Exhibit 99.1

Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Information

Information contained in this report and the documents referred to herein which are not statements of historical facts, may be “forward-looking information” for the purposes of Canadian Securities laws. Such forward looking information involves risks, uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual results, performance, prospects and opportunities to differ materially from those expressed or implied by such forward looking information. The words “expect”, “target”, “estimate”, “may”, “anticipate”, “should”, “will”, and similar expressions identify forward-looking information.

These forward-looking statements relate to, among other things, resource estimates, grades and recoveries, development plans, mining methods and metrics including recovery process and, mining and production expectations including expected cash flows, capital cost estimates and expected life of mine, operating costs, the expected payback period, receipt of government approvals and licenses, time frame for construction, financial forecasts including net present value and internal rate of return estimates, tax and royalty rates, and other expected costs.

Forward-looking information is necessarily based upon a number of estimates and assumptions that, while considered reasonable, are inherently subject to significant political, business, economic and competitive uncertainties and contingencies. There may be factors that cause results, assumptions, performance, achievements, prospects or opportunities in future periods not to be as anticipated, estimated or intended.

There can be no assurances that forward-looking information and statements will prove to be accurate, as many factors and future events, both known and unknown could cause actual results, performance or achievements to vary or differ materially from the results, performance or achievements that are or may be expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements contained herein or incorporated by reference. Accordingly, all such factors should be considered carefully when making decisions with respect to the Project, and prospective investors should not place undue reliance on forward-looking information. Forward-looking information in this technical report is as of the issue date, July 23, 2025. Standard Lithium Ltd. assumes no obligation to update or revise forward-looking information to reflect changes in assumptions, changes in circumstances or any other events affecting such forward-looking information, except as required by applicable law.

Table of Contents

List of Figures

List of Tables

This Technical Report has been commissioned by, and completed for, Standard Lithium Ltd. (Standard Lithium, or the Company); a public company with its corporate headquarters in Vancouver, B.C. This report focuses on Standard Lithium’s greenfield development in southwest Arkansas referred to as the South West Arkansas Project (SWA Project), which considers extraction of lithium produced from brine associated with mineral leases acquired by TETRA Technologies Inc. (TETRA) under which Standard Lithium has an option agreement for the lithium.

This report outlines Standard Lithium’s plans for the SWA Project, including how the lease acreage could be unitized in compliance with the Arkansas Brine Statute (AR Code § 15-76-301) to facilitate production from the underlying Smackover Formation brine aquifer in conjunction with the preparation of a Pre-Feasibility Study (PFS). This Technical Report updates and refines the findings and recommendations presented in the 2021 Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA). This PFS also outlines and updates the proposed method of extraction of the brine from the resource while also presenting a more refined flowsheet to extract and purify the lithium to produce a marketable product.

The center of the SWA Project is located approximately 24 km (15 miles) west of the City of Magnolia in Lafayette County, southwestern Arkansas, United States. The SWA Property encompasses Townships 16-17 South and Ranges 22-24 West of the 5th Meridian and lies wholly within Lafayette and Columbia counties.

The SWA Property is comprised of 489 land tracts containing 851 individual leases and eight salt water (brine) deeds that covers 27,066 net mineral acres (10,953 net mineral hectares). The proposed unitized SWA Property encompasses 36,839 gross mineral acres (14,908 gross mineral hectares) and forms the updated 2023 resource and project area.

The leases and deeds are held by TETRA. TETRA began acquiring brine deeds and/or brine leases in 1992 and added additional brine leases in 1994, 2006 and 2017. Standard Lithium acquired the SWA Project brine production rights to lithium directly from TETRA through an option agreement providing that Standard Lithium makes annual payments. At the time of writing, Standard Lithium is up to date with all required payments. As of the date of this report, the process of unitization has not commenced and neither Standard Lithium nor TETRA have developed the SWA Project brine leases and deeds for production of brine minerals.

The SWA Property lithium deposit is a confined brine deposit in the form of a lithium-bearing brine contained within the porosity of the Smackover Formation within the SWA Property boundaries. The Smackover Formation in southern Arkansas is commonly subdivided into three intervals, the Reynolds Member Oolite (predominantly oolitic limestone), referred to in this report as the Upper Smackover, the Middle Smackover (a burrowed pellet packstone), and the Brown Dense (dark, dense limestone), referred to in this report as the Lower Smackover. The lithium brine resource, as reported, is contained within the Upper and Middle Members of the Smackover Formation (which underlie the entire Project area). The Lower Smackover does not contribute to the resource estimates in this report, but is a future target for exploration.

The depth of the top of the Smackover in the Property area generally dips from north-northeast to south-southwest and varies in depth from approximately 7,600 feet (2,316 meters) subsea to approximately 9,100 feet (2,773 meters) subsea. Brine has been extracted commercially from the Smackover in southern Arkansas for approximately 60 years and is well understood.

The volume of in-place lithium is proportional to the product of the brine-saturated pore volume and the lithium concentration, both of which are known with reasonable accuracy, based on the drilling, logging, coring, and sampling data obtained throughout the property area. The data used to estimate and model the resource were gathered from the five project specific wells described in Section 1.4 along with 424 existing and suspended oil and gas production wells on or adjacent to the SWA Project and surface seismic information.

From February to July in 2023 Standard Lithium conducted a five-well exploration program at the SWA Property. The exploration program design and execution was supported by the QP Williams, including choice of well locations, data gathering plans, monitoring well progress, advising on coring targets and procedures, and interpretation of results. This program included re-entry into three existing abandoned wells (Taylor, Beulah et al 1, International Paper Co. 1, and Carter Moore 1) and drilling two all-new wells (Speer 1 and Montague 1). These five well locations were chosen to maximize the description of the geologic properties and lithium concentrations within the Property. Figure 1-1 depicts the locations of those five wells and the observed maximum and average lithium concentrations. In support of further project definition, up to three additional wells will be considered for the next phase to provide in-fill data in support of a reserve classification.

Figure 1-1. SWA Project 2023 Exploration Program

The resource present in the Smackover Formation below the SWA Project was updated based on the proposed unitized area encompassing 36,839 gross mineral acres (14,908 gross mineral hectares). Using a conversion factor of 5.323 kg of lithium carbonate equivalent (LCE) per kg of lithium, the Indicated Resource value corresponds to an estimate of 1,430 thousand metric tonnes LCE. For the Inferred Resource, the estimate is 392 thousand metric tonnes LCE; see Table 1-1 and Table 1-2 below for more detail.

Table 1-1. SWA Property Geologic Factors and Indicated Lithium Resource Estimates

Table 1-2. SWA Property Geologic Factors and Inferred Lithium Resource Estimates

Notes for Table 1-1 and Table 1-2:

1. Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability. There is no guarantee that all or any part of the mineral resource will be converted into a mineral reserve. The estimate of mineral resources may be materially affected by geology, environment, permitting, legal, title, taxation, socio-political, marketing, or other relevant issues.

2. Numbers may not add up due to rounding to the nearest 1,000 unit.

3. A minimum lithium concentration cutoff was not applied in this analysis because the entirety of the SWA Property exceeds the previously used 100 mg/L cutoff value.

4. The resource estimate was developed and classified in accordance with guidelines established by the Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. The associated Technical Report was completed in accordance with the Canadian Securities Administration’s National Instrument 43-101 and all associated documents and amendments. As per these guidelines, the resource was estimated in terms of metallic (or elemental) lithium.

5. In order to describe the resource in terms of ‘industry standard’ lithium carbonate equivalent, a conversion factor of 5.323 was used to convert elemental lithium to LCE.

The average lithium concentrations used in the indicated resource calculation are 507 mg/L and 408 mg/L, for the South and North resource areas, respectively.

The updated 2023 SWA Project resource is 52% larger than the 2021 PEA resource estimate. The resource increase is primarily related to the higher concentration of lithium, which increased in concentration from an overall average of 255 mg/L to 437 mg/L. Higher lithium concentrations offset a reduction in brine volume associated with tightened and enhanced reservoir definition.

The resource will be extracted using a network of brine supply wells and injection wells (which are required for pressure maintenance and are standard throughout the Arkansas brine industry). The configuration of this well field has been determined using a finite difference computer model based on the eight-layer geologic model developed for the resource categorization. The preliminary results of this model indicate the SWA Property appears to be capable of producing greater than 30,000 metric tonnes per annum (tpa) of lithium hydroxide monohydrate (the commercially sold form, also referred to as lithium hydroxide or hydroxide) for 20 years or more, and that production rates greater than 35,000 metric tpa are probable with modifications to the assumed production and injection well count and configuration, given the current understanding of the SWA Property’s geology and distribution of lithium.

Standard Lithium have operated a Demonstration Plant, exclusively processing Smackover brine, since May 2020. This has provided a valuable source of knowledge in regards to the behavior of the brine, testing of various flowsheet elements directly, and providing a test bed for operator training. In addition, the Demonstration Plant has facilitated an ability to produce lithium chloride samples along with brine samples from various stages of the flowsheet to support bench scale metallurgical testing, mini-pilot plant testing and vendor testing in support of equipment design and process guarantees. The Demonstration Plant is located about 40 km (25 miles) east of the SWA Project and it is the Company’s intent to continue to use the information obtained from the Demonstration Plant to aid in flowsheet development, optimize lithium extraction and lithium chloride purification and to develop operations capability.

The development plan considered for the SWA Project PFS demonstrates production of battery-quality lithium hydroxide averaging 30,000 tpa over a 20-year operating life. The Project will pump brine from the Smackover Formation aquifer via production wells, extract lithium from the brine, convert it to a saleable product, and then reinject the effluent brine via injection wells to maintain pressure in the reservoir.

The PFS assumes a network of 21 brine supply wells will be completed in the Smackover Formation, producing approximately 1,800 m3/hr or 7,925 US gallons per minute(gpm). Twenty-two injection wells will support pressure maintenance in the Smackover aquifer to maintain long-term production.

Brine from the supply wells will be routed to a lithium extraction and lithium hydroxide production facility by a network of underground fiberglass pipelines. The brine entering the production facility will be pre-treated and then processed via Koch Technology Solutions’ Lithium Selective Sorption (“LSS”) Direct Lithium Extraction (DLE) process. The lithium chloride extracted by the DLE has a significantly higher relative concentration of lithium chloride relative to the other naturally occurring salts in the brine and is subsequently purified and concentrated using industry proven and commercially established processes prior to conversion to lithium hydroxide via a modified chlor-alkali process.

After lithium extraction, the lithium-depleted, effluent brine will be returned to the resource area by a pipeline system to the network of brine injection wells.

The further concentrated and purified lithium chloride solution will be processed by electrolyzers to form a high-purity lithium hydroxide solution. The Company evaluated several technologies at laboratory and pilot scale testing to support the selection of electrolysis as the core technology for conversion of lithium chloride to lithium hydroxide.

The testing undertaken during the PFS phase produced battery-quality lithium hydroxide from Smackover brines processed through the Demonstration Plant, confirming the viability of the process. The output solution from electrolysis will be crystalized into a solid, battery-quality lithium hydroxide using standard, proven processes.

The base case development for the project as proposed will produce, on average, 30,000 tonnes of battery-quality lithium hydroxide per year, over a 20-year timeframe with an upside production scenario of 35,000 tpa of lithium hydroxide production that was identified in July 2023 as a result of the exploration assessment and resource evaluation outlined in Sections 9, 10, 14 and 16.

Although the potential for further upside will be assessed further in the Feasibility Study phase, this PFS addresses the identified 35,000 tpa assessed as a probable upside economic case.

At full build-out, with estimated average production over 20 years of 30,000 tpa of lithium hydroxide, the direct capital costs are estimated to be US$845 million, with indirect costs of US$218 million. A contingency of 20% was applied to direct costs (US$211 million) to yield an estimated all-in capital cost of US$1.3 billion. A summary of the capital costs is provided in Table 1-3.

Table 1-3. Capital Cost Summary

Notes:

1. Direct costs were estimated using either vendor-supplied quotes, and/or engineer estimated pricing (based on recent experience) for all major equipment. Major equipment prices were scaled using appropriate AACE Class 4 Direct Cost Factors to derive all direct equipment costs.

2. Indirect costs were estimated using AACE Class 4 Indirect Cost Factors. Indirect costs include all contractor costs (including engineering), indirect labor costs, and Owner’s Engineer costs.

3. Exceptions to above costing estimate methodology were the well field and pipelines, which were based on HGA’s recent project experience in the local area.

4. AACE Class 4 estimate includes 20% contingency on direct capital costs.

The operating cost estimate includes both direct costs and indirect costs, as well as allowances for mine closure (see Table 1-4). The majority of the operating cost comprises electricity usage including conversion to lithium hydroxide, as well as reagent usage required to extract the lithium from the brine. The all-in operating cost is $5,229 per tonne of lithium hydroxide.

Table 1-4. Operating Cost Summary

Notes:

1. Operating costs are calculated based on average annual production of 30,000 tonnes of lithium hydroxide.

2. Approximately 91 full time equivalent (FTE) positions.

3. Approximately 30% of electrical energy consumed by well field and pipelines; 70% by the processing facilities.

4. Majority of reagent costs are comprised of sodium hydroxide and soda ash. Other reagents and consumables are air, hydrochloric acid, sodium metabisulfite, lime, membrane replacement, nitrogen, and scale inhibitors for pumps/wellheads.

5. Assumes that all of the natural gas is purchased from open market and none is co-produced at the wellheads.

6. Includes all maintenance and workover costs and is based on experience in similar-sized electrochemical facilities, brine processing facilities, and Smackover Formation brine production well fields.

7. Indirect costs (insurance, environmental monitoring, etc.) are factored from other capital and operational costs, except for mine closure, which is based on known well-abandonment costs.

8. Based on agreed royalties and expected future lease costs. Does not include future lease-fees-in-lieu-of-royalties which are still to be determined and subject to regulatory approval (lease-fees-in-lieu-of-royalties have been determined for bromine and certain other minerals in the State of Arkansas, but have not yet been determined for lithium extraction).

9. Major equipment refurbishment and replacement is categorized as sustaining capital. Sustaining Capital is shown included in the OPEX here to present an all-in annual operating cost.

The results for internal rate of return (IRR) and net present value (NPV) from the assumed Capital Expenditure (CAPEX), Operating Expenditure (OPEX) and price scenario at full Base Case production, are presented in Table 1-5.

In addition, the upside case of 35,000 tpa production was assessed. To support this assessment, CAPEX costs are scaled based on a capacity factored estimate considering the increased production, resulting in an estimated upside case CAPEX estimate of US$1.36 billion.

Operating costs were evaluated in two categories, fixed and variable. Manpower was assumed to be a fixed cost based on the incremental sizing of the facility. Variable costs including reagents, consumables and electrical usage were scaled linearly for the increased consumption. Other costs including maintenance and miscellaneous costs were automatically adjusted as a percentage of the increased CAPEX resulting in an average annual OPEX cost of US$3,964/tonne. The economic analysis for this upside scenario is presented in Table 1-5.

Table 1-5. Economic Evaluation Summary

Notes: All model outputs are expressed on a 100% project ownership basis with no adjustments for project financing assumptions.

1. Metric tonnes (1,000 kg) per annum.

2. Resource modelling work indicates the SWA Property appears to be capable of producing more than 30,000 tpa of lithium hydroxide for 20 years or more, and that production rates greater than 35,000 tpa are probable.

3. Capital Expenditures include 20% contingency on total installed costs.

4. No inflation or escalation has been carried for the economic modelling.

5. Includes all operating expenditures, ongoing land costs, royalties, and sustaining capital.

6. Brine lease fees in-lieu-of-royalties (to be approved by the Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission) have not been defined and are not currently included in the economic modelling.

7. Selling price of battery-quality lithium hydroxide based on a flatline price of $30,000/t over total project lifetime.

8. Assumes a U.S. Federal tax rate of 21% and State of Arkansas Tax rate of 5.1%, as well as variable property taxes.

A sensitivity analysis for the project indicates that the economics remain robust even under the downside scenarios of a 20% increased CAPEX, a 20% reduced product selling price, a 5,000 tpa reduced production output, or a 20% increased OPEX.

Standard Lithium successfully executed a five-well exploration program that significantly improved the geologic description of the target Smackover Formation. The program addressed the three key factors that determine the quality of the resource: the total volume of brine based on core and log porosity data, the brine’s lithium concentration based on the analysis of multiple brine samples from the wells, and the productivity of the formation based on the core permeability data collected. QP Williams was closely involved with all aspects of the exploration program, including selecting the well locations; designing the coring, logging, and sampling programs; attending the coring and sampling of the wells; and analyzing the resulting data. In the opinion of QP Williams, the resulting data and analyses fully support the conclusion that the inferred and indicated resources present at the SWA Property are of sufficient quality to justify pursuit of a lithium extraction project at the site.

Because continuous start-to-finish DLE (without the use of evaporation ponds) is not yet commercially proven, test work becomes especially critical to reduce process and scale-up risks. The test work needs to be conducted over a reasonable period of time and at a suitable scale-up factor. The Demonstration Plant operation has achieved both these objectives. In addition, the equipment operated in the Demonstration Plant has shown reliability in terms of having the required availabilities for stable process operation. The process control and chemical analysis applied in the Demonstration Plant have provided a solid foundation for reliable results.

The LSS DLE process has been run over many months, demonstrating consistency of results and its applicability for the SWA project. For further effective optimization and applicability for the Definitive Feasibility Study (DFS), the LSS DLE process needs to be run on actual SWA brine for a long-term, continuous test.

The conversion of a lithium chloride solution to a lithium hydroxide solution using electrolysis has been shown to be the process route with the least process risk, mainly because it is based, to a large extent, on the commercially proven chlor-alkali process. The approach taken by Standard Lithium to develop this process route has been appropriate for the PFS stage of the project. During the DFS, Standard Lithium should focus on further reducing the process risk. This can be accomplished by longer testing and by larger scale testing.

The recommended next steps for Standard Lithium to elevate the SWA Project to a higher level of resource classification and project definition are to:

This Technical Report has been commissioned by, and completed for, Standard Lithium Ltd. (Standard Lithium, or the Company); a public company with its corporate headquarters in Vancouver, B.C. Standard Lithium is focused on unlocking the lithium potential from brine. As such, Standard Lithium has established ‘brine access agreements’ with historically/presently permitted and active brine operators that include:

The center of the SWA Property is located approximately 24 km (15 miles) west of the City of Magnolia in Lafayette County, Arkansas, United States (Figure 2-1). The SWA Property encompasses Townships 16-17 South and Ranges 22-24 West of the 5th Meridian.

The SWA Property comprises 851 brine leases and 8 salt water (brine) deeds from private mineral owners covering 27,066 net mineral acres (10,953 net mineral hectares).

At the SWA Project, which is the focus of this report, Standard Lithium has outlined how it could unitize the underlying Smackover Formation brine aquifer in conjunction with the preparation of a PFS. This Technical Report updates the 2021 Preliminary Economic Assessment report and applies a gross acreage with 100% brine ownership that is consistent with unitization within the Arkansas Brine Statute. This PFS also outlines a proposed method of extraction of the brine from the resource, a proposed flowsheet to extract and purify the lithium to potentially produce a marketable product, as well as other necessary SWA Project information.

Figure 2-1. SWA Project discussed in this Technical Report

Consequently, this Technical Report provides an updated 2023 mineral resource estimate at the SWA Project in accordance with the Canadian Securities Administration’s (CSA’s) National Instrument 43-101 (NI 43-101) with the mineral resource being estimated using the CIM “Estimation of Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves Best Practice Guidelines” dated November 29th, 2019, the CIM “Definition Standards for Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves” amended and adopted May 10th, 2014 and the CIM "Leading Practice Guidelines for Mineral Processing" adopted November 25th, 2022. The effective date of this Technical Report is August 8, 2023.

Table 2-1 presents the list of Qualified Persons (QPs) for the Technical Report and their responsibilities.

Table 2-1. Qualified Persons and Their Responsibilities

Notes:

1. N/A denotes not applicable.

2. Marek Dworzanowski operates as an independent contractor.

In accordance with the CIM Best Practice Guidelines for Resource and Reserve Estimation for Lithium Brines (1 November 2012), this lithium-brine PFS has been prepared by a multi-disciplinary team that includes geologists, hydrogeologists, chemical, process and civil engineers with relevant experience in the lithium-brine confined aquifer type deposits, Smackover Formation geology and brine processing.

Mr. Caleb Mutschler (HGA) and Mr. Marek Dworzanowski visited the existing Standard Lithium Demonstration Plant in El Dorado, AR on October 27, 2022 and November 14-15, 2022 respectively to inspect the LSS equipment in service and verify the process conditions and technology. Mr. Dworzanowski also inspected the electrolysis process on January 18-19, 2023 at Electrosynthesis Company, Inc. in Lancaster, NY.

Mr. Robert Williams (Cobb & Associates) visited the Standard Lithium Project site April 19, May 23, and June 1, 2023, and participated in sampling three different wells (Taylor, Beulah et al 1, Carter Moore 1, and International Paper Company 1, respectively).

Randal Brush (Cobb & Associates) visited the Standard Lithium Project site on July 24, 2023, and inspected the Montague 1 well and the International Paper Co. 1 well.

All authors are independent of Standard Lithium (and TETRA) and are QPs as defined by the CSA’s NI 43-101.

This Technical Report is based, in part, on internal company technical reports, maps, company letters, memoranda, public disclosure, and public information, as listed in the NI 43-101 Technical Report Preliminary Economic Assessment of Southwest Arkansas Smackover Project (Eccles, et al., 2019).

This Technical Report is a compilation of publicly available information, as well as information obtained from the 2018 and 2023 exploration programs. The 2018 exploration program included core analysis and brine analytical test programs conducted by Standard Lithium at the SWA Property. The 2023 exploration program included gathering and analyzing log data, core samples, pressure data, and brine samples from five wells: three were existing wells that were re-entered; two were new wells drilled by Standard Lithium.

References in this Technical Report are made to publicly available reports that were written prior to implementation of NI 43-101, including government geological publications. All reports are cited in Section 27, References.

Government reports include those that provide:

Miscellaneous journal articles were used to set the geological setting of southern Arkansas (e.g., Bishop, 1967; Alkin and Graves, 1969; Bishop, 1971a and b; Buffler et al., 1981; Moore and Druckman, 1981; Moore, 1984; Harris and Dodman, 1987; Salvador, 1991a and b; Troell and Robinson, 1987; Kopaska-Merkel et al., 1992; Moldovanyi and Walter, 1992; Zimmerman, 1992; Heydari and Baria, 2005; Mancini et al., 2008). Company information and news releases were used to reference any historical mineral exploration work at the SWA Property (e.g., Standard Lithium Ltd., 2018a and b).

Geochemical data collected in 2018 presented in the previous revision of this Technical Report were analyzed at independent and accredited laboratories: ALS-Houston Environmental Services (ALS-Houston) in Houston, Texas, and Western Environmental Testing Laboratory (WetLab) in Sparks, Nevada. Geochemical data collected in 2023 presented in this Technical Report were analyzed at WetLab. Historical Smackover Formation brine geochemical data from a peer reviewed journal were also used (Moldovanyi and Walter, 1992).

Historic well log data and well status information used to create the layered geologic model was obtained from TGS and IHS, two companies that supply well log and well status information to the petroleum and bromine industry. Historical geotechnical data presented in this Technical Report include core reports that were prepared by independent petroleum laboratories and engineering firms that include:

The geotechnical data collected in the 2023 exploration program include core reports prepared by these independent petroleum laboratories and engineering firms:

The laboratories and engineering firms are independent and certified third-party consultants and/or include certified Professional Geologists or Engineers. The geochemical laboratories for the brine samples collected in 2018 and 2023 cite National and State accreditations (e.g., ISO/IEC 17025:2005; 2009 TNI Environmental Testing Laboratory Standard; DoD Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (DoD ELAP); ISO/IEC Guide 25-1990; NAC 445A). Historical brine analytical data originated from a peer reviewed journal (American Association of Petroleum Geologist Bulletin) and is considered a reputable source of information (Moldovanyi and Walter, 1992).

With respect to units of measure and currency, unless otherwise stated, this Report uses:

Table 2-2 describes the various abbreviations used in the Technical Report.

Table 2-2. Abbreviations

The authors are not qualified to provide an opinion or comment on issues related to legal agreements and royalties. They have relied entirely on background information and details regarding the nature and extent of TETRA’s Land Titles. The author has not reviewed the approximately 851 leases and 8 salt water (brine) deeds owned by TETRA or the transactional agreement between Standard Lithium and TETRA (and/or the agreement between TETRA and the underlying landowners) to obtain mineral brine production rights. The legal and survey validation of the leases and brine rights is not in our expertise, and we are relying on Standard Lithium and TETRA’s land-persons and lawyers.

The QP of Section 4 has no reason to question the validity or good standing of the TETRA leases and brine deeds through which Standard Lithium is gaining access to brine for process test work.

The SWA Property encompasses Townships 16-17 South and Ranges 22-24 West of the 5th Meridian. The center of SWA Project is located approximately 24 km (15 miles) west of the City of Magnolia in Lafayette and Columbia Counties, Arkansas, United States. Coordinates for the Property center are:

The SWA Property consists of 27,066 net mineral acres (10,953 net mineral hectares) and covers a surface area of approximately 110 km2 (42 square miles) and is comprised of 489 land tracts containing 851 individual leases and 8 salt water (brine) deeds from private mineral owners, as illustrated in Figure 4-2. The proposed unitized area encompasses the individual leases and consists of 36,839 gross mineral acres (14,908 gross mineral hectares) (see Table 4-1).

Standard Lithium acquired the SWA Project brine rights to produce lithium from TETRA through an option agreement. As part of the agreement between Standard Lithium and TETRA, Standard Lithium owns the ‘lithium-brine’ production rights within the SWA Property brine lease holding. The Standard Lithium-TETRA agreement and a summary of the leases and deeds are discussed in more detail in the following sub-sections.

Figure 4-1. SWA Project discussed in this Technical Report

Standard Lithium owns the rights to produce lithium from TETRA’s brine leasehold for a period of 10-years (the exploratory period) through an option agreement providing that Standard Lithium makes annual payments on the annual anniversary of the effective date (December 29, 2017) of the agreement with TETRA, as follows:

As of the writing of this report, the option agreement is still in place and all required payments have been fulfilled. When Standard Lithium commences production of lithium or exercises the option, Standard Lithium will pay TETRA a 2.5% royalty on gross revenue, and not less than $1,000,000 in any year, starting on the date that Standard Lithium exercises the option.

In 1992, TETRA acquired the rights to 2,045 acres in the form of eight salt water (Brine) Deeds. The brine deeds are a 35-year term conveyance of brine within the Smackover Formation limestone. The initial brine deeds were executed from March 23 to April 29, 1992 and will expire in 2027 unless the term is extended by agreement.

The Brine Deeds permit TETRA or its assignee to produce brine attributable to its Grantor’s interest in the covered lands without royalty becoming due. Thus, with respect to those Grantors’ brine interests, no delay rental or brine royalty payment is required, and no additional royalty will become due upon commercial extraction of lithium. Instead, TETRA is obligated to make annual promissory note installment payments of $79,125, in the aggregate, on promissory notes executed by TETRA in favor of the Grantor and its related parties. These notes provide for 35 annual installments, coinciding with the term of the Brine Deed.

In 1994, TETRA implemented a brine leasing strategy and added additional brine leases in 2006 and 2017-2018 bringing their total lease holdings to 802 leases at the Effective Date of the PEA. Except for 3 leases with five-year terms dated 26 September 2018, representing 240 acres, each lease has a 25-year term, and there is an attempt to renew or extend the leases prior to the expiration of the original 25-year term. Since the publishing of the PEA, a campaign to maintain and increase the lease acreage in line with TETRA’s obligation under the option agreement was implemented and the number of leases was increased to 934.

Subsequently, 83 leases totaling 196 net mineral acres have lapsed leaving a total of 851 leases at the effective date of this report. A summary of the leases in place at the effective date of this report can be found in Table 4-1 and shown in Figure 4-2.

The SWA Property brine leases have yet to be developed for production of brine minerals.

In some instances, the property encompassed by an individual brine lease may be very small, less than one acre, or much larger, up to several hundred acres. The percentage of brine rights ownership varies from section to section. In some instances, the percentage of the area leased within an individual brine lease may be small, less than 10%, or up to 100% ownership within any arbitrary section.

Overall, the lease ownership is complex, however, Standard Lithium has conducted a due diligence compilation of the percentage ownership of the individual brine leases on a section-by-section basis. That is, Standard Lithium engaged third-party firm R&J Land Services, LLC (R&J Land) of Bossier City, Louisiana to conduct due diligence of TETRA title of the brine leases and salt water (brine) deeds.

Standard Lithium also retained Arkansas attorney, Mr. Robert Honea, of Hardin, Jesson & Terry PLC of Fort Smith, AR regarded as having expertise in Arkansas State brine as well as oil and gas law. Mr. Honea issued an opinion letter to Standard Lithium, prior to Standard Lithium signing the Option Agreement with TETRA, after reviewing R&J Land’s review into the documentation of title to TETRA leasehold, confirming his professional opinion that the title due diligence performed by R&J Land was reasonable. In July 2023, Tetra provided an updated status report for the validity of leases. Standard Lithium engaged third-party firm R&J Land Services, LLC (R&J Land) of Bossier City, Louisiana to review the original brine leases and the revised listing was subsequently confirmed as part of project specific due diligence. The updated list from Tetra was confirmed to be valid and the leases identified as being in good-standing.

The resulting section-based mineral brine lease percentage compilation is presented in Table 4-1 and Figure 4-2. To simplify the brine ownership for the purpose of reporting, TETRA has amassed a mineral brine rights ownership that encompasses approximately 73% of the total mineral brine rights at the SWA Property, of which, Standard Lithium has acquired the corresponding lithium-brine production rights as described in Section 4.2, Lithium Brine Mineral Production Rights.

Table 4-1. SWA Property Ownership Summary

Figure 4-2. SWA Property Ownership Summary

The definition of minerals is established by Arkansas Code Title 15, Natural Resources and Economic Development § 15-56-301 (the Brine Statue), which has been amended to include salt water, or brine, “whose naturally dissolved components or solutes are used as a source of raw material for Bromine and other products derived therefrom." The mineral interest owner has the inherent right to develop the minerals and the right to lease the minerals to others for development. When a company desires to develop the mineral resources in an area, the company will need to secure mineral lease agreements from the mineral owners. The mineral lease is a legal binding contract between the mineral owner (Lessor) and an individual or company (Lessee), which allows for the exploration and extraction of the minerals covered under the lease.

Payments made to the Lessor for production of brine are known as “in lieu” royalty payments because the payments are made annually based on a statutory rate, as opposed to a true royalty based on the amount of the produced brine. The statutory in lieu royalty payment is increased or decreased annually based on changes in the Producer Price Index.

The Brine Deeds permit TETRA or its assignee to produce brine attributable to its Grantor’s interest in the covered lands without royalty becoming due. Thus, with respect to those Grantors’ brine interests, no delay rental or brine royalty payment is required, and no additional royalty will become due upon commercial extraction of Lithium. Instead, TETRA is obligated to make annual promissory note installment payments of $79,125, in the aggregate, on promissory notes executed by TETRA in favor of the Grantor and its related parties. These notes provide for 35 annual installments, coinciding with the term of the Brine Deed. TETRA is also required to pay annual rental of $100 each to the two surface owners who leased the surface right of ingress and egress to TETRA in documents called “Landowner Agreements.”

With respect to surface rights, Arkansas law allows the severance of the surface estate from the mineral estate by proper grant or reservation, thereby creating separate estates. Under the laws of conservation in the State of Arkansas, however, the mineral rights are dominant over the surface rights. In some cases, when the mineral owner leases the right to produce oil, gas and/or brine, the Lessee succeeds to the mineral owner’s right of surface use, subject to lease restrictions. Authority of the mineral estate over the surface is a crucial legal concept for the mineral owner and Lessee because ownership of subsurface minerals without the right to use the surface to explore for and produce them would be practically worthless. If a Lessor does not want the land surface disturbed a “No Surface Operations Clause” may be negotiated with the Lessee and included in the mineral Lease agreement. This clause may be used to limit or restrict the use of the property for drilling activity or long-term production operations. Conflicts arising between the Lessee and surface owner can be avoided by creating Lease agreements that clearly identify the scope of surface use rights.

The Lessee holding the Lease has a legal authority to enter the property for exploration and production even if the non-mineral owning surface owner objects to the intrusion on the property. That does not mean the surface owner will be without compensation. The amount and type of compensation is strictly a matter of negotiation between the surface owner and the company entering the property. If mutual agreement cannot be reached, the surface owner always has the right to seek the advice of an attorney and relief through the court system.

In the State of Arkansas when a person sells a piece of property the mineral rights automatically transfer with the surface rights, unless otherwise stated in the deed.

The Arkansas Brine Statute (AR Code § 15-76-301) was adopted by the Arkansas General Assembly in 1979 in response to expanding brine operations in southern Arkansas. Under the statute, the AOGC can authorize brine production units that contain one or more production/injection wells within a set amount of acreage to 1) provide a more efficient regulatory structure for the production of brine, 2) to protect the correlative rights of all mineral interest owners in the unit, and 3) to insulate brine operators from claims of trespass from adjacent mineral interest owners. Under the Brine Statute, brine owners are paid an annual amount known as an “in lieu royalty” based on a specific formula in the Brine Statute which is subject to annual adjustments under the applicable Producer Price Index.

Standard Lithium has contemplated how it might approach unitizing the underlying Smackover Formation brine aquifer in conjunction with the preparation of this PFS report. The unitized SWA Property encompasses 36,839 gross mineral acres (14,908 gross mineral hectares) and forms the updated resource and project area.

NOTE, Standard Lithium has NOT commenced the unitization process; the exercise described herein is an attempt to estimate the potential integrated lithium brine resource if Standard Lithium’s existing project leasehold area were to be unitized in the future for production, as it would need to be.

In order to unitize a contiguous area of acreage for brine production, the brine operator must file an application with the Commission supported by the following evidence:

The AOGC, in accordance with Arkansas law, has established ‘drilling units’ that consist of a set amount of acreage to protect correlative rights and ensure all mineral owners receive proper payment of production royalties (in the case of oil and gas production), and statutory in lieu royalty payments (in the case of brine production). Given that future brine production from the Project would be derived from a common aquifer in the Smackover Formation, the establishment of a unit(s) with defined boundaries would ensure that all mineral owners potentially impacted by the producing well(s) would receive proper compensation.

The AOGC was given the jurisdiction and authority to form brine production units in Ark. Code §§ 15-76-301 et seq. (the Brine Statute). The AOGC's rules and regulations are available on-line at: www.aogc.state.ar.us/ along with its hearing schedule and production data from 1992 forward. Pertinent provisions of the Brine Statute include:

(c) (1) In addition to any other amounts due and owing by the producer or producers of any unit to the owners therein, the producer or producers shall account separately and on a fair and equitable basis to each owner in the unit for all substances which are found by the commission to be profitably extracted from brine by a producer and which were not extracted by a producer on January 1, 1979.

(2) Whether or not any such substance is extracted profitably shall be determined by the Oil and Gas Commission on the basis of the value at the time of extraction, without interest, after deducting all costs of producing and recovering the same.

It is the expectation of the AOGC that entities desiring to drill and operate an oil, gas, or brine well in Arkansas will attempt in good faith to negotiate a satisfactory mineral lease with mineral owners before resorting to the integration provisions of Arkansas law. In the case of brine production, the operator will negotiate a per acre bonus consideration to be paid upon signing of the lease. Under the Brine Statute, the AOGC will approve a unit for a brine operator when the operator files an application supported by the elements described in Section 4.3.1.

Moreover, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 15-76-315(c) (as quoted above), the AOGC must approve the royalty rate for any “additional substance” profitably extracted from brine produced by an operator of a brine unit.

Environmental and cultural impact studies pertaining to the possible future extraction of the Smackover Formation brine resource on the SWA Project are presented in Section 20.

Several Federal and State permits and approvals are required for brine production in Arkansas, for example:

Currently there is no brine production occurring on the SWA Project for the express purpose of mineral extraction. Brine is produced from the Smackover Formation across and immediately adjacent to the property as a normal part of oil and gas extraction operations, but any brine produced is removed and disposed of as per normal oilfield activities. Albemarle produces brine to the east of the SWA property.

If Smackover Formation brine from the SWA Project is to be used in the future for process testing work, some on-site pre-treatment may be required to remove dissolved hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and all necessary permitting should be implemented accordingly.

As with any development project there exists potential risks and uncertainties. Standard Lithium will attempt to reduce risk/uncertainty through effective project management, engaging technical experts and developing contingency plans.

The following risks and uncertainties have been identified at this stage of project development:

The SWA Project area spans across Lafayette and Columbia counties, with the majority of the acreage located in Lafayette County. The proposed Central Processing Facility will be located approximately 11 km (7 miles) south of Lewisville. The largest nearby city is Magnolia, located about 34 km (21 miles) to the east. Magnolia is the County Seat of Columbia County and has a population of approximately 11,200. Magnolia is also the location of the main campus for the Southern Arkansas University and houses a student population of approximately 4,600. The combined population of Lafayette and Columbia Counties is estimated at approximately 29,000 based on census data from 2020.

The largest cities in the region are Shreveport-Bossier City, LA and Texarkana, TX. Shreveport is approximately 60 miles south and has a population of 393,000, and Texarkana is approximately 30 miles west with a population of 147,000.

The nearest airport is Magnolia Municipal Airport, located immediately to the east of the SWA Project, and approximately 5 km (3 miles) south-east of Magnolia in Columbia County.

The nearest commercial airports are Texarkana Regional Airport, approximately 30 miles west and Shreveport Regional Airport, approximately 60 miles to the south.

In addition, there are two airports, one commercial and a small general aviation airport, located in Union County near the city of El Dorado. El Dorado is approximately 55 km (34 miles) east of Magnolia.

There is existing rail access just to the west and across Hwy 29 from the proposed Central Processing Facility location.

The area has an extensive all-season secondary road network. Access is provided by U.S. and Arkansas state highways. U.S. Highway 82 links the cities of Lewisville, Stamps, and Magnolia, running west-to-east, and U.S. Highway 371 runs just southeast of the property (Figure 5-1). Arkansas State Highways 29, 53, 313, and several improved county roads provide access to every section of the property.

Figure 5-1. SWA Property with cities/towns and access routes, including major and secondary U.S. highways and railway lines

The project area climate is generally humid with average temperature and precipitation of 23.6ºC (74.4ºF) and 126.7 cm, respectively (49.8 inches; Figure 5-2). Annual rainfall is evenly distributed throughout the year. The wettest month of the year is December with an average rainfall of 12.7 cm (5 inches). The warmest month of the year is July with an average maximum temperature of 34ºC (93ºF), while the coldest month of the year is January with an average minimum temperature of -2ºC (30ºF).

Figure 5-2. Average Temperature and Precipitation in Magnolia, AR

Oil and gas extraction related infrastructure are present across the SWA Project area, particularly in the northern and southern parts of the property. This infrastructure consists of wellheads, collection facilities for various fluids, batteries, gas processing plant and associated pipelines, and cleared easements. Much of the infrastructure is variably in use by junior operators, and the operation thereof can be cyclical depending on hydrocarbon market conditions.

Lafayette County has a total area of 1,430 km2 (545 square miles), of which 1,386 km2 is land-based (528 square miles) and 44 km2 is water-based (17 square miles). Columbia County has a total area of 1,996 km2 (767 square miles), of which 1,984 km2 is land-based (766 square miles), and 12 km2 is water-based (0.7 square miles).

The terrain consists of rolling hills with large timber farms and is sparsely populated by rural private residences.

In Arkansas, the West Gulf Coastal Plain covers the southern portions of the state along the border of Louisiana. This lowland area of Arkansas is characterized by pine forests and farmlands. Natural resources include natural gas, petroleum deposits, and bromine-rich brine resources. The lowest point in the state is found on the Ouachita River approximately 90 km (56 miles) east of the property in the West Gulf Coastal Plain of Arkansas.

The brine production industry in southern Arkansas currently recovers bromine as its chief product. Bromine is one of two elements that are liquid at room temperature and found principally as dissolved species in seawater, evaporitic (salt) lakes and underground brine. The primary uses for bromine compounds include flame retardants, intermediates and industrial uses, drilling fluids, and water treatment. The United States is one of four leading bromine producers in the world, along with China, Israel, and Jordan. U.S. production and sold/used bromine values are withheld to avoid disclosing company proprietary data (USGS, 2016). Excluding the United States, total world bromine production is 345,000 tpa.

Some historical production of bromine occurred from ocean water, but since 1969, all U.S. bromine has been produced from subsurface brine in southern Arkansas. The first commercial recovery of bromine from brine in Arkansas occurred in 1957 in Union County. Since then, bromine production in Union County by Lanxess and in Columbia County by Albemarle has been continuous via a process in which the bromine-bearing brine is produced using production wells, the bromine is recovered through an exchange reaction with chlorine in surface facilities, and the bromine-free brine (effluent brine) is returned underground into the production formation via Class V injection wells that are regulated by the AOGC. Brine was initially encountered as a result of drilling for oil, which was first discovered in south Arkansas at the Hunter No. 1 well in Ouachita County in 1920, and first produced from the Busey No. 1 well in Columbia County in 1921. Oil and gas production has since increased, peaked, and is now in decline, as shown by Figure 6-1. The brine encountered with the oil and gas was initially considered a worthless by-product of production.

Over time, the oil and gas industry realized that the Smackover Formation brine contained elevated concentrations of elements, such as bromine in addition to hydrocarbons. For example, brine samples obtained by Standard Lithium within the SWA Property contain approximately 3,100 to 6,500 mg/L of bromine; compared to 65 mg/L in seawater (WetLab analyses of 2023 exploration program brine samples). Accordingly, the commercial potential of bromine gradually became apparent (McCoy, 2014). The large-scale development of this bromine-bearing brine resource has resulted in annual brine production volumes of between 150 million and 300 million barrels over the last 40 years (Figure 6-2). This brine production results from the Lanxess and Albemarle Smackover Formation bromine brine production projects in Union and Colombia Counties, respectively, the two principal bromine production projects in the United States. Their prolific and long-lived production projects clearly demonstrate the viability of brine production and processing from the Smackover formation in South Arkansas.

Figure 6-1. Summary of South Arkansas Oil and Gas Production

Source: AOGC, 2023

Figure 6-2. Summary of South Arkansas Brine Production

Source: AOGC, 2023

The brine characteristics and productivity of these nearby Smackover properties resulted in Standard Lithium carrying out a data collection program on the subject SWA Property that has provided the information needed to describe the geologic characteristics, productivity and brine content of the Smackover Formation underlying the SWA Property, as described in Sections 9, 10, and 14.

Note: (The discussion presented in this section extends beyond the boundary of the SWA Property.)

Adjacent properties have verified lithium-brine mineralization within the Smackover Formation. Accordingly, this discussion of lithium-brine information occurring near or adjacent to the Property is not necessarily indicative of the mineralization on the Property.

Brine aquifers have different characteristics than traditional mineral deposits, such as precious and base metal deposits. Any given aquifer can have enormous sub-surface dimensions; therefore, the scale of the Smackover Formation brine aquifer (i.e., the nature and extent of the lithium-brine potential of the Smackover Formation), is important background information.

The USGS National Produced Waters Geochemical Database v2.3, contains geochemical information collected from wells across the United States. The database includes 114,943 produced water samples that were collected between 1905 and 2014 (Blondes et al., 2018). In addition to the major element data, the database contains trace elements, isotope and time-series data that provide spatial coverage from specific formations and/or aquifers. Quality control of the database must be performed by culling the data, based on geochemical criteria (Blondes et al., 2018). For this sub-section, and because the adjacent Property information is disclaimed as being not necessarily indicative of the mineralization on the Property, the QPs have not filtered any data and have included lithium-brine results directly from the USGS National Produced Waters Geochemical Database.

Figure 6-3 shows that lithium-enriched brine, specific to the database-searched: “Smackover,” “Upper Smackover,” or “Reynolds Member of the Smackover,” occurs throughout southern Arkansas within Union, Columbia, and Lafayette Counties. The highest recorded lithium-brine in this USGS-compiled database occurs within the Union County (1,700 mg/L lithium), followed by a sample with 1,430 mg/L lithium in Columbia County and 740 mg/L in northern Union County. Brine analyses between 300 mg/L and 500 mg/L lithium occur predominantly in Columbia County, with two recorded samples in Lafayette County. Brine yielding 100 to 300 mg/L lithium occurs across all three counties.

Figure 6-3. Regional Smackover Formation Lithium Brine Values from the USGS National Produced Waters Database

Source: Blondes et al., 2018

Moldovanyi and Walter (1992), whose brine geochemical data are included in the USGS National Produced Waters Geochemical Database, conducted a regional brine chemical study where Smackover Formation brine samples were collected and analyzed from 87 wells, which were producing from 45 Smackover Formation oil and natural gas reservoirs in southwest Arkansas, east Texas, and northern Louisiana. The study allowed these authors to hypothesize/conclude the following points with respect to the regional distribution of the elevated Smackover Formation lithium-brine:

With respect to the SWA Project, the Moldovanyi and Walter (1992) dataset includes four brine analyses within the boundaries of the Property, as shown in Figure 6-4. Based on these data, lithium-brine values range from 132 mg/L lithium (Purser 2) to 432 mg/L lithium (Cornelius 2), with an average of 278 mg/L lithium. The latest concentration data gathered by Standard Lithium in 2023 demonstrates significantly higher lithium concentrations within much of the SWA Project area, and supersedes, to a large part, the Moldovanyi and Walter (1992) data, as will be discussed in the following sections.

Figure 6-4. Historic Smackover Formation Lithium Brine Values Derived within, and Adjacent to, the South West Arkansas Property

Source: Blondes et al., 2018

Several Smackover Formation oil fields were located on the SWA Property and included: Lewisville, McKamie-Patton, McKamie NE, Mars Hill, Mt. Vernon, and Kress City (AOGC, 2016). Currently only the McKamie-Patton field is operating, and the other fields were abandoned. Prior to Standard Lithium’s activities 95 wells had been drilled by oil companies to a depth greater than 7,000 feet (2,133 meters) on the SWA Property during exploration of the Smackover Formation (Figure 6-5). Four of those wells are shut-in Smackover producers, three are completed in non-Smackover formations, and the remainder are plugged and abandoned.

The McKamie Patton oil and natural gas field is adjacent to and over-laps the south-central portion of the SWA Property. The status of 115 total wells drilled to greater than 7,000 feet (2,133 meters) within the McKamie-Patton field is as follows:

The oil and natural gas collected from the McKamie Patton oil field is directed by a gathering system of pipelines to the Dorcheat gas plant. The process facility owned by Mission Creek Resources, LLC (Mission Creek), the McKamie Gas Processing Facility, is located south of the SWA Property and is currently mothballed.

Figure 6-5. Well Status on the SWA Property

Note: Only wells with total depth greater than 7,000 feet are shown.

Two Qualified Professionals (Brush and Williams) have reviewed in detail the prior evaluations of the Project, including the “Amended Geological Introduction and Maiden Inferred Resource Estimate for Standard Lithium Ltd.’s Tetra Smackover Lithium-Brine Property in Arkansas, United States”, effective date 28 February 2019 (MIRE) (Eccles, et al, APEX, 2019) and the “Preliminary Economic Assessment of SW Arkansas Lithium Project”, effective date 20 November 2021 (PEA) (Eccles, et. al, APEX, 2021), and will note where its descriptions, results, or conclusions are adopted by this report. In particular, the extensive description of the geologic setting is accurate and is adopted here, and is summarized below.

The Smackover Formation is Upper Jurassic in age and was named after the Smackover Field, Union County, Arkansas, which first produced oil in 1922 (Schneider 1924). The Smackover Formation extends from the panhandle of Florida through Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Arkansas to Texas as shown in Figure 7-1. The portion of the Smackover generally known to contain significant bromine and lithium salts is found between the Jurassic Gulf Coast basin-bounding faults to the north-northwest of the Property and the “State Line” fault system to the south-southeast near the Arkansas-Louisiana border, shown in Figure 7-2.

Stratigraphically, the Smackover Formation is bounded on the top by the Buckner Formation and on the bottom by the Norphlet Formation (Figure 7-3). The lithium brine-bearing Upper Smackover Interval is overlain by the Buckner Formation, which in Arkansas is dominated by red shale in the upper part and anhydrite in the lower part above the Smackover carbonates, and, because of its low permeability, acts as a geologic seal which traps oil and gas. The dense, low-permeability carbonate of the Lower Smackover Interval is underlain by the clastic section of the Norphlet Formation. The Norphlet Formation is comprised of red and gray clays with varying amounts of intercalated sands and occasional gravels.

As shown in Figure 7-4 the Smackover Formation in southern Arkansas is commonly subdivided into three intervals, the Reynolds Member Oolite (referred to in this report as the Upper Smackover), the Middle Smackover, and the Brown Dense (referred to in this report as the Lower Smackover). The Upper Smackover is a predominantly oolitic limestone, and the Middle Smackover is a burrowed pellet packstone. The Lower Smackover (which does not contribute to the resource estimates in this report but is a future target for exploration) is largely composed of dark, dense limestone with argillaceous bands (Imlay 1940). As will be discussed later, the Lower Smackover has been found to contain porous and permeable intervals. The entire Smackover Formation has been dolomitized to varying degrees.

As described in more detail in Section 14, the authors have subdivided the Upper and Middle Smackover Intervals into eight layers based on geologic characteristics and lateral correlations. The upper five layers comprise the Upper Smackover while the lower three layers comprise the Middle Smackover. To quantify the amount of porous and permeable Smackover Formation present within the SWA Property, the available core and log data was evaluated to determine the reservoir’s structure, porosity, gross layer thickness, net pay thickness (that portion of the gross layer thickness expected to be productive because it exceeded a 6.0 percent minimum porosity value) and net pay thickness to gross layer thickness ratio (equal to the fraction of the layer at a given location that was estimated to be productive) for each layer at each well location. Some wells did not drill deep enough to penetrate all layers, so only penetrated layers with data were used in the mapping effort at those locations.

Figure 7-1. Facies Map of the Smackover Formation, Northern Gulf Coast Basin

Source: BEG, 1981

Figure 7-2. Structural Framework, Northern Gulf Coast

Source: BEG,1981

Figure 7-3. Stratigraphic Column of the Late Triassic to Late Jurassic Formations of the Northern Gulf Coast The focus of this resource assessment is the South West Arkansas Property’s Smackover Formation.

Source: Heydari and Baria, 2005

Figure 7-4. Smackover Stratigraphic Column

Source: Heydari and Baria, 2005

The lithium bearing Smackover reservoir is continuous across the SWA Property and extends beyond the SWA Property discussed in this Technical Report. The lithium concentration exhibited by the Smackover Formation brine varies throughout the Property, as described in Section 0. The depth of the top of the Smackover in the Property area generally dips from north-northeast to south-southwest (Figure 7-5) and varies in depth from approximately 7,600 feet (2,316 meters) subsea to approximately 9,100 feet (2,773 meters) subsea. The reservoir structure is not by itself an important factor in brine production because the similar density of injected and produced brines minimizes the influence of gravity on fluid flow in the reservoir. As shown on Figure 7-5, there is an east-west fault near the center of the SWA Property (the Brown Fault) and three more east-west faults along the southern edge of the SWA Property. The presence of these faults has been accounted for in the example development plan described in later Sections.

Figure 7-5. Smackover Structure Map

The lithium brine-bearing Upper Smackover Interval is overlain by the Buckner Formation, which in Arkansas is dominated by red shale in the upper part and anhydrite in the lower part above the Smackover carbonates, and, as a result of its low permeability, acts as a geologic seal which traps oil and gas. The dense, low-permeability carbonate of the Lower Smackover Interval is underlain by the clastic section of the Norphlet Formation. The Norphlet Formation is comprised of red and gray clays with varying amounts of intercalated sands and occasional gravels. The relationship between the Smackover Formation, the Buckner Formation, and the Norphlet Formation as shown in a cross-section through the Standard Lithium Exploration Wells, Figure 7-6.

Figure 7-6. Exploration Program Wells Cross Section

Lithium is extracted today from either mineral deposits (often from pegmatite deposits containing the lithium-rich mineral spodumene) or brine deposits. Brine deposits can either be unconfined in salars, where lithium has been concentrated by the surface evaporation of water from lithium-bearing brine (found in arid regions of countries such as in Bolivia, Chile, Argentina, and China) or confined in underground brine-bearing formations. The SWA Property lithium deposit is a confined brine deposit in the form of a lithium-bearing brine contained within the porosity of the Smackover Formation within the SWA Property boundaries. The Smackover formation in southern Arkansas has proven to be a prolific source of mineral resources, beginning with oil and gas, then transitioning to bromine, with lithium now an attractive development target. Bromine brine production from the Smackover Formation is extensive in Union and Columbia counties, to the east of the SWA Property.

The volume of in-place lithium is proportional to the product of the brine-saturated pore volume in the SWA Property and the lithium concentration, both of which are known with reasonable accuracy, based on the drilling, logging, coring, and sampling data obtained throughout the property. The geological model for the Smackover Formation is described in detail in Sections 9 and 14, and the lithium distribution is described in Section 9. The geologic characteristics of the reservoir and its lithium content estimates are based on the whole of the geologic data set and the results of recent well testing in the Upper and Middle Smackover. All this data provides the basis upon which to estimate the resource and to plan this lithium extraction Project.

This Technical Report incorporates the new lithium concentration data gathered by Standard Lithium from its 2023 five-well exploration program, along with the 2018 sampling program data. This new 2023 lithium concentration data has significantly improved the description of the lithium distribution within the SWA Property.

The lithium concentration data used in this Technical Report resulted from brine samples collected by Standard Lithium in two sampling programs. In 2018 Standard Lithium gathered two samples from each of two McKamie Patton wells, MKP-20, and MKP-21, on the southwest boundary of the SWA Property. The McKamie Patton brine sampling program is discussed in detail in Section 9.2 of the PEA (Eccles, et. al, APEX, 2021). A summary of the McKamie Patton program is below.

To verify the historical lithium concentrations in the brine, Standard Lithium conducted a brine sampling program at the following McKamie-Patton wells: MKP-20 brine sample collected on June 22, 2018; and MKP-21 brine sample collected on July 23, 2018. These wells, MKP-20 and MKP-21, are completed in the Upper Smackover Formation. A WetLab laboratory analysis of the brine samples measured an average lithium content of 350 mg/L and 450 mg/L, from wells MKP-20 and MKP-21, respectively. The lithium concentrations obtained by Standard Lithium in the brine from wells MKP-20 and MKP-21 are similar to the historical SWA Property results from Cornelius 1 and Cornelius 2.

In 2023, Standard Lithium gathered a total of 21 samples from the three re-entry wells (Taylor, Beulah et al 1, International Paper Co. 1, Carter Moore 1) and two new wells (Montague 1, Speer 1) comprising the exploration program. Four additional samples were gathered from three of those wells by Robert Williams, QP as confirmation samples. All 29 samples from the 2018 and 2023 data gathering programs were analyzed by Western Environmental Testing Laboratory (WetLab), 475 E Greg Street, Suite 119, Sparks, Nevada 89431.

The 2023 five-well exploration program is described in detail in Section 10. The resulting lithium concentration values have greatly improved the description of the distribution of lithium within the Smackover Formation within the SWA Property, demonstrating higher levels of lithium concentration throughout much of the SWA Property than previously estimated. The resulting lithium concentration map was combined with the drilling data described in Section 10 to prepare the layered geologic model and resulting Resource estimates described in Section 14.

Table 9-1 summarizes the lithium concentration data used in this Technical Report. Each well’s test values were averaged by tested interval to obtain the single Average Test concentration values for each tested interval. For wells with multiple tested intervals the Average Test values were combined based on each test interval’s fraction of the total estimated porosity-thickness (using a 6.0 percent porosity cutoff) for the well, resulting in each well’s Porosity Thickness-Weighted Concentration value. These values were used to map the distribution of lithium throughout the SWA Property. Figure 9-1 is a map showing the locations of the resulting concentration data.

Note the following:

Table 9-1. SWA Property Lithium Concentration Data

Figure 9-1. SWA Property Concentration Data

The 2018 and 2023 lithium concentration data gathered by Standard Lithium (Table 9-1) was the basis for a map of the lithium concentrations in the SWA Property, Figure 9-2. To prevent unwarranted extrapolation of the concentration data the maps contours are limited to 95 percent of the minimum value and 105 percent of the maximum value. This map was used in the estimation of SWA Property lithium resources, as described in Section 14. The quantity and areal distribution of that lithium concentration data within the SWA Property now justifies the creation of this contoured concentration map, instead of the PEA’s two-value concentration map, which had a step-change in concentration occurring at the Brown Fault (PEA Figure 14-1, (Eccles, et. al, APEX, 2021)). The 2023 data demonstrate a significant change in the lithium concentrations from the prior map, with higher concentrations present both south and north of the Brown Fault, indicating the presence of a significant development target throughout most of the SWA Property. Generally high and uniform lithium concentrations were measured throughout most of the SWA Property (408 mg/L to 589 mg/L), except for the concentration measured at the Carter Moore 1 well (156 mg/L). As will be described in Section 14, the geologic character of the Smackover Formation at the Carter Moore 1 location differs from that observed at the well locations to the east and south, which may be related to the lower lithium concentration measured at the well. Additional delineation of the lithium concentrations in the SWA Property is one of the recommendations of this study.

Figure 9-2. Lithium Concentration Map Based on Data Gathered by Standard Lithium

The layered geologic model as described in Section 14 is based on the well logs and core data obtained from 424 wells drilled in the Geologic Study Area that exceeded 7,000 feet (2,100 meters) in depth. These wells were drilled by operators exploring the area for hydrocarbons, along with the five wells either drilled or re-entered as part of the 2023 Standard Lithium exploration program, described in Section 10.1, below. Table 10-1 provides a breakdown of the types of data gathered from the wells. Figure 10-1 depicts the geologic study area and identifies the locations where these data were collected in the Upper Smackover. Figure 10-2 provides the same information for the data collected in the Middle Smackover. Both Figures highlight the five wells comprising the Standard Lithium exploration program.

Table 10-1. Types of Well Data

Two categories of geologic data were obtained from the wells drilled in the geologic study area that includes the SWA Property: well logs (either raster or digital) and core data. Some well logs provided structural data, while others provided porosity data. The core data provided porosity and permeability data. The structural data was obtained from 419 wells with log data that included at least the top of Smackover Formation, while the porosity data originated in two forms: the porosity logs (density porosity, sonic porosity, and neutron porosity logs) obtained from 70 wells, and the core samples obtained from 38 wells. The logs and cores were gathered for a number of different operators by contractors using industry-standard procedures, and typically experienced in their respective specialties.

Figure 10-1. Upper Smackover Well Data Source

Figure 10-2. Middle Smackover Well Data Source

The log data was used to establish correlations for structural control, to identify zone boundaries, to define gross interval thickness for each Smackover zone, to identify net pay intervals, and to estimate the porosity values for those net pay intervals. The well log data included varying combinations of the following logs: spontaneous potential (SP), gamma ray (GR), resistivity (EL, ISFL, DIL, etc.), MicroLog, and various porosity logs (acoustic, neutron, and density). The by-zone gross thickness values obtained from the logs were used to constrain net reservoir thickness and to relate porosity to the established zone correlations. The primary source of log porosity data, the density porosity logs, were calibrated using the core porosity values, supplemented with the sonic porosity and neutron porosity logs, eliminating any significant systematic error or bias in the resulting porosity value estimates.

The east-to-west fault system present in the southern portion of the SWA Property was previously identified and described in the PEA (Eccles, et. al, APEX, 2021). The seismic data used to create that interpretation was evaluated and confirmed by Robert Williams, QP, resulting in a similar fault configuration with minor modifications to the southeast fault traces to conform to the data provided by the new Standard Lithium Speer 1 well.

The resulting layered geologic model, discussed in Section 14, formed the basis for the geologic description of the brine-containing reservoir used for resource estimates. The geologic description was also used in the reservoir simulation model which provided an understanding of the potential for lithium recovery from the SWA Property, described in Section 16.

From February to July, 2023 Standard Lithium conducted a five-well exploration program at the SWA Property. QP Brush worked with Standard Lithium and the drilling contractor to help design and execute the exploration program, including choice of well locations, data gathering plans, monitoring well progress, advising on coring targets and procedures, and interpretation of results. This program included re-entry into three existing abandoned wells (Taylor, Beulah et al 1, International Paper Co. 1, and Carter-Moore 1) and drilling two all-new wells (Speer 1 and Montague 1). These five well locations were chosen to maximize the description of the geologic properties and lithium concentrations within the Property. Figure 10-3 depicts the locations of those five wells.

Figure 10-3. SWA Property Exploration Program

Each of the five wells collected well log data which was used to identify the zones in each well over which production tests were completed and brine samples collected during the exploration program. Both whole core and sidewall coring programs were complete in several of the wells. Table 10-2 summarizes actions taken at each well as part of the exploration program, including the well depths, sampling targets, amount of whole core, number of rotary sidewall cores, and the brine volumes obtained. Each well successfully tested the high-porosity interval in the Upper Smackover which is considered the SWA Property’s main pay zone. Additional productive pay was encountered and successfully tested at various depths in the Middle Smackover. In one case porous and permeable formation was identified in the Lower Smackover. During each production test the physical and chemical characteristics of the brine were monitored. Once those characteristics stabilized, samples were taken and shipped to the outside laboratory, WetLab, for compositional analysis.

Table 10-2. Well Actions Taken During Exploration Program

Figure 10-4 presents as a type well the Montague 1 well log, indicating the primary well log data, the cored interval, the intervals tested, the core permeabilities (shaded green where permeability is greater than 0.5 mD), and the intervals meeting the 6.0 percent porosity net pay cutoff (highlighted with the orange “Net Phi 6 Cobb” flag and shaded green where log porosity, “PhiND CC” is greater than 6.0 percent). Each well test is described in the following sections.

Figure 10-4. Montague 1 Type Well

The Taylor, Beulah et al 1 well was originally drilled in 1982 to near the base of the Upper Smackover formation. The well was re-entered, deepened, cored, and logged. Whole core was taken over the Middle Smackover formation as part of the deepening, and rotary sidewall cores were taken over the previously-drilled Upper Smackover following logging. The well was then cased. Test intervals were chosen based on the combination of porosity values exceeding 6.0 percent (indicative of net pay) or resistivity values less than 6.0 ohm-meters, indicating the presence of conductive brine (the same criteria were applied to the remaining four wells). Five intervals were sequentially perforated and tested, starting with two in the Middle Smackover followed by three in the Upper Smackover. The lowest interval flowed small volumes of brine, the remaining four flowed significant volumes of brine.

The International Paper Company 1 well originally was drilled in 1978 to near the base of the Middle Smackover. The well was re-entered, deepened into the Lower Smackover, and logged, followed by gathering rotary sidewall cores and casing the well. Three successful tests were conducted in the Middle and Upper Smackover. The lower-porosity pay in the Middle Smackover and bottom of the Upper Smackover flowed following an acid stimulation. Those intervals were then isolated and a high-porosity zone in the Middle Smackover was successfully perforated and tested. Finally, the high-porosity main pay interval in the Upper Smackover was successfully perforated and tested. The Lower Smackover was found to be non-productive at this location.

The Carter-Moore 1 well originally was drilled in 1976 into the Ford Zone, a porous and productive zone immediately above the Upper Smackover. The well was re-entered and the original perforations were used to sample the Ford Zone. Those perforations were then cement squeezed and the well was deepened to the top of the Lower Smackover. Core data was not obtained in this well because the limited diameter of the deepened portion of the well below the Ford Zone was insufficient to allow coring operations. The deepened portion of the well, which covered the Upper and Middle Smackover, was logged, and then tested and sampled open hole.

The Speer 1 well was drilled into the Lower Smackover with core recovered in portions of the Upper and Middle Smackover. The well was cased and the net pay targets in the Upper Smackover and Middle Smackover were successfully perforated and tested.

The Montague 1 well was drilled into the Lower Smackover, with whole core recovered in the Upper and Middle Smackover. The high-porosity main pay target of the Upper Smackover was successfully tested and sampled. Results from the deeper zones were not obtained in time for this report. Therefore, the Upper Smackover main pay target lithium concentration value was used in the preparation of this Technical Report.

Standard Lithium’s 2018 sampling program for the two McKamie Patton wells is described in detail in Section 11.1 of the PEA (Eccles, et. al, APEX, 2021). QP Williams has reviewed that description and has found the procedures described reasonable and appropriate.

QP Williams worked with Standard Lithium, the drilling contractor, and the other technical personnel to help design and implement the sampling procedures used at each of the five 2023 exploration program wells. Robert Williams, QP participated in the 2023 brine sampling programs at the Taylor, Beulah et al 1, Carter Moore 1, and International Paper Co. 1 wells, carefully observing the procedures, completing the sample log, and monitoring the WetLab analysis confirmations for the samples. The samples were collected in a consistent and secure manner, with a clear chain of custody from the sample collection point to the shipment to the laboratory.

Brine samples were collected from three re-entered abandoned wells and two new wells (Section 10). A critical step to sampling brine for geochemical analysis is to ensure that the brine collected is considered a “fresh” representative of Upper or Middle Smackover Formation.

During the 2023 sampling programs conducted by Standard Lithium, the sample collection methodology included:

Coolers holding the sample containers were taken from the field to a secured location to double check the sample IDs and make sure all containers are in good condition prior to shipment to the laboratory. Chain of Custody forms for the respective laboratories were filled out and included with the sample cooler. The cooler was taped closed and hand-delivered to the local courier company (Fed-Ex in El Dorado, AR) for delivery to the WetLab laboratory in Sparks, NV. The laboratory was instructed to confirm receipt of the samples and provide a statement pertaining to the condition of the samples upon receipt. The samples were then coded into the respective laboratories sample stream for analysis.

Standard Lithium has prepared its own internal analytical protocols for the independent laboratories to follow. These include the following analytical work (with the associated American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), Standard Methods (SM) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) international and national method code): “Expanded Lithium Brine Analytical Suite”.

WetLab completed these analyses using the following corresponding methods: sample preparation by EPA 200.2; density by gravimetric; pH by SM 4500-H+B; temperature at pH by SM 2550B, carbonate and bicarbonate by SM 2320B; chloride and sulfate by EPA 300.0; total dissolved solids by SM 2540C; anions by ion chromatography by EPA 300.0; trace metal digestion by EPA 200.2; and trace metals by ICP-OES by EPA 200.7.

A field duplicate sample was collected for every sampling event. The field duplicate sample was taken at the same time as the original sample (i.e., back-to-back samples from the brine sample spigot). Random identifiers were given to the duplicate sample and duplicate field samples were never in sequential order and randomly presented to the laboratory.

A total of 12 primary brine samples were collected from the five newly completed wells and each well had multiple completion zones. In addition to the 12 primary samples, 9 duplicates samples were collected. Thus, representing almost one duplicate per primary brine sample. The lithium results of the duplicate sample analyses are presented in Table 11-1. The duplicate sample relative percentage difference (RPD) for WetLab was 1.2 % to 8.3 %. It should be noted that any result with an RPD less than 20% is considered acceptable.

Table 11-1. Comparison of Field Duplicate Samples from the 2023 Sampling Program

Note: 1. RPD denotes relative percentage difference.

Historical core reports include pertinent information on Upper and Middle Smackover formations core measurements conducted by independent engineering consultants (Core Laboratories Inc. in Dallas, TX and Shreveport, LA; Delta Core Analysts in Shreveport, LA; All Points Inc. in Houston, TX; Thigpen Laboratories, Inc. in Shreveport, LA: O’Malley Laboratories, Inc. in Natchez, MS; and Bell Core Laboratories in Shreveport, LA). These reports included core measurements that included porosity (%) and permeability (mD) from throughout and immediately surrounding the SWA Project. Some of the core report data also included: data for oil% in pore space; water% in pore space; bulk oil%; bulk gas%; bulk water%; and vertical permeability.

These analytical brine and core report data were prepared by independent and accredited third-party companies. The resulting quantitative data are used to make inferences on the brine analytical values and hydrogeological characteristics of the Upper and Middle Smackover formations. The analytical methods carried out by the laboratories are standard and routine in the field of lithium brine geochemical analytical and petrophysical core characterization test work.

The author has reviewed the adequacy of the sample preparation, security and analytical procedures and found no significant issues or inconsistencies that would cause one to question the validity of the data. The QA/QC protocol adopted by Standard Lithium helped the authors to evaluate and validate the laboratory data as discussed in Section 12, Data Verification.

Robert Williams, QP verified the lithium concentration data four different ways:

The four comparisons confirmed the choice of WetLab, the consistency of the data, the close match between the independently-gathered samples and those of Standard Lithium, and the reasonable match between standard concentrations and test results.

In 2021 Standard Lithium conducted an extensive comparison test of four laboratories known for brine analysis. That study’s results indicate that WetLab is the appropriate choice for the range of lithium concentrations encountered in this Technical Report. Robert Williams, QP has reviewed the supporting documentation of that study and agrees with its conclusions. As a result, the WetLab-reported lithium concentration data is used throughout this Technical Report.

To verify the Standard Lithium test results, three wells were independently sampled by Robert Williams, QP, who independently followed the sampling procedures outlined in Section 11. Table 121 summarizes the results of that verification. The small relative percentage difference values, 0.1 percent to 6.4 percent, between the Williams samples and the Standard Lithium samples confirms the consistency of the Standard Lithium report concentrations with the independently gathered samples in the well sampling dataset.

Table 12-1. Comparison of Verification Samples from the 2023 Sampling Program

The four historic on-property lithium concentration data depicted in Figure 6-3 (Blondes, et al. 2018) were not used in this Technical Report for these reasons:

The well log and core data used to create the geologic model meets the standard of reliability required by this Technical Report. This data was taken by independent vendors in a manner meeting industry standards, consistent with the identical data collection procedures used in dozens of projects evaluated by QP Williams. Importantly, this data was obtained for a purpose unrelated to the estimation of lithium resources. Therefore, it was not subject to any biases related to that estimation process.

The data from each of the 98 wells in the SWA Property and 326 wells outside of the SWA Property but within the geologic study area, including the data from the five Standard Lithium wells, have been reviewed and the data was found suitable for this evaluation. The location of the different sources of data is summarized in Table 10 1 and depicted in Figure 10 1 and Figure 10 2. The lithium concentration, well log, core, and test data used in the preparation of this Technical Report meets the highest standards for the evaluation of the brine deposit. Any limitations present in the data are the unavoidable limitations present in all field measurements. Standard Lithium and the petroleum companies have exerted industry-standard efforts in gathering high-quality data on and around the SWA Property. Standard Lithium’s data gathering program has been thorough, and results directly in a high-quality database for use in this evaluation of the SWA Property’s lithium resources.

Mr. Marek Dworzanowski, QP verified the Standard Lithium Demonstration Plant analytical data in the following ways:

In 2021 Standard Lithium conducted an extensive comparison test of four laboratories known for brine analysis. That study’s results indicate that WetLabs is the appropriate choice for the range of lithium concentrations encountered in this Technical Report. Mr.Marek Dworzanowski, QP has reviewed the supporting documentation of that study and agrees with its conclusions.

A review of the analytical data from the demonstration plant analytical laboratory shows the generation of all the required analyses and sufficient data points to allow meaningful statistical analysis. The laboratory uses ICP-OES as the primary analytical tool which is standard for lithium projects. Mr. Marek Dworzanowski QP visited this laboratory and assessed that the equipment and operations were appropriate for the generation of the required analytical data.

A review of the WetLab analytical data showed an extensive independent testing of samples from the Demonstration Plant. The degree and nature of this independent testing confirms an acceptable match between WetLab and the demonstration plant analytical laboratory.

Mr. Marek Dworzanowski, QP visited the Demonstration Plant and witnessed the automatic inline sampling of all the required streams. Because all the samples are liquid and are taken automatically, the sampling error will be within acceptable limits.

The Demonstration Plant was commissioned to prove the applicability of DLE technology to the SWA Project. The chemical analyses generated by this Demonstration Plant were verified by using WetLab as an independent analytical laboratory. The process data generated by this plant (including the chemical analyses) was used to develop the Heat and Mass Balance and the Process Design Criteria which in turn supported the project process design. It is the opinion of Mr. Dworzanowski that the process data confirmed the applicability of DLE and was used to develop the engineering design of all the subsequent concentration and purification process steps.

Standard Lithium Limited has developed a process flowsheet to selectively extract lithium from Smackover Formation brine and produce battery-quality lithium chemicals at the Company’s projects in southern Arkansas. The mineral processing and hydrometallurgical flowsheet for the SWA Project consists of six main process areas:

With regards to Process Areas 1 and 6, the SWA Project is located in a region with abundant oil, gas and brine operations, and as such, there are multiple service providers who can effectively support installation of the well field for production and separation of the brine prior to delivery into the CPF. Therefore, no additional technology development or proof of concept work has been undertaken for this part of the project.

With respect to Process Areas 2, 3 and 4, Standard Lithium has been continuously running a pre-commercial Demonstration Plant at the Lanxess South bromine production facility near El Dorado since May 2020. As a result, significant data has been gathered regarding the performance of the various unit processes for pre-treatment of Smackover brine and operation of the DLE technology on the brine. The Demonstration Plant has produced significant quantities of purified and concentrated LiCl solution and has converted it, on site, to battery-grade lithium carbonate.

With respect to Process Area 5, Standard Lithium is relying on a combination of project specific laboratory-scale testing and previous hydrometallurgical and commercial scale electrochemical test work completed by NORAM Electrolysis Systems Inc (NESI) on multiple actual and synthetic lithium brines for over 1,000 hours each to produce battery-quality lithium hydroxide solutions.

Conversion of the purified and concentrated lithium hydroxide solution to battery-quality solid lithium hydroxide material will be done using proven crystallization technologies from globally recognized vendors. Large scale test production of lithium hydroxide from LiCl solution produced at Standard Lithium’s Demonstration Plant will be undertaken during the DFS phase in support of vendor guarantees.

The intent of this Section is to discuss the South West Arkansas Project specific lithium-brine mineral processing test work in accordance with CIM Leading Practice Guidelines for Mineral Processing (2022). The level of definition is appropriate to the confidence categories of mineral resources being supported and the current stage of project development.

Standard Lithium’s SWA Project has several unique aspects that support flowsheet development centered around a DLE approach to lithium recovery. The factors which affect the selected approach include the following:

As discussed above, the production of lithium-bearing brine from production wells and separation of the brine from sour natural gas and crude oil will use industry-standard techniques, similar to those already used at large scale in southern Arkansas at the active brine processing facilities (e.g. at Lanxess or Albemarle’s operations), or as part of produced-water management associated with oil and gas production in the region.

Pretreatment of the brine to remove dissolved gases and suspended solids will use proven standard processes in the brine, oilfield produced water and wastewater treatment industries.

Standard Lithium expects to use a well tested proprietary DLE technology (discussed further in Section 13.3.3) to extract lithium from the lithium-bearing Smackover brine and produce a concentrated and purified LiCl solution. Much of the flowsheet has been in pre-commercial operation and optimization since May 2020 at the Company’s Demonstration Plant. The specific lithium extraction technology described in the PFS has been operated consistently on a 24hr / 7 day per week basis at the Demonstration Plant since October 2022. This technology has been sufficiently tested and validated such that it can be used for commercial operation in the SWA Project.

The conversion of the purified and concentrated LiCl solution into a lithium hydroxide solution using an electrochemical process is based on technology developed and tested by NORAM at their testing facilities in Richmond, BC, and further supported by project specific testing with Electrosynthesis Company, Inc. (Electrosynthesis or ESC) in Lancaster, NY. Final concentration, crystallization of lithium hydroxide (LiOH•H2O) will use industry standard equipment and process technology.

Figure 13-1 is a simplified schematic showing the main process steps proposed for the SWA Project.

Figure 13-1. SWA Lithium Brine Project Flowsheet Schematic

It is the opinion of the author preparing this section, that the discussion includes an objective level of reasonableness and demonstrates competence and due care in the execution of the metallurgical test work and lithium-brine recovery process steps.

To the best of the author’s knowledge, no historical testing regarding lithium recovery from brine leases associated with the SWA Project has been performed. All testing discussed below was performed for Standard Lithium as part of the current development program.

Considering the factors outlined in Section 13.1.1, alternative methods to those commercially proven in lithium recovery from salar based brines are required to continuously extract and purify lithium from the Smackover brines. Standard Lithium has been assessing and testing technologies with a specific focus on direct lithium extraction which to date is relatively unproven at a commercial scale. The evaluation at the Demonstration Plant includes extensive testing of two separate DLE technologies:

The large-scale Demonstration Plant was designed and constructed in Ontario, Canada in 2019 by Zeton, Inc. The Demonstration Plant was designed to continuously process a slipstream of the effluent-brine produced by the Lanxess South bromine facility with a focus on developing and confirming the operation of an integrated DLE flowsheet to allow the design of a future commercial production facility. The two DLE processes operated in the Demonstration Plant have been adjusted and optimized over time to allow integration into the full flowsheet. At the Demonstration Plant, the lithium-barren effluent brine, added process water and the LiCl not used for testing are continuously transferred back to the Lanxess brine disposal system.

The Demonstration Plant, which consisted of 18 modules, was dismantled and transported to its current location at Lanxess’ South Plant bromine facility in Union County. It was erected within the existing fence line of the bromine plant on a 1-acre site. The site was levelled, foundations were poured, and all process, utility and power connections installed to ready the Demonstration Plant for operation in late 2019. The plant was installed/connected and enclosed in late 2019/early 2020 and underwent commissioning in early 2020. Early commissioning was delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic and associated lockdowns and the official start-date for the plant was during the second week of May 2020.

The Demonstration Plant initially comprised brine pre-treatment, LiSTR DLE and purification equipment for removal of calcium, magnesium, and silica. Process modifications to address scalability for commercialization were made in December 2020 and an osmotically-assisted reverse osmosis (OARO) unit was installed at the plant in August 2021 (the membrane concentration operation had, until that point, been completed off-site as an occasional batch process). Further modifications were implemented in September and October 2022 to further prove out an additional DLE process (LSS).

The Demonstration Plant has a dedicated team of engineers, chemists, and operators who run the plant on a 24/7 basis and it has operated continuously apart from shutdowns for maintenance, process improvements and supply outages caused by interruptions to Lanxess brine operations feeding the Demonstration Plant. The plant includes a dedicated analytical laboratory equipped to complete all on-site process control assays. The plant has been operating continuously to extract lithium from Smackover Formation brine over a 3-year period. The plant’s abundant process instrumentation and extensive program of sampling and analysis have generated large amounts of data. The data collection underpins the assessment in this report.

The Demonstration Plant processes both effluent brine from Lanxess and Smackover Brine that has not been through the bromine extraction process. Testing of brine samples from across the entire Smackover brine field in southern Arkansas has proven the consistency of the resource in terms of key elements and relative ratios of chloride salts. Learnings from the Demonstration Plant are therefore considered to be directly applicable to both the Commercial Lithium Extraction Plant Project at Lanxess South Plant and SWA Projects. Representative analyses of two feed brines and the Demonstration Plant raw lithium chloride (Raw LiCl) solutions from the two DLE processes are provided in Table 13-1.

The LiCl Product along with brine from various stages of the Demonstration Plant flowsheet have been used to support vendor testing in support of equipment design and process guarantees. The LiCl product has been converted to battery-quality lithium carbonate and lithium hydroxide both on site at the Demonstration Plant and offsite by vendor testing.

Table 13-1. Representative Brine Analyses and LiCl Product

Notes:

1. All units are mg/L

2. Demonstration Plant brine supply composition is average sample data collected in the Demonstration Plant from 4th May to 30th June 2023 to reflect the period when Sr was regularly measured.

3. SWA Lithium Project brine is average analytical results of four samples from the Upper Smackover from the 2023 resource evaluation program conducted in support of the SWA Project PFS. This approach differs from that presented in Section 9 on the basis that it is expected to present a higher grade scenario where high grade zones of the Smackover are targeted preferentially for production with injection in the lower grade zones. This is intended to ensure a robust design envelope given the Demonstration Plant currently processes a lower grade and is not intended to be reflective of project economics. It should be noted that the elements detected are materially the same, which is indicative of the consistency of the Smackover resource and the resultant applicability of the testing.

4. All LiCl compositional data is based on data collected during normal operation of the Demonstration Pant. The results from the on-site laboratory have been regularly validated by independent testing by WetLabs, NV, over the period of May 2020 through to June 2023.

5. The data from LiSTR is based on compositional averages of approximately 6,000 hours of operation from March 2021 through to November 2021. During this period, B, K, and Sr were not measured, but data from Wetlabs samples indicates typical values of 100, 67, and 221 respectively. Following November 2021, a sorbent development and optimization program was initiated to assess the performance of bespoke sorbents and target specific operating parameters and long term continuous operation was discontinued in support of shorter duration testing.

6. The LSS data is based on compositional averages of a 1,200 hour period of continuous operation in Q2 2023.

7. The LiCl Product from the Demonstration Plant is based on the average of bulk samples sent for NaCl crystallization in support of electrolysis testing. The samples were produced in the Demonstration Plant by LSS DLE with subsequent IX processes for removal of bivalent cation and boron followed by OARO for concentration suitable for testing of NaCl crystallization planned in support of the Feasibility Study phase of the project.

It should be noted that although the SWA brine is materially similar to the brine tested in the Demonstration Plant in that it is a chloride-based brine with the same major constituents, the proposed brine feed does vary sufficiently (higher lithium concentration, higher boron, etc.) that its effect on lithium loading, and selectivity will need to be independently confirmed. This is planned as part of the Feasibility Study phase of the project and this PFS phase is relying on a combination of Demonstration Plant results and laboratory testing of synthetic brines.

The brine that is provided by Lanxess to the Demonstration Plant is de-brominated (by Lanxess) during normal operations. However, there have been several periods when bromine extraction has not occurred (for Lanxess’ operational reasons), and the Demonstration Plant has received brine with >4,000 mg/L bromide; this is relevant for assessing how the SWA Project brines may behave through the integrated DLE flowsheet. It has been observed that both of the DLE processes (LiSTR and LSS) are not adversely impacted by dissolved bromide, and that the bromides are largely rejected with the waste brine stream and do not pass through into the LiCl product stream in significant amounts.

As of the end of Q2 2023, the Demonstration Plant has processed approximately 55,500 m³ (approximately 14,655,990 US gallons) of brine.

Operations within the Demonstration Plant can be systematically varied, and as such, the effect of changing operating parameters on performance metrics such as degree of lithium recovery from the incoming brine, rejection of impurities, reagent usage and water balance have all been studied in a controlled manner. As with any industrial process, there are many competing factors, and the optimal operation has been proven to be a trade-off between the various inputs. For reference, representative LiCl analyses generated by the two flowsheets tested in the Demonstration Plant are provided in Table 13-1, though these can be modified by varying the processes in the Demonstration Plant.

As part of operating the pre-commercial Demonstration Plant at the Lanxess South Plant facility, several of the proposed pre-treatment processes have been demonstrated as part of normal operations at the facility. These include all wellhead operations to remove non-aqueous phases (oil, gas, other non-aqueous fluids) and removal of residual dissolved hydrogen sulfide (H2S) by vacuum degassing (by Lanxess), and bulk pH control, temperature adjustment, and final filtration (at the Demonstration Plant) prior to lithium extraction, using either pressurized membrane units or multi-media filtration.

Based on the Demonstration Plant findings, no additional pre-treatment testing is required for specifically assessing the SWA Project.

Key findings and outcomes from the Demonstration Plant testing are:

As identified in Section 13.3.1, the Demonstration Plant has been used to conduct coincident testing of two different DLE processes, LiSTR and LSS as described below.

The LiSTR DLE method is a proprietary process designed, patented, and owned by Standard Lithium. It uses a high-capacity lithium titanate-based sorbent (meta-titanic acid in its active form) for selective extraction of lithium from the brine stream using stirred tank reactors and a conventional counter current decantation (CCD) circuit. The LiSTR technology was initially developed in 2017 and went through two main scale-ups (each approximately a 100× scale-up) during 2018 and 2019, resulting in operation in the Demonstration Plant in May 2020.

LiSTR was originally commissioned and operated using a commercially produced sorbent. Standard Lithium has maintained a continued, dedicated sorbent development program over the past three years with the aim to develop improved parameters for lithium capacity, separation efficiency and physical/chemical robustness.

The pre-commercial operation in the Demonstration Plant has proven high selectivity for lithium, high recovery of lithium from the brine, and long-term reliability. Test work is currently on-going to optimize the sorbent characteristics to facilitate improved mechanical separation and to minimize or obviate the CCD circuit, reduce water consumption and sorbent inventory.

Key findings and outcomes from the Demonstration Plant testing are:

The LSS DLE is a Koch Technology Solutions proprietary technology for which Standard Lithium have a Joint Development Agreement and Smackover regional exclusivity agreement in place. This process uses a fixed bed adsorption using a selective solid sorbent based on aluminum hydroxide copolymer, a sorbent material with elution by fresh water rather than the acid strip used in LiSTR. The core of the technology was originally developed by a consultant to Standard Lithium and purchased by Koch Technology Solutions. The synergies associated with the relationship between Standard Lithium, various Koch Industries businesses and the process inventor led to an opportunity to operate and develop this process in parallel to LiSTR in the Demonstration Plant.

The LSS DLE process has been in operation at the Demonstration Plant since October 2022 and extensive work has been undertaken to prove scale-up and reliable operation. The LSS columns have been run for well in excess of 6,000 cycles at the time of this Technical Report. Process refinement is on-going at the Demonstration Plant and is aiming to optimize the process control steps to determine the best balance for lithium recovery, impurity rejection, water usage and lithium concentration that can be achieved.

To date, LSS has shown significant promise in reducing reagent use, excess water addition and simplifying the process due to lower equipment counts. It has the additional benefit of independent 3rd party process guarantees and has therefore been recommended as the core technology for Standard Lithium’s development of their Commercial Lithium Extraction Plant Project and consequently will also form the basis for the SWA Project. In support of project definition, the LSS has also been tested specifically for the SWA Project using a synthetic brine based on the major constituents identified as part of the resource evaluation and well sampling program identified in Section 9 and as discussed further in Section 13.3.4. As detailed elsewhere in this section, it is understood that ‘real brines’ exhibit different behavior from synthetic brines and therefore further project specific testing is recommended.

This process will continue to be developed and optimized in parallel with the project execution.

Key findings and outcomes from the Demonstration Plant testing are:

Both DLE processes show high selectivity for lithium extraction from the Smackover Formation brine to produce a LiCl solution in which the ratio of lithium to other components has been increased materially from <0.005:1 (i.e. 237 mg/L Lithium relative to the combined impurities at ~95,000 mg/L Na/K/Ca/Mg) to closer to a 0.2:1 (301mg/L lithium relative to ~1,500 mg/L). In addition, both lithium extraction processes are not measurably affected by the presence or absence of bromide in the incoming brine.

Laboratory testing of a synthetic brine, similar to the SWA brine identified in Table 13-1, was undertaken by KTS in support of evaluation of LSS. This validated the expected performance parameters identified for a comparative Demonstration Plant synthetic brine indicating that the differences in brine characteristics associated with differences in constituent ratios do not materially impact the performance. This testing in concert with the proven ‘real brine’ performance of LSS in the Demonstration Plant validates the selection for the SWA Project. However, further specific testing on ‘real brine’ from the SWA Project area is planned in the DFS to further validate this understanding of consistent LSS performance based on the underlying constituent make-up being more important than the constituent concentrations.

Downstream of the DLE processes, the LiCl solution is processed by various different technologies to remove unwanted impurities (e.g. calcium, magnesium, boron and silica) and to concentrate the purified solution by HPRO/OARO. The Demonstration Plant has shown a proven ability to produce LiCl solutions suitable as feedstock for offsite NaCl crystallization in preparation for both electrochemical processing and direct to carbonation process.

Key findings and outcomes from the Demonstration Plant testing are:

The PEA flowsheet envisaged the LiCl produced by DLE to undergo additional purification (by IX) and concentration (by reverse osmosis and thermal/evaporation) prior to being converted to lithium hydroxide. These processes have been tested extensively in the Demonstration Plant along with several other processes in order to evaluate the best fit technology for this project. All of the technologies are widely proven in industry, particularly wastewater treatment and have been shown to work reliably at the Demonstration Plant. The key technologies that have been evaluated include:

Based on the outcome of testing, the learnings from the Demonstration Plant and the LANXESS Project Phase 1A design work along with the SWA Project design work, the flowsheet for the PFS phase has been modified to comprise of; SWRO, chemical softening, boron IX, OARO/HPRO, IX polishing and salt crystallization to process the DLE output stream to a quality suitable for electrolysis.

Additional offsite pilot testing work is ongoing with SGS Lakefield to assess solvent extraction (SX) which was not complete at the time of publishing of this report. Whilst the proposed flowsheet is robust, it is recommended that a detailed analysis is conducted to evaluate the results of the SX pilot testing in support of a trade-off study for technology selection for commercialization.

Several technologies were evaluated and tested for conversion of lithium chloride solution to lithium hydroxide solution, these technologies being:

The process of wet liming for lithium hydroxide production from lithium carbonate is well understood and proven in commercial operation and has therefore not been tested specifically for the SWA Project. Wet liming remains a potential fallback option in the event that the continued testing and evaluation of the above listed technologies prove to not be technically or commercially viable. The key reason for not pursuing wet liming as the base case is that it is expected that the existing premium for the sale of lithium hydroxide over lithium carbonate will be eroded over the project execution timeline undermining the process economics. In addition, the wet liming process has the following drawbacks:

This section of the report addresses the project specific testing to convert LiCl solution to lithium hydroxide that has been undertaken in support of the SWA Project.

The electrolysis process for conversion of LiCl is fundamentally the same as the electrolysis process used extensively in the chlor-alkali industry for conversion of NaCl to NaOH and HCl. In order to confirm the suitability for lithium operation and specifically for LiCl from real brines, Standard Lithium commissioned a 100 hour test using LiCl produced from Smackover brine using the DLE processes at the Demonstration Plant.

The tested electrolysis process is based on NESI’s NORSCAND® electrolysis cell and LiCl process and utilizes a membrane electrolysis cell configured specifically for LiCl electrolysis. This produces a high purity lithium hydroxide solution whilst co-producing hydrogen and chlorine which can be reacted to produce concentrated HCl. This acid can then be utilized in the process or sold as a by-product dependent on the reagent usage and overall chemical balance.

NORAM’s wholly owned subsidiary, NORAM Electrolysis Systems Inc. (NESI) has supported Standard Lithium in development of both the PEA and PFS phases of the SWA Project and their technology therefore forms the basis for the evaluation of the suitability of Electrolysis for processing lithium brines from the Smackover Formation. NESI in turn have a long-term working relationship with Electrosynthesis Inc. for testing, with the laboratory scale testing preferentially undertaken in Lancaster. The 100 hour laboratory scale test of NESI’s electrochemical cell, was therefore undertaken at Electrosynthesis’ laboratory in Lancaster, NY.

A sample of LiCl produced by the Demonstration Plant was processed for purification and sent to Lancaster for conversion in the NS-01 cell from NESI (~150 cm²). The cell is a similar design to a commercial electrolyzer, using a DSA-Cl2 anode, SS316 cathode and S-2301 (AGC, Japan) a commercially-available perfluorinated cation exchange membrane. Testing was undertaken over the course of 146 hours. A portion of the lithium hydroxide solution produced was crystallized via a double crystallization to produce a battery-quality sample of lithium hydroxide.

The testing confirmed the efficacy of electrolysis indicating that a commercial system could be expected to operate around 4.5V and 75% current efficiency for the production of a 2 Molar lithium hydroxide (LiOH) solution and producing a battery quality lithium hydroxide product meeting a typical high purity grade. Testing of conversion of the co-produced hydrogen and chlorine gas to HCl was not undertaken on the basis that this is well proven, commercially available technology that is in widespread use.

The testing validates the applicability of the electrolysis as a viable technology for converting LiCl from Smackover brines to lithium hydroxide.

In addition to the SWA Project specific testing, NESI have conducted several previous laboratory programs (including testing on multiple actual and synthetic lithium brines for over 1,000 hours each) in a scalable electrolyzer for other prospective lithium producers where similar LiOH conversion flowsheets have been tested, further providing confidence in the technology application. NESI has also confirmed the cell test performance at commercial electrode sizes.

Standard Lithium has undertaken project specific laboratory scale testing and have already commissioned full-height cell testing and 1,000-hour operational testing to be undertaken in H2 2023 as part of the DFS phase.

Electrosynthesis bipolar membrane electrodialysis testing is similar to the testing of the NORAM cell. A 100-hour test was undertaken for bipolar membrane electrodialysis using the same feedstock as the electrolysis testing in order to facilitate a like-for-like comparison and understand the magnitude of the potential benefits and downsides relative to each other. Similar to the electrolysis testing undertaken in Lancaster, a portion of the lithium hydroxide solution was subsequently crystallized to produce a battery-quality sample of lithium hydroxide.

The three-compartment experiments were carried out in an Eur-2C electrodialysis cell which comprises of five cells each with an area of 200 cm2 (the membranes used for these tests were from Neosepta/Astom). The 100 hour test proved the use of bipolar membrane electrodialysis as successful in the production of lithium hydroxide and hydrochloric acid from LiCl. The tests showed good efficiency for producing 1.5 Molar lithium hydroxide and 2.5 Molar HCl with an estimated average energy consumption of about 2,000 kWh/tonne of lithium hydroxide (100% LiOH.H2O) for the electrodialysis cells. A key downside identified was the large quantity (approximately 9,500 L) of low grade acid (~5% HCl) containing at least 100 ppm of LiCl that would also be produced per tonne of lithium hydroxide. Without recycle, this represents a potential loss of lithium.

Whilst the testing validated the applicability of BPMED for Smackover brines, the large volume of low grade acid, potential lithium losses and larger maintenance burden due to the substantial number of membranes required, results in this technology not being recommended for the Standard Lithium flowsheet.

Direct Lithium Hydroxide Conversion (DLC) is a proprietary process developed by Suez Water Technologies & Solution (now Veolia Water Technologies) and uses a simulated moving bed to convert the LiCl to LiOH using NaOH – a pilot plant was installed at the Demonstration Plant site in October 2022 and commissioned and run continuously for 8 months using pre-treated Smackover brines directly from the Demonstration Plant. The simulated moving bed has been used elsewhere for LiCl extraction, with the development in this space to facilitate direct conversion of a purified LiCl stream to lithium hydroxide.

The pilot plant was proven to generate a suitable battery-quality product and is a viable technology for consideration on future projects. Although the simulated moving bed is commercially proven for other applications, this type of application is novel and it is recommended to pilot at larger scale prior to commercialization due to being first-of-a-kind.

Electrolysis is deemed to be the most reliable, proven, and lowest risk of the technologies assessed to take through to commercialization. The key advantages over BPMED are:

It is recommended that electrolysis be the core technology for further flowsheet development with further testing for long term operation and for scaled-up operation undertaken to support design development and project de-risking.

For commercial development, the lithium hydroxide solution produced by the electrolysis plant will be concentrated to saturation and lithium hydroxide crystals formed in the evaporator-crystallizer will be separated, dried, re-sized (if required) and packaged in an inert atmosphere.

It should be noted that the final concentration and evaporation-crystallization of lithium hydroxide is an industry-standard process and is practiced extensively at a commercial scale.

During the operation of the Demonstration Plant, routine daily chemical analysis is conducted in the internal Standard Lithium laboratory using standard solution analysis instrumental techniques; principally, Inductively Coupled Plasma – Optical Emission Spectroscopy (ICP-OES). For more important determinations, duplicate samples are submitted to SGS Canada Inc. (SGS) for analysis using their standard ISO 9000 compliant protocols (principally ICP-OES), developed based on their experience working on numerous lithium projects. Additional brine and solid samples are also periodically sent to other third-party analytical laboratories (principally WetLabs) in order to provide suitable independent verification of data generated by the Demonstration Plant.

Other instrumentation in the Demonstration Plant undergoes a rigorous maintenance schedule to ensure accurate collection of data from the plant.

Throughout the process test work described, the author has had the following interactions:

As noted above, the pre-treatment portion of the flowsheet is industry standard technology and is already in use at commercial scale in the southern Arkansas region. As such no scale-up risk is envisaged for this unit operation.

The selected LSS DLE process has now operated continuously for approximately 10 months at a pre-commercial Demonstration Plant scale and has been developed to FEED (DFS) level in support of the LANXESS Project Phase 1A and pre-FEED (PFS) level for the South West Arkansas Project and it has been confirmed that all of the operations involved in the DLE process can be reasonably scaled-up. Scale-up will occur by the addition of multiple standard size LSS columns operating in parallel with the number required determined based on brine flowrate and lithium concentration. Scale-up from the Demonstration Plant to prove commercialization as part of the Lanxess Project Phase 1A will be a 60:1 scale-up based on flowrate with subsequent scale-up to SWA Project capacity requiring a 2.5:1 scale-up based on flowrate.

The purification and concentration elements of the flowsheet are already in widespread use in similar industries and at larger scale than required for the SWA Project and is not deemed an area of risk for scale-up. Similarly the product crystallizer and product handling equipment is not deemed an area of risk.

Based on input from NORAM, referencing other lithium and sodium chemistries and test data, no significant issues are envisaged for scale-up of the electrochemical conversion and evaporation/crystallization of lithium hydroxide.

To date, no issues with process scale-up have been identified. It is feasible, and should not present any processing challenges, to divide the large flows into smaller parallel flows, should that be required for the full-scale plant.

Similar to all lithium brine processing projects (including those using ‘conventional’ evaporation ponds), there exist several risks that will need to be addressed or resolved as the project moves through the usual development stages:

Standard Lithium has completed substantial test work, and many aspects of the proposed flowsheet at the SWA Project are either normal industrial processes, have been demonstrated at substantial pre-commercial scale, or have been verified by pilot scale work on similar solutions. As such, it is felt by the author that sufficient test work has been completed to support the flowsheet proposed for the SWA Project at this stage of evaluation.

Recommendations are:

This section describes the preparation of the lithium resource estimates for the SWA Property, based on the volume of porous rock as estimated by the geologic model and the estimated lithium concentrations present in the brines stored within the Upper and Middle Smackover formations on the Property. The resource estimates associated with the Upper Smackover have been upgraded in this Technical Report from the Inferred category, PEA (Eccles, et. al, APEX, 2021), to the Indicated category based on the extensive geologic data and lithium concentration data gathered by Standard Lithium’s 2023 exploration program on the SWA Property. This new information demonstrates the presence of a porous and permeable Smackover reservoir containing brine with significant lithium concentrations. This upgrading of the resource estimates is described in more detail in Section 14.3.

This resource estimate has been prepared in accordance with the CIM Definition Standards for Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves (CIM 2014). Mineral Resources are sub-divided, in order of increasing geological confidence, into inferred, indicated, and measured categories. An Inferred Mineral Resource has a lower level of confidence than that applied to an Indicated Mineral Resource. An Indicated Mineral Resource has a higher level of confidence than an Inferred Mineral Resource but has a lower level of confidence than a Measured Mineral Resource.

An Inferred Mineral Resource is that part of a Mineral Resource for which quantity and grade or quality are estimated on the basis of limited geological evidence and sampling. Geological evidence is sufficient to imply but not verify geological and grade or quality continuity.

An Indicated Mineral Resource is that part of a Mineral Resource for which quantity, grade or quality, densities, shape, and physical characteristics are estimated with sufficient confidence to allow the application of Modifying Factors in sufficient detail to support mine planning and evaluation of the economic viability of the deposit.

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.

The estimation of resources in this report have been carried out in conformance with NI 43-101 and have been estimated using the CIM “Estimation of Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves Best Practice Guidelines” (23 November 2003), CIM “Definition Standards for Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves” (amended and adopted 10 May 2014), and “CIM Best Practice Guidelines for Resource and Reserve Estimation for Lithium Brine” (1 November 2012).

The Best Practice Guidelines (CIM, 2012) have been adapted for the specific conditions present at this Property. Unlike a brine-bearing salar, the SWA Property’s brine accumulation exists in a well-defined porous geologic formation at depth, the Smackover Formation. This extensive brine accumulation is bounded vertically by impermeable formations and laterally by the SWA Property boundaries. Also unlike a salar, the brine recovery from the Smackover is the result of rich brine (brine containing the original concentration of lithium) displacement by injected lean brine (brine that has had the lithium extracted in the processing plant). This brine-on-brine displacement mechanism is efficient, with all of the lithium-bearing brine in a given reservoir volume that is contacted by the injected brine being fully displaced. For this reason, the Guidelines’ use of Specific Yield for estimating resources, which assumes some remaining content of lithium in the subject formation, has been replaced here with the calibrated log or measured core porosity of the formation. In future evaluations the estimation of the overall fraction of the resources that will be recovered by the project (the recovery factor, equal to the estimated reserves divided by the estimated resource for the SWA Project area) will be done using a reservoir simulation incorporating the available geologic and fluid description data.

This approach to the estimation of resources using a detailed layered geologic model fully captures the factors that affect the content and quality of brine and the associated lithium in this porous underground formation.

In order to understand and quantify the Smackover Formations’ structure, geometry, and the location of the porous and permeable zones within the formation, a multi-layer geologic model of the SWA Property was constructed as the basis of the resource estimates in this Technical Report using industry-standard software and procedures. Beginning with the structural understanding of the overall Smackover Formation developed through analysis of the well data and seismic data, the next level of detail was added to the geologic description by separating the Smackover Formation into eight separate layers and evaluating the geologic characteristics of each layer. This geologic mapping effort covered the SWA Property and the surrounding area (the Geologic Study Area) as depicted in Figure 10-1. The procedures followed in creating this multi-layer geologic model relate to well log and core data analysis, net pay estimation, the mapping procedures, and the estimation of in-place volumes. This geologic modeling exercise is significantly more detailed and rigorous than that carried out for the PEA, thanks to the large amount of new data provided by the Standard Lithium exploration program.

The following steps were carried out to construct the multi-layer geologic model:

Figure 10-1 depicts the locations of the 98 wells within the SWA Property and 326 wells outside the SWA Property containing structure, porosity, or core data relevant to the description of one or more of the eight layers. Figure 7-5 presents the structure map for the top of the Smackover Formation. Figure 14-5 is a porosity cross section through the five 2023 exploration program wells. It uses as a datum the top of Upper Smackover, and illustrates the thick, continuous nature of the high-porosity net pay (shaded in green, yellow, orange, or red) Upper Smackover Formation, in comparison to the thinner, less-continuous Middle Smackover Formation net pay.

The net porosity-thickness (also known as Phi-H) maps for the Upper and Middle Smackover zones are presented in Figure 14-6 and Figure 14-7. Net porosity thickness is a direct indicator of the amount of brine below any location on the SWA Property. The greater the mapped pore-feet, the greater the volume of brine. Each porosity-thickness map is multiplied by the lithium concentration map, then integrated over the SWA Project area to obtain the in-place lithium resource estimates for each zone.

Figure 14-1. South West Arkansas Field Smackover Type Well, Montague 1

Figure 14-2. Core Data Plot

Figure 14-3. Porosity Log Calibration to Core Data Plot

Figure 14-4. Porosity Log Net Pay Example

Figure 14-5. Stratigraphic Cross Section, Exploration Program Wells

Figure 14-6. Total Upper Smackover Net Porosity-Thickness

Figure 14-7. Total Middle Smackover Net Porosity-Thickness

To obtain the in-place lithium resource estimates for Upper Smackover and Middle Smackover zones the corresponding net porosity-thickness map (Figure 14-6 and Figure 14-7) has been multiplied by the lithium concentration map (Figure 9-2), then integrated over the SWA Project area. The resulting estimated average geologic properties, average lithium concentrations and the estimated indicated (Upper Smackover) and inferred (Middle Smackover) lithium resource values for the total SWA Property Area are presented in Table 14-1 and Table 14-2. The distinction between North and South Areas, separated by the Brown Fault, has been retained to allow comparison to prior studies.

Using a conversion factor of 5.323 kg of lithium carbonate equivalent (LCE) per kg of lithium, the Indicated Resource value corresponds to an estimate of 1.43 million metric tonnes LCE. For the Inferred Resource, the estimate is 392 thousand metric tonnes LCE.

The lithium resource estimates presented in Table 14-1 and Table 14-2, effective August 8, 2023, do not consider a minimum lithium concentration cutoff because the entirety of the SWA Property exceeds the previously-used 100 mg/L cutoff value, which is still considered an appropriate cutoff point for assessing project viability. In addition, it is important to note that mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability. There is no guarantee that all or any part of the mineral resource will be converted into a mineral reserve. The estimate of mineral resources may be materially affected by geology, environment, permitting, legal, title, taxation, socio-political, marketing, or other relevant issues.

Table 14-1. SWA Property Geologic Factors and Indicated Lithium Resource Estimates

Table 14-2. SWA Property Geologic Factors and Inferred Lithium Resource Estimates