Criteria

JORC Code explanation

Commentary

Sampling techniques

>  Nature and quality of sampling (e.g. cut channels, random chips, or specific specialised industry standard measurement tools appropriate to the minerals under investigation, such as downhole gamma sondes, or handheld XRF instruments, etc.). These examples should not be taken as limiting the broad meaning of sampling.

>  Include reference to measures taken to ensure sample representivity and the appropriate calibration of any measurement tools or systems used.

>  Aspects of the determination of mineralisation that are Material to the Public Report. In cases where ‘industry standard’ work has been done this would be relatively simple (e.g. ‘reverse circulation drilling was used to obtain 1 m samples from which 3 kg was pulverised to produce a 30 g charge for fire assay’). In other cases more explanation may be required, such as where there is coarse gold that has inherent sampling problems. Unusual commodities or mineralisation types (e.g. submarine nodules) may warrant disclosure of detailed information.

All results reported are from diamond core samples. The core was sawn at an orientation not influenced by the distribution of mineralization within the drill core (i.e. bisecting mineralized veins, or cut perpendicular to a fabric in the rock that is independent of mineralization, such as foliation). Diamond drilling provided continuous core which allowed continuous sampling of mineralized zones.  The core sample intervals were a minimum of 0.35m and a maximum of 1.5m for HQ or NQ drill core (except in saprolitic areas of poor recovery where sample intervals may exceed 1.5m in length), and took into account lithological boundaries (i.e. sample was to, and not across, major contacts).

Standards and blanks were inserted into the sample stream to assess the accuracy, precision and methodology of the external laboratories used. In addition, field duplicate samples were inserted to assess the variability of the mineralisation., The laboratories undertake their own duplicate sampling as part of their internal QA/QC processes. Examination of the QA/QC sample data indicates satisfactory performance of field sampling protocols and assay laboratories providing acceptable levels of precision and accuracy.

Drilling techniques

>  Drill type (e.g. core, reverse circulation, open-hole hammer, rotary air blast, auger, Bangka, sonic, etc.) and details (e.g. core diameter, triple or standard tube, depth of diamond tails, face-sampling bit or other type, whether core is oriented and if so, by what method, etc.).

All diamond drill holes were collared with HQ and were transitioned to NQ once non-weathered and unoxidized bedrock was encountered.  Drill core was recovered from surface.

Oriented core was collected on select drill holes using the REFLEX ACT III tool by a qualified geologist at the drill rig. The orientation data is currently being evaluated.

Drill sample recovery

>  Method of recording and assessing core and chip sample recoveries and results assessed.

>  Measures taken to maximise sample recovery and ensure representative nature of the samples.

>  Whether a relationship exists between sample recovery and grade and whether sample bias may have occurred due to preferential loss/gain of fine/coarse material.

The core was transported from the drill site to the logging facility in covered boxes with the utmost care. Once at the logging facility, the following procedures were carried out on the core:

1. Re-aligning the broken core in its original position as closely as possible.

2. The length of recovered core was measured and meter marks clearly placed on the core to indicate depth to the nearest centimetre.

3. The length of core recovered was used to determine the core recovery, which is the length of core recovered divided by the interval drilled (as indicated by the footage marks which was converted to meter marks), expressed as a percentage. This data was recorded in the database. The core was photographed wet before logged.

4. The core was photographed again immediately before sampling with the sample numbers visible.

Sample recovery was consistently good except for zones within the oxidized clay and saprolite zones.  These zones were generally within the top 20m of the hole.  No relationship is recognized between recovery and grade.  The drill holes were designed to intersect the targeted pegmatite below the oxidized zone.

Logging

>  Whether core and chip samples have been geologically and geotechnically logged to a level of detail to support appropriate Mineral Resource estimation, mining studies and metallurgical studies.

>  Whether logging is qualitative or quantitative in nature. Core (or costean, channel, etc.) photography.

>  The total length and percentage of the relevant intersections logged.

Geologically, data was collected in detail, sufficient to aid in Mineral Resource estimation.

Core logging consisted of marking the core, describing lithologies, geologic features, percentage of spodumene and structural features measured to core axis.

The core was photographed wet before logging and again immediately before sampling with the sample numbers visible.

All the core from the twenty-six holes reported was logged.

Sub-sampling techniques and sample preparation

>  If core, whether cut or sawn and whether quarter, half or all core taken.

>  If non-core, whether riffled, tube sampled, rotary split, etc. and whether sampled wet or dry.

>  For all sample types, the nature, quality and appropriateness of the sample preparation technique.

>  Quality control procedures adopted for all sub-sampling stages to maximise representivity of samples.

>  Measures taken to ensure that the sampling is representative of the in situ material collected, including for instance results for field duplicate/second-half sampling.

>  Whether sample sizes are appropriate to the grain size of the material being sampled.

Core was cut in half with a diamond saw.

Standard sample intervals were a minimum of 0.35m and a maximum of 1.5m for HQ or NQ drill core, taking into account lithological boundaries (i.e. sample to, and not across, major contacts).

The preparation code is CRU21 (crush to 75% of sample <2mm) and PUL45 (pulverize 250g to 85% <75 microns).

A CRM or coarse blank was included at the rate of one for every 20 drill core samples (i.e. 5%).

Sampling precision is monitored by selecting a sample interval likely to be mineralized and splitting the sample into two ¼ core duplicate samples over the same sample interval. These samples are consecutively numbered after the primary sample and recorded in the sample database as “field duplicates” and the primary sample number recorded. Field duplicates were collected at the rate of 1 in 20 samples when sampling mineralized drill core intervals

Samples were numbered sequentially with no duplicates and no missing numbers. Triple tag books using 9-digit numbers were used, with one tag inserted into the sample bag and one tag stapled or otherwise affixed into the core tray at the interval the sample was collected. Samples were placed inside pre-numbered sample bags with numbers coinciding to the sample tag. Quality control (QC) samples, consisting of certified reference materials (CRMs), were given sample numbers within the sample stream so that they are masked from the laboratory after sample preparation and to avoid any duplication of sample numbers.

Quality of assay data and laboratory tests

>  The nature, quality and appropriateness of the assaying and laboratory procedures used and whether the technique is considered partial or total.

>  For geophysical tools, spectrometers, handheld XRF instruments, etc., the parameters used in determining the analysis including instrument make and model, reading times, calibrations factors applied and their derivation, etc.

>  Nature of quality control procedures adopted (e.g. standards, blanks, duplicates, external laboratory checks) and whether acceptable levels of accuracy (i.e. lack of bias) and precision have been established.

All samples from the Phase II drilling were shipped to the SGS laboratory in Lakefield, Ontario.

The preparation code was CRU21 (crush to 75% of sample <2mm) and PUL45 (pulverize 250g to 85% <75 microns).

The analyses code was GE ICM40B (multi-acid digestion with either an ICP-ES or ICP-MS finish), which has a range for Li of 1 to 10,000 (1%) ppm Li.

The over-range method code for Li >5,000 ppm is GE ICP90A, which uses a peroxide fusion with an ICP finish, and has lower and upper detection limits of 0.001 and 5% respectively.

Starting in August, samples were switched to being analysed using GE ICP90A Li only and then to GE ICP91A Li only.

Bulk Densities are collected from each drill hole (one host rock and one mineralized rock) using analyses code GPHY04V.

Phase I samples were shipped to the Bureau Veritas minerals laboratory in Reno, Nevada.

The preparation code was PRP70-250 (crush to 70% of sample <2mm, pulverize 250g to 85% <75 microns).

The analysis code was MA270 (multi-acid digestion with either an ICP-ES or ICP-MS finish), which has a range for Li of 0.5 to 10,000 ppm (1%) Li. This digestion provides only partial analyses for many elements in refractory minerals, including Ta and Nb. It does not include analyses for Cs.

The over-range method code for Li>10,000 ppm is PF370, which uses a peroxide fusion with an ICP-ES finish, and has lower and upper detection limits of 0.001 and 50%, respectively. The laboratory was instructed to implement the over-range method in all samples that exceed 5,000 ppm Li to allow for poor data precision near the upper limit of detection using MA270.

Historical samples (holes 09-BD-01 through 10-BD-19) were submitted to ALS Vancouver for analysis.

Accuracy monitoring was achieved through submission and monitoring of certified reference materials (CRMs).

Sample numbering and the inclusion of CRMs was the responsibility of the project geologist submitting the samples. A CRM or coarse blank was included at the rate of one for every 20 drill core samples (i.e. 5%).

The CRMs used for this program were supplied by Geostats Pty Ltd of Perth, Western Australia.  Details of the CRMs are provided below. A sequence of these CRMs covering a range in Li values and, including blanks, were submitted to the laboratory along with all dispatched samples so as to ensure each run of 100 samples contains the full range of control materials. The CRMs were submitted as “blind” control samples not identifiable by the laboratory.

Sampling precision was monitored by selecting a sample interval likely to be mineralized and splitting the sample into two ¼ core duplicate samples over the same sample interval. These samples were consecutively numbered after the primary sample and recorded in the sample database as “field duplicates” and the primary sample number recorded. Field duplicates were collected at the rate of 1 in 20 samples when sampling mineralized drill core intervals. Random sampling precision was monitored by splitting samples at the sample crushing stage (coarse crush duplicate) and at the final sub-sampling stage for analysis (pulp duplicates).  The coarse, jaw-crushed, reject material was split into two preparation duplicates, sometimes referred to as second cuts, crusher or preparation duplicates, which were then pulverized and analysed separately. These duplicate samples were selected randomly by the laboratory. Analytical precision was also monitored using pulp duplicates, sometimes referred to as replicates or repeats. Data from all three types of duplicate analyses was used to constrain sampling variance at different stages of the sampling and preparation process.

Examination of the QA/QC sample data indicates satisfactory performance of field sampling protocols and assay laboratories providing acceptable levels of precision and accuracy.

Verification of sampling and assaying

>  The verification of significant intersections by either independent or alternative company personnel.

>  The use of twinned holes.

>  Documentation of primary data, data entry procedures, data verification, data storage (physical and electronic) protocols.

>  Discuss any adjustment to assay data.

Multiple representatives of Piedmont Lithium, Inc. have inspected and verified the results.

CSA has conducted two site visits. Dennis Arne (Managing Director -Principal Consultant) toured the site, facilities and reviewed core logging and sampling workflow as well as Leon McGarry (Senior Resource Geologist). Each provided comments on how to improve our methods and have been addressed. Verification core samples were collected by Leon McGarry with assays pending.

No holes were twinned.

Ten-foot rods and core barrels were used, the core was converted from feet to meters.  Li% was converted to Li2O by multiplying Li% by 2.153.

Location of data points

>  Accuracy and quality of surveys used to locate drill holes (collar and down-hole surveys), trenches, mine workings and other locations used in Mineral Resource estimation.

>  Specification of the grid system used.

>  Quality and adequacy of topographic control.

Drill collars were located with the Trimble Geo 7 which resulted in accuracies <1m.

All coordinates were collected in State Plane and re-projected to Nad83 zone17 in which they are reported.

Drill hole surveying was performed on each hole using a REFLEX EZ-Trac multi-shot instrument. Readings were taken approx. every 15 meters (50 feet) and recorded depth, azimuth, and inclination.

Data spacing and distribution

>  Data spacing for reporting of Exploration Results.

>  Whether the data spacing and distribution is sufficient to establish the degree of geological and grade continuity appropriate for the Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve estimation procedure(s) and classifications applied.

>  Whether sample compositing has been applied.

For selected areas, the drill spacing is approximately 40 to 80 m along strike and down dip.  This spacing is sufficient to establish continuity in geology and grade for this pegmatite system.

Composite samples are reported in Li2O%, this is calculated by multiplying drill length by Li₂O for each sample; then the weighted averages for multiple samples are totalled and divided by the total drill length for the selected samples

Orientation of data in relation to geological structure

>  Whether the orientation of sampling achieves unbiased sampling of possible structures and the extent to which this is known, considering the deposit type.

>  If the relationship between the drilling orientation and the orientation of key mineralised structures is considered to have introduced a sampling bias, this should be assessed and reported if material.

The pegmatite dikes targeted trend northeast and dip to the southeast, drillholes were designed, oriented to the northwest with inclinations ranging from -45 to -80 degrees, to best intersect the tabular pegmatite bodies as close to perpendicularly as possible.

Sample security

>  The measures taken to ensure sample security.

Drill core samples were shipped directly from the field by the project geologist in sealed rice bags or similar containers using a reputable transport company with shipment tracking capability so that a chain of custody can be maintained.  Each bag was sealed with a security strap with a unique security number. The containers were locked in a shed if they were stored overnight at any point during transit, including at the drill site prior to shipping. The laboratory confirmed the integrity of the rice bag seals upon receipt

Audits or reviews

>  The results of any audits or reviews of sampling techniques and data.

CSA Global developed a “Standard Operating Procedures” manual in preparation for the drilling program.  CSA global reviews all logging and assay data, as well as merges all data in to database that is held off site.

CSA has conducted two site visits. Dennis Arne (Managing Director -Principal Consultant) toured the site and facilities as well as Leon McGarry (Senior Resource Geologist). Each provided comments on how to improve our methods and have been addressed. Verification core samples were collected by Leon McGarry with assays pending.