Figure
4-2. In addition to these claims, LAC also owns 64.75 ha of private property in the Project area.
Table 4-1 Thacker Pass Project UM Claims Owned by LAC
Claim Name Claim Number NMC Number Total Claims
BASIN 1-30 1170660-1170689 30

BETA 1-51 894721-894771 51
105235961-
BLSE 1-18
105235978
18
BPE 1-498 1018964 - 1019461 498
BPE 499-531 1030193 - 1030225 33
BPE 532 1049234 1
CAMP 1-66 1191376-1191441 66
CC Mill 1-5 1122041 - 1122045 5
CC Mill 6-9 1130820 - 1130823 4
CC Mill 10-12 1170690 - 1170692 3
DELTA 1-14 919508-919521 14
DPH 1-22 1147600-1147621 22
ION 1-32 1164510-1164541 32
ION 35-50 1164542-1164557 16
ION 53-69 1164558-1164574 17
ION 72-85 1164575-1164588 14
ION 86 1164590 1
ION 87 1164589 1
ION 88 1164591 1
ION 90-107 1164592-1164609 18
ION 109-132 1164610-1164633 24
ION 135-139 1164634-1164638 5
ION 146-149 1164640-1164643 4
ION 153-165 1164644-1164656 13
ION 168-175 1164657-1164664 8
ION 184-202 1164665-1164683 19
ION 212-232 1164684-1164704 21
ION 240-262 1164705-1164727 23
ION 264-286 1164728-1164750 23
ION 300-306 1164751-1164757 7
LITH 1-461 900830-901290 461
LITH 463 901292 1
LITH 465 901294 1
LITH 467 901296 1
LITH 469 901298 1
LITH 471-473 901300-901302 3
LITH 477 901306 1
LITH 479 901308 1
LITH 481 901310 1
LITH 484 901313 1
LITH 486 901315 1
LITH 488 901317 1
LITH 491-567 901320-901396 77
Page 30
LITH 586-677 901415-901506 92

LITH 706-708 901535-901537 3
LITH 713-732 901538-901557 20
LITH 734-766 901558-901590 33
LITH 785-1054 901609-901878 270
Longhorn 2-3 1170694-1170695 2
Longhorn 5-6 1170697-1170698 2
MHC 1-14 1087803-1087816 14
MHC 16-99 1087818-1087901 84
OMEGA 1-124 950298-950421 124
Moonlight 1 8001 1
Moonlight 4 732426 1
NEUTRON 31-45 919267- 919281 15
NEUTRON 76-105 919282- 919311 30
NEUTRON 166-189 919342- 919365 24
NEUTRON 190 894562 1
NEUTRON 192 894564 1
NEUTRON 194 894566 1
NEUTRON 196-199 894568-894571 4
NEUTRON 200-207 919366-919373 8
NEUTRON 209-225 919375 - 919391 17
NEUTRON 238-239 894610- 894611 2
NEUTRON 347 894719 1
NEUTRON 353-366 900226 - 900239 14
NEUTRON 379-402 900252 - 900275 24
NEUTRON 427-450 900300 - 900323 24
NEUTRON 475-498 900348 - 900371 24
NEUTRON 523-546 900396 - 900419 24
NEUTRON 555-574 900428 - 900447 20
NEUTRON 579-585 900452 - 900458 7
NEUTRON 586-627 982465 - 982506 42
NEUTRON PLUS 1 1020688 1
NEUTRON PLUS 2 1087902 1
NEUTRON R 25R-30R 1049235-1049240 6
NEUTRON R 70R-75R 1049241-1049246 6
NEUTRON R 160R-165R 1049247-1049252 6
NEUTRON R 195R 1049253 1
NEUTRON R 208R 1049254 1
NEUTRON R 240R 1049255 1
NEUTRON R 242R 1049256 1
NEUTRON R 244R 1049257 1
NEUTRON R 246R 1049258 1
NEUTRON R 248R 1049259 1
NEUTRON R 250R 1049260 1
NEUTRON R 252R 1049261 1
NEUTRON R 254R 1049262 1
NEUTRON R 256R 1049263 1
NEUTRON R 258R 1049264 1
NEUTRON R 260R 1049265 1
NEUTRON R 262R 1049266 1
NEUTRON R 264R 1049267 1
Page 31
NEUTRON R 270R 1049268 1

NEUTRON R 272R 1049269 1
NEUTRON R 276R 1049270 1
NEUTRON R 278R 1049271 1
NEUTRON R 280R 1049272 1
NEUTRON R 282R 1049273 1
NEUTRON R 284R-288R 1049274-1049278 5
NEUTRON R 348R 1029479 1
PDC Mill 1-18 1020381-1020398 18
PROTRON 1-46 900530-900575 46
RAD 1-121 937673-937793 121
ROCK 1-20 1164758-1164777 20
Further details on the history and ownership of the Thacker Pass Project, and the associated claims, are in
Section 6.
4.2.1 Unpatented Mining Claims and Surface Rights

The underlying title to the Thacker Pass Project properties is held through a series of UM Claims. UM
Claims provide the holder with the rights to all locatable minerals on the relevant property, which includes
lithium. The rights include the ability to use the claims for prospecting, mining or processing operations, and
uses reasonably incident thereto, along with the right to use so much of the surface as may be necessary
for such purposes or for access to adjacent land. This interest in the UM Claims remains subject to the
paramount title of the US federal government. The holder of a UM Claim maintains a perpetual entitlement
to the UM Claim, provided it meets the obligations for maintenance of the UM Claims as required by the
Mining Act of the United States of America (the Mining Act) and associated regulations.
At this time, the principal obligation imposed on the holders of UM Claims is to pay an annual maintenance
fee, which represents payment in lieu of the assessment work required under the Mining Act. The annual
fee of $165.00 per claim is payable to the BLM, Department of the Interior, Nevada, in addition to a fee of
$12.00 per claim paid to the county recorder of the relevant county in Nevada where the UM Claim is
located. All obligations for the Thacker Pass Project UM Claims in Nevada, including annual fees to the
BLM and Humboldt County, have been fulfilled.
The holder of UM Claims maintains the right to extract and sell locatable minerals, which includes lithium,
subject to regulatory approvals required under Federal, State and local law. In Nevada, such approvals and
permits include approval of a plan of operations by the BLM and environmental approvals. The Mining Act
also does not explicitly authorize the owner of a UM Claim to sell minerals that are leasable under the
Mineral Lands Leasing Act of 1920, USA, as amended (the MLLA). At this time, the MLLA is not implicated
because the only mineral contemplated for mining and processing at this time is lithium.
4.3 Nature and Extent of Interest and Title

LNC is a Nevada corporation that is currently a wholly owned subsidiary of the Canadian-based LAC. LAC
was formerly known as Western Lithium USA Corp (WLC). Pursuant to an agreement signed on December
20, 2007, between Western Energy Development Corporation (WEDC), a subsidiary of Western Uranium
Corporation, and WLC (which was then also a subsidiary of Western Uranium Corporation), WEDC leased
to WLC the Lith and Neutron claims for the purpose of lithium exploration and exploitation (the Lease).
Page 32
Effective February 4, 2011, Western Uranium Corporation (WEDC), and Western Lithium USA Corp. (WLC)
entered into an agreement for the purchase by WLC from WEDC of the royalties and titles for the Kings
Valley Lithium Property.
In March 2011, the parties completed the transaction for the sale by WEDC to WLC of the royalties and
titles constituting all of the Kings Valley Lithium Property. As a result of this transaction, the existing lease
and royalty arrangements between the two companies on the Kings Valley Lithium Property, including the
net smelter returns and net profits royalties on any lithium project that the company developed, were
terminated. WLC acquired, directly or indirectly, control and full ownership of the Kings Valley Lithium
Property mining claims and leases, excluding a gold exploration target (on the Albisu property) and a 20%
royalty granted by WEDC to Cameco Global Exploration II Ltd. solely in respect of uranium (the Uranium
Royalty). The UM Claims provided WLC the exclusive rights to explore, develop, and mine or otherwise
produce any and all lithium deposits discovered on the claims, subject to royalty payments. The claims
include the entirety of the mineralized zones in Thacker Pass and the Montana Mountains (formerly Stages
1 to Stage 5). On March 22, 2016, the company announced a name change from Western Lithium USA
Corp. to Lithium Americas Corp. and the name of its Nevada-based wholly owned subsidiary was changed
from Western Lithium Corp. to Lithium Nevada Corp. In 2018, LAC changed the name of its proposed
lithium project to the Thacker Pass Project, reflecting the company’s decision to focus the proposed
development within the pass area located south of the Montana Mountains. LNC is the record owner of the
UM Claims in the Project area. The current Project does not include the development of UM Claims in the
Montana Mountains.
Legal access to the UM Claims is provided directly by State Route 293.
4.4 Royalties, Rights and Payments

In addition to the Uranium Royalty and those national, state and local rates identified in Section 4.2.1 of this
report, the Thacker Pass Property is subject to a royalty with the Orion Mine Finance Fund I (f.n.a. RK Mine
Finance [Master] Fund II L.P.) (Orion). It is a gross revenue royalty on the Thacker Pass Property in the
amount of 8% of gross revenue until aggregate royalty payments equal $22 million have been paid, at which
time the royalty will be reduced to 4.0% of the gross revenue on all minerals mined, produced or otherwise
recovered. LAC can at any time elect to reduce the rate of the royalty to 1.75% on notice and payment of
$22 million to Orion.
4.5 Environmental Liabilities

LAC has reclamation obligations for a small hectorite clay mine located within the Project area. The financial
liability for this reclamation obligation, as stipulated by the BLM, is $871,336. LAC’s other environmental
liabilities from existing mineral exploration Projects in the vicinity of the Project area have a reclamation
obligation totaling approximately $449,109. LAC currently holds a $1,357,520 reclamation bond with the
BLM Nevada State Office.
There are no other known environmental liabilities associated with the Project.
4.6 Permitting
Based on information provided, or researched and reviewed, there are no federal, state or local regulatory
or permitting issues identified at this time are likely to preclude overall approval of the proposed Project.
The Project is located on public lands administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior, BLM.
Construction of the Project requires permits and approvals from various Federal, State, and local
government agencies. Permitting status is described in more detail in Section 20.3 of this Technical Report.
Page 33
Since 2008, LAC has performed extensive exploration activities at the Project site under existing approved
agency permits. LAC has all necessary federal and state permits and approvals to conduct mineral
exploration activities within active target areas of the Thacker Pass Project site.
A Plan of Operations and Reclamation Plan (PoO)—Plan of Operations No. N85255—for mineral
exploration activities, including drilling and trenching for bulk sampling, was submitted to the BLM and the
NDEP BMRR in May 2008. This PoO was analyzed by an Environmental Assessment (EA), DOI-BLM-NV-
W010-2010-001-EA, in accordance with the United States National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. It
was subsequently approved in January 2010 under the BLM’s Surface Management Regulations contained
in Title 43 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter 3809. Under BLM permit N85255, twelve separate
Work Plans have been submitted and approved by the BLM, authorizing continued exploration activities at
site. As requested by the BLM, appropriate baseline studies that included a formal cultural resource survey
were completed to support the Environmental Assessment Decision Record and Finding of No Significant
Impact (FONSI) and approval of the PoO. The NDEP-BMRR issued concurrent approval for the exploration
PoO, including the approval of the reclamation financial guarantee, and issued State of Nevada
Reclamation Permit No. 0301 for the exploration project.
LAC further submitted the Thacker Pass Project Proposed PoO Permit Application on August 1, 2019 (LAC,
2019a). The permit application was preceded by LAC’s submission of baseline environmental studies
documenting the collection and reporting of data for environmental, natural, and socio-economic resources
used to support mine planning and design, impact assessment, and approval process.
As part of the overall permitting and approval process, the BLM completed an analysis in accordance with
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) to assess the reasonably foreseeable impacts to the
human and natural environment that could result from the implementation of Project activities. As the lead
Federal regulatory agency managing the NEPA process, the BLM has prepared and issued a Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), (DOI-BLM-NV-W010-2020-0012-EIS) on December 3, 2020
(BLM, 2020). Following the issuance of the FEIS, BLM issued the EIS Record of Decision (ROD) and PoO
Approval on January 15, 2021 (BLM, 2021). In addition, a detailed Reclamation Cost Estimate (RCE) has
been prepared and submitted to both the BLM and Nevada Division of Environmental Protection-Bureau of
Mining, Regulation and Reclamation (NDEP-BMRR). On October 28, 2021, the NDEP-BMRR approved the
PoO with the issuance of draft Reclamation Permit 0415. On February 25, 2022, the NDEP-BMRR issued
the final Reclamation Permit 0415. The BLM will require the placement of a financial guarantee (reclamation
bond) to ensure that all disturbances from the mine and process site are reclaimed once mining concludes.
There are no identified issues that would prevent LAC from achieving all permits and authorizations required
to commence construction and operation of the Project based on the data that has been collected to date.
Ground water appropriation transfer discussions are ongoing for Phase 2 of the Project. Additional
discussions regarding permitting are contained in Chapter 20.
4.7 Other Factors or Risks

The QP for this section is not aware of any other significant factors or risks that may affect access, title, or
the right or ability to perform work on the property.
4.8 Conclusions
Based on information provided, or researched and reviewed, LAC is approved by the BLM and the NDEP-
BMRR to conduct mineral exploration activities at the Thacker Pass Project site in accordance with Permit
No. N85255.
LAC has either obtained, or initiated the process to obtain, all major necessary federal, state, and local
regulatory agency permits and approvals for further advancement of the Thacker Pass Project.
Page 34
5 Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources,

Infrastructure, and Physiography
5.1 Physiography
The Project is located in the southern portion of the McDermitt Caldera. The Project site sits at the southern
end of the Montana Mountains, with its western border occurring just east of Thacker Creek. Elevation at
the Project site is approximately 1,500 m above sea level. Physiography is characterized by rolling
topography trending eastward, with slopes generally ranging from 1% to 5%.
Lands within the Project footprint primarily drain eastward to Quinn River. A small portion of the proposed
pit area drains west to Kings River via Thacker Creek. There are no perennially active watercourses on the
Project site. A few small seeps and springs have been identified on the Project footprint, none of which are
regionally significant.
Soils consist primarily of low-permeability clays intermixed with periodic shallow alluvial deposits.
Vegetation consists of low-lying sagebrush and grasslands. The area is heavily infested with cheatgrass,
an unwanted invasive species in Nevada.
5.2 Accessibility
Access to the Project is via the paved US Highway 95 and paved State Route 293; travel north on US-95
from Winnemucca, Nevada, for approximately 70 km to Orovada and then travel west-northwest on State
Route 293 for 33 km toward Thacker Pass to the Project site entrance. Driving time to the Project is
approximately one hour from Winnemucca, and 3.5 hours from Reno. On-site access is via several gravel
and dirt roads established during the exploration phase.
5.3 Climate
The climate of the Project area will not affect mining throughout the year. The life of mine (LOM) plan
discussed in this Technical Report assumes mining 365 days per year. The meteorological station in
Figure 5-1 has continuously operated at the Project site since 2011. The station collects temperature,
precipitation, wind speed and direction, solar radiation, and relative humidity data.
Page 35
Figure 5-1 Photograph of the On-Site Meteorological Station, Including Tower, Solar Power
Station, and Security Fence
Source: LAC, 2012
5.3.1 Temperature
Northern Nevada has a high-desert climate with cold winters and hot summers. The average minimum
temperature in January is -10.6°C recorded from LAC on-site meteorological station recorded between
2012 and 2021. The lowest January temperature recorded during this time period is -16.4°C recorded in
2017. The summer temperatures reach up to 35°C to 40°C. Snow can occur from October to May, although
it often melts quickly. Nearby mining operations operate continuously through the winter and it is expected
that the length of the operating season at the Thacker Pass Project would be year-round.
The temperature recorded in the LAC station from 2011 to 2021 ranges from -18°C to +37°C. The frost
depth for the Project is 0.635 m (24 in.) based on Humboldt County Basic Design Requirements.
5.3.2 Precipitation
The area is generally dry, with annual precipitation ranging from 14.8 cm (5.8 inches) in 2020 to 39.9 cm
(15.7 inches) in 2014 (Table 5-1). Winter precipitation (December to February) is higher with total monthly
precipitation ranging from 0.1 cm to 9.5 cm. In the summer (June to August), precipitation is lower, with
monthly precipitation ranging from 0.0 cm to 3.3 cm.
Page 36
Table 5-1 Annual Precipitation at the Thacker Pass Project Site (in cm)
Month 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
January - 4.3 2.4 1.0 0.9 6.3 7.6 1.5 3.5 4.1 2.4
February - 0.7 0.4 5.4 2.0 0.6 4.1 1.5 7.1 0.2 4.7
March - 2.7 0.8 7.7 1.1 3.6 2.4 5.3 2.4 2.0 0.4
April - 3.0 0.7 3.6 3.0 2.0 5.4 3.8 1.7 0.4 0.4
May - 0.8 5.5 1.5 8.9 5.0 2.3 4.2 10.0 1.5 1.3
June - 1.0 1.1 0.3 0.9 2.2 3.3 1.1 0.9 1.9 2.6
July - 1.0 .9 1.6 2.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.3
August 1.0 1.3 1.4 2.7 0.2 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.4 0.5 0.0
September 0.0 1.8 3.0 7.2 0.6 2.3 0.7 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.1
October 2.9 2.9 2.5 1.2 4.4 3.2 0.7 3.2 0.0 0.0 7.6
November 1.5 2.8 2.0 3.0 1.5 1.7 3.3 1.8 1.3 3.1 0.9
December 0.1 6.9 0.8 4.5 9.5 6.9 0.4 3.9 6.1 1.0 4.5
Annual Total - 29.2 21.5 39.9 35.1 33.9 31.2 26.2 36.4 14.8 25.1
Minimum Monthly - 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Maximum Monthly - 6.9 5.5 7.7 9.5 6.8 7.6 5.3 10.0 4.1 7.6
Source: LAC’s on-site meteorological station
5.3.3 Evaporation
Open water evaporation estimates are based on data from the Western Regional Climate Center from years
1948 through 2005 for the Rye Patch Reservoir, located approximately 90 km to the south at an elevation
of 1,260 m. Using a pan coefficient of 0.7, the estimated open-water evaporation rate is 1.06 m per year.
The region is characterized by a water deficit, with estimated evaporation notably greater than recorded
precipitation.
5.4 Local Resources

A long-established mining industry exists in the Winnemucca area. Local resources include all facilities and
services required for large-scale mining, including an experienced workforce. The area is about 50 km north
of the Sleeper gold mine (currently under care and maintenance) and 100 km northwest of the Twin Creeks,
Turquoise Ridge, and Getchell gold mines.
Additionally, there are several other gold and copper mines in the area which rely on the experienced
workforce and support for mining operations. Most of the workforce for this Project is expected to originate
from the local population.
There are several chemical processing operations (mostly pyrometallurgy and gold processing) in the local
area. Experienced operations staffing may have to be brought into the area to operate the lithium
processing plant.
5.5 Infrastructure
The existing roads are maintained by the Nevada Department of Transportation. All are paved and in good
repair. The roads are all-season roads but may be closed for short periods due to extreme weather during
the winter season.
The nearest railroad access is in Winnemucca. This railroad is active and owned and maintained by Union
Pacific. BNSF Railway has track rights to this line.
Page 37
A 115 kV transmission line runs adjacent to State Route 293 through the Project site. This line is owned
and operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). There is sufficient space within the Thacker Pass site
to accommodate a prospective processing plant and mine support facilities, overburden placement site,
waste rock storage facility, gangue storage facility, anticipated clay tailings filter stack (CTFS), water
diversions, and containments. See the overall site general arrangement in Figure 18-1.
Although a natural gas transport line is located approximately 35 km to the south of the Project site, natural
gas is not required for the Project.
5.6 Water Rights

LAC has existing, fully certificated water rights within the Quinn River Valley (located 25 km east of the
proposed mine site) totaling nearly 1.2 Mm3 (1,000 acre-feet) annually. On April 1, 2020, LAC submitted
applications to the Nevada Division of Water Resources (NDWR) to change the point of diversion, manner
of use, and place of use for Nevada Water Right Permits 68633 and 68634 related to those water rights.
Approval is pending review by NDWR.
In addition, LAC entered into a Water Rights Purchase Agreement with a nearby ranch on November 26,
2018, providing LAC with the right to acquire additional water rights to support the proposed Project. In
relation to those water rights, LAC has applied to NDWR to change the point of diversion, manner of use,
and place of use for Nevada Water Right Permits 18494, 15605, 21059, 21060, 24617, 83819, 83820,
83821. Approval is pending review by NDWR.
The change applications pending at NDWR are subject to a well-defined administrative process specified
under Nevada State Water Law. Two local ranches have filed protests of the water rights change
applications. NDWR held a hearing to address those protests in December 2021. A final decision is
expected in 2023.
After accounting for an adjustment due to conversion from agricultural use to mining-and-milling use, LAC
anticipates approval of approximately 3.5 Mm3 (2,850 acre-foot) per year to support the proposed Project
for Phase 1 and double that amount for Phase 2. Water is available outside of the caldera to the east of the
mine. In September 2018, LAC drilled the Quinn Production Well to a depth of 172 m (565 feet) below
ground surface. The well was drilled under an approved BLM Permit N94510. In October 2018, LAC
performed a 72-hour constant rate pump test on the well to evaluate well performance and aquifer
parameters. The testing determined water production from QRPW18-01 is adequate to supply LAC with
process water, at sustainable production rate of 909 m3/h (3,500 gpm) or over 7.9 Mm3 (6,400 acre-foot)
per annum (Piteau, 2019a). Per Piteau (2019), the production rate is limited by physical constraints of the
column pipe and well diameter rather than aquifer performance, suggesting that future or backup wells with
larger diameters may be capable of producing higher flows. The current suite of inorganic analytes from
well samples meets drinking water standards; additional water quality testing will be conducted to support
an application to qualify the wells for potable water uses.
Page 38
6 History
On March 22, 2016, the Project owner announced a name change from Western Lithium USA Corp. to
Lithium Americas Corp. The name of the Kings Valley Project was changed to the Lithium Americas Project
and was changed again in 2018 to the Thacker Pass Project (includes only the former Stage 1). In this
section, any reference to WLC or the Kings Valley Project now refers to LAC and the Thacker Pass Project.
6.1 Ownership History

Chevron USA (Chevron) leased many of the claims that comprised the lithium project to the J. M. Huber
Corporation (Huber) in 1986. In 1991, Chevron sold its interest in the claims to Cyprus Gold Exploration
Corporation. In 1992, Huber terminated the lease. Cyprus Gold Exploration Corporation allowed the claims
to lapse and provided much of the exploration data to Jim LaBret, one of the claim owners from which they
had leased claims. WEDC, a Nevada corporation, leased LaBret’s claims in 2005, at which time LaBret
provided WEDC access to the Chevron data and access to core and other samples that were available.
Pursuant to an agreement signed on December 20, 2007, between WEDC, a subsidiary of Western
Uranium Corporation, and WLC (which was then a subsidiary of Western Uranium Corporation), WEDC
leased the mining claims to WLC for the purpose of lithium exploration and exploitation. This agreement
granted WLC exclusive rights to explore, develop, and mine or otherwise process any and all lithium
deposits discovered on the claims, subject to royalty payments. The leased area, at that time, included the
entirety of the Thacker Pass Deposit and included 1,378 claims that covered over 11,000 ha.
Lithium deposits to be exploited included, but were not limited to, deposits of amblygonite, eucryptite,
hectorite, lepidolite, petalite, spodumene, and bentonitic clays. Rights to all other mineral types, including
base and precious metals, uranium, vanadium, and uranium-bearing or vanadium-bearing materials or ores
were expressly reserved by WEDC. The term of that lease agreement was 30 years. The lease granted
WLC the exclusive right to purchase the unpatented mining claims (UM Claims) comprising a designated
discovery, subject to the royalty and other rights to be reserved by WEDC and subject to WLC’s obligations
under the deed to be executed and delivered by WEDC on the closing of the option.
In July 2008, WLC ceased to be wholly owned by Western Uranium Corporation and became an
independent publicly traded company.
Effective February 4, 2011, Western Uranium Corporation, WEDC, and WLC entered into an agreement
for the purchase by WLC from WEDC of the royalties and titles for the then-named Kings Valley mineral
property.
In March 2011, the parties completed the transaction for the sale by WEDC to WLC of the royalties and
titles constituting all of the Kings Valley mineral property. As a result of this transaction, the existing lease
and royalty arrangements between the two companies on the Kings Valley property, including the Net
Smelter Returns and Net Profits Royalties on any lithium project that the company developed, were
terminated. WLC held control and full ownership of the then-named Kings Valley property mining claims
and leases, excluding a gold exploration target (on the Albisu property) and a 20% royalty granted by WEDC
to Cameco Global Exploration II Ltd. solely in respect of uranium.
6.2 Exploration History

In 1975, Chevron began an exploration program for uranium in the sediments located throughout the
McDermitt Caldera. Early in Chevron’s program, the USGS (who had been investigating lithium sources)
alerted Chevron to the presence of anomalous concentrations of lithium associated with the caldera.
Because of this, Chevron added lithium to its assays in 1978 and 1979, began a clay analysis program,
and obtained samples for engineering work, though uranium remained the primary focus of exploration.
Page 39
Results supported the high lithium concentrations contained in clays. From 1980 to 1987, Chevron began
a drilling program that focused on lithium targets and conducted extensive metallurgical testing of the clays
to determine the viability of lithium extraction.
6.3 Historic Production from the Property

Prior owners and operators of the property did not conduct any commercial lithium production from the
property.
Page 40
7 Geological Setting and Mineralization

The Thacker Pass Project is located within an extinct 40x30 km supervolcano named McDermitt Caldera,
straddling the Oregon-Nevada border. The McDermitt Caldera formed approximately 16.3 million years ago
as part of a time-transgressive hotspot currently underneath the Yellowstone Plateau of Wyoming, Idaho,
and Montana. Following an initial eruption of the ignimbrite and concurrent collapse of the McDermitt
Caldera, a large lake formed in the caldera basin. This lake water was extremely enriched in lithium due to
extensive hydrothermal activity and natural leaching of lithium from the lithium-rich volcanic rocks
associated with caldera volcanism. This resulted in the accumulation of a thick sequence of lithium-rich
muddy lacustrine clays at the bottom of the lake.
Renewed volcanic activity uplifted the center of the caldera, altering some of the smectite clays to illite,
draining the lake and bringing the lithium-rich moat sediments to the surface of the earth. The result of
these geological processes is a high-grade, large, and near-surface lithium deposit called the Thacker Pass
Project.
7.1 Regional Geology

The Thacker Pass Project is located within the McDermitt Volcanic Field, a volcanic complex with four large
rhyolitic calderas that formed in the middle Miocene (Benson et al., 2017a). Volcanic activity in the
McDermitt Volcanic Field occurred simultaneously with voluminous outflow of the earliest stages of the
approximately 16.6 Ma to 15 Ma Columbia River flood basalt lavas. This volcanic activity was associated
with impingement of the Yellowstone plume head on the continental crust (Coble and Mahood, 2012;
Benson et al., 2017a). Plume head expansion underneath the lithosphere resulted in crustal melting and
surficial volcanism along four distinct radial swarms centered around Steens Mountain, Oregon (Figure 7-1;
Benson et al., 2017a).
The McDermitt Volcanic Field is located within the southeastern-propagating swarm of volcanism from
Steens Mountain into north-central Nevada (Benson et al., 2017a). The Thacker Pass Project is located
within the largest and southeastern most caldera of the McDermitt Volcanic Field, the McDermitt Caldera
(Figure 7-1).
Page 41
Figure 7-1 Regional Map Showing the Location of the McDermitt Caldera in the Western US
Source: Lithium Americas Corp. (2022)
7.2 Geologic History of the McDermitt Caldera
7.2.1 Pre-Caldera Volcanism

Prior to collapse of the McDermitt Caldera at 16.33 Ma, volcanism in the northern portion of the McDermitt
Volcanic Field and locally small volumes of trachytic to rhyolitic lavas erupted near the present-day Oregon-
Nevada border in the Trout Creek and Oregon Canyon Mountains (Figure 7-1). These lavas and the flood
basalts are exposed along walls of the McDermitt Caldera and are approximately 16.5 Ma to approximately
16.3 Ma years old (Benson et al., 2017a; Henry et al., 2017).
7.2.2 Eruption of the Tuff of Long Ridge and Collapse of the

McDermitt Caldera
The trachytic to rhyolitic Tuff of Long Ridge erupted at approximately 16.33 Ma and formed the 30 km by
40 km keyhole-shaped McDermitt Caldera (Figure 7-1) that straddles the Oregon-Nevada border. Rytuba
and McKee (1984) and Conrad (1984) initially interpreted the McDermitt Caldera as a composite collapse
structure formed on piecewise eruption of four different ignimbrites from a single magma chamber.
Henry et al. (2017) refined the stratigraphy to a singular ignimbrite they call the McDermitt Tuff (herein
called the Tuff of Long Ridge to avoid confusion).
Regional reconnaissance work by Benson et al. (2017a) indicates that there was one large laterally
extensive and crystal-poor (<3% feldspar) caldera-forming eruption (Tuff of Long Ridge), though other
smaller-volume tuffs are exposed close to the vent and their eruptions and concomitant collapses may have
contributed to the peculiar shape of the caldera. An estimated approximately 500 km3 of ignimbrite ponded
within the caldera during the eruption, with approximately 500 km3 spreading out across the horizon up to
60 km from the caldera (Benson et al., 2017a; Henry et al., 2017).
Page 42
7.2.3 Post-Caldera Activity

Following eruption of the Tuff of Long Ridge, a large lake formed in the caldera depression. Authigenic and
detrital sediments and a subordinate volume of volcanic rock (tephra, basaltic lava, rhyolitic tuff)
accumulated in the bottom of the lake. Sedimentation was likely active for several hundreds of thousands
of years given that nearby Miocene caldera lakes lasted approximately this long (Coble and Mahood, 2012;
Benson et al., 2017a). 40Ar/39Ar dates on primary tephra and authigenic feldspar from the sedimentary
sequence are as young as approximately 14.9 Ma, indicating that sedimentation and mineralization
occurred for at least approximately 1.5 million years (Castor and Henry, 2020). During this interval, the
caldera underwent a period of resurgence similar to that of the Valles Caldera in New Mexico (Smith and
Bailey, 1968). This resurgence occurred approximately 16.2 Ma (Castor and Henry, 2020) and uplifted a
large volume of intracaldera ignimbrite and caldera lake sediments that form the present-day Montana
Mountains (Figure 7-2).
Figure 7-2 Simplified Geological Map of the Southern Portion of the McDermitt Caldera and
the Thacker Pass Project

Note: The lithium resources in this TRS are hosted within the Caldera Lake Sediments
A hydrothermal event associated with magmatic resurgence introduced to the system a hot, acidic fluid rich
in Li, Potassium (K), Fluorine (F), Molybdenum (Mo), Cesium (Cs), Rubidium (Rb) and other elements
associated with hydrothermal systems (Ingraffia et al., 2020). This fluid altered much of the smectite-bearing
clays in the vicinity of Thacker Pass to a lithium-bearing illite, localized around intracaldera normal faults
(Figure 7-2).
Beginning around 12 Ma, Basin and Range normal faulting associated with the extending North American
lithosphere (Colgan et al., 2006; Lerch et al., 2008) caused uplift of the western half of the McDermitt
Caldera and subsidence of Kings River Valley. Faults formed along reactivated ring fractures of the western
McDermitt Caldera, and the Tuff of Thacker Creek. This uplift sped up the weathering and erosion of rocks
within the caldera.
Page 43
7.3 Mineralization
7.3.1 Thacker Pass Deposit

The Thacker Pass Deposit sits sub-horizontally beneath a thin alluvial cover at Thacker Pass and is partially
exposed at the surface (Figure 7-2). The Thacker Pass Deposit contains the targeted multi-phase mining
development of the Thacker Pass Project. It lies at relatively low elevations (between 1,500 m and 1,300
m) in caldera lake sediments that have been separated from the topographically higher deposits to the
north due to post-caldera resurgence and Basin and Range normal faulting. Exposures of the sedimentary
rocks at Thacker Pass are limited to a few drainages and isolated road cuts. Therefore, the stratigraphic
sequence in the deposit is primarily derived from core drilling.
The sedimentary section, which has a maximum drilled thickness of about 160 m, consists of alternating
layers of claystone and volcanic ash. Basaltic lavas occur intermittently within the sedimentary sequence.
The claystone comprises 40% to 90% of the section. In many intervals, the claystone and ash are intimately
intermixed. The claystones are variably brown, tan, gray, bluish-gray and black, whereas the ash is
generally white or very light gray. Individual claystone-rich units may laterally reach distances of more than
152 m, though unit thickness can vary by as much as 20%. Ash-rich layers are more variable and appear
to have some textures that suggest reworking. All units exhibit finely graded bedding and laminar textures
that imply a shallow lacustrine (lake) depositional environment.
Surficial oxidation persists to depths of 15 m to 30 m in the moat sedimentary rock. Oxidized claystone is
brown, tan, or light greenish-tan and contains iron oxide, whereas ash is white with some orange-brown
iron oxide. The transition from oxidized to unoxidized rock occurs over intervals as much as 4.5 m thick.
The moat sedimentary section at Thacker Pass overlies the hard, dense, indurated intra-caldera Tuff of
Long Ridge. A zone of weakly to strongly silicified sedimentary rock, the Hot Pond Zone (HPZ), occurs at
the base of the sedimentary section above the Tuff of Long Ridge in most of the cores retrieved from the
Thacker Pass Deposit. Both the HPZ and the underlying Tuff of Long Ridge are generally oxidized.
Core from each drill hole has been examined and drill logs have been prepared that record rock type, color,
accessory minerals, textures and other features of significance. The core has mostly been divided into
sample intervals for chemical analyses delineated on the basis of lithology. Figure 7-3 shows a generalized
interpretation of the lithology for core hole WLC-043 which is located roughly in the middle of the proposed
mine pit area. The core data is the basis of the geologic model discussed in Section 14. Cross sections
showing the lithological description and lateral continuity of lithological units are shown in Figure 14-3.
Page 44
Figure 7-3 Interpreted and Simplified Sample Log for Drill Hole WLC-043, Li Assay Data,
Alteration Phases Identified by X-ray Diffraction, and Thin Section Imagery
Most of the moat sedimentary rocks drilled in the Thacker Pass basin contain high levels of lithium
(>1,000 ppm). Intervals that consist mostly of ash or volcanic rock have lithium contents of less than 800
ppm whereas intervals dominated by claystone contain more lithium (>1,000 ppm). Many intervals have
very high lithium contents (>4,000 ppm). Intervals with extreme lithium contents (>8,000 ppm) occur
sporadically in the deposit.
Page 45
There is no obvious change in lithium content across the boundary between oxidized and unoxidized rock.
The highest lithium grades generally occur in the middle and lower parts of the sedimentary rock section,
or in sections where these rocks have been uplifted to surface. Lithium grade continuity through the deposit
can be visualized in Figure 14-5 which shows the high-grade mineralized zone in the deposit.
The lithium content of the Thacker Pass Deposit claystone can generally be correlated to the color and
texture of the rock, as well as the amount of mixed-in ash. Intervals with the highest lithium grades (>4,000
ppm) generally contain gray to dark-gray or black claystone with less than 10% ash. Intervals of bluish-gray
claystone with low ash content have moderate lithium content (generally 2,500 ppm to 3,000 ppm). Intervals
of light-colored claystone (e.g., tan, light gray, greenish-tan) have lower lithium grades (generally 1,500
ppm to 2,500 ppm). Intervals of mixed claystone and ash are common and have variable lithium contents
(generally 1,500 ppm to 3,000 ppm) depending on the type of claystone and proportion of ash present.
7.3.2 Mineralogy
Clay in the Thacker Pass Deposit includes two distinctly different mineral types, smectite and illite, based
on chemistry and X-ray diffraction (XRD) spectra. Clay with XRD spectra that are indicative of smectite (12
– 15 Å basal spacing) occurs at relatively shallow depths in the deposit (Figure 7-4; Castor and Henry,
2020). Smectite drill intervals contain roughly 2,000 – 4,000 ppm Li (Figure 7-4). The chemistry and
structure of the smectite at McDermitt is most similar to hectorite, a subtype of smectite
(Na0,3(Mg,Li)3Si4O10(OH)2), though chemically the clay is intermediate between hectorite and two other
smectites, stevensite and saponite (Morissette, 2012). Supported hectorite clay occurs elsewhere in the
McDermitt Caldera and has been documented by several authors (e.g., Odom, 1992; Rytuba and
Glanzman, 1978; Morissette, 2012; Castor and Henry, 2020).
Drill intervals with higher lithium contents (commonly 4,000 ppm Li or greater; Figure 7-4) contain clay 001
d spacing (Figure 7-4) typical for illite (Morissette, 2012; Castor and Henry, 2020). This illite clay occurs at
relative moderate to deep depths in the moat sedimentary section and sporadically occurs in intervals that
contain values approaching 9,000 ppm lithium in terms of a whole-rock assay, higher than what a hectorite
crystal can accommodate. The Li-rich illite is similar in character to tainiolite, a subtype of illite
(K2[Mg4Li2]Si8O20(OH,F)4) (Morissette, 2012; Castor and Henry, 2020). A relatively thin zone of
interstratified smectite-illite clay is found between the smectite and illite-type clay (Figure 7-4; Castor and
Henry, 2020). Clays in this mixed layer contain basal spacing intermediate between illite and smectite
(Figure 7-4).
Page 46
Figure 7-4 Assay Lithium Content Plotted Against Clay X-Ray Diffraction Data from Drill Holes
WLC-043, WLC-006, and WLC-067
Illite ------------------- Transitional -------------------------- Smectite

8000
7000
6000
5000
Li (ppm)
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
10 11 12 13 14 15
Clay 001 d Spacing (angstroms)
Source: Castor and Henry (2020)
Note: Blue Dots Represent Assay Data From Holes WLC-043, WLC-006, and WLC-067
X-ray diffraction data from drill holes WLC-043, WLC-006, and WLC-067 indicate that higher lithium content
in the assay intervals correlates with the higher proportions of illite in the sample (Figure 7-4; Castor and
Henry, 2020).
Because the assay interval (5 ft or 1.5 m) is coarser than the finely laminated sediments (often sub-cm) and
can contain a variety of lithologies due to randomization, separating clay material out an individual assay
interval can obtain a more accurate representation of the composition of the clay itself. Clay concentrates
from different sections of the deposit were analyzed by Morissette (2012) and can be used to estimate the
bulk composition of a pure clay separate. Illite clay concentrates from Thacker Pass have an average
composition of 1.2 wt. % Li (12,000 ppm Li) with 10 Å basal spacing and smectite clay concentrates have
an average composition of 0.5 wt. % Li (5,000 ppm Li) with approximately 15 Å basal spacing (Table 7-1).
The smectite clay concentrates at Thacker Pass have a lithium content similar to hectorite clay concentrate
at Hector, California (around 5,700 ppm Li; Morissette, 2012; and higher than the average of all clay
concentrates at Clayton Valley, Nevada (approximately 3,500 ppm Li average; Morissette, 2012). The illite
clay concentrates at Thacker Pass contain approximately twice the concentration of lithium as the hectorite
concentrate from Hector, California and approximately three times the concentration of lithium from clay
concentrates in Clayton Valley, Nevada.
Page 47
Table 7-1 Chemical Analyses of Thacker Pass Smectite and Illite Clay Concentrates
Category Smectite Illite
Li (wt. %) 0.5 1.2
Li2O (wt. %) 1.1 2.6
Mg (wt. %) 11.4 11.2
Ca (wt. %) 0.9 0.2
001d Basal Spacing (Å) 14.95 10
Notes:
1. All data from Morissette, C.L. (2012). “The Impact of Geological Environment on the Lithium Concentration and
Structural Composition of Hectorite Clays.” MS Thesis, University of Nevada-Reno, 244 p.
2. For sample preparation and analytical methodologies, see Morissette (2012).
3. Smectite data are averages of WLC03-01 and WLC03-02 in Morissette (2012), Table 9.
4. Illite data are averages of WLC03-03, WLC03-04, and WLC03-05 in Morissette (2012), Table 9.
5. 001 d basal spacing from air-dried oriented averages in Morissette (2012), Table 7 (smectites) and Table 8 (illites).
6. The conversion factor from Li2O to Li is 0.464.
7. The conversion factor from MgO to Mg is 0.6031.
8. The conversion factor from CaO to Ca is 0.7146.
Other minerals in the Thacker Pass Deposit claystone include calcite, quartz, K-feldspar, plagioclase,
dolomite, and fluorite. Pyrite and bitumen occur in the claystone below near-surface oxidized rock. Ash
beds in the Thacker Pass Deposit contain quartz and feldspar with local analcime, and minor clay and
pyrite. Zeolite minerals are typically present in the north part of the caldera, but analcime is the only zeolite
present in the Thacker Pass Deposit (Glanzman and Rytuba, 1979; Castor and Henry, 2020). Carbonates
(calcite and dolomite) are present throughout the deposit as primary sedimentary beds and rosettes and
masses (Castor and Henry, 2020). Fluorite occurs in the mixed smectite/illite and illite zones and is
interpreted by Castor and Henry (2020) to be the product of a secondary fluid. Fluorite often replaces calcite
in the illitic portion of the sedimentary sequence, further supporting its genesis as a secondary fluid.
7.3.3 Discussion
The regional geological setting of this deposit is well-known and understood. The lithium bearing clays are
contained within the lacustrine caldera moat sediments that are bounded by the outer wall of the caldera
and inner resurgent dome. The local geological setting and degree of local lithium grade variations, within
the modeled area, are adequately known for the Thacker Pass Deposit for resource estimation.
Page 48
8 Deposit Types
8.1 Lithium Mineralization
Lithium enrichment (>1,000 ppm Li) in the Thacker Pass Deposit and deposits of the Montana Mountains
occur throughout the caldera lake sedimentary sequence above the intra-caldera Tuff of Long Ridge. The
deeper illite-rich portion of the sedimentary sequence contains higher lithium than the shallower, smectite-
rich portion. The uplift of the Montana Mountains during both caldera resurgence and Basin and Range
faulting led to increased rates of weathering and erosion of a large volume of caldera lake sediments. As a
result, much of the sediments in the Montana Mountains have eroded away.
South of the Montana Mountains in the Thacker Pass Deposit, caldera lake sediments dip slightly away
from the center of resurgence. Because of the lower elevations in Thacker Pass, a smaller volume of the
original caldera lake sedimentary package eroded south of the Montana Mountains. As a result, the
thickness of the sedimentary package increases with distance from the Montana Mountains. The proposed
open-pit mining activity is concentrated just south of the Montana Mountains in Thacker Pass where lithium
enrichment is close to the surface with minimal overburden.
8.2 Basis of Exploration

Caldera lake sediments of the McDermitt Caldera contain elevated Li concentrations compared to other
sedimentary basins. Although the exact genesis of the Li enrichment processes is not fully understood,
exploration activities have been based on the caldera lake model described above. Exploration results
support the proposed model and have advanced the understanding of the geology of the Thacker Pass
Deposit.
The exact cause for the Li enrichment in the caldera lake sediments is still up for debate. Benson et al.
(2017b) demonstrated that the parent rhyolitic magmas of the McDermitt Volcanic Field were enriched in
lithium due to assimilation of approximately 50% continental crust during magma genesis. In their model,
eruption of the Tuff of Long Ridge and the collapse of the McDermitt Caldera resulted in a large volume of
Li-enriched glass, pumice, and ash on the surface of the earth near the caldera. Subsequent weathering
transported much of this lithium into the caldera which served as a structurally controlled catchment basin.
Immediately following collapse, a large volume of loose Li-enriched glass and pumice was sitting within and
near the edge of the caldera. This material would have had a relatively high surface area from which Li
could be easily leached by meteoric and possibly hydrothermal fluids and deposited into the caldera lake.
The presence of sedimentary carbonate minerals and Mg-smectite (hectorite) throughout the lake indicates
that the clays formed in a basic, alkaline, closed hydrologic system. Such conditions enable the direct
precipitation of clays from solution (neoformation), the composition of which is dependent on the chemistry
of the lake water (e.g., Tosca and Masterson, 2014). Because the McDermitt Caldera lake water was rich
in Li and F, the primary Mg-smectite to precipitate was the Li-smectite, hectorite. The relatively low
aluminum content of the clays supports an authigenic (non-detrital) genetic model for the smectites.
Ingraffia et al. (2020) hypothesize that the bulk of the Li mass within the caldera lake sediments is sourced
from devitrification and degassing of glassy intracaldera tuff as sediments were accumulating in the caldera
basin. Geochemical and field evidence suggests that the intracaldera Tuff of Long Ridge was emplaced at
high temperatures atypical of continental rhyolitic ignimbrites (>850°C), leading to intense welding and
rheomorphism (Hargrove and Sheridan, 1984; Henry et al., 2017). The cooling and degassing of this hot
ignimbrite likely took place during most of the history of the caldera lake, which would add significant Li
mass to the meteoric water system via hydrothermal fluids. These high-temperature fluids (>100°C) likely
mixed with the lake and groundwater to lead to a basin-wide warm hydrologic system near 100°C.
The high-Li (>4,000 ppm) illitic portions of the sedimentary sequence near Thacker Pass formed when a
hot, low-pH, Li- and F-rich fluid altered the smectite to illite and dissolved the disseminated carbonates.
Page 49
Geologic evidence for the interaction of sediments with this fluid include replacement of analcime by
authigenic K-feldspar (Castor and Henry, 2020), the presence of the siliceous hot pond zone (HPZ) below
the illite sediments, and high concentrations of Li, Rb, Cs, As, Mo, Sb, and other trace metals (Castor and
Henry, 2020) in the illite-rich portion of the deposit. This supports a genetic model in which the initial
neoformation of smectite in a closed hydrologic system was followed by hydrothermal alteration to illite in
the vicinity of Thacker Pass. This explains why the illite in the Thacker Pass Deposit reaches whole-rock
assay values up to 9,000 ppm Li, whereas the smectite intervals rarely exceed 4,000 ppm Li.
This neoformation-alteration model is consistent with the conclusion by Castor and Henry (2020) that burial
diagenesis of tuffaceous sediments alone cannot account for the all the lithium present in the caldera. While
the smectite-to-illite pattern observed is consistent with other sedimentary sequences observed in the world,
simple mass modeling of burial diagenesis can only account for roughly 20% of the 640 Mt lithium carbonate
maximum that Castor and Henry (2020) estimate to be contained within the McDermitt Caldera lake
sediments.
Page 50
9 Exploration
9.1 Thacker Pass
Prior to the 2010 drilling campaign, exploration consisted of:
a) geological mapping to delineate the limits of the McDermitt Caldera moat sedimentary rocks, and
b) drilling to determine grade and location of mineralization.
Survey work was completed prior to 1980 under Chevron’s exploration program. Most of the Project area
has been surveyed by airborne gamma ray spectrometry, in search of minerals such as uranium.
Anomalously high concentration of lithium was discovered to be associated with the caldera. Lithium
became the primary focus of exploration from 2007 onward.
A collar survey was completed by LAC for the 2007-2008 drilling program using a Trimble GPS (Global
Positioning System). At that time the NAD 83 global reference system was used. Comparing LAC’s survey
work with that done by Chevron showed near-identical results for the easting and northings, elevations
were off by approximately 3 m and were corrected in order to conform with earlier Chevron work.
The topographic surface of the Project area was mapped by aerial photography dated July 6, 2010. This
information was obtained by MXS, Inc. for LAC. The flyover resolution was 0.35 m. Ground control was
established by Desert-Mountain Surveying, a Nevada licensed land surveyor, using Trimble equipment.
Field surveys of drill hole collars, spot-heights and ground-truthing were conducted by Mr. Dave Rowe,
MXS, Inc., a Nevada licensed land surveyor, using Trimble equipment.
In addition to drilling in 2017, LAC conducted five seismic survey lines (Figure 9-1). A seismic test line was
completed in July 2017 along a series of historic drill holes to test the survey method’s accuracy and
resolution in identifying clay interfaces. The seismic results compared favorably with drill logs. As illustrated
by the yellow line in Figure 9-2, the contact between the basement (intracaldera Tuff of Long Ridge) and
the caldera lake sediments (lithium resource host) slightly dips to the east. Four more seismic survey lines
were commissioned in the Thacker Pass Project area (Figure 9-1). The additional seismic lines provide a
more complete picture of the distribution, depth, and dip of clay horizons around the edge and center of the
moat basin.
Drilling methods were compared to test for sample bias, using core drilling as the standard. Rotary, sonic,
and reverse circulation drilling all showed slight sample biases when compared to core drilling. Only core
holes were used for resource modeling to minimize the chance of sample bias. The QP believes that the
drilling, logging, and sampling techniques procedures used are of reasonable quality and representative of
the deposit. In the Thacker Pass Deposit, sample assays, geologic logging and area domains by structural
faults were incorporated into the block model. This dataset is adequate for resource grade estimation.
Page 51
Figure 9-1 Locations of Seismic Surveys Conducted in 2017
Page 52
Figure 9-2 Results from one of the Seismic Test Lines (A-A’)
9.2 Additional Exploration

Regional mapping of the McDermitt Caldera has been conducted by the Nevada Bureau of Mines. This
mapping has been used to outline the McDermitt Caldera moat sediments that host the lithium bearing
claystone. LAC exploration geologist, Dr. Thomas Benson, has also conducted mapping and analytical
work within the southern area of the McDermitt Caldera. Collaborative analytical research with external
researchers from federal labs and universities across the world is ongoing to further refine the geology of
the Thacker Pass Deposit and improve the genetic model.
Page 53
10 Drilling
10.1 Type and Extent of Drilling by LAC
The Thacker Pass Deposit area has been explored for minerals since the 1970s under three different drilling
campaigns. Exploration began with Chevron using rotary and coring drilling methods. LAC performed two
subsequent drilling campaigns in 2007-2010 and 2017-2018. The LAC drilling campaigns consisted of a
combination of HQ, PQ, RC, and sonic coring and drilling methods. Table 10-1 lists a summary of holes
drilled.
Table 10-1 LAC Drill Holes Provided in Current Database for the Thacker Pass Deposit
Drilling Number Number used in
Campaign Drilled Resource Model
PC-84-001 through PC-84-012, PC-84-015
24 Rotary 0
Chevron through PC-84-026
1 Core PC-84-014c 0
WLC-001 through WLC-037, WLC-040
230 HQ Core 227
through WLC-232
7 PQ Core WPQ-001 through WPQ-007 0
LAC 2007-2010
5 HQ Core Li-001 through Li-005 0
8 RC TP-001 through TP-008 0
2 Sonic WSH-001 through WSH-002 0
LAC 2017-2018 144 HQ Core LNC-001 through LNC-144 139
Drilling methods were compared to test for sample bias, using core drilling as the standard. Rotary, sonic,
and reverse circulation drilling all showed slight sample biases when compared to core drilling. Only HQ
core holes were used for resource modeling to minimize the chance of sample bias.
In the Thacker Pass Deposit, sample assays, geologic logging and area domains by structural faults were
incorporated into the block model. This dataset is adequate for resource grade estimation. Thirty-seven
core holes (WLC-001 through WLC-037) were drilled specifically for assay and lithologic information. Eight
Reverse Circulation (RC) holes were drilled to compare drilling techniques.
The RC drilling method biased assay results so the method was abandoned. Seven PQ-sized core holes
were drilled with the intent to provide samples for metallurgical test work. Two sonic holes were drilled to
test the drilling method; it was determined that the lithologic sample quality was not comparable to traditional
core drilling and therefore sonic drilling was abandoned.
In 2008, LAC drilled five confirmation HQ core drill holes (Li-001 through Li-005) to validate the Chevron
drilling results. Five historic Chevron drill holes that are broadly distributed across the Montana Mountains
were selected to twin. Results demonstrated that the Chevron assay data was reliable enough to guide
further exploration work. These holes were not used in the resource estimation.
From January 2010 through June 2011, August 2017 through December 2017, and June 2018 through
November 2018, LAC initiated a definition drilling campaign to define a Measured and Indicated Resource
for lithium (Figure 10-1). All cores were logged by geologists at a core shed located outside Orovada, NV,
who recorded the hole identification number, easting, northing, elevation, total depth, and lithologic
description.
Page 54
LAC conducted exploration drilling in June 2017, drilling 22 widely spaced HQ core holes. Results of this
work help expand the known resource to the northwest of the 2009-2010 drilling, identify a target south of
the highway in an area designated the Southwest Basin (SW Basin), and further understand the local
geology across Thacker Pass. All anomalous amounts of lithium occurred in clay horizons.
227 holes from the 2007-2010 campaigns and 139 holes from the 2017-2018 campaigns were used in the
2022 Mineral Resource in this report, including results from infill drilling unavailable at the time of the 2018
Mineral Resource estimate and results from holes outside the area modeled in the 2018 Mineral Resource
estimate (Figure 10-1). Lithological interpretations of the drill holes from the 2007-2010 and 2017-2018
drilling campaigns are shown in Figure 14-3.
Page 55
Figure 10-1 Drill Hole Map of Thacker Pass Deposit
Page 56
Assays for drill holes prior to January 2010 (WLC-001 through WLC-037) had analytical work done by
American Assay Laboratory (AAL) in Nevada. The AAL results failed multiple quality control checks and
was determined unfit to use in the resource model. As a remedy, these holes had pulps re-assayed in 2010
by ALS Global (ALS) in Reno, Nevada who now perform all assay work for LAC. The re-assayed samples
only reported lithium grade while all other results include ALS’ entire ME-MS61 ICP suite of 48 elements.
Assay interval length was chosen by the geologist based on lithology and claystone color. The Assay data
can be visualized through Figure 14-5. Downhole assays and interpolated lithium grades are presented in
the cross-sectional views.
Initially optimal drill hole spacing for Inferred, Indicated, and Measured categories was determined by
geostatistical methods based on the results of the first 37 drill holes (WLC-001 through WLC-037). After
LAC concluded drilling in 2017 the drill hole spacing geostatistics was re-evaluated with an additional 193
WLC holes (WLC-040 through WLC-232) and the drill hole spacing was widened for the 2018 drilling while
maintaining the same Inferred, Indicated and Measured confidences. An example of the drill core used in
the geologic and grade model are shown in Figure 10-2. The Chevron drill holes were excluded from
consideration in the grade model due to unknown sample quality controls at the time of drilling.
Figure 10-2 Photograph of Core after Geologic Logging
10.1.1 Logging
During Chevron’s exploration tenure, core was collected from the drills twice a day and descriptively logged
by geologists at Chevron’s field camp. Chip samples from rotary drills were logged at the drill site. Two
composite samples were collected every 1.524 m (i.e., downhole samples were collected every 5 ft) and
bagged. The geologist logging the hole made a chip board at the drill site. The chipboards consisted of drill
cuttings glued to a 25.4 mm by 101.6 mm board whose vertical scale was 25.4 mm = 3.48 m. Lithological
logging of both core and chip samples highlighted lithologic units, contacts, mineralization, alteration, and
brecciation.
LAC core was collected once a day and transported back to the LAC secure core shed outside Orovada,
Nevada. Core was cleaned and logged for lithology, oxidation, alteration and core recovery. All cores were
Page 57
photographed with high resolution digital cameras and samples were stored in locked buildings accessible
by LAC personnel or contractors.
10.2 Additional Drilling in Thacker Pass Deposit
10.2.1 Clay Properties Drilling

In 2017, eight drill holes (LNC-049 through LNC-056 and LNC-086) were drilled to depths less than 16 m
to collect samples for LAC’s subsidiary RheoMinerals Inc. for exploration of industrial clay. These samples
were not geologically logged nor assayed. These samples are not included in the resource estimation.
In August 2018 and October 2019 LAC used a large diameter auger (1 m to 1.3 m) to drill six holes up to
26 m deep for the purpose of collecting bulk claystone samples for metallurgical process testing. LNC and
WLC core holes were evaluated for clay type, lithium grades and calcium grades near surface to be
representative samples of the whole Thacker Pass deposit. The six auger holes twinned the selected holes
such that no independent laboratories assayed the samples collected. These holes were not used in the
resource model.
Another auger bulk sampling program was performed in September 2022 to collect additional claystone
samples for metallurgical process testing. Seven holes up to 26 m in depth were sampled targeting varying
ratios of smectite and illite claystones. Samples were collected in 48” x 48” bulk bags and transported to
the LAC core shed for storage and blending. The seven auger holes twinned selected existing LNC and
WLC holes; thus, the auger holes were not used in the resource model.
10.2.2 Geotechnical Drilling

In 2017, three drill holes (LNC-083 through LNC-085) were drilled to collect geotechnical information. The
majority of the drill holes were drilled using normal HQ core drilling practices. Each hole had samples
collected by a contract geotechnical engineer at the drill rig. After the geotechnical samples were collected,
the drill hole was logged and sampled by LAC employees or contractors. The geotechnical samples were
sent to Solum Consultants Ltd. for geotechnical testing.
In April 2017, two auger holes were drilled down 15 m to characterize the ground strength for infrastructure
support. The geotechnical samples were sent to Solum Consultants Ltd. for geotechnical characterization.
No samples were collected for assay.
In March 2019, thirty-one auger holes were drilled down an average of 15 m, with a maximum depth of
46 m, and twenty-eight trenches were dug, with a maximum depth of 7 m, to characterize the ground
strength for infrastructure support. NewFields Engineering was contracted to oversee the drilling, trenching,
sampling, testing and reporting of the geotechnical work. No samples were collected for assay.
In August 2019, five HQ core drill holes were drilled to collect slope stability geotechnical information for pit
highwall design. All five holes were collared at existing historical core hole locations. Three of the holes
were drilled at an angle; the other two were vertical. Barr Engineering was contracted to perform the
geotechnical sampling, televiewer work, testing, and reporting. These holes were not assayed or included
in the resource estimation. The results of their work along with prior geotechnical studies were used to
determine the safety factors to use for the engineered mine pit wall slopes.
In December 2019, five auger holes were drilled down an average depth of 31 m, and twenty-one trenches
were dug, with a maximum depth of 7 m, to characterize the ground strength and conditions for the CTFS.
NewFields Engineering was contracted to oversee the drilling, trenching, sampling, testing and reporting of
the geotechnical work. No samples were collected for assay as part of the drilling work; however, a few
auger hole samples were assayed afterwards for lithium at LAC’s process testing facility in Reno, NV. The
Page 58
sampling method did not meet LAC’s standard for quality control on assays and were not used in the
resource estimation.
10.3 Surveying
Claim surveying for Chevron was performed by Tyree Surveying Company, Albuquerque, New Mexico and
Desert Mountain Surveying Company, Winnemucca, Nevada. According to Chevron (1980), both
companies used theodolites and laser source electronic distance meters to survey the claims. Records
show that both companies were contracted to survey the drill hole locations. It is presumed that the same
instrumentation was used for the collar locations. The reported error was within 0.1515 m horizontally and
0.303 m vertically. The survey coordinates were reported in UTM NAD 27.
Collar surveying for LAC for the 2007-2010 drilling program used a Trimble GPS using the UTM NAD83,
Zone 11 coordinate system. The collar locations for the Chevron drill holes were updated to the NAD83
coordinate system at that time. Comparing LAC survey work with what was performed by Chevron showed
near identical results for the easting and northings; elevations were off by approximately 3 m and were
corrected to conform to earlier Chevron work.
Collar surveying for the 2017-2018 LAC drilling campaign was conducted using a handheld Garmin 62S
GPS set to UTM NAD83 Zone 11 with accuracy of ±3 m in the X and Y planes. In December 2017, a high-
resolution LiDAR and aerial photo survey of Thacker Pass was conducted in November of 2017 by US
Geomatics with a reported accuracy of ±0.08 m. The collar elevations of the 2017-2018 drill holes were
then corrected in the drill hole database to the surveyed surface elevation. The average change was an
increased elevation of 0.286 m.
From 2009 to 2010, downhole surveys were conducted on selected holes using a Boart-Longyear Trushot
magnetic downhole survey tool to verify the holes were not deviating from vertical. Holes drilled in 2017-
2018 were down hole surveyed using the same tool whenever the depth exceeded 30 m. All holes were
drilled vertical or nearly vertical with the exception of WLC-058 (Azimuth: 180º Dip: -70º) and LNC-083
(Azimuth: 180º Dip: -60º) which were intentionally drilled at angles.
10.4 Accuracy and Reliability of Drilling Results

The Project is known for significant amounts of lithium contained in sub-horizontal clay beds in the
McDermitt Caldera. Past and modern drilling results show lithium grade ranging from 2,000 ppm to 8,000
ppm lithium over great lateral extents among drill holes. There is a fairly continuous high-grade sub-
horizontal clay horizon that exceeds 5,000 ppm lithium across the Project area as shown in the cross-
sections in Figure 14-5. This horizon averages 1.47 m thick with an average depth of 56 m down hole. The
lithium grade for several meters above and below the high-grade horizon typically ranges from 3,000 ppm
to 5,000 ppm lithium. The bottom of the deposit is well defined by a hydrothermally altered oxidized ash
and sediments that contain less than 500 ppm lithium, and often sub-100 ppm lithium (HPZ). All drill holes,
except WLC-058 and LNC-083, are vertical which represent the down hole lithium grades as true-thickness
and allows for accurate resource estimation.
The Chevron holes were not used for the resource reporting but as a general guide for exploration planning
since these holes primary focus was on uranium and not lithium. RC drilled holes were not utilized in the
resource model due to analytical biases generated by this drilling method. The traditional core drilling
method was determined to be best suited for sampling this deposit for lithological and analytical
investigations.
The drilling techniques, core recovery, and sample collection procedures provided results that are suitable
for use in resource estimation. There are no drilling, sample, or recovery factors that materially impact the
accuracy and reliability of results. The data is adequate for use in resource estimation.
Page 59
11 Sample Preparation, Analyses, and Security

The sample preparation, analysis, security and QA/QC program employed by Chevron is uncertain, and
therefore data collected by Chevron are not used for resource estimation. This section describes those
activities completed for the LAC drilling campaigns from 2007-2018.
11.1 LAC Site Sample Preparation

The drilled core was securely placed in core boxes and labelled at site. The boxes of drilled core were then
transported to the secure LAC logging and sampling facility in Orovada, Nevada, where they were
lithologically logged, photographed, cut, and sampled by LAC employees and contractors.
Sample security was a priority during the LAC drilling campaigns. Core from the drill site was collected daily
and placed in a lockable and secure core logging and sampling facility (steel-clad building) for processing.
All logging and sampling activities were conducted in the secured facility. The facilities were locked when
no one was present.
The lengths of the assay samples were determined by the geologist based on lithology. From 2007 to 2011
certain lithologies associated with no lithium value were not sampled for assay. These rock types are
alluvium, basalt, HPZ and volcanic tuff. All drilled core collected in 2017 and 2018 was sampled for assay.
Average assay sample length is 1.60 m but is dependent on lithology changes. The core was cut in half
using a diamond blade saw and fresh water (Figure 11-1). Half the core was placed in a sample bag and
the other half remained in the core boxes and stored in LAC’s secure facility in Orovada.
Figure 11-1 Half Core Sawed by a Diamond Blade
To collect duplicate samples, one half of the core would be cut in half again, and the two quarters would be
bagged separately. Each sample was assigned a unique blind sample identification number to ensure
security and anonymity. The samples were either picked up by ALS by truck or delivered to ALS in Reno,
Nevada by LAC employees.
Page 60
Once at ALS, the samples were dried at a maximum temperature of 60ºC. The entire sample was then
crushed with a jaw crusher to 90% passing a 10 mesh screen. Nominal 250-gram splits were taken for each
sample using a riffle splitter. This split is pulverized using a ring mill to 90% passing a 150 mesh screen.
11.2 Laboratory Sample Preparation

ALS Global (ALS) of Reno, Nevada, was used as the primary assay laboratory for the LAC Thacker Pass
drill program. ALS is an ISO/IEC 17025-2017-certified Quality Systems Laboratory. ALS participates in the
Society of Mineral Analysts round-robin testing.
ALS is an independent laboratory without affiliation to LAC.
A sample workflow diagram for geological samples is presented in Figure 11-2.
Figure 11-2 Workflow Diagram for Geological Samples
Page 61
11.3 Analysis
ALS Global used their standard ME-MS61 analytical package for testing of all of LAC’s samples collected.
This provides analytical results for 48 elements, including lithium. The method used a standard four-acid
digestion followed by an atomic emission plasma spectroscopy (ICP-AES) analysis to ensure that elevated
metal concentrations would not interfere with a conventional inductively coupled plasma mass spectroscopy
(ICP-MS) analysis. Certified analytical results were reported on the ICP-MS determinations.
11.4 Density
Several bulk density testing campaigns have been completed within the Project area. The ASTM bulk
density and moisture testing standards that have been used are detailed below:
‐ Bulk Density: ASTM C914-09 standards for consolidated samples.

o The test specimens shall be dried to a constant weight by heating to 220 to 230°F (105 to
110°C) to remove entrapped moisture. Determine the initial weight of each test specimen
in grams to four significant figures. Coat the specimen with wax by dipping the specimen
into the container of melted wax. Determine the weight of the wax-coated specimen in
grams to four significant figures. Determine the weight of the wax-coated specimen
suspended in water in grams to four significant figures.
‐ Bulk Density: ASTM C127 standards for aggregate samples.
o A sample of aggregate is immersed in water for 24 ± 4 hours to fill the pores. It is then
removed from the water, the water dried from the surface of the particles, and the mass
determined. Subsequently, the volume of the sample is determined by the displacement of
water method. Finally, the sample is oven-dried and the mass is determined. Using the
mass values thus obtained and formulas in this test method, it is possible to calculate
relative density (specific gravity) and absorption.
‐ Bulk Density: ASTM D7263, Method B
o Test Method B (Direct Measurement)—A test specimen is obtained from a sample. The
test specimen can have a cylindrical or cuboidal shape. If the test specimen is cylindrical
in shape, its mass, height, and diameter are measured. If it is cuboidal in shape, its mass,
height, width, and length are measured. The density and unit weight are then calculated
based on the physical dimensions and mass of the specimen.
‐ Moisture Content: ASTM D2216
o The mass of a moist test specimen is determined. The specimen is then dried in an oven
at a temperature of 110° ±5°C until a constant mass is achieved. The loss of mass, due to
drying, is considered to be water. The water content is calculated using the mass of water
to the mass of the dry specimen expressed in percentage.
The bulk density samples generally were point samples from drill core that averaged 3 inches in length. A
description of the bulk density sampling programs is below and descriptive statistics by bulk density
program and lithology are shown in Table 11-1. Figure 11-3 provides a visual representation of where the
bulk density samples were collected within the Project area.
‐ MacTec Engineering and Consulting (2008) had six samples from 3 drill holes (WLC 20, 21, 22)
analyzed for bulk density utilizing the ASTM standard C127 for aggregate samples. Natural
moisture was also analyzed for these samples. Analysis was completed at the AAP laboratory.
‐ KCA (2008) had 26 samples from six drill holes (WPQ 1,2,3,5,6,7) analyzed for bulk density utilizing
the ASTM standard C914 with paraffin wax for consolidated samples. Natural moisture was also
Page 62
analyzed for these samples. The laboratory is unknown for this analysis as the original laboratory
sheets cannot be found.
‐ AMEC (2011) had 26 samples from six drill holes (WLC 157, 158, 181, 182, 183, 186) analyzed for
bulk density utilizing the ASTM standard C914 with paraffin wax for consolidated samples. Natural
moisture utilizing ASTM standard D2216 was also analyzed for these samples. The AMEC
laboratories numbered 1484 and 1485 completed the analysis. This analysis was completed as
part of a PFS level geotechnical study for Western Lithium USA Corporation (WLC).
‐ WLC analyzed 62 samples from 19 drill holes during the 2010 – 2011 WLC exploration drilling
campaign. The bulk density analysis utilized the ASTM standard C914 with paraffin wax for
consolidated samples and C127 for aggregate samples. All analysis was completed in the WLC
core shed under the supervision of WLC geologists.
‐ During the WLC 2010 - 2011 exploration drilling campaign, 25 duplicate samples from 12 WLC drill
holes were sent to the ALS laboratory in Reno, NV by WLC to verify WLC density values. WLC
sent duplicate samples to ALS in four batches from March 2010 to January 2011. The ALS bulk
density analysis utilized the ASTM standard C914 with paraffin wax for consolidated samples and
C127 for aggregate samples.
‐ BARR (2019) had 53 samples from five drill holes analyzed for bulk density utilizing the ASTM
standard D7263, Method B. Natural moisture utilizing ASTM standard D2216 was also analyzed
for these samples. Analysis was completed at the IGES Laboratory in Salt Lake City, Utah. This
analysis was completed as part of a geotechnical study for LAC.
Page 63
Table 11-1 Bulk Density Sampling Program Summary by Lithology

Average Dry Bulk Density (g/cm3)
Program / Lithology Moisture Standard
Count Average Minimum Maximum
(wt.%) Deviation
MacTec
Claystone - Smectite 16.80 3 1.70 1.44 1.84 0.22
Claystone - Mixed Zone 18.30 1 1.92 - - -
Claystone - lllite 12.90 2 2.00 1.98 2.02 0.03
KCA
Claystone 18.35 14 1.71 1.46 1.90 0.13
Claystone/Ash 14.26 2 1.70 1.65 1.74 0.06
Laminated - Claystone/Ash 15.24 4 1.74 1.33 2.04 0.34
Ash 18.54 3 1.46 1.35 1.58 0.11
Ash/Claystone 12.23 3 1.88 1.51 2.29 0.39
AMEC
Alluvium 26.43 6 1.51 1.18 1.62 0.16
Basalt 34.90 1 1.41 - - -
Claystone - Mixed Zone 16.13 4 1.69 1.46 1.90 0.19
Hot Pond Zone 4.50 1 2.07 - - -
WLC (2010-2011)
Alluvium 2.23 1 2.36 - - -
Basalt 10.80 5 1.99 1.76 2.51 0.30
Hot Pond Zone 10.65 4 1.99 1.83 2.09 0.12
Volcanic 13.91 4 1.88 1.63 2.14 0.21
ALS (2010-2011)
Basalt 15.41 4 1.84 1.65 2.05 0.18
Hot Pond Zone 7.15 1 2.19 - - -
Volcanic 16.27 2 1.88 1.63 2.13 0.35
BARR (2019)
Topsoil 15.50 1 1.70 - - -
Basalt 3.60 2 2.47 2.45 2.48 0.02
Hot Pond Zone 2.32 5 1.88 1.45 2.10 0.28
Volcanic 1.90 1 2.10 - - -
Note:
‐ 1 AMEC sample and 7 Barr samples were removed due to density values less than 1.1 g/cm3
‐ Sawtooth determined if the bulk density samples were in Smectite, Illite or the Mixed Clay Zone based on lithological drill
hole records.
‐ Basalt samples were vesicular and weathered.
Page 64
Figure 11-3 Dry Bulk Density Sample Locations
Note: KCA drill holes are not represented on the map
Page 65
During the 2012 Tetra Tech Technical Report, 2014 Tetra Tech Technical Report, 2016 SRK Technical
Report and 2018 Advisian Technical Report, the average density values by lithology were estimated using
samples from the 2010-2011 WLC sampling campaign and ALS duplicate program. The details of this
analysis are shown in Table 11-2. Several low bulk density basalt samples noted in Table 11-1 were
weathered vesicular basalt close to the surface. The sample used in Table 11-2 for the average basalt bulk
density was used because it was considered to be a better representation of the basalt that will be mined.
Table 11-2 Average Density Values

Dry Bulk Density (g/cm3)
Lithology Source Standard
Count Average Minimum Maximum
Deviation
Claystone/Ash ALS and WLC 15 1.79 1.31 2.12 0.25
Basalt WLC 1 2.51 - - -
Intracaldera Tuff WLC 2 1.96 1.83 2.08 0.18
For the compilation of the current Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve estimates, the QP reviewed all
of the density values that are currently available, as described in Table 11-2, with the exception of the KCA
data due to lack of data verification records. The histogram in Figure 11-4 depicts the dry bulk density
values for the clay types. This histogram aligns fairly well with the average values that were estimated in
the 2018 PFS report.
Based on this review, the QP has decided to continue using the average values from the previous PFS
reports for this study (see Table 11-2).
Figure 11-4 Smectite, Mixed Zone and Illite Dry Bulk Density Histogram from MacTec (2008),
AMEC (2011), WLC (2010-2011), ALS (2010-2011), and BARR (2019) Geotech
Studies
Source: Sawtooth, 2022
Factors that determine density values used by the QP include:
Page 66
‐ While the additional Barr data does add to the total number of bulk density samples present, the
Barr bulk density was estimated using a different ASTM standard than the rest of the bulk density
programs. For this reason, the QP has not updated the average values for the deposit with the Barr
data, however the Barr data is included in the histogram in Figure 11-4.
‐ The spatial representation for the total density dataset is larger than the dataset used for the PFS
density averages. The QP understands that the PFS analysis focused on including the samples
that were a mixture of claystone and ash. This is appropriate for the deposit as it is currently
modelled due to the fact that the ore zone is a mixture of Smectite, Mixed Clay Zone, Illite, and ash
bands. Including the full suite of density samples that are segregated by specific clay types will
decrease the average density value because there are more Smectite (lower density) samples than
other clay types, however, Sawtooth does not believe that this is representative of the deposit.
Further analysis and additional drilling should be completed to better define the Smectite, Mixed
Clay Zone, and Illite zones within the geological model so that average density values can be
applied by clay type until there is enough data to add density values to the block model.
The QP understands that there is risk in utilizing an average bulk density value for the deposit and has
taken the following steps to help mitigate that risk for the Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve estimates
presented in this report:
‐ As a way to show sensitivities, Mineral Resource estimates have been estimated with an average
dry bulk density value of 1.54 g/cm3, 1.79 g/cm3, and 2.04 g/cm3 and results are discussed in
Section 25.1.
‐ The Mineral Resource classification has considered proximity to bulk density samples and has
downgraded the Mineral Resource confidence classification areas with little or no bulk density
analysis.
‐ The QP recommends that additional testing be completed. The additional data should then be used
to better represent the variability of the density by clay type.
11.5 Quality Control

In 2010, LAC contracted Dr. Barry Smee of Smee & Associates Consulting Ltd., an international specialist
in QA/QC procedures who is familiar with the NI 43-101 reporting process, to develop a QA/QC program
for exploration drilling. The program included inserting blank standards, 3,378 ppm grade standard, 4,230
ppm grade standard, and duplicate samples into the drill core sample assay sets.
In 2010-2011, for every 34 half core samples, LAC randomly inserted two standard samples (one 3,378
ppm grade and 4,230 ppm grade), one duplicate sample, and one blank sample. The 2017-2018 quality
program was slightly modified to include a random blank or standard sample within every 30.48 m interval
and taking a duplicate split of the core (¼ core) every 30.48 m.
The total number of blank, duplicate, and standard samples analyzed by the laboratory during LAC’s drilling
campaign in Thacker Pass from the 2010-2011 drilling campaign was 9.5% of the total samples assayed.
LAC’s 2017-2018 drilling campaign averaged 11.1% of the total samples assayed. Assaying for all drilling
averaged 10.1% check samples. This does not include ALS internal check and duplicate samples.
ALS also completed their internal QA/QC program which included blanks, standards and duplicates
throughout the LAC exploration programs for lithium and deleterious elements including aluminum, calcium,
cesium, iron, potassium, magnesium, sodium and rubidium. The standards used by ALS and the ALS
QA/QC programs have been reviewed by the QP and were utilized in the QA/QC review.
Page 67
11.5.1 LAC Blank Samples

Blank samples were used to check for cross-contamination between samples at the ALS lab. Blank samples
were composed of dolomite sourced from a mine near Winnemucca, Nevada. Dolomite was chosen
because it is known to have low lithium content and was, therefore, a good indicator of contamination. A
bulk sample was collected and sent to Dr. Smee to be homogenized and certified. A warning limit for lithium
was set at 100 ppm by Dr. Smee, which is five times higher than the certified value of 20 ppm lithium. The
results of the blank sample checks are presented in Figure 11-5.
In 2010-2011, LAC identified several blank standards that exceeded the 100-ppm lithium set by Dr. Smee.
These samples were submitted for re-assay and their values were supported. It is likely that the high values
indicate contamination in the crushing or prepping process. However, the frequency and lithium content
amount are not high enough to be concerned about the overall assay results. The LAC 2017-2018
exploration program did not experience any failures of the blank standards and supports that cross-
contamination at the lab did not occur.
Figure 11-5 LAC Blank Results
Source: Sawtooth 2022
11.5.2 LAC Standard Samples

Standard samples consisting of two lithium bearing claystone samples from the Project area were used to
test the accuracy and precision of the analytical methods used at the lab. To create the standards, a round
Page 68
robin of assays was completed in June 2010 in which 10 standards of each type were sent to six labs for
testing. The resulting assays were evaluated by Dr. Smee to determine an average lithium value. The
results from two of the labs were discarded because the analytical results were substantially different as
compared to the other four labs and thought to be erroneous. Dr. Smee certified each standard with a
lithium grade and confidence range of two standard deviations. The first standard is certified at 3,378 ppm
±511 ppm lithium and the second standard is certified at 4,230 ppm ±850 ppm lithium.
The QP supported that the standards fell within two standard deviations of the median reported lithium
grade for every batch of certified assays reported by ALS as well as within two standard deviations of the
standard. Figure 11-6 and Figure 11-7 show the results for the standards quality testing program for 4,230
Li standard and 3,378 Li standard respectively.
The LAC 2010-2011 drilling experienced a number of samples falling outside two standard deviations.
During this time, ALS changed their internal lithium standards used to calibrate the ICP machine in an effort
to improve their consistency. This involved adding a 2,020 ppm lithium and 7,016 ppm lithium standard to
their QA/QC program. The LAC 2017-2018 drilling campaigns showed a much tighter two-standard
deviation bracket indicating ALS had improved their lithium assay quality.
The quality testing from the two standards was effective in supporting the quality of the results. From 2010
to 2011, samples that fell outside the ranges set by Dr. Smee were re-assayed and new assay certificates
issued. No samples were required to be submitted for re-assay by LAC in 2017 or 2018. However, ALS did
re-run some assays that failed their internal checks before a certificate was issued.
Page 69
Figure 11-6 LAC Drilling QA/QC Results (4,230 Li Standard)
Page 70
Figure 11-7 LAC Drilling QA/QC Results (3,378 Li Standard)
11.5.3 Duplicate Samples

Duplicate samples are used to check the precision of the analytical methods of the lab and were taken
every 30.5 m of core (every 100 ft). The duplicate samples earmarked for analysis were prepared in an
identical manner as the non-duplicate samples, beginning with the cut half core being cut in half again (¼
core sampling). Each piece of quartered core was bagged and given a blind sample identification number
for characterization at the lab. The results were un-blinded and paired up with the corresponding data in
Microsoft Excel. The results of the duplicate sample tests are shown in Figure 11-8.
The results from the duplicate samples indicate a high level of precision in the sampling and laboratory
techniques and support the quality of data and analysis process.
Page 71
Figure 11-8 LAC Drilling Duplicate Results
11.5.4 Discussion of QA/QC Results

The 2010 sampling program was initially seeing a 6% failure rate of the QA/QC samples where 17% of the
4,230 Li standards were returning lithium grades exceeding three standard deviations of their tested median
grade. ALS began using a new higher-grade lithium standard to improve the calibration of their ICP.
Following the improved calibration process, LAC selected the 16 highest lithium values from drill holes
WLC-001 through WLC-037 and WLC-040 through WLC-200 to be re-assayed. The samples were sent to
both ALS and Activation Laboratories (ActLabs) in Ancaster, Ontario Canada for lithium assays. The re-
assay grade for ALS and ActLabs was 5% and 3% lower than the original assay, respectively. It was
concluded that the overall deposit estimate may be lower by at most 2% to 3%. For further assurance,
ActLabs was chosen to run lithium assays on 112 random duplicate pulps generated by ALS in April 2011.
The results were within 3% of ALS certified lithium grade.
The 2017-2018 LAC sampling programs had consistent quality control results for the duration of the
campaigns. Duplicate samples returned with an R2 value of 0.9827, indicating a high-level of precision in
the sampling and laboratory techniques and supporting the validity of QA/QC protocols. The duplicate
grades extend from 13 ppm lithium to 7,500 ppm lithium. In addition, the blank and standards sample quality
Page 72
programs indicated that the accuracy and precision of the analytical process provides results that can be
relied on for resource estimation.
While the QP agrees that the QA/QC program is sufficient to support Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve
estimates, the QP also recommends that the duplicate program be completed by a secondary laboratory,
that the LAC standards be expanded to include a lithium grade close to 1,000 ppm, and that the LAC
standards be certified to include the deleterious elements of aluminum, calcium, cesium, iron, potassium,
magnesium, sodium and rubidium.
11.6 Qualified Person Statement

The QP is of the opinion that the sample preparation, security, and analytical procedures for the drill data
for the Thacker Pass Deposit are adequate for use for resource estimation.
Page 73
12 Data Verification
12.1 Site Inspection
12.1.1 Sawtooth Mining

Mr. Benson Chow visited LAC’s Thacker Pass Project site on November 8, 2018 and September 13 and
14, 2022. The purposes of the visits were to complete a QP data verification, site inspections, and
independent verification of the lithium grades. No material changes to the exploration drilling or site
conditions have occurred on site since the site visits. During the visit, Mr. Chow completed the following
tasks:
 Visited the Project location to better understand the local geomorphology and layout.
 Visited the active exploration drilling rig to observe the HQ core drilling, core handling, and core
transportation. Additional conversations with the exploration geologists included detailed
discussions regarding the core lithology being drilled.
 Visited the LAC core shed located near the Project site to review the core storage facility, core
logging procedures, core splitting procedures, and sample preparation procedures. While at the
core shed, LAC’s geologists were actively logging core and an LAC technician was splitting core.
A general conversation about the QA/QC program was conducted with LAC’s Senior Geologist.
 Visited the onsite meteorological station to review security, access and general conditions of the
station.
 Observed bulk sampling of ore material to be used for testing at LAC’s Technical Center from the
2022 bulk sampling program.
 Collected samples from the 2022 bulk sampling program for independent verification of the clay/ash
lithium grades.
 Verified drill hole collar locations and elevations.
 Visited LAC’s Technical Center in Reno.
 Performed a laboratory audit of ALS Reno Laboratory where LAC sends samples for analytical
testing preparations.
Pictures showing the site conditions and site inspection activities have been included as Figure 12-1.
Page 74
Figure 12-1 Site Inspection Pictures
LNC core shed inspection where cores were reviewed and stored.
West waste rock storage facility location. Observed auger sampling of claystone/ash material.
Field located existing drill hole for collar location and elevation verification.
Mr. Kevin Bahe visited LAC’s Thacker Pass Project site on August 12-13, 2019 and on September 13-14,
2022, to complete a QP data verification site inspection. Additionally, Mr. Bahe toured the pilot plant lab in
Reno, NV on July 25, 2019 and LAC’s Technical Center in Reno on September 15, 2022. No material
changes to the mining location or site conditions have occurred on site since. During the visits, Mr. Bahe
completed the following tasks:
Page 75
 Mr. Bahe visited the Project location to better understand the general layout of the mining area,
dump areas, and plant area.
 During the site visit Mr. Bahe observed BARR engineering drilling cores for the pit slope stability
study. Drilling was being done in the initial pit development area. Mr. Bahe was able to inspect
cores and see lithology.
 During the visit to LAC’s pilot lab, Mr. Bahe observed ore processing steps through the
development of clay cake. Mr. Bahe gained a better understanding of the ore processing.
 Toured LAC’s new Technical Center.
 Observed bulk sampling of ore material to be used for testing at LAC’s Technical Center from the
2022 bulk sampling program.
 Assisted in collection of samples from the 2022 bulk sampling program for independent verification
of the clay/ash lithium grades.
 Visited the LAC core shed located near the Project site.
 Toured the ALS Reno laboratory where LAC sends samples for analytical testing procedures.
12.2 Data Verification Procedures

Excel formatted electronic files containing lithological descriptions, sample assays, hole collar information,
and downhole surveys were provided to Sawtooth Mining from LAC for the purpose of generating a geologic
resource block model. Certified laboratory certificates of assays were provided in PDF as well as csv
formatted files for verification of the sample assays database. Sample names, certificate identifications, and
run identifications were cross referenced with the laboratory certificates and sample assay datasheet for
spot checking and verification of data by the QP.
12.3 Drill Core and Geologic Logs

Geologic logs were consolidated from paper archives and scanned PDFs on the LAC network drives. In
2016, each drill log was transcribed into a spreadsheet using the smallest lithologic interval identified in the
log to create the highest resolution dataset possible.
Subsequent geologic loggings of drill cores were entered directly into either an Access database or Excel
spreadsheets. The data would then be uploaded into the LAC’s Hexagon Mining Drill Hole Manager
database.
Geologic logs, Access databases, and Excel spreadsheets were provided to Sawtooth Mining for cross
validation with the excel lithological description file. Spot checks between excel lithological description file
were performed against the source data and no inconsistencies were found with the geologic unit
descriptions. Ash percentages were checked in the lithological descriptions and a minor number of
discrepancies were found in the ash descriptions. It was determined that less than 0.7% of the ash data
contained discrepancies in the lithological description. The QP determined that this 0.7% database error
was not material but noted that it should be addressed in the future.
12.4 Verification of Drill Hole Survey

The QP located and resurveyed 18 drill holes using a hand-held GPS unit to verify the coordinates and
elevations of the drill hole survey database. Table 12-1 lists the holes located and differences in the surveys
and Figure 12-2 shows the locations of the drill hole locations and elevations verified by the QP. The
surveyed holes matched the coordinates and elevation of the hole survey provided by LAC closely where
the actual drill holes could be found. The drill holes that could not be found did not have permanent markers
and are in areas where cattle have been present since the drilling concluded. The QP is satisfied with the
number of drill holes that were located as well as the comparison of the collar locations.
Page 76
Table 12-1 Drill Hole Survey Verification

Hand Held GPS Drill Hole Database Difference
DHID Easting Northing Elevation Easting Northing Elevation Easting Northing Elevation Comment
(m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m)
LNC 011 409,812 4,616,847 1,544 409,813 4,616,848 1,546 1 1 1
LNC 018 409,855 4,616,968 1,529 409,854 4,616,969 1,532 (1) 1 3
LNC 118 409,898 4,616,826 1,540 409,898 4,616,825 1,542 0 (1) 2
No hole was found, evidence for
LNC 088 409,906 4,619,017 1,609 409,916 4,619,034 1,615 10 17 6
drill pad
LNC 026 409,915 4,618,891 1,594 409,915 4,618,894 1,598 0 3 4
LNC 027 410,111 4,618,836 1,596 410,106 4,618,841 1,599 (5) 5 3
LNC 087 410,115 4,618,979 1,611 410,104 4,618,990 1,617 (11) 11 5
drill pad
LNC 029 410,273 4,618,845 1,602 410,274 4,618,851 1,607 1 6 5
drill pad
WLC
411,126 4,617,932 1,541 411,125 4,617,932 1,544 (1) (1) 3
120
WLC
411,249 4,617,988 1,540 411,249 4,617,989 1,542 0 1 3
114
WLC
411,355 4,618,180 1,548 411,358 4,618,181 1,552 3 0 4
063
WLC
411,370 4,618,107 1,544 411,366 4,618,107 1,548 (4) 0 4
097
WLC
411,503 4,618,158 1,547 411,503 4,618,160 1,551 (0) 2 5
126
WLC
411,619 4,618,059 1,543 411,622 4,618,058 1,544 3 (1) 1
155
WLC173 411,621 4,617,995 1,538 411,622 4,617,996 1,540 1 0 2
LNC 144 413,780 4,617,560 1,474 413,783 4,617,557 1,473 3 (3) (1)
LNC 138 414,122 4,617,614 1,461 414,133 4,617,616 1,461 11 2 (0)
LNC 115 416,598 4,618,477 1,454 416,598 4,618,476 1,452 (0) (1) (2)
Page 77
Figure 12-2 Drill Hole Verification Locations
Page 78
12.5 Verification of Analytical Data

The QP completed spot checks of the Excel assays datasheet used in the creation of the geologic block
model by cross-referencing the assay data with the certified laboratory certificate of assays. Only HQ core
holes were reviewed since HQ cores were the only holes used for the estimation of resources. No data
anomalies were discovered during this check.
The QP collected samples during LAC’s 2022 auger bulk sampling program for independent verification of
the lithium clay/ash grades. The samples were delivered to ALS Laboratory in Reno, NV for processing
and analysis. Figure 12-3 shows the distribution of lithium grades from the 28 independent samples tested
by ALS. Distribution of the lithium grades from the independent verification shows distribution of grades
similar to what has been reported from the drill core assays. Blank and duplicate samples were also
included in the independent verification of the auger bulk samples and results of the analysis seem
reasonable.
Figure 12-3 Independent Verification of Lithium Grades Distribution
12.6 Geological and Block Modelling

Seismic mapping and cross-sectional investigations were the basis for the fault mapping for the Project
area. The fault blocks were used as the block model domains to isolate grade among the fault blocks. Once
grade was estimated in the block model using variograms, cross-sectional reviews of the grade were
performed to inspect the grade displacement at the fault boundaries.
Page 79
Verification of the block model was performed by the creation of a geostatistical model and the review of
its various outputs. Histograms, HERCO grade tonnage curves, and swath plots were created and analyzed
to validate the accuracy of the block model by the QP. The statistical analysis and results are discussed in
Section 14.
12.7 Mine Design and LOM Plan

Mr. Bahe reviewed the following as part of the mine planning, cost model and Mineral Reserves data
verification.
12.7.1 Geotechnical
The slope stability study completed by BARR Engineering in 2019 was reviewed by Mr. Bahe. The
recommendations were implemented in the pit design. A table of slope configurations can be seen in
Section 16.1.
12.7.2 Mining Method

The shallow and massive nature of the Thacker Pass deposit makes it amenable to open-pit mining
methods. Per uniaxial compression strength studies done by WorleyParsons (Mar. 2018) and AMEC (May
2011), it was determined that mining of the ore clay body can be done without any drilling and blasting.
Additionally, LAC was able to excavate a test pit without any drilling and blasting. Only the basalt waste
material will require blasting. The mining method assumes hydraulic excavators loading a fleet of end dump
trucks.
12.7.3 Pit Optimization

The pit optimization was based on initial work completed in the pre-feasibility study. The final EIS pit is
limited by several physical features. The north is limited by the Montana Mountains. The west is limited by
the Thacker Pass Creek watershed, and the east and south are limited by facilities (mining, waste facilities,
and plant).
It is concluded that the final pit shell along with the waste/ore quantities are reasonable based on the pit
optimization inputs and do provide a positive economic value.
12.7.4 Mine Design

The EIS pit was used for mine planning. Ramps are assumed to be at a maximum slope of 8%. However,
there may be a few instances where ramp slope may approach 10%. Benches are designed at 50 m wide
and a 10 m height with a face angle of 67 degrees.
12.7.5 Production Schedule

Production sequencing was completed using Maptek’s Evolution Origin scheduling software. Ore blocks
were defined based on the cutoff grade. The QP reviewed the mining sequence and found it to be
reasonable and will support the plan.
12.7.6 Labor and Equipment

The QP reviewed the assumptions used for equipment fleet size estimation, including equipment capacity,
availability, and utilization percentages, equipment operating hours, and haul distances. The truck fleet is
adequately sized for the requirements and matches the selected excavators and loaders.
Page 80
12.7.7 Economic Model

The QP reviewed the following economic model inputs: mining cost, mining quantities and mining
capital. Based on the results, the project is economically viable.
12.7.8 Facilities and Materials

Through pit optimization routines the QP has verified that the facilities and materials located within the
reserve pit boundary can be economically relocated when access to those areas are required during mining.
12.8 Data Adequacy

Based on the various reviews, validation exercises and remedies outlined above, the QPs concluded that
the data is adequate for use for Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve estimation.
Page 81
13 Mineral Processing and Metallurgical

Testing
Extensive metallurgical and process development testing has been performed both internally at LAC’s
Process Testing Center (PTC) and externally with both vendors and contract commercial research
organizations. The main objective was to develop a viable and robust process flowsheet to produce battery
grade lithium chemicals. Previous test work presented in the Pre-Feasibility Study (2018) will not be
discussed in this report, but test reports are available for review. For the 2018 PFS report purposes, the
metallurgical test work evaluated a similar flowsheet. The process consisted of ore preparation (upgrading)
followed by a sulfuric acid leaching of lithium bearing clay. Lithium carbonate was precipitated with soda
ash. Magnesium sulfate as well as sodium and potassium salts were removed via crystallization.
Data collected from test programs has been used for various equipment selection, definition of operating
parameters and development of process design criteria for the current flowsheet.
The most relevant metallurgical test data are discussed in this section. Unless otherwise noted, all testing
has been performed on material collected from the proposed Thacker Pass pit (see Section 13.1).
13.1 Ore Collection for Metallurgical Testing
13.1.1 Bulk Sample Collection

The ore samples used for metallurgical testing were collected from the proposed pit at the Thacker Pass
deposit. Two sampling campaigns were conducted using an auger drill, one in August 2018 and another in
October 2019, collecting approximately 80 t of sample in bulk bags per campaign. The bulk sample hole
locations are shown in Figure 13-1, with locations superimposed on the permitted pit outline along with
exploration hole locations. Bulk sample holes were selected to target both high and low lithium contents,
different clay types, and the life of mine mineralogy of both clay types (Lithium Nevada, 2020). The QP was
not involved in the collection of samples for testing or the initial pilot testwork completed on the samples. It
is the QP's opinion that the sample type, sampling methodology and size is consistent with sampling this
type of deposits. The sample size allowed for meeting the pilot test program objectives.
The holes were drilled with a 32-inch bucket auger bit. Once the bucket was full, the sample was transferred
to a bulk bag and labeled (Figure 13-2). Every bulk bag holds roughly 1.5 to 2 ft of material depth in each
hole; this is equivalent to approximately 0.9 t of material.
The corresponding hole locations, depths and number of bulk bags collected are outlined in Table 13-1. A
reference table is provided showing which bulk bags were used for specific metallurgical tests (Table 13-2).
The samples spatially represent the mineralized deposit. The Thacker Pass pit is up to 122 m (400 ft) in
depth. The sampling methodology utilized only allowed samples to be collected to a maximum depth of 26
m (85 ft). The location of the sampling was selected to collect samples that are representative of the various
types and styles of mineralization of the whole deposit, namely both the upper and lower depths. The nature
of the deposit is a sub-horizonal lakebed that is consistent over large lateral distances; however, there are
a few younger faults that uplift lower illite clay horizons to the surface. Half the selected hole locations were
in undisturbed upper smectite horizons, and half the holes in uplifted faulted blocks that represent deeper
illite clay horizons.
Page 82
Table 13-1 Corresponding hole locations, depths and bulk bags collected
Depth
Hole Reference Material # Bags Collected Bulk Bag Labels
m (ft)
WLC-204 Smectite 0.6-25 (2-82) 26 1(2) – 26(2)
WLC-197 Smectite 3-25 (10-83) 26 27(2) – 52(2)
WLC-112 Smectite 9-17 (30-57) 28 53(2) – 80(2)
WLC-202 Illite 10-17 (32-57) 14 1(1) – 14(1)
WLC-136 Illite 7-24 (22-80) 28 15(1) – 42(1)
WLC-118 Illite 5-16 (17-52) 24 43(1) – 66(1)
Page 83
Figure 13-1 Bulk sample drill hole locations (WLC-202, WLC-204, WLC-197, WLC-136, WLC-112 and WLC-118)
Page 84
Figure 13-2 Bulk material sampling
Source: LAC Bulk Sampling Campaign Photos, 2019
Table 13-2 Bulk bags used for metallurgical testing

Test Description Illite Bulk Bags Smectite Bulk Bags
Materials Characterization 32(1) 2(2)
Attrition Scrubbing - LAC Internal 32(1) 2(2)
Attrition Scrubbing - Weir 32(1) 2(2)
Eriez Crossflow 40(1) 19(2)
29(2), 59(2), 61(2), 66(2), 78(2),
FEDINC Weir Pilot Plant 21(1), 46(1), 48(1), 66(1), 38(1), 24(1),
75(2), 39(2), 42(2), 10(2), 79(2),
43(1), 18(1), 37(1), 35(1), 34(1), 25(1),
*Q4 2021/Q1 2022 77(2), 71(2), 49(2), 63(2), 26(2),
22(1), 55(1), 60(1), 29(1)
27(2), 69(2), 31(2)
FLS Thickening 3(1), 6(1), 40(1) 25(2), 68(2), 18(2)
Andritz Thickening 3(1), 6(1), 40(1) 25(2), 68(2), 18(2)
Westech Thickening 3(1), 6(1), 40(1) 25(2), 68(2), 18(2)
GEA Bench Scale Centrifuge 3(1), 6(1), 40(1) 25(2), 68(2), 18(2)
GEA Pilot Scale Centrifuge 3(1), 5(1) 1(2), 15(2)
56(2), 52(2), 12(2), 76(2), 72(2),
LAC-Leach Extraction Model 17(1), 44(1), 61(1), 15(1), 5(1), 2(1), 16(2), 3(2), 21(2), 14(2), 17(2),
Development 12(1), 50(1), 51(1), 8(1) 9(2), 11(2), 15(2), 20(2), 19(2),
80(2)
54(1), 53(1), 45(1), 39(1), 62(1), 20(1),
LAC-Leach Extraction (other 24(2), 48(2), 36(2), 40(2), 1(2),
23(1), 64(1), 58(1), 40(1), 10(1), 11(1),
large scale batches) 25(2), 6(2), 8(2)
13(1), 3(1)
Leach Extraction - Continuous
12(1), 2(1), 50(1), 51(1), 8(1) 20(2), 40(2)
Data
Hazen Leach Testing 3(2)
Page 85
Test Description Illite Bulk Bags Smectite Bulk Bags

FLS Leach Testing 3(1), 6(1), 40(1) 25(2), 68(2), 18(2)
LAC-Limestone Reagent
11(1), 3(1), 58(1), 40(1) 19(2), 25(2), 6(2)
Efficiency
LAC-Neutralization w/ CaCO3 &
33(1), 57(1), 52(1), 26(1) 23(2)
Mg Precipitation Solids
Diemme Neutralization Slurry
5(1)
Filtration (bench)
SNF Flocculant Screening 26(1), 33(1) 18(2), 23(2)
LAC-Cut Size Leach
26(1), 57(1), 33(1), 52(1) 68(2), 23(2), 13(2), 18(2)
Investigation
LAC-MOL Reagent Efficiency 8(1), 50(1), 51(1)
LAC 70/30 Blend Leach 33(1), 52(1), 57(1) 18(2), 68(2)
Brines - Crystallization Tests Composites of smectites and illites.
13.1.2 Samples for Variability Study

The first five years of the mine plan are shown in the drillhole locations below in Figure 13-3. The samples
tested cover all the area in years one to five. Thirty-seven composite samples out of fourteen drillholes were
collected from retained assay coarse reject bags and shown in Figure 13-3.
Page 86
Figure 13-3 Sample Locations for Leach Variability Study
Page 87
Table 13-3 Samples for Variability Study
Sample name Depth Depth to Mining Assay1

Hole ID
(composites) from (m) (m) year [Li] ppm [Mg] ppm Ash%
1+2 LNC-020 16.06 62.48 3,4,5 4235 61922 31%
3 LNC-020 36.45 69.04 4,5 4740 59493 26%
4+5 LNC-021 6.04 69.59 2,3,4,5 4094 59225 43%
6 LNC-021 34.32 74.25 5 5658 63604 21%
7+8 LNC-028 14.51 79.64 2,3 4315 60917 25%
9 LNC-073 10.73 56.63 3 3341 38094 38%
11 LNC-073 10.73 56.63 3 3341 38094 38%
12+13 LNC-075 10.39 57.36 1,5 3783 59423 32%
14 LNC-075 25.3 55.72 1,5 5344 62638 26%
15+16 LNC-077 13.41 65.78 1,2 3757 54573 26%
17 LNC-077 18.84 53.77 1,2 4784 73684 18%
19 LNC-079 11.61 51.82 1 4746 57054 23%
22 LNC-090 41.76 71.38 5 3387 44745 22%
25 LNC-091 43.04 79.74 5 4333 47751 29%
27 LNC-092 9.20 40.63 3,4 4878 55706 15%
28+29 LNC-094 7.35 47.43 2,5 3770 52800 28%
30 LNC-094 33.07 57.06 3,5 4220 52258 20%
32 LNC-101 0 31.06 3,4 4322 47464 34%
33+34 WLC-201 7.56 50.72 1,4,5 4381 65036 43%
35+36 WLC-204 15.09 83.58 3,4,5 3266 55173 56%
37 WLC-204 18.11 72.39 3 2902 46869 38%
Average NA NA NA NA 4171 55073 30%
1Assay for blended samples (e.g. 1+2) are calculated from the sample assays at a 70/30 ratio.
13.2 Metallurgical Test Work by Area
13.2.1 Beneficiation
13.2.1.1 Comminution
Samples of both clay types, hard ash (intermittent layers in the clay deposit) and limestone from local
sources (see Section 13.2.3.7) were submitted for materials characterization testing by Hazen and
FLSmidth, Inc. Specifically, Bond ball mill work index (BWi), Bond abrasion index (Ai), Bond impact work
index (CWi), and unconfined compressive strength (UCS) were measured, with results listed in Table 13-4
(Hazen, 2021).
Page 88
Table 13-4 Summary of materials characterization testing (FLSmidth)

Material Bulk Bag BWi, CWi,
Ai, g Approximated UCS (psi)
Type Reference kWh/t kWh/t
Smectite 2(2) 13.1 0.0066 2.8 508 - - -
Illite 32(1) 10.1 0.0046 2.5 367 379 684 -
Hard Ash N/A,

composited
(in clay 12.2 0.1055 7.6 1110 9760 2151 2109
from core
deposit) samples
N/A, local
Limestone deposit 9.7 0.0005 8.8 6420 8847 6930 5163
sample
The clay samples had very low work indices, and both are considered “soft” within the Hardness/Resistance
to breakage ranges (CWi <10). The impact energy was also low. The hard ash and limestone samples are
also considered as “soft” materials per the Bond impact work index values.
Results from this analysis were used to appropriately design and size the feeder breakers and mineral
sizers to reduce run-of-mine (ROM) material down to the target size to feed downstream unit operations.
13.2.1.2 Attrition Scrubbing
Lithium is highly concentrated in the clay fraction, while gangue material has minimal lithium value. This is
confirmed by analysis of ore samples via Sensitive High Resolution Ion Microprobe (SHRIMP), where
lithium concentration is as high as 1.81 wt.% in the clay regions located in the boundaries of detrital grains
(Figure 13-4).
Figure 13-4 Lithium distribution in clay and gangue (SHRIMP analysis)
Source: Benson and Coble (in prep for submission), Hydrothermal enrichment of lithium in intracaldera claystones, 2022
Page 89
Attrition scrubbing (a form of high intensity slurry mixing) has proven to be an effective technique to liberate
lithium bearing clay from gangue material (detrital grains). The scrubber imparts enough energy to disperse
clays to fine particles while leaving harder gangue minerals in the larger size fractions.
Attrition scrubbing tests at the PTC were done on illite, smectite, and mixtures thereof at various slurry
densities and residence times (Lithium Americas Corporation, Attrition Scrubbing Bench Studies, Reno,
NV: Internal Document, 2021). The discharge slurries were wet screened and assayed by size fraction to
quantify mass and elemental distribution. Test results showed that optimum scrubbing conditions were
achieved at 30% solids slurry density and 10 minutes residence time. At higher percent solids the slurry
becomes too viscous for efficient scrubbing, and longer residence times result in overgrinding of coarse
gangue. Depending on the clay blend, 88-96% of the lithium was located in particles smaller than 38 µm
after scrubbing, while 79-66% of the total mass was in the same size fraction (Table 13-5). This
demonstrates that attrition scrubbing can be effective to separate lithium-containing clays from coarse
gangue material.
Table 13-5 Attrition Scrubbing Test by LAC

75% smectite / 50% smectite / 25% smectite /
Size 100% smectite 100% illite
25% illite 50% illite 75% illite
(µm)
% Passing, Li
1000 99 97 99 99 99
500 99 97 99 99 99
300 96 97 99 98 98
150 93 94 97 97 98
75 91 93 96 96 97
53 90 92 95 94 97
38 88 91 94 93 96
Size
% Passing, total mass
(µm)
1000 98 94 91 88 86
500 97 93 89 85 83
300 94 92 87 83 80
150 88 85 82 77 74
75 83 80 78 72 70
53 82 79 76 70 68
38 79 76 73 68 66
Independent attrition test work performed by a process consultant (FEDINC) indicated that a “mild” scrub
followed by an “intense” scrub can result in better overall clay liberation (FEDINC/Weir. Attrition Scrubbing).
For a 50/50 smectite/illite blend, a 5 minute “mild” followed by 5 minute “intense” scrub resulted in 95% of
lithium reporting to a minus 212 µm fraction. A single attrition stage resulted in 83% of lithium reporting to
the minus 212 μm with just the 5 minute “intense” scrub (Table 13-6).
Page 90
Table 13-6 Li and mass distribution of 50/50 clay slurry blend post attrition scrubbing,
“intense” vs “mild + intense”
% Mass Distribution % Li Distribution

Size µm Mild + Mild +
Intense Intense
Intense Intense
+212 35 17 17 5
-212/+38 11 23 8 14
-38 53 60 76 80
The flow sheet has two stages of scrubbing: a log-washer (mild) followed by attrition scrubbers (intense).
A screen on the attrition scrubber discharge will remove +1” material. It is assumed that this coarse fraction
will only be 1% of the total mass in the discharge slurry. Note that in the FEDINC study, the “intense” scrub
was performed at 50% solids and for five minutes, whereas internal test work has shown the optimum to
be 30% solids and 10 minutes. Thus, the results of these tests demonstrate the viability of the two-stage
attrition circuit. The lithium recovery design criteria is based on the data collected by LAC under best
operating conditions (Table 13-5).
Pilot scale test work of the two-stage scrubbing circuit has been completed at FEDINC to confirm assumed
operating conditions and lithium recoveries for the current flowsheet (FEDINC, 2022). See Section 13.2.1.6
for details.
13.2.1.3 Classification
In the process flow sheet, conventional cyclones will be utilized to achieve approximately 75 µm separation
from the attrition scrubbing product. The cyclone overflow containing the major fraction of the minus 75 µm
material will be directed to a thickener. The underflow from the cyclone, containing residual fines and coarse
gangue will be processed through a hydraulic classifier. The hydraulic classifier overflow will be directed to
the thickening stage and the underflow will be dewatered, then sent to a coarse gangue stockpile for use
in mine reclamation.
Based on mine plan optimization to maximize recoverable lithium, the resultant blend to feed the plant
averages 59% illite and ranges between 30 to 70%, with the remaining amount as smectite (see Sections
15 and 16). Based on the data in Table 13-5, at 75 µm approximately 4% of lithium and 28% of the total
mass should report to the hydraulic classifier underflow stream as coarse gangue. However, it is assumed
that the mass of material reporting to coarse gangue will be more closely aligned with the overall pit ash
content, which is approximately 34%. For lithium, it is assumed that 92% of the lithium contained in the
ROM material will report to the minus 75 µm overflow streams (Table 13-7).
Table 13-7 Process design criteria for classification, 75µm separation size, 70/30 illite/smectite
blend
Separation size 75 Test Process
Justification
µm Work Design Criteria
Minor losses of lithium due to separation inefficiency in
% Li recovered 96 92
plant versus bench tests and additional mass removed
% coarse gangue Assumed to align with estimated mass % of ash in overall
28 34
mass rejected pit
Samples of attrition scrubber discharge slurry of both illite and smectite generated at the PTC were
submitted to Eriez Flotation Services to test size separation of clay fines and coarse gangue via a hydraulic
(crossflow) separator (Eriez Flotation Division. Teeter Bed Separator Metallurgical Service Test Report for
LAC. Erie, PA: s.n., 2021). This simple unit operation relies on a controlled up-flow of water in a teeter bed
Page 91
to make a high efficiency separation of particles based on size. An example of the size separation for both
clay types can be seen in Figure 13-5, where a clear boundary layer of fines and coarse material is
observed. Performance of the hydraulic classifier with primary cyclone underflow was validated at the
FEDINC pilot plant (FEDINC, 2022).
Figure 13-5 Smectite and illite fines separation in a pilot crossflow separator
Source: Eriez Flotation Division. Teeter Bed Separator Metallurgical Service Test Report for LAC. Erie, PA: s.n., 2021
The particle size distributions (PSD) of the hydraulic classifier feed, overflow, and underflow for both illite
and smectite are shown in Figure 13-6. For both materials, most fines reported to the overflow.
Classification efficiency is determined by the partition coefficient, which indicates the mass % of material
reporting to the overflow for a given particle size. The partition coefficients by size fraction for both materials
are also shown in Figure 13-6, demonstrating that 100% of the minus 75 µm is projected to report to the
overflow. The test data indicate that cross flow type separators provide an appropriate particle size
separation technology. Industrial units for the flowsheet were based on material flows and a 75 µm target
separation size.
Page 92
Figure 13-6 PSD’s and partition coefficients of illite and smectite in the hydraulic classifier
Source: Data Adapted from Eriez Flotation Division. Teeter Bed Separator Metallurgical Service Test Report for LAC. Erie, PA: s.n., 2021
It should be noted that in the process plant, the feed to the hydraulic classifier will be primary cyclone
underflow and not attrition scrubber discharge slurry as evaluated at Eriez. Thus, the feed to the hydraulic
classifier will have a coarser size distribution compared to the test slurry but is not anticipated to affect
operation or result in additional equipment compared to the current design. Performance of the hydraulic
classifier with primary cyclone underflow was validated at the FEDINC pilot plant.
13.2.1.4 Solid Liquid Separation
After classification, the clay fines are directed to a thickener to dewater and increase the percentage of
solids ahead of the leaching process. The objective is to feed the leaching circuit with the highest percent
solids slurry. This will allow for recovery of the maximum amount of water that can be recycled back to
attrition scrubbing and classification circuits. This reduces the amount of water to be evaporated
Page 93
downstream. The maximum thickener underflow densities achieved in test work ranged from 20 to 39%
solids.
Three illite and three smectite sample sets were sent to vendors for thickening studies:
 Andritz Separation Technologies. Laboratory Report LAC Thickening Studies. 2021.

 FLS. LAC Pre-Leach Thickening and Rheology Test Report. 2021.
 Westech. Westech Testing Report Lithium Americas Thacker Pass. 2021.
A variety of flocculants and dosages were tested by each to determine and optimize settling rates, underflow
densities, flocculant dosage rates, and scale-up parameters. Results from each independent study were
closely aligned, with each vendor determining a similar achievable underflow density, flocculant type and
dose. Table 13-8 shows the results of the campaign from a 50/50 blend of illite and smectite.
Table 13-8 Solid-Liquid Separation test results 50/50 illite/smectite blend

Supplier Westech Westech Westech Andritz FLS
Thickener Type deep bed paste high density paste high rate high rate high rate
design unit area (m2/(t/d)) 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.12 0.08
Diameter (m) 24 35 50 50 30
Feed Rate (dry t/h) 300 300 300 450 250
Feed Density (% S) 5-8 5 3 3 3
Discharge Density (% S) 39 27-36 20 20 25-36
Flocculant Dosage (g/t) 200 200 200 350 200
Results from the thickening tests indicate that a feed density of 3-8% followed by flocculant dosing of 200 g/t
can achieve a varying discharge density of 20-39% solids in the underflow. Since none of the results
indicated that clay slurry could be thickened to the target density, decanter centrifuges were considered for
additional dewatering after the thickener. For design purposes, a high-rate thickener was selected with a
target underflow density of 20-25% solids.
13.2.1.5 Decanter Centrifuging
Representative samples of illite and smectite thickened clay slurry were provided to vendors for bench scale
decanter centrifuge testing:
 GEA. Bench Scale Decanter Centrifuge Testing Report. 2021.

 Andritz Separation Technologies. Bench Centrifuge Testing Report. 2021.
Both vendors tested different operating conditions, such as slurry feed density, g-force, and flocculant
dosing. Test work confirmed that thickener underflow could be further dewatered to produce slurry densities
around 50% solids (49% on average). Further pilot scale testing was performed confirming the bench scale
results (GEA, 2021). Figure 13-7 shows the pilot scale decanter centrifuge discharge cake solids density
and a photo of the generated cake.
Page 94
Figure 13-7 Pilot decanter centrifuge results
Source: Pilot Scale Decanter Centrifuge Testing. GEA. 2021
Based on these tests, decanter centrifuge equipment was selected to generate a leach feed containing
approximately 50% solids from solid-liquid separation.
13.2.1.6 Large-scale Beneficiation Piloting
Large-scale piloting was performed with Weir Minerals in partnership with Florida Engineering and Design,
Inc. (FEDINC) with the objective of confirming that the selected flowsheet meets Project requirements. The
key parameters to be confirmed were coarse gangue rejection, lithium recovery, and pulp density of the
decanter centrifuge final product sludge.
1 3 .2 .1 . 6 .1 S c ope
The scope of work was to perform pilot plant testing of the critical equipment of the current beneficiation
flowsheet as shown in Figure 13-8 for samples of three (3) blends of material that was fed at a rate of
454 kg/h (1,000 pounds per hour) to the Log Washer and Attrition Scrubber, see Figure 13-9. Note that prior
to feeding the material was screened to remove plus one inch.
The remainder of the pilot plant was fed at approximately 5,448 kg/h (12,000 pounds per hour) to confirm
performance in the classification section at the largest scale possible, see Figure 13-10. The resulting fines
from the classification circuit were then fed to a thickener followed by a decanter centrifuge, see Figure
13-11.
The mineral processing equipment installed at the pilot plant facility follows:
 Log Washer
 Attrition Scrubbers (x3)
 Primary Cyclone
 Hydraulic Classifier
 Dewatering Screen
 Thickener
 Decanter Centrifuge
Page 95
The flow diagram and pictures for the beneficiation and classification circuits as well as solid-liquid
separation circuit are presented in Figure 13-8 through Figure 13-11.
Page 96
Figure 13-8 Large Scale Beneficiation Pilot Plant Process Flow Diagram
Source: FEDINC, 2022
Page 97
Figure 13-9 Log Washer and Attrition Scrubber
Figure 13-10 Primary Cyclone, Hydraulic Classifier and Dewatering Screen
Page 98
Figure 13-11 Thickener and Decanter Centrifuge
1 3 .2 .1 . 6 .2 R e su lt s
Mass rejection of coarse gangue was in the expected range for the life of mine. The lithium recovery for
Campaigns 1, 2, and 3 was approximately 90% versus a target of 92% for this circuit. Coarse gangue
rejection at the dewatering screen is shown in Figure 13-12. During the campaigns it was noted that the
hydraulic classifier discharge valve was difficult to control resulting in upsets of the hydraulic classifier bed
that affected separation performance. The valve was replaced with one of more appropriate size and a
fourth campaign was conducted. Results from Campaigns 1 to 3 are presented in Table 13-9 (FEDINC,
2022).
Table 13-9 Campaign 1 to 3 Material Balance Results
Ore Clay Blend, Ore, % Li % % Coarse Gangue

Campaign
kg (lb) %Illite/Smectite Moisture Recovery Rejection
1 5,448 (12,000) 50 / 50 10.4 89.6 33.0

2 5,448 (12,000) 65 / 35 10.4 90.8 24.7
3 5,448 (12,000) 50 / 50 10.2 90.3 33.1
Average 90.2 30.4
Page 99
Figure 13-12 Coarse Gangue Rejection
Lithium recovery in campaign 4 was approximately 94%. This recovery is the highest obtained during pilot
plant testing. Coarse gangue rejection was lower when compared to Campaigns 1 to 3. It should be noted
that the feed consisted of crushed material that was originally coarser than one inch (plus one inch material)
that resulted from crushed ore screening from Campaigns 1-3. This resulted in a lower amount of oversized
coarse gangue material in the feed. The clay blend ratio for the composite sample used in Campaign 4 is
unknown. Therefore, the coarse gangue rejection and the lithium recovery obtained are not considered
representative of the deposit. Results from Campaign 4 were not used to determine expected plant
recovery.
The results from this fourth campaign are outlined in Table 13-10 below.
Table 13-10 Campaign 4 Material Balance Results
Campaign Sample, kg (lb) Sample % Moisture Li % Recovery Coarse Gangue Rejection (%)
4 4,792 (10,554) 6.5 93.8 11.9
13.2.2 Solid – Liquid Separation Circuit

Both the thickener and the decanter centrifuge met the desired objectives. Based on test data, a final
product of approximately 55% solids (by weight) from the decanter centrifuge can be expected. The particle
size distribution in the thickener underflow was in a 90-95% range passing 75 microns. Campaign 3
thickener underflow particle size distributions from several samples taken are depicted in Figure 13-13.
This particle size distribution is finer than the target size of 80% passing 75 microns.
Page 100
Figure 13-13 Campaign #3 Thickener Underflow (50% Smectite / 50% Illite)
100
95
Cumulative Passing, %
90
85
80
75
70
10 100 1000
Size, microns
Thickener Underflow #1 Thickener Underflow #2 Thickener Underflow #3

Thickener Underflow #4 Thickener Underflow Average 75 micron Target
13.2.3 Leaching and Neutralization

The concentrate product from the classification circuit is directed to the leach circuit. Lithium contained in
clay rich leach feed is dissolved with sulfuric acid in agitated leach tanks. After leaching, excess acid is
neutralized with limestone and recycled magnesium hydroxide prior to filtration of the neutralized leached
residue.
13.2.3.1 Optimum Sulfuric Acid Dose
The objective of the leach circuit is to optimize lithium extraction. Acid dose has a strong effect on lithium
leach extraction. Three samples of illite and smectite were leached by FLS at different acid dosage levels.
The average extractions are shown in Table 13-11 (FLS, 2021a). For both clay types, lithium extraction
increased with acid dose.
Table 13-11 Lithium leach % extraction of illite and smectite vs sulfuric acid dose
Acid dose (tonne acid/tonne solids in leach feed slurry)

Avg. Li head grade
Clay Type 0.45 0.50 0.55
(mg/kg)
Lithium Leach Extraction, %
Illite 4,590 67 84 87
Smectite 2,909 71 83 91
Using the measured leach extractions, the optimum acid dose can be calculated. As sulfuric acid is the
limiting reagent, the tonnage fed to leach is thus dictated by acid production rate (nominal 3,000 t/d Phase
Page 101
1 and 6,000 t/d total for Phase 2). The total mass of lithium extracted for each acid dose scenario is
calculated in Table 13-12, where the total mass of solids in leach feed slurry is based on 3,000 t/d sulfuric
acid availability.
Table 13-12 Lithium extractions for various acid dose scenarios

Total Tonnes Li
Acid dose (tonne/tonne Solids in leach feed slurry extracted per day
solids in leach feed slurry) (t/d, 3000 t/d acid basis)
Illite Smectite
0.45 6,667 20.5 13.8
0.50 6,000 23.1 14.5
0.55 5,455 21.7 14.4
Maximum mass of lithium extracted (23.1 t/d+14.5 t/d) occurs at a dose of 0.5 tonnes acid/tonne solids for
both clay types and is used as the design acid addition rate (design = 0.49 tonne acid/tonne solids).
13.2.3.2 PT C Leach Results
LAC has performed extensive leach testing on material collected from various locations throughout the
deposit (Section 13.1). Over 100 large leach batch tests were performed in 0.38 m3 tanks. Approximately
0.36 t of slurry were processed per batch. Different clay compositions and sulfuric acid doses were tested
to determine the lithium leach extraction, kinetics, and sulfuric acid requirement to maximize lithium
extraction. The lithium leach extraction data for all batches was selected by lithium grade (≥2,500 ppm)
after removal of coarse gangue and design acid dose. The leach data results are depicted in Figure 13-14.
Figure 13-14 Large batch lithium leach extraction, Li ≥ 2,500 ppm, 0.5 acid dose
Source: LAC, 2021
On average, illite tends to have higher lithium leach extraction compared to smectite. Smectite batches
where extraction was below 70% correspond to high magnesium content in the leach feed slurry
(≥ 9.4 wt.% Mg). Conversely, low magnesium content corresponds with higher leach extraction.
Page 102
13.2.3.3 Lithium Leach Extraction Model
The data in Figure 13-14 was used to build a multivariate model in Minitab® software. The model predicts
lithium extraction based on lithium and magnesium content in the leach feed. The predicted extraction
versus measured extraction is shown in Figure 13-15.
Figure 13-15 Actual lithium leach extraction percentage vs model prediction
100
90
80
70
60
Actual
50
40
30
y = 0.998x
20
R2 = 0.97
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Predicted
Source: LAC, 2021
The leach model was applied to the block model to optimize the mine plan for total lithium to be extracted.
The results from the model indicate that a ~70/30 illite/smectite blend yields a lithium leach predicted
extraction of 87% on average over the life of mine (Section 16). Since illite has lower magnesium content
and thus higher lithium leach extraction, it is the primary component of the blend. Five different blends of
70/30 illite and smectite were leached at the PTC for confirmation, with an 84% average extraction (Table
13-13) (Lithium Nevada, 2021).
Table 13-13 Lithium leach extractions of various 70/30 illite/smectite blends
Blend Bulk Bag Illite Bulk Bag Smectite % Li leach extraction

1 33(1) 18(2) 90%
2 33(1) 68(2) 89%
3 57(1) 68(2) 81%
4 57(1) 18(2) 86%
5 52(1) 18(2) 73%
Average 84%
It should be noted that the average leach extraction was close to the average predicted leach extraction of
87% per the mine model blend. The mine plan used for this study does not allow smectite with high
magnesium content to be fed to the process plant due to the low lithium leach extraction. Using the data in
Figure 13-14 and excluding the low recovery smectite samples (based on ore control), average lithium
leach extractions are 86.5% for illite and 78.5% for smectite. The calculated lithium leach extraction for a
70/30 blend is 84%.
Page 103
13.2.3.4 Batch vs Continuous Leach
In addition to the batch leaches, continuous leach experiments have been performed in a gravity overflow
reactor arrangement at the PTC. Numerous leach batches of ore have been conducted in a continuous
mode with the same residence time and acid dose to compare against the data collected in the batch tanks.
In Figure 13-16, a comparison of lithium leach extraction in batch vs continuous mode is shown.
Figure 13-16 Continuous v batch lithium leach extraction
Source: LAC, 2021
Excellent agreement is observed in the data sets, further validating confidence in the batch leach data used
for scale-up of the continuous process. Note that the data in Figure 13-16 is for either pure smectite or pure
illite leach feed and is not representative of the average mine model blend. Thus, the data merely
demonstrates agreement between batch and continuous but does not show expected leach extraction.
13.2.3.5 Leach Kinetics
In terms of kinetics, all data collected to date shows the leach reaction is relatively fast. For example, in
Figure 13-17, kinetic data on a smectite sample at different temperatures is shown (Hazen, 2021b).
Figure 13-17 Lithium leach kinetics at various temperatures
Source: Data Adapted from Hazen Research, Summary of Acid Leach Results, 2021b
Page 104
The impact of temperature on lithium leach kinetics was minimal. The dashed lines show the normal plant
design residence time (180 min) and the residence time in case of a tank outage/bypass for maintenance
purposes (120 min). Therefore, the design residence time (180 minutes) is deemed sufficient to extract the
soluble lithium present in the leach feed. Similar kinetics were observed for illite samples and are assumed
to apply to blends.
13.2.3.6 Leach Feed Particle Size
Leach tests on two particle size separation sizes were performed by LAC on 4 different illite and 4 different
smectite samples at the target acid dose. Separation sizes investigated were 75 µm and 38 µm. Figure
13-18 depicts the lithium leach extractions for both particle sizes evaluated (Lithium Nevada, 2021a).
Figure 13-18 Lithium leach extractions for 75 µm and 38 µm particle sizes
Source: Lithium Americas Corporation, Leaching Size Test Report, 2021
No significant difference in lithium leach extraction was observed between the two sizes. At the 75 µm
separation size, the smectite lithium leach extraction averaged 83% while illite leach extraction averaged
92%.
13.2.3.7 Neutralization
After slurry is leached, residual acid is neutralized to raise the pH to precipitate most of the aluminum and
iron in solution. LAC plans to obtain limestone from nearby sources. In Table 13-14, the results for limestone
purity of the samples are shown, with assays completed by three individual sources. The purity fluctuates
between 77-100% calcium carbonate, CaCO3, depending on sample location. Silica is the major impurity,
with magnesium, aluminum and iron also present.
Table 13-14 Limestone purity analysis of local grab samples

CaCO3 MgCO3 SiO2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 Total
Sample # Description
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
Analysis 1 (Lhoist)
1 +3/8” 96.5 0.7 0.9 0.0 0.1 98.4
1 -3/8” 96.6 0.8 8.0 0.1 0.1 98.6
Page 105
CaCO3 MgCO3 SiO2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 Total

Sample # Description
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
2 +3/8” 76.9 0.7 9.1 0.3 0.2 99.1
2 -3/8” 83.2 2.2 8.7 0.2 0.5 99.5
3 +3/8” 81.2 0.7 16.2 0.1 0.2 99.0
3 -3/8” 86.5 1.4 9.3 0.2 0.2 99.2
Analysis 2 (Western Lithium Corporation)
CaCO3 MgO SiO2 Al2O Fe2O3
Sample # Description -
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
1 Bulk 101.2 1 3.15 0.1 0.1 -
3 Bulk 88.1 3.45 3.05 0.2 0.1 -
Analysis 3 (Lithium Americas Corporation)
CaCO3 Mg Al Fe
Sample # Description - -
(%) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm)
4 Bulk 92 4946 - 716 2235 -
5 Bulk 92 4876 - 668 1333 -
Pulverized limestone has been tested as neutralization reagent at the PTC and by others. In Figure 13-19,
a comparison of pulverized local limestone and vendor supplied limestone showed that the local limestone
had similar efficiency to commercially available product (FLS, 2021a). The limestone consumption for all
samples tested is shown in Table 13-15, where the average consumption over all samples was 0.12 g
CaCO3/g solids in leach feed slurry.
Table 13-15 CaCO3 consumption to achieve pH 3.5 in neutralization slurry
Bulk Bag Type g CaCO3/g LF slurry for pH 3.5
25(2) Smectite 0.10

18(2) Smectite 0.16
68(2) Smectite 0.04
6(1) Illite 0.07
3(1) Illite 0.18
40(1) Illite 0.18
Avg. 0.12
At the PTC, limestone consumption to achieve pH 3.5 was 0.1 kg CaCO3/kg LF solids across 11 large scale
batches. In the process design criteria, limestone addition is based on controlling the neutralization outlet
stream to a pH target. It will vary depending on residual acid content, iron, and aluminum solution values.
Page 106
Figure 13-19 Local CaCO3 & vendor purchased comparison of pH vs limestone addition
Illite Bag 6(1)
CaCO3 addition (g CaCO3/g solids

0.16
0.14
0.12
in leach slurry)
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04 Local CaCO3
Vendor CaCO3
0.02
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Measured pH
Smectite Bag 25(2)

CaCO3 addition (g CaCO3/g solids
0.18
0.16
0.14
in leach slurry)
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06 Local CaCO3
0.04 Vendor CaCO3
0.02
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Measured pH
Source: Data Adapted from FLS. LAC Leach and Neutralization Results 2021
Large batch neutralization tests have also been performed using both CaCO3 and recycled magnesium
precipitate (magnesium hydroxide/calcium sulfate solids), as currently designed in the flow sheet. In these
tests, pulverized limestone was added to a target pH ~3.5, then a slurry containing magnesium precipitation
solids was added to a target pH of ~7. This simulates the two-stage neutralization circuit. It has been
confirmed over multiple batches that the magnesium solids are effective as a neutralization reagent and
capable of bringing the final slurry pH to a target range of 6-7. Testing has confirmed that at the end of
neutralization, aluminum and iron are almost completely removed (Table 13-16).
Page 107
Table 13-16 Data for neutralization batches using CaCO3 and Mg Precipitation solids
Initial leach slurry solution values Final neutralized slurry solution values
Bag/Batch H2SO4 Al Fe Al Fe
g/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L
23(2)-1 28.5 6324 9318 <10 <10
33-1 35.5 2460 7198 <10 <10
57-1 51.5 3327 7377 <10 ND*
57-2 41.5 3119 7001 <10 <10
52-1 32.6 3521 4806 <10 <10
52-2 42.5 2865 5113 ND* ND*
26-2 23.1 2911 5349 <10 <10
*ND = non-detect
13.2.3.8 Neutralization Slurry Filtration
After neutralization, the leach residue is filtered in membrane filter presses, with the objective to generate
a dry cake suitable for stacking in the CTFS, and to recover lithium in solution. Hundreds of filtration batches
have been performed by LAC on a pilot scale membrane filter press. Filter cakes produced are consistently
uniform, friable, and with 35 to 40% moisture content as measured drying at 105°C (Figure 13-20). Tests
performed by multiple filtration equipment vendors have confirmed final filter cake characteristics:
 Diemme. LAC Filtration Testing Report. 2021.

 Metso Outotec. Filtration Testing Report. 2021.
Figure 13-20 Pilot membrane filter press and resultant filter cake
Source: LAC, 2021
Washing the filter cake to recover any residual filtrate is critical to minimize lithium losses to the CTFS.
Washing tests were performed, and the wash water demand versus wash recovery is shown in Figure
13-21. One phenomenon that was observed by a filter vendor (Diemme) is filter cake breakthrough, where
cracks in the filter cake provide channels for wash water to bypass the cake resulting in low wash efficiency.
This was observed where wash water flow rates and pressures were high, indicating these variables must
be tightly controlled for efficient washing. At optimum conditions, it was found that at a wash water
consumption of ≥1.4 (mass wash water/mass solids washed), wash efficiency could exceed 90%. In the
process design criteria, washing is specified as taking place in two stages, each stage having a mass of
wash solution to solids ratio of 1.1 for a total of 2.2 wash consumption. In the first stage, recycled wash
liquor is used, and in the second stage fresh water is used. It is assumed that this wash strategy will be
Page 108
able to achieve 90% recovery based on the bench scale results (Figure 13-21). At 90% wash efficiency,
about 98% of the total lithium in solution is recovered (filtrate + wash solution), with ~2% loss to residual
liquor entrained as moisture in the filter cake. The leached residue in the filter cake will be in a 600-700
ppm range lithium based on 87% extraction.
Figure 13-21 Wash consumption vs lithium wash recovery tests
Source: Data Adapted from Diemme Testwork, 2021
Pilot plant filter cake wash testing at the manufacturer resulted in high losses of lithium on scale-up
(Diemme, 2022). Based on filter cake washing test results a new wash strategy was developed.
13.2.3.9 Counter Current Decantation and Filtration
Counter Current Decantation (CCD) has been investigated as an alternative washing process technology.
High density thickener test work by FLSmidth resulted in underflows from 32% to 33% using SNF AN-
934SH flocculant. Flocculation was successful as shown in Figure 13-22. Parallel work with SNF for settling
and rheology test work indicated that 32 to 33% solids can be expected in a CCD circuit with AN-905S
flocculant. Anionic flocculant requirements were in an 80-150 g/t solids range depending on the number of
stages. Table 13-17 shows the maximum operation density range for standard and high-density thickener
designs per SNF. Owing to the improved underflow solids content, high density thickeners have been
selected.
Table 13-17 SNF Maximum Thickener Underflow Operating Density

Maximum Recommended Operating Density Maximum Recommended Operating Density
Range Based on Full Shear Data for Range Based on Full Shear Data for High
Material Standard Thickener Design (30 - 50-Pa Density Thickener Design (75 - 100-Pa
Yield Stress Limitation) (%) Yield Stress Limitation) (%)
CCD1 29.5% - 32.0% 33.9% - 35.3%
CCD 3 29.5% - 32.3% 34.6% - 36.2%
Subsequent filtration at FLSmidth with a recessed chamber filter press (without membrane squeeze)
achieved a competent cake with 39% moisture content when drying at 55 degrees Celsius. No washing
occurs in the filter press.
Page 109
With seven stages of CCD applying a 95% stage mixing efficiency and subsequent filtration without washing
stage, losses of lithium in solution entrained as moisture in the filter cake were estimated at approximately
1%.
Figure 13-22 Dynamic Thickener Testing at FLSmidth
Source: Photo from FLSmidth laboratory, SLC, 2022
13.2.4 Magnesium and Calcium Removal
13.2.4.1 Magnesium Sulfate Crystallization
Magnesium is removed in a primary stage of crystallizers designed to crystallize as much magnesium as

possible in the form of hydrated magnesium sulfate (MgSO4*xH2O) salts where x varies with temperature.
A critical aspect of magnesium sulfate crystallization is to avoid lithium losses to the salts, because at a
threshold concentration of lithium and potassium in solution, lithium can form a double salt with potassium.
Therefore, understanding the LiKSO4 phase boundary limit is essential to operate the magnesium
crystallizers effectively. LAC, with the assistance of a research partner, has mapped this boundary using
in-situ real time monitoring tools during crystallization of brine solutions generated at the PTC. LAC now
has a custom phase diagram specific to Thacker Pass brines.
In addition to the fundamental studies in progress, continuous bench and pilot scale test work on neutralized
brine solution produced by LAC has been performed. The objective of these scoping studies was to verify
the maximum amount of magnesium that can be removed without lithium losses. Test work was conducted
on brine supplied by LAC to explore operating conditions of the crystallizer (Aquatech, 2021). First, the
conditions at which lithium first starts to precipitate were identified.
Page 110
At optimum conditions, crystallization was able to remove on average 79% of the incoming magnesium
without lithium precipitation. This has been verified by other independent testing. Crystals were relatively
large and easy to wash/dewater and remove via centrifugation.
Crystallizer sizing and target design conditions have been incorporated into the flow sheet per vendor test
results and recommendations. The precipitated magnesium salts are removed and washed via
centrifugation and conveyed to the CTFS, while the filtrate is processed downstream. About 3.7% of the
lithium in solution is lost as residual mother liquor on the crystals based on anticipated residual moisture
and wash efficiency of the centrifuge cake.
13.2.4.2 Magnesium Precipitation
The residual magnesium in the centrate that is not removed in the crystallizers is then chemically
precipitated with milk of lime (MOL), where magnesium hydroxide (Mg(OH)2) and gypsum (CaSO4) are the
main precipitates formed. Extensive testing on this process has been performed by LAC and by others.
Testing proved (Hazen, 2021a) at a stoichiometric factor of 1, magnesium is removed from solution to a
concentration of less than 15 mg/L, exhibiting good reagent efficiency in the circuit. Internal test work has
verified stoichiometric addition of MOL, and a stoichiometric factor of 1.05 is used in the design criteria.
The Mg(OH)2/CaSO4 precipitates are filtered in a plate and frame filter press, similar to the neutralization
slurry, and filter press sizing is based on vendor testing. The filter cakes are not washed, since they are re-
pulped and sent back to neutralization, and therefore any lithium held up in cake filtrate is recycled and
recovered. The filtrate is then sent downstream to calcium removal.
13.2.4.3 Calcium Precipitation
The calcium removal step takes place in reactor clarifiers, where soda ash (Na2CO3) is added to form a
solid calcium carbonate (CaCO3) precipitate. Test work was performed to determine soda ash dose and
clarifier sizing (Westech, 2021a). The resultant solution had less than 20 mg/L of Ca remaining. The solids
are removed by passing the stream through multimedia filters, and eventually the CaCO3 is sent back to
neutralization.
In a final polishing step, low levels of calcium, magnesium and any other divalent cations are removed with
traditional ion exchange resin. Multiple resins were tested and found effective for hardness removal to low
solution levels (<1ppm Ca). IX scoping tests to reduce boron concentrations to <1 ppm were also done
successfully (Aquatech, 2022). Further testing of ion exchange resins is scheduled to be completed in Q1
2023.
13.2.5 Lithium Carbonate Production
13.2.5.1 Purification
The brine feeding the lithium carbonate (Li2CO3) purification circuit primarily contains lithium, sodium, and
potassium sulfate. The objective is to produce high quality battery grade lithium carbonate. Note that crystal
agglomeration and poor wash efficiency are common contributors to product contamination, and thus it is
desired to grow large crystals and avoid agglomerates.
The Li2CO3 purification circuit is comprised of three stages: primary Li2CO3 crystallization, bicarbonation,
and secondary Li2CO3 crystallization. Each stage has been tested (Veolia, 2020). In the 1st stage, soda
ash (Na2CO3) is added to the brine in stoichiometric excess to precipitate Li2CO3 and form crystals. The
crystals collected in the first stage were analyzed to be 95.8 wt% Li2CO3. A target of ≥99.5 wt% for battery
grade indicated that a second stage purification is necessary to remove impurities.
Page 111
The Li2CO3 crystals collected from the 1st stage were re-slurried with water and then transferred to a reactor
where carbon dioxide (CO2) gas was continuously metered at controlled temperature and pressure. This
reaction converts Li2CO3 to highly soluble lithium bicarbonate (LiHCO3). Solid impurities were removed in
a filtration step.
The filtered brine was then fed to a 2nd stage reactor, where it was heated to thermally degas CO2 and
precipitate Li2CO3. After separating and washing the crystals, a product with > 99.5 wt.% was obtained.
The crystals were of sufficient size for efficient solids/liquid separation with little to no agglomerates present.
The bicarbonate filtration step is critical to keep contaminants within battery product specification.
To further validate the process design, pilot Li2CO3 purification testing was performed by Aquatech
International on brine generated from Thacker Pass clay (Aquatech, 2022a). The test program was
designed to simulate the commercial circuit and included all stages of purification and all primary recycle
streams. They demonstrated the ability to produce lithium carbonate at both the purity (>99.5 wt%) and
recovery (>96.0%) as defined in the basis of design. Other key design criteria, equilibrium concentrations,
reagent consumptions, and power demand were also verified throughout the test campaign.
Over 5 kg of battery quality lithium carbonate has also been produced internally at Lithium Americas’
Technical Center in Reno, NV via the same purification circuit design (Lithium Nevada, 2022). There was
good agreement with the Aquatech data for equilibrium solution concentrations and final product purity.
13.2.5.2 Zero Liquid Discharge Crystallization
Mother liquor from the 1st stage and a portion of mother liquor from the 2nd stage are combined and sent
to the zero liquid discharge (ZLD) crystallizer with the objective of crystallizing sodium and potassium as
sulfate salts by evaporation. Prior to feeding the crystallizer, sulfuric acid is added to destroy any carbonates
thus preventing precipitation of lithium carbonate. Because there is a significant concentration of lithium in
the ZLD feed stream, crystallization must be controlled to avoid lithium precipitation to solids, similar to the
magnesium sulfate crystallizer (Section 13.2.4.1).
Continuous bench scale ZLD crystallizer tests were performed on synthetic brine solution designed to
represent the feed stream composition per the process model. The test work identified the target area
where lithium is still soluble, and calcium, potassium, silica, and sodium were the only precipitated species.
Based on these results, the operating conditions and sizing of the circuit were designed.
To confirm the design, pilot testing of the ZLD circuit was also performed by Aquatech International during
the pilot purification campaign (Aquatech, 2022a). The design mother liquor and crystals composition were
verified, and it was shown that the crystallizer can be operated without loss of lithium to solids. Similarly,
internal pilot testing has also confirmed that lithium loss to solids can be avoided if the mother liquor
composition is controlled (Lithium Nevada, 2022).
13.2.5.3 Final Product Handling
High purity lithium carbonate crystals from the 2nd stage are removed via centrifuge and sent to drying,
cooling, micronization and packaging circuits. Dryers and coolers were selected based on quoted designs
from multiple vendors, with moisture properties of the final Li2CO3 crystals assumed based on test work
and typical industry values.
For micronization, bulk samples were provided to multiple vendors for micronization testing with different
types of mills. Based on test results (Hosokawa, 2021), equipment was sized, and jet milling was selected
as the preferred technology.
A dry vibrating magnetic filter (DVMF) is included post jet milling to remove metallic contaminants. Samples
were tested to establish a maximum theoretical feed rate of lithium carbonate through a DVMF. The results
were used to size equipment.
Page 112
The packaging system has been designed from bulk jet-milled lithium carbonate testing completed in Q1
2022. The equipment required is similar to others used in the industry and is integrated into the design of
the Project.
13.2.6 Tailings
Numerous geotechnical tests have been completed on tailings material generated from the PTC. Based on
this testing, stability analysis modeling has shown a stable landform can be constructed when the tailings
are compacted near optimum moisture content. To achieve a stable landform, technical specifications have
been prepared which identify the moisture content and compaction requirements of the tailings. Section 18
summarizes the tailings plan.
13.3 Beneficiation and Leaching Variability Study

The primary objective of the leach variability study was to confirm that materials from depth in the Thacker
Pass deposit provide a similar metallurgical response to the beneficiation and leach processes. Composite
samples representative of the first five years of production were procured for bench scale testing. The main
parameters evaluated were as follows:
 Years 1 through 5 of production

 Two lithium bearing clay types
o Illite
o Smectite
 Depths up to 136 m (300 ft)
 A 70:30 Illite to smectite ratio
The beneficiation (attrition/scrubbing and classification) process was simulated in the laboratory to generate
leach feed slurry from each composite representing various years of production. The coarse gangue
removed (+75 microns) was quantified and lithium losses were evaluated. Representative test charges of
leach feed (-75 microns) were generated and leached using standard leach parameters previously defined
for the Project. The results from this study were used to verify the leach extraction model accuracy.
Samples were collected to geospatially represent the first five years of mine life. Twenty-one composite
samples were prepared at a 70/30 illite to smectite ratio to match the mine plan. The samples were then
slurried at 40% solids, attrition scrubbed for 10 minutes, and wet screened at 75-micron to remove coarse
gangue. The resulting minus 75-micron slurry was then adjusted to match the design leach feed slurry
density (34% solids). Removal of coarse gangue resulted in upgrading of the leach feed. Leach feed slurry
lithium concentration ranged from 4,246 ppm to 6,974 ppm and magnesium from 5.7% to 8.9%. Leach
testing was performed in both open cycle and locked cycle to evaluate potential hindering of leaching
efficiency by elevated concentrations of dissolved salts. To simulate the level of saturation in the leach
process, salts were added to the leach feed (based on the Aspen material balance) prior to leaching. The
level of saturation in the leach process did not appear to impact the level of lithium extraction obtained in
the composite samples evaluated.
Leaching parameters are shown in Table 13-18. Standard procedures, including a QA/QC protocol and
experimental error were implemented and evaluated throughout all stages of the study. The quality control
protocol included:
 Calculated versus head assay within 10% (by LAC)

 Reproducibility (experimental error) testing: Three composite samples in triplicate
 Independent laboratory leach testing
 Independent laboratory analytical (from ALS)
Page 113
Table 13-18 Variability Study Leach Parameters

Parameter Unit Value
Solids Density % w/w 35-36
Acid Dose g acid / g solids 0.49
Duration Hours 3
Temperature Degrees Celsius 60-70
Coarse gangue removal in wet screening ranged from 26% to 41% with a 34% average. This very closely
matches the life of mine predicted ash content in the run of mine and in the design. Lithium losses in wet
screening ranged from 4% to 23% with a 9% average which is very close to the process design criteria of
8%.
Five of the 21 samples were leached in both open and locked cycle with no significant difference in
extraction observed. The remainder of the study was performed in locked cycle.
Three samples were leached in triplicate to measure reproducibility of the experiments. All three samples
demonstrated reproducible results with standard deviations ranging from 0.9% to 1.5%. The maximum
standard deviation was used to generate the error bars on Figure 13-26.
Lithium leach extraction ranged from 85.8% to 97.0% with an average of 90.8%. Samples were sent to an
outside laboratory, ALS, for quality assurance. Results compared closely with those analyzed by LAC.
Per the quality control protocol, leach feed slurry was sent to an external lab to leach under the same
conditions to verify LAC’s lithium extraction results. The laboratory reported concerns with the mixing in the
leach vessel and the mass balance results did not close. The metallurgical data from the independent
laboratory have been excluded from the report. LAC plans to conduct additional leach test work at a bench
scale. Representative samples will be selected that are deemed representative of the samples used in the
variability study.
The LAC assayed head grades correlated well with the calculated grade (filtrate + residue) as can be seen
in Figure 13-23.
Figure 13-23 Calculated Versus Measured Head Grade for Leach Testing
6000
Calculuated head Li (mg/kg)
5000
4000
y = 1.0034x
3000
R² = 0.9966
2000
1000
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Measured head Li (mg/kg)
Source: LAC, 2021
Page 114
Figure 13-24 and Figure 13-25 show that ore depth and mine plan year have no impact on extraction.
Figure 13-24 Ore Depth (m) Versus Li Extraction (%)
100
98
96
94
Extraction %
92
90
88
86
84
0 20 40 60 80 100
Ore Depth (m)
Source: Process Engineering LLC Memorandum "Variability Study Data Analysis" dated 21 April 2022
Figure 13-25 Mine Plan Year Versus Li Extraction (%)
100
95
Extraction %
90
85
80
1 2 3 4 5
Production Year
Source: Process Engineering LLC Memorandum "Variability Study Data Analysis" dated 21 April 2022
Figure 13-26 compares the measured lithium extraction results versus the empirical model that was
discussed in Section 13.2.3.3. On average the model predicts approximately 3% less extraction than what
was measured.
Page 115
Figure 13-26 Comparison of Measured Versus Predicted Extraction
100%
90%
80%
70%
%Li extracted
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Bag Numbers
Model Measured
Source: LAC, 2021
The data from the leach variability study was then added to the 37 pilot plant sample dataset used for the
empirical correlation. Two samples from the original dataset were statistically identified as outliers owing to
extremely high aluminum. The regression was then repeated and resulted in a more accurate model with
only 1% less extraction when compared with the leach variability samples.
Note that the work done by Hazen in Section 13.2.3.5 under similar conditions achieve a leach extraction
of 85.0% versus 83.4% as predicted by the revised model. Similar to the variability study, the model is in
range and slightly underpredicts leach extraction.
The results from this study demonstrate that the lithium extraction is independent of depth in the deposit.
13.4 Specific Gravity

Specific gravity of both clay and coarse gangue were measured on various samples during testwork at
different vendor testing facilities. Test methods included gas pycnometry (ASTM D5550-14), water
pycnometry (ASTM D 854 or ASTM D 854-02), and calculation from slurry weight, volume, and water
density. The values for the ranges and averages are given in Table 13-19.
Table 13-19 Specific Gravity Ranges
Material Range Average

Clay 1.97 - 2.90 2.47
Coarse Gangue 2.23 - 2.70 2.46
It is recognized that the specific gravity values in the table above differ from those in other documentation
including the heat and material balance and equipment data sheets. A reconciliation will be completed in
the next phase of engineering to ensure the design values in the table are used for final equipment design
and sizing.
Page 116
13.5 Metallurgical Test Work Conclusions

Since 2017, LAC has performed extensive metallurgical and process development testing, both internally
and externally. Based on results of this test work, the following was established:
 Attrition/Scrubbing 10-minute retention time at 30-40% solids density is suitable for separating
lithium bearing clay from coarse gangue. A two-stage circuit (mild + intense) was used for design
purposes.
 A separation size of 75 microns is suitable to minimize lithium losses reporting to rejected coarse
gangue mineralization.
o An estimated 8% lithium loss to coarse gangue is assumed
o Approximately 34% of ROM material mass is rejected as coarse gangue (average life of
mine, based on ash content)
 Two stages of solid - liquid separation (thickener and centrifuge decanter) are required to achieve
desired solids density for generation of upgraded slurry for leaching. The classification circuit
thickener underflow terminal density is estimated at 20-25%. The centrifuge paste solids density is
estimated in a 55% range.
 Sulfuric acid dosage required to achieve an acceptable level of leach extraction is estimated at
0.49 t of sulfuric acid per tonne of leach feed.
 The actual dosage evaluated in the laboratory was 490 kg acid/tonne solids.
 The expected lithium leach extraction is estimated to be in an 85 to 87% range over the life of mine.
This level of leach extraction is supported by the bench scale metallurgical data developed in the
variability study. See Section 13.3 for details.
 Limestone slurry and magnesium precipitation solids proved to be suitable for pH adjustment in the
neutralization circuit.
 A seven-stage counter current decantation (CCD) and filtration circuit was evaluated. The seven
stage CCD coupled with pressure filtration step without cake washing stage provides an acceptable
wash efficiency and will minimize lithium loss to the neutralized leached residue.
 Magnesium sulfate (MgSO4) crystallization can effectively remove on average 79% of magnesium.
 Lithium carbonate (Li2CO3) purification requires three stages to ensure that a battery quality LC will
be produced.
The data presented in this section has been used to establish process design criteria for the plant as
discussed in Section 17. Additional testing is underway for various parts of the flowsheet with test work
planned in 2022 to provide supportive data from process optimization and variability testing prior to final
design.
Page 117
14 Mineral Resource Estimates

This section contains forward-looking information related to the Mineral Resource estimates for the Thacker
Pass Deposit. The material factors that could cause actual results to differ from the conclusions, estimates,
designs, forecasts or projections include geological modeling, grade interpolations, lithium price estimates,
mining cost estimates, and mine design parameters.
14.1 Thacker Pass Deposit

The current Mineral Resource estimate discussed in this Technical Report is relevant to only the Thacker
Pass Deposit. The UM Claims owned by LAC in the Montana Mountains are not part of the Thacker Pass
Project.
Only HQ core samples subject to the QA/QC programs outlined in Section 11 of this report and assayed by
ALS Global and American Assay Laboratory (AAL) in Reno, Nevada, were used to estimate the resource.
366 drill holes were used in development of the resource block model (Table 14-1). A map of all drill holes
used in the resource estimation is presented in Figure 14-1.
Table 14-1 Drill Holes Used in the Grade Estimation Model

Drilling Number
Campaign Drilled
WLC-001 through WLC-037, WLC-041 through WLC-075, WLC-077
LAC 2007-2010 227 HQ Core
through WLC-182, WLC-184 through WLC-232*
LNC-001, LNC-003 through LNC-011, LNC-013 through LNC-080, LNC-
LAC 2017-2018 139 HQ Core
082, LNC-084 through LNC-109, LNC-111 through LNC-144*
Note:
*Holes WLC-040, WLC-076, WLC-183, LNC-002, LNC-012, LNC-081, LNC-083, and LNC-110 were deleted due to proximity to
other nearby holes which were deeper with more assays and more descriptive geological descriptions.
Page 118
Figure 14-1 Drilling Utilized for the Resource Estimate
Page 119
All drill holes used for the grade model except WLC-058 are essentially vertical (88.8 degrees to
90 degrees). Regular downhole gyro surveys were conducted to verify this, as described in Section 10 of
this Technical Report. All mineralization thicknesses recorded are treated as true thicknesses.
All drill holes used for grade estimation were standard HQ core, drilled using standard techniques by
Marcus & Marcus Exploration Inc., now known as Timberline Drilling Inc. Core is stored at a secure logging
facility while being processed, then locked in CONEX containers or a warehouse after sampling was
completed.
14.1.1 Geological Domains

Several faults are present in the deposit. Surface field investigations and subsurface cross-sectional
analyses were performed to determine potential faults in the deposit. Subsurface fault zones were
determined by identifying floor displacement between fault traces. The fault traces were connected to
generate seven faulted block zones. Figure 14-2 illustrates the seven major fault blocks. These faulted
block zones were used to limit the lithium grade estimation to the blocks and drill holes existing within each
representative faulted block zone. Fault Block A does not contain any drilling, and therefore does not have
any direct sampled grade or Mineral Resource estimates.
Page 120
Figure 14-2 Seven Fault Blocks Zones Used for Grade Estimation for the Thacker Pass Deposit
Page 121
14.1.2 Geological Model

A Vulcan ISIS database was designed and populated with native geologic data from Excel datasheets
containing drill hole assays, collars, lithological, and survey data which were exported from LAC’s Torque
database.
Alluvium (Qal) and basalt bodies were modeled through inverse distance in a gridded model with their
surfaces triangulated and imported into the block model to flag representative blocks. Basement was
mapped as the HPZ, basal basalt, or bottom of the mineralized zone and is shown as the low Li basal unit
in cross-sectional views. No grade was interpolated into this unit. The remaining blocks were coded as ore
which represents the clay/ash lithologies. Lithological cross-sectional views of the generated block model
displaying the geologic units in the deposit have been included as Figure 14-3 along the AA-AB, AB-AC,
and AC-AD cross-section lines. The location of the cross sections have been displayed on Figure 14-1. The
block model is not rotated nor sub-blocked.
Figure 14-3 Lithological Cross-Sectional Views
Page 122
The native statistics by lithology and fault block domain are shown in Table 14-2. The majority of samples
have been taken from the clay/ash sediments. Higher average grade lithium values exist in the sediments
compared to the other lithologies. The average range of lithium ppm for all fault blocks is between 2,077
and 2,788 for the clay/ash sediments.
Table 14-2 Native Samples Statistics
Lithium (ppm) Native Samples

Lithology Fault Block Minimum Maximum Average
Count
Value Value Value
Alluvium B 90 16 3,330 99
Alluvium C 62 7 4,360 309
Alluvium D 64 27 4,060 357
Alluvium E 6 27 98 51
Alluvium F 18 43 2,390 359
Alluvium G 27 31 3,480 363
Basalt B 352 10 2,900 234
Basalt C 461 6 3,630 150
Basalt D 19 87 360 168
Basalt E 9 28 233 74
Basalt F 4 258 1,320 592
Basalt G 6 54 209 115
Sediments B 3,620 5 8,360 2,253
Sediments C 4,961 3 8,850 2,077
Sediments D 5,044 11 8,540 2,788
Sediments E 525 31 6,780 2,235
Sediments F 1,058 39 7,120 2,302
Sediments G 584 52 7,660 2,707
Tuff B 738 2 6,810 153
Tuff C 884 2 4,200 115
Tuff D 358 8 5,560 120
Tuff E 10 16 1,370 353
Tuff F 14 60 3,900 1,042
Tuff G 30 88 4,080 1,140
14.1.3 Block Model

A block model was created by the QP using Maptek’s Vulcan 3D subsurface geologic modeling software.
A regular block model with a block size of 25 m by 25 m by 1 m was generated.
The origin of the block model is described in Table 14-3 in NAD 1983 UTM Zone 11N (meters).
Page 123
Table 14-3 Block Model Origin

Block Model Origin
X Coordinate 406,900.0
Y Coordinate 4,613,900.0
Z Coordinate 1,100.0
The seven fault blocks were also loaded into the block model to allow for domaining during grade estimation.
14.1.3.1 Compositing
A composited database was created from this native ISIS database. A compositing run length of 1 m was
chosen based upon mining assumptions of potential waste removal. This composited database used
existing geocodes from LAC’s Torque database to isolate the compositing of grades to each correlated
geologic lithology. Lithium grades were interpolated for clay/ash lithologies in the block model through
ordinary kriging modeling method from a 1 m composited quality database and limited to each
representative fault block.
The composited statistics by lithology and fault block domain are shown in Table 14-4. The majority of the
composited samples as well as the highest average lithium grades are from the clay/ash sediments. The
average lithium grades range between 2,080 and 2,787 ppm in the composited database for the clay/ash
sediments.
Table 14-4 Composite Samples Statistics

Lithium (ppm) Composite Samples
Lithology Fault Block Minimum Maximum Average
Count
Value Value Value
Alluvium B 384 16 3,330 122
Alluvium C 182 7 4,360 315
Alluvium D 217 27 4,650 375
Alluvium E 28 27 98 51
Alluvium F 48 43 2,390 359
Alluvium G 120 31 3,480 408
Basalt B 855 10 4,200 234
Basalt C 1,018 6 3,270 143
Basalt D 34 87 400 169
Basalt E 23 28 233 74
Basalt F 5 258 680 366
Basalt G 10 59 1,030 153
Sediments B 5,311 8 8,254 2,260
Sediments C 7,502 3 8,690 2,080
Sediments D 7,576 11 8,040 2,787
Sediments E 804 34 6,489 2,232
Sediments F 1,704 39 6,940 2,300
Sediments G 886 60 7,660 2,727
Tuff B 1,138 3 6,810 137
Tuff C 1,452 2 2,250 96
Tuff D 812 8 1,990 88
Tuff E 17 16 1,370 353
Tuff F 29 60 3,900 1,094
Tuff G 66 88 4,080 1,047
Page 124
From the native to composite length database for the ash/clay sediments, the maximum average difference
between the two databases for lithium grades is only 20 ppm. The maximum individual sample difference
for lithium grades between the two databases is 500 ppm. This shows the closeness between the native
sampling and the composited database.
To display the distribution of lithium grades, a histogram has been generated for the native lithium data
versus the composited database and have been shown in Figure 14-4. The histogram comparison shows
a nearly identical distribution of lithium grades between the two datasets. The lower grade material is due
to the sampling of non-ore material such as ash, alluvium, basalts, and HPZ lithologies. The use of
geocodes in the composited database isolated lithium grades to each representative lithologies.
Figure 14-4 Histogram of Native Lithium Grade Versus Composited Database Lithium Grade
The lithium high-grade mineralized zone is concentrated towards the bottom of the deposit as shown in the
cross-sectional views in Figure 14-5. This high-grade mineralization zone is present in a large portion of
the modeled area. Lower-grade materials such as alluvium and basalt exist above the mineralized zone
and the basement hot pond zone (HPZ), below the mineralized zone. The HPZ has been discussed
previously in Section 7 and is the base of the sedimentary section above the Tuff of Long Ridge. Lithium
grades were only modeled for the clay/ash ore body and ignored for the alluvium, basalts, and basement
rocks. Lithium grades are isolated to each representative fault block and offsets in the grade lateral
continuities can be visualized at each fault block boundaries as shown in Figure 14-5.
Page 125
Figure 14-5 Mineralized Zone Cross-Sections
Page 126
14.1.3.2 Outliers and Grade Capping
High-grade outliers were managed through the compositing routine. The highest lithium grade of 8,850 ppm
in the native database was reduced to 8,690 ppm after the database compositing routine as shown on
Figure 14-4. Both histograms on Figure 14-4 share the same basic shape of distribution of samples which
shows that the two databases are nearly identical while containing a number of different data samples.
No grade capping was performed for this dataset since the nugget effect is low in this stratified deposit.
14.1.3.3 Cell Declustering
Cell declustering was performed for all the holes in the resource model to determine appropriate weightings
for densely and sparsely sampled areas. A histogram comparing the lithium grades of the composited
database versus the composited database with cell declustering weights applied has been included as
Figure 14-6 to show the unbiased lithium grade accounting for data clustering. The range of lithium grades
are the same when comparing the declustered histogram to the composited database histogram but the
frequency of the grade distribution is different. Densely spaced holes are given less weight than widely
spaced holes to minimize the clustering effect which is shown by the reduction in the frequency of grades
between 2000 and 4000 on the histogram.
Figure 14-6 Histogram of Composited Database Lithium Grade Versus Cell Declustered
Lithium Grade
14.1.3.4 Variography
No grade was estimated into Block A since no drilling or direct sampling exists in this block. Blocks B, C,
D, and E estimated grade with interpolation distances of 1,000 m major axis by 1,000 m semi-major axis
by 5 m minor axis. Blocks F and G used 500 m major axis by 500 m semi-major axis by 5 m minor axis
interpolation distances for grade estimation.
Page 127
Variograms were constructed for the lithium grade for all fault blocks except for block A since no grade is
interpolated into this block. Fault blocks E, F, and G were merged into one domain for the purpose of
generating stable variography that showed structure while still representative of the geology. A summary
of the variography is given in Table 14-5, and plots of each domain’s experimental and modeled variograms
are shown in Figure 14-7. These variograms were used in the grade estimation for each representative
domain.
Table 14-5 Variogram Summary

Omnidirectional Sub-Horizontal Plane (X - Y)
Structural Nugget First Structure Second Structure Third Structure
Block (γ) Principal Semi
Azimuth Azimuth Component Range Component Range Component Range
(γ) (m) (γ) (m) (γ) (m)
Block A --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Block B 0.23 75o 165o 0.018 67 0.017 276 0.735 432
Block C 0.26 120o 210o 0.389 144 0.091 298 0.260 433
Block D 0.36 105o 195o 0.003 298 0.002 599 0.635 1000
Block E, F & G 0.26 90o 180o 0.023 386 0.035 1221 0.682 1627
Vertical (Z)
Structural First Structure Second Structure Third Structure
Block Range Component Range
Component (γ) Component (γ) Range (m)
(m) (y) (m)
Block A --- --- --- --- --- ---
Block B 0.018 45 0.017 92 0.735 167
Block C 0.389 35 0.091 69 0.260 120
Block D 0.003 13 0.002 23 0.635 35
Block E, F & G 0.023 4 0.035 17 0.682 36
Page 128
Figure 14-7 Block B, C, D, E, F, and G Omnidirectional Variograms in the Sub-Horizontal Plane and Downhole Variogram
Block B Variogram
Page 129
Block C Variogram
Page 130
Block D Variogram
Page 131
Block E, F, and G Variogram
Page 132
14.1.3.5 Density Estimation
Average densities as described in Section 11.4 of this Technical Report and in Table 14-6 were included in
the block model.
Table 14-6 Average Density Values Used in the Resource Model

Lithology Average of Density Determination (t/m3)
Alluvium 1.52
Claystone/ash 1.79
Basalt 2.51
Intracaldera Tuff 1.96
14.1.3.6 Grade Estimation
Lithium grades have been estimated throughout the block model using the composited assay database
with the declustered weights through an ordinary kriging modeling method. Only clay/ash mineralized
material was estimated for lithium grade and each domain was estimated independently. A cross-sectional
view of the lithium grade estimation results has been included as Figure 14-5 and shows the lithium grades
through two different domains and only for clay/ash lithology.
14.1.3.7 Grade Estimation Validation
Results of the ordinary kriged model closely align with the declustered composited database. The difference
in mean values is approximately 30 ppm of lithium between the two datasets. A histogram has been plotted
to compare the ordinary kriged block model and the declustered composited database as seen in Figure
14-8.
Figure 14-8 Ordinary Kriged Model vs Composited Declustered Database Histogram
Page 133
A scatter plot of lithium grades from the kriged block model versus lithium grades from the composited
database was created to show the closeness of the model grades to the input grades. This scatter plot has
been shown as Figure 14-9 with only spatially matching data points from the block centroid and composited
database being compared. From this scatter plot, a Pearson’s correlation coefficient of 0.904 has been
estimated between the two datasets which shows a very strong positive association between the
representative values from each dataset.
Figure 14-9 Scatter Plot of Lithium from the Block Model Versus the Composited Database
A check of the modeled cell size lithium grade versus the composited lithium grade and the change of
support for lithium grade was performed for each domain through a Herco Analyzer in Vulcan. The Herco
Analyzer tests for the potential of overstating ore grades by increasing the block size to make the data
distribution more Gaussian. This is accomplished by assuming a panel size larger than the modeled block
size which provides a larger sampling pool of data that will remove outliers and smooth out the data
distribution. A discretization setup of 5x5x5 was selected as well as a discrete gaussian diffusion modeling
method. Grade weights for the block model used density values assigned in the block model while the
weighting for the composited grades and support grades are based upon sample lengths. The Herco plots
are shown as Figure 14-10 and represent the tonnage and lithium grades of the input data, the modeled
data, and the expected best fitted Hermite polynomials determined by the Herco Analyzer.
Page 134
Figure 14-10 HERCO Plots by Domain
Page 135
The plots of lithium grades are all within several hundred ppm of each other. The modeled grades are a bit
lower than the composited sampled grades and the change of support grade and is due to the block model
smoothing by the kriging estimation of grade. Therefore, the ordinary kriged model is not overestimating
lithium grade in the model. The decrease in ordinary kriged model lithium grade seems reasonable for
model block size of 25x25x1, accounts for dilution, and prevents the over-stating of grades.
Page 136
A swath plot comparison among the lithium grades for the native lithium grades (LI), ordinary kriging grade
estimation method lithium grades (li), inverse distance grade estimation method lithium grade (li_id), and
nearest neighbor grade estimation method lithium grade (li_nn) was generated for a point in the block
model. This swath plot has been included as Figure 14-11. All three grade estimation methods have ranges
that are very close to each other as shown in the tightness of each plot. This closeness shows that ordinary
kriging grade estimation method results in values in line with inverse distance and nearest neighbor grade
estimation methods. While the native lithium grades will not match the modeled grade estimations in the X
and Y directions, there is a general trend that still exist between the native lithium grades and modeled
lithium grades.
Figure 14-11 Swath Plot Comparison of Lithium Grades
14.1.3.8 Mass and Geometallurgical Recoveries
No mining recoveries were applied to the resource model. Plant process recovery was provided by LAC at
73.8% (40 year/base case) which was then rounded down to 73.5% for use in the pit optimization software
for the generation of the economic resource pit-shell. The plant process recovery was applied uniformly
throughout the model and was not coded into each individual block.
Page 137
14.1.4 Cutoff Grade and Pit Optimization

The CIM 2014 Definition Standards state that a Mineral Resource is a “concentration of occurrence of solid
material of economic interest in or on the Earth’s crust in such form, grade or quality and quantity that there
are reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction.”
For the determination of reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction, the Mineral Resource QP
has utilized a cutoff grade (CoG) for lithium ppm with inputs from Table 14-7 and the following equation.
The values below have been rounded from the financial model and expected metallurgical performance
over the expected 40-year mine plan.
Table 14-7 Cutoff Grade Inputs
Item Units Value

Li2CO3 Price $/t 22,000
Convert Li2CO3 to Li 5.323
Li Price $/t 117,040
Royalties (GRR) % 1.75
Royalties (GRR) $/t 2,048
Processing Recovery % 73.5
Price per Recovered tonne Lithium $/t 84,519
Mining Cost $/t 8.50
Processing Cost $/t 80.00
Operating Cost per tonne $/t 88.50
Note:
‐ Cost estimates are as of Q3 2022 (See Section 21.3)
‐ Lithium price estimate is as of Q2 2022 (Wood Mackenzie, 2022, See Section 19.4)
‐ GRR refers to Gross Revenue Royalty
Operating Cost per Tonne Processed

Economic Mining CoG= =1,047 ppm
Price per Recovered Tonne Lithium
The resulting lithium cutoff grade is 1,047 ppm and is applied to the pit optimization process to develop the
economic resource pit.
A resource constraining pit shell has been derived from performing a pit optimization estimation using
Vulcan Software. The pit optimization utilized the inputs in Table 14-8 and the lithium cutoff grade of
1,047 ppm to determine the constraining resource pit shell. Figure 14-1 shows the estimated resource area
determined through pit optimization.
Table 14-8 Pit Optimizer Parameters

Li2CO3 $/t 22,000
Li Price $/t 117,040
Processing Cost (Feed - $0.98 and Processing - $80.00) $/t ROM 80.98
Process Recovery % 73.5
Mining Cost for Mill Feed $/t 3.67
Mining Cost for Waste and Topsoil (No D&B) $/t 2.53
Page 138

Mining Cost for Basalt (Included D&B) $/t 3.76
Mining Recovery Factor % 100
Royalties (GRR) $/t 2,048
Pit Wall Slope Factor % 27
Note:
‐ Cost estimates are as of Q3 2022
‐ Lithium price estimate is as of Q2 2022
14.1.5 Resource Classification

The CIM 2014 Definition Standards state that:
“An Inferred Mineral Resource is based on limited information and sampling gathered through
appropriate sampling techniques from locations such as outcrops, trenches, pits, workings and drill
holes. Inferred Mineral Resources must not be included in the economic analysis, production
schedules, or estimated mine life in publicly disclosed Pre-Feasibility or Feasibility Studies, or in the
Life of Mine plans and cash flow models of developed mines. Inferred Mineral Resources can only
be used in economic studies as provided under NI 43-101.
There may be circumstances, where appropriate sampling, testing, and other measurements are
sufficient to demonstrate data integrity, geological and grade/quality continuity of a Measured or
Indicated Mineral Resource; however, quality assurance and quality control, or other information
may not meet all industry norms for the disclosure of an Indicated or Measured Mineral Resource.
Under these circumstances, it may be reasonable for the Qualified Person to report an Inferred
Mineral Resource if the Qualified Person has taken steps to verify the information meets the
requirements of an Inferred Mineral Resource.
Mineralization may be classified as an Indicated Mineral Resource by the Qualified Person when the
nature, quality, quantity and distribution of data are such as to allow confident interpretation of the
geological framework and to reasonably assume the continuity of mineralization. The Qualified
Person must recognize the importance of the Indicated Mineral Resource category to the
advancement of the feasibility of the project. An Indicated Mineral Resource estimate is of sufficient
quality to support a Pre-Feasibility Study which can serve as the basis for major development
decisions.
A Measured Mineral Resource is that part of a Mineral Resource for which quantity, grade or quality,
densities, shape, and physical characteristics are estimated with confidence sufficient to allow the
application of Modifying Factors to support detailed mine planning and final evaluation of the
economic viability of the deposit.
Geological evidence is derived from detailed and reliable exploration, sampling and testing and is
sufficient to confirm geological and grade or quality continuity between points of observation.
A Measured Mineral Resource has a higher level of confidence than that applying to either an
Indicated Mineral Resource or an Inferred Mineral Resource. It may be converted to a Proven
Mineral Reserve or to a Probable Mineral Reserve.”
During the grade estimation process for each domain blocks were populated with the distance to sample
(meters), number of holes, and number of samples for estimation. Histograms of the distance to samples
(Figure 14-12), number of holes (Figure 14-13), and number of samples for estimation (Figure 14-14) were
plotted and analyzed to establish ranges for each classification class. Quartiles, minimum, median, and
maximum values were used to establish the ranges for each classification. Table 14-9 outlines all the
sampling requirements for each classification class.
Page 139
Figure 14-12 Histogram Distance to Sample
Page 140
Figure 14-13 Histogram Number of Holes
Page 141
Figure 14-14 Histogram Number of Samples
Note: Frequency on the Y axis is the 100th percent counts and the number of samples on the X axis are counts per
bin.
Table 14-9 Resource Classification
Category Distance (m) Holes Samples

Measured 262 6 18
Indicated 483 2 6
Inferred 722 2 3
Blocks were analyzed using the results in Table 14-9 and a vertical search distance of 5 m. The vertical
search distance is applied during the grade estimation routine to limit sample compositing in the Z direction.
The resulting classification blocks were post processed to remove isolated classification blocks and improve
geologic continuity. Risk to the resources from the processing plant island and waste disposal areas
constructed above potential resources was also evaluated in the post processing by modifying the
classifications under these structures. Costs for the processing plant reclamation, waste disposal areas
reclamation, and a cutoff grade of 1,047 ppm lithium were utilized in the evaluation of the resource
classifications during the pit optimizer generation routine. Blocks matching the classification and lithium
grade criteria were coded for each representative resource class. A view of the classified resource block
model is presented in Figure 14-15. Figure 14-16 shows the resource classification in cross-sectional view
along the AA-AB, AB-AC, and AC-AD section lines shown in Figure 14-1.
Page 142
Figure 14-15 Classified Resource Block Model
Page 143
Figure 14-16 Cross-Sectional View of Classified Block Model
The statement of Mineral Resources for the Project with an effective date of November 2, 2022 are
presented in Table 14-10. Mineral Resources are reported inclusive of Mineral Reserves. All tonnages
presented are estimates and have been rounded accordingly. Mineral Resources were estimated using the
2019 CIM Best Practices Guidelines and are reported using the 2014 CIM Definition Standards.
Page 144
Table 14-10 Mineral Resources Estimate as of November 2, 2022

Category
(Mt) (ppm) Equivalent (Mt)
Measured 534.7 2,450 7.0
Indicated 922.5 1,850 9.1
Measured & Indicated 1,457.2 2,070 16.1
Inferred 297.2 1,870 3.0
Notes:
1. Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
2. Mineral Resources are inclusive of 217.3 million metric tonnes (Mt) of Mineral Reserves.
3. Mineral Resources are reported using an economic break-even formula: “Operating Cost per Resource Tonne”/“Price per
Recovered Tonne Lithium” * 10^6 = ppm Li Cutoff. “Operating Cost per Resource Tonne” = US$88.50, “Price per Recovered
Tonne Lithium” is estimated: (“Lithium Carbonate Equivalent (LCE) Price” * 5.323 *(1 – “Royalties”) * “Recovery”. Variables
are “LCE Price” = US$22,000/tonne Li2CO3, “Royalties” = 1.75% and “Recovery” = 73.5%.
4. Presented at a cutoff grade of 1,047 ppm Li.
5. A resource economical pit shell has been derived from performing a pit optimization estimation using Vulcan software.
6. The conversion factor for lithium to LCE is 5.323.
7. Applied density for the mineralization is 1.79 t/m3 (Section 11.4)
8. Measured Mineral Resources are in blocks estimated using at least six drill holes and eighteen samples within a 262 m
search radius in the horizontal plane and 5 m in the vertical direction; Indicated Mineral Resources are in blocks estimated
using at least two drill holes and six to eighteen samples within a 483 m search radius in the horizontal plane and 5 m in
the vertical direction; and Inferred Mineral Resources are blocks estimated with at least two drill holes and three to six
samples within a search radius of 722 m in the horizontal plane and 5 m in the vertical plane.
rounding may exist.
14.2 Comments
The QP is of the opinion that the resource estimation methodology is in general accordance with the 2019
CIM Estimation of Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves Best Practice Guidelines and uses the
definitions in 2014 CIM Definition Standards for Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves for the
classification of Mineral Resources. Potential risk factors that could affect the Mineral Resource estimates
include but are not limited to large changes in the market pricing, commodity price assumptions, material
density factor assumptions, future geotechnical evaluations, metallurgical recovery assumptions, mining
and processing cost assumptions, and other cost estimates could affect the pit optimization parameters
and therefore the cutoff grades and Mineral Resource estimates.
Page 145
15 Mineral Reserve Estimates

This section contains forward-looking information related to the Mineral Reserve estimates for the Thacker
Pass Deposit. The material factors that could cause actual results to differ from the conclusions, estimates,
designs, forecasts or projections include geological modeling, grade interpolations, lithium price estimates,
mining cost estimates, and final pit shell limits such as more detailed exploration drilling or final pit slope
angle.
The Mineral Reserves are a modified subset of the Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources. In
accordance with the CIM Definition Standards, the Measured and Indicated Resources were used to
determine the Mineral Reserves classification as “proven” and “probable”. Measured Resources does not
necessarily guarantee a “proven” reserve. Measured Resources can become a “probable” reserve if
modifying factors are deemed not of sufficient accuracy. Modifying factors include mining, processing,
metallurgical, economic, marketing, legal, environmental, infrastructure, social and governmental factors.
The Mineral Reserves estimate considers the Inferred Mineral Resources as waste.
The reference point at which the Mineral Reserves are defined is at the point where the ore is delivered to
the run-of-mine feeder. Reductions attributed to plant losses have not been included in the Mineral Reserve
estimate.
The Mineral Reserve estimate relies on the resource block model prepared by the QP.
15.1 Pit Optimization

The EIS pit used for mine planning was developed in 2019. The EIS pit shell was developed on the Li2CO3
pricing of $5,400/t and cost values from the PFS report. The cost and pricing used are shown in Table 15-1.
The pit shell was developed using Vulcan’s Pit Optimization and Automated Pit Developer. The EIS pit area
was limited by a few physical boundaries, including:
 The west boundary was limited by the Thacker Pass Creek.

 A limit line was set to keep the pit shell from breaking into the water shed.
 The northern boundary was predominately limited by the Montana Mountains.
 The east and south boundaries were limited by mine facilities, waste facilities, process plant, and
SR 293.
Figure 15-1 shows the EIS pit shell at the end of the mine life with backfill as well as the physical boundaries
mentioned above. This pit shell was used in the EIS permit application.
Table 15-1 Pit Optimizer Parameters

Li2CO3 US$/t 5,400
Ore Processing Cost US$/t ROM 55.00
Process Recovery % 84
Mining Cost for Ore US$/t 2.80
Mining Recovery Factor % 95

Note:
‐ Cost estimates and Lithium price are as of 2018
Page 146
Figure 15-1 EIS Pit Shell
Page 147
15.2 Mineral Reserves and Cutoff Grade

The estimate of Mineral Reserves is based on mining within an approved permitted pit shell developed in
2019 for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), a 40-year mine life with a total plant leach ore feed of
154.2 million dry tonnes and a cutoff grade of 1.533 kilograms of lithium recovered per run-of-mine tonne.
The leach ore feed is the ROM dry tonnes less the ash tonnes.
The cutoff grade was estimated for each block in the model as discussed in the section below. The blocks
were sorted based on the cutoff grade from high to low and then the leach ore tonnes were added together
until the total leach ore feed tonnes were met. These blocks were labeled as mine_ore and were used in
the mine scheduler.
Overall reserve ore and waste tonnages are modeled using Maptek’s geologic software package. Section
14 includes a discussion of the process behind developing the geological model.
15.2.1 Cutoff Grade

The cutoff grade variable is determined using formulas and variables developed by LAC and is applied to
each block of the geologic block model.
The derivations of the two key variables, ROM feed (MROM) and mass lithium recovered in kg (MLi), are
discussed below:
ROM feed (MROM)

ROM feed is the mined recovered dry tonnes and is estimated as follows:
𝑀 𝑀 𝑋
Where:
Min situ is the dry tonnes ore in situ

XMining is the mining recovery factor of 95%
Mass lithium recovered (MLi)

First, the concentration of lithium and magnesium in the ore, LiOre and the MgOre, is translated into
concentration in the leach feed slurry, LiSlurry and the MgSlurry. This is done by replicating the beneficiation
process mathematically by removing the ash content of the ore (classification) and applying the
beneficiation recovery loss.
100
Li Li X .
100 %Ash
100
Mg Mg X .
100 %Ash
Where:
LiOre = Li (ppm)/1,000,000 (Lithium assay value for block)

MgOre = Mg (ppm)/1,000,000 (Magnesium assay value for block)
XBen. = Lithium recovered in beneficiation = 92% (per LAC – see Section 13.2.1.3)
%Ash = Ash content for ore block
The basis for this variable is the lithium extraction percentage (XLi). The formula is LAC’s empirical leaching
model based on LiSlurry and the MgSlurry and is discussed in Section 13.2.3.3:
Page 148
X a bLi cMg d Li eLi Mg
Where:
a = 1.390
b = 21.7
c = -14.29
d = -19,667
e = 2590
There are instances where the lithium extracted percentage is estimated over 100%. Per LAC, to be
conservative, the maximum lithium percentage assumed is 96%. Therefore, if XLi was greater than 96%,
96% was used. If XLi was less than or equal to 96% the estimated percentage was used.
If X X , Then X X , .
Where:
X , = 96% (maximum demonstrated lithium extraction)
Once the Lithium extracted percentage (XLi) is estimated, the percentage is used to determine the Lithium
extracted per tonne of ore, Liext.
𝐿𝑖𝑂𝑟𝑒
𝐿𝑖 XLi 𝑀𝑖𝑛 𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑢 XBen.
1,000,000
Where:
Li = Lithium ppm for block

XLi = Lithium extraction percentage (discussed above) for block
Min situ = In situ dry tonnes of ore
XBen. = 92% Lithium recovered in beneficiation
The next factor estimated is the lithium extracted tonne mined and delivered to the ROM stockpile. Lithium
extracted tonne delivered (Liext,del) is determined as follows:
𝐿𝑖 , 𝐿𝑖𝑒𝑥𝑡 𝑋
Where:
XMining is the mining recovery factor of 95%
The final step is to estimate the mass of lithium recovered per ROM feed in kg (MLi). The formula is as
follows:
𝐿𝑖𝑒𝑥𝑡,𝑑𝑒𝑙
𝑀
𝑀𝑅𝑂𝑀
Lithium Carbonate Equivalent Delivered

To estimate the lithium carbonate delivered to the ROM stockpile is as follows:
Lithium Carbonate delivered 𝐿𝑖 /1,000,000 𝑀 5.323
Page 149
Where:
5.323 = Lithium factor to convert mass of lithium to mass lithium carbonate
Final Lithium Recovery

Final Lithium recovery is estimated using the lithium extracted tonnes (Liext,del) and downstream loss
percentages provided by LAC. The formula is as follows:
LiRecov Li , 1 X X X
Where:
Table 15-2 Lithium Losses
Symbol Value Description
X 0.93% Lithium losses in filtration
X 1.05% Lithium losses in MgSO4 salts
X 3.10% Lithium losses in ZLD salts
Li , Estimated Lithium Extracted per tonne delivered
Final Lithium Carbonate recovered

The final lithium carbonate recovered after processing is estimated as follows:
Final lithium carbonate recovered Li x 5.323
Where:
5.323 = Lithium factor to convert mass of lithium to mass lithium carbonate
For this mine plan the estimated kilogram of lithium recovered per run-of-mine tonne cutoff grade is 1.533.
15.2.2 Dilution and Mining Recovery

The resource model is a regular block model with blocks sized 25 m (x) x 25 m (y) x 1 m (z). Due to the
regular block model and the block size, dilution is considered inherent in the block model. A 95% mining
recovery factor is applied to the Mineral Reserve estimate.
15.3 Waste
Waste consists of various types of material: basalt, alluvium and clay that does not meet the ore definition
or the cutoff grade described above. These material type descriptions can be found in Section 7 of this
study.
15.4 Stripping Ratio

The resulting stripping ratio of the designed pit is 1.51 tonnes of waste rock with ore loss and rehandle to 1
tonne of recovered ore, on a wet tonnage basis. The in-place stripping ratio is 1.34 tonnes in situ waste to
1 tonne of in situ ore.
Page 150
15.5 Mineral Reserve Estimate – EIS Pit

A Mineral Reserves estimate was calculated for the EIS pit from the Vulcan geologic block model used in
the Mineral Resource estimate as discussed in Section 14. The 40-year pit is designed to satisfy the ore
delivery requirements.
The classified Mineral Reserves are presented in Table 15-3 for the EIS pit. This reserve estimate uses a
maximum ash percent cutoff of 85% to reduce the volume of coarse gangue and a cutoff grade of 1.533
kilograms of lithium recovered per tonne of run of mine ore feed. Additionally, a 95% mining recovery factor
is applied.
Table 15-3 Mineral Reserves Estimate as of November 02, 2022

Category
(Mt) (ppm) Equivalent Mined (Mt)
Proven 192.9 3,180 3.3

Probable 24.4 3,010 0.4
Proven and Probable 217.3 3,160 3.7
Note:
1. Mineral Reserves have been converted from measured and indicated Mineral Resources within the feasibility study and
have demonstrated economic viability.
2. Reserves presented at an 85% maximum ash content and a cut-off grade of 1.533 kg of lithium extracted per tonne run of
mine feed. A sales price of $5,400 US$/t of Li2CO3 was utilized in the pit optimization resulting in the generation of the
reserve pit shell in 2019. Overall slope of 27 degrees was applied. For bedrock material pit slope was set at 47 degrees.
Mining and processing cost of $57.80 per tonne of ROM feed, a processing recovery factor of 84%, and royalty cost of
1.75% were addition inputs into the pit optimization.
3. A LOM plan was developed based on equipment selection, equipment rates, labor rates, and plant feed and reagent
parameters. All Mineral Reserves are within the LOM plan. The LOM plan is the basis for the economic assessment within
the Technical Report, which is used to show economic viability of the Mineral Reserves.
4. Applied density for the ore is 1.79 t/m3 (Section 11.4).
5. Lithium Carbonate Equivalent is based on in-situ LCE tonnes with 95% recovery factor.
rounding may exist.
7. The reference point at which the Mineral Reserves are defined is at the point where the ore is delivered to the run-of-mine
feeder.
15.6 Comments
The Mineral Reserves estimate in this Technical Report is based on current knowledge, engineering
constraints and permit status. The QP is of the opinion that the methodology for estimation of Mineral
Reserves in this Technical Report is in general accordance with the 2019 CIM Estimation of Mineral
Resources and Mineral Reserves Best Practice Guidelines, and using the definitions in 2014 CIM Definition
Standards for the classification of Mineral Reserves. Large changes in the market pricing, commodity price
assumptions, material density factor assumptions, future geotechnical evaluations, cost estimates or
metallurgical recovery could affect the pit optimization parameters and therefore the cutoff grades and
estimates of Mineral Reserves.
Page 151
16 Mining Methods
This section contains forward-looking information related to the mining methods for the Thacker Pass
Deposit. The material factors that could cause actual results to differ from the conclusions, estimates,
designs, forecasts or projections include mine design parameters, production rates, equipment selection,
and personnel requirements.
The shallow and massive nature of the deposit makes it amenable to open-pit mining methods. The mining
method assumes hydraulic excavators loading a fleet of end dump trucks. This truck/excavator fleet will
develop several offset benches to maintain geotechnically stable highwall slopes. These benches will also
enable the mine to have multiple grades of ore exposed at any given time, allowing flexibility to deliver and
blend ore as needed.
The annual production rate for the 40-year mine is based on varying plant feed leach ore rates caused by
the availability of sulfuric acid for the leaching process. Phase I (years 1-3) has an annual feed rate of 1.7
million dry tonnes of ore to leach and Phase 2 (years 4-40) has 4.0 million dry tonnes of ore to leach. The
rates are broken down in Table 16-3. See Section 15.4 regarding stripping requirements.
16.1 Pit Design

A highwall slope-stability study was completed by Barr Engineering Co. (BARR) in December 2019. BARR
conducted geotechnical drilling, testing, and analysis to assess the geology and ground conditions. Core
samples were obtained to determine material characteristics and strength properties. A minimum factor-of-
safety value of 1.20 is generally acceptable for active open pit walls. However, given the possibility of long-
term exposure of pit slopes in clay geological formations, a value of 1.30 was incorporated into the design
for intermediate and overall slope stability. Table 16-1 summarizes the recommended slope configuration
by material type per BARR.
The geotechnical analysis indicates that the geology is generally uniform across the Project site. The
competence of the in-situ material in conjunction with the use of the proposed highwall angles meets or
exceeds the minimum recommended factor-of-safety values for intermediate and overall slope
configurations.
A bench width of 50 m and a height of 5 m was chosen. This face height is amenable to efficient loading
operations while still shallow enough to allow for the removal of thicker barren horizons within the cut to
minimize dilution. Double benching and increasing the bench height to 10 m before implementing offsets,
will be used to increase mining depths while maintaining the inter-ramp slope requirements. Figure 16-1
shows a cross-section view of the planned highwall layback scheme for the different geological horizons.
Table 16-1 Pit Geometry
Material Type Slope Geometry and Configuration

Overall Design and establish a 27-degree overall slope angle through all geology
All Geology Formations
Pit Slope formations
Inter- Design and establish 30-meter-high maximum, 50-meter-wide, and 45-
ramp degree angle inter-ramp slopes through the clay/ash ore body
Clay/Ash
Catch Design and establish 10-meter high, 8.6-meter-wide, and 67-degree bench
Bench face angle slopes through the clay/ash ore body
Inter- Design and establish 40-meter-high maximum, 50-meter-wide and 50-
ramp degree inter-ramp slopes through the tuff/basalt
Tuff/Basalt
Catch Design and establish 10-meter-high, 6-meter-wide, and 67-degree bench
Bench face angle slopes through the tuff/basalt
Page 152
Material Type Slope Geometry and Configuration

Inter- Design and establish 30-meter-high maximum, 50-meter-wide, and 45-
Alluvium (unit between ramp degree angle inter-ramp slopes through the alluvium
Tuff and Clay/Ash) Catch Design and establish 10-meter-high, 8.6-meter-wide, and 67-degree bench
Bench face angle slopes through the alluvium
Design and establish a 27-degree overall slope through the spoil pile to a
Overall
Spoil maximum height of 90 meters
Lift Design and establish a 38-degree overall slope through the spoil lift
Figure 16-1 Highwall Angles

Note: All measurements are in meters.
16.2 Mine Plan

The initial cut location is at the mouth of the valley entering the west area. Figure 16-2 shows the initial cut
and the uncovered ore with a kg lithium recovered per tonne of ROM feed greater than 4.0. The haul road
will enter the initial cut area at the 1,540 m level.
Page 153
Figure 16-2 Kilograms of Lithium Recovered per tonne of ROM Feed at Initial Cut
Page 154
From the initial cut, mining advancement prioritized five objectives: (1) recover all ore, (2) deliver a blend
of illite and smectite ore to the beneficiation circuit, (3) provide higher grade ore early in the Project life, (4)
facilitate placement of waste into the previously mined pit area as soon as feasible, and (5) mine the entirety
of the permitted pit area. This required initial pit advancement to first expose the west and south walls.
Mining will then advance north toward the Montana Mountains and finally finish to the east.
The next several figures indicate the highwall locations at different points in time. The figures show the pit
shape after various years of mining and do not show concurrent backfill that will begin early in the mine life.
Figure 16-3 shows the initial cut layout. Figure 16-4 through Figure 16-8 show pit advance for 5, 10, 20,
30 and 40-year pit advances. In the first five years, the mine waste will primarily be hauled to the out-of-pit
waste storage area (West Waste Rock Storage Facility). After 5 years, the mine waste will be dumped back
into the mined out portions of the pit. The pit advances north and to the east. East Waste Rock Storage
Facility is currently not being utilized for waste storage for the LOM plan, but was included in the permit
application and is shown in the figures in this section.
Due to backfilling, the pit advances on the figures below show the stated end of year mining. However, the
in-pit dump profiles have been offset a period prior to allow for the full mining extent to be visible on the
figures. For example, Figure 16-7 shows end of mining at year 30 with end of in-pit dumping at year 25 (the
period prior).
Page 155
Figure 16-3 Initial Cut
Page 156
Figure 16-4 Five Year Advance (Including Cross Pit Ramps)
Page 157
Figure 16-5 10 Year Advance
Page 158
Page 159
Page 160
Page 161
16.3 Mining Operations

Waste removal and ore removal will be done using two hydraulic excavators and a fleet of end dump trucks.
The end dump truck fleet will haul the ore to the ROM stockpile and the waste will be hauled either to the
West Waste Rock Storage Facility (WWRSF) or placed in previously mined sections of the pit. The end
dump truck fleet will also be used to haul coarse gangue and attrition scrubber reject materials.
Due to the sequence of mining, the majority of in-pit ramps will be temporary. Additionally, cross-pit ramping
will be utilized from load face to the in-pit waste dump as well as access to the main haul road. The cross-
pit ramps will be dumped in using waste material. As the pit advances, portions of the in-pit ramp will be
excavated to allow mining access to the lower mining faces. Removal of portions of the in-pit ramp will be
considered rehandle and is accounted for in the total waste removed.
16.3.1 Waste Handling

The waste material is primarily claystone that is below the cutoff grades and/or greater than 85% ash. A
breakdown of the waste material moved is shown in Table 16-2.
Table 16-2 Waste Material
In-situ Wet Density Wet Tonnes

Waste Material
(t/m3) (Millions)
Basalt 2.56 20.8

Alluvium 1.96 66.1
Waste 1.92 240.7
16.3.2 Ore Handling

The determination of ore versus waste will be an ongoing process during operations carried out by an in-
pit sampling program and field inspections. The sampling program will be done with a mobile drill rig. It is
estimated that on each 50-meter bench, sampling will consist of two rows with drill holes at 25 to 30-meter
intervals along the rows, resulting in sampling blocks of approximately 25 x 25/30 x 5 meters. This sampling
interval will give one sample for every 5,600 tonnes of ore or approximately 1,000 samples per year at full
production. The sample results will be mapped and provided to the planners and supervisors to develop
ore delivery plans for each shift for ore hauled from the pit, to be blended with previously stockpiled ore of
known and tracked quality. Additionally, a handheld ore quality detector is available to measure lithium
ppm. The handheld detector will be employed for spot checks in the pit, stockpile, and feeders. Also, the
sampling results will be used to update short term geological modeling.
The ore will initially be fed into two, ultimately three, feeder breakers operating 24 hours per day, seven
days per week. End dump trucks hauling from the pit, in conjunction with dozers pushing off the ROM
stockpile, will provide the ore feed to consistently match plant demand. While assigned to ore, the
truck/excavator fleet will need to operate at a production rate higher than the delivery rate to the feeders to
build inventory on the ROM stockpile. This inventory will then be used while this same truck/excavator fleet
is assigned to waste removal. The ROM stockpile is designed to hold up to a 45-day inventory. The feed
system from ROM stockpiles is designed to provide ore when trucks are not hauling as well as to blend
between the feeders to ensure consistent quality and quantity of delivered ore.
The ROM stockpile will consist of two separate but connected stockpiles. One pile will be for smectite ore
and the second will be illite ore. LAC has a target of illite to smectite ratios in the 30/70 to 70/30 range.
The ore types will feed into the feeders at variable rates allowing the feed operator to keep the blend
between the ore types within the ratio ranges.
Page 162
16.3.3 Attrition Scrubber Reject

Blended ore from the process facility feeding system is first conveyed into the log washers, initially one,
ultimately two, in which the first water is introduced to the process. From the log washers ore is transferred
to the attrition scrubbers, then to a screen to remove oversize material that did not get attritted, referred to
as ‘attrition scrubber reject’. The attrition scrubber reject is assumed to be less than 1% of the delivered
ore. The attrition scrubber reject is combined with the coarse gangue reject from the classification circuit
and discharged to an intermediate stockpile. Material from the intermediate stockpile is transported, to the
coarse gangue stockpile initially and eventually to backfill the pit, via haul trucks.
16.3.4 Mine Quantities

Table 16-3, is a summary of the mining quantities by year for the first 10 years. The quantities are then
illustrated in 5-year annualized increments (Table 16-4).
Table 16-3 Mine Quantities Summary (tonnes in millions unless noted)

Phase I Phase 1 & 2
Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Y6 Y7 Y8 Y9 Y10
Dry Ore Tonnes Mined (95% Rec) 1.7 2.8 3.3 4.9 6.5 6.0 5.8 6.7 5.9 6.1
Wet Ore Tonnes Mined (95%Rec) 1.9 3.0 3.6 5.3 7.0 6.4 6.3 7.2 6.3 6.5
Wet In Situ Ore Tonnes
2.0 3.1 3.8 5.6 7.3 6.8 6.6 7.5 6.6 6.900
(Informational)
Plant Feed (Dry Tonnes Leach Ore) 1.2 1.9 1.9 3.2 4.0 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.0 4.0
Average Li Concentration (ppm) 3,496 3,232 3,186 3,086 3,194 3,149 3,170 3,319 3,327 3,343
Total Waste Tonnes (Wet) 7.3 9.1 9.0 7.0 5.0 9.4 9.0 12.0 9.9 10.7
Growth Media Tonnes (Wet, kt) 46.4 155.0 74.5 0.0 43.4 0.0 130.9 12.2 36.2 49.9
Total Tonnes Mined (Wet) 9.1 12.1 12.5 12.3 12.0 15.8 15.2 19.1 16.2 17.3
ROM Ore Stockpile Feed Tonnes
1.5 2.8 2.8 5.0 6.6 6.0 5.9 6.7 5.9 6.1
(Dry)
Attrition Scrubber Reject Tonnes
4.5 10.5 11.3 22.9 32.8 26.8 23.2 31.0 24.0 25.9
(Wet, kt)
Strip Ratio (Total Waste: Ore Mined
3.91 3.06 2.52 1.33 0.72 1.47 1.43 1.67 1.57 1.64
(95%REC))
Lithium Carbonate Tonnes (Dry, kt)
28.2 47.8 47.4 82.6 112.6 100.3 98.9 118.1 104.5 108.4
Delivered
Page 163
Table 16-4 5-Year Average Mine Quantities Summary (tonnes in millions unless noted)
(Continued)
Y11-15 Y16-20 Y21-25 Y26-30 Y31-35 Y36-40 Yearly Average 40 Year Total
Dry Ore Tonnes Mined (95% Rec) 6.1 6.0 5.7 5.6 5.2 4.9 5.4 217.3
Wet Ore Tonnes Mined (95%Rec) 6.5 6.5 6.1 6.0 5.6 5.2 5.8 233.1
Wet In Situ Ore Tonnes (Informational) 6.9 6.8 6.4 6.3 5.9 5.5 6.1 245.3
Plant Feed (Dry Tonnes Leach Ore) 4.1 4.1 4.0 4.1 4.1 4.0 3.9 154.2
Average Li Concentration (ppm) 2,590 3,293 3,211 3,094 2,981 2,953 3, 070 3,070
Total Waste Tonnes (Wet) 11.2 7.1 5.8 5.3 10.8 12.4 8.8 351.8
Growth Media Tonnes (Wet, kt) 83.4 49.4 37.5 61.4 69.6 54.8 59.4 2,376.5
Total Tonnes Mined (Wet) 17.8 13.6 11.9 11.3 16.4 17.6 14.6 584.9
ROM Ore Stockpile Feed Tonnes (Dry) 6.1 6.0 5.7 5.6 5.2 4.9 5.4 217.2
Attrition Scrubber Reject Tonnes (Wet. kt) 25.2 24.3 20.6 19.3 14.1 11.4 19.7 787.4
Strip Ratio (Total Waste: Ore Mined (95%REC)) 1.72 1.10 0.95 0.88 1.94 2.37 1.53 1.53
Lithium Carbonate Tonnes (Dry, kt) Delivered 104.3 105.7 97.2 92.6 82.7 77.8 91.3 3,650.0
16.4 Equipment Selection

Equipment selection was based on the annual quantities of material required to be mined. The QP
consulted Caterpillar, Komatsu, and Liebherr to determine the best fleet size. After reviewing various
options, 91-tonne class end dump trucks loaded by two 18-tonne class hydraulic excavators in five passes
was selected. The excavators will be used to load two types of ore as well as the waste material. They will
be staged to minimize movement between the multiple required dig faces. The trucks can easily be
assigned or re-assigned to either machine to maintain maximum production depending on excavator
downtime, changes in required material to be hauled, and haul cycle times. The excavators and trucks will
be equipped with buckets and bodies specifically designed for the density of the material at Thacker Pass.
As part of the equipment evaluation, the QP looked at both the 64-tonne class end dump trucks and 140-
tonne trucks. The 64-tonne class end dump truck setup requires more trucks and thus more operators. The
140-tonne class end dump truck setup would require fewer trucks, but a larger excavator and increased
road widths would be necessary with the larger end dump trucks. Also, the larger fleet, with a single loader
provides less flexibility to contemporaneously load in multiple areas degrading blending capabilities. The
ultimate goal is to feed the processing plant consistent material types and grades. Additionally, from
operational experience, the 91-tonne class end dump trucks show to be well suited for the anticipated
comparable soft clay conditions.
The number of end dump trucks in the fleet will allow each loading unit to operate at a high production rate.
A wheel loader will be utilized to allow a unit to be removed from operation for preventative maintenance
without experiencing a significant reduction in fleet productivity as well as to increase flexibility in the
operation. Equipment such as motor graders, large and small water trucks, and track dozers were selected
based on requirements needed to adequately support the truck/excavator fleet.
Haul profiles were developed for each year from the location of the various loading operations to the
haulage destinations including the ROM stockpile, growth media stockpiles, waste rock storage facilities
and in-pit waste rock placement. Haul profiles and other Project-specific assumptions were input into
TALPAC software to determine haulage cycle times. The haulage cycle times were combined with
estimated loading and dump times to determine total cycle times. Based on the total cycle times,
mechanical availabilities, and production efficiencies, the number of end dump trucks were assigned to
each loading operation and the required operating hours were estimated.
Page 164
Ore feed and stockpile maintenance will be accomplished by 475 HP dozers. This type of machine is of the
appropriate size and capability to meet the 24-hour per day, 7-day per week delivery schedule. Additionally,
a wheel loader will be utilized as a backup to the ore feeding operation if required.
A hydraulic excavator with a backhoe-type configuration was selected over a wheel loader or hydraulic front
shovel due to its ability to better separate and remove thin waste horizons within the ore. Additionally, the
track setup allows for better tractability and stability working on clay material.
A 475 HP class dozer was selected as it is well suited to handle the variable work of ore feed, pit support,
and coarse gangue material storage management.
A 23-tonne front-end loader was selected to load the coarse gangue and attrition scrubber reject as well as
serve as the backup for ore, waste, and ore feed. The coarse gangue material and attrition scrubber material
will be discharged into a stockpile via a radial stacker. The front-end loader is the best fit for loading this
loose stockpile material and matches well with the 91-tonne class end dump truck.
A list of the major equipment fleets and specifications is presented in Table 16-5.
Table 16-5 Major Equipment Specifications
Equipment Class Quantity Usage

Hydraulic Excavator 18 tonne 2 Waste and Ore Removal
End Dump Trucks 91 tonne 12 Ore, Waste, Attrition Scrubber Reject,
Coarse Gangue, Ore, Waste, Attrition Scrubber Reject, Ore
Wheel Loader 23 tonne 1
Feed
Track Dozer 475 HP 5 Ore, Waste, Coarse Gangue, Ore Feed
Grader 350 HP 3 All areas
Water Truck (Primary) 53k Liter 2 Dust Suppression, All areas
Water Truck (Secondary) 30k Liter 1 Dust Suppression, All areas
Wheel Dozer 500 HP 1 Coarse Gangue, Ore, Waste
Table 16-6 is a list of support and auxiliary equipment and number.
Table 16-6 Support Equipment
Equipment Max Quantity

Light-duty vehicles 12
Light Plants 8
Mechanics Truck 2
Fuel/lube truck 1
Telehandler 1
16.4.1 Equipment Productivity

The mine will operate 7 days per week, 24 hours per day. Ore, waste, coarse gangue, or clay/salt tails may
be hauled on any given shift. Productivity estimations for each piece of mining equipment are based on 355
scheduled days per year by excluding holidays. However, the mine will be able to operate on holidays to
provide ore to the plant. The equipment operating hours take into account mechanical availability and
Page 165
operational availability. The operational availability includes various items such as supervisor
communication, transportation to the workplace, equipment pre-start check, and breaks.
The estimated annual production rate for the excavator is based on CAT equipment rates and internal
experience. The end dump cycle times were estimated based on haul profiles which were then loaded into
RPMGlobal’s Talpac software. The haul profiles were developed by mining block and by year. The
minimum and maximum annual scheduled hours by equipment fleet for ore and waste are presented in
Table 16-7.
Table 16-7 Scheduled Hours by Fleet
Annual Scheduled Annual Scheduled

Fleet
Hours (Minimum) Hours (Maximum)
Hydraulic Excavator 8,116 16,685
End Dump Truck 52,132 96,470
Track Dozer 26,693 37,712
Water Truck (Primary) 11,469 21,223
Motor Grader 15,639 28,941
Wheel Loader 521 2,262
Small Water Truck (Secondary) 2,607 4,823
Wheel Dozer 2,100 2,100
16.5 Personnel Requirements

Four crews will be utilized to cover the 168 hours per week rotating operating schedule. A Monday through
Friday schedule has been included for management and technical service positions. It is assumed that local
talent will be available and no fly-in-fly-out adjustments have been included.
The positions included in the labor are listed in Table 16-8. Positions listed are for mining operations
including waste and ore, attrition scrubber reject, and coarse gangue.
Table 16-8 Personnel List
No.
Position Roster
Employed
Management
Mine Manager M-F 1
Technical Services
Mining Engineers M-F 3
Engineer Tech M-F 1
Geologist M-F 1
Operations
Supervisors M-S 3-4
Equipment Operators 73-115
Maintenance
Maintenance Planner M-F 1
Page 166
No.
Position Roster
Employed
Supervisors M-S 2-4
Mechanics/Welders 23-37
Electricians 1
Administrative
Business Manager M-F 1
Accountant M-F 1
Administrative / AP Clerk M-F 1
Human Resources/Safety Supervisor M-F 1
16.6 Fuel
Equipment fuel consumption rates are based on the manufacturer's recommendation along with historical
data from Sawtooth affiliated mines operating similar equipment in similar conditions. Diesel fuel unit cost
is estimated at $3.80 per gallon, which was developed using an August 2022 local pricing quote.
16.7 Drilling and Blasting

The “Factual Geotechnical Investigation Report for Mine Pit Area” (Mar 2018) completed by Worley Parsons
and the “Prefeasibility Level Geotechnical Study Report” (May 2011) completed by AMEC were used to
determine the ability to mine without blasting. The uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) test results in the
AMEC data range from essentially 0 to 55.4 MPa. The UCS test results in the Worley Parsons data range
from 0.61 to 21.82 MPa with an average of 7.7 MPa. The range of UCS results is within the cutting range
of the excavator.
Based on reported test results, exploratory drill logs, and actual excavation of a test pit, only the basalt is
expected to require blasting. However, there are bands of hard ash which may require ripping with a dozer
prior to loading. The remaining waste and ore can be free dug with the hydraulic excavators. Due to the
infrequency of blasting, a third-party contractor will be used for the drilling and blasting on an as needed
basis.
Figure 16-9 shows the outlines of the basalt areas within the pit area. Also, an outcrop of tuff is at the
entrance of the initial pit area. This tuff will be blasted and used for road base.
Page 167
Figure 16-9 Basalt and tuff zones near the pit area
Page 168
16.8 Dewatering
During the 40-year mining period, it is anticipated that appreciable groundwater is not likely in the mining
operations. This assumption is based on a November 2019 report by Piteau Associates. The regional
groundwater table is expected to be encountered in approximately year 15 of mining. Groundwater
discharge into the pit is not expected to be more than approximately 23 m3/h (100 gpm) at peak. Dewatering
wells are not anticipated to be required for these minor discharge rates. Any water encountered in the pit
will be collected in sumps and utilized for in-pit dust control.
Page 169
17 Recovery Methods
17.1 General Description
This Section describes the major processing areas of the operation that will recover lithium from the ore.
The proposed flowsheet is based on metallurgical test results described in Section 13. The process employs
industry-standard, commercially available equipment. This information serves as the basis for the
development of the capital and operating costs presented in Section 21.
The Mineral Reserves are comprised of two main types of lithium bearing clay, smectite and illite, with
volcanic ash and other gangue minerals mixed throughout. Both types of clay will be processed
simultaneously, with a plant feed blend maintained from two separate stockpiles for each clay type. The
ore will be upgraded using a wet attrition scrubbing process followed by two classification stages to remove
coarse material with low lithium content, referred to as coarse gangue. The upgraded ore slurry will be
processed in a leach circuit using sulfuric acid to extract the lithium from the lithium-bearing clay. The
lithium-bearing solution will then be purified primarily by using crystallizers and precipitation reagents to
produce battery grade lithium carbonate. Leach residue will be washed, filtered, and stacked in a tailing
facility.
The Project will be constructed in two phases. Lithium carbonate production during Phase 1 is designed for
a nominal 40,000 t per annum capacity while Phase 2 will double design capacity to a nominal 80,000 t per
annum. The process plant will operate 24 hours/day, 365 days/year with an overall availability of 92% and
a mine life of 40 years. The total amount of material processed in the mine plan is 217.2 Mt (dry). The most
tonnes planned for a single year are 6.7 Mt (dry) in Year 8.
The recovery process consists of the following primary circuits:
 Beneficiation
o Comminution
o Attrition Scrubbing
o Classification
o Solid-Liquid Separation (Thickening and Dewatering)
 Leaching
 Neutralization
 Counter Current Decantation (CCD) and Filtration
 Magnesium, Calcium and Boron Removal
 Lithium Carbonate (Li2CO3) production
o 1st Stage Lithium Carbonate Crystallization
o Bicarbonation
o 2nd Stage Lithium Carbonate Crystallization
o Sodium Sulfate and Potassium Sulfate Crystallization (ZLD)
A simplified process flowsheet is provided in Figure 17-1.
Page 170
Figure 17-1 Overall Simplified Process Flowsheet

Beneficiation
ROM Comminution
Mine Ore & Scrubbing
Classification Coarse To Coarse Gangue

& Thickening Gangue Stockpile
Sulfuric Acid, Soda Ash
Pipeline to Limestone Milk of Lime
Solution
Process Plant
Decanter Leaching & Magnesium

Centrifugation Neutralization Hydroxide
Lithium Carbonate
Production
Li2CO3
Mg/Ca Crystallization,
CCD & Filtration Final Product
Removal Purification,
& Packaging
Neutralized Magnesium
filter cake Sulfate Salts
ZLD
Crystallization
Na & K
Sulfate Salts
To CTFS
Source: LAC, 2022
In beneficiation, ROM ore is crushed then mixed with water and fed to unit operations designed to liberate
lithium bearing clay from gangue material. The clay is separated from coarse gangue in classification, with
coarse gangue being stockpiled and eventually used as pit backfill material. The clay fines are then sent to
the first dewatering (thickening) stage. These circuits are located close to the pit. The slurry is then pumped
downgradient to a second stage of dewatering (decanter centrifuging). The resulting slurry is fed to the
processing plant.
The dewatered slurry is mixed with sulfuric acid (H2SO4) from the acid plant, leaching lithium and other
constituents into solution. Acid availability determines leach feed rates, which in turn determines ore mining
rates. The free acid contained in the resultant leached residue is neutralized with both a slurry of ground
limestone and a magnesium hydroxide slurry from the magnesium precipitation circuit. The neutralized
slurry is sent to a CCD circuit to recover residual lithium bearing solution and then fed to recessed chamber
filter presses. The filter cake is then conveyed to the CTFS (Clay Tailings Filter Stack) as waste material
for stacking.
The filtrate is sent to magnesium and calcium removal circuits where first the bulk of the magnesium is
crystallized as MgSO4*xH2O salts, removed via centrifugation, and conveyed to the CTFS. Any remaining
magnesium in the brine is then precipitated with milk-of-lime and separated by recessed chamber
membrane filter presses. The precipitated solids are repulped and recycled back to neutralization (as stated
above), eventually leaving the process with neutralized filter cake. The calcium in the liquor is removed via
soda ash addition, and an ion exchange polishing step brings the divalent cation concentration to very low
levels. This lithium-bearing brine is fed to the Li2CO3 production circuit where soda ash is used to precipitate
lithium carbonate. A bicarbonation step is used to further remove impurities from the Li2CO3 crystals.
Page 171
The final Li2CO3 crystal product is separated via centrifugation then sent to drying, micronization, cooling,
dry vibrating magnetic filtration and packaging. Mother liquor from the Li2CO3 crystallizers is sent to the
Zero Liquid Discharge (ZLD) crystallizer to remove Na and K as sulfate salts. The salts are sent to the
CTFS while lithium remaining in the centrate is recycled back to the front of the Li2CO3 circuit and recovered.
17.2 Process Design Criteria

Process design criteria were developed by LAC’s process engineering group based on in-house and vendor
test results that were incorporated into the process modelling software Aspen Plus® to generate a steady-
state material and energy balance. This data and criteria below were used as nominal values for equipment
design/sizing. The design basis for the beneficiation facility is to process an average ROM throughput rate
during Phase 1 of about 3.3 M dry tonnes per year equivalent to about 9,000 dry t/d of feed (including a
99% plant availability). Throughput from the mine to the crushing plant is targeted based on an average
rejection rate of 34% of the ROM material based on low lithium content in coarse material. With
approximately 6,000 dry t/d feed rate (including a 92% plant availability) to the leach plant and recoveries
for the Project, the design basis results in an estimated production rate of approximately 110 t/d (40,187 t/a)
of battery grade Lithium Carbonate.
Table 17-1 and Table 17-2 summarize the main process design parameters used for each phase of this
study. Flow rates, based on process mass balance, Rev. F HMB, are nominal for a single phase for design
purposes. Table 17-3 and Table 17-4 summarize the major process equipment used for a single phase.
Table 17-1 Process Design Criteria – Beneficiation through Neutralized Tailing

Parameter Units Value
PLANT AVAILABILITY
Operating schedule days/year 365
Beneficiation % 99
Process Plant % 92
Acid plant (not including turnarounds) % 96
THROUGHPUT
Run of mine feed to plant (dry) t/a 3,258,000
Run of mine feed to plant (dry) (with availability) t/d 9,000
Feed to Leach (dry) t/a 2,161,000
Feed to Leach (dry) (with availability) t/d 6,000
CTFS total tailing (neutralized filter cake, sulfate salts)
t/a 3,909,000
(dry)
CTFS total tailing (neutralized filter cake, sulfate salts)
t/d 12,000
(dry) (with availability)
LCE produced (dry) t/a 44,000
LCE produced (dry) (with availability) t/d 131
CRUSHING
ROM Li content ppm 3,270
Particle size distribution (F80) mm 82
Ore bulk density (transport) t/m3 1.6
Ore moisture total (loose) weight % 16
Crushed particle size (P80) mm 25
Feed to attrition circuit (dry) t/d 5,000
Discharge screen oversize (% ROM) % 1
CLASSIFICATION
Feed particle size (P80) microns 225
Overflow particle size (P80) microns 75
Underflow particle size (P80) microns 272
Page 172

Coarse material rejection (dry) % 33
Thickener underflow pulp density weight % 20-25
Flocculant consumption g/t 130
Decanter centrifuge cake density weight % 55
Flocculant consumption g/t 130
LEACH
Feed solids Li content ppm 4,563
Feed pulp density weight % 30-35
Leach residence time minutes 180
NEUTRALIZATION
Neutralization tank (limestone) residence time minutes 90
Neutralization tank (Mg(OH)2) residence time minutes 60
pH in final neutralization tank pH 6.5
Neutralization clarifier flocculant consumption g/t 150
CCD and FILTRATION
No. of CCD stages - 7
Flocculant consumption (total) g/t 842
Filtration residual moisture in cake % 39
CCD/Filtration recovery % 99
NOTE: 1) Flow rates based on process mass balance, Rev. F HMB, are nominal for a single phase for equipment design/sizing
purposes.
2) Values rounded to the nearest thousand where appropriate.
Table 17-2 Process Design Criteria – Purification Plant

MAGNESIUM SULFATE CRYSTALLIZATION
No. of stages (evaporation/crystallization) - 1/3
% of Mg removed (average, based on Rev. F HMB) % of feed 79
Centrifuge cake moisture weight % 4
MAGNESIUM PRECIPITATION
Residual magnesium content ppm 5
Mg(OH)2 recycle stream pulp density weight % 30
CALCIUM PRECIPITATION
Residual calcium content ppm 100
Underflow solids density weight % 5
ION EXCHANGE
Residual calcium content ppm Proprietary
Residual magnesium content ppm Proprietary
Residual boron content ppm Proprietary
LITHIUM CARBONATE PLANT
No. of stages (crystallization/bicarbonation) - 2/1
2nd Stage Centrifuge Cake Moisture weight % 20
ZLD Centrifuge Cake Moisture weight % 15
Dryer Discharge Moisture weight % 0.1
Jet Mill Discharge Particle Size (d50) microns 6
oC
Cooler Discharge Temperature 40
NOTE: Design values based on 40-year LOM variability needs, but do not strictly reflect representative averages for either 25- or 40-
year periods.
Page 173
Table 17-3 Major Process Equipment – Beneficiation/Classification/Filtering

Key
Phase 1 Phase 2
Item Description Criteria
Quantity Quantity
(each)
30” wide drag conveyor, dual drive 2 x 56kW, 31”
Feeder Breaker 2 operating 3 operating 169 kW
pick diameter breaker, 56kW
Direct Drive Crusher-Sizer, 0.6 m diameter. x 1.2
Mineral Sizer 2 operating 3 operating 112 kW
m wide
Log Washer 2 operating 4 operating 13-26 RPM 150 kW
1 operating 2 operating
Attrition Scrubber Four Cells c/w Hi-Chrome Props and SS shafts 600 kW
1 standby 1 standby
Attrition Scrubber 1 operating 2 operating Single deck, dual vibrating motors, 1.8 m x 3.66
13 kW
Discharge Screen 1standby 1 standby m, linear vibrating, 25.4 mm square opening
Classification P100 = 75
1 operating 2 operating 8-Place (6 operating/2 standby), 20 inch
Cyclone Cluster µm
1 operating 2 operating 75 µm
Hydraulic
3.66 m’ x 3.66 m separation
classifier 1 standby 1 standby size
Dewatering 1 operating 2 operating Single deck, dual vibrating motors, 1.5 m x 3.66
10 kW
Screens 1standby 1 standby m, linear vibrating, 0.5 x 12 mm slot
Classification
1 operating 2 operating 50 m diameter 30 kW
Thickener
355 kW
10
Classification 5 operating Decanter type with variable Frequency Drive (main)
operating
Centrifuge 1 standby (VFD) on Main and Secondary drives 160 kW
2 standby
(sec)
10.4 m diameter x 11.3 m high, agitated, rubber
Acid Leach Tank 3 operating 6 operating 56 kW
lined carbon steel, closed top, scrubber
Neutralization 10.4 m diameter x 11.3 m high, agitated, rubber
2 operating 4 operating 30 kW
Tank lined carbon steel, closed top
Neutralization
1 operating 2 operating Hi-Density, 40 m diameter 30 kW
Clarifier
14
CCD Thickener 7 operating Hi-Density, 40 m diameter 30 kW
operating
12.2 m diameter x 12.8 m high, agitated, rubber
Filter Feed Tank 1 operating 2 operating 56 kW
lined carbon steel, closed top
14 28 587 m3/hr @ 212 kPag initial feed rate,
Filter Feed Pump operating operating 100 m3/hr @ 824 kPag final feed rate, horizontal 56 kW
2 standby 4 standby centrifugal
14
Neutralization 7 operating Overhead filter press, 2.5 m x 2.5 m, 32 mm
operating 150 kW
Filter 1 standby chambers
2 standby
Page 174
Table 17-4 Major Process Equipment – Purification Process

Phase 1 Phase 2 Key Criteria
Item Description
Quantity Quantity (each)
Magnesium Removal
3 pre-evaporators and 2 crystallizer
trains operating per phase
MgSO4 Removal Pusher type centrifuges w/VFD, 2205
1 operating 2 operating duplex SS wetted parts 27 MW
System
Product contacting: Duplex 2205
Non-product contact: SS 304/316
6.1 m diameter x 7.3 m high, 181.5 m3
Magnesium
1 operating 2 operating operating volume, agitated, carbon 15 kW
Precipitation Tank
steel, closed top
2 operating Overhead membrane filter press, 2.5 m

Magnesium 1 operating x 2.5 m, 40 mm chambers, 103 plates
63.55 kW
Precipitation Filter 1 standby (alternated membrane plates with
2 standby recessed plates), 32 min cycle time
Li2CO3/ZLD Crystallization
Calcium 9.14 m dia. x 4.57 m high (straight side) Ca
Precipitation 1 operating 2 operating w/rake drive and internal recirculation concentration
Reactor Clarifier pump, carbon steel proprietary
1 operating Dual media type, 3.35 m dia. x 1.83 m Ca

Calcium
2 operating high (straight side), rubber lined carbon concentration
Precipitation Filter 1 standby steel proprietary
Ca
Cation Removal Ion Exchange (IX) system w/associated concentration
Ion Exchange 1 operating 2 standby acid/caustic/water tanks and pumps, proprietary Mg
System lined FRP columns concentration
proprietary
Boron Removal Ion Exchange (IX) system w/associated Boron
Ion Exchange 1 operating 2 operating acid/caustic/water tanks and pumps, concentration
System lined FRP columns proprietary
Peeler type centrifuges, 316L SS wetted Target ppm Li

parts proprietary
Li2CO3 System 1 operating 2 operating Operating
Product contacting: Duplex 2205
temperature
Non-product contact: SS 304/316 proprietary
Paddle type w/integral baghouse, 2.57
0.1 wt.%
Li2CO3 Dryer 1 operating 2 operating m wide x 9.7 m long, indirect steam
moisture
heated
Fluidized bed type w/air jets and Particle size
Li2CO3 Jet Mill 1 operating 2 operating
dynamic classifier, 304 SS contact parts proprietary
Paddle type w/integral baghouse, 2.2 m Operating
Li2CO3 Cooler 1 operating 2 operating wide x 7.575 m long, indirect water temperature
cooled proprietary
Li2CO3 Storage Wedge bottom silo, 3.66 m dia. x 9.14 m
3 operating 6 operating 54 tonnes
Bins high (straight side), 304L SS
Page 175
Phase 1 Phase 2 Key Criteria

Item Description
Quantity Quantity (each)
FIBC packing system including pallet
dispenser, slip sheet dispenser, 20 x 1,000 kg
Li2CO3 Packaging
1 operating 2 operating conveyors, scales, dust collection, bags/h or 30 x
(FIBC)
manual sleeve wrap station, automatic 500 kg bags/h
stretch wrap system, PLC
Bag packing system including automatic
Li2CO3 Packaging filler, bag closer, conveyors, robotic 480-600
1 operating 2 operating
(20/25 kg bags) palletizer, stretch wrapper w/labeler, bags/h
label printer, PLC
2 Evaporators operating per phase
Solid bowl type centrifuge
ZLD System 1 operating 2 operating 10 MW
Product contacting: 2507/6 Moly
Non-product contact: SS 304/316
17.2.1 Production
Recovery of lithium during operations will fluctuate with varying ore mineralization, and process chemistries.
An average LOM lithium recovery of 73.2% is used in this study. There are five major areas contributing to
lithium losses in the process plant:
 Beneficiation: lithium associated with rejected coarse gangue mineralization, loss is estimated at
8%
 Leach: lithium not leached from the ore; loss is estimated at 10 to 15%
 CCD and filtration: lithium lost in entrained moisture within the filter cake, lithium loss is
approximately 0.5-1.5%
 Magnesium sulfate (MgSO4) and sodium and potassium sulfate salts: lithium is lost in residual
mother liquor remaining on the crystals. Based on test data and typical separation and wash
efficiencies, the loss estimates
o for the magnesium crystallization circuit is 0.25-1.5% and
o for the ZLD crystallization circuit 1-4%
17.3 Process Description
17.3.1 ROM Stockpile/Feed

Ore will be delivered to two separate but connected ROM stockpiles from the mining operation using haul
trucks. The ore will be segregated into stockpiles by clay type: illite and smectite. LAC has a target of illite
to smectite ratios ranging between 30 to 70% illite with the remaining amount as smectite. The ore types
will be fed into the variable speed feeders allowing the system operator to maintain the selected ratio.
Based on mine plan optimization to maximize recoverable lithium, the resultant blend to feed the plant
averages 59% illite and ranges between 30 to 70%, with the remaining amount as smectite.
17.3.2 Beneficiation
The purpose of mineral beneficiation is to liberate the clay from the gangue and then concentrate lithium-
bearing clay by rejecting coarse, non-lithium or low lithium grade gangue material.
Page 176
17.3.2.1 Comminution
Material of each ore type will be pushed via dozer to a dedicated feeder breaker to reduce the material to
a top size of about 150 mm, then conveyed to a mineral sizer (toothed roll crusher) for reduction to about
minus 25 mm. Discharge from each mineral sizer will be combined on a common conveyor to the mineral
beneficiation process. Blend ratios may be controlled via belt speeds and weightometers.
17.3.2.2 Attrition Scrubbing
Crushed ore will be conveyed to a classifying, spiral paddle mixer, commonly referred to as a log-washer,
operating at 40 wt.% solids to provide hydration time and an initial separation of clay from coarse material.
The fine material will report to a downstream pump box. The coarse material will be transported up the
inclined log-washer, where it will discharge to an attrition scrubber with four cells, operating at 30 wt.%
solids. The attrition scrubber will impart a high degree of agitation resulting in aggressive particle-on-particle
contact, or scrubbing, to remove the majority of the remaining clay from coarse material. Recycled water
from the downstream dewatering circuit will be used for density control in both the log washer and attrition
scrubber. Slurry discharging from the attrition scrubbers will pass through a vibrating screen into a pump
box. The screen will remove material coarser than 25 mm that will be combined with classification
dewatering screen oversize and conveyed to an intermediate coarse gangue stockpile. The fine clay
material passing through the screen will combine with the log washer fine material and will be pumped to
the classification circuit. A standby log-washer, attrition scrubber, and vibrating screen will be installed to
ensure high availability.
17.3.2.3 Classification
Separation of clay is achieved by a combination of hydrocyclones and a hydraulic classifier. The overflow
from both the hydrocyclones and the hydraulic classifier flow by gravity to the classification thickener feed
box. Solids from the hydrocyclones (cyclone underflow) report to the hydraulic classifier which rejects
material primarily greater than 75 micron particles in the underflow. This will be dewatered by a vibrating
screen. The screen oversize (coarse gangue) will be conveyed to an intermediate coarse gangue stockpile
and then reclaimed by a front‐end loader and trucked to the coarse gangue stockpile. The screen
undersize will report to the classification thickener. Up to an estimated 34% of the ore fed to the process
will be rejected during classification. Standby cyclones and a standby hydraulic classifier and vibrating
screen will be installed to ensure high availability.
17.3.2.4 Solid-Liquid Separation (Thickening and Dewatering)
The fine clay material from the hydrocyclone and hydraulic classifier overflows (minus 75 microns) will be
thickened to approximately 20–25 wt.% solids in a high-rate thickener. The thickener overflow will be
collected in a recycle water tank from which it will be distributed to the various users in the classification
circuit, as well as a portion being returned to the mineral beneficiation circuit. The thickener underflow will
be pumped downgradient to a classification centrifuges feed tank. The underflow will be dewatered to an
estimated 55 wt.% solids by multiple horizontal decanter centrifuges. The centrate will be pumped
approximately 3 km back to the classification recycle water tank while the cake will be repulped primarily
with downstream neutralization filter wash water and then pumped to the acid leach circuit at about 34 wt.%
solids. Raw water make-up to the beneficiation circuit is pumped approximately 3 km to the classification
recycle water tank and will be distributed to the water users within the classification circuit.
Page 177
17.3.3 Leaching and Neutralization
17.3.3.1 Acid Leaching
Solids feed rate to the leach circuit will be largely dictated by sulfuric acid plant capacity. The leach
temperature of 75-90°C will be governed by heat generated from the dilution of the sulfuric acid and acid-
clay reactions.
Continuous leaching will be performed in three agitated tanks in series at 1 hour leaching time each. Acid
addition will be 490 kg of 100% H2SO4 per tonne of leach feed solids. On average for the LOM an estimated
86% of the lithium will be dissolved from the clay. Due to the non-selective leaching by the acid, other
elements of interest that will be leached in appreciable amounts include magnesium, calcium, potassium,
sodium, iron, boron, and aluminum. The tanks will be vented to a caustic scrubber to remove entrained
acid-laden droplets from the vapor streams (primarily carbon dioxide and water) generated in the leach
tanks. The scrubber effluent will be pumped to the downstream neutralization circuit. The leached clay
slurry at 10-50 g/L H2SO4 of residual acid will flow by gravity to the neutralization circuit.
17.3.3.2 Neutralization
A two-stage neutralization will be performed in agitated tanks, one per stage, with a retention time of 1.5
hours in the first tank and 1 hour in the second. In the first stage, a 35 wt.% slurry of ground limestone (P80
= 44 microns) will be combined with the acidic slurry to achieve a pH of 3-4. The first stage neutralization
will neutralize most of the residual acid from acid leach and precipitate most of the iron and aluminum.
Magnesium hydroxide recycled from the downstream magnesium precipitation circuit will be used to
complete the neutralization to a pH of approximately 6.5 in the second stage. This pH will both ensure
lithium solubility is at or near the maximum in the downstream magnesium sulfate crystallization circuit, and
to avoid redissolution of calcium borate (a co-precipitant in the magnesium precipitation circuit). The
neutralization product slurry will contain residual clay, gypsum, calcium borate and metal hydroxides.
Effluents from the sulfuric acid plant tail gas scrubber, liquid sulfur tank scrubbers and transloading scrubber
will be combined in an agitated tank from which it will report to the first stage neutralization tank. Slurry from
the second stage neutralization tank will gravity flow to the neutralization clarifier feed tank.
Neutralized slurry will be thickened to approximately 33% solids in a high-density thickener. The overflow
solution will be pumped to the magnesium sulfate evaporator feed tank. Underflow from the clarifier will be
pumped to the CCD circuit for recovery of lithium in solution.
17.3.4 Countercurrent Decantation and Filtration
17.3.4.1 CCD
Clarifier underflow from the neutralization clarifier is diluted with overflow from the second stage CCD in an
agitated tank that feeds the first CCD thickener. Feed in the center well is diluted internally to approximately
3% solids with clear supernatant. Slurry will be thickened to approximately 33% in a high-density thickener.
The overflow from the first CCD thickener is cooled with cooling water prior to being distributed to various
locations in the process plant with the excess being pumped to the magnesium sulfate evaporator feed
tank. The cooling is required to avoid damage to the plastic filter plates in the downstream filter which have
a temperature limit of about 75oC. Underflow from the first CCD thickener is pumped to the second stage
CCD feed tank, where it is diluted with overflow from the third stage CCD. This is typical for CCD stages
two through six where the underflow is pumped to the next stage CCD. Overflow from the second through
the seventh stage CCD is pumped to the preceding stage CCD feed tank for dilution. Underflow from the
seventh stage CCD is pumped to the filter feed tank.
Neutralization filtrate is pumped to the sixth stage CCD feed tank. Process recycle water and cooled
process condensate are pumped to the seventh stage CCD feed tank for washing.
Page 178
17.3.4.2 Filtration
Washed slurry will be pumped from the filter feed tank to recessed chamber filter presses to produce a
61 wt.% solids filter cake which will be conveyed to an intermediate stockpile near the Clay Tailings Filter
Stack (CTFS). The filtrate, comprised of a dilute sulfate solution with lithium, magnesium, potassium, and
sodium cations will be sent to the sixth stage CCD feed tank. The filters are the final stage of lithium recovery
in solution. An overall 99% wash efficiency of lithium is assumed for design.
17.3.5.1 Magnesium Sulfate Crystallization
The neutralized filtrate will be concentrated by Mechanical Vapor Recompression (MVR) heated falling film
evaporators prior to crystallization. The lithium concentration will be held below a target concentration
leaving the evaporator to avoid crystallizing a lithium-potassium double salt. A seed recycle system will be
used to minimize the amount of scaling caused by gypsum precipitation.
Magnesium will be removed from the concentrated liquor as a salt predominantly in the form of magnesium
sulfate hexahydrate (MgSO4.6H2O) in three stages of crystallization. Operating conditions will be controlled
in each stage to crystallize the maximum amount of magnesium possible without precipitating lithium as a
lithium-potassium double salt. Water vapor and non-condensable gases will be removed from the second
stage crystallizers by ejector/barometric condenser trains cooled by cooling tower water, and the third stage
crystallizers will be by indirect condenser/ejector trains cooled by chilled water. Crystals will be withdrawn
as a slurry from the second and third stages of crystallization and fed to pusher centrifuges where the
crystals are dewatered and washed. The centrifuge cakes at 96 wt.% solids will be conveyed to an
intermediate stockpile near the Clay Tailings Filter Stack (CTFS).
17.3.5.2 Magnesium Precipitation and Filtration
Liquor from the magnesium sulfate crystallizer circuit will be mixed with a 25 wt.% milk-of-lime slurry to
adjust the pH to approximately 11 to precipitate magnesium as magnesium hydroxide while a corresponding
amount of sulfate is removed as coprecipitated gypsum. Magnesium will be precipitated to about 5 ppm in
a single agitated tank. Calcium will remain at the gypsum saturation level. The discharge from the
magnesium precipitation tank will gravity flow to the magnesium precipitation filter feed tank from where it
will be pumped to the recessed chamber membrane magnesium precipitation filters. The magnesium
hydroxide/gypsum cake will be repulped with CCD wash solution on a batch basis then pumped to the
upstream second stage of neutralization. The filtrate will be sent to the downstream calcium precipitation
circuit.
17.3.6.1 Calcium Precipitation
Filtrate from the magnesium precipitation step is mixed with a 25 wt.% soda ash (Na2CO3) solution to
precipitate calcium carbonate (CaCO3). Calcium will be precipitated to approximately 100 ppm in a
combination reaction tank, followed by a reactor clarifier. Soda ash will be delivered to the reactor tank and
ferric sulfate will be added as coagulant. The reaction tank will be maintained at about 10 g/L solids loading
to act as seed material by recycling clarifier underflow slurry. The reaction tank slurry will flow by gravity
into the reactor clarifier reaction chamber where it will meet circulating solids and flocculant. The clarifier
overflow will contain 10 ppm or less suspended solids while the underflow will contain 5-10 wt.% solids.
The majority of the underflow solids will be recycled to the reaction tank while the remainder recycles to the
magnesium precipitation filter feed tank. The overflow from the clarifier will be pumped through multimedia
filters for further clarification. The filters will be air scoured and backwashed with filtrate as required. The
Page 179
backwash will be collected in the agitated backwash tank where it will be combined with solids from the
soda ash filters. The contents of the backwash tank will be metered into the calcium precipitation reaction
tank.
17.3.6.2 Ion Exchange
Filtrate from the calcium precipitation circuit will be fed to an ion exchange (IX) system for the removal of
hardness, primarily calcium and magnesium. The regeneration sequence will include steps for brine
displacement, hydrochloric acid stripping of the adsorbed cations, rinsing and conditioning of the resin with
sodium hydroxide. Calcium and magnesium in the purified solution will be reduced below the acceptable
limit.
Solution from the hardness removal ion exchange will be fed to an ion exchange system for the removal of
boron. The regeneration sequence will include steps for sulfuric acid stripping of the adsorbed boron, rinsing
and conditioning of the resin with sodium hydroxide. Boron in the purified solution will be reduced to below
the required limit.
The soda ash solution used for lithium carbonate crystallization will be treated via ion exchange to remove
calcium and magnesium to below the target levels. Normally, the two IX columns will both be fed in parallel
to adsorb hardness from the reagent solution. For a relatively short time however, one column will be taken
offline to regenerate the resin (3% of the time is estimated). As with the other cation IX system, the stripping
of the resin will be done with hydrochloric acid and the conditioning of the resin will be done using sodium
hydroxide.
17.3.7 Lithium Carbonate Production
17.3.7.1 Lithium Carbonate Circuit
The lithium carbonate purification system will receive concentrated lithium sulfate solution from the ion
exchange circuit as well as recycled centrate from the Zero Liquid Discharge (ZLD) crystallization circuit
(see Section 17.3.7.2). Battery grade lithium carbonate will be produced by a three-stage process. In the
first stage, lithium carbonate will be crystallized in a draft tube baffle (DTB) crystallizer by reacting the
concentrated lithium sulfate solutions with a 25 wt.% soda ash solution. Lithium carbonate crystals
withdrawn from the crystallizer will be dewatered using peeler centrifuges. The crystals will be washed
using wash centrate from the second stage lithium carbonate centrifuges then repulped with both treated
(RO) water and recycled centrate from the second stage lithium carbonate centrifuges. The repulp slurry
will be fed to the lithium bicarbonate reactor. The centrate will report to the sodium/potassium sulfate salts
crystallization circuit, or ZLD circuit.
The undissolved lithium carbonate and lithium carbonate in solution will be converted to soluble lithium
bicarbonate (LiHCO3) by reaction with carbon dioxide in a forced circulation reactor. Temperature will be
maintained by cooling with chilled water. Carbon dioxide (CO2) will be supplied from the second stage
crystallizer condenser. Make-up will be provided from a liquid CO2 storage vessel. The lithium bicarbonate
liquor will be filtered to remove insoluble material prior to feeding the second stage lithium carbonate
crystallizer. The insolubles captured on cartridge type filters will be disposed of properly.
The second stage lithium carbonate crystallizer will be a DTB type and operated at a temperature where
the lithium bicarbonate will be converted back to lithium carbonate crystals and carbon dioxide will be
liberated. The overhead vapor will be condensed with cooling water and the non-condensable carbon
dioxide will be compressed and recycled to the lithium bicarbonate reactor. Lithium carbonate crystals
withdrawn from the crystallizer will be dewatered using peeler centrifuges. The crystals will be washed
using hot treated water. A portion of the centrate will recycle to the lithium bicarbonate reactor feed for
repulping and the remaining portion will report to the Zero Liquid Discharge crystallization circuit, or ZLD
circuit.
Page 180
17.3.7.2 ZLD Crystallizers
Centrates from the first stage and second stage lithium carbonate crystallizers will pass through a
decarbonation step in which sulfuric acid will be added to convert the lithium carbonate to lithium sulfate
while also driving off any dissolved carbon dioxide. The lithium sulfate solution will be pumped to the ZLD
crystallizers for removal of sodium and potassium sulfate salts.
Sodium and potassium sulfate salts will be removed from the decarbonated lithium sulfate solution in forced
circulation mechanical vapor recompression (MVR) crystallizers. Lithium will be concentrated to near the
point of crystallizing the lithium-potassium double salt. Crystals at a 25 to 40 wt.% slurry density will be
pumped to decanter centrifuges. The centrifuge cake at 85 to 92 wt.% solids will be conveyed to an
intermediate stockpile near the Clay Tailings Filter Stack (CTFS). The centrate will be returned to the first
stage lithium carbonate feed tank. A small portion of the centrate will be able to be purged to the upstream
magnesium precipitation tank to control impurity concentration in the lithium carbonate circuit, if needed.
17.3.7.3 Final Product Handling
Washed centrifuge cake from the 2nd stage Li2CO3 crystallizer will be dried in an indirect steam heated dryer
from which it will discharge into a lump breaker to eliminate any agglomerated material. Material from the
lump breaker will discharge into a pneumatic conveying system and be transported to one of three 60 tonne
storage silos. The three silos will discharge into another pneumatic conveying system that transports to a
hopper from which the solids pass through a magnet to remove tramp iron prior to feeding the fluidized jet
mill.
The jet mill will use compressed air provided by dedicated compressors to reduce the size of the lithium
carbonate from approximately 30-130 microns down to approximately 5-8 microns. The jet mill will have a
baghouse to separate the lithium carbonate from the milling and conveying air. The lithium carbonate will
discharge from the baghouse into an indirect type of cooler before being pneumatically conveyed to five
individual 5-tonne hoppers which then feed the Dry Vibrating Magnetic Filtration (DVMF) system. This
system will be made up of scalping magnets and splitters to feed the magnetic filters. The filters will remove
magnetic and partially magnetic particles from the lithium carbonate.
After the magnetic filters, the lithium carbonate will be fed into either the small bag packaging line or the
bulk bag packaging line. A bar magnet will remove any tramp metal prior to each line. The small bag line
will fill either 20 kg or 25 kg bags and place them on pallets. The bulk bag line will fill either 500 kg or 1000
kg bags and place them on pallets. A forklift will then transfer the loaded bags into a QC holding area before
being loaded into a shipping container or truck.
A rework system will be available to reprocess out of spec material from any one of the three 60-tonne
silos, the DVMF feed bins or from the bulk bag unloader. The off-spec product will be pneumatically
conveyed to the Off Spec Receiving Hopper and metered into the Off-Spec Dissolution Tank. Water and
sulfuric acid will be added to the tank to convert the lithium carbonate into lithium sulfate for return to the
process.
17.3.8 Clay Tailings Filter Stack
17.3.8.1 Description
Neutralized clay tailings filter cake will be radially stacked in an intermediate stockpile within the lined area
of the Clay Tailings Filter Stack (CTFS) storage facility. These tailings will be hauled by loader and truck to
a designated location on the CTFS. Salt tailings from the magnesium sulfate crystallization circuit and the
sodium/potassium sulfate salts from the ZLD circuit will be radially stacked in an intermediate stockpile
separate from the neutralized clay tailings. The salt tailings will be hauled by loader and truck to a
Page 181
designated location on the CTFS. The CTFS will be progressively expanded and reclaimed during the life
of the Project.
17.3.8.2 Management Strategy
The tailings discharge from the filters will be conveyed to an intermediate stockpile location in the southwest
corner of the CTFS across from the process plant. From the stockpile, the material will be loaded with
wheeled loaders hauled by end dump trucks and placed within the CTFS in lifts. During material placement,
samples will be collected and tested for moisture content determination. If the moisture content of the
tailings is above the specified range above the optimum moisture content, the tailings will be scarified using
a motor grader, disc, rotovator or similar equipment to increase the surface area and to promote drying of
the material. Frequent scarification and mixing of the materials will reduce the time required to lower the
moisture content of the tailings. During the scarification and mixing process, samples will be collected for
moisture content testing. Once it has been determined that the material is within the specified range of the
optimum moisture content the tailings will be compacted using a vibrating and/or pad foot compactor.
The tailings placement described above will be completed in cells within each CTFS lift, with tailings being
placed in designated cells until each cell is built to its designated size. This will result in numerous cells
being actively dried, scarified/mixed and compacted concurrently until the desired moisture and dry density
is achieved for that cell. Once the technical requirements for moisture and density are achieved the cell can
then be stacked on during placement of the next lift.
17.4 Reagents
17.4.1 Sulfur
Sulfuric acid will be primarily used for leaching and will be generated on-site at the sulfuric acid plant from
liquid sulfur. During summer months, the product will be 98.5 wt.% H2SO4, and in winter it will be diluted to
93.0 wt.% to avoid freezing complications. Two acid tanks, with a combined seven (7) days of storage
capacity, will supply sulfuric acid to the processing plant.
Liquid sulfur will be delivered by truck from a transload facility located in Winnemucca, NV, where it is
transferred from railcars to storage tanks by gravity dump. There will be about 28 days of liquid sulfur
storage capacity at the sulfuric acid plant. A caustic scrubber will be installed near the sulfur storage tanks
to capture H2S that can potentially off-gas during unloading and storage.
17.4.2 Limestone
Limestone will be used as a neutralizing reagent to react with any residual acid remaining after leach.
Limestone will be sourced from local deposits. It will be crushed and ground at the limestone preparation
plant at site. The limestone plant capacity is 28.6 t/h with a target P80 grind size of 44 µm. Ground limestone
will be mixed with a slip stream of neutralization wash filtrate to make a 35 wt.% slurry for addition to the
neutralization circuit.
17.4.3 Quicklime
Quicklime (CaO) will be the primary reagent for magnesium precipitation. It will be delivered in pebble form
to the site by bulk trucks and transferred to a storage silo (1000-t capacity). It will be unloaded pneumatically
from the trucks, with dedicated stationary blowers, for unloading two trucks simultaneously. The quicklime
will then be slaked with water in a vertical mill type slaker to produce milk-of-lime (MOL or Ca(OH)2) at 25
wt.% solids and transferred to a tank with a 24-hr storage capacity. The lime slaking plant capacity is 13
t/hr.
Page 182
17.4.4 Sodium Hydroxide

NaOH solution (caustic soda) will be used for off-gas scrubbers and ion exchange resin regeneration. It will
be delivered via tanker truck as a 50 wt.% liquid and offloaded to a storage tank with 7 days of capacity.
The caustic will be diluted to 20 wt.% during the transfer from the truck to the storage tank.
17.4.5 Soda Ash

Na2CO3 (soda ash) will be the main reagent for Li2CO3 production and will be also used for calcium
precipitation. It will be delivered by bulk truck and offloaded to a 1,000-tonne silo. Soda ash will be mixed
with reverse osmosis (RO) water to produce a 25 wt.% solution.
17.4.6 Flocculant
Flocculant will be used in the classification area for the thickener. Anionic flocculant will be delivered by
bulk bag and transferred to a flocculant makeup system located near the thickener to create a 2 g/L solution
prior to use in the plant. The flocculant package is sized for 2.4 dry t flocculant/day addition rate.
Flocculant will also be used in the classification area for the centrifuges, neutralization clarifier, and CCD
thickeners and is also used in the calcium precipitation reactor clarifier. Anionic flocculant will be delivered
by bulk bag and transferred to a flocculant makeup system located near the centrifuge building to create a
10 g/L solution prior to use in the plant. The flocculant package is sized for 8 dry t flocculant/day addition
rate.
17.4.7 Carbon Dioxide

Carbon dioxide (CO2) will be solely used in the lithium bicarbonate reactor as part of Li2CO3 production. A
significant amount of CO2 will be captured in the 2nd Stage Li2CO3 crystallizers and recycled back to the
bicarbonate reactor, but makeup is needed for any losses. It will be recaptured from the process or delivered
to site in liquid form by tanker truck and stored in a pressurized vessel. The liquid will be vaporized for use
in the plant.
17.4.8 Ferric Sulfate

Ferric sulfate (Fe2(SO4)3) solution at 12% Fe will be used as a coagulant in calcium precipitation. It will be
delivered by tanker truck in liquid form and pumped to a storage tank for use in the plant.
17.4.9 Hydrochloric Acid

HCl (hydrochloric acid) at about 35 weight% will be used to regenerate ion exchange resin used to remove
hardness from process solutions. It will be delivered by tanker truck in liquid form and transferred to a
storage tank for use in the plant. A scrubber will capture acid vapors generated during the filling of the
storage tank.
17.4.10 Miscellaneous
Other miscellaneous chemicals will be used including dust suppressants, chemicals for RO/water
treatment, antiscalants, cleaning agents, etc. Acids and other chemicals will be used in the main assay
laboratory for sample analysis.
Page 183
17.4.11 Raw Materials Consumptions

All major raw materials consumption estimates for process plant reagents are based on test work. In the
case where test work is not available, consumption rates for minor reagents are estimated based on vendor
provided information or best practices. Consumption rates in Table 17-5 are based upon expected mine
plan production rates during the life of the Project. Table 17-6 shows the estimated consumption of reagents
for the 25-year LOM case.
Table 17-5 Reagent Consumption (40-Year LOM – Base Case)

Average Average unit tonne
Raw Materials Units Annual per tonne of Lithium
Consumption Carbonate product
Quicklime tonne 140,000 2.10
Limestone tonne 436,000 6.52
Soda Ash tonne 248,000 3.71
Hydrochloric Acid 35% tonne 1,400 0.02
Ferric Sulfate 60% tonne 400 0.01
Caustic Soda 50% tonne 7,200 0.11
Flocculant tonne 4,500 0.07
Ammonia tonne 400 0.005
Liquid Sulfur (calculated) tonne 656,000 9.81
Water Treatment (SAP) Liter 1,900 0.03
Diesel Off-Road gallon 4,684,000 70.13
Diesel Highway gallon 0 0.00
Unleaded Gasoline (Process Plant) gallon 93,000 1.38
Propane (Process Plant) tonne 1,200 0.02
Liquid Sulfuric Acid @ 98.5% (Purchased) tonne 0 0.00
Table 17-6 Reagent Consumption (First 25 Years of 40-Year Case)

Average Annual Average unit tonne per tonne of
Raw Materials Units
Consumption Lithium Carbonate product
Liquid Sulfur (calculated) tonne 634,000 9.07
Page 184

Raw Materials Units
17.5 Plant Water

The plant site will have several water systems including raw water, potable water, demineralized water, and
fire water. Site water systems are described in Section 18 of this report.
17.5.1 Water Supply

Raw water is able to be introduced to various locations within the process including the mine facilities raw
water tank, the mine water truck fill stand, the sulfuric acid plant, and various locations in the process plant.
All make-up water for the process plant is added in the beneficiation circuit. Makeup water for the process
plant accounts primarily for water lost in tails. Water evaporated during crystallization is collected as
condensate and recycled for use in the process. Water estimated to be used in the plant, based on process
mass balance Rev. F HMB, and for mining operations, is shown in Table 17-7. Water demand is estimated
to be approximately 5% below the current allowance.
Table 17-7 Plant Water Use
Site Demand Units Phase 1 Value Phase 2 Value

Raw Water m3/hr 279 559
Potable m3/hr 2 4
Mine Operations m3/hr 100 200
m3/hr 381 763
Total Water Consumption
acre-ft/yr 2,707 5,416
3/hr
m 402 803
Available Water
acre-ft/yr 2,850 5,700
17.5.2 Steam
High pressure steam is generated in the sulfuric acid plant from the conversion of liquid sulfur to sulfuric
acid. This steam reports to a steam turbine generator for the production of power. To meet the steam
demands of the process plant, both medium pressure (10 barg) and low pressure (4.8 barg) steams are
extracted from the generator and exported to the process plant. The steam consumers and consumption
rates are shown in Table 17-8.
Table 17-8 Steam Use
Site Demand Units Pressure Class Phase 1 Value Phase 2 Value

Li2CO3 Crystallization kg/h Low 33,800 67,600
ZLD Crystallization kg/h Low 1,800 3,600
MgSO4 Crystallization kg/h Medium 500 1,000
Page 185
Site Demand Units Pressure Class Phase 1 Value Phase 2 Value

Li2CO3 Dryer kg/h Medium 1,800 3,600
Total Steam Consumption kg/h 37,900 75,800
The steam consumers used internally by the sulfuric acid plant are not listed above.
Only a small portion of the steam is condensed in heat exchangers that allows it to be returned to the
sulfuric acid plant for boiler feed water.
The majority of the steam is used in either steam jet ejectors (MgSO4 crystallization system) where it is
condensed and combines with cooling tower water, or directly injected into a crystallizer (Li2CO3
crystallization system) where it partially condenses into the process fluid and partially evaporates water
which reports to the process condensate system. The process condensate is cooled to three different
temperatures using air-to-liquid coolers and a cooling tower. The condensate at the different temperatures
is distributed to various users including filter cloth wash, CCD washing, solids repulping, ion exchange, RO
feed, reagent systems, tail gas scrubber and cooling towers for make-up.
17.6 Power
The estimated average running load demand for the site is shown in Table 17-9. Electrical power supply is
discussed in Section 18. Total imported power will be less than demand due to power generated on-site
from the sulfuric acid plant. Power generated by the sulfuric acid plant is shown in Section 18.8.
Table 17-9 Power Demand by Area (based on Equipment List for DFS Load Study (Rev N,
supplied by ITAC)
Phase 1 kW Phase 2 kW Phase 1+2 kW
Power Demand by Area
Demand Load Demand Load Demand Load
Mine Operations 21 1 22
Crushing / Grinding
Attrition Scrubbing Area (w/ Slurry Transfer) 5,829 4,841 10,671
Classification
Acid Leaching
Neutralization
5,873 5,873 11,747
Neutralization/CCD
Neutralization Filtration
Magnesium Sulfate Crystallization
Magnesium Precipitation
Magnesium Precipitation Filtration 17,773 17,773 35,546
Calcium Precipitation
Cation Removal Ion Exchange
Lithium Carbonate Crystallization
Lithium Carbonate Product Handling 12,356 11,966 24,323
ZLD Crystallization
Page 186
Phase 1 kW Phase 2 kW Phase 1+2 kW

Power Demand by Area
Demand Load Demand Load Demand Load
Liquid Sulfuric Acid Plant
Liquid Sulfur
SAP Gas & Strong Acid
Tail Gas Treatment
BFW and Steam System 14,599 14,561 29,160
Cooling Water System
Turbo Generator
Sulfuric Acid Product
Facility Load
13.8 kV Distribution and Generators
Compressed Air 7,952 2,371 10,323
Water Systems
Tailings Disposal 579 347 927
Reagents 1,378 1,116 2,494
Site Security Building
Admin Building
Plant Warehouse Building
Plant Maintenance Building
Packaging Warehouse Building 1,873 270 2,143
Plant Laboratory Building
Truck Facility Building
Well Field Security Building
Process Plant Control Building
Electric Heat Tracing Loads
E-Houses Utilities Loads 7,213 7,213 14,426
Plant Lighting & Misc. Loads
Total 75,446 66,334 141,780
17.7 Air Service

A compressed air system will be located at the attrition scrubbing and classification areas located near the
mine facilities, approximately 3 km from the main processing plant. The system will be comprised of
compressors, a dryer, plant, instrument air receivers, and distribution piping. All air will be dried prior to
being distributed to both plant air and instrument air users. The compressors and dryer will be located in a
building and the air receivers will be located outdoors.
A central compressed air system will be located at the main processing plant area and will be comprised of
compressors, dryers, and air receivers. All air will be dried prior to being distributed to both plant air and
instrument air users. The distribution system will be comprised of main supply headers to dedicated satellite
air receivers for both plant air and instrument air in various areas of the plant. The compressors and dryers
will be located in a building and the air receivers (central and satellite) will be located outdoors.
Dedicated compressors will be provided for the neutralization filters and will be located near the filter plant.
The system will be comprised of three compressors (two operating and one standby), an air receiver, and
distribution piping. The compressors and air receiver will be located in a building.
Dedicated compressors will be provided for the magnesium precipitation filters and will be located near the
filter plant. The system will be comprised of one compressor, an air receiver, and distribution piping. The
compressor and air receiver will be located in the same building as the neutralization filters compressed air
equipment.
Page 187
17.8 Quality Control

Sample preparation and analytical equipment will be available to handle the daily requirements of the mine
and processing plant. Streams will be monitored using on-line instrumentation where appropriate, which
may include pH control and reagent addition control systems. The data will be used to optimize process
conditions. Routine samples of intermediate products and final products will be collected and analyzed in
an assay laboratory where standard assays/analyses will be performed. The data obtained will be used for
product quality control and routine process optimization. Feed and tailings samples will also be collected
and subjected to routine assay.
The analytical laboratory will consist of a full set of assay instruments for lithium analysis, including an
Inductively Coupled Plasma Spectrometer (ICP), and other instruments such as moisture balance, pH, and
redox potential meters.
17.9 Sampling
Samplers will be installed in locations that are required for metallurgical accounting and process control
purposes. Installation location and type of major sampling equipment related to the plant metallurgical
balance is listed in Table 17-10. Sampling points for process control are listed in Table 17-11.
Table 17-10 Metallurgical Accounting Sampler Summary, Major Process Inlets/Outlets
Location Sampler Type Purpose Information

Cross-cut
Log Washer Feed Belt Metallurgical Balance Mass and elemental feed to plant
sampler
Classification-Coarse Cross-cut Mass and elemental loss to coarse
Metallurgical Balance
Gangue sampler gangue
Cross-cut Mass and elemental loss to filter
Neutralization filtration Metallurgical Balance
sampler cake
Cross-cut
CTFS – salt conveyor Metallurgical Balance Mass and elemental loss to salts
sampler
In-line Metallurgical Balance, Mass Li2CO3 produced, quality
Li2CO3 production
composite QA/QC assurance
Table 17-11 Process Control Sampler Summary

Location
Attrition Scrubber Discharge MgSO4 Evaporator Feed Li Carbonate Feed
Classification Cyclone Feed MgSO4 Precipitation Feed Li Carbonate Dryer Discharge
Classification Cyclone Overflow IX Feed Na/K Sulfate Salts Feed
Acid Leach Feed IX Discharge Na/K Sulfate Salts Crystals
Neutralization Filtrate IX Product Na/K Sulfate Salts Purge
17.10 Auxiliary Systems

Auxiliary systems such as reagent mixing and storage, maintenance, and office facilities, laboratory, etc.
are discussed in Section 18 of this report.
Page 188
17.11 Process Control Philosophy

The control philosophy for the plant is for all unit operations to be controlled by a Plant Control System
(PCS) from a central control room with a satellite control room in the attrition scrubbing area. Local controls
will be minimized, but options for wireless tablet-based field control stations to provide operator flexibility
may be included. The control room operators will input set points, operate valves, start/stop equipment and
be alerted to alarms and interlocks via the human machine interface (HMI). Data from both the Distributed
Control System (DCS) and analytical laboratory will be fed to an integrated data management system
(DMS). Data from both the PCS and analytical laboratory will be fed to the DMS. Vendor instrumentation
packages will be integrated with the central control system. The plant central control room will be staffed
by trained personnel 24 h/d.
Intelligent type motor control centers will be located in electrical rooms throughout the facilities. A network
interface to the process control system will facilitate remote operation and monitoring of motor control center
equipment. Field instrumentation and devices will be hardwired to the process control system except where
wireless solutions are cost effective.
A site wide process control network will be established in a ring architecture wherever feasible. This will be
a combination of CAT6a and fiber optic where appropriate.
Page 189
18 Project Infrastructure
The Project is planned to be constructed in two phases. To support lithium carbonate production as
discussed in Section 17, Phase 1 will consist of a single sulfuric acid plant with a nominal production rate
of 3,000 tonnes per day sulfuric acid. Phase 2 will begin three years later with the addition of a second
sulfuric acid plant with an additional nominal production rate of 3,000 t/d. Mined material and tailings will be
moved by conveyors and trucks and the infrastructure needed to support these production rates are
summarized in this section.
18.1 Overall Site General Arrangement

The mining and Processing Plant operations are located within the McDermitt Caldera in northwest Nevada.
Lithium-rich clays are mined and fed into crushing and mineral beneficiation equipment at the mine site two
miles west of the processing plant. Slurry is pumped to the Processing Plant where water is recovered and
pumped back from the process for reuse. Raw water is sourced via aquifer-fed wells 7 miles east of the
processing plant. See the overall site general arrangement in Figure 18-1.
Figure 18-1 Overall Site General Arrangement
Source: M3, 2022
18.2 Process Plant General Arrangement

A portion of the process facilities encompassing mineral beneficiation and classification is located due east
of the Mine Service Area near the ore body. This area includes the ROM pad, feeder breakers and mineral
sizers, log washing and attrition scrubbing. Additionally, the front end of the classification circuit is located
on this pad and consists of the hydrocyclone cluster, hydraulic classifiers, thickening and coarse gangue
discharge and stacking system.
The remainder of the process plant is located approximately 2 miles east. The slurry is transferred to the
downstream plant via a pipeline and trench along the southern edge of the haul road. See Figure 18-2 for
the general arrangement layout of the process facilities. Product flows are generally clockwise starting in
the western edge of the upper third zone of the layout. The remainder of the classification (centrifuges),
Page 190
leach, and neutralization circuits begin the process flow on this site. Next the solution is sent to the counter
current decantation (CCD) circuit before being sent to the filtration area located on the northeastern side.
Magnesium removal continues south to a central section of the plant before flowing west to calcium
precipitation, calcium and boron ion exchange, evaporation, and lithium carbonate production followed by
ZLD crystallization. The packaging system, along with the warehouse, are immediately west of the lithium
carbonate plant to minimize product transfer distance. The sulfuric acid plant is situated in the southern
third of the layout in recognition of prevailing winds. The traffic flow is largely one-way counterclockwise on
the site perimeter with maintenance access between major process areas.
A primary east-west pipe rack and a secondary north-south pipe racks contain much of the process and
utility piping, electrical and instrumentation feeds.
18.3 Reagents, Consumables and Shipping

Limestone, quicklime, flocculant, and soda ash reagents are delivered to the processing plant in solid form
via trucks while liquid sulfur, propane, carbon dioxide, ferric sulfate, caustic soda, and hydrochloric acid are
delivered as liquids, also by trucks. The liquid sulfur delivery route has been carefully planned to remain on
the southern edge of the processing facilities to minimize potential incidents with other traffic on site.
Limestone and quicklime are the next highest delivery loads coming to site. As such these deliveries have
been designed to stay on the north side of the process plant to similarly reduce potential traffic incidents.
The remaining reagents/consumables have delivery points in the central plant at a low daily delivery rate
with the exception of soda ash.
Gasoline, on and off highway diesel along with typical plant warehouse deliveries have been kept to the
western portion of the plant with direct access from the main entry minimizing delivery truck exposure to
the site. The large equipment warehouse house is located directly south of these facilities.
Battery-grade lithium carbonate is packaged in bags, and flexible intermediate bulk containers (FIBC or
bulk bags) and are stored in a warehouse on the west side which is collocated with the plant warehouse.
This design allows the advantage of a shared truck maneuvering area and ease of getting into and out of
the warehouse area without entering the process area.
18.4 Ancillary Buildings

The main administration office building and analytical laboratory are located in the southwest corner of the
process plant site with direct access from the highway and from the main security entrance. The
administration building houses a change room, shift change area, medical areas as well as office space. A
helipad is situated near to the administrative office area and the security entrance for ready access. A mill
maintenance building is planned on the northeast corner of the plant in close proximity to the filtration
building. Two control buildings have been provided. The main plant control building is centrally located for
ease of access to the majority of the process plant site. A dedicated sulfuric acid plant control building has
been provided within the sulfuric acid plant area. Lastly a small control building is planned at the mineral
beneficiation area to manage the crushing, attrition, and front end of the classification unit operations.
Page 191
Figure 18-2 Process Facility General Arrangement (Phase 1 Only)
Source: M3, 2022
Page 192
18.5 Site Access

The Project envisions improving the junction of US-95 and SR-293 to improve and handle the planned
traffic flow. The plant development contemplates a total of three new entrances and utilizes one existing
entrance from SR-293 onto the Project site as depicted on Figure 18-3. Below is a description of the
intended uses for each of the proposed entrance locations from SR-293 and the junction improvement.
Figure 18-3 Site Entrances
Source: M3, 2022
18.5.1 US-95 / SR-293 Junction

Located in the town of Orovada, Nevada is the junction of US route 95 and Nevada State Route 293 (see
Figure 18-4). Nearly all traffic related to the construction and operations of Thacker Pass will travel north
bound on US-95 and turn west at the SR-293 junction. This road junction will be upgraded to accommodate
the additional traffic to site.
Page 193
Figure 18-4 Route Junction Satellite View
Note: US Route 95 is also called Veterans Memorial Highway.

Source: M3, 2022
18.5.2 Pole Creek Road Entrance

Pole Creek Road is an established dirt road intersecting with SR-293 on the eastern boundary of the Project
site. The layout will utilize this road to establish a construction access entrance. It is expected that the
vehicle types using this entrance will include legal haul tractor-trailers, concrete ready-mix trucks, flat bed
deliveries for bulk materials such as structural steel/piping/etc., mobile equipment transport trucks, and
wide load transports delivering plant facility equipment.
18.5.3 Administration Entrance

Approximately 11,800 ft west of Pole Creek Road is the proposed entrance for the Administrative Office
facilities. This entrance is intended to service the light vehicle traffic with the goal of keeping such traffic
separate from heavy truck deliveries to the processing facility operations once the process plant has been
commissioned and is in regular operations. This is intended to increase traffic safety.
18.5.4 Process Facility Entrance

Approximately 535 m (1,760 ft) west of the Administration Offices entrance is the main Processing Facilities
entrance. This location will be the receiving point for all heavy trucks delivering materials and equipment to
the processing plant operation. Heavy truck traffic will be directed to this location in an effort to separate
the heavy and light traffic with the goal of increasing traffic safety entering and exiting SR-293. During
construction and prior to the need for a large quantity of heavy truck deliveries this will be used as a
secondary construction entrance. There is limited light vehicle traffic planned at this location once full-scale
operations are in place.
Page 194
18.5.5 Mine Area Entrance

Approximately 2,530 m (8,300 ft) west of the Process Facilities entrance is the Mine Site entrance. This
location is intended to service the mine site personnel access and will largely receive employee’s light
vehicles, personnel buses, and maintenance/service vehicles. All heavy truck deliveries destined for the
Mine Site will be received at either the Pole Creek Road entrance or the Process Facility entrance.
18.6 Raw Material Logistics

Raw materials for the Project are to be delivered to the site by over highway trucks during the life of mine.
A local rail-to-truck transloading facility located in Winnemucca will allow for transfer of most raw materials
for delivery to the Project site. A summary of the primary raw materials to be used during operations, and
their logistics, are below (Table 18-1). This will include the limestone grinding and storage facility, soda ash
transloading facility and the sulfur transloading facility. The cost per tonne of the raw material is included in
the OPEX for the consumables.
Table 18-1 Life of Mine Primary Raw Material Logistics Scheme

Approximate
Raw
Description Truck Loads Origin
Material
per Day
Tampa benchmark
Includes unloading, storage, and delivery to the plant pricing + freight to
Liquid
via 39-tonne tanker from a transloading facility in 47 Western North
Sulfur
Winnemucca, NV. America; exact origin
TBD
Includes unloading, storage, and delivery to the plant
Soda Ash via 39-tonne trailer from a transloading facility in 18 Green River, Wy
Winnemucca, NV.
Includes unloading, storage, and delivery to the plant
via 39-tonne trailer from Savage transloading facility in
Pilot Peak, NV or
Quicklime Golconda, NV. Optionally, may be shipped to site from a 10
Western UT
transloading facility in Winnemucca, NV with minor
capital improvements.
Includes operation of in-pit primary crusher, delivery to
the process plant via 39-tonne trailer and secondary
Limestone 31 (Quarried Locally)
limestone crushing/screening/grinding plant at process
plant.
Includes diesel, unleaded gasoline, propane and their
Via Winnemucca fuel
unloading, and delivery to the plant via 10,000 or
Fuel >1 market by owner or
12,500 gallon trailer to site. Optionally, may be shipped
others
to site from a transloading facility in Winnemucca, NV.
Includes delivery to the plant via 21-tonne trailer of Bulk flocculant direct
Ferric Sulfate, Hydrochloric Acid, Caustic Soda, and from Riceboro, GA
Other Flocculant direct to site. Optionally, may be shipped to >6 Low volume reagents
site from a transloading facility in Winnemucca, NV with from SLC, UT and
minor capital improvements. Sparks, NV markets
Page 195
18.7 Power Supply

Electrical power for the Project will be supplied by on-site power generation and via the grid connected to
the nearby local electric utility cooperative, Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC) 115 kV transmission
network. The Project will generate a portion of the steady-state power demand via Steam Turbine
Generators (STG) driven by steam produced by the sulfuric acid plant. The remainder of steady-state loads
and any peaks will be serviced by power purchased from HEC.
The main onsite electrical infrastructure comprises the following:
 115 kV Overhead power line for interconnection to HEC transmission lines.

 115 kV - 13.8 kV Utility Interconnection Substation
 13.8 kV Main Distribution Substations.
 13.8 kV, 4.16 kV, 480 V Electrical Distribution Systems.
 13.8 kV Steam Turbine Generators
 13.8 kV Black Diesel Generators
18.7.1 In-Plant Power Generation

The acid plant produces steam during the production of sulfuric acid. Steam generated by the acid plants
will be used in the lithium processing plants and to generate approximately 90 MW of electricity.
The in-plant power generation will consist of two approximately 45 MW Steam Turbine Generators, one
each on Phase 1 and Phase 2, that provide normal power to the plant and Stand-by Diesel Generators that
provide power for the plant black start operation and critical loads that require backup power upon loss of
normal power.
LNC will not export power from in-plant generation to the HEC grid.
18.7.2 Interconnection to Utility Grid

Thacker Pass is located in the service territory of HEC. Since the Nevada power market is regulated, LAC
will purchase all imported power from HEC. HEC does not generate any power and has a full requirements
contract with the Department of Energy’s Bonneville Power Administration (BPA). BPA delivers hydropower
produced in the Columbia River Basin. Power generated by BPA is delivered to HEC in Winnemucca, NV,
via BPA’s Southern Inertie and NV Energy’s transmission system.
LAC submitted a Power Service Application to HEC in March of 2021. HEC then initiated an Interconnection
Study for their system and a System Impact Study with BPA. Note that the wheeling of power by NV Energy
is part of BPA’s scope. The HEC Interconnection Study is complete and the projected upgrade costs are
included in this report. With the budgeted upgrades, HEC’s system can reliably support LAC’s load.
BPA requested an updated load forecast and was provided with the maximum transmission capacity results
from the HEC Interconnection Study to use as the maximize power availability required from BPA. HEC
has signed a reimbursement agreement with BPA and BPA’s Transfer Group is actively working with NV
Energy. HEC has indicated that the power cost is anticipated to be approximately $60/MWh however this
will only be finalized once both studies are complete. HEC has indicated that BPA power will be available
for Phase 1 and 2 once NV Energy completes the Greenlink West project in December 2026. LAC, HEC
and NV Energy are working together on an interim power plan for the months between commissioning and
Greenlink coming online. HEC also indicated that no funds are required from LAC for upgrading NV
Energy’s system as these are all covered under Greenlink West.
An existing radial 115 kV transmission circuit, owned and operated by HEC, currently runs parallel to the
proposed Project site. The plant location is approximately 9 miles from the Kings River Switching Substation
Page 196
on the 20.7-mile Kings River Switching Substation--Kings River Substation 115 kV transmission line. The
line from the Kings River Switching Station will be upgraded from 3/0 conductors to 556 MCM ACSR
conductors to the new point of interconnect at Thacker Pass. At Thacker Pass, HEC will add a new point
of interconnect switching station to service the LAC substation and continue service to the Kings River
Substation.
The grid interconnection will be located approximately 305 m (1,000 ft) to the south of the proposed process
plant substation adjacent to SR 293. The grid interconnection switching station will be located directly
beneath the existing 115 KV transmission line. HEC will make additional communication and protection
upgrades to their 115 KV network to improve reliability of service to the proposed LAC facility.
The new LAC substation will include:
Phase 1:
 Approximately 1,000 ft of new 115 kV overhead transmission line will be constructed from the
new point of interconnect switching station at the 115 kV HEC network to the new LAC
substation.
 115 kV Transmission Line Structure
 One 115 kV power circuit breaker and protection for the incoming 115 kV supply from HEC.
 One 115 kV power circuit breaker and protection for the transformer primary protection.
 115/13.8 kV power factor correction equipment.
 One 115 kV - 13.8 kV power transformer.
 Required HEC metering equipment.
 One prefabricated control house for protection and control equipment.
Phase 2: (additional equipment)
 One 115 kV power circuit breaker and protection for the transformer primary protection.
 115/13.8 kV power factor correction equipment.
 One 115 kV-13.8 kV power transformer
18.7.3 Power Distribution
18.7.3.1 13.8 kV Plant Distribution
The 13.8 kV main distribution substation will consist of one 13.8 kV metal-clad switchgear (3 main breakers
and feeder breakers including one spare) to allow for the distribution of electrical power to the local
substations in the plant. The equipment will be housed in a prefabricated electrical building (E-house)
located centrally adjacent to the utility interconnection substation and the acid plant.
The main distribution substation will supply electrical power to downstream substations in each area
throughout the plant at 13.8 kV, 3-phase, 60 Hz.
Power factor correction will be used where technically required to meet the minimum power factor
requirements from utility.
The plant design will allow the addition of another 13.8 kV main distribution substation which will be installed
in Phase 2 of the Project.
Page 197
18.7.3.2 System Voltages
Locally positioned substations throughout the plant will be used to transform the electrical power to a
voltage suitable for utilization by the various local electrically powered equipment. The distribution voltages
are summarized in Table 18-2 below.
The majority of cable runs will be supported on cable trays mounted on the pipe racks. Underground
installation is used to support the well field for water supply. Ariel distribution is provided to the mine site.
Table 18-2 System Voltages
Nominal No of
Equipment Frequency (Hz) Grounding Remarks
Voltage Phases
Incoming Supply 115 kV 3 60 Hz TBD

In-Plant Generation 13.8 kV 3 60 Hz Low Resistance Grounding
MV Distribution 13.8 kV 3 60 Hz Low Resistance Grounding
MV Distribution 4.16 kV 3 60 Hz Low Resistance grounding
LV Distribution 480 V 3 60 HZ High Resistance grounding
AC UPS 120 V 1 60 Hz Solid grounding
Lighting TBD
Table 18-3 Motor Voltages
Reduced Motor Rated

DOL* System Voltage
Motor HP Range Voltage** Voltage Phases
Starting (V)
Starting (V)
Below 0.5 X X 115 120 1
0.5 to 200 X 460 480 3
Above 200 up to 6,000 X 4,000 4,160 3
0.5 up to 500 X 460 480 3
500 up to 6,000 X 4,000 4,160 3
6,000 and above X X 13,200 13,800 3
* Direct On Line
** Reduced Voltage Starting (soft starter or variable frequency drive)
18.7.3.3 Electrical Loads
The total connected load for the plant is calculated at 200.9 MW with a calculated operating demand of
141.8 MW. The anticipated load breakdown is summarized in Table 18-4 below. The total power generation
is calculated at 89.9 MW from two sulfuric acid plants. Total power import is anticipated to be 51.9 MW (see
Table 18-5).
Page 198
Table 18-4 Electrical Load Breakdown
Phase 1 Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 2 Total Total

Area Connected Demand Connected Demand Connected Demand
(MW) (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW)
Acid Plant 20.7 14.6 20.6 14.6 41.3 29.2

Process Plant / Mine 86.7 60.8 72.9 51.8 159.6 112.6
Total 107.4 75.4 93.5 66.4 200.9 141.8
Table 18-5 Electrical Load Generation vs. Import
Power Phase 1 (MW) Phase 2 (MW) Total Phase 1 & Phase 2 (MW)
Generation 44.9 44.9 89.9

Import 30.5 21.4 51.9
18.7.3.4 Mine Area, Mine Area Booster Pumps, Attrition Scrubbing,

Classification
Power to the mine area, mine area booster pumps, Attrition Scrubbing, Classification will be supplied from
the main distribution E-house switchgear by a 13.8 kV overhead distribution line on single wooden poles to
the Mine e-house, transformers and switchgears to distribute the power to various loads at the required
voltage. voltage.
18.7.3.5 Processing Plant
Power to the processing plant will be supplied from the main distribution substation switchgear via 13.8 kV
cables routed in cable trays mounted on pipe racks to supply the process loads while providing feeders to
the following areas:
 Attrition Scrubbing
 Classification (Located adjacent to both Attrition Scrubbing and Leaching processes)
 Leaching, Neutralization & CCD
 Filtration
 Magnesium Sulfate Crystallization & Precipitation
 Calcium Removal
 Lithium Carbonate
 Sulfate Salts Crystallization (ZLD)
 Limestone
 Quicklime
 Stockpile/Tailings
Each area substation will contain all the necessary e-houses, transformers, switchgear and motor control
centers to distribute the power to various loads at the required voltage within the process area.
18.7.3.6 Well Site, Booster Pumps, E-Pond Pumps, CT FS Pumps
Power to the water well site, booster pumps, e-pond pumps and CTFS pumps will be supplied from the
main distribution E-house switchgear via 13.8 kV cables routed underground in conduits.
Page 199
18.7.4 Power Tabulation

Demand loads for Phase 1 and Phase 2 are 75.5 MW and 66.3 MW respectively, for a combined total of
141.8 MW demand during Phase 2. Power will be generated at the sulfuric acid plant from the steam
generated from excess heat along with an anticipated import load of 455 GWh/year required. Thacker Pass
is located in the service territory of Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). Since the Nevada power market is
regulated, LAC will purchase all imported power from HEC. HEC infrastructure to support this import load
will need to be improved. The following table tabulates the power requirements for the Project.
Table 18-6 Project Power Demands
PHASE 1
Functional Installed By Area Demand By Area
Description
Area (kW) (kW)
050 Mine Operations 175 20.87
110 ROM Feed and Log Washing 977 772
Attrition Scrubbing Area (w/ Slurry
120 1,632 1,204
Transfer)
130 Classification 7,107 3,853
210 Acid Leaching 212 165
220 Neutralization Clarification 649 309
225 Neutralization CCD 3,453 1,565
230 Neutralization Filtration 8,057 3,834
310 Magnesium Sulfate Crystallization 21,736 16,980
320 Magnesium Precipitation 66 33
330 Magnesium Precipitation Filtration 1,048 528
340 Calcium Precipitation 209 90
350 Cation Removal Ion Exchange 268 142
410 Lithium Carbonate Crystallization 3,237 2,426
420 Lithium Carbonate Product Handling 4,877 3,901
430 Na/K Sulfate Salts Crystallization (ZLD) 7,695 6,029
500 Liquid Sulfuric Acid Plant 729 397
510 Liquid Sulfur 115 48
520 SAP Gas & Strong Acid 10,696 8,288
530 Tail Gas Treatment 1,247 499
540 BFW and Steam System 1,785 729
550 Cooling Water System 345 145
560 Turbo Generator 3,588 2,397
570 Sulfuric Acid Product 213 85
Facility Load 2,012 2,012
610 13.8kV Distribution and Generators 455 455
640 Compressed Air 1,496 942
Page 200
PHASE 1
Functional Installed By Area Demand By Area
Description
Area (kW) (kW)
650 Water Systems 10,769 6,555
700 Tailings Disposal 1,021 579
800 Reagents 2,214 1,378
905 Site Security Building 45 45
910 Admin Building 500 500
915 Plant Warehouse Building 75 75
920 Plant Maintenance Building 500 300
925 Packaging Warehouse Building 300 300
930 Plant Laboratory Building 500 500
935 Truck Facility Building 20 20
Well Field Security Building 20 20
951 Process Plant Control Building 113 113
Misc. Electric Heat Tracing Loads 1,300 1,300
HVAC/LIGHTS/MISC 5,913 5,913
Grand Total 107,370 75,446
PHASE 2
Functional Phase 2 Installed By Area Demand By Area
Description
Area Multiplier (kW) (kW)
050 Mine Operations 0 12 1
110 ROM Feed and Log Washing 0.5 488 386
Attrition Scrubbing Area (w/ Slurry
120 0.5 816 602
Transfer)
130 Classification 1 7,107 3,853
210 Acid Leaching 1 212 165
220 Neutralization Clarification 1 649 309
225 Neutralization CCD 1 3,453 1,565
230 Neutralization Filtration 1 8,057 3,834
310 Magnesium Sulfate Crystallization 1 21,736 16,980
320 Magnesium Precipitation 1 66 33
330 Magnesium Precipitation Filtration 1 1,048 528
340 Calcium Precipitation 1 209 90
350 Cation Removal Ion Exchange 1 268 142
410 Lithium Carbonate Crystallization 1 3,237 2,426
Lithium Carbonate Product
420 1 4,389 3,511
Handling
Page 201
PHASE 2
Functional Phase 2 Installed By Area Demand By Area
Description
Area Multiplier (kW) (kW)
Na/K Sulfate Salts Crystallization
430 1 7,695 6,029
(ZLD)
500 Liquid Sulfuric Acid Plant 1 700 381
510 Liquid Sulfur 1 115 48
520 SAP Gas & Strong Acid 1 10,696 8,288
530 Tail Gas Treatment 1 1,247 499
540 BFW and Steam System 1 1,732 707
550 Cooling Water System 1 345 145
560 Turbo Generator 1 3,588 2,397
570 Sulfuric Acid Product 1 213 85
Facility Load 1 2,012 2,012
610 13.8kV Distribution and Generators 1 446 446
640 Compressed Air 1.0 1,496 942
650 Water Systems 0 1,615 983
700 Tailings Disposal 0.6 613 347
800 Reagents 0.8 1,793 1,116
905 Site Security Building 0 0 0
910 Admin Building 0 0 0
915 Plant Warehouse Building 0 0 0
920 Plant Maintenance Building 0 0 0
925 Packaging Warehouse Building 1 270 270
930 Plant Laboratory Building 0 0 0
935 Truck Facility Building 0 0 0
Well Field Security Building 0 0 0
951 Process Plant Control Building 0 0 0
Misc. Electric Heat Tracing Loads 1 1,300 1,300
HVAC/LIGHTS/MISC 1 5,913 5,913
Grand Total 93,538 66,334
18.8 Sulfuric Acid Production

The sulfuric acid plants for the Project are Double Contact Double Absorption (DCDA) sulfur burning sulfuric
acid plants with heat recovery systems (HRS). The plants sizing was maximized based upon the use of
single pieces of equipment such as a single blower train instead of two operating in parallel, and a single
waste heat boiler to optimize production versus capital.
Phase 1 and Phase 2 will each have a single sulfuric acid plant capable of producing nominal 3,000 t/d
(100 weight % H2SO4 basis) of sulfuric acid by burning liquid elemental sulfur. Sulfur is delivered to site by
truck and is unloaded by gravity into a single Sulfur Unloading Pit which provides sulfur to both sulfuric acid
Page 202
plants. The sulfuric acid generated from each plant is used in the process plant for the chemical production
of lithium carbonate. The total annual operating days is based upon expected scheduled and
unscheduled maintenance. Acid production is a function of the plant’s nominal capacity and production over
Design Capacity with production efficiency of the equipment decreasing over a three-year period until
scheduled maintenance occurs. Each sulfuric acid plant has two Liquid Sulfur Storage Tanks with a
combined storage capacity of 28 days. The sulfur is transferred from the tanks to the Sulfur Feed Pit and
from there to the Sulfur Furnace.
The chemical processes in the sulfuric acid plant include combustion of sulfur to produce SO2, catalytic
conversion of SO2 to SO3 and absorption of SO3 in acid, all of which generate large amounts of excess
heat. This excess heat is captured via economizers, a waste heat boiler, and super-heaters to produce
steam which, in turn, is used to generate electrical power via the acid plant steam turbine generator (STG)
set. Energy recovery from the absorption reaction is maximized through the use of the HRS system which
generates saturated intermediate pressure steam for internal process users with the balance superheated
for injection into the STG set. Low pressure steam is extracted from the STG set for use in the lithium
processing plant. The individual STG power output is 45.2 MW, and each sulfuric acid internal consumption
is 13.0 MW, leaving a net export of 32.2 MW from each turbine for use by the lithium processing plant.
A Tail Gas Scrubber is provided for each sulfuric acid plant where residual SO2 and acid mist in the tail gas
is removed to less than US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) emission limits before the gas is expelled to atmosphere via a tail gas stack. Sodium
hydroxide solution is used as the scrubbing medium and the effluent is consumed in the lithium processing
plant.
Selective Catalyst Reduction (SCR)’s will be installed on both sulfuric acid plants to minimize nitrogen
oxides (NOx) emissions when the second plant is built for Phase 2.
Each plant has two Sulfuric Acid Storage Tanks with a combined storage capacity of 7 days. A single Start-
up Acid Tank services both sulfuric acid plants. Acid is produced at 98.5%. Acid is diluted to 93% in the
winter months for freeze protection. A truck loadout facility services both sulfuric acid plants. A single
Control Room also services both sulfuric acid plants.
Water use in the sulfuric acid plants is minimized by utilizing closed loop air coolers for the strong acid
system, and an air-cooled condenser on the turbine generator. A small open loop cooling tower is utilized
only for product acid cooling and lube oil systems.
Liquid effluents are minimized in the plant design. Reverse osmosis rejects from the Water Demineralizer
are returned to a common Process Condensate Tank for re-use within the complex. Storm Water is
collected by the event collection pond which services the process plant area. The strong acid sump
contents, which may be acidic, are delivered to an Elemental Neutralization Facility which services both
sulfuric acid plants. From the Elementary Neutralization Facility, the contents can be consumed in the
Lithium Processing Plant.
Sound enclosures are provided where necessary to attenuate operational noise levels to below acceptable
limits.
18.9 Water Supply
18.9.1 Water Source and System Design

The Thacker Pass water supply system is shown in Figure 18-5. The existing Quinn Raw Water Well has
been tested and is able to sustain 908 m3/h (4,000 gpm) which satisfies the expected average demand
servicing all potable, mining and process flow streams for Phase 2. A backup well is planned to be installed
one mile west of the existing production well to maintain a constant supply of water if one well pump is
down for maintenance or repairs.
Page 203
The hydraulic capacity of the pump and piping system from the production wells to the plant site is 908 m3/h
(4,000 gpm). The Process Plant Raw/Fire Water Tank capacity is 5,680 m3 (1.5 M gallons), storing 4,770 m3
(1.26 M gallons) for 6 hours make up water, above the fire water reserve.
Figure 18-5 Thacker Pass Water Supply System
Source: M3, 2022
18.9.2 Potable Water

The combined site demand for potable water at the process plant and mine site was estimated to be
approximately 100 m3/d (27,000 gallons per day), based on Phase 2 headcount plus the continuous flow
demands of the potable system.
18.9.3 Fire Water

The site fire water reserve volumes for the process plant and mine site were calculated to be 908 m3 and
1,135 m3 (240,000 gallons and 300,000 gallons), respectively. These estimates were developed in
accordance with National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Codes & Standards. Fire water is fed via
gravity to the Process Plant. Raw water is pumped up to the Mine Raw/Fire Water Tank where it is stored
as reserve and, in the event of a fire, will be pumped to the various hydrants located throughout the mine
service area.
18.10 Waste Rock and Tailings

Table 18-7 shows a summary of the volumes contained in each storage facility and the estimated volume
of each facility at the end of the 40-year mine life.
Page 204
Table 18-7 Design and Requirement Volumes for Stockpiles and Facilities (Millions of Cubic
Yards)
40 Year LOM Required
Design Storage % of
Facility Name Storage
Mm3 (MCY) Design
Mm3 (MCY)
West Waste Rock Storage Facility
21.3 (27.9) 20.2 (26.4) 95%
(WRSF)
East Waste Rock Storage Facility
16.3 (21.3) 0 (0) 0%
(WRSF)
Coarse Gangue Stockpile (CGS) 17.5 (22.9) 17.5 (22.9) 100%
Growth Media Stockpiles (GMS) 12.3 (16.1) 5.0 (6.6) 41%
Clay Tailings Filter Stack (CTFS) 266.9 (349.1) 250.7 (327.9) 94%
All facilities have expansion potential.
NOTE: Storage quantities largely determined by short-term processing requirements or surface area mined, and thus are not reassessed for
the 25-year case separately.
18.10.1 Mine Waste Rock and Growth Media Stockpiles

Approximately 233 M wet tonnes of ore will be mined from the open pit. Once the pit is opened and
established, concurrent backfill with waste rock and coarse gangue will be employed. Initially, excavation
will start on the western side of the overall pit extents. The West WRSF will be located southwest of the pit
and will store 21.3 Mm3 (27.9 MCY) of excavated mine waste rock material. The East WRSF was designed
to the east of the pit and can store 16.3 Mm3 (21.3.2 MCY) but the latest mine plan shows it may not be
needed due to the available backfill capacity in the pit. Several growth media stockpiles will store material
salvaged from proposed disturbance. These stockpiles will be located southeast of the West WRSF, south
of the pit, near the ROM ore stockpile, near the CGS and northeast of the East WRSF.
18.10.2 Coarse Gangue Stockpile

Coarse gangue is produced in the classification stage of the mineral processing unit operation and is
conveyed into the CGS after going through a dewatering process. LAC will convey the coarse gangue
material to the CGS located east of the open pit. The gangue material will include lithium content whose
economic value cannot be extracted at this time with a rate of return meeting LAC’s criteria, using the
proposed flowsheet. The stockpile is currently designed to store approximately 17.5 Mm3 (22.9 MCY) of
material. The total capacity of the coarse gangue stockpile will be used. The remaining coarse gangue
generated from the process operations will be backfilled in the pit.
The CGS will be placed above existing ground that has been stripped of growth media. The stripped growth
media will be placed in the growth media stockpile(s). The stripped existing ground will be lined with one
foot of low hydraulic conductivity soil layer (LHCSL), which will then be covered with a material to prevent
the LHCSL from drying out or cracking. Perforated Corrugated Polyethylene Pipe (CPE pipe) will be placed
in the major drainages to promote drainage to the CGS Sediment Pond.
The current design for the CG has 15 m (50 ft) lift heights and 18 m (60 ft) benches graded between each
lift to provide an overall stacking slope of 4H:1V. Additional stability analysis completed by NewFields show
that the coarse gangue stockpile can be stacked to 3H:1V slopes and still meet the minimum stability
requirements if the sands are adequately dewatered during the classification process. Additional strength
testing of the coarse gangue material will be conducted during operations and side slope requirements may
change in the future.
Stormwater runoff from the CGS will drain to the low point on the south side of the facility into the CGS
Sediment Pond. The CGS Sediment Pond is fully lined with a single layer of HDPE geomembrane and is
Page 205
designed to contain runoff from a 100-year, 24-hour storm event. The sediment pond is designed to store
two feet of sediment and have three feet of freeboard above the spillway invert. After storm events, water
from these ponds will be pumped for use into the process circuit. Storm events greater than a 100-year,
24-hour event and up to a 500-year event will drain out of the overflow spillway into the CTFS West
Diversion Channel. The peak flow from a 500-year, 24-hour storm event can pass through the spillway with
one foot of freeboard to the crest of the pond. Sediment will be removed from the facility once the sediment
design capacity has been reached. Riprap will be installed at the outlet of the sediment pond.
18.10.3 Clay Tailings and Salt Storage

Lithium processing will produce tailings comprised of acid leach residue filter cake (clay material),
magnesium sulfate salt and sodium/potassium sulfate salts, which is collectively referred to as clay tailings.
The clay tailings strategy is based on consideration of the following aspects of the site plan:
 Adoption of filtered stack method of clay tailings disposal, referred to as the Clay Tailings Filter
Stack (CTFS).
 Fully contained HDPE lined facility for permanent storage of clay tailings.
 Site selection for the CTFS: the selected location is on relatively flat terrain within the mineral
claim area for proper containment, while maintaining close proximity to the process plant.
 Surface water management to minimize water entering the tailings area.
Placement of clay tailings, otherwise termed as “filtered tailings”, differs from conventional slurry tailings
methodology and typically has higher operating costs but with the benefit of improved stability and reduced
water consumption. At the tailings storage site, it is possible to reduce the tailings to a moisture content
amenable to placement in the CTFS.
At the end of the leach neutralization process cycle, water from the clay tailings is recovered by solid-liquid
separation (dewatering), utilizing filter presses. The filtered tailings are then transported by conveyor to the
HDPE lined CTFS facility. In this state, the filtered tailings can be spread, scarified, air dried (if required)
and compacted in lifts similar to the practice for typical earth embankment construction.
18.10.4 Tailings Production and Stack Design

At full plant production, up to approximately 20,300 dry tonnes per day of clay tailings and salts will be
generated, resulting in a total of 272 M dry tonnes or 250.7 Mm3 (327.9 MCY) requiring secure disposal
over a forty-year period. The CTFS will accommodate this volume with a stack height of up to 94.5 m
(310 ft). The facility will be expanded throughout the life of the mine with an initial footprint covering nearly
0.8 km2 (9 M ft2). Future expansion would take place to the east and upslope to the north, in combination
with an increased stack height. The CTFS is designed for a volume of 266.9 Mm3 (349.1 MCY) to
demonstrate expansion potential, however only 250.7 Mm3 (327.9 MCY) is anticipated to be generated over
the 40-year year mine life. As a result, the facility will only be constructed, and expanded over the LOM, to
store the necessary amounts of volume generated.
The design of the CTFS is based on the following key considerations:
 Perimeter structural zone to enhance stability of the CTFS.

 HDPE liner for containment and environmental protection.
 Placement of potentially higher moisture tailings in the interior of the deposit during the wet
season or during operational upsets.
 Underdrain collection system to collect drainage from tailings.
 Surface water management.
Figure 18-6 presents the CTFS conceptual design.
Page 206
Figure 18-6 CTFS Conceptual Design
Source: NewFields, 2022
The tailings will be stacked with a compacted structural zone around the perimeter of the facility, and a
lower compaction nonstructural zone in the interior of the stack. Tailings will be placed in lifts, the thickness
of which may be determined using test pads during the start of operations that meet the minimum density
requirements. Concurrent with construction of each lift, a layer of waste rock material may be placed in
select areas (roadways/travel lanes) on the clay tailings to provide a trafficable surface for relocating and
operating vehicles and conveyors. The thickness of the waste rock layer will depend on the quality of the
materials, the maximum particle size, and the construction equipment used. The waste should be
considered a contingency and will be placed on an as needed basis to provide a working surface for vehicles
and conveyors. The material will likely be sourced from the pit, delivered using haul trucks, and spread
using a bulldozer.
The exterior slopes of the structural zone of the CTFS will be graded to provide stability based on a minimum
static safety factor of 1.3. The CTFS will be fully lined with an HDPE geomembrane, underlain with a six-
inch liner bedding material. The facility will include an underdrain collection system above the
geomembrane to collect drainage from the stack. Drainage from the stack will report to the geomembrane-
lined reclaim pond.
With an arid climate averaging 31.2 cm (12.3 in) per annum of precipitation, the evaporation rate will exceed
precipitation.
The approach to protecting the environment is based on the following factors:
 The fines content (silt and clay fraction) of the tailings will be high so the permeability of the
tailings will be low and the rate of water infiltration will be very low.
 The surface of the CTFS can be shaped to direct run-off from the tailings surface and draining
into the Reclaim Ponds. From there it may be pumped to the process plant for use as makeup
water or left to evaporate.
 The Reclaim Ponds are double geomembrane lined and can contain the runoff from a 100-year,
24-hour storm event.
 The base of the CTFS will consist of HDPE geomembrane overlain by an underdrain system to
collect fluids that drain from the stack or meteoric water to the Reclaim Ponds.
 The underdrain system consists of a network of perforated CPE pipes aligned in a herringbone
pattern with a two-foot layer of overliner material (sand and gravel material) placed over the top of
it.
 The Reclaim Ponds will be double lined with an HDPE geomembrane liner system with an
interstitial layer of geonet to serve as leak collection. Water collected in the pond will not be
discharged as part of the stormwater management. The water will be pumped to the Process Plant
to be used as make-up water for processing operations or will evaporate. The pond will be equipped
with a leak collection and removal system consisting of a collection sump between the two liners
and a riser pipe laid along one of the slopes, providing access for monitoring and recovering any
leakage through the primary liner.
Page 207
19 Market Studies and Contracts

19.1 2021 and 2022 Synopsis
Lithium demand displayed significant growth in 2021 and 2022 due to strong consumer demand for electric
vehicles, increased product offerings and government policies to encourage electrification. Battery Grade
supply in 2022 is estimated at 465.7 kt lithium carbonate equivalent (LCE) with an additional 9.8 kt LCE
from secondary sources, totaling an expected 475.5 kt LCE supply (Wood Mackenzie, 2022). This is an
increase in supply of 78.6 kt LCE from 2021, or 20% growth year-over-year (YOY).
Increases in production from Albemarle, SQM and Chinese suppliers were predominantly responsible for
supply growth. Supply is not forecasted to meet demand in 2022, and an estimated supply deficit of nearly
67 kt LCE is expected (excluding inventory impacts). The tight market resulted in strong upward pressure
on prices to all-time highs in the spot market. Fastmarkets battery grade, spot price (DDP Europe and US)
reached $72,500/t for battery grade lithium carbonate in October, 2022. Contract pricing for battery grade
lithium chemicals also increased throughout 2022, settling around $52,000/t for hydroxide and $39,000/t
for carbonate in Q3 2022 (Wood Mackenzie, 2022). As spot prices are a leading indicator, contract pricing
is expected to significantly increase in 2023 for battery grade lithium chemicals.
19.2 Supply and Demand Forecast

Demand is forecasted to increase from electrification of the transportation sector and stationary storage
supported by government policy in the EU, North America, and Asia. Sales of passenger and light duty
electric vehicles are expected to increase from 5.8 million in 2021 to over 15 million in 2025 (approximately
15% of total vehicles sold). By 2030, approximately 31% of all passenger vehicles sold are forecasted to
be electric.
Unit sales of medium duty and heavy-duty vehicles, such as buses and e-trucks, are also expected to grow
26% by 2025. The size of battery packs is forecasted to increase for passenger vehicles, from 40 kWh in
2021 to nearly 50 kWh by 2025 (Benchmark Mineral Intelligence, 2021).
The timely and successful ramp-up of refined lithium operations will be critical to meeting demand growth.
Many new projects have focused on battery grade lithium hydroxide (using spodumene feedstock typically
from Australia), which will likely lead to a tight carbonate market in the mid-term. The majority of proposed
lithium feedstock greenfield and expansion projects are located in China, Argentina, Australia and Chile
and vary considerably in probability of success. Supply forecasts to 2040 are presented in Figure 19-1.
Benchmark Mineral Intelligence (2021) estimates global lithium demand will double by 2024 to 970 kt and
reach 2,570 kt by 2030 (Figure 19-1). Supply deficits are expected to increase significantly in 2022 to over
100 kt lithium carbonate. By 2024 the deficit is estimated at 220 kt and 963 kt by 2030. This trend is
forecasted to continue to at least 2040. Roskill (2021), later acquired by Wood Mackenzie, has a similar
demand/deficit forecast in 2030, although the supply deficit in 2024 is estimated to be 104 kt.
Page 208
Figure 19-1 Lithium market balance 2020-2040
Source: Benchmark Mineral Intelligence, 2021
Going forward, the market demand is expected to be balanced between lithium carbonate and lithium
hydroxide towards the end of the decade. Advancements in LFP technology, namely improvements in
energy density and lower costs which have resulted in surging customer orders, are expected to drive this
balance going forward.
19.3 Pricing
In the near term, both spot and contract prices are expected to continue to rise as demand outpaces supply,
with not enough additional tonnage available to ease market tightness; this will be exacerbated by the
expectation of rising spodumene feedstock costs.
In the mid-term, pricing between hydroxide and carbonate are not expected to widen significantly. Rising
prices are expected to incentivize investment in new projects, many of these announcements are from
within China or by Chinese companies with little to no feedstock offtake arrangements. A shortage of
primary mined supply is expected to maintain upward pricing pressure.
In the long term, unprecedented market demand combined with lack of supply is expected to support pricing
required to incentivize CAPEX-intensive greenfield projects. In addition, pressure from customers to
incorporate carbon-neutral and sustainable technologies will further increase CAPEX and operational costs
that will be reflected in pricing.
19.4 Pricing Forecast

Base case lithium carbonate pricing is simplified as a fixed $24,000 per tonne, which is the long-term price
forecast of Wood Mackenzie’s third quarter 2022 report (Wood Mackenzie, 2022). Owing to timing of
resource and reserve estimation, Wood Mackenzie’s second quarter 2022 report (Wood Mackenzie, 2022)
was used at $22,000 per tonne lithium carbonate.
Page 209
Table 19-1 Lithium Price Forecast (Q3 2022)

Lithium Carbonate
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 / LT
Price (US$/t, CIF)
Contract, CIF 58,684 56,223 47,788 42,500 36,000 29,000 26,000 24,000 23,500 24,000
Note: Real prices used, where available.
1. Prices assume straight-line from final yearly forecast to LT price.
2. 2032 / LT represents lithium carbonate pricing beyond 2032
19.5 Contracts
LAC does not currently have any offtake contracts or agreements in place for the Thacker Pass Project.
A contract mining agreement with Sawtooth has been entered into for the Thacker Pass Project. LAC is
under contract with Bechtel for Engineering Procurement and Construction Management (EPCM) services
and is finalizing contracts with various equipment vendors.
19.6 Qualified Person Statement

Daniel Roth, the QP responsible for this section of the Technical Report has reviewed the studies, forecasts
and analysis presented herein and confirms that the results support the assumptions made in this Technical
Report.
Page 210
20 Environmental Studies, Permitting, and

Social or Community Impact
This section summarizes the available information on environmental, permitting, and social/community
factors related to the construction, operation, reclamation, and closure of LAC’s Thacker Pass Project (the
Project). The units in this section are given in metric with the original imperial (i.e., US standard units) in
parentheses to maintain consistency with permitting documentation.
20.1 Introduction
The Project is located on public lands administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land
Management (BLM). Construction of the Project requires permits and approvals from various Federal,
State, and local government agencies.
The process for BLM authorization includes the submission of a proposed Mine Plan of Operations (PoO,
previously defined) and Reclamation Plan for approval by the agency. LAC submitted the Thacker Pass
Project Proposed PoO and Reclamation Plan Permit Application on August 1, 2019 (LAC, 2019a). The
permit application was preceded by LAC’s submission of baseline environmental studies documenting the
collection and reporting of data for environmental, natural, and socio-economic resources used to support
mine planning and design, impact assessment, and approval processes.
As part of the overall permitting and approval process, the BLM completed an analysis in accordance with
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) to assess the reasonably foreseeable impacts to the
human and natural environment that could result from the implementation of Project activities. As the lead
Federal regulatory agency managing the NEPA process, the BLM prepared and issued a Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), (DOI-BLM-NV-W010-2020-0012-EIS) on December 3, 2020
(BLM, 2020). Following the issuance of the FEIS, BLM issued the EIS Record of Decision (ROD) and Plan
of Operations Approval on January 15, 2021 (BLM, 2021). In addition, a detailed Reclamation Cost Estimate
(RCE) has been prepared and submitted to both the BLM and Nevada Division of Environmental Protection-
Bureau of Mining, Regulation and Reclamation (NDEP-BMRR). On October 28, 2021, the NDEP-BMRR
approved the PoO with the issuance of draft Reclamation Permit 0415. On February 25, 2022, the NDEP-
BMRR issued the final Reclamation Permit 0415. The BLM will require the placement of a financial
guarantee (reclamation bond) to ensure that all disturbances from the mine and process site are reclaimed
once mining concludes.
Regulatory agencies that formally cooperated or participated in the preparation of the EIS included NDEP-
BMRR; the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA); the United States Department of the
Interior Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS); the State of Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW); and
Humboldt County.
There are no identified issues that are expected to prevent LAC from achieving all permits and
authorizations required to commence construction and operation of the Project based on the data that has
been collected to date.
20.2 Permitting Pre-Planning Process

To prepare for the NEPA and environmental permitting processes, LAC submitted baseline environmental
data and engaged with regulatory agencies prior to submitting the PoO to the BLM and NDEP-BMRR.
Beginning in January 2012, LNC (then known as Western Lithium Corp.) presented to the BLM an initial
project overview and a summary of existing baseline information. Over the next several years, LAC
redesigned the Project to concentrate on developing the resource at Thacker Pass. LAC made changes to
the Project as a direct result of engaging with regulators and community members, evaluating
environmental resources, and concluding a supplemental exploration program in the Thacker Pass Area.
Page 211
In December 2017, LAC presented the updated conceptual PoO to the BLM. In January 2018, LAC met
with key permitting agencies including the BLM, USFWS, NDOW and NDEP-BMRR to provide detail on the
hydrological baseline characterization, followed in June 2018 by a meeting with NDEP-BMRR and BLM to
address the geochemistry baseline characterization program. On October 5, 2018, LAC formally submitted
the Conceptual Mine Plan of Operations and Reclamation Permit Application to the BLM and NDEP-BMRR,
proposing to explore, develop, construct, operate, reclaim, and close an open pit lithium claystone mining
and lithium processing operation at Thacker Pass (LAC, 2018). LAC completed baseline data collection by
December 2018 and early 2019 and submitted baseline environmental reports to the BLM.
In developing the Project, LAC engaged in meetings with BLM, NDEP-BMRR and other regulatory
agencies, and received guidance from agencies on the direction of all baseline studies and ecological-
resource priorities. Baseline data was collected with the oversight from BLM, NDEP, NDOW, and USFWS.
LAC and its consultants prepared baseline data collection work plans (SRK 2019, Piteau 2018e), which
were submitted to BLM for review and approval prior to finalizing the baseline data collection. The full
content of the PoO was based on an iterative process. Technical data was derived from the engineering
design process and from the environmental baseline study efforts.
LAC’s Thacker Pass Project Proposed PoO was submitted to the BLM and NDEP-BMRR, on August 1,
2019 (LAC 2019a), to describe a proposed Project that would encompass approximately 4,236 hectares
(10,468 acres) with an estimated disturbance footprint of approximately 2,244 hectares (5,545 acres). A
new Exploration Plan of Operations was also proposed at the same time (LAC, 2019b) to perform mineral
exploration in areas south and east of the Project area. The boundaries of these two Plan of Operations
areas are shown on Figure 20-1. On September 6, 2019, the BLM acknowledged receipt of the Thacker
Pass Project PoO, deemed the PoO technically complete, and assigned the Project BLM Case File Number
NVN098596. Responding to agency comments, LAC revised the PoO and submitted the latest version on
October 15, 2021. As required by the BLM, LAC’s PoO includes mine and processing design information
and mining methods, waste rock management plan, quality assurance plan, stormwater plan, spill
prevention plan, reclamation plan, monitoring plan, and an interim management plan.
Figure 20-1 Plan of Operations and Exploration Area Permitted Boundaries
Source: LAC, 2022
To obtain necessary Federal and State permits, LAC continues to engage with regulatory agencies
including USFWS, NDEP, Nevada Division of Water Resources (NDWR), NDOW, and Nevada Department
of Transportation (NDOT).
Page 212
The engagements leading up to the submission of the mine PoO provided the BLM and other agencies with
an opportunity to understand the Project and prepare for the EIS process prior to BLM’s issuance of a
Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS issued in January 2020.
20.3 Federal, State, and Local Regulatory Permitting

Requirements
A review by multiple administrative agencies is undertaken to obtain all required Federal, State, and local
agency permits and approvals necessary to construct, operate and ultimately reclaim and close the
proposed Project.
The following permits are explained in the sections below.
 Federal Permits (20.3.1)

o BLM: Mine Plan of Operations for open pit mining and ore processing on public lands;
o USFWS: Incidental Golden Eagle Take Permit.
 State Permits (20.3.2)
o NDEP-BMRR: Reclamation Permit for reclamation of the mine and process facilities;
o NDEP-BMRR: Water Pollution Control Permit (WPCP) for the construction, operation, and
closure of the mine and process facilities to maintain surface and groundwater quality;
o NDEP-Bureau of Air Pollution Control (BAPC): Air Quality Permit for the construction and
operation of the mine and process facilities to maintain ambient air quality; and
o NDWR: Water Right Change Applications to use groundwater for mining and milling
purposes.
o NDWR: Dam Safety Permit.
o NDOT Encroachment Permit.
 Humboldt County Permits (20.3.3)
o Regional Planning Department: conditional use permit allowing mining and processing;
o Building Department: various permits to construct and inhabit structures and facilities at
the Project, including building, electrical, plumbing, and mechanical permits and
inspections.
20.3.1 Federal Permits
20.3.1.1 Bureau of Land Management
As lead Federal agency, BLM’s Winnemucca District Office managed the NEPA process for the PoO with
participation from cooperating Federal, State, and local agencies. BLM approval for the proposed Project
was provided in accordance with the General Mining Law, which provides a statutory right to mine, and
related Surface Management Regulations contained in 43 CFR 3809.
The BLM determined that LAC’s proposed PoO under 43 CFR 3809 was a “major Federal action,” and the
agency sequentially initiated the review of the Project for compliance with NEPA. Consultations regarding
historic properties and locations of Native American Religious Concern were conducted by the BLM
between 2018-2021 pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and implementing
regulations at 36 CFR 800 in compliance and accordance with the BLM-Nevada State Historic Preservation
Office (SHPO) 2014 State Protocol Agreement. The BLM coordinates NEPA and NHPA Section 106
compliance by using the NEPA scoping process to partially fulfill NHPA public notification requirements to
seek input from the public and other consulting parties on the Project and its effects on historic properties.
The BLM further coordinated with the USEPA regarding environmental justice issues. BLM also consulted
with USFWS, which provided an official list of Threatened and Endangered Species that could potentially
occur within the Project area and served as a cooperating agency in the development of the EIS. As the
state agency with jurisdiction and expertise related to wildlife, NDOW also participated as a cooperating
agency in discussions regarding wildlife and special status species habitat, reclamation strategy, and other
Page 213
wildlife issues. Potential effects to Bald and Golden Eagles were analyzed to assist USFWS evaluation of
the applicant’s application for an Incidental Golden Eagle Take Permit under the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act (50 CFR 22) (the impacts were programmatically analyzed in the PEIS [USFWS, 2016a]).
USFWS issued a Record of Decision approving the Eagle Take Permit on March 8, 2022, followed by
issuance of the permit on April 8, 2022.
20.3.1.2 Environmental Documentation Process
NEPA provided a public process for analyzing and disclosing to the public the direct and cumulative impacts
to the human environment that could result from the proposed action and selected alternatives; taking a
‘hard look’ at impacts and assessing the level of significance for identified impact from the Project and
alternatives; and proposing mitigation measures if needed to reduce the potential impact from the selected
proposed action. Following the NEPA analysis and review process, a ROD was prepared to document the
Federal agency’s decision(s) concerning a proposed action for which the agency has prepared the EIS.
The ROD states what the decision is; identifies the alternatives considered, including the environmentally
preferred alternative; and discusses mitigation plans, including any enforcement and monitoring
commitments. After preparing the Draft and Final EIS documents, BLM issued a Record of Decision (ROD)
and Plan of Operations Approval on January 15, 2021 (BLM, 2021).
In compliance with the January 15, 2020 EIS ROD Conditions of Approval, and in compliance with State
Mitigation Regulation Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) 232.400-232, on March 21, 2022, LNC fulfilled
its initial compensatory mitigation obligation regarding sage-grouse, in coordination with the State of
Nevada Sagebrush Ecosystem Council. LNC also completed its initial mitigation commitments under the
Eagle Take Permit in April 2022.
20.3.2 State Permits

NDEP-BMRR is the primary State agency regulating mining. There are three branches within BMRR:
Regulation, Reclamation, and Closure. NDEP-BAPC works closely with NDEP-BMRR on mining projects
and issues permits to construct facilities that emit gases or particulate matter to the atmosphere. NDWR
issues an appropriation to use groundwater for mining, milling, and domestic purposes.
The State of Nevada does not have the equivalent of the Federal NEPA process requiring an impact
assessment. However, most State permits and authorizations require public notice and a comment period
after the completion of an administrative and technical review of the proposed facilities permit before
approval. There is also a baseline characterization requirement that is accomplished using baseline data
acquired during the preparation of the PoO.
20.3.2.1 Water Pollution Control Permit
NDEP-BMRR Regulation Branch administers the State of Nevada WPCP application process for the mine,
ore processing, and operation of the fluid management system in accordance with Nevada Administrative
Code (NAC) 445A.350 through NAC 445A.447. A WPCP includes requirements for the management and
monitoring of the mine and ore processing operations, including the fluid management system, to prevent
the degradation of waters of the state (NAC 445A.424). The permit also includes procedures for temporary,
seasonal, and tentative permanent closure of mine and ore processing operations.
On April 3, 2020, LAC submitted the Thacker Pass Project WPCP Application to the Regulation Branch.
The application included an Engineering Design Report (EDR) for the Clay Tailings Filter Stack (CTFS),
Waste Rock Storage Facility (WRSF), Coarse Gangue Stockpile (CGS), mine facilities, and process plant
components. On October 29, 2020, May 3, 2021, and August 30, 2021, LAC received formal comments
from NDEP-BMRR regarding the WPCP application. LAC addressed the comments received to date. On
October 28, 2021, NDEP-BMRR issued Notice of Proposed Action, Beginning of Public Comment Period,
Notice of Public Hearing, and Thacker Pass Project Draft WPCP NEV2020104. A public hearing was held
on December 1, 2021, and the public comment period ended on December 8, 2021. The final WPCP
Page 214
(NEV2020104) was issued on February 25, 2022 and became effective March 12, 2022. The final WPCP
will likely need to be modified in accordance with the most recent engineering updates and be reviewed
and approved by NDEP-BMRR.
A WPCP is valid for a duration of 5 years, provided the operator remains in compliance with the regulations.
LAC would be expected to apply for permit renewals in 5-year increments during the mine life. In line with
this NDEP-BMRR requirement, the BLM-issued ROD includes a stipulation requiring adaptive mitigation,
including updating the groundwater model every five years to include new data. The final WPCP states that
operations will not take place below the 1,475 m (4,840 ft) above mean sea level elevation, which is 4.5 m
(15 ft) above the pre-mining regional water table. Prior to mining below the water table (which is not
expected to take place for approximately 15 years at Phase 2 production rates), LAC would be required to
submit, for NDEP review and approval, a revised WPCP application. That application would include a then-
current groundwater model which evaluates the impacts and demonstrates waters of the State will not be
degraded. Alignment with federal authorizations would also be sought as may be required. Based on current
modeling, several approaches to long-term water management for operations below the water table have
been identified. Those measures include in-pit water pumping with passive water treatment, and the
creation of a hydraulic sink to control contaminants through a modified backfill plan. Other options would
be studied prior to submitting an updated application, including the use of an adsorption amendment for
backfill material placed below the water table.
20.3.2.2 Reclamation Permit
NDEP-BMRR Reclamation Branch issues a Reclamation Permit for the Project, in accordance with NAC
519A, to reclaim and close the mine, ore processing, and related transportation facilities in the unanticipated
event of a default by the operator.
The PoO submittal to the BLM and NDEP-BMRR contains the Reclamation Permit Application. The
application is reviewed concurrently by both the BLM and NDEP-BMRR under a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) between these two agencies. NDEP-BMRR has cooperatively reviewed the PoO
and has accepted the Reclamation Permit Application to establish a financial guarantee for reclamation
activities meeting Federal and State requirements to ensure that adequate funds are available to reclaim
and close the site.
A draft RCE was developed and was included as an attachment to the WPCP application, submitted to
NDEP-BMRR. The revised RCE was submitted October 15, 2021, for final approval. On October 28, 2021,
NDEP-BMRR Reclamation Branch issued Notice of Intent and draft Reclamation Permit (Permit 0415) for
the Thacker Pass Project. The final Reclamation Permit was issued on February 25, 2022. The Project will
be bonded under LAC’s existing BLM Statewide Bond, BLM Bond Number NVB001750.
20.3.2.3 Air Quality Permit
NDEP-BAPC issues Air Quality Permits for the construction and operation of mine and process facilities to
maintain ambient air quality. Permits are issued in accordance with NAC 445B.001 through NAC
445B.3689. NDEP-BAPC has primacy for air quality activities in Humboldt County under the Federal Clean
Air Act of 1970, as amended. Based on the Project design and the analyses by Air Sciences, LAC applied
for a Class II Air Quality Operating Permit from the NDEP-BAPC, which is a permit typical for facilities that
emit less than 90 tonnes (100 short tons) per year for any one regulated pollutant, emit less than 23 tonnes
(25 short tons) per year for total hazardous air pollutants (HAP), and emit less than 9 tonnes (10 short tons)
per year of any one HAP. The Class II Air Quality Operating Permit Application was submitted to NDEP-
BAPC on January 22, 2021. On October 18, 2021, NDEP-BAPC made a preliminary determination to issue
a Class II Air Quality Operating for the Thacker Pass Project; Permit Number AP1479-4334. The public
comment period for the proposed permit was open from October 18, 2021 through November 18, 2021.
The final Class II Air Quality Operating Permit (AP1479-4334) was issued February 25, 2022. The final
Class II Air Quality Operating Permit will likely need to be modified in accordance with the most recent
engineering updates and approved by NDEP-BAPC.
Page 215
The Thacker Pass Project NEPA Air Quality Impact Analysis Report (Air Sciences, 2019a) indicates the
proposed Project meets the criteria to be considered a minor source for new source review, in particular:
 The facility-wide potential process emissions are less than the 227 tonnes (250 short tons) per year
threshold (40 CFR 52.21) for prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) applicability for each
criteria pollutant, hydrogen sulfide, and sulfuric acid mist.
 The sulfuric acid plant emissions, including fugitive emissions from the plant (NRS listed source
category per 40 CFR 52.21(b)(1)(i)(a)), are less than the 90 tonnes (100 short tons) per year
threshold for PSD applicability for each criteria pollutant, hydrogen sulfide, and sulfuric acid mist.
Given that the facility-wide potential process source emissions for the proposed Project are expected to be
below the 90 tonne (100 short ton) per year threshold for the Title V program, the proposed Project would
be considered a minor source, not subject to Title V permitting. Additionally, the facility-wide HAP emissions
for the proposed Project are expected to be less than 9 tonnes (10 short tons) per year for a single HAP
and less than 23 tonnes (25 short tons) per year for all HAP emissions in aggregate. Therefore, the
proposed Project is considered to be an area source for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants applicability.
20.3.2.4 Groundwater Appropriation
Approvals to use groundwater for mining, milling, and domestic purposes are issued by NDWR, typically
for the life of the mine. On April 1, 2020, LAC submitted applications to NDWR to change the point of
diversion, manner of use, and place of use for Nevada Water Right Permits 68633 and 68634. These water
rights would be transferred from the LAC-owned ranch east of the Project site. Additional applications to
change the point of diversion, manner of use, and place of use for Nevada Water Right Permits 18494,
15605, 21059, 21060, 24617, 83819, 83820, 83821 were submitted August 11, 2020. These water rights
would be transferred from a ranch east of the Project site pursuant to a purchase agreement with the nearby
ranch. A total of 3,515 million liters (2,850 acre-feet) of water rights are currently proposed to be transferred
to Thacker Pass. Additional water rights would need to be acquired and transferred for Phase 2 of the
Project.
Two ranches, one in the Quinn River Valley and one in the King’s River Valley, have protested the transfer
of the water rights. LAC believes that the transfer applications comply with the State standards. A water
rights hearing occurred December 1 to December 8, 2021, and the decision by the Nevada State Engineer
regarding the water rights transfer is pending.
20.3.3 Humboldt County Permits

The Humboldt County Regional Planning Department (HCRPD) has the responsibility to issue a conditional
use permit (similar to zoning) allowing for mining and processing land use at the Project. LAC holds a
conditional use permit issued by the HCRPD in 2013 for initially the Kings Valley Clay Mine (which was
proposed in 2013 but never fully developed), which the HCRPD confirmed is current and valid for the
Thacker Pass Project on July 8, 2021.
The County Building Department will issue various permits to construct and inhabit structures and facilities
at the Project, including building, electrical, plumbing and mechanical permits and inspections.
Other Federal, State and Humboldt County agencies will issue additional permits, approvals, notices, or
concurrences for various mine operations and activities in accordance with applicable Federal, State and
county ordinances, guidelines, laws, and regulations. Existing permits will be regularly reviewed and
assessed. Should engineering design changes be proposed, LAC will apply for and obtain appropriate
permit modifications and/or amendments, as needed.
Page 216
20.4 Summary Schedule for Permitting, Approvals, and

Construction
The Project is being considered in two phases, lasting 40 years. LAC will utilize existing surface
transportation infrastructure (highways) to service the Project. The following is a summary schedule for
permitting, approvals and construction:
 Q3 2018 – Submitted Conceptual Mine Plan of Operations

 Q3 2019 – Submitted Proposed Mine Plan of Operations and Reclamation Plan Permit
Application, BLM deems the document technically complete
 Q1 2020 – BLM published NOI to prepare an EIS in the Federal Register
 Q1 2021 – Final EIS and Record of Decision issued by BLM
 Q1 2022 – Issuance of final WPCP, Reclamation Permit, and Class II Air Quality Operating
Permit
 Q1 2023 – Initiate early-works construction
 Q3-Q4 2023 – Initiate Plant Construction
 Q1 2026 – Commissioning process plant, initiate mining,
 Q4 2026 – Steady state production
20.5 Current Permitting Status

Multiple activities have been completed or are underway to develop the required information for permitting
the Project. Engagement with various permitting agencies, the local community, and the Native American
communities is an ongoing process.
20.6 Community Engagement

LAC has developed a Community Engagement Plan (LAC, 2022), recognizing that the support of
stakeholders is important to the success of the Project. The Project was designed to reflect information
collected during numerous stakeholder meetings.
A summary of community engagement activities performed to date is provided in Table 20-1.
Table 20-1 Key Community Engagement Summary

Date Event
September 30, 2009 Introduction letter to Nevada Bighorns Unlimited
September 21, 2013 Orovada Community Picnic/Project update
October 10, 2013 Update to Humboldt County Commissioners
November 2, 2015 Update to Humboldt County Commissioners
April 9, 2016 Update to Humboldt Hunt Club
May 8, 2017 Update to Trout Unlimited
June 15, 2017 Update to Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribal Leaders
June 15, 2017 Update to Humboldt County Commission member
July 27, 2017 Orovada Community Picnic/Project update
November 1, 2017 Update to Humboldt County Commission member
February 6, 2018 Update to Trout Unlimited
July 27, 2018 Town Hall Meeting in Winnemucca
July 27, 2018 Community gathering in Orovada
October 3, 2018 Tour of Thacker Pass site for Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribal leaders
Page 217
Date Event
October 17,2018 Update to Humboldt Hunt Club
November 7, 2018 Presentation to the Coalition for Nevada Wildlife
April 24, 2019 Presentation to Winnemucca Rotary
April 27, 2019 Update to Humboldt Hunt Club
May 30, 2019 Presentation and tour of R&D Facility1 for Great Basin Resource Watch
September 4, 2019 Tour of R&D Facility for Winnemucca stakeholders
October 10, 2019 Tour of R&D Facility for Nevada Commission on Mineral Resources
November 26, 2019 Project update to Trout Unlimited
January 29, 2020 Meeting with Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribal leaders
January 29, 2020 Orovada Community Open House/Project update
January 30, 2020 Winnemucca Community Open House/Project update
March 11, 2020 Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribe Open House/Project Update/Job Fair
July 6, 2020 Update to Humboldt County Commissioners
July 20, 2020 Presentation to the Reno Rotary
August 4, 2020 Meeting with Humboldt County Commissioner
August 24, 2020 Presentation to the Nevada Legislative Energy Committee
September 17, 2020 Presentation to the Humboldt County Chamber of Commerce
Sept – Oct, 2020 BuildNV Core Construction Training Program Winnemucca session
October 20, 2020 Presentation to the Nevada Mineral Exploration Coalition
October 22, 2020 Presentation to University of Nevada, Reno Energy Policy Class
Nov – Dec, 2020 BuildNV Core Construction Training Program Fort McDermitt session
February 9, 2021 Project Update to Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribal Council
February 19, 2021 Meeting with Maxine Redstar, Fort McDermitt Tribal Chair
April 5, 2021 Update to Humboldt County Commissioners
April 5, 2021 McDermitt /Fort McDermitt Community Meeting/Project Update
April 6, 2021 Orovada Community Meeting/Project Update
April 14, 2021 Orovada Community Meeting/Orovada Elementary School Discussion
2021 Held multiple meetings with Thacker Passed Concerned Citizens Group, Orovada
2021 Held multiple meetings with Fort McDermitt to discuss proposed benefits
October 28, 2021 Winnemucca Futures Presentation, Winnemucca
November 17, 2021 TPCC Working Group
November 18, 2021 Meeting with Humboldt County Undersheriff and Office Manager
Meeting with Fort McDermitt Vice Chair and Council member to discuss potential
November 18, 2021
community improvements
January 11, 2022 Presented to Fort McDermitt Tribal Council, discussed engagement agreement
January 27, 2022 TPCC working group: developed agenda for future workshop
Fort McDermitt Tribal Council, commission voted to establish new engagement
February 8, 2022
agreement with Lithium Nevada
February 17, 2022 TPCC Working Group
March 11, 2022 LNC sponsors Cultural Monitor Training for Fort McDermitt tribal members
March 30, 2022 TPCC Working Group
April 25, 2022 TPCC Working Group- NDEP presentation
May 3, 2022 Humboldt County Chamber members luncheon- LNC Thacker Pass update
Page 218
Date Event
Fort McDermitt Paiute Shoshone Tribe cultural committee visit to Thacker Pass to
June 23, 2022
learn about cultural mitigation work
Meeting with Maxine Redstar, Fort McDermitt Tribal Chair, and Becky Crutcher, Fort
June 29, 2022
McDermitt Councilman, Benefits Agreement
July 20, 2022 Lithium Americas Technical Center Grand Opening
Fort McDermitt Tribal Council approves MOA- formal engagement and consultation
August 11, 2022
with LNC
Lithium Americas signs community benefits agreement with Fort McDermitt Paiute
October 20, 2022
and Shoshone Tribe
October 26, 2022 Winnemucca Futures Presentation, Winnemucca
November 3, 2022 Mining into the Future, Winnemucca
1Lithium Americas Corp. Research and Development Facility, located in Reno, Nevada.
Note: This is a select list; many additional stakeholder meetings have taken place that have not been listed.
Numerous laws and regulations require the BLM to consider Native American cultural and religious
concerns. These include the NHPA, the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978, Executive Order
13007 (Indian Sacred Sites), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Tribal
Governments), the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, the ARPA, as well as NEPA
and the FLPMA. Secretarial Order No. 3317, issued in December 2011, updates, expands and clarifies the
Department of Interior’s policy on consultation with Native American tribes. The BLM also utilizes H-8120-
1 (General Procedural Guidance for Native American Consultation) and National Register Bulletin 38
(Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties). In connection with LAC’s
previously proposed Kings Valley Clay Mine Project (at Thacker Pass) and in coordination with the BLM,
letters requesting consultation were sent to the Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribe and the Summit
Lake Paiute Tribe on April 10, 2013. The BLM held consultation meetings with the Fort McDermitt Paiute
and Shoshone Tribe on April 15, 2013 and the Summit Lake Paiute Tribe on April 20 and May 18, 2013.
As part of the Thacker Pass Project, the BLM Winnemucca District Office initiated the Native American
Consultation process. Consultation regarding historic properties and locations of Native American Religious
Concerns were conducted by the BLM via mail and personal correspondence in 2018 and 2019 pursuant
to the NHPA and implementing regulations at 36 CFR 800 in compliance and accordance with the BLM-
SHPO 2014 State Protocol Agreement. On July 29, 2020, the BLM Winnemucca District Office sent formal
consultation letters to the Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribe, Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe, Summit
Lake Paiute Tribe, and Winnemucca Indian Colony. In late October 2020, letters were again sent by the
BLM to several tribes asking for their assistance in identifying any cultural values, religious beliefs, sacred
places and traditional places of Native American people which could be affected by BLM actions on public
lands, and where feasible to seek opinions and agreement on measures to protect those tribal interests.
As the lead federal agency, the BLM prepared the MOU for the Project and continues to facilitate all ongoing
Project-related consultation.
LAC has also independently engaged with the Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribe between 2017
and 2020 (as described in Lithium Nevada Corp., 2020). On July 29, 2019, LAC and the Fort McDermitt
Paiute and Shoshone Tribe entered into a Project engagement agreement to facilitate meaningful
interaction between LAC and the Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribe. In February and March 2020,
LAC held one-on-one meetings with tribal members to provide information about workforce development
and employment opportunities and conduct job skills analysis of several tribal members.
The in-person work was discontinued during most of the COVID pandemic, but LAC continued to discuss
employment opportunities with tribal members through virtual meetings and phone communication. In
November 2020, LAC worked with members of the Fort McDermitt Paiute Shoshone Tribe to bring the
BuildNV Core Construction Training Program to Fort McDermitt. Eleven participants successfully completed
the program. In February and April 2021, LAC presented a Project update to the Fort McDermitt Tribal
Council and hosted a community meeting in McDermitt to discuss and provide answers regarding the
Page 219
Thacker Pass Project. In August 2021 and January 2022, LAC had meetings with Tribal Council members
to present a conceptual benefits package and on October 20, 2022, LAC signed a community benefits
agreement with Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribe. In October 2021 and October 2022, LAC
sponsored a Heavy Equipment Operator Training course held in Fort McDermitt in October 2021 for
fourteen participants, and in October 2022 for sixteen participants who received certificates for learning to
safely operate various pieces of heavy equipment.
20.7 Environmental Baseline Studies

Since 2010, LAC has conducted an extensive baseline characterization study and data collection program
for the Project. These studies initially focused on surveys within an approximate 1,497-hectare (3,700-acre)
boundary of the previous Project concept, in the immediate vicinity of the pit and plant layout proposed by
Western Lithium Corp. In 2018, the baseline study program was expanded to encompass over 7,527
hectares (18,600 acres). All baseline studies were substantially completed in 2018 and early 2019.
Targeted geochemistry humidity cell test (HCT) laboratory testing was completed in late 2020.
The baseline study program was conducted to characterize existing environmental and social resources
and support the completion of the multi- Federal and State agency permitting and approval program, and
the anticipated environmental documentation process that is required under NEPA. This baseline program
includes, but is not limited to, studies for the following standard resource topics:
 Vegetation;
 Wildlife;
 Special status (threatened, endangered, and candidate status) vegetation and wildlife species
including those species managed under the requirements of the Federal Endangered Species Act
of 1973, as amended;
 Invasive, non-native plant species, including noxious weeds;
 Soils and available growth media;
 Geology and minerals;
 Paleontology;
 Water quality and quantity including surface hydrology and groundwater hydrogeology;
 Jurisdictional wetlands and waters of the United States as required by Section 404 of the Federal
Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended;
 Air quality as required by the Federal Clean Air Act of 1963, as amended;
 Cultural resources as managed under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended,
and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979;
 Environmental Justice in accordance with Executive Order 12898 – Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Providers;
 Hazardous materials and solid waste;
 Range and livestock management;
 Social and economic impacts; and
 Aesthetics, including noise and visual assessments.
The following sections summarize key baseline studies. Baseline data collection and impact studies were
completed between 2018-2020.
20.7.1 Climate/Weather Monitoring

In August 2011, LAC installed a weather station at the Project site to collect site-specific meteorological
data to support engineering design, reclamation efforts, the air quality permitting and approval program and
the NEPA documentation process. Hourly on-site weather data has been continuously collected since 2011.
Data is downloaded and archived on a quarterly basis. Parameters include wind speed and direction,
temperature at 2-m and 10-m, relative humidity, precipitation, barometric pressure, and solar radiation.
Page 220
20.7.2 Wildlife
The Project area contains habitat for a variety of wildlife typical of the Great Basin Region. Habitat is
predominantly sagebrush, intermixed with salt desert scrub and invasive grasslands and forblands. The
BLM identifies areas in which the Project lies as Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat. BLM considers
Greater Sage-Grouse to be a sensitive species and has regulations to protect the species and its habitat.
Since 2008, LAC has performed (via independent biological contractors) six separate field surveys for sage
grouse in Thacker Pass (Enviroscientists, 2008; Enviroscientists, 2010; JBR, 2012a; JBR, 2012b; Great
Basin Ecology, 2012; Great Basin Ecology, 2013). The purpose of the surveys included assessing the
quality of habitat and Greater Sage-Grouse use. The sage grouse is a game bird that BLM has identified
as a special status species. Sage grouse lek sites have not been identified in the Project area but have
been documented north of the Project in the Montana Mountains. Baseline studies indicated that habitat
located in the Project area has been considerably modified by recent and historical wildfires and contiguous
infestations of invasive annual grasses, primarily cheatgrass. The landscape is generally devoid of healthy
sagebrush assemblages, with patchy occurrences of sagebrush. LAC has fulfilled initial sage grouse
compensatory mitigation commitments as described in Section 20.3.1.1.
NDOW regularly monitors Greater Sage-Grouse leks and performs lek counts within the Montana
Mountains, north of the proposed Project site. These data are available for use by LAC during the mine
permitting and approval process and the NEPA environmental documentation process.
In March 2018, LAC hired SWCA Environmental Consultants to perform additional environmental baseline
surveys in the expanded 18,686-acre Project area, for general wildlife, general vegetation, special status
species, and Greater Sage-Grouse habitat surveys. Updated surveys were completed in Q3 2018 (SWCA,
2018a; SWCA, 2018b; SWCA, 2019a; SWCA, 2019b).
In February 2018, LAC hired Wildlife Resource Consultants to perform aerial presence and ground territory
surveys for raptors. Surveys within a 16-km (10-mile) radius of the Project site were completed in 2018 and
2019 (WRC, 2018a, 2019). Surveys within a 3-km (2-mile) radius of the Project site were completed in
2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022 (WRC, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022). Two active golden eagle nests were identified
in 2022 (WRC, 2022) within Thacker Canyon, approximately 0.6 km (0.4 mile) from the Proposed PoO
boundary. The Project operation will not directly interfere with the nest; LAC could conduct operations
without a permit, potentially with some seasonal restrictions. The USFWS issued a Record of Decision
approving issuance of the permit in March 2022 and then issued the final Incidental Take Permit on April
8, 2022. The Company has initiated mitigation stipulated by the permit.
Lahontan cutthroat trout (LCT), listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), is known to
exist in portions of the Crowley Creek-Quinn River watershed. No LCT occur in Thacker Creek. No LCT
were observed in the lower reaches of Pole Creek or in the lower reaches of Crowley Creek (below the
confluence of Rock Creek), both which are considered intermittent and ephemeral. A 1995 U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Report and subsequent summaries have not identified naturally occurring LCT or habitat in upper
Pole Creek. According to NDOW, LCT habitat may occur in the upper reaches of Pole Creek, located
approximately three miles north of the Project area; and in the upper reaches of Crowley Creek, above the
confluence of Rock Creek, located approximately three miles northeast of the Project area.
In October 2011, and June 2012, NDOW attempted to introduce LCT in the upper reach of Pole Creek.
According to NDOW, LCT was observed in upper Pole Creek in 2014, but no LCT were observed or
identified in 2015. To date, stocking efforts have not demonstrated survival or habitat there. According to
hydrological modeling conducting by Piteau Associates, no measurable impacts to the upper or middle Pole
Creek surface flow are simulated (Piteau, 2020c). In November 2020, per regulations 50 CFR Part 402 and
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, the BLM requested informal consultation with the USFWS
regarding the Project (Consultation Code: 08NVD00-2020-SLI-0619) (BLM, 2020). The BLM also prepared
a Biological Assessment and determined the Project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the
threatened LCT in the Thacker Pass Lithium Mine Project area (BLM, 2020). On December 4, 2020, the
Page 221
USFWS concurred with the BLM’s determination that the Proposed Project may affect, but is not likely to
adversely affect, LCT over the life of the Project (USFWS File No. 2021-I-0041) (USFWS, 2020).
In March 2018, LAC hired Wildlife Resource Consultants to perform Spring Snail surveys in proximity to the
Project. The spring snail surveys were completed in Q3 2018 (WRC, 2018). The Kings River pyrg was
found to occur at 13 undeveloped springs in the larger survey area; however, it was not found to occur
within the Project Boundary. The Kings River pyrg is not a BLM special status species, though it is an
NDOW species of conservation priority.
20.7.3 Cultural Resources

In March 2018, LAC hired Far Western Anthropological Group to perform a Class III Cultural Resource
Survey within the approximately 7,527-hectare (18,600-acre) baseline study area. The cultural resource
survey was completed in Q3 2018 (McCabe, 2012; Young, 2018). The cultural resource survey has been
reviewed and approved by both the BLM and SHPO.
In consultation with SHPO, the BLM determined to resolve adverse effects as to historic artifacts and other
historic properties within the Project area. To specify how those effects would be resolved, the BLM created
a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) and Historic Properties Treatment Plan (HPTP). Draft copies of the
MOA and HPTP were mailed to local tribes and the SHPO for review and comment in September 2020.
The MOA and HPTP contain descriptions of the historic properties involved, the mitigation research design,
mitigation methods, and the specific actions to be taken at each historic property. In general, mitigation for
physical effects to historic properties-including both prehistoric and historic resources-would involve data
recovery (e.g., excavation, publications) to learn as much as possible about the property prior to its
destruction, and mitigation for visual effects to historic properties would involve interpretation for the public
(e.g., research, publications, interpretive signage). The BLM edited the MOA based on comments it
received. In late October 2020, letters were sent to several tribes asking for their assistance in identifying
any cultural values, religious beliefs, sacred places and traditional places of Native American people which
could be affected by BLM actions on public lands, and where feasible to seek opinions and agreement on
measures to protect those tribal interests. The letter sent to tribes also provided a copy of the MOA final
version and invited their signature as a concurring party. Tribes were again invited to submit additional
comments and meet further with the BLM. The SHPO signed the MOA as a Signatory on November 5,
2020. LAC was invited to be a concurring party to the MOA, and LAC provided signature on December 2,
2020.
The MOA and HPTP serve as the comprehensive guide for the implementation of cultural resources
treatment measures in response to adverse effects identified by BLM in consultation with Nevada SHPO
and also through the NEPA compliance framework presented in the Project EIS. The content of the Project’s
HPTP, coupled with dynamic Project planning and adherence to the MOA stipulations, will mitigate direct
and indirect impacts to Historic Properties during the Project’s construction and future exploration activity.
As the lead federal agency, the BLM generated the MOA and facilitates all on-going, Project-related
consultation.
20.7.4 Water Resources

Water resource studies for the Quinn River Basin and Kings River Basin were conducted through series of
reconnaissance reports commissioned by the Nevada Division of Water Resources (NDWR) (Malmberg,
1966; Huxel, 1966; Visher, 1957; Zones, 1963). Although these studies focused on water supply and
availability from the alluvial basins, they provide some discussion on bedrock conditions in the Thacker
Pass vicinity.
Project scale hydrogeologic studies began in 2011 with a groundwater investigation and was conducted by
Lumos and Associates which included monitoring well drilling, testing, and spring surveying (Lumos, 2011a,
Lumos, 2011b). Continuous spring surveying was conducted by SRK between 2011 to 2013. SRK visited
most spring locations for at least 4 quarters (SRK, 2011a, 2011b, 2012a, 2012b, 2012c, 2012d, 2013).
Page 222
Seven (7) additional wells were drilled by LNC with oversight from Schlumberger Water Services in 2011,
of which 5 wells have been continuously monitored to present (SWS, 2013). An initial basin-scale
groundwater model spanning Kings and Quinn River hydrographic basin was developed to identify potential
groundwater quantity impacts (SWS, 2013). These investigations focused on a smaller open pit plan.
In 2018, a supplemental investigation began, focused on characterizing conditions for the larger 2018 pit
configuration at Thacker Pass. This included 4 additional monitoring wells, 9 piezometers, 2 production
wells, 3 surface water gaging stations, and the resumption of seep and spring monitoring. The work is
summarized in the Baseline Hydrological Data Collection Report (Piteau, 2019a). A numerical groundwater
model was updated to evaluate potential water related impacts to surface and groundwater resources
including the potential to generate a pit lake and pit lake geochemistry. A Fate and Transport analysis was
also performed to assess the potential migration of pore water in the proposed pit backfill on the
groundwater system. The results are summarized in “Thacker Pass Project Water Quantity and Quality
Impacts Report Revision 1” (Piteau, 2020). In August 2021, a revised analysis was completed for a 2,850
acre-ft/yr water supply abstraction (Piteau, 2021).
A summary of the hydrogeological results is described in the following sections: groundwater setting and
availability at Thacker Pass (20.7.4.1), groundwater quality across the Project (0), seeps and springs
monitoring (20.7.4.3), surface water features adjacent to the Project (20.7.4.4) and their status as Waters
of the US (20.7.4.5), water related impacts as evaluated from a numerical groundwater model (20.7.4.6),
and monitoring and mitigation plans to evaluate water resources and mitigate mining related impacts during
operations and post-closure (20.7.4.7).
20.7.4.1 Groundwater Setting
The proposed Project site resides along a hydrographic basin divide between two designated hydrographic
basins: the Kings River Valley to the west and the Quinn River Valley to the east. Water rights in both basins
have been fully allocated, with perennial yields of 17,000 and 60,000 acre-feet per year, respectively.
Recharge of the Quinn River and Kings River valleys begins in the adjacent mountain blocks, which have
elevations that are 5,000 feet above mean sea level (amsl). Recharge is distributed to the alluvial basin via
two processes: (1) deep bedrock recharge from infiltration of direct precipitation and snowmelt in bedrock
mountain blocks; and (2) runoff recharge derived from infiltration of surface water runoff as it flows from
mountain blocks across alluvium material along basin margins.
Groundwater discharge from the Quinn River and Kings River valleys occurs primarily through four
processes: (1) evapotranspiration through phreatophytes; (2) extraction by irrigation wells; (3) natural
discharge at seeps and springs; and (4) groundwater outflow to adjacent basins. Irrigation extraction is
currently the largest component of groundwater discharge.
Groundwater levels have been monitored in the vicinity of the Thacker Pass Project at a series of monitoring
wells since 2011. Groundwater levels are typically 4,625 feet amsl to 5,034 feet amsl. The highest water
levels were observed at monitoring well WSH-7 (approximately 5,285 feet amsl) north of the proposed open
pit. The anomalously high water level is attributed to the location of the well north (upgradient) of the
principal E-W fault that functions as a hydraulic flow barrier. Water levels in the western portion of the
proposed Project decline to an elevation of approximately 4,625 feet amsl, observed at piezometer PZ18-
05 located along the western margin of the Project site. This is approximately 20 feet higher than the
headwaters of Thacker Creek. East of the proposed CTFS and open pit, water levels decline to 4,513 feet
amsl, observed at monitoring well MW18-02, which serves as the down gradient monitoring point. Water
level data indicated the groundwater divide is approximately 3,500 feet east of the hydrographic divide. The
groundwater divide corresponds with a corridor of elevated water levels in monitoring well WSH-7 (5,285
feet amsl), monitoring well PH-1 (5,034 feet amsl), and monitoring well WSH-17 (4,861 feet amsl) which
are compartmentalized by minor faults that act as flow barriers (Piteau 2018a; Piteau 2019a; Piteau 2020).
Page 223
Water bearing rock units adjacent to the open pit consist of claystone, interbedded claystone / ash, volcanic
tuff, and lava flows. Claystone / ash bedrock units are the most transmissive bedrock units, although still
considered low permeability materials, owing to the greater abundance of interbedded ash layers. The
presence of interbedded ash functions as a secondary permeability pathway to transmit groundwater flow
because they interconnect transmissive beds of ash in a broader fabric of claystone at the mesoscopic
scale. The presence of faults, even with minor offset, can impede groundwater flow through i) truncating
ash beds against low permeability claystone and ii) the intrinsically low permeability materials themselves.
The other bedrock units of volcanic tuff and lava flows possess crystalline rock matrices with very little
intrinsic permeability. Hydrologic testing confirmed the low permeability character of bedrock materials and
indicated that faults were barriers perpendicular to flow. The bedrock and structural compartmentalization
surrounding the open pit is not conducive to sustain high volumes of flow.
Water supply potential from the mine site is expected to be minimal. Therefore, the Project water supply
targeted the more transmissive alluvium sediments in Quinn River Valley. A water supply well (Quinn River
Production Well) was drilled and tested in 2018. The well was step tested at 1,500 gpm, 2,000 gpm,
2,593 gpm, and 3,473 gpm for 30-minute intervals which yielded drawdowns of 13 ft, 19 ft, 25.6 ft, and 36.5
ft respectively. A 72-hour constant rate pumping test was conducted on the well at a rate of 2516 gpm,
which yielded a maximum drawdown of approximately 29 ft in the Quinn River Production Well.
20.7.4.2 Groundwater Quality
Groundwater major ion chemistry ranges from calcium/sodium bicarbonate to calcium/sodium – sulfate
types, possessing nearly equal components of calcium and sodium cations. Major ion chemistry of seeps
and springs is similar to that of monitoring wells with slightly higher calcium composition. The similarity
between major ion chemistry of groundwater and perennial seeps and springs can be attributed to the
seeps and springs being locations where groundwater discharges at ground surface, and the groundwater
expressed at seeps and springs having relatively short flow paths and residence times.
Groundwater in the Project area has naturally elevated background concentrations of several constituents
(arsenic, fluoride, iron, manganese) that exceed Nevada Reference Values (NRVs). Profile I standards set
forth Nevada’s reference values for drinking water. A summary of groundwater Profile I exceedances in the
existing groundwater is presented in Table 20-2. Detailed groundwater chemistry and groundwater quality
information can be found in the Water Quantity and Quality Impacts Report (Piteau, 2019a).
Table 20-2 Summary of Background Groundwater Profile 1 Exceedances
Wells (82 total samples)

Constituent No. Exceedance Percentage
Key Wells
Samples (%)
Aluminum 5 6 WSH-04
Antimony 5 6 PH-1, WSH-13, WSH-14
Arsenic 61 66 Most Wells
Fluoride 26 35 WSH-Series Wells
Iron 5 5 PH-1, MW18-04
Manganese 1 1 -
20.7.4.3 Seeps and Springs
Spring and seep monitoring began in 2011 and continued through 2019. Surveying followed BLM
guidelines, consisting of measuring a location, flow rate, field parameters, water chemistry. In addition,
photographs, a summary of riparian vegetation, and a site description were documented. In 2018 the spring
and seep sampling program was expanded from historical surveys to include 52 spring and seep sampling
Page 224
locations. (Lumos, 2011b, SRK, 2011a, 2011b, 2012a, 2012b, 2012c, 2012d, 2013, Piteau, 2018b; Piteau,
2018c; Piteau, 2018d; Piteau, 2018e, Piteau, 2019b).
Spring surveying identified 21 perennial springs, including those in the Thacker Creek spring system. A
subset of 17 perennial and ephemeral springs have been selected by regulatory agencies for continued
quarterly monitoring throughout mine operations. Spring monitoring for this subset started in 2021.
20.7.4.4 Surface Water
Lands within the proposed Project area primarily drain eastward in the direction of the Quinn River Valley.
A small portion of the proposed mine pit area and the West Waste Rock Storage Facility are in the Kings
Valley hydrographic basin and thus drains west in the direction of Thacker Creek and subsequently to the
Kings River Valley.
Perennial and intermittent surface water creeks located near the Project area include Thacker Creek, Pole
Creek, Rock Creek, and Crowley Creek. Thacker Creek is a perennial stream fed by springs. It is the stream
nearest the proposed Project area. Pole Creek and Rock Creek are intermittent streams whose headwaters
are in the Montana Mountains. These streams ultimately discharge to Crowley Creek when flow is present.
Pole Creek has discontinuous flow with reaches that are perennial and seasonally dry (intermittent) during
portions of the year. The lower reach of Crowley Creek, below the confluence with Rock Creek, is
intermittent, experiencing dry conditions during summer months, while the upper reach is perennial.
In April 2018, surface water monitoring stations were established in Crowley Creek, Upper Thacker Creek,
and Lower Thacker Creek to assess baseline flow conditions, evapotranspiration (ET) consumption, and to
monitor stream responses to storm events. Key findings from one year of stream flow monitoring include
the following:
 Discharge varies seasonally in Crowley Creek, peaking in March to April (>8,000 gallons per
minute) and tapering off during summer months. Dry conditions were observed at the monitoring
station from July through November 2018, corresponding to peak ET consumption.
 Flow in Upper Thacker Creek peaked in spring months (220 gallons per minute (gpm)) and
tapered off during summer months (less than 5 gallons per minute). Flow in upper Thacker Creek
is perennial due to groundwater baseflow, which gains as the creek flows downstream.
 Flow at Lower Thacker Creek is also perennial, with smaller seasonal variation than observed at
the Upper Thacker monitoring station. Springtime flows are approximately 270 gpm to 330 gpm
during March and April with baseflow rates estimated to be 234 gpm.
More details are available in Thacker Pass Project Baseline Hydrological Data Collection Report (Piteau,
2019a).
20.7.4.5 Waters of the US
Redhorse Corporation performed a formal Waters of the U.S. Delineation (including wetlands delineation)
within the revised 18,686-acre Project area (Redhorse, 2018). On February 8, 2019, the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (ACOE) Sacramento District concurred with the findings of the 2018 Redhorse Corporation
delineation report (ACOE, 2019). Specifically, the ACOE determined that aquatic resources within the
survey area are isolated and have no apparent interstate or foreign commerce connection. Hence, they are
not designated as Waters of the United States and are not within the jurisdiction of the ACOE (SPK-2011-
01263).
20.7.4.6 Water Balance
A groundwater flow model was developed in MODFLOW-USG (USG) finite difference numerical code and
simulates saturated/unsaturated groundwater flow in bedrock and alluvial hydrostratigraphic units. The
Page 225
model domain is centered on Thacker Pass and extends into portions of the alluvial basins in Kings River
and Quinn River. The groundwater model was calibrated to water level measurements, pumping tests,
groundwater discharge measurements from springs and surface water flow, and water balance estimates
for the Quinn River and Kings River basins. Model predictive runs were designed to estimate the potential
for water quantity impacts within the study area that would result from the proposed Project.
A forward-looking water quantity impacts analysis was performed based on pumping 2,850 acre-feet
annually (for Phase I) and 5,700 acre-feet annually (for Phase 2) from the Quinn River Production Well,
east of the proposed Project site (Piteau, 2020). Water level drawdown was simulated during mining and
for a period of 300 years after mining. Two 10-foot isopleth drawdowns are present corresponding to
pumping from Quinn River Valley and mining at Thacker Pass. A 10-foot drawdown contour was used as
the point of reliable impacts prediction.
Considering proposed Phase 2 operations, the 10-foot drawdown isopleths related to Project mining is
limited to an approximately 2.5-mile radius centered on the South sub-pit, where dewatering is predicted to
be greatest. The end of mining drawdown isopleth does not extend to the Thacker Creek spring system, or
to the upper reaches of Pole Creek or upper Crowley Creek where Lahontan Cutthroat Trout habitat has
been mapped. At the higher Phase 2 production rates, drawdown in the Thacker Pass area extends into
the southern portion of the Montana Mountains, potentially affecting several springs and man-made
impoundments. Surface water flows are predicted to be minimally impacted, with any changes in
groundwater discharge being less than the measurement error. Since the bedrock water table at Thacker
Pass is not expected to be impacted until later in the mine life, LAC currently has not sought a water right
associated with pit-dewatering but would need to consider such an authorization in advance of pit
dewatering below the bedrock water table.
To evaluate the effects of groundwater extraction for water supply from the Quinn River Valley alluvial
aquifer, extraction at a rate of 2,850 acre-feet per year (Phase 1) and 5,700 acre-feet per year (Phase 2)
were simulated and groundwater elevations in the alluvial aquifer were predicted. The Phase 1 simulations
show a 10-foot drawdown isopleth centered at the Quinn River Production Well, reaching approximately
1.25 miles from the extraction well at the maximum extent. One stock watering well is located within this
modeled contour but is expected to be capable of continued operation because it maintains over 60 ft of
saturated well screen. A sub-irrigated field outside the 10-ft drawdown isopleth is supported by surface
water infiltration but will nevertheless be monitored for effects from ground water extraction which may
affect groundwater gradients. The expected 10-foot drawdown in Quinn River Valley at the conclusion of
proposed Phase 2 operations is predicted to expand beyond the Phase 1 drawdown isopleth in Quinn River
Valley but does not intersect any additional stock water wells.
20.7.4.7 Monitoring and Mitigation Plan
A mitigation plan was prepared as part of BLM approved operations which addresses possible conflicts
with regards to adjacent water rights and stakeholders. The mitigation plan incorporates monitoring and
provides mitigation for stock water supply and feed.
Under direction from the ROD, LAC will monitor groundwater sources and will maintain water quality and
quantity for wildlife, livestock, and human consumption to the State of Nevada standards. LAC will regularly
monitor groundwater levels in designated wells as part of the mine’s Water Pollution Control Permit (WPCP)
and LAC’s own proposed monitoring and mitigation plan. LAC will routinely update the groundwater model
using the collected monitoring data as part of the WPCP requirement. The BLM recommends continued
monitoring in conjunction with the mine’s WPCP, and may require additional monitoring of seeps, springs,
and non-mining wells outside the groundwater model boundary, if necessary. If monitoring finds that the
Project results in drawdown to seeps and springs within the Project boundary, the BLM will require LAC to
develop alternative sources for wildlife and livestock use.
As data are collected from the field, LAC will update the groundwater model with firsthand information on a
schedule not to exceed five (5) years from the previous modelling. If such updated models continue to
Page 226
support the assumption that the backfilled pits would exhibit flow-through at low rates with some quality
degradation, LAC will adopt appropriate mitigation early, prior to mining below the bedrock water table, to
minimize or eliminate the risk of groundwater impairment through strategies determined with BLM and
NDEP concurrence.
LAC will monitor the proposed activity to identify or prevent impacts according to the operating plans and
permits submitted with the Mine Plan of Operations and the WPCP.
20.7.4.8 Geochemical Characterization
The Project will generate waste rock, coarse gangue, and mineral clay tailings material from the
beneficiation of ore. BLM Instruction Memorandum NV-2013-046, Nevada Bureau of Land Management
Rock Characterization Resources and Water Analysis Guidance for Mining Activities (BLM, September 19,
2013) outlines the rock and water resources data information that needs to be collected under 43 CFR
3809.401(b)(2) and 3809.401(c)(1) for mine PoO. Additional guidance on mine waste characterization was
issued by the NDEP-BMRR on March 22, 2019, pursuant to the WPCP program and associated NAC 445A
regulations. LAC’s investigation of the potential for development of Acid Rock Drainage and Metal Leaching
(ARDML) from waste rock, ore, gangue, and tailings associated with the proposed Project was pursued in
accordance with these guidelines.
Since 2011, SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. (‘SRK’) has been engaged to characterize baseline geochemical
conditions prior to the start of proposed mining operations. Geochemical testing of mine waste materials
provides a basis for assessment of the potential for ARDML, prediction of contact water quality (i.e., surface
water and groundwater that contacts waste rock, ore, gangue, pit walls, or tailings), and evaluation of
options for design, construction, and closure of the mine facilities. The results of the geochemistry testing
performed to date is summarized in the Baseline Geochemical Characterization Report for the Thacker
Pass Project (SRK, 2020a). The study describes the composition of waste rock, ore, gangue and tailings
and potential impacts of material weathering in the Project study area.
The characterization study performed by SRK involved the collection and analysis of a combined total of
285 samples representative of waste rock, ore, gangue, and tailings for static geochemical testing with 20
representative samples submitted for kinetic testing. The results demonstrate that the waste rock, ore, and
gangue will be net neutralizing with a low potential for acid generation and metal leaching. Although the
excess of neutralizing capacity means that net acid conditions are unlikely to develop, there is still a
potential for the ore and waste to leach some constituents of concern under neutral to alkaline conditions,
in particular antimony and arsenic.
As with the waste rock and ore, the gangue material is also net neutralizing and has a potential to leach
antimony and arsenic under neutral to alkaline conditions. There are differences in some of the constituent
concentrations for the gangue material compared to the ore feed material, including increased
concentrations of aluminum, arsenic, antimony, iron, and manganese. This is presumably a result of the
breakdown of mineral grains during the wet attrition process and the enrichment of these constituents in
the coarse gangue fraction. Conversely, calcium, chloride, sodium, sulfate, and total dissolved solids (TDS)
concentrations are lower in the coarse gangue material compared to the ore feed material, indicating these
constituents are rinsed from the ore material during the attrition process.
The current results for the tailings material indicate that the clay tailings do not contain appreciable sulfide
sulfur and are unlikely to generate acid from the oxidation of sulfides. In Meteoric Water Mobility Procedure
(MWMP) testing, certain constituents were leached under low pH conditions at concentrations above Profile
I NRVs. These results can be attributed to the presence of residual sulfuric acid from the leaching process
that is flushed from the material during the MWMP. The tailings facility will be constructed as a zero-
discharge facility. Tailings material will be stored on lined containment and covered with waste rock/growth
media at closure; therefore, no degradation to groundwater is expected.
Page 227
20.7.5 Air Quality

Air Sciences has prepared an air quality impact analysis report and greenhouse gas emissions and
downstream emissions reduction report based on the PoO final process design (Air Sciences, 2019a; Air
Sciences, 2019b). The air quality analysis quantified and evaluated the impacts on ambient air quality
resulting from the Project. The modeled maximum concentrations and the estimated total ambient
concentrations (modeled concentrations plus background concentrations) were compared with the
applicable National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). In addition, the estimated total ambient
concentrations for the Project were also compared with the corresponding NAAQS and Nevada Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NvAAQS). The modeling performed determined the estimated maximum total
ambient concentrations for all the pollutants and averaging periods are below the applicable NAAQS and
NvAAQS. Additionally, Air Sciences completed an odor analysis (Air Sciences, 2020) for the proposed
Project based on results from air dispersion modeling completed for the quality impact analysis report (Air
Sciences, 2019a). Sulfur dioxide (SO2) and hydrogen sulfide (H2S) emissions were analyzed for their
potential to produce odors outside of the proposed Project boundary. Modeling results show that both SO2
and H2S concentrations are below their odor thresholds outside of the proposed Project boundary and no
detectable odor from the Project is expected.
20.8 Waste Rock, Gangue, and Tailings Facility

Management
The management and site monitoring of waste rock, coarse gangue, and tailings storage facilities, during
operations and closure are key issues for any mine and ore processing operation located in the State of
Nevada. BLM requires that mining and processing operations on public lands prevent unnecessary or
undue degradation of the land. State requirements mandate that mine, ore processing, and fluid
management system operations do not degrade waters of the State.
20.8.1 Waste Rock and Gangue Storage and Management

Waste rock from the open pit will be used as fill for Project infrastructure, managed through the construction
of a surface WRSF, and backfilled in the pit. Coarse gangue will be stored in the CGS facility or backfilled
in the pit. The footprints of both the West and (if necessary) East WRSF will be lined with 0.3 m (1 ft) of
compacted low hydraulic conductivity soil layer (LHCSL) overlain by a LHCSL cover layer. An underdrain
collection system is designed in the major natural drainages to promote drainage to a single-lined sediment
pond. Runoff collected in the pond will be pumped for use in the process circuit.
The footprint of the ROM Stockpile will have a 0.3 m (1 ft) thick compacted LHCSL base layer overlain by
0.6 m (2 ft) of overliner which the ore material will be stacked on. The footprint of the coarse gangue
stockpile will be lined with 0.3 m (1 ft) of compacted LHCSL overlain by a LHCSL cover layer. An underdrain
collection system is designed in the major natural drainages to promote drainage to a single-lined sediment
pond. Runoff collected in the pond will be pumped for use in the process circuit.
A detailed Waste Rock and Gangue Management Plan has been prepared for the Project (SRK, 2021).
20.8.2 Tailings Storage and Management

Lithium processing will produce tailings composed of neutralized filter cake (mostly residual clay, gypsum,
and iron and aluminum hydroxide precipitates), magnesium sulfate salt, and sodium/potassium sulfate
salts. These products are collectively referred to as clay tailings. The clay tailings will be placed in a CTFS,
which will be a geomembrane-lined zero-discharge storage facility, located east of the process plant. Two
conveyors will be used to transport the tailings material from the process plant to the CTFS. The first
conveyor will transport the clay material and the neutralized filter cake. The second conveyor will transport
the magnesium sulfate salt and the sodium/potassium sulfate salts. The area below the conveyors will be
lined with 2-mm (80-mil) high density polyethylene (HDPE) geomembrane for secondary containment. From
Page 228
the temporary stockpiles at the conveyor endpoints, material will be transported with mechanical equipment,
placed in lifts and scarified to increase the surface area of material that is exposed to sun and wind to
accelerate the drying process. Once the target moisture range is achieved, the tailings will be compacted.
Tailings material will be stored on lined containment and covered with waste rock/growth media at closure.
20.8.3 Stormwater Management

Stormwater infrastructure at the Project is designed to protect water quality and mitigate erosion potential
onsite. Stormwater events will be managed per State design standards. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Plan was submitted with the PoO as well as the WPCP application. Upon closure, all facilities will have a
soil cover placed on top and be vegetated to reduce infiltration and erosion potential. Stormwater
management at the Thacker Pass Mine site is described in the following Sections.
20.8.3.1 Waste Rock Storage Facility
The WRSFs will be lined with one-foot of compacted LHCSL overlain by a 0.6 m (2 ft) thick cover layer
designed to promote drainage to single-lined sediment ponds. The ponds are sized to hold the 100-year,
24-hour storm event. Runoff collected in the ponds will be pumped for use into the process circuit.
20.8.3.2 Mine Facilities
Stormwater management for the Mine Facility will include channels designed to convey the 100-year, 24-
hour design storm. LAC will construct unlined sediment ponds to improve water quality of runoff coming
from the Mine Facilities Area. Diversion channels and berms will be constructed to capture run-off from the
area and direct the flow to sediment ponds to allow sediments to settle. At a minimum, unlined ponds in the
Mine Facilities area will be sized to contain a 2-year, 24-hour storm event. The geomembrane lined pond
(Mine Facilities Pond 2) will be sized to contain a 100-year, 24-hour storm event. Water will be pumped to
the process circuit from the lined pond or released to natural drainage for the unlined ponds.
20.8.3.3 ROM Stockpile, Attrition Scrubbing
Stormwater management for the facility will include channels designed to convey the 100-year, 24-hour
design storm. The ROM stockpile will have a 0.3 m (1 ft) thick compacted LHCSL overlain by 0.6 m (2 ft)
of overliner which the ore material will be stacked on. Runoff from the ROM stockpile and the Attrition
Scrubbing Area will drain to a single-lined pond (Mine Facilities Pond 2). The pond will be sized to hold a
100-year, 24-hour storm event plus sediment storage. Water from this pond will be pumped for use in the
process circuit.
20.8.3.4 Coarse Gangue Stockpile
The CGS will be lined with one foot of compacted LHCSL overlain by cover material to prevent the LHCSL
from drying out or cracking. Runoff from the CGS will drain into a single-lined sediment pond. The CGS
pond will be sized to hold a 100-year, 24-hour storm event, plus sediment storage. Runoff collected in the
pond will be pumped for use into the process circuit. The road around the CGS serves as a stormwater
diversion berm and is designed to convey the 100-year, 24-hour storm flows. Riprap will be used in areas
of concentrated inflows and outflows for erosion control.
20.8.3.5 Clay Tailings Filter Stack
Diversion channels sized to convey the 100-year, 24-hour storm will be constructed to manage non-contact
stormwater around the perimeter of the CTFS. Most of the stormwater runoff will be intercepted by the West
CTFS diversion channel where it will be directed to natural drainage to the south. The remaining stormwater
will be intercepted and routed along the east side of the CTFS.
Page 229
Stormwater runoff within the CTFS will be collected and will report to one or more of the double-lined
Reclaim Ponds. Water collected in the ponds will not be discharged as part of the stormwater management.
Water in the Reclaim Ponds will be pumped to the Process Plant to be used as make-up water for
processing operations or will evaporate. The Reclaim Ponds are also designed to hold runoff from the 100-
year, 24-hour storm plus operating inventory, sediment storage and three feet of freeboard.
20.8.3.6 Process Plant
Stormwater runoff around the Process Plant Area will be conveyed using channels or pipes or will be
diverted using a series of berms or other BMP’s. Diverted stormwater which contains just runoff from
disturbed areas will be directed to either a sediment pond(s) or the CTFS West Diversion Channel. For
stormwater runoff that is considered to be contact water, it will be captured and routed to the HDPE lined
Plant Event Pond where it can be stored until it can be treated or reintroduced back into the plant system.
The haul road to the north of the Process Plant diverts most of stormwater runoff from undisturbed areas
upstream to natural drainages around the site. Rip rap will be placed in areas with concentrated flows and
scour velocities to prevent erosion.
Tanks and buildings in the Process Plant with solutions that can degrade the waters of the State will have
secondary containment structures that are sized for 110 percent of the largest tank or vessel in the area
plus precipitation from a 100-year, 24-hour storm event, if applicable.
Two conveyor crossings from the process plant to the CTFS will have secondary containment where
required in the form of conveyor pans beneath the conveyor systems and/or the 2 mm (80-mil) HDPE liner
within the CTFS draining to a contained area.
20.8.4 Post-Closure Monitoring

The primary goal of conducting post-mining monitoring will be to demonstrate that the Project site does not
degrade groundwater and surface water in the Project area. Consequently, groundwater, surface water and
erosion and revegetation monitoring will continue for at least five years after cessation of mining,
processing, and closure operations.
20.8.5 Site Monitoring

All Federal, State, and County agencies will require monitoring of the mine, ore processing operations, and
the fluid management system to ensure compliance with the Project permits. BLM monitoring requirements
were issued as part of the ROD under its Surface Management Regulations contained in 43 CFR 3809.
NDEP-BMRR monitoring requirements are included in the WPCP issued for the Project in accordance with
the regulations contained in NAC 445A.350 through NAC 445A.447.
20.9 Social or Community Impacts

During operations, it is expected that most employees will be sourced from the surrounding area, which
already has established social and community infrastructure including housing, retail and commercial
facilities such as stores and restaurants; and public service infrastructure including schools, medical and
public safety departments and fire and police/sheriff departments.
Based on the projected mine life, the number of potential hourly and salaried positions, and the projected
salary ranges, Project operations would have a long-term positive impact to direct, indirect, and induced
local and regional economics. Phase 2 full production will require approximately 500 direct employees to
support the Project, with the average annual salary estimated at $90,000. An additional and positive
economic benefit would be the creation of short-term positions for construction activities. It is estimated that
approximately 1,000 temporary construction jobs will be created. Additional jobs will be created through
ancillary and support services, such as transportation, maintenance, and supplies.
Page 230
The economic study titled: Social, Economic and Fiscal Impact for New Lithium Operations in Humboldt
County, Nevada; prepared by the University of Nevada, Reno; University Center for Economic Development
(Borden & Harris, 2019), showed that both lithium mine and processing plant operations have positive
economic and fiscal contributions to Humboldt County and the State of Nevada through increased economic
activity, employment, household incomes and tax receipts.
The Fort McDermitt Tribe is located approximately 56 km (35 miles) from the Thacker Pass Project site.
LAC and the Tribe have devoted more than 20 meetings to focus on an agreement to solidify engagement
and improvements at the Fort McDermitt community. A community benefits agreement was signed by LAC
and the Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone tribe in October 2022. The benefits agreement will provide
infrastructure development, training and employment opportunities, support for cultural education and
preservation, and synergistic business and contracting opportunities. Over the past three years, LAC has
organized several training events for Tribe members, including basic construction skills, heavy equipment
operator training and specialized cultural monitor training for archeological work. In addition, when LAC
begins construction of the Project, LAC has committed to construct a community center that includes a
daycare, preschool, cultural facility and playground, as well as a separate greenhouse to provide food crops
and revenue from seeds/seedlings for reclamation projects.
For nearly two years, LAC has met regularly with the community of Orovada, which is 19 km (12 miles)
from the Thacker Pass Project site and is the closest community to the Project. The purpose of the meetings
was to identify community concerns and explore ways to address them. The meetings began informally and
were open to the entire community. Eventually, the community formed a committee to work with LAC. A
facilitator was hired to manage a process that focused on priority concerns and resolution. The committee
and LAC have addressed issues such as the local K-8 school and determined that a new school should be
built in Orovada. The community has agreed to a new location and LAC has worked with the BLM to secure
the site for the Humboldt County School District. LAC has also completed a preliminary design for the
school and is moving forward with detailed engineering and construction planning.
The Orovada committee has also addressed issues identified as being of the highest priority to the
community, including improvements to local roads (LAC is rebuilding the intersection of U.S. 95 and S.R.
293), air quality monitoring (a monitor will likely be installed at the new K-8 school), and water monitoring
(the committee decided that independent monitoring is not necessary).
20.10 Mine Reclamation and Closure

Reclamation and closure of the mine, ore processing, and transportation operations will be completed in
accordance with the approved PoO and Reclamation Plan, and the Tentative Plan for Permanent Closure
as approved by NDEP-BMRR. On October 28, 2021, NDEP-BMRR Reclamation Branch issued Notice of
Intent and draft Reclamation Permit (Permit 0415) for the Thacker Pass Project. The final Reclamation
Permit was issued on February 25, 2022. The Project will be bonded under LAC’s existing BLM Statewide
Bond, BLM Bond Number NVB001750.
Reclamation and closure plans are required to be updated on a regular basis, in consultation with BLM and
NDEP-BMRR, to ensure compliance with the following requirements:
 The latest Federal and State regulatory requirements for reclamation and closure as contained in
43 CFR 3809; NAC 519A; and NAC 445A.350 through NAC 445A.447;
 The latest and appropriate reclamation and closure technologies and procedures; and
 Ensuring that the posted reclamation bond remains sufficient to reclaim and close the mine site
and fund post closure monitoring activities.
The post-mining land use requirements will require the establishment of a sagebrush vegetation community
to restore the area to the pre-mining land uses of wildlife habitat, livestock grazing, and dispersed
recreation.
Page 231
Project facilities will be reclaimed using standard reclamation techniques and procedures as summarized
in the following list:
 During construction activities, suitable and available growth media material will be stripped from
sites scheduled for surface disturbance and stockpiled for future reclamation activities.
 LAC will conduct concurrent reclamation of sites no longer required for mine and ore processing
operation activities.
 Buildings and other structural facilities including power lines and substations will be dismantled
and removed off site to appropriate storage or disposal facilities.
 Process plant components will be removed off site and transported to approved storage or
disposal facilities.
 Concrete foundations will be broken up and buried on site or removed off site to an approved
disposal area.
 The CTFS reclaim pond will either be reclaimed or converted into an ET-Cell. If the CTFS pond is
reclaimed, it will be reclaimed by removing any evaporated solids (if present) and disposing as
determined by characterization results. The pond will be backfilled to a sufficient elevation above
the original ground surface, then graded to promote drainage and revegetated with an approved
reclamation seed mix. If the reclaim pond is converted to an ET-Cell, the evaporation zone will
evaporate water during periods of the year that evaporation exceed precipitation and an
underlying storage zone will store water when the inflow exceeds the evaporative loss rate. The
storage zone will consist of a sand-and-gravel material, possibly coarse gangue, and the
evaporation zone will consist of a 0.3 m (1 ft) thick layer of growth media.
 The CTFS slopes will be capped with granular cover material and overlain by stockpiled growth
media and revegetated with an approved reclamation seed mix.
 The WRSF slopes will be graded as needed, capped with stockpiled growth media, and
revegetated with the approved reclamation seed mix.
 The open pit will be left in a substantially backfilled configuration. The final internal backfilled pit
slopes will be designed for long-term stability.
 Roads not needed for long term monitoring access will be regraded and revegetated using the
approved reclamation seed mix.
 A portion of the surface water diversion ditches will be constructed as permanent features and will
remain in place to divert surface water flows around the reclaimed mine site area. In accordance
with NAC445A, permanent stormwater diversions will be designed and constructed to contain the
500-year, 24-hour design storm event.
BLM and NDEP-BMRR have initiated a long-term trust fund program for mining properties as part of the
Federal and State permitting program to provide for the funding of long-term water management and related
compliance obligations for site maintenance and monitoring activities following the completion of final
reclamation and closure activities. If determined to be applicable, the financial method for securing and
placement of the trust fund, the trust fund cost and the fund’s duration are determined based on the
characteristics of the Project. Consultation with BLM and NDEP-BMRR during the permitting and renewal
processes would determine the necessity of a long-term trust fund program. Due to the environmental
setting and proposed water management approach for the Project, it is not certain a long-term trust fund
will be required. Estimated reclamation costs are discussed as part of sustaining capital costs in Section
21.2.
Page 232
21 Capital and Operating Costs

21.1 Capital Cost Estimate
21.1.1 Summary
The capital cost estimate for the Thacker Pass Project has been prepared by M3, ITAC and LAC to include
capital cost estimating data developed by M3, ITAC, EXP, Sawtooth, EDG, LAC and third-party contractors
in accordance with the scope of the Project. The capital cost estimate covers post-sanction early works,
mine development, mining, the process plant, the transload facility, commissioning and all associated
infrastructure required to allow for successful construction and operations.
Process and infrastructure capital costs are based on Q1-Q3 2022 pricing. Mine capital estimates are based
on Q2 2022 pricing. Sulfuric Acid Plant and power plant equipment pricing is based on Q2 2021 pricing and
were not escalated to 2022 pricing. The estimate has been prepared to a target accuracy of ±15% as per
Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE) International’s Class 3 estimate. Closure
costs were estimated to a scoping level by NewFields. Note that the tables in this section were rounded to
a limited number of significant figures and therefore some summation errors may be present.
The cost estimates presented in this section pertain to three categories of capital costs:
 Phase 1 and Phase 2 Development capital costs

 Phase 1 and Phase 2 Sustaining capital costs
 Closure capital costs
Development capital costs include the engineering, procurement, and construction management (EPCM)
estimate as well as the LAC estimate for the LAC scope costs. Sustaining capital costs for the Thacker
Pass Project have been estimated and are primarily for continued development of the clay tailings filter
stack and coarse gangue stockpile, mining activities, sulfuric acid plant, and plant and infrastructure
sustaining capital expenditures.
Development capital costs commence with detailed engineering and site early works following project
sanction by the owner and continue to mechanical completion and commissioning. Mining pre-production
costs have been capitalized and are included under development capital. The capital costs for years after
commencement of production are carried as sustaining capital. Pre-sanction costs from completion of this
Technical Report to project sanction, including environmental impact assessments, permit approvals and
other property costs are excluded from this report and these costs are not included in the development
capital.
Direct costs include the costs of all equipment and materials and the associated contractors required to
perform installation and construction. The contractor indirects are included in the direct cost estimate as a
percent of direct labor cost. EPCM / Project indirects were detailed out in a resource plan to account for all
identified costs, then budgeted as a percent of construction and equipment to be distributed through the
process areas. In general, these costs include:
 Installation contractor’s mobilization, camp, bussing, meals, and temporary facilities & power
 EPCM
 Commissioning and Vendors
 Contingency
Contract mining capital repayment includes the 60-month financed repayment of the miner’s mobile
equipment assets acquired prior to the start of operation.
Page 233
Table 21-1 summarizes the development capital cost estimate developed for the Project.
Table 21-1 Development Capital Cost Estimate Summary

Description Ph1 Costs (US$ M) Ph2 Costs (US$ M) Responsible
Mine
Equipment Capital (Contract Mining) 0 0 Sawtooth
Mine Development 51.1 26.3 Sawtooth
Contingency (13.1%) 6.7 3.4 Sawtooth/EDG
Total Mine 57.8 29.7
Costs (Directs & Indirects) 1735.4 1398.5 M3/ITAC
Contingency (13.1%) 227.3 183.2 M3/ITAC/EDG
Total Process Plant and Infrastructure 1962.7 1581.7
Offsite - Transload Facility
Costs (Directs & Indirects) 69.0 27.1 Owner/Savage
Contingency (13.1%) 9.0 3.5 Owner/EDG
Total Offsite - Transload Facility 78.1 30.6
Owner's Costs
Costs 149.8 75.6 Owner
Contingency (13.1%) 19.6 9.9 Owner/EDG
Total Owner's Costs 169.4 85.5
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT CAPITAL 2,268.0 1727.5
Due to rounding, some totals may not correspond with the sum of the separate figures.
Sustaining Capital costs for the base case totaling US$1,510.2 million have been estimated over the Life
of Mine (LOM), as outlined in Table 21-2. Table 21-4 shows the sustaining capital for the first 25 years of
the 40-year life of mine.
Table 21-2 Sustaining Capital Estimate Summary (40-Year LOM – Base Case)
Mine
Mobile Equipment
TOTAL SUSTAINING CAPITAL 1,510.2
Contract Mining Capital Repayment 48.8 Owner
Page 234
Table 21-3 First 25 Years of 40-Year LOM Sustaining Capital Estimate Summary
Mine
Mobile Equipment
TOTAL SUSTAINING CAPITAL 628.40
Contract Mining Capital Repayment 48.8 Sawtooth/M3
The yearly summarized spend schedule, including sustaining and closure capital, is provided in Table 21-4.
Page 235
Table 21-4 Capital Cost Spend Schedule

Operation Year -3 -2 -1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 40+ TOTAL
Development Capital Phase 1 (US$ M)
Mine Development 4.6 27.2 24.9 1.2 57.8
Process Plant & Infrastructure 157.0 922.5 844.0 39.3 1962.7
Offsite Transload Facility 6.2 36.7 33.6 1.6 78.1
Owner’s Cost 13.6 79.6 72.8 3.4 169.4
Development Capital Phase 2 (US$ M)
Mine Development 2.4 14.0 12.8 0.6 29.7
Process Plant & Infrastructure 126.5 743.4 680.1 31.6 1581.7
Offsite Transload Facility 2.4 14.4 13.2 0.6 30.6
Owner’s Cost 6.8 40.2 36.8 1.7 85.5
Sustaining Capital (US$ M)
Mine Equipment & Capital Recovery 4.4 12.2 15.9 13.4 12.5 7.6 2.6 5.7 0.3 7.9 51.6 26.3 19.7 46.9 35.1 2.2 0.0 264.3
Mobile Equipment 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.1 1.7 4.4 4.4 3.5 3.5 0.0 26.6
Process Plant 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 1.4 4.4 30.5 191.6 555.0 37.2 0.0 0.0 822.9
Sulfuric Acid Plant 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 2.6 2.3 0.0 5.1 2.6 22.3 26.0 41.6 33.7 48.9 56.8 0.0 244.2
CTFS and CGS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 4.4 22.9 24.3 15.6 16.6 20.4 16.4 0.0 149.0
Offsite Transload Facility 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.0 3.4
Closure Costs (US$M)
Closure 53.5 53.5
Annual Capital Expenditure 181.4 1,066.0 975.2 187.9 824.2 761.6 48.0 19.6 17.5 10.5 12.8 11.1 16.4 109.0 109.2 273.6 656.8 145.8 79.2 53.5 5,559.2
Note: Due to rounding, some totals in this table may not correspond with the sum of the separate figures.
Page 236
21.1.2 Estimate Basis
21.1.2.1 Scope of Estimate
This section documents the basis of the total installed cost (TIC) estimate of Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the
Project for the processing and packaging of battery grade lithium carbonate.
The Project schedule used as the basis of the estimate assumes site construction in early 2023. Production
is expected to begin three years after construction starts.
Capital costs are based on Q1-Q4 2022 pricing including process equipment, labor, materials and other
costs.
21.1.2.2 Estimate Tabulation
Table 21-5 shows the capital cost summary by phase and area.
Table 21-5 Capital Cost Summary by Phase and Area
Phase 1 Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 2 Total

Equipment Supply Total Cost Equipment Supply Cost
Estimate Area Description
Mid-Year 2022 Mid-Year 2022 Factored from
MTO Based
Priced Equipment Priced Equipment Phase 1
Estimate
List List Estimate
All values stated in 2022 $Millions
01-Mine Area Infrastructure $1.3 $51.1 $0.0 $26.3
02-Site Development & Facilities $1.7 $133.8 $0.0 $33.4
03-SAP (Sulfuric Acid Plant) $112.9 $322.7 $113.4 $283.2
04-Mineral Beneficiation $35.3 $129.0 $31.3 $108.9
05-Leach & Neutralization $87.2 $314.1 $95.5 $301.4
06-Magnesium / Calcium Removal $104.0 $227.8 $114.3 $216.0
07-Lithium Carbonate Production $111.9 $283.5 $121.0 $260.8
08-Lithium Products (Not Used) $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
09-Reagents $21.0 $73.4 $19.4 $58.8
10-Sitewide Utilities $45.9 $188.4 $29.8 $134.5
11-Tailings $3.1 $62.7 $1.6 $1.5
Subtotal $524.3 $1,786.4 $526.3 $1,424.8
Contingency (13.1%) $68.7 $234.0 $68.9 $186.6
Process & Infrastructure Total $593.0 $2,020.5 $595.2 $1,611.4
12-Transload Facility $0.0 $69.1 $0.0 $27.1
Contingency on Transload (13.1%) $0.0 $9.0 $3.5
Subtotal $0.0 $78.1 $0.0 $30.6
13-Operations / Owners Cost $0.0 $149.8 $0.0 $75.6
Contingency on Owners Cost (13.1%) $0.0 $19.6 $0.0 $9.9
Subtotal $0.0 $169.4 $0.0 $85.5
Material and Labor Escalation (not budgeted) $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Total Estimated Project Cost $593.0 $2,268.0 $595.2 $1,727.5
Table 21-6 defines the functional and process areas that are contained in each of the identified estimate
sections shown Table 21-5.
Page 237
Table 21-6 Work Breakdown Structure and Associated Responsibilities

WBS Engineering
Process Area Process Systems
Number Lead
050 Mine Site NAC
052 Mine Shop NAC
Mine Area 054 Waste Stockpiles NAC
1
Infrastructure 060 ROM Handling NAC
070 Waste Rock NAC
800 Limestone mining/crushing M3
090 Roads and Parking Areas M3
613 Buried Utilities M3
630 Site Development, Drainage and Collection M3
630 Temporary Facilities M3
660 Fuel Systems M3
670 Sewage Treatment M3
900 Ancillary Facilities M3
Site Development
2 905 Site Security Building (905-BG-001) M3
and Facilities
910 Administration Buildings (910-BG-001) M3
915 Plant Warehouse Building (915-BG-001) M3
920 Plant Maintenance Building (920-BG-001) M3
925 Packaging Warehouse Building (925-BG-001) M3
930 Plant Laboratory Building (930-BG-001) M3
950 Operations Control M3
960 Heavy Equipment Wash Station M3
500 Sulfuric Acid Plant EXP
510 Molten Sulfur EXP
520 Sulfuric Acid Plant Gas and Strong Acid EXP
530 Tail Gas Treatment EXP
540 BFW and Steam System EXP
Sulfuric Acid Plant
3 540 Maintenance Boiler EXP
Area
550 Cooling Water System EXP
560 Turbine Generator EXP
570 Sulfuric Acid Product EXP
510 Sulfur Vapor Recovery & Scrubber EXP
500 Caustic Unloading/Storage Tank EXP
100 Mineral Beneficiation M3
Mineral 110 ROM Crushing M3
4
Beneficiation 120 Attrition Scrubbing M3
130 Classification M3
200 Leaching and Neutralization M3
Leach and 210 Acid Leaching M3
5
Neutralization 220 Neutralization M3
230 Neutralization Filtration M3
300 Magnesium/Calcium Removal ITAC
310 Magnesium Sulfate Crystallization ITAC
Magnesium /
320 Magnesium Precipitation M3
6 Calcium
330 Magnesium Precipitation Filtration M3
Removal
340 Calcium Precipitation ITAC
350 Cation Removal Ion Exchange ITAC
400 Lithium Carbonate/Lithium Hydroxide Production ITAC
410 Lithium Carbonate Crystallization ITAC
7 Li2CO3 and LiOH
420 Lithium Carbonate Product Handling ITAC
430 Na/K Sulfate Salts Crystallization (ZLD Plant) ITAC
8 Lithium Products 970 Lithium Products Handling LAC
800 Liquid CO2 Storage and Distribution ITAC
800 Flocculant (Classification) M3
9 Reagents 800 Caustic Soda Distribution (outside Sulfuric Acid Plant) ITAC
800 Limestone M3
800 Lime M3
Page 238
WBS Engineering
Process Area Process Systems
Number Lead
800 Soda Ash ITAC
600 Sitewide Utilities ITAC
610 Temporary Power ITAC
610 Substation ITAC
610 E-Buildings ITAC
610 Lighting, Grounding, Communications, Security ITAC
10 Utilities 612 M/V O/H Lines ITAC
614 Fiber Optic & Plant Wide Telecomms (incl. Towers) ITAC
620 Steam Distribution ITAC
640 Compressed Air ITAC
650 Water Systems M3
690 Sitewide Utilities Misc Scope ITAC
11 Tailings 700 Tailings Disposal M3
12 Transload Facility 990 Transload Facility LAC
21.1.2.3 Design and Estimate Responsibilities
The following engineering firms and contractors have been involved in the FEL/FEED work for the Project
to this point:
 M3 – Engineering lead for the following process areas of the Project: site plan, mineral
beneficiation, leach and neutralization, magnesium/calcium removal (magnesium precipitation
only), select reagents, and tailings. Prepared preliminary engineering/design and material take offs
(MTO) for all process areas listed above. Specified and solicited equipment quotes for process
equipment within M3 scope boundaries. Created detailed construction estimate pricing for all civil,
concrete, and ancillary facility items across the Project based on MTOs that were created by M3,
Sawtooth and ITAC.
 Industrial TurnAround Corporation/ITAC Engineers P.C. (ITAC) – Engineering lead for all or
part of the following process areas of the Project: magnesium and calcium removal, lithium
carbonate production, reagents, utilities, power distribution from utility to various plan areas, and
sitewide process controls and automation system. Prepared preliminary engineering/design and
material take offs (MTO) for all process areas listed above. Specified and solicited equipment
quotes for process equipment within ITAC scope boundaries. Created detailed construction
estimates for all electrical and controls items across the Project based on MTO that were created
by M3 and ITAC. Assembled the final overall estimate using the detailed construction estimates
from M3, Graywolf, and ITAC.
 GrayWolf – Produced detailed construction estimates for all mechanical equipment, piping,
structural steel, and rigging across the Project based on MTO that were created by M3 and ITAC.
Provided constructability input for the Feasibility Estimate Level 3 work. Provided federated 3D
model and animations for overall plant site.
 EXP – Engineering lead for the sulfuric acid plant. Provided TIC Report and pricing based on
reimbursable EPCM execution model of the sulfuric acid plant which can be converted to turnkey
basis upon LAC request.
 Sawtooth Mining (subsidiary of North American Coal Corporation (NAC)) – Prepared pricing
FEL/FEED pricing for mining areas and operations.
 NewFields – Prepared preliminary site land, topographical, and geotechnical surveys. NewFields
also prepared construction estimates for much of their design (waste rock, course gangue, storm
water, haul roadways, CTFS, and closure). They have and continue to provide various permitting
services to Owner.
Page 239
 EDG – Provided a third-party cost estimate review, risk assessment, and design allowance and
contingency recommendations of the deterministic Phase 1 and Phase 2 estimates.
21.1.2.4 Maturity of Engineering Documents
As of the date of this report the key estimating documents, which are piping and instrumentation diagrams
(P&IDs), process general arrangement drawings, electrical single lines, site plans, site grading plan, piping
line list, equipment list, valve lists, electrical load list, specifications, and ancillary building general
arrangement drawings are substantially complete in an issued for review status. However, the estimate
presently requires revisions based on receipt of updated equipment information that had not been received
in time for this report. These areas are equipment related to lithium carbonate and ZLD (from Veolia),
magnesium sulfate (from Aquatech) and CCD (from FLSmidth).
The Owner’s intent is that the P&IDs will be “frozen” when the final Estimate Report is issued, although it is
probable that minor changes may be made during the design process. The equipment arrangement
drawings will be considered baseline design documents subject to revisions based on final design and on
certified equipment drawings that will drive such design features as equipment footprints, required
maintenance spaces, etc. In addition, the other key estimating documents listed above will be subject to
revisions driven by certified equipment submittals, design refinements, and any Owner-initiated changes to
be documented through a management of change process.
21.1.2.5 Labor Rates
Due to the size and location of the work, per diems and payment of overtime are required to attract qualified
craft to the area. The construction labor rates are built-up composite rates based on the estimated quantities
of direct labor crafts (superintendent, general foremen, journeymen, apprentice, and laborer). Built-up labor
costs were furnished by ITAC, NewFields, Graywolf, and M3. These rates are inclusive of projected
overtime, fringes, small tools, construction equipment, and per-diem. Trade indirects (non-working
supervision) were then applied along with customary overhead and profit. The resulting composite rates
were used for each construction discipline estimate. A factor for non-productive time and congestion or
difficulty was assessed for each trade and applied accordingly. See Table 21-7 for composite trade labor
rates.
Table 21-7 Composite Trade Labor Rates
Position Full Labor Rate

Site Civil Composite Rate $67.53* to $106.46
Concrete Composite Rate $95.83
Mechanical Composite Rate $111.07
Electrical / Instrument Composite Rate $126.76
*Long-term local hires with no per diem.
21.1.2.6 Contingency
Contingency accounts for estimating inaccuracies on the scope as defined by the engineering documents
and is not intended to cover the costs of scope additions or additional field labor overtime to achieve
schedule compression. The Project will manage and account for Contingency in budget reports.
21.1.2.7 Exclusions
Exclusions were as follows:
Page 240
 Final selection of suppliers may impact construction costs. All costs are considered budgetary since
detailed technical specifications were not prepared and competitive quotes were not obtained.
 Estimate does not include cost impact of potential vendor or contractor performance or process
guarantees, liquidated damages or specialty insurances.
 Construction costs include the costs of construction equipment and contractor support activities
that include materials off-loading, storage, handling, preparation, etc.
 Based on expected system operating requirements, the basis of design and cost estimate
accounted for a steady-state electrical load only.
 Travel time for craft personnel from the man camp to the job site is not included in the cost estimate.
The costs of buses and fuel are included in the cost estimate
 The basis of design and the cost estimate do not include field disconnects and field start/stops.
 Allowance for weather delays is included in the estimate as a 5% weather allowance on labor but
not included for schedule. Construction during wintertime has the potential to significantly lower
productivity and to cause delays due to inclement weather.
 The estimate does not include the cost of downtime.
 The estimate includes factored costs for capital spares included in Owner’s cost but excludes a
detailed account of capital spares.
 The estimate does not include allowances for escalation of equipment, materials, and labor costs.
21.1.3 Mine Capital Costs

Mine development costs are estimated to be $57.8 million for Phase I and $29.7 million for Phase 2. These
costs are summarized in Table 21-4. Mine development costs include initial facilities and infrastructure.
21.1.3.1 Mine Facilities
The site chosen for the Mine facilities is located west of the Process Facility along Nevada State Route 293.
The site is located outside of future mining operations and maximizes the ability to support both the short
and long-term mining operations. Construction of the initial facilities is projected to begin three years before
production is expected to start, or year -3. The construction of the permanent office/shop is projected to
occur in year 3 of production. Facilities are listed below:
 Initial Office (Phase 1)
 Initial Shop (Phase 1)
 Permanent Office/Shop (Phase 2)
 Initial Warehouse (Phase 1)
 Outside Warehouse Area (Phase 1
 Lube System (Phase 1)
 Fuel Farm (Phase 1)
Page 241
 Equipment Wash (Phase 1)
 Parking Lot (Phase 1)
 Lighting and Fencing (Phase 1)
21.1.3.2 Infrastructure
An infrastructure of roads, ponds, diversions, and other Mine-related features will be built during the Mine
construction phase to serve over the life of the mine. These projects will be developed prior to the
commissioning of the Process Facility.
 Sediment retention ponds, 4 units

 Diversion, 1 unit
 Water collection channels, 3 units
 ROM stockpile base, 3.8 ha
 Mine facilities pad site, 4.3 ha
 Haul roads, 5.7 km
 Ancillary roads, 7.3 km
 Tuff Material Uncovering (on-site material for wearing course), 3.2 ha
 Initial cut within pit
 West Waste Rock storage facility pad
 Coarse Gangue storage facility pad
 Pre-strip material for Phase II expansion
21.1.4 Transload Facility Capital Costs

Transload facility capital cost is estimated to be $78.1 million for Phase 1 and $30.6 million for Phase 2 and
is summarized in Table 21-4. The facility will be constructed in the town of Winnemucca, NV by LAC to
support Phase 1 and Phase 2 bulk materials required for the Project, identified in Section 18. Sustaining
capital is estimated to be $3.4 million for the life of mine.
21.1.5 Owner’s Costs

Owner’s costs were developed by LAC and are estimated specifically within the capital execution phase of
the Project. Estimated Owner’s Cost are divided into eleven categories and are included in the Project’s
estimate. Table 21-8 summarizes the Owners Costs estimate.
The items included in the individual Owners Cost categories include are:
 Pre-Execution Costs – items needed to be available prior to Project execution, such as the tie
into the Nevada electrical power grid and an early laydown yard.
 Facility Equipment Costs – items needed facility wide to execute the Project, such as equipment
spare parts, building furniture, computers, facility security and emergency equipment.
 Owners Project Costs – items needed to support the Project owner, LAC, during project
execution, such as owners engineering costs.
 Permitting & Legal Costs – items needed to support the Project’s legal and permitting
requirements.
 Project Direct Costs – items needed to support the items required during construction, such as
temporary site services and necessary facilities.
 Ancillary Costs – items not directly related to the actual Project but are important to the success
of the Project, such as community relations and improvements to areas close to the Project.
 Operational Readiness Costs – items needed to directly support Project commissioning
activities, such as specialty equipment, staffing, and employee training.
Page 242
 Tax Rebate – granted tax rebates at time of writing.

 Business Systems Costs – items needed to support day to day business operations, such as
ERPs (Enterprise Resource Planning).
 Consumable Costs – single use items needed during the different stages of Project execution,
such as initial fill quantities of raw materials, lubricants, and warehouse stock.
 Mobile Equipment Costs – non-mining portable or movable equipment needed throughout the
Project, such as cranes, forklifts, man lifts, light duty vehicles, and other specific use vehicles.
Table 21-8 Owner’s Cost Summary

Phase 1 Phase 2
# Category Estimated Estimated
% %
US$-M US$-M
1 Pre-Executing Costs $23.26 16% $9.22 12%
2 Facility Equipment Costs $25.82 17% $11.61 15%
3 Owners Project Costs $39.01 26% $29.71 39%
4 Permitting & Legal Costs $18.94 13% $7.14 9%
5 Project Direct Costs $10.63 7% $8.57 11%
6 External (Non-Project) Costs $18.23 12% $5.75 8%
7 Operational Readiness Costs $0.61 0% $0.05 0%
8 Finance (Tax Rebate) ($5.00) -3% $0.00 0%
9 Business System Costs $4.00 3% $0.88 1%
10 Process Consumable Costs $7.79 5% $1.95 3%
11 Mobile Equipment Costs $6.52 4% $0.73 1%
Subtotal $149.82 100% $75.59 100%
Contingency $19.63 $9.90
Total $169.44 $85.49
21.1.6 Potential Risks
21.1.6.1 Process Areas in Development
At the time of this report, process development in Project areas from Counter Current Decantation and
Filtration, Magnesium Sulfate through Lithium Carbonate and ZLD continues with LAC and multiple
suppliers. Current Capital Cost estimates are from 2021 (MTO-based) for an Aquatech Magnesium Sulfate
process and a Veolia Lithium Carbonate plant. ZLD is currently budgeted by doubling (2x) the 2020 MTO-
based estimate for the Aquatech 20k ZLD plant. Costs in these areas (as well as associated reagent and
utility systems and other facility provisions) may change as the process is finalized, at which time LAC
expects to complete detailed, MTO-based estimates in these areas which will be used to update this report.
21.1.6.2 COVID-19 Pandemic
Due to the ongoing impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and the potential of further shutdowns, shortages,
delays, and other wide-reaching effects, the current environment assigns risk to the Project’s equipment
and materials procurement activities and construction activities due to limited resource availability and
physical distancing.
Page 243
21.1.6.3 Change of Execution Strategy
The Project cost and schedule will be affected by shifting the Project delivery method or scope.
21.1.6.4 Risk Mitigation
Engage construction partners early in design to ensure constructability.
Utilize a strong Construction Management Team experienced in safely and effectively coordinating multiple
site and industrial contractors.
Implement robust Project Controls to regularly provide information to the Project Manager for use in
monitoring resources and deliveries and controlling the Project cost, schedule, earned values, field
progress, and change management.
21.2 Sustaining Capital Costs

Sustaining capital costs are based on Q1-Q3 2022 pricing.
21.2.1 Mine, Plant, and Sulfuric Acid Plant Sustaining Capital Cost
Sustaining capital costs for the Thacker Pass Project have been estimated and are primarily for continued
development of the clay tailings filter stack and coarse gangue stockpile, mining activities, sulfuric acid
plant, and other sustaining plant and infrastructure expenditures. Sustaining capital costs for the clay
tailings filter stack and coarse gangue stockpile include the years those facilities need to be expanded for
stockpiling capacities (provided by NewFields; MTO). Mining sustaining capital costs reflect the cost of
replacing the mobile mining fleet to handle the provision of ore to the process plant as well as stripping and
placement of waste material (provided by Sawtooth; itemized). Sustaining capital costs for the sulfuric acid
plants are expected to occur every three years (provided by EXP; itemized). Sustaining capital for the
general plant is factored from the Project equipment list based on Standard Useful Lives of equipment
provided in Attachment 10 of the DOE’s 2015 Financial Management Handbook (provided by ITAC/M3).
Sustaining capital costs allotted for the life of the Project are shown in Table 21-9.
Page 244
Table 21-9 Summary of Sustaining Capital Costs for Mine, Plant, and Sulfuric Acid Plant ($M)
Mining Equipment & Mobile Plant & Sulfuric CTFS Offsite Total
Year
Cap Recovery* Equipment Infrastructure Acid Plant and CGS Transload Cost
1 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.4
2 12.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 12.3
3 15.9 0.5 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.1 18.8
4 13.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 13.4
5 12.5 0.0 1.4 0.0 5.6 0.1 19.6
6 7.6 1.5 0.0 2.6 5.6 0.1 17.5
7 2.6 0.0 0.0 2.3 5.6 0.1 10.5
8 5.7 0.0 1.4 0.0 5.6 0.1 12.8
9 0.3 0.0 0.0 5.1 5.6 0.1 11.1
10 7.9 0.0 1.4 2.6 4.4 0.1 16.4
11-15 51.6 7.1 4.4 22.3 22.9 0.6 109.0
16-20 26.3 1.7 30.5 26.0 24.3 0.3 109.2
21-25 19.7 4.4 191.6 41.6 15.6 0.6 273.6
26-30 46.9 4.4 555.0 33.7 16.6 0.3 656.8
31-35 35.1 3.5 37.2 48.9 20.4 0.6 145.8
36-40 2.2 3.5 0.0 56.8 16.4 0.3 79.2
41+ Closure Reclamation 53.5
Total 264.3 26.6 826.2 244.2 149.0 3.4 1,563.7
*Costs shown in this table are in millions of dollars. Due to rounding, some totals in this table may not correspond with the sum of the
separate figures.
The estimated sustaining capital costs for the expansion of the Thacker Pass Project are estimated in Q3
2022 dollars.
21.2.2 Stockpile and Filter Stack Sustaining Capital Costs

The coarse gangue stockpile (CGS) and clay tailings filter stack (CTFS) will require expansions over the
life of the Project. The initial construction costs of the CGS and CTFS are captured in the initial capital plan.
Each facility will initially be constructed to support operations through Phase 1, or year 3. Their overall
design and permitted square footages are summarized in Section 18. Expansions will occur the year before
either facility is expected to reach the capacity of the previously constructed footprint. The sustaining capital
timing for these expansions is determined from mining and processing mass balances along with a
reasonable footprint to support operations for multiple years before the next expansion is required. The
price per square foot to expand the facilities is determined from engineered estimates from Sawtooth, M3
and NewFields and the initial construction estimates of the CGS and CTFS. The price per square foot
includes civil works, synthetic liner deployment, collection systems, over liner and equipment and labor to
construct the facility. See Table 21-10.
 Coarse Gangue Stockpile: the stockpile of reject material generated from the beneficiation circuit.
The material to be stockpiled on this facility will be used for pit backfill and does not require any
expansion in years 16-25 as coarse gangue will likely be directly hauled from beneficiation and
dumped in the pit. Total sustaining capital is estimated to be $15.7M from 808 thousand m2 (8.7
million sqft) of expanded footprint.
 Clay Tailings Filter Stack: the storage facility of clay tailings generated from the neutralization
circuit and sulfate salts. Total sustaining capital is estimated to be $133.3 from 4.2 Mm2 (45.5 million
square feet) of expanded footprint over the forty-year mine life.
Page 245
Table 21-10 CTFS and CGS Expansion Area and Costs

CTFS and CGS Expansions CTFS CGS
Year
Million Sqft US$-M Million Sqft $/sqft US$-M Million Sqft $/sqft US$-M
1 - - - - - - - -
2 - - - - - - - -
3 - - - - - - - -
4 - - - - - - - -
5 2.6 $5.6 1.3 $2.61 $3.3 1.3 $1.79 $2.3
6 2.6 $5.6 1.3 $2.61 $3.3 1.3 $1.79 $2.3
7 2.6 $5.6 1.3 $2.61 $3.3 1.3 $1.79 $2.3
8 2.6 $5.6 1.3 $2.61 $3.3 1.3 $1.79 $2.3
9 2.6 $5.6 1.3 $2.61 $3.3 1.3 $1.79 $2.3
10 1.5 $4.4 1.1 $3.37 $3.5 0.5 $1.80 $0.8
11-15 7.9 $22.9 6.1 $3.28 $19.6 1.8 $1.80 $3.3
16-20 8.3 $24.3 8.3 $2.92 $24.3 - - -
21-25 5.4 $15.6 5.4 $2.92 $15.6 - - -
26-30 5.7 $16.6 5.7 $2.92 $16.6 - - -
31-35 7.0 $20.4 7.0 $2.92 $20.4 - - -
35-40 5.6 $16.4 5.6 $2.92 $16.4 - - -
41+ - - - - - - - -
Total 54.3 $149.0 45.5 $2.92 $133.3 8.7 $1.79 $15.7
21.2.3 Closure Costs

Closure costs are estimated from NewFields based upon necessary reclamation, remediation, and closure
of the 40-year facility. These closure costs of $53.5M will be updated as operations continue, and concurrent
reclamation takes place. Site overhead during closure will be a corporate cost. Closure is expected to take
place after production concludes in year 40. See Table 21-11.
Table 21-11 Reclamation Costs

Category Costs ($-M)
Waste Rock Dumps 12.72
Pit 0.08
Haul Roads 0.31
Access Roads 0.10
Process Ponds 3.47
Yards 1.22
Growth Media Stockpile 0.06
Landfills 0
Foundations and Buildings 8.99
Sediment Ponds 0.03
Wells 0.04
Monitoring Wells 0.38
Waste Disposal 12.29
Miscellaneous 2.55
Equipment Removal 0.42
Exploration Drillhole 0
Exploration Roads and Pads 0.12
Indirect Costs 10.70
Total $53.50
Page 246
21.2.4 Pre-Sanction Costs

For the purposes of this study, there are several work activities upon the completion of the feasibility study
that have been considered pre-sanction and are not included in this capital cost estimate. These include:
 Consultants for the feasibility study stage, including the EPCM and support consultants,
 Owner team support during the feasibility study stage,
 Technical investigations to support the feasibility study, and
 Permitting costs.
Investments in the Project to date were not included in the economic analysis (and are not amortized in the
model).
21.3 Operating Cost Estimate
21.3.1 Basis of Estimate
21.3.1.1 Estimating Base Date and Accuracy Range
Cost inputs into the model ranged from Q2 to Q4 2022 pricing. The estimate is prepared on an annual basis
and includes all site-related operating costs associated with the production of lithium carbonate.
For the purposes of this study, all operating costs incurred from Project award, up to but excluding
commissioning, are deemed preproduction costs and have been included in the CAPEX, as they are
considered part of construction.
21.3.1.2 Responsibilities
Direct costs were developed by LAC for the process operating area and Sawtooth Mining for the mining
area. The input from each party was assembled and reviewed by LAC and M3 Engineering to generate the
master Project OPEX.
The responsibilities for developing the operating costs are as follows:
 Mining operating costs were developed by Sawtooth Mining as part of the integrated mine cost
model.
 Sulfuric acid plant operating costs were developed by EXP and LAC.
 Process plant, infrastructure and general/administrative operating costs were developed by LAC in
conjunction with M3 Engineering.
21.3.1.3 Estimating Methodology
2 1 .3 .1 . 3 .1 E st im at e St ru ctu re
Operating costs have been organized into four main areas: Mining, Lithium Processing, Sulfuric Acid Plant
and General and Administrative costs. Each area has several sub areas defined by the estimating team.
The mine life, and concurrent processing operations, is defined to be 40 years.
Operating costs are further divided among ten expense types: Mining, Process Labor, Raw Materials, Fuel
(non-mining), Inbound Logistics, Power, Maintenance/Parts/Outside Services, Supplies, Tailings
Placement and General and Administration.
Page 247
21.3.1.4 Data Sources
The following data sources were used to prepare the OPEX estimate:
 Mining Cost Model: Includes annual mine operating costs as well as the mining production rates
and material movement over the life of the mine.
 Financial Cost Model: Includes a consolidated model that estimates and summarizes annual
production rates from mining, mineral and chemical processing operating costs, process plant
production profiles, and raw material consumption among others.
 Process Design Criteria and Mass Balance: Used to define process variables and production
rates, the consumption rates of raw materials, lithium extraction and recovery.
 Electrical Load List: Used to estimate total annual electrical demand and consumption.
 Capital Cost Estimate: For estimation of maintenance supplies and services based on installed
equipment values
 Staffing Plan: The Project’s staffing plan and labor rates by period.
 Raw Material Pricing: Provided by LAC based on quotations from various suppliers or market
sources for the logistics, handling, storage, and preparation of the reagents such as soda ash,
limestone, sulfur, quicklime, and others
 Assumptions: Allowances were made based on recent similar projects and studies for minor items
where no analysis or detail was available.
21.3.2 Elements of Costs
21.3.2.1 Labor
Labor for the Project will require staffing for a 24 hour per day, seven day per week operation. All 24-hour
operations are based on a four (4) shift rotation of 12-hour shifts. Non-shift labor is based on a 40-hour
work week. Due to the proximity of Winnemucca to the mine site, no camp is required at the mine site. Bus
transportation will be provided to and from the site. Bus capital is included in Owner’s cost for housing.
The labor costs for this Project were estimated based on the expected salaries in the region along with a
payroll burdens allowance of 30% and a 10% overtime allowance for hourly labor. A master labor list was
compiled by LAC with input from Pray and Company for all positions including process plant, sulfuric acid
plant, management, and support staff.
The labor requirements and average annual cost are summarized by OPEX area in Table 21-12.
Management includes shift supervisor through General Manager. Labor includes hourly staff.
Table 21-12 Lithium Americas Labor Requirements and Average Annual Cost Summary (40-
Year Base Case)
Unit Annual Average Annual Average Cost ($-M)
Plant Area
Lithium Processing
Plant Management and Supervision 6 $1.0
Plant Labor 109 $12.8
Liquid Sulfuric Acid Plant
SAP Management and Supervision 6 $1.1
SAP Labor 30 $3.8
SAP Maintenance 6 $0.8
Maintenance
Maintenance Management and Supervision 12 $2.1
Page 248
Unit Annual Average Annual Average Cost ($-M)

Maintenance Labor 62 $8.0
Technical Services
Laboratory and Quality Control 16 $1.8
Engineering 8 $1.3
IT & Data Services 6 $0.8
General and Administrative
Management and Administrative 5 $1.3
Health, Safety & Environment 10 $1.6
Human Resources 3 $0.5
Finance 4 $0.6
Supply Chain 11 $1.2
Total 294 $38.7
Mining and Clay Tailings Area
Mine Management 20 $4.0
Mining and Tailings Labor 152 $21.1
Maintenance labor 49 $7.44
Total 221 $32.4
NOTE: Phase 2 yearly labor required is the same for 40-year base case and 25-year case.
21.3.2.2 Raw Materials
Materials consumed by the process are estimated using unit consumption rates or are consumed at a fixed
rate each year. The reagent consumption rates are sourced from the process design criteria. Usage rates
were based on test work, mine plan modeling, and Aspen Plus® mass balance modelling estimations.
Consumption rates of liquid sulfur, sodium hydroxide (‘caustic soda’) and water treatment chemicals for the
acid plant were developed and provided by EXP.
Consumption rates of fuel were estimated from mobile and fixed equipment expected hours of operation,
utilization, and fuel burn rates.
Usage rates of sulfuric acid were assumed to be equal to the yearly estimated maximum produced from
the sulfuric acid plant, per EXP.
Unit pricing for raw materials was based on discussions with suppliers and benchmarking data. Table
21-13 represents the purchase price and delivered price for each major raw material and Table 21-14
represents the expected annual consumption rates.
Table 21-13 Raw Material Purchase and Delivered Pricing

Raw Materials $/unit Purchase Price Purchase and Delivery to Project Site Price
Liquid Sulfuric Acid Purchased $/tonne 0 0
Quicklime $/tonne 153 214
Limestone $/tonne 34 34
Soda Ash $/tonne 221 249
Hydrochloric Acid 35% $/tonne 377 394
Ferric Sulfate 60% $/tonne 461 492
Page 249
Raw Materials $/unit Purchase Price Purchase and Delivery to Project Site Price
Caustic Soda 50% $/tonne 689 714
Flocculant $/tonne 4,960 5,495
Ammonia $/tonne 607 858
Liquid Sulfur $/tonne 148 249
Propane $/tonne 1,422 1,422
Diesel Off Road $/gal 3.8 4
Diesel Highway $/gal 4.3 4
Gasoline $/gal 3.9 4
Water Treatment $/l 5 5
Table 21-14 Raw Material Annual Consumption (40-Year LOM Base Case)
Raw Materials Unit
Liquid Sulfur (estimated) tonne 655,407 9.81
Table 21-15 Raw Material Annual Consumption (Years 1-25 of 40 Year LOM)
Raw Materials Unit
Liquid Sulfur (estimated) tonne 633,884 9.07
Page 250

Raw Materials Unit
Figure 21-1 presents the raw materials distribution over the first 40 years of operations as part of the base
case. Figure 21-2 presents the raw materials distribution over the first 25 years of operation for the 25-year
case.
Figure 21-1 Raw Materials Cost (40-Year LOM – Base Case)
Other
10%
Diesel Off Road
6%
Sulfuric Acid @ 98.5%
(Purchased)
0%
Limestone
5%
Quicklime
9% Liquid Sulfur
51%
Soda Ash
19%
Source: M3, 2022
Page 251
Figure 21-2 Raw Materials Cost (Years 1-25 of 40-Year LOM)

Other
10%
Diesel Off Road
5%
Sulfuric Acid @ 98.5% (Purchased)
0%
Limestone
4%
Quicklime
10%
Liquid Sulfur
50%
Soda Ash
21%
Source: M3, 2022
21.3.2.3 Power
Electrical power costs are based on a rate of US$60/MWh, following research and discussions with potential
electricity suppliers. This includes wheeling charges. Electrical power consumption and estimates were
based on equipment connected loads and load analysis. Table 21-16 presents the annual average power
cost by area over the 40-year life of mine. Table 21-17 shows this for years 1 to 25 of the life of mine.
The cost of net power imported is estimated by subtracting the power generated on site in the Acid Plants
from the overall power required and multiplying by the power cost.
Table 21-16 Average Annual Power Cost (40 Year LOM – Base Case)
Power GWh/y Average ($-M) $/tonne Product

Lithium Processing 881.3 52.9 792
Acid Plant 236.5 14.2 212
Generation -705.5 -42.3 -634
Net Power Import 412.3 24.7 370
Table 21-17 Average Annual Power Cost (Years 1 to 25 of 40 Year LOM)
Power GWh/y Average ($-M) $/tonne Product

Lithium Processing 853.8 51.2 733
Acid Plant 228.7 13.7 196
Generation -682.3 -40.9 -586
Net Power Import 0.0 24.7 343
Page 252
21.3.2.4 Maintenance and Supplies
Sulfuric Acid Plant maintenance is estimated by an itemized 40-year activities and labor hours list provided
by EXP. The maintenance budget for the sulfuric acid plant is thus compiled via non-capital parts budget
and a subset of the staffing plan. No factors are used. All outside labor and services are assumed to be
capitalized with major equipment rebuilds, etc. as presented in the yearly cash flow for the acid plant.
Lithium Processing maintenance allowances and outside services include supplies, such as spare parts,
repair materials, miscellaneous consumables, and third-party support required for general maintenance
from operating activities. The allowances for fixed mechanical equipment, electrical, instrumentation,
mobile equipment (non-mining) are based on a factored percentage of installed mechanical and electrical
equipment capital values. Outside Services are a factor of total maintenance cost. Factors are assumed to
be constant for all periods of operation (i.e., 40-year base case and 25-year case).
Factored maintenance, supplies, and outside service costs for process activities (non-mining activities) are
summarized in Table 21-18.
Table 21-18 Factored Maintenance Annual Allowances
Unit Allowance Allowance ($-M/yr Avg)

Lithium Processing
Fixed Mechanical Maintenance 3% 20.8
Electrical, Instrumentation & Automation 2% 4.2
Mobile Equipment (non-mining) 3% 0.2
Maintenance Parts and Supplies - 4.5
Outside Services 10% 2.1
Sulfuric Acid Plant
Fixed Mechanical Maintenance 0% 0.0
Electrical, Instrumentation & Automation 0% 0.0
Outside Services 0% 0.0
21.3.2.5 General & Administrative
General and Administrative costs include costs related to the Process Plant and Sulfuric Acid Plant areas,
for which a fixed amount is allotted each year. These include items such as salaries for nonproduction staff,
software licenses, legal costs, insurance, as well as administrative costs such as office supplies,
administrative services and fees, environmental health and safety, public relations, and other costs.
Table 21-19 General and Administrative Costs (40 Year LOM – Base Case)
General & Administrative Annual Average ($-M) $/tonne Product

Salaries & Fringes 9.1 136
Accounting (excluding labor) 0.1 1
Safety (excluding labor) 0.1 1
Human Resources (excluding labor) 0.1 1
Environmental Dept. (excluding Labor 0.2 2
Security (excluding labor) 0.5 7
Page 253

Janitorial Services (contract) 0.1 1
Community Relations (excluding labor) 0.1 2
Office Operating Supplies and Postage 0.0 0
Phone/Communications 0.1 1
Licenses, Fees, and Taxes 0.1 1
Legal 0.5 7
Insurances 0.1 2
Subs, Dues, Mining Leases, Water Rights 0.1 1
Travel, Lodging, and Meals 0.1 2
Training 0.3 4
Travel - busing 1.2 18
Rentals 0.9 13
Relocation 0.1 1
IT 0.9 14
Total $14.3 $214.5
Table 21-20 General and Administrative Costs (Years 1 to 25 of 40 Year LOM)

Salaries & Fringes 9.1 130
Accounting (excluding labor) 0.1 1
Safety (excluding labor) 0.1 1
Human Resources (excluding labor) 0.1 1
Environmental Dept. (excluding Labor 0.2 2
Security (excluding labor) 0.5 7
Janitorial Services (contract) 0.1 1
Community Relations (excluding labor) 0.1 2
Office Operating Supplies and Postage 0.0 0
Phone/Communications 0.1 1
Licenses, Fees, and Taxes 0.1 1
Legal 0.5 7
Insurances 0.1 2
Subs, Dues, Mining Leases, Water Rights 0.1 1
Travel, Lodging, and Meals 0.1 2
Training 0.3 4
Travel - busing 1.2 17
Rentals 0.9 12
Relocation 0.1 1
Page 254

IT 0.9 13
Total $14.3 $205.2
21.3.3 Operating Cost Areas
21.3.3.1 Mining and Clay Tailings Operating Cost Areas
2 1 .3 .3 . 1 .1 M i n in g a nd C l ay T a i li n gs Ope ra t i ng C ost
Mining operating costs are driven by work effort. Specifically, the ore requirements of the process facility
determine the total volume of waste that must be moved to expose the ore to be mined and delivered. This
annual requirement is used to estimate equipment hours, the major driver of the mine’s operating costs.
Factors such as waste-to-ore ratio, haul distance and haul profile influence work effort and operating costs.
Hauling and storage of the waste material, attrition scrubber reject, and coarse gangue is included as part
of the mine operations.
Operating costs to load, haul and stack the clay and salt tailings are based on volume. Additionally, costs
are added to dry and compact most of the clay tailings into a structural fill to surround and contain the salt
tailings. The volume of clay and salt tailings is determined by the throughput of the process plant and the
consistency of the ore. The annual volume of the two types of tailings, as well as the haul distance and
profile, is used to estimate equipment hours, the major driver of operating costs.
The mining and clay tailings operating cost includes the following:
 Mine Management: Includes the salaried labor of the mine managers and supervisors,
administrative personnel, engineers, and technicians. Rates are derived from Sawtooth Mining and
affiliates' standard midpoints.
 Mine and Tailings Labor: Labor cost for mining equipment operators. Rates were based upon
independently researched mining wage rates in the Winnemucca, Nevada region. Includes benefits
and burden estimated based on state and federal requirements as well as Sawtooth Mining and
affiliates standard benefits package.
 Mine Maintenance Labor: Maintenance labor to maintain equipment and facilities. Rates were
based upon independently researched mining wage rates in the Winnemucca, Nevada region.
Includes benefits and burden estimated based on state and federal requirements as well as
Sawtooth Mining and affiliates standard benefits package.
 Equipment Cost: Includes parts and supplies, contract maintenance labor, lube, major repairs,
diesel fuel, tires, and shop supplies.
 Overhead Cost: Includes outside labor, reimbursable G&A, rentals, property taxes and Sawtooth
mining profit.
 Drill and Blast Costs: Includes contracted drilling and blast hole loading along with explosives
products and supplies.
 Contingency Cost: Contingency was estimated using the AACE International Recommended
Practice No. 47R-11, Cost Estimate Classification System – As Applied in Engineering
procurement, and Construction for Mining and Mineral Processing Industries. Using Oracles Crystal
Ball software, a Monte-Carlo simulation was performed on each cost category to develop the P50
cost estimate.
A summary of the Mining and Clay Tailings Operating Cost Estimate for the 40-year base case) and for the
25 years are provided in Table 21-21 and Table 21-22, respectively.
Page 255
Table 21-21 Mining and Clay Tailings Operating Cost Estimate (40-Year LOM Base Case)
Mining and Tailings Cost Annual Average ($-M) $/tonne Mined (ore+waste) $/tonne Product
Mine Management 4.0 0.3 60.0
Mine Labor 21.1 1.4 315.7
Maintenance Labor 7.4 0.5 110.1
Equipment Costs 30.8 2.1 460.6
Other (Including contractor profit) 13.2 0.9 197.5
Capital Recovery 0.0 0.0
Total $76.4 $5.2 $1,143.8
Table 21-22 Mining and Clay Tailings Operating Cost Estimate (Years 1-25 of 40 Year LOM)
Mining and Tailings Cost Annual Average ($-M) $/tonne Mined (ore+waste) $/tonne Product
Mine Management 4.0 0.3 56.5
Mine Labor 19.4 1.4 277.8
Maintenance Labor 6.8 0.5 96.6
Equipment Costs 28.4 2.0 406.5
Other (Including contractor profit) 13.2 0.9 188.9
Capital Recovery 0.0 0.0
Total $71.7 $5.0 $1,026.3
Figure 21-3 and Figure 21-4 present the distribution of the mining and tailings operating expenses for the
40-year base case and for 25 years, respectively.
Page 256
Figure 21-3 Distribution of mining and tailings management Operational Cost (40-Year LOM –
Base Case)
Maint Labor
10%
Equip Cost
40%
Mine Labor
28%
Mine management
5%
Other (including contractor
profit)
17%
Figure 21-4 Distribution of mining and tailings management Operational Cost (Years 1-25 of 40-
Year LOM Case)
Maint Labor
9%
Equip Cost
40%
Mine Labor
27%
Mine management
6%
Other (including
contractor profit)
18%
Page 257
2 1 .3 .3 . 1 .2 M i n in g B at t ery L im it s
The battery limits for the mining contractor’s portion of the operating cost estimate are presented in Table
21-23.
Table 21-23 Battery Limits for Mining Contractor Operating Cost Estimate
Mining Scope Battery Limit Outside Mining Scope

All operating costs necessary to mine and Costs associated with the
haul ore to the ROM stockpiles and feed ROM stockpile feeder loading feeder breakers, attrition
ore into the feeders with a dozer. scrubbers, and slurry pipeline.
All operating costs necessary to excavate
No outside scope is associated
and haul waste material from the pit to waste rock storage
with this operation.
the waste rock storage.
All operating costs necessary to grub,
excavate and haul growth media either to No outside scope is associated
disturbance area
stockpiles or to final placement on with this operation.
regraded spoil.
All operating costs necessary to haul Equipment, maintenance, and
coarse gangue stacker conveyor
coarse gangue from the processing plant labor associated with the initial
head pulley.
to the coarse gangue stockpile. stacking of coarse gangue.
All operating costs necessary to haul Equipment, maintenance, and
attrition scrubber reject conveyor
attrition scrubber reject material to the labor associated with attrition
head pulley.
waste rock storage facility. scrubber operations.
ROM side of concrete push wall, All water lines and electric
electrical substation at shop/office power lines and equipment
All mine facilities maintenance.
facilities site, main water supply necessary to feed the mine
tank. facilities.
2 1 .3 .3 . 1 .3 C la y an d Sa lt T a i l i ngs B at t e ry L im it s
The battery limits for the clay and salt haulage and stacking portion of the operating cost estimate are
presented in Table 21-24.
Table 21-24 Clay and Salt Tailings Battery Limits
Clay and Salt Tailings Scope Battery Limit Outside Mining Scope
Hauling, stacking, and final clay and salt stacker The cost associated with equipment, maintenance,
compaction of salt and clay conveyors’ head and labor required to operate the clay and salt radial
waste. pulleys stackers.
clay and salt stacker The cost associated with maintenance of Clay
The cost associated with haul
conveyors’ head Tailings Filter Stack: piping, liner repair, ponds,
road maintenance.
pulleys pumps, and lighting.
2 1 .3 .3 . 1 .4 E st im at io n M et h od o lo gy
The OPEX estimation for both mining and clay tailings relies on a series of budgetary quotations, but also
internal databases and historical pricing. Table 21-25 presents a description of the estimation methodology
and the items estimated under that methodology.
Page 258
Table 21-25 Mining Estimation Methodology

Methodology Items
Budgetary Quotations Diesel price, Contractor Drilling and Blasting cost
Software RPM Global’s TALPAC software to determine end dump travel times
Sawtooth and affiliates equipment rates and operating cost database
Internal Databases
Sawtooth and affiliates salary labor rates and benefits
Historical Pricing Monthly diesel pricing for Winnemucca, Nevada region
Public Information CAT handbook for equipment rates
2 1 .3 .3 . 1 .5 S o ur ce o f D a t a
Quotations were received from Komatsu, and Caterpillar. Sawtooth Mining contracted with a local human
resource consulting firm, Pray and Company, to develop labor rates for the Winnemucca region.
Sawtooth used its internal database for estimating operating costs for the equipment used in this Project.
For equipment not in the database, the costs were either estimated by factoring the costs to a similar piece
of equipment by their respective horsepower, or by using CostMine by Glacier Resource Innovation Group
as a reference.
21.3.3.2 Lithium Processing
Process operating costs were estimated based upon a production commissioning curve, ramp up, and
steady-state operation for Phase 1 and Phase 2 facility expansions. The plant design data includes the use
of the AspenPlus® material balance based on steady-state conditions. The design steady state lithium
carbonate annual production rate was estimated based on the average annual mine plan data for that year.
The labor roster and mobile equipment fleet for the process areas are fixed. Consumption of raw materials,
power and other items that are considered variable, are estimated separately each year based on the
material balance and the tonnes of ore processed, tonnes of sulfuric acid produced, and lithium carbonate
produced, as applicable.
Process and administrative operating costs are presented with indicative life of mine average operating
costs per tonne lithium carbonate produced and Life of Mine (LOM) annual averages, as provided in Table
21-26 and Table 21-27.
Table 21-26 Average Lithium Process Operating Costs (40 Year LOM – Base Case)
Lithium Processing Average ($-M) $/tonne Product

Labor 23.4 350
Raw Materials 117.8 1,763
Fuel (non-mining) 1.4 21
Raw Material Logistics 16.1 241
Net Power Imported1 24.7 370
Maintenance, Parts, Outside Services 26.7 399
Supplies 4.5 68
Total $214.6 $3,213
Page 259
Table 21-27 Average Lithium Process Operating Costs (Years 1-25 of 40 Year LOM)
Lithium Processing Average ($-M) $/tonne Product
Labor 23.1 330
Raw Materials 120.0 1,717
Fuel (non-mining) 1.4 20
Raw Material Logistics 17.0 243
Net Power Imported1 24.0 343
Maintenance, Parts, Outside Services 25.7 368
Supplies 4.6 66
Total $215.9 $3,088
21.3.3.3 Sulfuric Acid Plant
Table 21-28 and Table 21-29 present the Sulfuric Acid Plant operating cost summary to operate the facility.
Table 21-28 Average Sulfuric Acid Plant Operating Costs (40 Year LOM – Base Case)
Liquid Sulfuric Acid Plant Annual Average ($-M) $/tonne Acid Produced $/tonne Product
Labor 5.6 3 84
Liquid Sulphur 163.4 82 2,447
Other Consumables 5.0 3 75
Maintenance Part/Repairs 1.4 1 21
Total $175.4 $87.5 $2,627
Table 21-29 Average Sulfuric Acid Plant Operating Costs (Years 1-25 of 40 Year LOM)
Liquid Sulfuric Acid Plant Annual Average ($-M) $/tonne Acid Produced $/tonne Product
Labor 5.6 3 80
Liquid Sulphur 158.0 82 2,261
Other Consumables 4.9 3 70
Maintenance Part/Repairs 1.0 0 14
Total $169.4 $87.4 $2,424
21.3.4 Summary of Operating Costs

Table 21-30 and Table 21-31 present a summary of the Project operating costs.
Page 260
Table 21-30 Project Operating Cost Summary (Years 1-40 Life of Mine – Base Case)
Mine 76.4 1,143.8 16%
Lithium Process Plant 214.6 3,212.9 45%
Liquid Sulfuric Acid Plant 175.4 2,626.8 36%
General & Administrative 14.3 214.5 3%
Total $480.7 7,198 100%
Table 21-31 Project Operating Cost Summary (Years 1-25 of 40 Year LOM)
Mine 71.7 1,026.3 15%
Total $471.4 6,743 100%
21.3.5 Exclusions
The following items are excluded from the OPEX estimate:
 Cost escalation (due to quotes being refreshed in 2022)

 Currency fluctuations
 All costs incurred prior to commercial operations
 Corporate office costs
 First fills (included in CAPEX),
 Closure and reclamation costs post operations (concurrent reclamation is included)
 Salvage value of equipment and infrastructure
The following items were also excluded from the Operating Cost Estimate, but are included in the financial
model:
 Initial and sustaining capital costs

 Working capital
 Taxes
 Royalties
 Revenues
Page 261
22 Economic Analysis
22.1 Introduction
An economic analysis was conducted to assess the economic feasibility of constructing and operating the
Thacker Pass Project. The analysis was based on the July 21, 2022 mine plan and production schedule
prepared by Sawtooth Mining, capital and operating expenditures prepared by Lithium Americas. This mine
plan’s cutoff grades and extraction assumptions were provided by LAC’s 2021 40 Year Ore Control file,
version 2 rev 2.
Based on Q2 – Q4 2022 pricing, the economic evaluation presents the after-tax net present value (NPV),
payback period, and the after-tax internal rate of return (IRR) for the Project based on annual cash flow
projections.
This economic analysis includes sensitivities to variations in selling prices, various operating costs, initial
and sustaining capital costs, overall lithium production recovery, and discount rate. All cases assume
maximum utilization of the acid plant’s available acid and power, with lithium production fluctuating by year
according to mine plan and plant performance as predicted by yearly heat/mass balance simulations in
Aspen Plus®, conducted by LAC. Note that the tables in this section were rounded to a limited number of
significant figures and therefore some summation errors may be present.
It should also be noted that the results of the economic analysis discussed in this report represent forward-
looking information as defined under AACE. The results are dependent upon inputs that are subject to
several known and unknown risks, uncertainties, and other factors that may cause actual results to differ
materially from those presented herein. Forward looking information includes the following:
 Estimates of Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve,

 Assumed commodity prices (and exchange rates, where applicable),
 Mine production plans,
 Proposed plant throughput,
 Projected process recovery rates,
 Assumed raw material and process supplies unit prices,
 Assumed labor wage and salary rates,
 Assumed closure costs, and
 Estimates of sustaining, capital and operating costs.
Additional risks to the forward-looking information include:
 Unexpected variations in process throughput, grade, or recovery rates,

 Changes to costs of production from what is assumed specific to the Project such as: raw material
and supplies availability, vendor pricing and estimated escalation of vendor pricing,
 Changes to costs of production due to general economic factors such as: recession, inflation,
deflation, and financial instability,
 Unexpected variations in quantity of mineralized material or recovery rates,
 Failure of plant, equipment, or processes to operate as intended,
 Accidents, labor disputes, climate change risks and other risks of the industry,
 Unanticipated environmental risks and reclamation expenses, and
 Changes to regulatory or governmental royalty and tax rates.
22.2 Methodology
The analysis was carried out using a discounted cash flow (DCF) model, which was prepared by LAC with
input from ITAC, M3 and EXP. Detailed review along with final edits and documentation were compiled by
Page 262
M3 for the purpose of this feasibility study, with contributions from other entities as noted in Section 22.3.1.
Annual cash flow projections were estimated for forty years based on the life of mine plan, estimates of
capital expenditures, production costs, taxes, royalties and sales.
Cash flows for each year are totaled and discounted based on the assumption of even distribution of cash
flow over the forty-year mine life. The Project timeline starts with “Year -3” for construction and “Year 1”
being the start of production.
The only revenue stream is sales of lithium carbonate.
Cost inputs into the model are based on Q2 to Q4 2022 pricing, and the discount period commences Q2
2023.
22.3 Input Data
22.3.1 Sources of Information

Details of the scope and assumptions of the CAPEX and OPEX are defined in the basis of estimate, which
is provided in Section 21 of this report.
Tax assumptions and royalty obligations were provided by LAC. The market analysis in Section 19 was
used to set realistic lithium carbonate pricing.
The model includes a financial analysis to estimate the annual tax burden, including indicative earnings and
cash flow statements for the Project.
Financial model inputs were received from multiple sources, as outlined in the following sections. M3
provided high level auditing of the info provided by each contributing party for the data contributing to the
final financial metrics of the Project and against guiding documents (process design criteria, heat and mass
balance, etc.) and verified functionality of formulas for standard economic estimations within the model.
22.3.1.1 Development CAPEX
Capital costs are based on Q2-Q4 2022 pricing and meet the accuracy of a Class 3 AACE estimate.
22.3.1.2 Reagent Pricing
Reagent quotes were solicited and received by LAC from Q2- Q4 2022 Fuels, sulfur, and ammonia pricing
are based on commodity rolling averages or cost projections.
22.3.1.3 Reclaim SRCE Costs and Quantities
Reclamation costs input tab was provided by NewFields, which draws on work from Sawtooth Mining and
M3 civil/structural design.
22.3.1.4 CGS/CTFS Costs and Quantities
Costs and quantities for coarse gangue storage and clay filtered tailings stack were received from
NewFields/Sawtooth, and manually inputted into the financial model yearly cash flow by M3.
Page 263
22.3.1.5 Mine Plan and Mining OPEX
Mine plan and mine plan summary input tabs were provided by Sawtooth to document yearly waste, ore,
tailings volumes, and feed lithium values to the financial model. The mine plan was developed in conjunction
with LAC’s ore control file for determining cutoff grades by ore block composition, and also coordinates with
the 40-year heat-mass balance Aspen process simulations conducted by the LNC process group.
22.3.1.6 Sulfuric Acid Plant SUSEX, Labor, and Maintenance
EXP provided anticipated yearly sulfur, other materials, labor, power demand/generation, availability, and
adjusted yearly capacity that could be expected from the plant operating at maximum capacity throughout
its lifetime. EXP in conjunction with consultant Kevin Bryan provided itemized yearly parts and labor costs
for planned activities necessary to extend acid plant life to 40 years. M3 categorized all items off this list
into either capital or non-capital (i.e., maintenance) costs, and applied them to the financial model
accordingly. No general maintenance factors above these itemized costs were assumed.
22.3.1.7 Labor
The QP audited the salaries and staffing plan provided in November 2021 by Pray and Company against
historical projects of similar scope and size. Headcount was believed to be slightly higher than average, but
within the expected range. No adjustments were found to be necessary except for additional management
positions required for sulfuric acid plant maintenance management.
22.3.1.8 Power
Demand and connected load for both process and ancillaries were compiled by ITAC into a single input
table and submitted to M3. This table represents the equipment list with diversity factors applied, ancillary
power design documents, and unallocated capacity included in the ITAC electrical design. The electrical
MTO for the CAPEX estimate used in this report reflects the Q2 2021 EXP acid plant design.
22.3.1.9 Mobile Equipment
The QP audited the mobile equipment schedule provided by LAC and escalated costs for light and medium
equipment by 13% to be within the expected range. Prices for some items of equipment reflect used market
value.
22.3.1.10 Maintenance and Supplies
Maintenance and supplies were adopted from the original LAC model with minor adjustments by the QP.
22.3.1.11 Manual Reagent Inputs
Process plant hydrochloric acid and caustic soda were provided directly by LAC process engineering and
were not reflected in the Aspen heat and mass balance models used. The values provided reflect a
synthesis of third-party test work, in-house pilot plant data, vendor projections, HSC software modeled
concentrations, and statistical regression to estimate the consumptions of these two reagents around the
acid leach scrubber and ion exchange circuits.
22.3.1.12 Process Modeling Software Outputs (Aspen)
Aspen process modeling outputs determined yearly numbers for lithium sales, reagent usage, water usage,
and utility steam/cooling demand used in the financial model. 40 unique process model files were
assembled to represent yearly averages for each year during the LOM. Outputs for these 40 files were
Page 264
linked to a financial model excel input sheet provided to M3. Copies of the 40 files were uploaded to the M3
data room for the study but were not individually audited other than confirming reasonable similarity to the
design case heat and mass balance stream tables (000-PR-HMB Rev F).
The QP conducted extensive spot checks with LAC in the design case Aspen process simulation file used
to produce the heat and mass balance stream tables used for design. M3 and LAC adjusted the model’s
inputs and architecture as necessary to ensure congruence with test work data, the process design criteria,
and pilot plant data for key parameters with large financial impact.
22.3.1.13 General Accounting and Figures
Model architecture, inputs, and estimation methodology was reconstructed, verified, or augmented by the
QP for standard financial outputs (sensitivity analysis, depreciation, yearly cash flow organization, financial
metrics, taxes, displayed discount rates, etc.). Royalty and transportation costs were provided by LAC.
22.3.2 Sunk Costs

Investments in the Project to date were not included in the economic analysis (and are not amortized in the
model).
22.3.3 Initial Capital

Initial capital costs are divided among the two construction phases: Phase 1 and Phase 2. The totals for
each phase are presented in Table 22-1. Though Phase 1 has been optimized to exclude all Phase 2 pre-
investment possible, it inherently includes the majority of civil earth works and site infrastructure to support
Phase 2, construction of one acid plant, and construction of the mineral and chemical processing facility to
produce nominally 40,000 t of lithium carbonate per year. Phase 2 includes the addition of a second acid
plant and construction of the mineral and chemical processing facility to produce an additional nominal
40,000 t of lithium carbonate per year.
Table 22-1 Initial Capital Costs Summary
Category Phase 1 CAPEX Phase 2 CAPEX Total

Initial Capital ($-M) 2,268 1,728 3,996
% of Total 57% 43% 100%
22.3.4 Sustaining Capital

Sustaining capital is provided for the mining, plant equipment and infrastructure, sulfuric acid plants,
Winnemucca transload terminal, stockpile and tailings areas of the Project over the forty-year mine life. The
tailings costs (provided by NewFields; MTO) include future expansions of the facility over the life of the
Project when additional capacity is required. Mining sustaining capital (provided by Sawtooth; itemized)
supports equipment replacement at scheduled intervals after the equipment has reached its useful
operational life. The sulfuric acid plant requires regular scheduled capital maintenance every three years
(provided by EXP; Itemized). Sustaining capital for the general plant is factored from the Project equipment
list based on Standard Useful Lives of equipment provided in Attachment 10 of the DOE’s 2015 Financial
Management Handbook (provided by ITAC/M3). Sustaining capital for each area is presented in Table 22-2.
Page 265
Table 22-2 Sustaining Capital Summary

Plant & Sulfuric Acid CTFS and CGS Final Total
Mining
LOM Infrastructure Plant Stockpiles Reclamation Cost
(US$-M) (US$-M) (US$-M) (US$-M) (US$-M) (US$-M)
Total $264.3 $852.8 $244.2 $149.0 $53.5 $1,563.8
22.3.5 Operating Costs

The estimated total annual operating expenditures (OPEX) over the forty-year mine life is US$480.7 million,
or US$7,198/t of lithium carbonate produced. Table 22-3 presents the Operating Costs for each area for
the 40-year Life of Mine – Base Case. Table 22-4 presents the Operating Costs for each area only for the
first 25 years of the 40-year Life of Mine plan.
Table 22-3 Operating Costs Summary (40-Year LOM – Base Case)
Mine 76.4 1,143.8 16%

Total $480.7 7,198 100%
Table 22-4 Operating Costs Summary (Years 1-25 of 40 Year LOM)
Mine 71.7 1,026.3 15%

Total $471.4 6,743 100%
22.3.6 Escalation
The economic analysis excludes cost escalation and accordingly, also excludes revenue escalation (see
Section 22.3.8)
22.3.7 Production
Phase 1 Project is designed for a nominal production rate of 40,000 t/y of lithium carbonate and begins
production in year 1 through year 3. Phase 2 production is anticipated to begin in year 4 and includes the
addition of a second acid plant and processing infrastructure to double production with a nominal production
rate of 80,000 t/y of lithium carbonate. Actual production varies with the grade of ore mined in each year
with an expected mine life of 40 years.
Regarding ramp-up, a lower tonnage is expected for the first year in each of Phase 1 and Phase 2. See the
financial model in Table 22-11 regarding the expected yearly cash flow.
Page 266
Production profiles summarized below are limited to the Company’s proven and probable ore reserves. The
production and financial outcomes from these reserves are summarized in Table 22-5 and Table 22-6.
Table 22-5 Average Production Values (40 Year/Base Case)
Item Units Value

Lithium Carbonate Plant Production
Annual Lithium Carbonate Production - 40 years kt 66.8
Metallurgical Recovery - 40 Years % 73.2%
Mine Production
Annual LCE Mined - 40 years kt 91.3
Table 22-6 Average Production Values (Years 1-25 of 40-Year LOM)

Item Units Value
Lithium Carbonate Plant Production
Annual Lithium Carbonate Production - 25 years kt 69.9
Metallurgical Recovery - 25 Years % 73.3%
Mine Production
Annual LCE Mined - 25 years kt 95.4
Figure 22-1 shows the total mined, total ore processed and total lithium carbonate production for each year.
Figure 22-1 Total Mined, Ore Processed and Lithium Carbonate Production by Year
30,000 120,000
Ore Mined and Processed (1000s
25,000 100,000 Li2CO3 Produced (tonnes)
20,000 80,000
15,000 60,000
tonnes)
10,000 40,000
5,000 20,000
0 0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
Year
Total Mined (dry) Leach Ore Processed (dry) kt Li2CO3 Produced (dry) t
Source: M3, 2022
Page 267
22.3.8 Revenues
Product selling prices have been forecasted over the study period (See Section 19). The base case value
for price selling was set at $24,000/t. Sensitivities are discussed in Section 22.5.
Total annual revenues by year are shown in Figure 22-2 and summarized in Table 22-7 and Table 22-8.
Figure 22-2 Total Annual Revenue by Year
2,500
2,000
Revenue (US$ million)
1,500
1,000
500
Year
Source: M3, 2022
Table 22-7 Total Annual Production and Revenue (40 Year LOM – Base Case)
Production and Revenue Annual Average Total
Lithium Carbonate Production (t) 66,783 2,671,318
Lithium Carbonate Revenue ($-M) $1,603 $64,112
Annual Lithium Carbonate Selling Price ($/t) $24,000
Table 22-8 Total Annual Production and Revenue (Years 1-25 of 40 Year LOM)
Production and Revenue Annual Average Total
Lithium Carbonate Production (t) 69,911 1,747,777
Lithium Carbonate Revenue ($-M) $1,678 $41,947
Annual Lithium Carbonate Selling Price ($/t) $24,000
22.3.9 Financing
Lithium Americas is contemplating multiple options for funding the construction and operation of the Project.
Financial modeling has considered multiple discount rates to account for various funding avenues. Project
financing costs are excluded from the model.
22.3.10 Discount Rate

A discount rate of 8% per year has been applied to the model, though other levels from 6-16% are also
included for Project assessment at various risk profiles and financing options.
Page 268
22.3.11 Taxes
The modeling is broken into the following categories: Operational Taxes (which are eligible deductions to
arrive at taxable income) and Corporate Net Income Taxes. The 10% operating cost tax credit under the
US Inflation Reduction Act for “Advanced Manufacturing Production” has been applied during the first 10
years of Project operation. The legislation specifies phase-out of this credit after 10 years. Future legislation
may extend the duration allowable to claim this credit.
22.3.11.1 Operational Taxes
Payroll taxes are included in salary burdens applied in the OPEX. These include social security, Medicare,
federal and state unemployment, Nevada modified business tax, workers compensation and health
insurance.
Property tax is assessed by the Nevada Centrally Assessed Properties group on any property operating a
mine and/or mill supporting a mine. Tax is 3% to 3.5% of the assessed value, which is estimated at 35% of
the taxable value of the property. The property tax owed each year is estimated as 1.1% of the net book
value at the close of the prior year plus current year expenditures with no depreciation.
Currently, Humboldt County does not maintain a revenue-based business license for mining operations.
No business license costs are included.
22.3.11.2 Corporate Net Income Taxes
In Nevada, lithium mining activities are taxed at 2-5% of net proceeds, depending on the ratio of net
proceeds to gross proceeds. Net proceeds are estimated as equal to gross profit for purposes of this study.
A tax rate of 5% is applicable to the Thacker Pass Project.
Revenue subject to a net proceeds of minerals tax is exempt from the Nevada Commerce tax; therefore,
the Nevada Commerce tax is excluded from the study.
The current corporate income tax rate applicable to the Project under the Tax Cut and Jobs Act is 21% of
taxable income.
At the time of this report, a tax reform is being proposed by the US administration that has the potential to
increase corporate income taxes in the US. Whether the tax reform will be passed into law remains
uncertain, as does the potential impact to corporate income tax rates generally, including the potential
impact of any increase on the Project. An increase to the federal corporate income tax rate from 21% to
25% would result in a reduction in after-tax IRR (at the 8% discount rate) of 0.4% and a reduction in after-
tax NPV (at the 8% discount rate) of $257 million.
22.3.12 Royalties
The Project is subject to a 1.75% royalty on net revenue produced directly from ore, subject to a buy-down
right. This royalty has been included in the economic model on the assumption that the Project owner will
exercise its buy-down right to reduce the royalty from 8.0% to 1.75% by making an upfront payment of
US$22 million in the first year of operations. At US$24,000/t lithium carbonate the ongoing annual royalty
payments will average $428/t lithium carbonate sold over the 40-year LOM (base case).
22.4 Cash Flow

Undiscounted annual cash flows, including CAPEX, OPEX, and net revenues (pre-tax) are presented in
Figure 22-3.
Page 269
Figure 22-3 Undiscounted Annual Cash Flow
2,500,000
2,000,000
Annual Cashflow (US$ 1000s)
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
‐500,000
‐1,000,000
‐1,500,000
Year
Net Revenues Total Operating Cost Taxes

Total Working Capital Total Capital Expenditures Royalties
Cash Flow after Taxes
Source: M3, 2022
Cumulative discounted cash flow at the 8% discount rate is presented in Figure 22-4.
Figure 22-4 Cumulative Discounted Cash Flow
$32,000
$27,000
$22,000
US$ Millions
$17,000
$12,000
$7,000
$2,000
$(3,000)
Year
Source: M3, 2022
For the Base Case financial assumptions outlined in Section 22.3, the Project financial performance is
measured through Net Present value, Internal Rate of Return and Payback periods. The after-tax financial
model results are summarized in Table 22-9.
Page 270
Table 22-9 After-Tax Financial Model Results (40 Year LOM – Base Case)
Production Scenario Unit Values
Average annual EBITDA $-M / y 1,093.5
After-tax Net Present Value (“NPV”) @ 8% discount rate $-M 5,727.0
After-tax Internal Rate of Return % 21.4%
*includes capital investments in years up to production
Table 22-10 After-Tax Financial Model Results (Years 1-25 of 40 Year LOM)
Production Scenario Unit Values
Average annual EBITDA $-M / y 1,176.2
After-tax Net Present Value (“NPV”) @ 8% discount rate $-M 4,950.1
After-tax Internal Rate of Return % 21.2%
Table 22-11 presents the detailed cash flow model for the Project.
Page 271
Table 22-11 Financial Model

1-25year 21-40yrs LOM Year -3 Year -2 Year -1 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17 Year 18 Year 19 Year 20 Year 21 Year 22 Year 23 Year 24 Year 25 Year 26 Year 27 Year 28 Year 29 Year 30 Year 31 Year 32 Year 33 Year 34 Year 35 Year 36 Year 37 Year 38 Year 39 Year 40 Year 41
Process Plant Production
Total Ore Mined (95% Rec wet) ktonne 233,073 148,848 114,743 233,073 - - 1,859 2,979 3,564 5,273 6,961 6,416 6,260 7,170 6,316 6,533 6,919 6,318 6,390 6,665 6,368 6,487 6,766 6,301 6,373 6,413 6,177 6,093 6,385 5,936 5,926 6,271 6,135 5,886 6,082 5,770 5,767 5,922 5,547 5,332 5,370 4,907 5,583 5,714 5,063 4,876 -
Total Waste Mined (waste) ktonne 351,792 209,241 171,558 351,792 - - 7,275 9,107 8,967 7,039 5,003 9,420 8,962 11,969 9,924 10,729 10,116 9,734 12,573 13,139 10,665 7,120 5,694 7,720 7,921 7,157 6,613 6,286 6,545 5,455 4,108 3,507 3,909 4,400 6,161 8,602 9,516 11,902 10,618 11,426 10,625 12,472 13,877 9,625 12,825 13,087 -
Total Mined (ore + waste + growth media) ktonne 587,242 359,536 287,418 587,242 - - 9,225 12,241 12,606 12,312 12,007 15,836 15,352 19,151 16,276 17,312 17,118 16,136 19,046 19,887 17,116 13,657 12,510 14,071 14,344 13,620 12,827 12,416 12,968 11,429 10,071 9,839 10,105 10,348 12,305 14,434 15,353 17,894 16,234 16,828 16,064 17,434 19,514 15,393 17,942 18,018 -
Total Tailings Moved (CTFS and CGS) ktonne 451,619 280,534 230,239 451,619 - - 3,265 5,727 5,676 9,923 12,776 11,857 11,974 13,128 11,972 12,233 12,877 11,960 12,090 12,621 12,010 12,186 12,723 11,943 12,072 12,370 11,818 11,792 12,342 11,577 11,624 12,228 11,777 11,584 12,038 11,411 11,465 11,878 11,187 11,029 11,324 10,547 11,328 11,859 10,703 10,725 -
Leach Ore Processed (dry) ktonne 154,200 93,210 81,185 154,200 - - 1,156 1,938 1,889 3,195 3,999 3,836 4,009 4,201 3,978 4,019 4,201 3,978 4,019 4,201 3,978 4,019 4,201 3,978 4,019 4,201 3,978 4,019 4,201 3,978 4,019 4,201 3,978 4,019 4,201 3,978 4,019 4,201 3,978 4,019 4,201 3,978 4,019 4,201 3,978 4,019 -
LCE Mined ktonne 3,650 2,385 1,751 3,650 28.213 47.781 47.394 82.563 112.600 100.268 98.931 118.098 104.498 108.377 114.956 101.725 100.172 104.688 100.013 101.208 110.273 104.346 102.575 110.110 102.059 98.442 102.969 93.056 89.687 98.351 94.974 87.593 93.387 88.601 87.758 87.906 82.552 78.715 76.343 66.303 91.042 84.483 73.928 73.103 -
Li PPM Head Grade ppm 3,155 3,244 3,256 3,155 3,496 3,232 3,186 3,086 3,194 3,149 3,170 3,319 3,327 3,343 3,348 3,245 3,159 3,165 3,165 3,144 3,284 3,337 3,243 3,460 3,330 3,256 3,250 3,159 3,050 3,160 3,120 2,999 3,094 3,094 3,066 2,991 2,999 2,975 2,865 2,723 3,259 2,884 2,943 2,930 -
LCE Produced/Sold ktonne 2,671 1,748 1,279 2,671.318 - - 20.731 36.403 35.068 61.988 83.796 75.702 72.102 86.934 75.593 78.975 84.704 75.585 74.773 76.985 72.978 73.102 79.632 74.811 73.557 79.293 74.012 71.748 75.293 68.442 65.568 72.962 70.974 64.603 68.326 64.441 63.996 64.139 58.438 57.409 55.913 46.606 67.123 62.850 52.503 53.259 -
% Li Recovery % 73.2% 73.3% 73% 73.2% 73% 76% 74% 75% 74% 75% 73% 74% 72% 73% 74% 74% 75% 74% 73% 72% 72% 72% 72% 72% 73% 73% 73% 74% 73% 74% 75% 74% 73% 73% 73% 73% 71% 73% 73% 70% 74% 74% 71% 73% 0%
Liquid Sulfuric Acid -Sold ktonne - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Selling Price
LCE Sale Price $/mt $275 $282 $267 $275 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $0
Liquid Sulfuric Acid $/mt $90 $90 $90 $90 $78 $75 $76 $74 $73 $73 $73 $73 $73 $73 $73 $73 $73 $73 $73 $73 $73 $73 $73 $73 $73 $73 $73 $74 $74 $73 $74 $74 $73 $74 $74 $74 $74 $74 $74 $74 $74 $74 $74 $74 $0
Revenues $000
LCE 64,111,640 41,946,640 30,686,517 $64,111,640 $497,541 $873,679 $841,637 $1,487,712 $2,011,108 $1,816,843 $1,730,458 $2,086,426 $1,814,225 $1,895,403 $2,032,907 $1,814,033 $1,794,548 $1,847,645 $1,751,466 $1,754,438 $1,911,178 $1,795,475 $1,765,366 $1,903,035 $1,776,293 $1,721,952 $1,807,032 $1,642,616 $1,573,624 $1,751,080 $1,703,386 $1,550,477 $1,639,827 $1,546,586 $1,535,898 $1,539,328 $1,402,516 $1,377,806 $1,341,922 $1,118,538 $1,610,945 $1,508,402 $1,260,073 $1,278,215 $0
Selling Fee - - - $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Transportation - - - $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Liquid Sulfuric Acid - - - $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Net Revenues 64,111,640 41,946,640 30,686,517 $64,111,640 $0 $0 $0 $497,541 $873,679 $841,637 $1,487,712 $2,011,108 $1,816,843 $1,730,458 $2,086,426 $1,814,225 $1,895,403 $2,032,907 $1,814,033 $1,794,548 $1,847,645 $1,751,466 $1,754,438 $1,911,178 $1,795,475 $1,765,366 $1,903,035 $1,776,293 $1,721,952 $1,807,032 $1,642,616 $1,573,624 $1,751,080 $1,703,386 $1,550,477 $1,639,827 $1,546,586 $1,535,898 $1,539,328 $1,402,516 $1,377,806 $1,341,922 $1,118,538 $1,610,945 $1,508,402 $1,260,073 $1,278,215 $0
LCE sales price $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $0
Operating Cost $000
Mining - $ 1,922,736 1,157,653 993,608 $1,922,736 $23,456 $36,810 $27,157 $41,111 $44,581 $46,316 $45,292 $55,296 $47,666 $49,566 $55,463 $51,315 $56,654 $61,593 $51,007 $46,009 $46,599 $48,268 $48,439 $46,529 $47,060 $47,012 $48,107 $44,283 $42,062 $40,987 $43,928 $42,472 $48,185 $49,820 $51,140 $54,803 $50,945 $55,638 $51,494 $52,182 $58,799 $52,639 $55,189 $56,863 $0
Mining $/mt (ore+waste) $3.22 $3.46 $3.27 $2.54 $3.01 $2.15 $3.34 $3.71 $2.92 $2.95 $2.89 $2.93 $2.86 $3.24 $3.18 $2.97 $3.10 $2.98 $3.37 $3.73 $3.43 $3.38 $3.42 $3.67 $3.79 $3.71 $3.87 $4.18 $4.17 $4.35 $4.10 $3.92 $3.45 $3.33 $3.06 $3.14 $3.31 $3.21 $2.99 $3.01 $3.42 $3.08 $3.16
Process Labor - $ 1,159,279 715,842 591,250 $1,159,279 $20,275 $20,275 $24,919 $29,562 $29,562 $29,562 $29,562 $29,562 $29,562 $29,562 $29,562 $29,562 $29,562 $29,562 $29,562 $29,562 $29,562 $29,562 $29,562 $29,562 $29,562 $29,562 $29,562 $29,562 $29,562 $29,562 $29,562 $29,562 $29,562 $29,562 $29,562 $29,562 $29,562 $29,562 $29,562 $29,562 $29,562 $29,562 $29,562 $29,562 $0
Labor $/mt LCE sold $434 $410 $462 $434 $978 $557 $711 $477 $353 $391 $410 $340 $391 $374 $349 $391 $395 $384 $405 $404 $371 $395 $402 $373 $399 $412 $393 $432 $451 $405 $417 $458 $433 $459 $462 $461 $506 $515 $529 $634 $440 $470 $563 $555
Raw Materials - $ 8,699,752 5,412,773 4,434,870 $8,699,752 $66,110 $114,074 $108,792 $188,561 $241,553 $226,964 $230,143 $251,908 $231,950 $236,560 $249,742 $232,176 $232,589 $242,276 $229,622 $230,617 $245,173 $230,509 $231,343 $244,220 $230,337 $229,728 $240,732 $224,410 $222,684 $237,923 $227,479 $222,174 $232,261 $220,009 $222,255 $228,317 $214,079 $215,914 $216,281 $192,373 $224,417 $227,694 $200,621 $205,181 $0
Reagents $/mt LCE sold $3,257 $3,097 $3,469 $3,257 $3,189 $3,134 $3,102 $3,042 $2,883 $2,998 $3,192 $2,898 $3,068 $2,995 $2,948 $3,072 $3,111 $3,147 $3,146 $3,155 $3,079 $3,081 $3,145 $3,080 $3,112 $3,202 $3,197 $3,279 $3,396 $3,261 $3,205 $3,439 $3,399 $3,414 $3,473 $3,560 $3,663 $3,761 $3,868 $4,128 $3,343 $3,623 $3,821 $3,853
Fuel (non-mining) - $ 55,531 34,637 27,858 $55,531 $1,270 $1,353 $1,370 $1,393 $1,393 $1,393 $1,393 $1,393 $1,393 $1,393 $1,393 $1,393 $1,393 $1,393 $1,393 $1,393 $1,393 $1,393 $1,393 $1,393 $1,393 $1,393 $1,393 $1,393 $1,393 $1,393 $1,393 $1,393 $1,393 $1,393 $1,393 $1,393 $1,393 $1,393 $1,393 $1,393 $1,393 $1,393 $1,393 $1,393 $0
Fuel $/mt LCE sold $20 $22 $21 $61 $37 $39 $22 $17 $18 $19 $16 $18 $18 $16 $18 $19 $18 $19 $19 $17 $19 $19 $18 $19 $19 $19 $20 $21 $19 $20 $22 $20 $22 $22 $22 $24 $24 $25 $30 $21 $22 $27 $26
Raw Materials Logistics - $ 3,392,200 2,086,416 1,752,425 $3,392,200 $25,577 $43,418 $42,023 $71,810 $91,583 $86,816 $89,134 $95,860 $89,382 $90,843 $95,414 $89,361 $89,762 $93,692 $88,806 $89,264 $94,283 $88,958 $89,621 $94,168 $88,973 $89,230 $93,312 $87,570 $87,556 $92,675 $88,276 $87,370 $91,364 $86,568 $87,415 $90,488 $85,258 $85,872 $87,646 $79,326 $87,986 $90,413 $81,609 $83,517 $0
Raw Materials Logistics $/mt LCE sold $1,270 $1,194 $1,371 $1,270 $1,234 $1,193 $1,198 $1,158 $1,093 $1,147 $1,236 $1,103 $1,182 $1,150 $1,126 $1,182 $1,200 $1,217 $1,217 $1,221 $1,184 $1,189 $1,218 $1,188 $1,202 $1,244 $1,239 $1,279 $1,335 $1,270 $1,244 $1,352 $1,337 $1,343 $1,366 $1,411 $1,459 $1,496 $1,568 $1,702 $1,311 $1,439 $1,554 $1,568
Power - $ 989,421 600,251 518,740 $989,421 $7,335 $14,425 $14,895 $20,566 $25,089 $25,133 $25,805 $26,097 $25,879 $25,858 $26,097 $25,879 $25,858 $26,097 $25,879 $25,858 $26,097 $25,879 $25,858 $26,097 $25,879 $25,858 $26,097 $25,879 $25,858 $26,097 $25,879 $25,858 $26,097 $25,879 $25,858 $26,097 $25,879 $25,858 $26,097 $25,879 $25,858 $26,097 $25,879 $25,858 $0
Power $/mt LCE sold $370 $343 $406 $370 $354 $396 $425 $332 $299 $332 $358 $300 $342 $327 $308 $342 $346 $339 $355 $354 $328 $346 $352 $329 $350 $360 $347 $378 $394 $358 $365 $400 $382 $402 $404 $407 $443 $450 $467 $555 $385 $415 $493 $486
Maintenance, Parts, Outside Services - $ 1,121,970 667,211 604,058 $1,121,970 $7,645 $11,281 $15,192 $21,463 $24,333 $28,708 $28,800 $28,800 $28,896 $29,017 $29,036 $29,158 $29,259 $29,259 $29,359 $29,441 $29,460 $29,542 $29,622 $29,642 $29,723 $29,805 $29,843 $29,905 $30,023 $30,023 $30,111 $30,164 $30,164 $30,216 $30,269 $30,269 $30,321 $30,374 $30,374 $30,426 $30,479 $30,479 $30,531 $30,560 $0
Maint $/mt LCE sold $420 $382 $472 $420 $369 $310 $433 $346 $290 $379 $399 $331 $382 $367 $343 $386 $391 $380 $402 $403 $370 $395 $403 $374 $402 $415 $396 $437 $458 $411 $424 $467 $441 $469 $473 $472 $519 $529 $543 $653 $454 $485 $582 $574
Supplies - $ 181,577 115,553 89,685 $181,577 $2,850 $2,498 $2,451 $3,758 $6,220 $4,636 $4,510 $5,029 $4,632 $6,051 $4,951 $4,632 $4,604 $4,681 $5,841 $4,545 $4,774 $4,605 $4,561 $6,062 $4,577 $4,498 $4,622 $4,382 $5,582 $4,540 $4,471 $4,248 $4,378 $5,542 $4,227 $4,232 $4,032 $3,996 $5,244 $3,618 $4,336 $4,186 $3,824 $5,151 $0
Supplies $/mt LCE sold $68 $66 $70 $68 $137 $69 $70 $61 $74 $61 $63 $58 $61 $77 $58 $61 $62 $61 $80 $62 $60 $62 $62 $76 $62 $63 $61 $64 $85 $62 $63 $66 $64 $86 $66 $66 $69 $70 $94 $78 $65 $67 $73 $97
Tailings Placement - $ 1,132,742 636,068 654,145 $1,132,742 $5,399 $6,995 $11,060 $17,388 $22,629 $21,414 $23,681 $24,992 $23,071 $24,511 $29,551 $28,018 $32,501 $26,467 $27,533 $29,325 $32,982 $28,066 $30,766 $32,247 $29,578 $30,060 $35,535 $28,703 $33,595 $33,838 $29,743 $30,703 $28,810 $33,075 $30,433 $35,313 $32,062 $35,033 $34,578 $33,547 $32,350 $38,833 $34,987 $33,370 $0
Tailings $/mt LCE sold $424 $364 $512 $424 $2 $1 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $3 $2 $2 $2 $3 $2 $3 $3 $3 $3 $3 $2 $3 $3 $3 $3 $2 $3 $3 $3 $3 $3 $3 $3 $3 $3 $3 $3
G&A - $ 573,019 358,632 285,850 $573,019 $14,850 $14,600 $14,596 $14,443 $14,293 $14,293 $14,293 $14,293 $14,293 $14,293 $14,293 $14,293 $14,293 $14,293 $14,293 $14,293 $14,293 $14,293 $14,293 $14,293 $14,293 $14,293 $14,293 $14,293 $14,293 $14,293 $14,293 $14,293 $14,293 $14,293 $14,293 $14,293 $14,293 $14,293 $14,293 $14,293 $14,293 $14,293 $14,293 $14,293 $0
G&A $/mt LCE sold $215 $205 $224 $215 $716 $401 $416 $233 $171 $189 $198 $164 $189 $181 $169 $189 $191 $186 $196 $196 $179 $191 $194 $180 $193 $199 $190 $209 $218 $196 $201 $221 $209 $222 $223 $223 $245 $249 $256 $307 $213 $227 $272 $268
Total Operating Cost ` 19,228,227 11,785,035 9,952,490 $19,228,227 $0 $0 $0 $174,768 $265,728 $262,455 $410,055 $501,234 $485,236 $492,613 $533,230 $496,724 $507,655 $535,503 $505,786 $516,474 $529,312 $503,294 $500,307 $524,615 $501,075 $505,460 $524,213 $501,376 $501,438 $523,496 $490,381 $492,608 $511,330 $495,134 $488,236 $506,506 $496,357 $496,844 $514,767 $487,825 $497,933 $496,961 $462,599 $509,473 $515,590 $477,889 $485,748 $0
$/mt LCE sold $7,198 $6,743 $7,784 $7,198 $8,430 $7,300 $7,484 $6,615 $5,982 $6,410 $6,832 $6,134 $6,571 $6,428 $6,322 $6,692 $6,907 $6,876 $6,897 $6,844 $6,588 $6,698 $6,872 $6,611 $6,774 $6,989 $6,953 $7,165 $7,513 $7,008 $6,976 $7,557 $7,413 $7,702 $7,764 $8,026 $8,348 $8,673 $8,888 $9,926 $7,590 $8,203 $9,102 $9,120
$/mt LCE moving average $8,430 $7,710 $7,624 $7,218 $6,783 $6,693 $6,719 $6,611 $6,606 $6,583 $6,552 $6,566 $6,595 $6,618 $6,638 $6,652 $6,648 $6,651 $6,663 $6,660 $6,666 $6,681 $6,694 $6,713 $6,743 $6,754 $6,762 $6,788 $6,809 $6,837 $6,864 $6,898 $6,935 $6,978 $7,023 $7,078 $7,092 $7,119 $7,159 $7,198 $7,198
$433 $428
Royalties (1.75% of Net LCE Rev) 1,143,954 756,066 537,014 $1,143,954 $30,707 $15,289 $14,729 $26,035 $35,194 $31,795 $30,283 $36,512 $31,749 $33,170 $35,576 $31,746 $31,405 $32,334 $30,651 $30,703 $33,446 $31,421 $30,894 $33,303 $31,085 $30,134 $31,623 $28,746 $27,538 $30,644 $29,809 $27,133 $28,697 $27,065 $26,878 $26,938 $24,544 $24,112 $23,484 $19,574 $28,192 $26,397 $22,051 $22,369 $0
Salvage Value (9,341) - - -$9,341 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (9,341)
Reclamation & Closure 53,496 - - $53,496 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 53,496
Total Production Cost 20,416,335 12,541,101 10,489,504 $20,372,181 $0 $0 $0 $205,475 $281,017 $277,184 $436,090 $536,428 $517,031 $522,896 $569,743 $528,473 $540,825 $571,079 $537,532 $547,879 $561,646 $533,945 $531,010 $558,060 $532,496 $536,354 $557,516 $532,461 $531,572 $555,119 $519,127 $520,146 $541,974 $524,943 $515,370 $535,203 $523,422 $523,722 $541,705 $512,369 $522,044 $520,445 $482,173 $537,665 $541,987 $499,940 $508,117 $44,154
Operating Income (EBITDA) 43,695,304 29,405,538 20,152,858 $43,695,304 $0 $0 $0 $292,066 $592,662 $564,453 $1,051,622 $1,474,680 $1,299,812 $1,207,562 $1,516,683 $1,285,753 $1,354,578 $1,461,828 $1,276,501 $1,246,669 $1,285,999 $1,217,521 $1,223,428 $1,353,117 $1,262,979 $1,229,012 $1,345,518 $1,243,831 $1,190,380 $1,251,913 $1,123,490 $1,053,478 $1,209,106 $1,178,442 $1,035,107 $1,104,624 $1,023,164 $1,012,176 $997,623 $890,147 $855,762 $821,478 $636,365 $1,073,280 $966,415 $760,133 $770,098 -$44,154
Depreciation
Initial Capital 3,995,500 3,995,500 - $3,995,500 $343,846 $705,302 $725,835 $629,395 $454,664 $385,960 $357,947 $249,167 $105,628 $36,215 $1,541 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Sustaining Capital 1,461,539 431,826 1,213,541 $1,461,539 $0 $0 $919 $2,298 $4,349 $6,870 $8,072 $9,132 $10,213 $11,567 $13,252 $14,945 $15,720 $18,447 $21,489 $23,168 $22,976 $20,366 $21,312 $22,903 $36,177 $44,264 $34,486 $28,468 $40,433 $88,226 $108,349 $80,969 $62,304 $94,701 $125,740 $102,953 $72,519 $51,776 $51,309 $52,281 $40,081 $24,058 $18,632 $55,815 $0
Total Depreciation 5,457,039 4,427,326 1,213,541 $5,457,039 $0 $0 $0 $343,846 $705,302 $726,753 $631,693 $459,013 $392,830 $366,019 $258,298 $115,841 $47,783 $14,793 $14,945 $15,720 $18,447 $21,489 $23,168 $22,976 $20,366 $21,312 $22,903 $36,177 $44,264 $34,486 $28,468 $40,433 $88,226 $108,349 $80,969 $62,304 $94,701 $125,740 $102,953 $72,519 $51,776 $51,309 $52,281 $40,081 $24,058 $18,632 $55,815 $0
Net Income after Depreciation 38,238,266 24,978,212 18,983,472 $38,238,266 $0 $0 $0 -$51,780 -$112,640 -$162,300 $419,929 $1,015,667 $906,983 $841,543 $1,258,385 $1,169,912 $1,306,796 $1,447,035 $1,261,556 $1,230,949 $1,267,552 $1,196,032 $1,200,260 $1,330,142 $1,242,613 $1,207,701 $1,322,615 $1,207,654 $1,146,116 $1,217,427 $1,095,021 $1,013,045 $1,120,880 $1,070,093 $954,138 $1,042,320 $928,463 $886,436 $894,670 $817,628 $803,986 $770,169 $584,085 $1,033,198 $942,358 $741,501 $714,283 -$44,154
Property Tax 216,632 181,401 44,025 $216,632 $1,996 $13,721 $24,449 $22,734 $24,041 $24,425 $18,003 $13,168 $9,041 $5,130 $2,429 $1,276 $930 $943 $1,014 $1,003 $1,192 $1,192 $1,287 $1,158 $1,108 $1,192 $1,174 $2,052 $1,743 $1,453 $1,353 $2,194 $4,319 $3,365 $2,688 $2,388 $4,609 $3,704 $2,729 $2,318 $1,973 $1,719 $1,467 $1,324 $1,105 $985 $537 $0
Net Proceeds of Mineral Tax 1,948,982 1,276,329 959,126 $1,948,982 $0 $0 $0 $21,406 $51,285 $45,834 $42,570 $63,452 $58,992 $65,847 $72,887 $63,584 $62,064 $63,907 $60,305 $60,513 $67,032 $62,632 $60,890 $66,655 $60,884 $57,807 $61,395 $55,241 $51,145 $56,555 $54,000 $48,195 $52,623 $46,919 $44,819 $45,248 $41,369 $40,697 $39,005 $29,667 $52,169 $47,633 $37,553 $36,200 $0
Income Taxes 6,216,975 4,076,360 3,076,254 $6,216,975 $0 $0 $0 $0 $153,591 $138,872 $127,811 $202,739 $191,385 $216,815 $241,611 $209,670 $204,012 $210,085 $198,044 $198,819 $221,105 $206,321 $200,050 $219,792 $199,789 $188,768 $201,024 $180,409 $165,648 $183,058 $174,031 $154,432 $169,957 $149,398 $141,260 $142,820 $130,616 $128,463 $122,546 $90,590 $168,803 $153,048 $118,721 $112,871 $0
Adv. Manuf. Production Credit (301,669) (301,669) - -$301,669 0 - - - - (50,123) (48,524) (49,261) (53,323) (49,672) (50,766) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Net Income after Taxes 30,157,346 19,745,791 14,904,066 $30,157,346 -$1,996 -$13,721 -$24,449 -$74,514 -$136,682 -$186,725 $380,519 $847,746 $761,759 $715,294 $1,043,088 $967,932 $1,073,968 $1,131,594 $987,288 $963,871 $992,368 $936,491 $939,641 $1,040,847 $972,553 $945,568 $1,034,994 $944,929 $897,798 $953,555 $858,018 $794,058 $876,947 $838,697 $748,823 $817,354 $727,537 $696,652 $703,873 $643,325 $632,852 $606,898 $462,361 $810,901 $740,572 $584,242 $564,676 -$44,154
Cash Flow $000
Net Income after Depreciation 38,238,266 24,978,212 18,983,472 $38,238,266 -$51,780 -$112,640 -$162,300 $419,929 $1,015,667 $906,983 $841,543 $1,258,385 $1,169,912 $1,306,796 $1,447,035 $1,261,556 $1,230,949 $1,267,552 $1,196,032 $1,200,260 $1,330,142 $1,242,613 $1,207,701 $1,322,615 $1,207,654 $1,146,116 $1,217,427 $1,095,021 $1,013,045 $1,120,880 $1,070,093 $954,138 $1,042,320 $928,463 $886,436 $894,670 $817,628 $803,986 $770,169 $584,085 $1,033,198 $942,358 $741,501 $714,283 -$44,154
Add back Depreciation 5,457,039 4,427,326 1,213,541 $5,457,039 $343,846 $705,302 $726,753 $631,693 $459,013 $392,830 $366,019 $258,298 $115,841 $47,783 $14,793 $14,945 $15,720 $18,447 $21,489 $23,168 $22,976 $20,366 $21,312 $22,903 $36,177 $44,264 $34,486 $28,468 $40,433 $88,226 $108,349 $80,969 $62,304 $94,701 $125,740 $102,953 $72,519 $51,776 $51,309 $52,281 $40,081 $24,058 $18,632 $55,815 $0
Working Capital
Account Receivables (3,512,967) (2,298,446) (1,681,453) -$3,512,967 -$27,263 -$47,873 -$46,117 -$81,518 -$110,198 -$99,553 -$94,820 -$114,325 -$99,410 -$103,858 -$111,392 -$99,399 -$98,331 -$101,241 -$95,971 -$96,134 -$104,722 -$98,382 -$96,732 -$104,276 -$97,331 -$94,354 -$99,015 -$90,006 -$86,226 -$95,950 -$93,336 -$84,958 -$89,854 -$84,744 -$84,159 -$84,347 -$76,850 -$75,496 -$73,530 -$61,290 -$88,271 -$82,652 -$69,045 -$70,039 $0
Accounts Payable 1,580,402 968,633 818,013 $1,580,402 $14,364 $21,841 $21,572 $33,703 $41,197 $39,882 $40,489 $43,827 $40,827 $41,725 $44,014 $41,571 $42,450 $43,505 $41,367 $41,121 $43,119 $41,184 $41,545 $43,086 $41,209 $41,214 $43,027 $40,305 $40,488 $42,027 $40,696 $40,129 $41,631 $40,796 $40,836 $42,310 $40,095 $40,926 $40,846 $38,022 $41,875 $42,377 $39,279 $39,924 $0
Inventory - Parts, Supplies - - $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Working Capital - (45,738) 31,075 $0 $0 -$12,898 -$13,134 $1,487 -$23,270 -$21,185 $9,330 $5,340 -$16,167 $11,915 -$3,550 -$5,246 $9,551 $1,946 -$1,854 $3,132 -$408 -$6,591 $4,405 $2,010 -$6,002 $5,068 $2,983 -$2,849 $6,287 $3,963 -$8,185 $1,282 $7,812 -$3,394 $4,275 $626 $1,285 $5,282 $2,185 $1,886 $9,416 -$23,128 $6,121 $10,508 -$348 $30,115
Capital Expenditures $000
Initial Capital 3,995,500 3,995,500 - $3,995,500 $181,440 $1,065,960 $975,240 $183,560 $811,925 $742,825 $34,550 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Sustaining Capital 1,461,539 582,496 1,155,566 $1,461,539 0 0 0 0 0 6,431 5,063 13,883 12,468 9,682 12,736 11,037 16,353 15,985 21,403 14,682 35,676 21,488 31,785 11,201 15,820 28,983 21,298 115,960 16,179 8,150 19,314 116,921 281,409 21,655 19,425 34,976 296,611 43,520 14,266 35,172 20,457 28,214 29,369 27,086 4,090 7,719 15,074 0
Sawtooth Capital Recovery 48,778 48,778 - $48,778 0 0 0 4,373 12,229 12,349 8,302 5,608 5,120 797 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Capital Expenditures 5,505,817 4,626,774 1,155,566 $5,505,817 $181,440 $1,065,960 $975,240 $187,933 $824,154 $761,605 $47,915 $19,492 $17,588 $10,480 $12,736 $11,037 $16,353 $15,985 $21,403 $14,682 $35,676 $21,488 $31,785 $11,201 $15,820 $28,983 $21,298 $115,960 $16,179 $8,150 $19,314 $116,921 $281,409 $21,655 $19,425 $34,976 $296,611 $43,520 $14,266 $35,172 $20,457 $28,214 $29,369 $27,086 $4,090 $7,719 $15,074 $0
CAPEX intensity ($/mt LCE) $2,061 $2,647 $904 $2,061 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.6 4.3 4.0 3.1 3.8 3.3 4.9 4.8 6.6 4.6 11.3 6.8 10.1 3.4 4.7 8.9 6.2 34.8 5.0 2.5 6.1 38.3 89.0 6.9 6.5 11.3 95.9 14.2 4.8 11.7 6.9 9.8 10.8 8.3 1.4 2.6 5.1
Cash Flow before Taxes $000 38,189,487 24,733,026 19,072,521 $38,189,487 -$181,440 -$1,065,960 -$975,240 $91,235 -$244,626 -$195,665 $980,438 $1,434,003 $1,291,555 $1,202,422 $1,487,781 $1,286,630 $1,334,676 $1,440,598 $1,264,649 $1,233,934 $1,248,469 $1,199,165 $1,191,235 $1,335,326 $1,251,565 $1,202,039 $1,318,219 $1,132,939 $1,177,184 $1,240,914 $1,110,463 $940,520 $919,512 $1,158,070 $1,023,494 $1,066,254 $730,827 $969,282 $984,642 $860,257 $837,490 $795,150 $616,412 $1,023,065 $968,447 $762,923 $754,676 -$14,040
Cummulative Cash Flow before Taxes -$181,440 -$1,247,400 -$2,222,640 -$2,131,405 -$2,376,031 -$2,571,696 -$1,591,258 -$157,255 $1,134,300 $2,336,722 $3,824,502 $5,111,133 $6,445,808 $7,886,406 $9,151,056 $10,384,990 $11,633,458 $12,832,623 $14,023,858 $15,359,183 $16,610,748 $17,812,787 $19,131,006 $20,263,945 $21,441,129 $22,682,043 $23,792,506 $24,733,026 $25,652,538 $26,810,608 $27,834,102 $28,900,356 $29,631,183 $30,600,465 $31,585,107 $32,445,364 $33,282,854 $34,078,004 $34,694,416 $35,717,481 $36,685,929 $37,448,851 $38,203,527 $38,189,487
Taxes 8,080,920 5,232,421 4,079,405 $8,080,920 $1,996 $13,721 $24,449 $22,734 $24,041 $24,425 $39,410 $167,921 $145,224 $126,249 $215,298 $201,980 $232,827 $315,441 $274,268 $267,079 $275,184 $259,541 $260,620 $289,294 $270,060 $262,133 $287,621 $262,725 $248,318 $263,872 $237,003 $218,987 $243,932 $231,396 $205,315 $224,967 $200,926 $189,783 $190,797 $174,303 $171,134 $163,271 $121,724 $222,297 $201,786 $157,259 $149,607 $0
Cash Flow after Taxes $000 30,108,567 19,500,605 14,993,116 $30,108,567 -$183,436 -$1,079,681 -$999,689 $68,501 -$268,667 -$220,090 $941,028 $1,266,083 $1,146,331 $1,076,173 $1,272,483 $1,084,650 $1,101,848 $1,125,157 $990,382 $966,855 $973,285 $939,624 $930,615 $1,046,031 $981,505 $939,907 $1,030,598 $870,213 $928,866 $977,041 $873,460 $721,533 $675,580 $926,673 $818,178 $841,287 $529,901 $779,499 $793,845 $685,953 $666,355 $631,880 $494,689 $800,768 $766,661 $605,663 $605,069 -$14,040
Cummulative Cash Flow after Taxes -$183,436 -$1,263,117 -$2,262,806 -$2,194,305 -$2,462,973 -$2,683,062 -$1,742,034 -$475,951 $670,379 $1,746,552 $3,019,035 $4,103,685 $5,205,534 $6,330,690 $7,321,072 $8,287,927 $9,261,212 $10,200,835 $11,131,450 $12,177,482 $13,158,987 $14,098,893 $15,129,491 $15,999,705 $16,928,571 $17,905,612 $18,779,072 $19,500,605 $20,176,185 $21,102,858 $21,921,037 $22,762,324 $23,292,225 $24,071,724 $24,865,569 $25,551,522 $26,217,878 $26,849,757 $27,344,446 $28,145,214 $28,911,875 $29,517,538 $30,122,607 $30,108,567
Period 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 42
Discounted Cash Flow after Taxes @ 0% -$183,436 -$1,079,681 -$999,689 $68,501 -$268,667 -$220,090 $941,028 $1,266,083 $1,146,331 $1,076,173 $1,272,483 $1,084,650 $1,101,848 $1,125,157 $990,382 $966,855 $973,285 $939,624 $930,615 $1,046,031 $981,505 $939,907 $1,030,598 $870,213 $928,866 $977,041 $873,460 $721,533 $675,580 $926,673 $818,178 $841,287 $529,901 $779,499 $793,845 $685,953 $666,355 $631,880 $494,689 $800,768 $766,661 $605,663 $605,069 -$14,040
Cumulative Discounted cashflow after taxes @ 0% -$183,436 -$1,263,117 -$2,262,806 -$2,194,305 -$2,462,973 -$2,683,062 -$1,742,034 -$475,951 $670,379 $1,746,552 $3,019,035 $4,103,685 $5,205,534 $6,330,690 $7,321,072 $8,287,927 $9,261,212 $10,200,835 $11,131,450 $12,177,482 $13,158,987 $14,098,893 $15,129,491 $15,999,705 $16,928,571 $17,905,612 $18,779,072 $19,500,605 $20,176,185 $21,102,858 $21,921,037 $22,762,324 $23,292,225 $24,071,724 $24,865,569 $25,551,522 $26,217,878 $26,849,757 $27,344,446 $28,145,214 $28,911,875 $29,517,538 $30,122,607 $30,108,567
Economic Indicators before Taxes 25 Yr LoM 40 Yr LoM NPV with mid-year convention
NPV @ 0% 0.0% $24,733,026 $38,189,487
NPV @ 6% 6.0% $8,990,703 $10,836,234 10,827,003
NPV @ 8% 8.0% $6,502,472 $7,490,888 7,482,674
NPV @ 10% 10.0% $4,698,227 $5,236,790 5,229,714
NPV @ 12% 12.0% $3,369,044 $3,667,306 3,661,294
NPV @ 16% 16.0% $1,623,028 $1,718,738 1,714,465
IRR 23.8% 23.9% 23.9%
Payback Years 5.1 5.1
Economic Indicators after Taxes 25 Yr LoM 40 Yr LoM NPV with mid-year convention
NPV @ 0% 0.0% $19,500,605 $30,108,567
NPV @ 6% 6.0% $6,947,487 $8,398,919 8,391,585
NPV @ 8% 8.0% $4,950,134 $5,726,852 5,720,319
NPV @ 10% 10.0% $3,497,855 $3,920,727 3,915,096
NPV @ 12% 12.0% $2,425,349 $2,659,351 2,654,570
NPV @ 16% 16.0% $1,012,718 $1,087,688 1,084,310
IRR 21.2% 21.37% 21.4%
Payback Years 5.4 5.4
Payback (discounted) Years 5.4 5.4
Page 272
22.5 Sensitivity Analysis

A sensitivity analysis was performed to examine variables in the economic model to understand the impact
of the variables on the Project value and economics. The variables examined are lithium carbonate selling
price, recovery, OPEX, CAPEX and liquid sulfur price. The change in Project NPV was estimated based on
the defined increase or decrease of the particular variable. The results of this sensitivity analysis are
presented on an after-tax basis in Figure 22-5 for Project NPV and Figure 22-6 for IRR.
Figure 22-5 Sensitivity Analysis of Various Variables, After-Tax NPV, 8% Discount Rate
Selling Price (+/- 50%)
Recovery (+/- 10%)
Opex (+/- 20% )
Initial Capital (+/- 20%)
Liquid Sulfur Price (+80%/-50%)
‐$2,000 $0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 $12,000

After‐Tax Net Present Value ($‐M)
Source: M3, 2022
Page 273
Figure 22-6 Sensitivity Analysis of Various Variables, After-Tax IRR, 8% Discount Rate
Selling Price (+/‐ 50%)
Recovery (+/‐ 10%)
Opex (+/‐ 20% )
Initial Capital (+/‐ 20%)
Liquid Sulfur Price (+80%/‐50%)
5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

After‐Tax Internal Rate of Return
Source: M3, 2022
The analysis demonstrates high sensitivity to lithium carbonate price, overall plant production, and
operating costs. The Project is relatively insensitive to changes in initial capital or to sustaining capital costs.
Table 22-12 presents NPV and IRR at a range of discount rates for three lithium carbonate product selling
price cases: -50% (downside), 0% (base-fixed), and +50% (high).
Table 22-12 After-Tax NPV at 8% ($ Millions) and IRR
Economic Indicator Unit Value

NPV @ 8% $ millions $5,727
IRR % 21.4%
Payback Years 5.4
Payback (discounted) Years 5.4
Selling Price ($/tonne) $12,000 $24,000 $36,000

NPV ($-M) ($623) $5,727 $11,829
IRR (%) 6.0% 21.4% 31.9%
Table 22-13 presents the sensitivity of NPV to different discount rates.
Page 274
Table 22-13 NPV for Various Discount Rates (40-Year LOM)

Years 1-25 of
Economic Indicators after Taxes 40-Year LoM
40-Year LOM
NPV @ 0% $19,500,605 $30,108,567
NPV @ 6% $6,947,487 $8,398,919
NPV @ 8% $4,950,134 $5,726,852
NPV @ 10% $3,497,855 $3,920,727
NPV @ 12% $2,425,349 $2,659,351
NPV @ 16% $1,012,718 $1,087,688
Page 275
23 Adjacent Properties
There are no adjacent properties that bear on the lithium properties and there are no nearby operating
mines.
Page 276
24 Other Relevant Data and Information

24.1 Project Execution Plan
A proposed Project execution plan describes, at a high level, how the Project could be carried out. This
plan contains an overall description of what the main work focuses are, Project organization, the estimated
schedule, and where important aspects of the Project will be carried out. Key milestones of the proposed
plan include the following:
 Early Works Construction Start – Q1 2023

 Notice to Proceed / Major Construction Start – Q3 2023
 Mechanical Completion – Q3 2026
 Production Ramp-Up – Q3 2027
 Phase 2 Construction – Mobilize Q4 2026
 Phase 2 Ramp up Complete – Q4 2030
24.1.1 Focus
The proposed Project execution plan incorporates an integrated strategy for engineering, procurement, and
construction management (EPCM).
The majority of mechanical and electrical equipment required for the Project will be procured within North
America. Concrete, building construction materials and timber products will be sourced primarily in the
Western US region. Structural and miscellaneous steel, piping, tanks, electrical and miscellaneous process
equipment will be largely sourced within the US, and to the extent practical, within the region. Some
commodities, such as structural steel and fabricated piping materials, may be sourced out of country
depending on cost and schedule.
24.1.2 Engineering
The Project will enter the basic engineering phase, followed by detailed engineering. During the engineering
phase, priorities for long lead procurement and early construction will be identified to that support the overall
construction schedule. Engineering must be completed to the point that key procurement and construction
activities have been decided contractually prior to the Project’s Notice to Proceed. Some funding may need
to be committed to achieve this status.
24.1.3 Procurement
Equipment and bulk material suppliers will be selected through a competitive bidding process. Similarly,
construction contractors will be selected through a pre-qualification process followed by a competitive
bidding process. The Project will employ a combination of lump sum and unit price contracts as appropriate
for the level of engineering and scope definition available at the time contracts are awarded.
Procurement of long lead equipment and materials will be scheduled with their relevant engineering tasks.
This will allow the applicable vendor information to be incorporated into the design drawings and facilitate
the delivery of equipment to site at the appropriate time, as well as support the overall Project schedule.
Particular emphasis will be placed on procuring the material and contract services required to establish the
temporary construction infrastructure required for the construction program.
Construction documents need to be completed for bidding, bids offered and received, and contractors
accepted and prepared to begin work before the Full Notice to Proceed. Contractors will be selected, and
a hold will be put on their contracts awaiting the release of funds and the notice to proceed.
Page 277
24.1.4 Project Services

The EPCM contractor will be responsible for management and control of the various Project activities and
will ensure that the team has appropriate resources to accomplish LAC’s objectives. The EPCM integrated
Project services system from construction documents through procurement, cost control, Project accounts,
warehousing, and start-up.
24.1.5 Construction Management

Construction will be completed in two phases for the plant, with Phase 2 concluding four years after the
Phase 1 ends.
The construction program will start with Early Works after the Notice to Proceed. The completion of well
water pipeline will be of the highest priority which will provide construction water to the mass civil works. It
will be necessary to get the large earth-moving equipment onto the site to begin major work. This work will
include the clearing and grubbing of the Process Plant building pads, access roads, tailings facility, and
Mine Infrastructure.
Process Plant Area construction will begin in area blocks as mass grading is completed from South to
North, starting with the Sulfuric Acid Plant, then moving to the Lithium Carbonate/ Magnesium Sulfate units,
and finally the Mineral Beneficiation / Leach & Neutralization units. Once completed with the Process Plant
building pads, civil crews will move onto the Mine Facilities, ROM, and Attrition Scrubbing areas with
process construction to follow. Ancillary Facilities and other site infrastructure will continue installation
throughout the schedule as areas become available and are of secondary importance to the critical path.
Process Plant construction will finish with Commissioning. Ramp-up to 100% capacity should last less than
one year following construction completion of each phase.
24.1.6 Contracting
A combination of vertical, horizontal, and design construction contracts will be employed as best suits the
work to be performed, and as best suits the degree of engineering and scope definition available at the time
of award. A site-installed concrete batch plant will supply concrete to all construction contractors. A site-
installed crushing and screening operation will be initiated to provide engineered soils materials (sand and
gravel) for the benefit of the Project. The Owner-furnished Temporary Housing Facilities will be available to
all construction contractors at their option. Should they opt out, they may provide for their own housing.
Camp operations will be provided by LAC. Early piping and earthwork contractors will be expected to
provide their housing, as they will be on site prior to the completion of the housing facilities.
24.1.7 Labor
Construction labor will largely be sourced from regional general and specialty contractors. The labor market
in northern Nevada and the surrounding region has been stressed in recent years similar to the overall
labor market in the US. Provisions have been made in the plan of execution to account for attracting workers
to the Project. The region has a mix of unionized and non-union labor.
24.1.8 Construction Completion and Turn-Over Procedure

The Construction Completion Procedure is part of the Construction Quality Plan. Contractors are to enter
into contractual agreements with LAC to perform certain portions of the work, which includes quality control
of their work. Facilities will be verified and accepted in a stepwise documented process of mechanical
completion and pre-operational testing. The main steps are as follows:
 Mechanical completion of components,

 Pre-commissioning of instrumentation,
Page 278
 Pre-operational testing of overall systems,

 Start-up by owner, and
 Full commercial production.
24.1.9 Quality Plan

A Project-specific quality plan will be developed and implemented. The quality plan is a management tool
for the EPCM contractor to maintain the quality of construction and installation on every aspect of a project.
The plan will be developed during the engineering phase and available prior to the start of construction.
The quality plan is designed to check for compliance with various technical and accounting activities that
will take place.
24.1.10 Health and Safety Plan

The Health and Safety Plan (HASP) will be established for the construction of the Thacker Pass Project
and any other authorized work at the Project site. The HASP covers both contractor personnel and
operational personnel working at the Project site and on any other sites authorized for Project work.
The HASP specifies regulatory compliance requirements, training, certifications, and medical requirements
necessary for Project completion by contractors. Along with the Operations Procedures, the HASP is to be
followed by all contractor personnel working at the site.
24.1.11 Temporary Housing Transition

Temporary housing facilities will be built as a construction camp and made available for use by the Project
workforce at their discretion. Workers may also elect to arrange their own accommodation in the area. The
temporary housing facilities are expected to be used for Phase 1 of the Project, and then maintained for
future use during Phase 2.
24.1.12 Project Schedule

At the present time, a tentative overview schedule is shown in Table 24-1.
Table 24-1 Overview Schedule
2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Financial Model Years yr -3 yr -2 yr -1 yr 1 yr 2 yr 3 yr 4
Geotech
Early Works
Water Line
Eng for LLE
Place Orders for
Procurement LLE Long Lead Equipment
Fabrication ‐ Long Lead Equipment
Detailed Engineering
Install LLE
Phase 1 Execution
Construction
Commissioning Ramp‐Up
Detailed Engineering
Install LLE
Phase 2 Execution
Construction
Commissioning Ramp‐Up
Source: M3, 2022
Page 279
24.2 Limestone Quarry

One of the main reagents used in processing is limestone. In order to keep costs down and ensure
consistent supply, LAC has evaluated several sources of limestone including existing market sources and
two new sources located in Humboldt County. The sources in Humboldt County nearest to the Thacker
Pass site are expected to provide more favorable transportation costs and vehicular emissions when
compared to the projects that are further away.
LAC has evaluated one regional project (the “Limestone Quarry”) in relation to the economics and schedule
for availability of limestone product. The estimated delivery cost for limestone from this property was
estimated to be $34.24/t. The pricing was based on a high-level scoping study. Additional work and
information will be needed to confirm the limestone quantity, quality and delivery cost.
24.2.1 Geology
Geological mapping and initial exploration drilling have been completed at the Limestone Quarry to define
the limestone extents and grade. Eight drill holes have intersected the limestone zone. These drill holes
were logged by LAC geologists and sampled at selected points along the core length for analysis. The point
samples were designed to include one limestone and one chert sample for every logged interval (3-6 m).
The field mapping data along with the exploration drilling results were utilized to build a 3-D geological
model to define the limestone zone for a scoping level analysis. Within the limestone zone, the drilling
results were interpolated into a block model to better define the lithology in the limestone zone as limestone,
chert, cherty-limestone, and volcanic waste. The assay point samples were then interpolated in the block
model to estimate the grade of the limestone zone based on lithology.
Bulk density has not been sampled for the Limestone Quarry. The following bulk density assumptions were
used based on the SME Mining Engineering Handbook, Geological Survey Bulletin 1144-E (Manger 1963),
and Thacker Pass values for volcanic waste:
 Limestone: 2.62 t/m3 (dry)

 Cherty Limestone: 2.56 t/m3 (dry)
 Chert: 2.51 t/m3 (dry)
 Volcanic waste: 2.51 t/m3 (dry)
It is recommended that the limestone core be analyzed as full-length samples, rather than point samples,
to better define the density, grade, neutralization, and physical characteristics. The current geological and
block models demonstrate a scoping level analysis, but this is subject to change based on additional
sampling and analysis of the core.
24.2.2 Quantity and Quality

LAC provided a range of delivered limestone tonnes. The range of limestone tonnes over the 40-year life
of mine are in Table 24-2. The grade required is 77-100% CaCO3 Purity (Average 88%).
Table 24-2 Delivered Limestone tonnes (LS)
Minimum LS MT Average LS MT Maximum LS MT

Delivered 14.4 17.9 23.0
To validate that the limestone ore body has the required tonnes of limestone as shown in Table 24-2 and
the required grade, a pit shell was developed in the block model using the parameters below.
Page 280
 30-meter benches
 70-degree bench face angle
 5-meter catch bench (Overall wall angle 62°)
 25-meter haul roads
 10% haul road grade
 10% loss
A Run of Mine (ROM) limestone tonnage was achieved by applying the 10% loss to the delivered limestone
tonnes. Table 24-3 shows the ROM limestone tonnes required to be mined along with the limestone tonnes
required to be delivered.
Table 24-3 Delivered and ROM tonnes
Minimum LS MT Average LS MT Maximum LS MT

Delivered 14.4 17.9 23.0
ROM 16.0 19.9 25.5
The 40-year pit shell that was developed in the block model is shown below in Figure 24-1.
Page 281
Figure 24-1 Limestone Quarry pit outline
A cross-section of the orebody is shown below in Figure 24-2.
Page 282
Figure 24-2 Limestone Quarry cross section A-A'
The tonnes of limestone at a cut-off-grade of 60% CaCO3 and waste for the pit shell are shown in Table
24-4. The 10% loss in limestone was added into the waste category.
Table 24-4 Pit shell material quantities and quality

Cumulative
Cumulative Limestone
Bench Height (m) Limestone CaCO3 Cumulative Waste (Mt)
(Mt)
(wt.%)
1410 88.7 0.2 0.5
1380 89.2 3.1 5.0
1350 90.4 9.5 10.1
1320 90.8 17.0 13.9
1290 90.7 24.0 17.4
1260 90.7 28.4 20.2
24.2.3 Mining Method

The process to mine and deliver the limestone to Thacker Pass is as follows:
 Ore and waste will be drilled and blasted by a contractor

 Blasted waste will be hauled from the pit and placed into a waste storage facility
 Blasted ore will be loaded into a mobile in-pit crusher
 Limestone will be crushed to 3-inch minus and stacked into a stockpile
 Stockpiled limestone will be loaded into on-highway trucks
Page 283
 Limestone will be hauled to Thacker Pass by a contractor with on-highway trucks
24.2.4 Costs
The mining, crushing, and transportation costs have been estimated at a scoping study level with the
following assumptions:
 Initial infrastructure capital to develop a road from the highway to the limestone work area
 Initial and sustaining capital for
o Wheel loader to feed the crusher and load on-highway trucks
o Motor grader to maintain roads and work area around the crusher
o Crusher, conveyor, and stacker
 Operating cost to perform the following work effort:
o Drill & blast and on-highway trucking
 Based on quotes from contractors, a conservative weighted average unit cost
rate ($/tonne) was used to derive the cost
o Feed crusher, load on-highway trucks, and perform other support activities
 Assigned productivities to activities to derive equipment and labor hours
 Cost-per-hour rates for equipment and labor were applied to the hours to derive
the cost
o Overhead costs were included for supervision, outside services, etc.
 Waste haulage and other minor costs has been included within the contingency
Table 24-5 shows the breakdown of costs by category for the delivery of limestone to Thacker Pass.
Table 24-5 Limestone Delivery Cost per tonne

Category $/tonne Description
D&B/LHD/Crushing $3.14 D&B, crushing, LHD and equipment/labor cost
On-highway haulage $24.55 Contractor haulage, loading cost
Support $0.49 Equipment/labor cost
Water haulage to the site $0.47 The contractor cost to haul water to the site
Supervisor, contingency (waste haulage and other),
Other $4.90
overhead, profit
Capital $0.69 Equipment capital
Operating & Capital Total $34.24
Available LAC drilling data for Limestone Quarry has been evaluated and quality checked. Haulage routes
are under development.
24.2.5 Permitting
LAC has been collecting baseline environmental data to characterize conditions at the Limestone Quarry
(see Section 24.2.6). Shortly after a quarry plan is developed, LAC will initiate permitting of the Limestone
Quarry. LAC is expecting that permitting of the limestone source will require approval of a Plan of
Operations from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and state permits including a Water Pollution
Control Permit, air quality permit, and reclamation permit.
Page 284
The Limestone Quarry is expected to encompass a smaller footprint than the Thacker Pass Project. Based
on experience with permitting the Thacker Pass Project and considering current NEPA guidance from the
U.S. Council on Environmental Quality, LAC anticipates that permits could be secured within 2 years.
This schedule would allow for the Limestone Quarry to provide a source of metallurgical grade limestone
to the Thacker Pass Project (and potentially other buyers) in advance of Thacker Pass commissioning. The
anticipated schedule for completing permitting by mid-2025 also allows for approximately one year of buffer
time in advance of commissioning, to account for unforeseen delays relating to scoping and permitting of
the Limestone Quarry. Existing market sources are expected to be available for short-term supply of
limestone in the event of any delays with advancing the Limestone Quarry.
24.2.6 Baseline Characterization

LAC completed initial baseline studies in 2021 to characterize existing conditions in the Limestone Quarry
Project area. Biological baseline studies included soils, vegetation communities, special status plants,
noxious weeds and invasive species, raptors, burrowing owls, migratory birds, kangaroo mice, pygmy
rabbits, bats, greater sage grouse, and other wildlife.
Cultural baseline surveys included a Class III Cultural inventory and a Paleontological Resources
Evaluation. The inventory was sent to the BLM and the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO).
Paleontological surveys determined that proposed excavation of limestone will not negatively impact
significant fossil-bearing units.
Hydrologic baseline studies included seep and spring monitoring and groundwater monitoring. Initial data
collection suggests deep piezometric levels below the Project area, ranging from approximately 60 feet to
500 feet. No aquatic resources are present in the Project area. Features do not have a connection to
interstate of foreign commerce, are not tributaries, and do not meet the significant nexus standard. The
Jurisdictional Determination for Aquatic Resources was submitted to the US Army Corps of Engineers and
is pending approval.
Once a quarry plan is developed and LNC initiate consultations with the BLM resources specialists,
additional baseline data collection may be required.
24.3 Transload Facility

High volume raw materials are generally expected to be shipped by rail to a transload facility to be
constructed for the Thacker Pass Project in Winnemucca, NV. Quicklime is anticipated to be shipped via
the Graymont-owned existing Golconda terminal. The Winnemucca facility is designed for molten sulfur,
which requires a receiving site capable of fully melting tankers prior to unloading. The switch yard of the
facility will allow for warm storage/melting of 48 rail tankers, which represents 4 days storage for Phase 1
of the Project, and 2 days storage for Phase 2. Incidental to warm storage will be a variable number of other
tankers on site as fresh shipments are dropped off and empty tankers retrieved.
The design of the transload facility has been advanced to an FEL-2 level of design by Savage Services
Corporation (Savage) for the purpose of this study (+30%/-15%). Currently, only molten sulfur to tank, soda
ash direct to truck, and miscellaneous bulk liquid direct to truck are captured in Phase 1 construction costs
for the Thacker Pass Winnemucca transload terminal. Miscellaneous, low-volume palletized shipments may
also be offloaded direct to truck without construction of a dedicated spur (caustic, antiscalant, HCL, diesel,
sulfuric acid, etc.). All capital costs for the Winnemucca transload terminal are assumed to be borne by the
Thacker Pass Project, and all operating costs are assumed to be borne by the integrator operating the
terminal.
Phase 1 capital and operating costs assume the following exclusions for other reagents, though they may
be reevaluated for Phase 2 to optimize logistics costs:
Page 285
 Quicklime will be handled through Graymont’s existing Golconda terminal, which will only require
minor modifications to add a dedicated storage silo for the Thacker Pass Project as a high-volume
user. All Golconda capital costs are assumed to be borne by Graymont.
 Flocculant will be shipped directly to site by truck.
 Small volume reagents are priced as being shipped direct to site for purposes of this report.
Full design assumptions may be found in Savage’s 11/8/22 “Transload Terminal FEL Summary Report”
Revision 2. Figure 24-3 shows the overall site layout for both phases of the proposed facility.
Page 286
Figure 24-3 Transload Facility Site General Arrangement
Note: Green signifies Phase 1 and Purple signifies Phase 2.

Source: Savage Services Corporation, 2022
Page 287
24.3.1 Design Criteria

The Winnemucca transload terminal CAPEX estimate includes the scope described below for each phase.
This capacity is believed by the integrator (Savage Services Corporation) to comfortably exceed the
nominal demand of 340,000 t/a of sulfur for each phase, given constraints associated with sulfur shipments.
The following scope is assumed for each phase of Project operation:
1. Phase 1 – (1,000 TPD molten sulfur)

a. Installation of a switch on the Nevada Sub
b. Spurs for Drop, Pull, Index and RIP.
c. Sulfur unloading spurs, platforms, sump and (2) pumps (P-101A/B)
d. Sulfur tank (TK-101)
e. (2) pumps for the truck loading rack, (P-203A/B)
f. Sulfur truck loading rack; (2) spot, double sided
g. Soda Ash transloading spur, silo and truck loading area
h. Boilers;(2) primary and (1) spare for steaming up to 36 railcars, heat tracing & tank coils
(F-101A/B/C)
i. Bulk liquid transload spur and road, for mobile transloading equipment
j. Supporting utilities including electrical infrastructure, a caustic scrubber, fire water and
supplied breathing air.
k. Roads and buildings
2. Phase 2 – (2,000 TPD molten sulfur)
a. Additional sulfur storage tank (TK-102)
b. Pump (P-303C) to support the new truck loading rack
c. Completion of the rail loop with roads running parallel to the tracks
d. Additional truck loading rack; (2) spot, single sided
e. Sulfur unloading spur extensions with a new (3) spot rack and pump
f. Quicklime transloading spur, silo and truck loading area
g. Additional (2) boilers (F-101D/E)
24.3.2 Cost Basis

Capital costs for this report are developed by Savage to an FEL 2 level of (+30%/-15%), according to the
design criteria in the preceding section with the following exclusions:
1. Boiler capacity to meet NFPA snuffing steam standards

2. Savage overhead and profit and/or any fees
3. Permitting costs/fees, wildlife and environmental studies
4. Builder's risk insurance
5. Underground utility protection, modification or moves
6. Guardhouse
7. Fire suppression halogen system
8. NV Energy power distribution modifications or supply
(Note: escalation was mistakenly listed as an exclusion in the latest Savage report documentation,
though it has subsequently been confirmed that escalation was applied to bring all costs to 2022
dollars)
Currently, only modest capital increases are considered in the Phase 2 Winnemucca transload facility.
OPEX optimization may drive exploration into additional options during Phase 2, such as flocculant handling
through transload, installation of additional silos, and/or purchasing of dedicated trucks to be driven by
cross-trained transload operators. These costs are not included in CAPEX or OPEX estimates used in this
report, but represent potential savings to be considered during the next design phase.
Page 288
Transload operating costs assumed for this study come from three sources:
 Quicklime transloading quote from Graymont, 11/12/22

 Boiler fuel/duty outlined in the “Basis Calculations” section of Savage’s 11/8/22 “Transload Terminal
FEL Summary Report” Revision 2
 Survey pricing from current Savage customers (dry bulk, liquid bulk, and molten sulfur)
24.3.3 Permitting
LAC has evaluated several locations for a transloading facility in or near the city of Winnemucca Nevada to
allow for the transfer of raw materials including liquid sulfur, soda ash and quicklime for delivery to the
Project site. Upon finalizing the location and design, permitting of the transloading facility will commence.
Based on the current design, LAC is expecting permitting will require an air quality permit from the state,
as well as several smaller permits required by the state and county.
Page 289
25 Interpretation and Conclusions

The mineralization within the volcanogenic clays in the Thacker Pass Project area are of economic grade
and suited to open-pit mining operations. The proven and probable Mineral Reserves were estimated from
forecasted lithium carbonate sales price, capital investment required for mine and processing plant
development, operating costs for mine and processing plant production, mineral and metallurgical process
data engineered to produce lithium carbonate economically, and ability to acquire all necessary permits
and approvals.
The Project is viable at this stage of development based on the findings in this report, provided the
mentioned risks are mitigated and the design development process shows continued favorable results from
the designed process. The recommendations as described in Section 26 are typical design development
tasks and/or are studies with potential to optimize efficiency, reduce operational and financial risk, or lower
capital cost.
25.1 Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve Estimate

The Thacker Pass Project is set in the moat sediments of a large extinct caldera. The nature of the deposit
is sub-horizontal with consistent grades over large lateral distances. The mineralization is at or near surface
and made up of a claystone and ash mix that can be free dug without blasting using conventional mining
equipment. The 2022 Resource Estimate updated the resource to 534.7 Mt of Measured Resource
averaging 2,450 ppm Li for 7.0 Mt of lithium carbonate equivalent, 922.5 Mt of Indicated Resource averaging
1,850 ppm Li for 9.1 Mt of lithium carbonate equivalent and 297.2 Mt of Inferred Resource averaging 1,870
ppm Li for 3.0 Mt lithium carbonate equivalent. When compared to the 2018 PFS, additional drilling,
expanding the modeled resource area and using November 2019 CIM resource estimation guidelines
resulted in a 229% increase in tonnage, -30% lower Li (ppm) grade and 130% more lithium carbonate
equivalent. A cutoff grade of 1,047 ppm Li and an open pit shell were used to constrain the resource
estimate based on break even economics. The cost to remove constructed structures is included in this
economic evaluation.
Bulk density for claystone/ash mineralization at 1.54 g/cm3 and 2.04 g/cm3 were applied to the resources
and tonnages were re-estimated to show the effect of bulk density sensitivities. This resulted in an increase
in mineralization tonnes by 14% when compared to the default density of 1.79 g/cm3, assuming a 2.04
g/cm3 bulk density factor and a decrease in mineralization tonnes by 14% compared to the default density
of 1.79 g/cm3 when assuming a 1.54 g/cm3 bulk density factor.
The proven and probable Mineral Reserve ore tonnages for a 40-year mine life constitute 217.3 Mt. Proven
and Probable Mineral Reserves total 3.7 Mt lithium carbonate equivalent over the 40-year mine life.
Illite mineralization has a higher recovery than smectite and mixed zone mineralization. Additional studies
or exploration should be performed to identify if more illite mineralization exists within the PoO boundary.
25.2 Mining
Since the completion of the PFS report dated August 1st, 2018:
 Two geotechnical studies have improved the reliability of the pit slope design and the main haul
road design.
 A water diversion has been incorporated into the pit design.
 More efficient in-pit waste dumping results in the Coarse Gangue Storage facility not needing to be
fully built and the East Waste Rock Storage Facility not being constructed or needed.
 Ore processing test work and statistical analysis has allowed for improved mine ore selection.
 Mining equipment and operating costs have been defined to support the Project.
Page 290
25.3 Infrastructure
Infrastructure required for the execution and operation of the Project can be delivered. The Project resides
in a mining jurisdiction where labor, housing, and support is available. Key aspects of the infrastructure
include:
 Storage facilities are geotechnically stable and sized for storing the Project’s quantified overburden
and process plant reject materials over the Project’s 40-year life.
 The clay tailings filter stack (CTFS) has excess capacity to meet the Project’s 40-year life.
 Water demand for the Project during Phase 1 is less than the secured water rights of 3.5 Mm3
(2,850 acre/ft) per year. The water right transfer is awaiting NDWR approval. Water rights for Phase
2 have not yet been acquired. The basin is fully appropriated therefore the acquisition of Phase 2
water rights will require a transfer from rights that are currently applied. The successful transfer of
water rights for Phase 1 production and successful acquisition and transfer of water rights for Phase
2 need to be completed.
 Power requirements are defined for the Project. On site power generation using waste heat from
the Sulfuric Acid Plant(s) and transmission grid upgrades by the local power provider (Harney
Electric) are defined for both Phase 1 and Phase 2. All power supply to Harney Electric will be
provided by Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) once NV Energy’s Greenlink West project is
completed, which is expected in December 2026. LAC, HEC and NV Energy are working together
on an interim power plan for the months between commissioning and Greenlink coming online.
25.4 Environment
Work to-date has demonstrated that the Project can expect to receive all necessary environmental permits
and licenses. The key risks that may impact the Project include:
 Successful approval of material environmental applications is required so as not to delay the start
of construction activities.
 Administrative and judicial appeals have the potential to delay the start of construction activities; if
any re-work is required by an appeal, additional regulatory considerations and possible design
updates may be warranted. Receipt of revised Project permits would still be expected, but on a
delayed timeline.
 NDWR, State Engineer may not grant or may delay approval of water rights transfer to the Project,
which may delay the start of operations.
 Water quality and use applications are based on the initial mine plan to operate above the water
table. Adaptive Management considerations stipulated by BLM will be implemented to facilitate a
future permit application for deeper operations in the eastern pit area at some point between
Year 16 and Year 24. Permitting for that phase would be addressed with State and Federal
regulators well ahead of time to mitigate risk of mine-plan disruption.
 The risks related to environmental and operational permitting may affect the Project timeline but
are not expected to materially affect the economic viability of the Project.
 Amendments to existing environmental permits will likely be required that reflect the current facility
and flowsheet. These are considered minor for Phase 1.
 Update the Annual Reclamation Obligation (ARO) strategy during detailed engineering for the life
of mine.
25.5 Economics
The economic analysis of the Project includes:
 Production of 2.7 Mt of lithium carbonate over a 40-year period.

 Initial capital requirement of $3,995.5 million to construct Phase 1 and Phase 2 over a seven-year
period.
Page 291
 Average annual production cost per tonne of lithium carbonate over a 40-year period of $7,198.
 Average price per tonne of lithium carbonate over a 40-year period forecasted to be $24,000.
 Average annual EBITDA over a 40-year period estimated to be $1,093.5million.
 Average annual sustaining capital over a 40-year period of $37.8 million (excluding capital
repayment).
 Economic indicators for 40-year base case: $5,726.9 M NPV, 21.4% IRR, undiscounted payback
period of 5.4 years (on an after-tax basis with an 8% discount rate applied).
The Project economics are most sensitive to the selling price of lithium carbonate. A low-end sales price
that is 50% below the projected selling price results in a decline in NPV (8%, after-tax) to -$623 M, whereas
a 50% higher selling price increases the NPV (8%, after tax) to $11,829 M. IRR is estimated at 6.0% and
31.9% respectively.
The Project is less sensitive to production levels. A ±10% variation in extraction of lithium results in a
corresponding increase/decrease in IRR of -2.4% and +2.4%, respectively%. CAPEX sensitivity of ±20%
has an IRR effect of -1.3% or +1.3%. Sulfur price affects IRR -1.0% or +0.6% for the levels considered
(+80% -50%). All other raw materials, mining, power, and operating labor affect IRR sensitivity by less than
0.3% each for the ranges presented in this report.
Overall, the Project is resilient to market changes in raw materials, lithium extraction fluctuations, and
CAPEX.
25.6 Metallurgy
Metallurgical and process development testing performed to-date has been used for flowsheet
development, various equipment selection, definition of operating parameters and development of process
design criteria. All test work was performed on material collected from the proposed pit at the Thacker Pass
deposit and is considered representative of the ore body. In instances where data was not available,
assumptions were made based on best industry practices and recommendations, and/or from best
estimates by the LAC engineering team and process consultants familiar with the metallurgical processes
associated with the Thacker Pass Project and lithium production.
The Project will be the first of its kind with respect to lithium extraction, and therefore lithium carbonate
production, from clay mineralization. As such, technical challenges could occur. The technology utilized in
this Project is not new to mineral, metallurgical and chemical processing; however, it is being used in a
novel way.
25.6.1 Attrition Scrubbing

Attrition scrubbing has proven to be an effective method to separate lithium containing clays from coarse
gangue material. This is done to upgrade the clay feed to the plant and remove non-valuable material as
waste. The flowsheet includes two stages of attrition scrubbing. The first “mild” stage of scrubbing is
performed in a log washer and removes the easily separable clay from ROM via washing under mild
agitation. In the second “intense” stage, the log washer discharge solids are sent to attrition scrubbers to
separate the remaining clay by high intensity agitation.
25.6.2 Classification
The attrition scrubber discharge slurry is classified using hydrocyclones followed by hydraulic classifiers to
separate clay from gangue mineralization. The hydrocyclone circuit was designed based on a target
separation size of 75µm. The cyclone underflow is fed to a hydraulic classifier which further separates any
clay present. Test work has demonstrated that cyclones combined with a hydraulic classifier can make a
very sharp separation at 75µm. The hydraulic classifier underflow discharges onto dewatering screens to
further recover clay fines. Based on large-scale pilot testing, the mass of coarse gangue rejected aligns
Page 292
with the expected LOM pit ash content (approximately 34% of total mass). Pilot testing validated a lithium
recovery of 92% reporting to the clay (fines) fraction.
25.6.3 Solid-Liquid Separation

The lithium bearing clay slurry will be dewatered in two stages, a high-rate thickener to achieve 20-25%
solids followed by decanter centrifuges to generate a discharge slurry of 55% solids. The thickener design
and flocculant dosage were based on independent bench scale test work by four vendors. Pilot scale testing
of a decanter centrifuge has confirmed, over multiple batches, that 55% solids is achievable.
25.6.4 Acid leaching

Based on external acid leaching bench scale testing, an acid dose of approximately 490 kg H2SO4/tonne
leach feed solids was found to be optimal to maximize lithium production. This was used as the design acid
addition. Large scale batch leaching of clay has been performed by LAC over the past 3 years, and these
data were used to build an empirical predictive model of lithium leach extraction as a function of the slurry
composition. This model was used to optimize the mine plan to maximize lithium production. Based on the
mine plan and leach correlation and the beneficiation and leach variability study, an average of
approximately 87% lithium extraction is expected in the acid leach circuit.
25.6.5 Neutralization
Pulverized limestone and recycled magnesium hydroxide-bearing solids from the magnesium precipitation
circuit have proven effective to neutralize residual acid in the leach residue and bring the final pH to a target
of approximately 6.5. It has been confirmed that lithium in solution does not precipitate during the
neutralization step. Test work has demonstrated good reagent efficiency and has been used for
consumption estimates. The target limestone particle size of 44 microns was developed through pilot
testing.
25.6.6 Neutralized Slurry CCD & Filtration

A combined CCD and filtration circuit was selected to minimize losses of lithium contained in the residual
moisture in the filter cake. The circuit consists of seven stages of CCD coupled with a final stage of filtration
in recessed plate filter presses. Recovery of lithium in solution for the circuit is estimated to be approximately
99%. Geotechnical testing shows the filter cakes are suitable for stacking.
25.6.7 Calcium, Magnesium and Boron Removal

Pilot scale tests have demonstrated that on average 79% of magnesium in neutralized brine can be
removed via a flash cooling crystallization approach (Aquatech, 2021). A multistage MgSO4 cooling
crystallization circuit has been selected for the flowsheet. The residual magnesium in the liquor discharging
the crystallization circuit is removed by addition of milk-of-lime in the magnesium precipitation circuit.
Testing has demonstrated that low levels of magnesium can be achieved at high reagent efficiency (Hazen,
2021a). Calcium is primarily removed by precipitation with Na2CO3 followed by ion exchange. Bench scale
testing has shown that calcium can be reduced to low levels in a dilute brine using sodium carbonate without
precipitating lithium. Ion Exchange following calcium precipitation has been tested and found to reduce
divalent ion concentrations, i.e., Ca and Mg, to very low levels. Boron is subsequently removed to very low
levels from the brine via ion exchange (Aquatech, 2022b). Pilot testing of Ion Exchange columns is in
progress and will be completed in Q1 2023.
Calcium and magnesium are removed from the concentrated soda ash solution using ion exchange prior
to being used in the lithium carbonate crystallization circuit.
Page 293
25.6.8 Lithium Carbonate Purification & Crystallization

Pilot scale test work has confirmed a conventional three-stage circuit for Li2CO3 production including
primary Li2CO3 purification, lithium bicarbonate dissolution and secondary Li2CO3 purification is necessary
to achieve battery quality product (Veolia, 2020).
Additional pilot scale simulation of the commercial circuit verified key design criteria, equilibrium
concentrations, reagent consumptions, and power demand. Over 19 kg of battery quality lithium carbonate
(>99.5 wt%) were produced with an overall circuit lithium recovery of >96.0% (Aquatech, 2022a). LAC has
produced over 5 kg of battery quality lithium carbonate following the same process design criteria that were
confirmed during the Aquatech testing. This work was completed at their Technical Center in Reno, NV with
the same three-stage circuit (Lithium Nevada, 2022).
25.6.9 ZLD Crystallization

Pilot scale test work has shown sodium and potassium can be removed as sulfate salts in a conventional
ZLD crystallization system without crystallization of lithium. It has also verified the design ZLD mother liquor
and crystals composition and demonstrated no loss of lithium to crystals (Aquatech, 2022a). Similarly,
internal pilot testing at the LAC Technical Center has confirmed that lithium loss to crystals can be avoided
if the mother liquor composition is controlled (Lithium Nevada, 2022).
25.6.10 Water and Reagents

Sufficient water supply is permitted for the current flowsheet design and operating parameters. The water
demand is estimated to be approximately 5% below currently available limits. Even small demand increases
above current estimates have the potential to impact production if additional water rights are not obtained.
A number of recirculating water inputs and outputs for the heat/mass balance are currently rectified outside
of the steady-state Aspen process model with a linked excel sheet that assumes fixed temperatures and
concentrations. No critical concerns have been identified that would impact process performance or reagent
consumption. A complete heat/mass balance to account for raw water requirements for the entire process
would minimize risk and uncertainties associated with the Project.
Page 294
26 Recommendations
Lithium Americas has performed an FEL-3 level estimate based on 2022 pricing for the Project and expects
to receive final permits in 2023 to begin construction. Next steps include:
 Secure financing for the Project for the construction and execution of Phase 1 and Phase 2.
 Continue into detailed engineering for the Project and perform value engineering to minimize costs
and reduce risks.
 Evaluate the applied contingency required for Phase 1 and Phase 2 CAPEX during detailed
engineering.
The sections that follow describe areas that have recommendations for increasing Project certainty.
26.1 Environmental Permitting

It is recommended LAC continue their current permitting strategy to develop positive community support
and streamline final Project approval as outlined below. Costs for these activities are carried in the LAC
2022 operating budget.
 Maintain regular consultation activities with all appropriate Federal, State, and local regulatory
agencies. These agencies include the BLM Winnemucca District Office, the various NDEP
Bureaus, the appropriate Humboldt County departments and other Federal and State agencies as
deemed appropriate. These meetings will keep the regulatory agencies up to date on Project
activities and allow them to provide decisions on permits in a timely manner.
 Maintain engagement with local communities, including the City of Winnemucca, and the
communities of Orovada, King’s River and Fort McDermitt. These meetings are beneficial in
developing and maintaining community support by being transparent on social and economic
aspects of the Project. They also provide a forum to identify and address concerns, which will allow
LAC to address these issues at the earliest possible opportunity and avoid potential delays.
 Amend the necessary permits with proposed modifications, where applicable to match the current
design of the process. Minor modifications to those amendments are typical and generally require
6 months for approval once submitted.
 Begin installation of monitoring infrastructure upon final permit approvals to establish long-term
data monitoring. This is estimated to take 6 months to 1-year.
 Successfully transfer Phase 1 required water rights in 2022 and secure future water rights for Phase
2.
26.2 Mining
It is recommended that a material density and swell factor study/test should be done on the ore and waste
material. The study will involve excavating and loading of ore and waste material. The study will aid in
ensuring that mining equipment (haul truck beds and excavator buckets) is properly sized. The estimated
cost for the study/test is $500,000.
26.3 Exploration
Developmental drilling in the northwest area of the pit shell should be performed to better define the
resources in the initial mine pit area. The northern margins along the Montana Mountains should be drilled
to further define the contact between the ore body and the mountains. The eastern boundaries of the
permitted pit should be drilled to better delineate the clay to basalt contact and to better understand the
correlations between the different basalt flows. Acquiring additional samples and assays to better
understand the lithium mineralization at this contact would further refine the resource model. Additional
exploration in the areas that are permitted for exploration (Figure 20-1) is recommended to target additional
Page 295
illite clays. The cost for the proposed additional exploration, drilling, testing and studies is estimated in the
range of $3 million to $5 million.
Additional studies or exploration should be performed to identify the extent of illite mineralization in order to
improve lithium production and the sites economics. This program could include:
 A thorough XRD (x-ray diffraction) campaign on new (and existing) core will more accurately define
boundaries between the smectite, illite, and mixed zones as well as lateral variations in clay type
thicknesses.
 Infill and exploration drilling to define the extent and thickness of illitization within the PoO boundary.
 A detailed geochemical-mineralogical study to more closely define the indicators of illite.
 Continued research on the nature of the clay layers in the mixed zone; interstratified, distinct, or
vein-like.
 Additional research on the origin of the deposit including timing of mineralization and refinement of
the genetic model.
 A density study should be initiated to determine the bulk density variation within the ore body.
 A low-grade lithium standard should be developed and included as part of the QA/QC program.
 Standards and blanks should be developed and included for deleterious elements as part of the
QA/QC program.
Additional geological model refinements could include: updated block size selection, updated fault trace
mapping, updated basalt zone domaining, updated lithological domaining, updated resource classification,
and updated composite length selection. These improvements will likely have minimal impacts on the global
Mineral Resource grade and tonnage estimates, but could allow for changes at the local level.
26.4 Metallurgical Testing

Major recommendations are listed below and grouped by process areas.
The LAC pilot plant in Reno, NV will be used for future testing in support of detailed engineering for the
Project. Preparation of samples required by equipment manufacturers may be necessary to support
equipment selection. The cost estimated is $100,000.
26.4.1 Solid-Liquid Separation

To reduce CAPEX and OPEX, test other decanter centrifuge and flocculant manufacturers. The estimated
cost is $50,000.
The thickener underflow rheology should be evaluated and the pump and pipeline design confirmed by an
expert in slurry flow. The estimated cost is $120,000.
26.4.2 Acid leaching

The areas of opportunity identified include fast leach kinetics and acid dosage.
The fast leach kinetics merit further investigation. Leach optimization studies should be conducted to fine
tune the leach parameters in an attempt to reduce operating costs. Leach extraction efficiency is a primary
focus of LAC, and those investigations will take place both internally and with independent research
partners.
Sensitivity analysis shows that improvement of leach extraction will result in a significant improvement in
Project economics. The estimated cost is $200,000.
Page 296
Corroborative testing will be necessary to ensure the validity of the optimized leach parameters. Have an
external laboratory perform leach testing in parallel to LAC and compare results. The estimated cost is
$20,000.
Slurry level of agitation merits further study to ensure that sufficient mixing in plant equipment matches lab
parameters. Mixing studies should be conducted to develop leach slurry rheology data required for agitator
design. Energy requirements will be determined on the optimum design for agitation of the leach vessels.
The estimated cost for this study is $50,000.
The leach slurry rheology should be evaluated, and agitator design confirmed by an expert in mixer design.
The estimated cost is $120,000.
26.4.3 Neutralization
It is recommended to verify that contaminants will not build up in the neutralization circuit due to the recycled
magnesium precipitation stream. LAC has budgeted and will perform testing that will include the recycle
stream in 2022.
The neutralized slurry rheology should be evaluated. The estimated cost is $20,000.
26.4.4 Neutralized Slurry CCD & Filtration

To reduce OPEX, test other flocculants. The estimated cost is $50,000.
Pilot scale filtration testing should be performed on washed, neutralized slurry to confirm the number of
CCD stages and filters in the design. Li losses should be evaluated as well to confirm the estimates included
in the design criteria. The estimated cost is $70,000.
26.4.5 Calcium, Magnesium and Boron Removal

It is recommended to perform bench scale testing to determine the minimum concentration of calcium
achievable without precipitating lithium in a lithium-concentrated brine. It is also recommended to perform
testing on various IX resins to confirm efficacy for the divalent ion removal from the brine and soda ash
solution, and boron removal from the brine. Pilot testing is currently underway to generate data that will be
used for final column design, as well as operating and regeneration conditions. The testing is expected to
be complete in Q1 2023. The estimated cost is $20,000.
26.4.6 General
26.4.6.1 Specific Gravity
Testing is recommended to validate specific gravity and viscosity measurements of solids and solutions
used to size equipment in various stages of the process. This will ensure that equipment and piping are
properly sized. The estimated cost is $50,000.
26.4.6.2 Steady State Aspen Process Model
It is recommended to incorporate all recirculating water inputs/outputs into the Aspen process model to
automatically account for the energy and water flows throughout the process. This will more accurately
estimate the water consumption and the design parameters for equipment that is sized based on the heat
balance, but more importantly eliminate risk for errors associated with manual input and the inability to
reconcile streams in other areas of the process. The estimated cost is $20,000.
Page 297
26.5 Infrastructure
It is recommended that the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), Harney Electric (HEC) and LAC finalize
interim power planning and complete contracting for Phase 1 and Phase 2 power import.
It is recommended that contingency plans be developed to commission and potentially operate the facility
at reduced capacity for an extended duration if BPA import power availability is delayed beyond schedule
requirements for Phase 1.
It is recommended to secure water rights for Phase 2 after Phase 1 becomes operational. Required funds
to acquire additional water rights are included in the initial capital costs. Additionally, water table levels
should be monitored at production wells and surrounding monitoring wells throughout operation to ensure
the aquifer levels continue to support water demand for the Project.
It is recommended that further studies be done to determine available aggregate material on site for
construction use. Not having sufficient quality aggregate material on-site or nearby could negatively affect
construction costs. The estimated cost of the studies is $300,000.
26.6 Limestone Quarry

Analysis of the limestone core as full-length samples is recommended, rather than point samples, to better
define the density, grade, neutralization, and physical characteristics. Current geological and block
modelling demonstrates a scoping level analysis but is subject to change based on additional sampling and
analysis of the core. The estimated cost is $35,000. Equipment size and other affected areas should also
be reviewed based on the quality.
It is recommended that the limestone model be updated based on updated sampling and analysis of core,
and that a detailed mine plan be developed based on the updated model. The estimated cost is $200,000.
It is recommended that work for all permit applications be started. Permit work includes a Plan of Operation
for submission to the BLM, along with state permits including a Water Pollution Control Permit, Air Quality
Permit, and Reclamation Permit.
It is recommended that surface rights be acquired for road from highway to mine area. The access road will
need to be upgraded. It is also recommended that additional mining claims or surface rights be acquired to
expand the processing area if needed and for a waste dump.
It is recommended that water rights be acquired so a well can be drilled. Water will be used for dust
suppression, crushing and haulage. The estimated cost is $500,000.
26.7 Execution Strategy Impact

Any project associated with emerging products or commodities will present unique market risks. The
Thacker Pass Project requires use of a new process that has a high capital investment requirement. The
United States and other major world economies have experienced historically high inflation during the
compilation of this report. Lithium prices have experienced historic volatility over the past 4 years. It will
likely continue to vary in the short term as major automakers endeavor to expand electric vehicle offerings
to the mass market and transition away from fossil fuel energy; this requires extreme increases in energy
storage capacity, both on and off grid. Third party market reports highlight the projected range for stable
lithium prices but are not able to account for the effects of such volatility coupled with high inflation. Due to
these factors, the Project faces two distinctly different market risk profiles for the short versus long term.
Short term, the risk of Project overspending is high, due to inflationary pressures. The risk to the selling
price of lithium carbonate in the short term, however, is relatively lower, despite volatility. Inflation has
Page 298
historically tended to prop up all commodity and equipment prices agnostically. 5-to-10-year demand is
high due to capacity constraints and demand from automotive industry pre-orders.
Page 299
27 References
AACE (2020). AACE International Recommended Practice No. 47R-11, Cost Estimate Classification
System – As Applied in Engineering, Procurement, and Construction for the Mining and Mineral
Process Industries, AACE International, Morgantown, WV. 07 August 2020.
Advisian (2018). Independent Technical Report for the Thacker Pass Project, Humboldt County, Nevada,
USA; Effective Date: 15 February 2018. Filing Date: 17 May 2018.
Air Sciences, Inc. (2019a). Lithium Nevada – Thacker Pass Project NEPA Air Quality Impact Analysis
Report. Prepared for Lithium Nevada Corp. Draft November 2019 (Revised December 2019).
Air Sciences, Inc. (2019b). Thacker Pass Project, Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report and Potential
Downstream GHG Emissions Reduction. Draft November 2019 (Revised December 2019).
Air Sciences, Inc. (2020). Lithium Nevada Thacker Pass Project Odor Impact Analysis. Prepared for Lithium
Nevada Corp. May 4, 2020 (May 2020)
Air Sciences, Inc. (2021a). Thacker Pass Project Class II Air Quality Operating Permit Application. Prepared
for Lithium Nevada Corporation. January 2021.
Air Sciences, Inc. (2021b). Thacker Pass Project Air Quality Impacts Analysis. Prepared for Lithium Nevada
Corporation. January 2021, Revised July 2021.
AMEC (2011). Prefeasibility Level Geotechnical Study Report, Kings Valley Lithium Project. March 2011.
AMEC (2011a). Prefeasibility Level Geotechnical Study Report. May 2011.
Andritz Separation Technologies (2021). Bench Centrifuge Testing Report.
Andritz Separation Technologies (2021). Laboratory Report LNC Thickening Studies.
Aquatech (2021). MgSO4 Crystallization Pilot Testing Reference # P30082.
Aquatech (2022a). Aquatech International Technical Report, Lithium Carbonate Pilot Test, October 28,
2022.
Aquatech (2022b). Resin Testing Document – 4.8.22.
ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) 2011. ASTM D2487-11 - Standard Practice for
Classification of Soils for Engineering Practices.
ASTM Standard C127-15, Standard Test Method for Relative Density (Specific Gravity) and Absorption of
Coarse Aggregate.
ASTM Standard C914-09, Standard Test Method for Bulk Density and Volume of Solid Refractories by Wax
Immersion.
ASTM Standard D2216-19, Standard Test Method for Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture)
Content of Soil and Rock by Mass.
ASTM Standard D7263-21, Standard Test Method for Laboratory Determination of Density and Unit Weight
of Soil Specimens.
Page 300
Barr Engineering (2019). Thacker Pass Highwall Slope Study Prepared for Lithium Nevada Corporate and
North American Coal Corporation. 20 December 2019.
Barr Engineering (2020). Thacker Pass Haul Road Design Prepared for Lithium Nevada Corporation and
North American Coal Corporation. 09 October 2020.
Benchmark Mineral Intelligence (2021). Lithium Forecast Q3 2021.
Benson, T. R., Mahood, G. A., & Grove, M. (2017a). Geology and 40Ar/39Ar geochronology of the middle
Miocene McDermitt volcanic field, Oregon and Nevada: Silicic volcanism associated with propagating
flood basalt dikes at initiation of the Yellowstone hotspot. Bulletin of the Geological Society of
America, 129(9–10). https://doi.org/10.1130/B31642.1
Benson, T.R., Coble, M.A., Rytuba, J.J., and Mahood, G.A. (2017b). Lithium Enrichment in Intracontinental
Rhyolite Magmas Leads to Li Deposits in Caldera Basins. Nature Communications, 8(1).
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-00234-y.
Borden, Buddy and Tom Harris (2018, Revised 2019). Social, Economic and Fiscal Impact for New Lithium
Operations in Humboldt County, Nevada. University of Nevada, Reno; University Center for
Economic Development. December 2018 (Revised September 2019).
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) (2008, revised 2013). NV-2013-046 Nevada Bureau of Land
Management Rock Characterization Resources and Water Analysis Guidance for Mining Activities
(BLM, September 19, 2013).
Bureau of Land Management; Instruction Memorandum No. NV-2011-004; Guidance for Permitting 3809
Plans of Operation; 5 November 2010.
Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (CIM) Definition Standards for Mineral Resources
and Mineral Reserves. May 2014.
Carew, T.J. and Rossi, E.M. (2016). Independent Technical Report for the Lithium Nevada Property,
Nevada, USA. Prepared by SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc., June 2016. NI 43-101 Technical Report,
filed on www.sedar.com. http://lithiumamericas.com/wp-
content/uploads/2016/07/NI43101_Lithium_Nevada.pdf .
Castor, S. B., & Henry, C. D. (2020). Lithium-Rich Claystone in the McDermitt Caldera, Nevada, USA:
Geologic, Mineralogical, and Geochemical Characteristics and Possible Origin. Minerals, 10(68), 1–
39. https://doi.org/10.3390/min10010068
Castor, S.B., (2010) Mineralogy of Western Lithium Corporation core holes WLC-43, WLC-62, WLC-65,
and WLC-67, Thacker Pass, Nevada: unpublished report for Western Lithium Corporation.
CFEM (Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual). 2006. Canadian Geotechnical Society. Fourth Edition.
January 2007.
Coble, M.A. and Mahood, G.A. (2012). Initial Impingement of the Yellowstone Plume Located by
Widespread Silicic Volcanism Contemporaneous with Columbia River Flood Basalts. Geology, 40(7),
655–658. https://doi.org/10.1130/G32692.1.
Colgan, J. P., Dumitru, T. a., McWilliams, M., & Miller, E. L. (2006). Timing of Cenozoic volcanism and
Basin and Range extension in northwestern Nevada: New constraints from the northern Pine Forest
Range. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 118(1–2), 126–139. https://doi.org/10.1130/B25681.1
Page 301
Colgan, J.P., Dumitru, T.A., Reiners, P.W., Wooden, J.L., and Miller, E.L. (2006). Cenozoic Tectonic
Evolution of the Basin and Range Province in Northwestern Nevada. American Journal of Science,
306(8), 616–654. https://doi.org/10.2475/08.2006.02.
Conrad, W.K. (1984), The mineralogy and petrology of compositionally zoned ash flow tuffs, and related
silicic volcanic rocks from the McDermitt caldera complex, Nevada-Oregon: Journal of Geophysical
Research, v. 89, no. B10, p. 8639–8664, https://doi.org/10.1029/JB089iB10p08639
Department of the Army (2019). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District (ACOE). 2019.
Regulatory Division (SPK-2011-01263). Approved Jurisdictional Determination. Thacker Pass
Project. Dated 8 February 2019.
Diemme (2021). LNC Filtration Testing Report. 2021.
Diemme (2022). Aqseptence Group srl (Diemme), Lugo, Italy, Lithium Nevada Corporation Filtration Test
Report, Report LAB321129, prepared by Gross - Kaswalder, 16 Feb 2022.
Enviroscientists, Inc. (2008). Memorandum Results for the Kings Valley Lithium Exploration Project Pygmy
Rabbit Survey, Humboldt County, Nevada. Prepared by Ms. Sara Thorne, Enviroscientists, Inc.,
Prepared for Mr. Dennis Bryan, Western Lithium Corporation and Mr. Ken Detweiler, Bureau of Land
Management. 3 December 2008.
Enviroscientists, Inc. (2010). Memorandum Results for the Kings Valley Lithium Amended Plan of
Operations Biological Survey, Humboldt County, Nevada. Prepared by Ms. Sara Thorne,
Enviroscientists, Inc., Prepared for Ms. Celeste Mimnaugh and Ms. Janet Hook, Bureau of Land
Management. November 16, 2010.
Eriez Flotation Division (2021). Teeter Bed Separator Metallurgical Service Test Report for LNC. Erie, PA:
s.n., 2021.
Erwin, Thomas P. (2020). Mineral Status Report. File No. 96310.003. Erwin, Thompson Faillers. May 18,
2020.
FEDINC (2022). Beneficiation Pilot Plant, Thacker Pass Deposit, Humboldt County, Nevada. Prepared for
Lithium Nevada Corporation. Prepared by FEDINC. Florida Engineering and Design, Inc. 255 County
Road 555 South, Bartow, FL. 33830-7702. (863)665-6363. FEDINC Project No. 21-1966. June 2022.
Weir.
FEDINC/Weir (No date). Attrition Scrubbing.
FLS (2021). LNC Pre-Leach Thickening and Rheology Test Report.
FLS (2021a). LNC Leach and Neutralization Results. 2021.
GEA (2021). Bench Scale Decanter Centrifuge Testing Report.
GEA (2021a). Pilot Scale Decanter Centrifuge Testing.
Glanzman, R. K., & Rytuba, J. J. (1979). Zeolie-clay mineral zonation of volcaniclastic sediments within the
McDermitt Caldera Complex of Nevada and Oregon. USGS Open-File Report, 79–1668.
Glanzman, R.K. and Winsor (1982). Status report on the King’s River Lithium Project. Chevron Resources
Internal Resources Internal Report. 12 February 1982.
Page 302
Great Basin Ecology, Inc. (2012). Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment – Kings Valley Lithium Project Area.
Report Prepared for Western Lithium Corporation. September 2012.
Great Basin Ecology, Inc. (2013). 2013 Kings Valley Clay Mine Project 2013 Winter Sage-Grouse Survey.
Report Prepared for Western Lithium Corporation. March 2013; Revised November 2013.
Harris, Richard W. (2016). Updated Title Opinion on Kings Valley Project, Humboldt County, Nevada
(November 2016 Update). Harris, Thompson & Faillers. 18 November 2016.
Hazen Research (2021). Materials Characterization Testing.
Hazen Research (2021a). MgSO4 and Liming Experiments Report. 2021.
Hazen Research (2021b). Summary of Acid Leach Results. 2021.
Henry, C. D., Castor, S. B., Starkel, W. A., Ellis, B. S., Wolff, J. A., Laravie, J. A., Mcintosh, W. C., & Heizler,
M. T. (2017). Geology and evolution of the McDermitt caldera, northern Nevada and southeastern
Oregon, western USA. Geosphere, 13(4), 1–47. https://doi.org/10.1130/GES01454.1
Hosakawa Micron Powder Systems (2021). Feasibility of Size Reduction of Lithium Carbonate via the
Alpine AFG Model 400 Fluidized Bed Jet Mill Test Number 2021-1093.
Hudson, D.M. (2008) Analysis of diamond drill holes WLC-005c, WLC-011c, WLC-012c, WLC-019c,
Thacker Pass Project, Humboldt County, Nevada, report to Western Lithium Corporation. May 2008,
41 p.
Huxel J.R, C.J., Parkes (1966). Effects of Irrigation Development on the Water Supply of Quinn River
Valley Area, Nevada and Oregon 1950-64. Water Resource Bulletin No. 34.
Ingraffia, James T., Ressel, Michael W., Benson, Thomas R. (2020). Thacker Pass Lithium Clay Deposit,
McDermitt Caldera, North-Central Nevada: Devitrification of McDermitt Tuff as the Main Lithium
Source. 2020.
JBR Environmental Consultants, Inc. (2012a). Baseline Biological Survey Report, Western Lithium
Corporation, Kings Valley Lithium Project, Humboldt County, Nevada. 9 July 2012.
JBR Environmental Consultants, Inc. (2012b). Winter Greater Sage-Grouse Survey Report Western Lithium
Corporation Kings Valley Lithium Project Humboldt County, Nevada. 4 April 2012.
Kappes Cassiday & Associates (KCA). (2010). King’s Valley Lithium Project: Metallurgical Test Work
Summary. Prepared by: Kappes Cassiday & Associates. February 2010.
Lerch, D.W., Miller, E., McWilliams, M., and Colgan, J. (2008). Tectonic and Magmatic Evolution of the
Northwestern Basin and Range and Its Transition to Unextended Volcanic Plateaus: Black Rock
Range, Nevada. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 120(3–4), 300–311.
https://doi.org/10.1130/B26151.1.
Lithium Americas Corp. (2018a); Press Release Announcing Preliminary Feasibility Study Results for the
Thacker Pass Project; Issued 21 June 21 2018.
Lithium Nevada Corp. (2020). Bulk Sampling Packet.
Lithium Nevada Corp. (2021). Attrition Scrubbing Bench Studies. Reno, NV : Internal Document, 2021.
Page 303
Lithium Nevada Corp. (2022). Lithium Americas Technical Center - Li2CO3 Continuous Operation, August
8, 2022
Lithium Nevada Corp. (LNC) (2018). Thacker Pass Project Conceptual Plan of Operations and Conceptual
Reclamation Plan and Permit Application. 5 October 2018.
Lithium Nevada Corp. (LNC) (2019a). Thacker Pass Project Proposed Plan of Operations and Reclamation
Plan Permit Application. July (Revised October 2019, Revised December 2020, Revised October 15,
2021).
Lithium Nevada Corp. (LNC) (2020). Thacker Pass Project N98586 Community Relations, Tribal
Coordination. Technical Memorandum. To Ken Loda, BLM Humboldt River Field Office. From
Catherine Clark, Lithium Nevada Corp. 11 May 2020.
Lithium Nevada Corporation (2021). Smectite and Illite Blend Leaching Report. 2021.
Lithium Nevada Corporation (2021a). Leaching Size Test Report. 2021.
Lithium Nevada Corp. (LNC) (2022). Thacker Pass Project 2022 Community Relations Engagement Plan.
Lumos (2011a). Preliminary Groundwater Investigation for the Kings Valley Lithium Project (Stage I
Property. May 2011.
Lumos (2011b). Kings Valley Lithium Project Spring Survey. July 2011.
MacTec Engineering and Consulting (2008). Absorption and Specific Gravity Test Results, March 2008.
Malmberg, G. T., Worts, G. F., 1966. Water Resources Bulletin No. 31. The Effects of Pumping on the
Hydrology of Kings River Valley, Humboldt County, Nevada, 1957-64.
Manger, Edward (1963), Porosity and Bulk Density of Sedimentary Rocks. Geological Survey Bulletin 1144-
E
McCabe, et. al. (2012). Volume 1: Report, A Class III Inventory of a 2,256 Acre Parcel for Western Lithium’s
Kings Valley Lithium Project, Humboldt County, Nevada. BLM Report Number CR2-3157(P).
Prepared by Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Davis, California. April 2012.
Metso Outotec (2021). Filtration Testing Report. 2021.
Morissette, C. L. (2012). The impact of geological environment on the lithium concentration and structural
composition of hectorite clays. MS Thesis, UNR. 244 pages.
Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology; Special Publication L-6; State and Federal Permits Required in
Nevada Before Mining or Milling Can Begin; Compiled by Lucia M. Patterson, Nevada Division of
Minerals. February 2015.
Nevada Division of Environmental Protection Bureau of Mining Regulation and Reclamation (NDEP-BMRR)
(2019). Nevada Modified Sobek Procedure Summary 1. 22 March 2019.
Odom, I.E. (1992). Hectorite deposits in the McDermitt Caldera of Nevada. Mining Engineering. v. 44. no.
6., p. 586-589.
Parker, H.M. and Dohm, C.E. (2014). Evolution of Mineral Resource Classification from 1980 to 2014 and
Current Best Practice. Finex 2014 Julius Wernher Lecture.
Page 304
Piteau Associates USA Ltd. (2018a). Lithium Nevada Corporation, Lithium Nevada Corp. Baseline and
Model Workplan. August 2018. (*Baseline data collection and water quantity/quality impacts
assessment workplan).
Piteau Associates USA Ltd. (2018b). Lithium Nevada Corporation, Seep and Spring Survey Report Q1
2018, 23 May 2018.
Piteau Associates USA Ltd. (2018c). Lithium Nevada Corporation, Seep and Spring Survey Report Q2
2018, 28 August 2018.
Piteau Associates USA Ltd. (2018d). Lithium Nevada Corporation, Seep and Spring Survey Report Q3
2018, 30 October 2018.
Piteau Associates USA Ltd. (2018e). Lithium Nevada Corporation, Seep and Spring Survey Report Q4
2018. 25 January 2019. Piteau Associates USA Ltd. (2019a). Thacker Pass Project Baseline
Hydrological Data Collection Report, Prepared by Piteau Associates, August 2019.
Piteau Associates USA Ltd. (2019a). Thacker Pass Project Baseline Hydrological Data Collection Report,
Prepared by Piteau Associates, August 2019.
Piteau Associates USA Ltd. (2019b). Lithium Nevada Corporation, Addendum to the Seep and Spring
Survey Report Q2 2019. 22 July 2019.
Piteau Associates USA Ltd. (2020). Thacker Pass Project Water Quantity and Quality Impacts Report
Revision 1. May 2020.
Piteau Associates USA Ltd. (2021). Thacker Pass Project Water Quantity and Quality Impacts for 2850
Acre-Ft/YR Water Supply Production. August 2021.
Redhorse Corporation (2018). SPK-2011-01263 Aquatic Resource Delineation Report, Lithium Nevada
Corporation, Thacker Pass Project 2018 (18,686 acres). 17 August 2018.
Roskill (2021). Lithium 18th Edition Update 1 – October 2021 (v2).
Rytuba, J. J., & Glanzman, R. K. (1978). Relation of Mercury, Uranium, and Lithium deposits to the
McDermitt Caldera Complex, Nevada-Oregon. USGS Open-File Report, 78–926, 1–28.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Rytuba, J.J. and McKee, E.H. (1984). Peralkaline Ash Flow Tuffs and Calderas of the McDermitt Volcanic
Field, Southeast Oregon and North Central Nevada. Journal of Geophysical Research, 89, 8616–
8628.
Rytuba. J.J. and Glanzman, R.K. (1979). Relation of Mercury, Uranium, and Lithium Deposits to the
McDermitt Caldera Complex, Nevada-Oregon; in, Ridge, J.D., ed., Papers on Mineral Deposits of
Western North America. The International Association on the Genesis of Ore Deposits Fifth
Quadrennial Symposium Proceedings, v. II. Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology. Report 33, 1979.
109117 pp.
Savage (2022). Transload Terminal FEL Summary Report, Issued for Information, Issued to Lithium
Nevada. Savage Services Corporation. November 8, 2022.
Schlumberger Water Services (2013). Western Lithium Corporation Kings Valley Lithium Project
Groundwater Quantity and Quality Impact Analysis. Revision 3. August 2013.
Page 305
Schlumberger Water Services (2014). Evaluation of Water Supply for the Western Lithium Kings Valley
Project.
SME Mining Engineering Handbook, 2nd Edition, Volume 2, Table E. Material properties and
Characteristics, pg. A-33
Smith, R. and Bailey, R. (1968). Resurgent Cauldrons. Geological Society of America Memoirs, 116,
613-662. https://doi.org/10.1130/MEM116-p613.
Sohr, Julia (2017). IUPAC-NIST Solubility Data Series. 104. Lithium Sulfate and its Double Salts in Aqueous
Solutions. Julia Sohr, Wolfgang Voigt, Dewen Zeng. s.l. : J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data. , 2017, Vol. 46.
SRK Consulting (2012). Kings Valley Lithium Project Waste Rock Characterization Program Summary –
Update (Memo). Submitted April 27, 2012.
SRK Consulting (2015). Waste Rock Characterization in Support of the Bulk Sample Test Pit; Memorandum
from Tom Gray to NDEP-BMRR; Submitted March 9, 2015.
SRK Consulting (2016). Independent Technical Report for the Lithium Nevada Property, Nevada, USA;
Stage I and Stage II Resource Estimate; Effective Date: May 31, 2016 (SRK Technical Report).
SRK Consulting, (U.S.), Inc. (2019). Waste Rock and Ore Geochemical Characterization Work Plan for the
Thacker Pass Project. 14 February 2019
SRK Consulting, (U.S.), Inc. (2020). Baseline Geochemical Characterization Report for the Thacker Pass
Project. Report Prepared for Lithium Nevada. 10 January 2020 (Revised December 2020).
SRK Consulting, (U.S.), Inc. (2021). Waste Rock and Gangue Management Plan for the Thacker Pass Pro
SRK, 2011a. Western Lithium Corporation Spring and Seep Survey, Kings Valley Lithium Project.
September 2011.
SRK, 2011a. Western Lithium Corporation Spring and Seep Survey, Kings Valley Lithium Project.
September 2011.
SRK (2011b). Western Lithium Corporation Spring and Seep Survey, Kings Valley Lithium Project.
December 2011.
SRK (2012a). Western Lithium Corporation Spring and Seep Survey, Kings Valley Lithium Project. March
2012.
SRK (2012b). Western Lithium Corporation Spring and Seep Survey, Kings Valley Lithium Project. June
2012.
SRK (2012c). Western Lithium Corporation Spring and Seep Survey, Kings Valley Lithium Project.
September 2012.
SRK (2012d). Western Lithium Corporation Spring and Seep Survey, Kings Valley Lithium Project.
December 2012.
SRK (2013). Western Lithium Corporation Spring and Seep Survey, Kings Valley Lithium Project. March
2013.
SWCA Environmental Consultants (2018a). Lithium Nevada Corporation Ambient Noise Baseline Analysis.
August 2018.
Page 306
SWCA Environmental Consultants (2018b). Thacker Pass Project Botanical Baseline Surveys. October
2018.
SWCA Environmental Consultants (2019a). Thacker Pass Project Wildlife Baseline Surveys, February
2019 (Final).
SWCA Environmental Consultants (2019b). Thacker Pass Project Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat
Quantification Report. March 2019.
Tetra Tech (2012). Preliminary Feasibility Study, Kings Valley Lithium Project; Humboldt County, Nevada;
27 January 2012.
Tetra Tech (2014). NI 43-101 Technical Report: King’s Valley Property Humboldt County, Nevada.
Prepared by Tetra Tech, 2014.
Tetra Tech (2014a). Preliminary Feasibility Study, Lithium Nevada Project, Humboldt County, Nevada,
Effective Date of Stage 1 Resource Estimate; Effective Date: June 28, 2014 (Tetra Tech Prefeasibility
Study).
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (2020). Thacker Pass Lithium Mine Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement DOI-BLM-NV-W010-2020-0012-EIS. December 4, 2020.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (2020). Memorandum. Request for informal
consultation on the Thacker Pass Lithium Mine Project (Consultation Code: 08NVD00-2020-SLI-
0619). 6 November 2020.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (2021). Thacker Pass Lithium Mine Project
Record of Decision and Plan of Operations Approval DOI-BLM-NV-W010-2020-0012-EIS. January
2021.
URS (2010). Western Lithium Kings Valley Project NI 43-101 Technical Report, Preliminary Assessment
and Economic Evaluation Humboldt County, Nevada.
US Energy Information Administration’s August short term energy diesel forecast for 2022
US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (1995). Recovery Plan for Lahontan Cutthroat Trout. Region 1,
Portland Oregon. January 1995.
US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (2020). Memorandum. Informal Consultation on the Proposed
Thacker Pass Project, Humboldt County, Nevada. December 4, 2020. File No. 2021-I-0041.
USBM Bulletin 691 (1988)
Veolia Water Technologies (2020). Thacker Pass Project Lithium Carbonate Production PCS
#5300219071.
Visher, F. N., 1957. Water Resources Bulletin No. 14. Geology and Ground-Water Resources of Quinn
River Valley, Humboldt County, Nevada.
Worley Parsons (2018). Factual Geotechnical Investigation Report for Mine Pit Area. March 2018.
Westech (2021). Westech Testing Report Bench Scale Sedimentation & Rheology Studies, Lithium Nevada
Thacker Pass. 2021.
Westech (2021a). Westech CaCO3 Testing, Lithium Nevada Thacker Pass. 2021.
Page 307
Wildlife Resource Consultants LLC (WRC) (2018). Lithium Nevada 2018 Springsnail (Pyrgulopsis spp.)
Survey. 19 December 2018.
Wildlife Resource Consultants LLC (WRC) 2018a. Lithium Nevada Thacker Pass Project, 2018 Golden
Eagle and raptor nesting survey. Report prepared for Lithium Nevada Corporation, Reno, NV.
Wildlife Resource Consultants LLC (WRC) (2019a). Lithium Nevada Thacker Pass Project. 2018 Golden
Eagle and Raptor Nesting Surveys. Revised 15 January 2019.
Wildlife Resource Consultants LLC (WRC) (2019b). Lithium Nevada Thacker Pass Project. 2019. Golden
Eagle and Raptor Nesting Surveys. 21 June 2019.
Wildlife Resource Consultants LLC (WRC) (2019c). Lithium Nevada 2019 Supplemental Springsnail
(Pyrgulopsis spp.) Survey. 29 June 2019.
Wildlife Resource Consultants LLC (WRC) (2020). Lithium Nevada Thacker Pass Project. 2020 Golden
Eagle Nesting Surveys. 1 September 2020.
Eagle Nesting Surveys. 17 September 2021.
Eagle and raptor nesting survey. Report prepared for Lithium Nevada Corporation, Reno, NV, 14
September 2022.
Wood Mackenzie (2022). Global lithium 10-year investment horizon outlook, Pederson & Liu, Wood
Mackenzie. September 2022.
Young, D. Craig (2018). Volume I: Technical Report, Class III Inventory of 12,963 Acres for Lithium
Nevada’s Thacker Pass Project, Humboldt County, Nevada, BLM Report CR2-3402(P). September
2018. Draft. Revised 1 November 2019.
Zones, C. P., 1963. Ground Water in the Alluvium of Kings River Valley Humboldt County, Nevada.
Geologic Survey Water-Supply Paper 1619-L.
Page 308
Appendix A – Certificates of Qualified Persons
Page 309
CERTIFICATE OF QUALIFIED PERSON
I, Daniel Roth, P.E., P. Eng. do hereby certify that:
1. I am currently employed as a project manager and civil engineer at M3 Engineering & Technology Corp. located at
2051 West Sunset Rd, Suite 101, Tucson, AZ 85704.
2. This certificate applies to the technical report entitled, “Feasibility Study, National Instrument 43-101 Technical
Report for the Thacker Pass Project, Humboldt County, Nevada, USA” prepared for Lithium Americas Corp. (the
“Issuer”) with an effective date of November 2, 2022 (the “Technical Report”).
3. I graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree in Civil Engineering from The University of Manitoba in 1990.
4. I am a registered professional engineer in good standing in the following jurisdictions:
• Nevada, USA (No. 029423)
• Arizona, USA (No. 37319)
• New Mexico, USA (No. 17342)
• Alaska, USA (No. 102317)
• Minnesota, USA (No. 54138)
• Yukon, Canada (No. 1998)
• British Columbia, Canada (No. 38037)
• Alberta, Canada (No. 62310)
• Ontario, Canada (No. 100156213)
5. I have worked continuously as a design engineer, engineering, and project manager since 1990, a period of 30
years. I have worked in the minerals industry as a project manager for M3 Engineering & Technology Corporation
since 2003, with extensive experience in hard rock mine process plant and infrastructure design and construction,
environmental permitting review, as well as development of capital cost estimates, operating cost estimates, financial
analyses, preliminary economic assessments, pre-feasibility, and feasibility studies.
6. I have read the definition of “qualified person” set out in National Instrument 43-101 (“NI 43-101”) and certify that by
reason of my education, affiliation with a professional association (as defined in NI 43-101) and past relevant work
experience, I fulfill the requirements to be a “qualified person” for the purposes of NI 43-101.
7. I am responsible for Sections 2, 3, 18.1, 18.2, 18.3, 18.4, 18.5, 18.6, 18.9, 19, 21 (except for 21.1.3, 21.2.1 and
21.3), 22, and corresponding sections of 1, 25, 26 and 27 of the Technical Report.
8. I have had no prior involvement with the property that is the subject of the Technical Report. I visited the property
that is the subject of the Technical Report on April 13, 2021 for one day.
9. As of the effective date of the Technical Report, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the parts of the
Technical Report that I am responsible for contain all scientific and technical information that is required to be
disclosed to make the Technical Report not misleading.
10. I am independent of the Issuer and its subsidiaries as defined by Section 1.5 of NI 43-101.
11. I have read NI 43-101 and Form 43-101F1. The sections of the Technical Report that I am responsible for have been
prepared in compliance with that instrument and form.
Dated this 31st day of January, 2023.
(Signed) “Daniel Roth”

Signature of Qualified Person
Daniel Roth
Print Name of Qualified Person
I, Laurie M. Tahija, MMSA-Q.P. do hereby certify that:

1. I am currently employed as Senior Vice President by M3 Engineering & Technology Corporation, 2051 W. Sunset
Road, Ste. 101, Tucson, Arizona 85704, USA.
Report for the Thacker Pass Project, Humboldt County, Nevada, USA” prepared for Lithium Americas Corp. (the
“Issuer”) with an effective date of November 2, 2022 (the “Technical Report”).
3. I am a graduate of Montana College of Mineral Science and Technology, in Butte, Montana and received a
Bachelor of Science degree in Mineral Processing Engineering in 1981. I have practiced mineral processing for
40 years. I have over twenty (20) years of plant operations and project management experience at a variety of
mines including both precious metals and base metals. I have worked both in the United States (Nevada, Idaho,
California) and overseas (Papua New Guinea, China, Chile, Mexico) at existing operations and at new operations
during construction and startup, continuing into operation. My relevant experience for the purpose of this
technical report is:
• I have been directly involved in the operations of beneficiation (size reduction) plants for base metal and
precious metals processing plants. These same unit operations are required to prepare lithium ore prior
to downstream purification processes.
• For the past 19 years I have worked in the design of processing plants for scoping, pre-feasibility, and
feasibility studies for mining projects worldwide, as well as worked on the design and construction phases
of some of these projects. I have been responsible for process design for new plants and the retrofitting
of existing operations.
I belong to the following professional associations:
• Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration (SME)
• Mining and Metallurgical Society of America (MMSA)
I am recognized as a Qualified Professional (QP) member (#01399QP) with special expertise in
Metallurgy/Processing by the Mining and Metallurgical Society of America (MMSA).
4. I have not visited the property that is the subject of the Technical Report.
5. I am responsible for Section 17.1, Tables 17-1 and 17-3 and corresponding parts of 17.2.1 in Section 17.2,
17.3.1 to 17.3.4, 17.3.5.2, 17.3.8, 17.4.1 to 17.4.3, 17.4.6, corresponding parts of 17.4.10 and 17.4.11, and 17.5
to 17.11, 21.3 (except 21.3.3.1 and 21.3.3.3), as well as contributions to Sections 1, 25, 26 and 27 of the
Technical Report.
6. I am independent of the Issuer and its subsidiaries as defined by Section 1.5 of National instrument 43-101 (“NI
43-101”).
7. I have had no prior involvement with the property that is the subject of the Technical Report.
8. I have read the definition of “qualified person” set out in NI 43-101 and certify that by reason of my education,
affiliation with a professional association (as defined in NI 43-101) and past relevant work experience, I fulfill the
requirements to be a “qualified person” for the purposes of NI 43-101.
9. I have read NI 43-101 and Form 43-101F1. The sections of the Technical Report that I am responsible for have
been prepared in compliance with that instrument and form.
10. As of the effective date of the Technical Report, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the
Technical Report contains all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the
Technical Report not misleading.
Dated this 31st day of January 2023.
(Signed) “Laurie M. Tahija”

Laurie M. Tahija
I, Benson Chow, R.P.G., RM-SME, do hereby certify that:
1. I am Principal Geologist of:
Sawtooth Mining, LLC, a subsidiary of

NACCO Industries, Inc.
5340 Legacy Drive, Suite #300
Plano, TX 75024
Report for the Thacker Pass Project, Humboldt County, Nevada, USA” prepared for Lithium Americas Corp.
(the “Issuer”) with an effective date of November 2, 2022 (the “Technical Report”).
3. I graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree in Geosciences from Mississippi State University in 1998.
4. I am a Professional Geoscientist in good standing in Texas in the area of geology, license #10794, a
Registered Professional Geologist in good standing in Mississippi in the area of geology, license #0715, and
a Professional Geoscientist in good standing in Louisiana, license #664. I am also a Registered Member in
the area of geology and resource modeling in good standing with the Society for Mining, Metallurgy &
Exploration (SME), ID 4317057.
5. I have 23 years of relevant experience in mining, geology, exploration, mineral resource public disclosure,
and environmental permitting work that is relevant to be qualified as a qualified Person (QP) for this Technical
Report.
6. I am experienced in conducting geological investigations and exploration related to surface mining operations.
I have supervised, completed or participated in several exploration data verification and validation programs,
mineral resource models and due diligence studies on numerous surface projects of similar ore types,
geological characteristics and type of operations as the Thacker Pass deposit.
7. I have read the definition of “Qualified Person” set out in National Instrument 43-101 (“NI 43-101”) and certify
that by reason of my education, affiliation with a professional association (as defined in NI 43-101) and past
relevant work experience, I fulfill the requirements to be a “Qualified Person” for the purposes of NI 43-101.
8. I am responsible for Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, and 23 and corresponding sections of 1, 25, 26
and 27 of the Technical Report.
9. I visited the project site on November 18, 2018, and September 13 and 14, 2022. I have had prior involvement
with the property that is the subject of the Technical Report. Sawtooth Mining has been working on a geologic
model and mine plan for the Thacker Pass Project since 2018 and entered into a contract (the “Mining
Agreement”) with the project’s owner, Lithium Nevada, Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of the Issuer, to
provide mining services on May 16, 2019. I have been involved in those prior activities.
I have had no other involvement with the project or collaboration with the Issuer or any of its subsidiaries.
11. I have read NI 43-101 and Form 43-101F1, and the sections of the Technical Report that I am responsible for
have been prepared in compliance with that instrument and form.
12. As of the effective date of the Technical Report, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the part
of the Technical Report that I am responsible for contains all scientific and technical information that is required
to be disclosed to make the Technical Report not misleading.
Signed and dated this 31st day of January, 2023.
(Signed) “Benson Chow”

Benson Chow
I, Eugenio Iasillo, P. E. do hereby certify that:
1. I am currently employed as Principal at Process Engineering LLC:

Process Engineering LLC
1676 West Aristides Street
Tucson Arizona 85704
2. I graduated with a B.S. degree in Chemical Engineering in 1975 from Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolas
de Hidalgo (UMSNH) in the state of Michoacan, Mexico. I also attended the Extractive Metallurgy Master’s
program at the University of Arizona (1985-1988).
Report for the Thacker Pass Project, Humboldt County, Nevada, USA” prepared for Lithium Americas Corp.
(the “Issuer”) with an effective date of November 2, 2022 (the “Technical Report”).
4. I am a registered Professional Engineer in good standing in Arizona in the areas of Mining Engineering and
Mineral Processing. Arizona professional registration number is 28209. I am Professional member of the
Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration, Inc.
5. I have worked as a Metallurgist, Process Engineer and Manager of mineral processing plants and
metallurgical research facilities for a total of 46 years. Relevant experience in lithium bearing clays projects
include Bacanora Minerals (2014) in northern Mexico, where I reviewed existing metallurgical test work, pilot
plant data, flow sheet design, mass balance calculations as well as process evaluation. Scope of work
included definition of process equipment required for continuous production of 35,000 TPA commercial grade
lithium carbonate.
7. I am responsible for Section 13 including portions describing Run-of Mine (ROM) ore feed through
neutralization of tailings as well as magnesium precipitation. This comprises all parts of Section 13 except for
Sections 13.2.4.1, 13.2.4.3, and 13.2.5.1 to 13.2.5.3. I am furthermore responsible for corresponding sections
of 1, 25, 26 and 27 of the Technical Report.
8. I have not visited the project site.
9. I do not have prior involvement with the property that is the subject of the Technical Report.
10. As of the effective date of the technical report, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the parts
of the Technical Report that I am responsible for contain all scientific and technical information that is required
11. I am independent of the Issuer and its subsidiaries as defined by section 1.5 of NI 43-101.
Signed and dated this 31st day of January 2023.
(signed and sealed) “EUGENIO IASILLO”

EUGENIO IASILLO
I, Kevin R. Martina, P. Eng., as an author of this report entitled “Feasibility Study, National Instrument 43-101 Technical
Report for the Thacker Pass Project, Humboldt County, Nevada, USA” with effective date of November 2, 2022,
prepared for Lithium Americas Corp. (the “Issuer”), do hereby certify that:
1. I am a Senior Process Specialist with Wood Canada Limited, of Suite 301-121 Research Drive, Saskatoon,
SK, S7N 1K2.
2. I graduated from the University of Saskatchewan in 1998 with a Bachelor of Science degree in Chemical
Engineering.
3. I am registered as a member of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Saskatchewan
(APEGS) license number 10483. I have worked as a chemical engineer for a total of 24 years since my
graduation. My relevant experience for the purpose of this technical report is as follows:
• I have been directly involved in the operations of potash processing plants in Canada.
• For the past 11 years I have been involved in the process design of potash processing plants worldwide
which employ evaporation and crystallization techniques for processing mineral salts. These same
techniques are required for the purification of the lithium brines in the downstream process as well as for
the production of lithium carbonate.
4. I have read the definition of “qualified person” set out in the National Instrument 43-101 (“NI 43-101") and
certify that by reason of my education, affiliation with a professional association (as defined in NI 43-101) and
past relevant work experience, I fulfill the requirements to be a “qualified person” for the purposes of NI 43-
101, for the content of the technical report that I take responsibility.
5. I have visited the Lithium Nevada laboratory and technical development center in Reno, Nevada on December
1st to 3rd, 2021. During this visit, metallurgical data along with their collection methods were reviewed and
verified. This formed the basis for subsequent process reviews and recommendations for the design. I have
not been to the Thacker Pass property.as all the test work pertaining to my area of responsibility was being
conducted at the technical development center.
6. I am responsible for Sections 13.2.4.1, 13.2.4.3, 13.2.5.1 to 13.2.5.3, Tables 17-2 and 17-4 and corresponding
parts of 17.2.1 in Section 17.2, Sections 17.3.5.1, 17.3.6, 17.3.7, 17.4.4, 17.4.5, 17.4.7, 17.4.8, 17.4.9 and
corresponding parts of 17.4.10 and 17.4.11, as well as contributions to sections 1.9, 1.17, 25.6.7 to 25.6.9,
26.4.5 and 27 of the Technical Report.
7. I am independent of the Issuer applying the test set out in Section 1.5 of NI 43-101.
8. I have not had prior involvement with the Issuer’s Thacker Pass project.
9. I have read NI 43-101, and the sections of the Technical Report that I am responsible for have been prepared
in compliance with NI 43-101 and Form 43-101F1.
10. At the effective date of the Technical Report, to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, the sections
of the technical report for which I am responsible contain all scientific and technical information that is required
to be disclosed to make the technical report not misleading.
Dated this 31st day of January 2023.
(Signed) “Kevin R. Martina”

Kevin R. Martina, P. Eng.

I, Kevin A. Bahe, P.E., do hereby certify that:

1. I am a Principal Mining Engineer of:
Sawtooth Mining, LLC, a subsidiary of
NACCO Industries, Inc.
5340 Legacy Drive, Suite #300
Plano, TX 75024
2. This certification applies to the technical report entitled “Feasibility Study, National Instrument 43-101
Technical Report for the Thacker Pass Project, Humbolt County, Nevada, USA” prepared by Lithium Americas
Corp. (the “Issuer”) with an effective date of November 02, 2022 (the “Technical Report”).
3. I graduated with a Bachelor of Science in Mining Engineering from New Mexico Institute of Mining and
Technology in 1988 and a Master’s in Business Administration in 2005.
4. I am a registered Professional Engineer in good standing in the state of New Mexico in the area of Mining
Engineering, license #17850. I am also a Registered member of the Society of Mining, Metallurgy and
Exploration, Inc. in good standing, #121480.
5. I have worked as a mining engineer for a total of 28 years. My experience that is pertinent to be qualified as
a Qualified Person (QP) for this Technical Report (TP) includes: developing mine reserves/resource models,
mine plan scheduling, mineral resource/reserves reporting, developing mine designs for draglines &
truck/shovel operations, environmental permitting for surface operations and mineral reserve/resource public
disclosure reporting.
7. I am responsible for Sections 15, 16, 21.1.3, 21.2.1, 21.3.3.1, 24.2.1 to 24.2.4, and corresponding parts of
Sections 1, 25, 26, and 27 of the technical report.
8. I visited the project site on August 12 & 13, 2019, and on September 13 & 14, 2022. I have prior involvement
with the property that is the subject of the Technical Report. Sawtooth Mining has been working on the
geological model and mine plan/costing for the Thacker Pass Project since 2018 and was contracted as the
Issuer’s contract mine service provider on May 2019.
I have had no additional involvement with the project or collaboration or collaboration with the Issuer or its
subsidiaries.
9. As of the date of this certificate, to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, the Technical Report
contains all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the Technical Report
not misleading.
10. I have reviewed the test for independence in Section 1.5 of NI 43-101, including the examples provided in
Section 1.5(1)(a) – (h), and I am independent of Lithium Nevada, Corp., and its parent company, Lithium
Americas Corp.
11. I have read National Instrument 43-101 and Form 43-101F1, and the sections of the Technical Report that I
am responsible for have been prepared in compliance with that instrument and form.
12. I consent to the filing of the Technical Report with any stock exchange and other regulatory authority and any
publication by them, including electronic publication in the public company files on their websites accessible
by the public, of the Technical Report.
(signed) “Kevin A. Bahe”

Kevin A. Bahe
I, Walter Mutler, P.Eng, do hereby certify that:

1. I am Senior Vice President of:
Exp U.S. Services Inc.
11339 Clay Road, Suite 550
Houston, Texas 77041
U.S.A.
2. I graduated with a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering from the Technical University of Istanbul.
3. I am a Professional Engineer in good standing in the Province of Ontario in the areas of Mechanical
Engineering (No. 90258617).
4. I have worked as an engineer for a total of 42 years. My experience includes over 30 years of designing and
managing sulfuric acid plants. During the last 20 years, I was a project sponsor for more than 20 sulfuric acid
plant designs and project construction in North America, Europe, and South America. The following FEED
and bankable feasibility projects are some of my relevant experience in sulfuric acid production for leaching
of various metals like nickel, and copper: Goro Nickel Caledonia, Ambatovy Nickel Madagaskar, Baja Mining
Mexico and Jifco Phosphoric/sulfuric acid plant in Jordan.
6. I am an author for the preparation of the technical report titled “Feasibility Study, National Instrument 43-101
Technical Report for the Thacker Pass Project, Humboldt County, Nevada, USA” prepared for Lithium
Americas Corp. (the “Issuer”) with an effective date of November 2, 2022 (the “Technical Report”).
7. I and am responsible for Sections 18.8, 21.2.1, 21.3.3.3, and corresponding sections of 1, 25, 26 and 27 of
the Technical Report.
8. I visited the project site on November 2, 2022.
9. I have not had prior involvement with the property that is the subject of the Technical Report.
10. As of the effective date of the Technical Report, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the parts
of the Technical Report that I am responsible for contain all scientific and technical information that is required
Signed and dated this 31st of January, 2023.
(Signed and sealed) “Walter Mutler”

Walter Mutler
Paul Kaplan
I, Paul Kaplan, P.E., do hereby certify that:
1. I am a Principal Engineer of:

NewFields Mining Design & Technical Services
1301 N. McCarran Boulevard, Suite 101
Sparks, Nevada 89431
U.S.A.
2. I am a graduate of Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA with a B.S. in Civil Engineering in 1980
and in 1983 with an M.S. in Civil Engineering.
3. I am a Professional Engineer in good standing in the following states in the USA: Nevada (8034),
Washington (50215), Montana (16917), Utah (7667), Arizona (19234) and California (C46683).
4. I have worked as a Civil Engineer for a total of 39 years continuously since my graduation. My experience as
an engineer includes designing and managing mine development and expansion projects including tailings
storage, heap leach facilities, mine waste storage, surface and process water management and other civil
engineering related infrastructure.
6. I am responsible for parts of Sections 18.10 and 20 (excluding Sections 20.7.4.1 to 20.7.4.6), and
corresponding sections of 1, 25 and 26 of the technical report titled “Feasibility Study, National Instrument
43-101 Technical Report for the Thacker Pass Project, Humboldt County, Nevada, USA” dated effective
November 2, 2022 (the “Technical Report”).
7. I have had no prior involvement with the property that is the subject of the Technical Report. I have not
visited the project site since joining NewFields.
8. As of the date of this certificate, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the sections of the
Technical Report that I am responsible for contain all scientific and technical information that is required to
be disclosed to make the Technical Report not misleading.
9. I am independent of the issuer applying all of the tests in Section 1.5 of NI 43-101.
10. I have read NI 43-101 and Form 43-101F1, and the Technical Report has been prepared in compliance with
that instrument and form.
(signed and sealed) “Paul Kaplan”

Paul Kaplan, P.E.
Principal, NewFields
Tyler Cluff
I, Tyler Cluff, P.G., RM-SME, do hereby certify that:
1. I am employed as a senior hydrogeologist and operations manager at Piteau Associates located at 9090
Double Diamond Blvd Suite 1 Reno, NV 89521.
2. I graduated with a Master of Science degree in Hydrogeology from the University of Nevada Reno in 2007
and a Bachelor of Science degree in Geology from Weber State University in 2004.
3. I am a Professional Geologist in good standing in the state of California (No. 8827).
4. I have worked as a geologist for a total of 15 years. My experience includes hydrogeologic investigation,
monitoring, and numerical modeling in the mining and industrial sectors. Such experience includes drilling
oversight, instrumentation, and testing of geologic formations. Well and pump design for dewatering and
sustainable water supply operations with associated capital and operational cost estimates. Numerical model
construction, calibration, prediction, and review for the purposes of environmental permitting of facilities and/or
infrastructure design.
6. I am a contributing author for the preparation of the technical report titled “Feasibility Study, National
Instrument 43-101 Technical Report for the Thacker Pass Project, Humboldt County, Nevada, USA” prepared
for Lithium Nevada Corp. (“LNC”) with an effective date of November 2, 2022 (the “Technical Report”); and
am responsible for Sections 20.7.4.1 to 20.7.4.6. I have visited the project site on March 7 to 8, June 8, and
November 7 to 9, 2022.
7. I have had prior involvement with the property that is the subject of the Technical Report. Previous site work
includes the baseline water resources characterization program, the water quantity and quality environmental
impacts assessment studies, support developing monitoring and mitigation plans, and water rights acquisition.
8. As of the date of this certificate, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the Technical Report
contains all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the Technical Report
not misleading.
9. I am independent of the issuer applying all of the tests in Section 1.5 of National Instrument 43-101.
10. I have read National Instrument 43-101 and Form 43-101F1, and the Technical Report has been prepared in
compliance with that instrument and form.
Signed and dated this 31st of January, 2023.
(signed) “Tyler Cluff”

Tyler Cluff
Certificate of Qualified Person
I, Bruce A. Shannon, P.E., as Project Director overseeing the development and pricing of the Thacker Pass Project Power
Distribution System for Lithium Americas Corp., do hereby certify that:
1. I am Vice President of Design Build for ITAC Engineers & Constructors located at 3100 Smoketree Court Suite
800 Raleigh, NC 27604.
2. I graduated from the University of Tennessee in 1988 with a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical
Engineering.
3. I am currently licensed as a Professional Engineer in North Carolina (License No. 026161)
4. I have worked as an electrical engineer for a total of 34 years since my graduation. My relevant experience for
the purpose of this technical report is:
• I have been directly involved in the engineering and construction of industrial power and control systems for
the past 34 years
• I have been directly involved in engineering, procurement, construction, estimating, construction
management and startup of systems for the past 34 years.
• My projects have been for manufacturing, power generation, mining, pulp and paper, metals, chemicals,
plastics, government and R&D customers.
5. I have read the definition of “qualified person” set out in the National Instrument 43-101 (NI 43-101) and certify
relevant work experience, I fulfill the requirements to be a “qualified person” for the purposes of NI 43-101, for the
content of the technical report that I take responsibility.
6. I have visited the pilot plant in Reno, Nevada and the mine/plant site at Thacker Pass on October 18, 2020.
7. I am responsible for Section 18.7 and corresponding sections of 1, 25, 26 and 27 of the technical report entitled,
“Feasibility Study, National Instrument 43-101 Technical Report for the Thacker Pass Project, Humboldt County,
Nevada, USA” prepared for Lithium Americas Corp. (the “Issuer”) with an effective date of November 2, 2022.
8. I am independent of the Issuer applying the test set out in Section 1.5 of NI 43-101.
9. I have been involved with scope development and estimating for the Transload facility in Winnemucca, NV as
well as the Thacker Pass Project since early 2020 and have extensive knowledge of the power requirements for
the project.
10. I have read NI 43-101, and the sections of the Technical Report that I am responsible for have been prepared in
compliance with NI 43-101 and Form 43-101F1.
11. At the effective date of the Technical Report, to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, the sections of
the technical report for which I am responsible contain all scientific and technical information that is required to be
disclosed to make the technical report not misleading.
Dated this 31st day of January, 2023
(Signed) “Bruce A. Shannon”

Bruce A. Shannon, P.E.


Thacker Pass FS 11022022

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Thacker Pass FS 11022022

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Thacker Pass FS 11022022

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Feasibility Study

National Instrument 43-101

Daniel Roth, P.E., P.Eng. (M3) Walter Mutler, P.Eng. (EXP)

Laurie Tahija, QP-MMSA (M3) Kevin Bahe, P.E. (Sawtooth)

Eugenio Iasillo, P.E. (Process Paul Kaplan, P.E. (NewFields)

Kevin Martina, P.Eng. (Wood) Tyler Cluff, RM-SME (Piteau)

Benson Chow, RM-SME (Sawtooth) Bruce Shannon, P.E. (ITAC)

Date and Signatures Page

6.3 Historic Production from the Property ............................................................................... 40

15.6 Comments ....................................................................................................................... 151

21 Capital and Operating Costs ..................................................................................................... 233

List of Figures and Illustrations

Figure 13-9 Log Washer and Attrition Scrubber ................................................................................... 98

Table 17-8 Steam Use ...................................................................................................................... 185

1.2 Property Location, Description and Ownership

1.4 Deposit Types

1.7 Sample Preparation, Analyses and Security

1.8 Data Verification

1.8.1 Mineral Resources

1.8.2 Mineral Reserves

1.9 Metallurgical Testing

Refinement and further optimization to the process continue to be made as required.

1.10 Mineral Resources and Reserves

1.10.1 Mineral Resources

Table 1-2 Mineral Resources Estimate as of November 2, 2022

1.10.2 Mineral Reserves

Table 1-3 Mineral Reserves Estimate as of November 02, 2022

Tonnage Average Li Lithium Carbonate

Proven 192.9 3,180 3.3

1.11 Mine Methods

 585 million total tonnes mined which includes the following:

1.12 Recovery Methods

Figure 1-1 Overall Site General Arrangement

Source: M3, 2022

1.13.1 Raw Materials

1.13.2 Sulfuric Acid Plant

1.13.3 Clay Tailings Filter Stack (CTFS)

1.14 Market Studies and Contracts

1.15 Capital and Operating Costs

Table 1-4 Development Capital Cost Estimate Summary

Mine 76.4 1,144 16%

Area Annual Average ($-M) $/tonne Product Percent of Total

Mine 71.7 1,026 15%

1.16 Financial Model

Table 1-9 Production Scenario (40-Year LOM – Base Case)

Category Units Value

Table 1-10 Production Scenario – (Years 1-25 of 40-Year LOM Case)

After-tax IRR % 21.2%

Category Units Value

1.17 Conclusions and Recommendations

Environmental Protection-Bureau of Mining, Regulation and Reclamation (NDEP-BMRR). LAC and

2 Introduction and Terms of Reference

2.1 Sources of Information

Table 2-2 Qualified Person Areas of Responsibility

Table 2-3 Previously Filed Technical Reports

Preparer Issuer Title Effective Date

The current Mineral Resource has an effective date of November 2, 2022.

2.2 Description of Personal Inspections

2.3 Units, Currency and Terms of Reference

Table 2-4 Abbreviations and Acronyms