U.S.

Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy

DOE A WARD : DE-FE0032120

PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE: JANUARY 14, 2022-APRIL 13, 2023

Advanced Processing of Rare Earth Elements and Critical Minerals

from Acid Mine Drainage Feedstocks

Final Technical Report

Principal Investigator and Submitting Official:

Paul Ziemkiewicz, PhD
Director, West Virginia Water Research Institute
West Virginia University
[email protected]
304-293-6958

Submission Date:
July 12, 2023

West Virginia University Research Corporation

DUNS Number: 191510239
886 Chestnut Ridge Road, PO Box 6845
Morgantown, WV 26506-6845

Teaming Members
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Eich Design LLC (DBA- L3Eng)
Endress+Hauser, Inc.
Hela Novel Metals
Northrop Grumman Corporation
Rivian
Rockwell Automation
Acknowledgment: "This material is based upon work supported by the Department of Energy under
Award Number DE-FE0032120."
Disclaimer: "This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United
States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their
employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for
the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed,
or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific
commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does
not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not
necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof."
Contents
Executive Summary..................................................................................................................................... 3
Accomplishments........................................................................................................................................ 3
Task 1.0 – Project Management and Planning ........................................................................................ 3
Task 2.0 – Team Coordination and Market Research .............................................................................. 4
Task 3.0 – Resource Assessment and Feedstock Selection ..................................................................... 6
Task 4.0 – Preliminary Process Development ......................................................................................... 7
Subtask 4.1: Process Technical Analysis .............................................................................................. 7
Subtask 4.2: Process Synthesis and Modeling ................................................................................... 17
Subtask 4.3: Process Techno-Economic Analysis .............................................................................. 23
Task 5.0 – Technical Research Plan Development ................................................................................ 45
Subtask 5.1: Project Risk Assessment ............................................................................................... 45
Subtask 5.2: Technical Research Plan Formulation ........................................................................... 57
Task 6.0 – Recovery of Lithium from the Leach Residues ..................................................................... 57
Milestone Status Report ........................................................................................................................... 61
Table 1 Industry Advisory Board Partners ................................................................................................... 4
Table 2 Estimated REE/CM yields. The table includes both Coal and Hardrock mining AMD as well as laser
wastes. ....................................................................................................................................................... 6
Table 3: Major Equipment Suppliers ......................................................................................................... 16
Table 4. Average concentrations in raw A34 AMD. .................................................................................. 18
Table 5. A simple value index for evaluating candidate elements for recovery. ...................................... 19
Table 6: Pre-Concentrate Feed Rate and Compositions. *the Li value is based on its concentration in leach
residue. ..................................................................................................................................................... 19
Table 7: Raw Materials, Consumables and Energy Inputs ......................................................................... 20
Table 8: Utilization Fraction of the ASP per configuration ........................................................................ 21
Table 9: Production of lithium carbonate and rubidium from A34 AMD .................................................. 21
Table 10: Production of Rare Earth Products from the Primary Circuit .................................................... 21
Table 11: Production of Critical Materials from the Primary Circuit ......................................................... 22
Table 12: Production of the ASP Unit ........................................................................................................ 22
Table 13: Elemental Recoveries ................................................................................................................ 23
Table 14: Refinery Capital and Operating Cost Estimate Summary .......................................................... 24
Table 15: Hybrid Scenario (2021 Pricing) Capital Cost Estimate ............................................................... 28
Table 16: Conceptual Study using Ionic Liquid (2021 Pricing) Capital Cost Estimate ................................ 29

1
Table 17: Conceptual Study using Ionic Liquid (Current, 2023 Pricing) Capital Cost Estimate .................. 30
Table 18: Positions Labor Costs ................................................................................................................ 32
Table 19: Fully Loaded Labor Rates and Number of Full Time Employees ................................................ 33
Table 20: Conceptual Study using Ionic Liquid (Current, 2023 Pricing) Operating Cost Estimates ............ 34
Table 21. Baseline Product Prices ............................................................................................................. 36
Table 22. Relative Revenue Contributions from each Product for Alternative Plant Scenarios ............... 37
Table 23. Summary of Economic Indicators for Alternative Plant Configurations. ................................... 37
Table 24. Product price multiplier needed to achieve target rate of Return Values. Data shown as % of
baseline price. ........................................................................................................................................... 38
Table 25: Lithium Recovery from AMD, A34 Site Capital Cost Estimate ................................................... 42
Table 26: Rubidium Recovery from AMD, A34 Site Capital Cost Estimate ................................................ 43
Table 27: Lithium Recovery from AMD, A34 Site Operating Cost Estimates ............................................. 44
Table 28. Risk, Probability, and Consequence Indices .............................................................................. 47
Table 29. Risk Classification Before Mitigation ......................................................................................... 51
Table 30. Risk Classification After Mitigation ........................................................................................... 51
Table 31. Mass balance showing lithium recovery from PW to LR………………………………………………………….60
Table 32. Milestone Status Report ............................................................................................................ 61

Figure 1 – Electrolytic Recovery Unit .......................................................................................................... 9

Figure 2 – Staged Lithium Recovery Process. .............................................................................................. 9
Figure 3 – Sensitivity of HPC royalty payment on central plant rate of return. ......................................... 38
Figure 4. Both LR and SZ were loaded with a lithium solution. The table shows the ideal and realized
lithium recoveries when the resulting solids were leached with pure water and ammonium chloride (AC).
.................................................................................................................................................................. 58
Figure 5. Recovery of PW sourced lithium to LR with and without sodium carbonate neutralization. .... 59
Figure 6. Changes in pH as a result of successive PW charges and sodium carbonate addition. ............. 59

2
Executive Summary
Work by the project team identified a process for extracting rare earths and critical mineral (REE/CM)
concentrates from acid mine drainage from coal mines, a major stream pollutant. The process removes
harmful metals and separates REE/CM into economically attractive concentrates. This project will
explore the processing of those concentrates into individually separated, high purity metals, suitable for
domestic manufacturers. Project researchers will include the successful team of Dr. Paul Ziemkiewicz, PI,
West Virginia University, Dr. Aaron Noble, Co-PI, Virginia Tech and Tommee Metivier-Larochelle, Co-PI,
L3 Eng, LLC. The team brings unique experience in working with AMD-based feedstocks since the
inception of USDOE’s coal-based REE/CM program in 2016. The project team has pioneered the recovery
of rare earth/critical minerals (REE/CM) from acid mine drainage (AMD). This environmentally beneficial
strategy will incentivize AMD treatment while recovering materials critical to the Nation’s defense and
advanced manufacturing industries. In addition, the project will investigate the co-production of five
high purity CMs from AMD, namely Co, Mn, Li, Cr, Ge. This team’s upstream and midstream recovery
and processing technology has been demonstrated at the continuous, small scale pilot scale. In
conjunction with the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, the team is constructing a
full-scale, integrated, 500 gpm AMD treatment plant coupled with an REE/CM facility that will produce
21 tons REE/CM per year. The plant was commissioned in September 2022. This will provide feedstock
for the team’s proprietary downstream processes to meet the project objective: production of
individually separated high purity (ISHP) REE/CM oxides and their further processing to elemental metals
(REM). To facilitate entry into the U.S. market, we have teamed up with companies that would use our
products to strengthen their domestic supply chains and grow REE/CM based manufacturing in the U.S.
They include Rockwell Automation, Northrop Grumman, Hela Novel Metals, Endress+Hauser Inc., and
Rivian.

Accomplishments
Task 1.0 – Project Management and Planning
Approach
The Recipient shall manage and direct the project in accordance with a Project Management Plan to
meet all technical, schedule and budget objectives and requirements. The Recipient will coordinate
activities in order to effectively accomplish the work. The Recipient will ensure that project plans,
results, and decisions are appropriately documented, and project reporting and briefing requirements
are satisfied.

The Recipient shall update the Project Management Plan 30 days after award and as necessary
throughout the project to accurately reflect the current status of the project. Examples of when it may
be appropriate to update the Project Management Plan include: (a) project management policy and
procedural changes; (b) changes to the technical, cost, and/or schedule baseline for the project; (c)
significant changes in scope, methods, or approaches; or (d) as otherwise required to ensure that the
plan is the appropriate governing document for the work required to accomplish the project objectives.

Management of project risks will occur in accordance with the risk management methodology
delineated in the Project Management Plan to identify, assess, monitor, and mitigate technical
uncertainties as well as schedule, budgetary and environmental risks associated with all aspects of the
project. The results and status of the risk management process will be presented during project reviews
and in quarterly progress reports with emphasis placed on the medium- and high-risk items.

3
Results and Discussion
The Project Management Plan was updated and sent to NETL DOE on 2/14/22, 9/8/22, and 2/1/23. All
technical, schedule, and budget objectives were met per the Project Management Plan.

Task Completion Status

100% complete.

Task 2.0 – Team Coordination and Market Research

Approach
The Recipient will commission an industrial advisory board to include members from the entire REE and
CM supply chain, including one or more of the following stakeholders: resource owners, AMD treatment
operators, state and local regulatory agencies, process development firms, technology development
firms, market analysts, refiners, and end users/consumers. Initial members of the advisory board have
provided letters of commitment; however, this group will be reevaluated periodically to identify
opportunities for expansion.

The Recipient will conduct quarterly technical briefings with this group to identify technical strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities, and threats to commercial deployment of the project technology. The
Recipient will also coordinate market research activities with downstream processors and end users to
identify markets and applications for the REEs and CMs to be produced in latter phases of this project.
These activities will quantify the annual international production quantities, US demand, and
intermediate/end use products.

Results and Discussion

An Industrial Advisory Board (IAB) was formed under award DE-FE0032120 to offer guidance
regarding feedstocks and product specifications. The IAB met every 3 months with the West
Virginia University team to receive progress reports about the ongoing research. This group
provided insight that helped to guide the research as well as providing end user information.
Several in this group provided cost share. They also have shown interest in similar ongoing
research.
Table 1 Industry Advisory Board Partners

Business
Role
Association
PI West Virginia
University
Co-PI Virginia Tech
Co-PI L3Eng LLC
Industrial Advisory
Hela Novel Metals
Board
Industrial Advisory Rockwell
Board Automation
Industrial Advisory Northrop Grumman
Board Corporaton

4
 Industrial Advisory Endress+Hauser,
Board Inc.
Industrial Advisory
Rivian
Board

In January 2023, Paul Ziemkiewicz and Aaron Noble travelled to Charlotte, NC for a tour and
meetings with Northrup Grumman Synoptics’ Laser Stock manufacturing facility. Northrup had
earlier provided the project team with reject glass from their process and progress toward
recovering Y, Nd, Er, Tb and Ho was discussed. This work identified a promising process for the
roughly 3.5 t/yr of REE from the facility and, if the economics are favorable, will be
incorporated into the supply chain.

In addition to WVU’s ongoing teaming plan with the West Virginia Department of
Environmental Protection to access coal based REE/CM feedstock at its Mt. Storm AMD
treatment plant (DE FE0031834), WVU has also established a relationship with Montana
Resources LLC to provide REE/CM concentrate from its Horseshoe Bend AMD treatment facility
in Butte, MT. The facility treats roughly 5,500 gpm of AMD from an active copper mining and
processing operation. The demonstration REE/CM recovery facility will be supported by a
recent United States Department of Defense (USDOD) award under its Industrial Base Analysis
and Sustainment (IBAS) program. A letter of support from Montana Resources is attached.

West Virginia University is the lead research unit for this project and is being supported by the
WVU Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and will work with West Virginia
University Research Corporation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia
Tech), and Montana Bureau of Mine and Geology, a unit of Montana Technical University.
WVURC is an affiliated research corporation of West Virginia University (“WVU”), a statutorily
authorized non-profit corporation established pursuant to W. Va. Code §18B-12-3 for the
purpose of facilitating research and development grants and economic opportunities for WVU
and its affiliates. WVU, Virginia Tech, and Montana Technical University are considered
institutions of higher learning and are not foreign owned or USA foreign owned, controlled or
influenced. WVU and VT hold valid facility clearances in the Department of Defense. We are
willing to participate at any level to comply with the Program Executive Office Simulation,
Training and Instrumentations (PEO STRI) Vendor/Contractor Vetting Process for Release of
Protected Information at the Unclassified/For Official Use Only (FOUO), Top Secret
(TS)/Sensitive Compartment Information (SCI), or any level in between the two categories.

Task Completion Status

100% complete.

5
Task 3.0 – Resource Assessment and Feedstock Selection
Approach
The Recipient will leverage public data as well as in-house characterization data collected from prior
Department of Energy (DOE) funded efforts to identify and delineate the REE and CM resource in acid
mine drainage. The geographic extents of this assessment will primarily focus on Northern and Central
Appalachia; however, additional coal basins may be added as required. Given the Recipient’s prior
efforts in the resource assessment of REEs and cobalt, direct efforts in this task will primarily address
delineation and quantification of non-REE CMs other than cobalt, including manganese, lithium, nickel
and germanium. A limited amount of direct sampling and analysis may be performed if the existing
datasets are deemed inadequate for a detailed resource assessment.

Results from this task will include the selection of the coal-based AMD that will be used as feedstock
material in the existing pilot facilities.

Results and Discussion

Additional sampling of AMD treatment sites including both coal and hardrock sites resulted in an
updated yield estimate (table 1). We are currently working with WVDEP to install a series of at least
seven watershed-scale AMD treatment systems that will include REE/CM recovery. The estimated 187.8
t REE/yr value is derived from the estimated AMD discharge volume, known hydraulic preconcentrate
(HPC) yields as a function of discharge volume and an estimated grade of 2% DWB. As such this value
should be considered preliminary. A detailed sampling campaign is anticipated in upcoming months to
verify that yield estimate.
Table 2 Estimated REE/CM yields. The table includes both Coal and Hardrock mining AMD as well as
laser wastes.
Oxide
mine TREE Co Ni Mn Zn Li REE/CM
n type* Source t/yr t/yr t/yr t/yr t/yr t/yr t/yr
12 C ETD39 Fola 4.3 4.9 4.1 45.7 11.2 2.6 72.9
31 C ETD39 WVDEP OSR 6.0 6.9 5.8 30.7 15.7 3.6 68.7
7 C North Branch 3.3 2.0 3.1 25.6 8.5 2.0 44.4
7 C WVDEP Watershed Projects 187.8 204.7 180.3 2103.8 488.4 112.7 3277.8
9 C ETD84 MD, PA sites 7.2 10.9 6.9 488.1 18.6 4.3 535.9
66 Total coal 208.6 229.4 200.3 2693.9 542.4 125.2 3999.7

1 YAG** NG Synoptics 3.5 3.5

7 HR Intermountain US Copper 125.4 119.9 120.4 453.9 326.1 75.2 1221.0
5 HR CERCLA Hard Rock 99.2 40.4 95.2 1386.8 257.9 59.5 1939.0
12 Total non coal 228.1 160.4 215.6 1840.7 583.9 134.8 3163.5

66 C all coal 208.6 229.4 200.3 2693.9 542.4 125.2 3999.7

12 HR all non coal 228.1 160.4 215.6 1840.7 583.9 134.8 3163.5
78 Total 436.7 389.8 415.9 4534.6 1126.3 259.9 7163.2

* C=coal mine, HR=hard rock mine, ** Laser waste REE oxides

Task Completion Status

100% complete.

6
Task 4.0 – Preliminary Process Development
Subtask 4.1: Process Technical Analysis

Approach
In this subtask, the Recipient will prepare a detailed technical description and process model for four
primary processing circuits, including:
● Circuit 1: Production of Mixed Rare Earth Oxides from AMD Feedstocks
● Circuit 2: Production of Individual Separated High Purity Rare Earth Oxides
● Circuit 3: Production of Rare Earth Metal
● Circuit 4: Synergistic Production of Critical Minerals

Results and Discussion

General
It should be noted that earlier versions of this process were developed during eleven previous and
ongoing DOE projects. As the general process description, benefits, and limitations were described in
earlier reports, portions of this report have been duplicated from those prior investigations for the
benefit of the reader. Specific work completed under this project include the conceptualization and
techno-economic evaluation of using novel electrolytic recovery of lithium and rubidium from acid mine
drainage and updating the previously issued feasibility study level rare earth and critical materials
refinery to include an update of the solvent extraction circuit, replacing the acidic extractants by ionic
liquids extractants. A selective zinc recovery processing unit and a nickel chloride recovery unit were
also added to the refinery. A secondary impact of this update resulted in increased cobalt recovery.
Building on our completed feasibility study (89243320 CFE 000059) plant design, the critical minerals
and rare earth element processing facility has been designed for flexible processing of AMD-based
critical minerals pre-concentrate. However, the conventional extraction system composed of
phosphorus-based acidic extractants diluted in organic solvents is replaced with highly novel ionic liquid
extractants either diluted in organic solvent or used as both an extractant and a solvent. Furthermore,
the design still included the Carboxylate Reduction Process developed by Hela Novel Metals as a novel,
environmentally friendly metal reduction process for critical materials.
While the primary feedstock assumed in this study is AMD-derived pre-concentrate material, the
Refinery design allows the processing of most rare earth feedstock amenable to hydrochloric acid
leaching such as bastnaesite, ancylite and other intermediate mixed rare earth products such as mixed
rare earth oxides and carbonates. A case-by-case analysis of alternative feedstock would be required to
evaluate the economic viability of alternative coal-based or non-coal-based feedstocks.
The flexibility of the rare earth separation process is based on its model-based design which will allow
for the reconfiguration of the system and of its operating parameters without extensive test work and
piloting for each reconfiguration scenario. This simulation approach will also allow for the optimization
of plant profitability by including financial parameters in the simulation process.
The Advanced Separation Process (ASP) specifically uses this technique to operate a generic base
flowsheet to separate up to 3 elements or group of elements per configuration. When used sequentially
this will permit separation of each individual element into high purity products. An example of groups of
elements that can be functionally separated together include Tb/Dy which are both used for high
performance magnets, often together. Elements of lower value could also be separated together and
stockpiled as a group to reduce the overall operating costs.

7
Process Description
AMD Treatment
Under conventional AMD treatment, raw AMD is continually produced and treated at mine discharge
points. Treatment consists of acid neutralization followed by oxidation to precipitate regulated metals
from solution. The precipitates are separated from clean water, which can then be discharged. While
these precipitates are enriched in REE/CM, we have found that significant gains can be made by first
precipitating the bulk of gangue metals while REEs are still in solution then precipitating REEs at a higher
pH to yield a high-grade pre-concentrate. The result is an AMD treatment strategy that meets the
statutory CWA discharge limits while optimizing recovery and purity of an REE pre-concentrate. The
study team demonstrated under DE FE 0031524 that two stage AMD treatment first removes the bulk of
gangue metals then the second produces an enriched pre-concentrate of 0.5 to 5% MREO. This and
supporting technology are the subject of U.S. Patent No. 10,954,582, awarded to members of the study
team in March 2021. A 500-gpm demonstration plant using this technology is currently operated as a
part of DE FE0031834. In addition to continuous production of pre-concentrate, the plant includes an
acid leach/solvent extraction/oxalate precipitation circuit (Figure 1). Current testing of this process
shows that the technology can effectively concentrate REE/CMs from raw AMD, with overall enrichment
factors ranging from 13,000x to 15,000x. More importantly, the process has proven to be extremely
robust, as testing on different AMD feedstocks representing a variety of geochemical settings has
consistently produced similar results with respect to final REE purity.
AMD Treatment Unit
The AMD Treatment Unit is used to treat AMD streams and produce a critical material pre-concentrate
product. It will consist of many units located at AMD discharges. While the specific configuration of each
unit has to be tailored to its specific site, the general process flowsheet is the same.
In this process, raw AMD is first neutralized to a pH of 4.5 with Calcium Oxide, precipitating most base
metals. The precipitate is dewatered in a thickener or in a settling pond and the resulting partially
treated water is subsequently neutralized to a pH of 8. This second neutralization step induces the
precipitation of all REE and cobalt with a significant portion of manganese. This pre-concentrate material
is then dewatered in a clarifier or in a settling pond. The decant water will meet regulatory discharge
limits and would be discharged to a receiving stream. The pre-concentrate material is then further
dewatered in geotubes and the dewatered material is periodically collected and transported to the
central refinery for the extraction, separation and refining of its constituent critical materials.
Lithium and Rubidium Recovery Unit
The lithium and rubidium recovery unit are distinct designs, using the same conceptual framework
based on electrolytic semi continuous mesoporous solid phase ion intercalation in cells separated by an
anion exchange membrane. While the unit described herein is referring to lithium recovery, a financial
analysis was also performed for the recovery of rubidium. For simplicity, only the lithium unit will be
described as it was clear to the project team that there was no value in recovering rubidium.
We conceptualized the equipment using a commercial electrolyzer design in which we replaced the
membrane for an anion exchange membrane (AEM) and the electrodes for mesoporous manganese
oxide coated felt electrodes. A lab scale schematic of this concept is presented as Figure 1 (Mu et al.,
2021).

8
 Figure 1 – Electrolytic Recovery Unit

In this process, two simultaneous operations are undertaken: one in each electrode compartment. On
the cathode side, lithium from AMD is extracted and intercalated in the manganese oxide matrix while
the chloride anion crosses the AEM and balances lithium being deintercalated from the anode to a
lithium recovery solution. The process is graphically represented as Figure 2 (ref Mu et al., 2021).

Figure 2 – Staged Lithium Recovery Process.

Two stages of enrichment are required before the lithium concentration in the lithium recovery solution
reaches a sufficient concentration to allow the precipitation of lithium carbonate by precipitation with
sodium carbonate in an agitated reactor.
The technical factors affecting performance are centered on lithium concentration in the raw acid mine
drainage. Solutions with a concentration below 7.3 ppm are flow controlled, with module sizing based
on the hydraulic performance of the equipment. Concentrations above 7.3 ppm are lithium controlled,
with module sizing based on lithium quantity. Scale up is a direct assembly of equipment to meet the
flow or lithium quantity controlling parameters. AMD concentrations being much smaller than 7.3 ppm,
the equipment scale up consists of one module per 50 gallons per minute of AMD flow. The process
itself doesn’t present any environmental risk, but some steps in the fabrication process of the electrode
involve toxic solvents. The quantity of solvents involved is limited, reducing the environmental risk of

9
the process. Mitigation strategies are centered in the manufacturing facility and its VOC control systems.
No manufacturer currently produces this specific lithium extraction equipment concept, and the techno-
economic analysis doesn’t support further development as it relates to AMD discharges.
Future studies should evaluate the concept for alternative lithium sources such as produced water and
geothermal brines.
Central Refinery
BFD’s for major unit operations are available in the accompanying appendix files.
Zinc Recovery Unit
The Zinc Recovery Unit is used to selectively recover zinc prior to the pre-concentrate leach unit and
produce a zinc carbonate product. Pre-concentrate material is reacted with an ammonium chloride
solution in a cascade of (3) three co-current agitated leach vessels. Zinc along with residual calcium and
magnesium hydroxide are selectively leached by ammonium chloride to produce ammonium hydroxide
and metal chlorides. The vessels are operated at 85 Celsius to vaporize any produced ammonium
hydroxide, increasing the reaction extent. The resulting slurry is dewatered and the solid is sent to the
pre-concentrate leach unit while the solution is sent to a successive cascade of (3) three co-current
agitated leach vessels operated at room temperature. Vaporized ammonia is absorbed in the first vessel
and the mixture is reacted with carbon dioxide to precipitate the zinc as zinc carbonate, regenerating
the ammonium chloride leach solution. The zinc carbonate is dewatered, and the solution is recycled to
the leach reactor train.
The ammonium chloride leach process comprising the zinc recovery unit is a fairly well know process,
albeit it has not been operated commercially to the knowledge of the authors. The primary operating
conditions impacting the process are the operating temperatures of the various steps in the process and
the ammonium chloride concentration in the circuit.
The scale up of this unit is straightforward and is based on maintaining the residence time across the
various units. Special attention should be given to the injection of carbon dioxide to ensure a proper
contact with the chloride solution and to heat transfer equipment to ensure a sufficient heat duty can
be achieved at larger scale. This implies that while pilot scale units may rely on reactor jackets, larger
units are likely to require external heat exchangers.
The only environmental risk of the process would be an environmental release of the leach solution in a
water stream. The volume of solution is not sufficient to have any impact beyond the immediate point
of discharge. Proper containment design is the optimum mitigation strategy.
Pre-Concentrate Leach Unit
The Pre-Concentrate Leach Unit is used to extract valuable metals from the pre-concentrate material. In
this unit, pre-concentrate is fed to a series of (2) two co-current agitated leach vessels where it is
contacted with 37% (12M) HCl for 1 hour. The leach slurry is transferred to a pug mill where the reaction
is finalized before being transferred to a screw dryer to evaporate the remaining moisture. In this
process, hydrochloric acid solubilizes all rare earth elements and some gangue material, notably
calcium, magnesium and aluminum. Evaporating the moisture leaves behind the gangue material with
chloride salts.
The dried solids are redissolved with water for 1 hour in a series of co-current agitated leach vessels
resulting in a 1-2 weight percent slurry. The slurry is mixed with the recycled precipitate from the
neutralization step downstream in a series of agitated vessels. The resulting slurry is adjusted to a pH 3.5
which solubilizes Scandium that may have precipitated during the neutralization step downstream. The

10
resulting slurry is dewatered in a centrifuge and the residue is disposed of at a partner AMD site. The
pregnant leach (PLS) solution is then neutralized to a pH of 4.5 using sodium carbonate to precipitate
most aluminum in solution, and a portion of the rare earth elements. The neutralized slurry is
dewatered in a centrifuge and the solids are recycled upstream via a screw conveyor to be contacted
with the water leach slurry. The resulting solution is sent to the Oxalate Precipitation Unit.
The leach unit process is divided into 3 distinct technical sections: the chloride bake reaction, the water
leach and the neutralization purification.
The proposed process is a novel process that has been demonstrated at the very small bench scale by
project team members as part of the DE FE0031834 and feasibility study (CFE000059) projects for which
a patent application was filed. Conceptually the process is identical to the sulfuric acid bake process
used in both monazite leach processes for the recovery of rare earth elements, and in the recovery of
lithium from spodumene. Both processes also include a water leach step which is fully understood
theoretically. The following neutralization purification process is also a well understood process based
on acid-base chemistry.
The key operating parameters include residence time, operating temperature, elemental concentrations
and pH. Higher temperatures, longer residence times and lower pH result in more ions in solution. As a
leach process, the primary scale up will be based on residence time across the various equipment with
special attention given to heat transfer units. The leach circuit presents higher risks for the environment
than the zinc recovery unit due to the production of chlorine gas as part of the manganese leach
reaction. It is crucial that the proper gas scrubber be included in the design. Additionally, the bleed
stream of this scrubber is a key input to the manganese recovery unit. Proper containment design
criteria should be applied to ensure no liquid discharge due to equipment rupture.
All equipment except for the pug mill is readily available commercially.
Primary Circuit and Yttrium Recovery Circuit
In its baseline configuration, the plant can be operated to produce individual RE metals, rather than the
single mixed rare earth product. The Primary Circuit is first used to recover didymium (Pr, Nd)- metal
and yttrium metal powders from the neutralized PLS solution instead of using the oxalic acid
precipitation process. The metal powders are produced along with a MREO and a HREO product. All
major units in the primary circuit operate at ambient temperature and atmospheric pressure.
Solvent extraction processes using ionic liquids are controlled using a combination of chloride (Cl-) and
hydrogen (H+) ions concentration. Additionally, the concentration profile of the various phases and the
volume flow ratios across the system are key operating parameters. Mixer settler equipment are built
with internal recycle piping to allow for efficient phase mixing when the flow ratios are not similar.
The scale up procedure for mixer settlers involves a three-part process. The mixer portion of the
equipment is sized based on residence time for the continuous phase. The settler area is scaled up
based on phase separation parameters and the volume of the settler portion of the equipment is sized
based on residence time to allow for full separation.
The solvent extraction separation circuit presents a very low environmental risk, primarily related to
their organic and acidic contents. The volume of the equipment in the proposed circuit is such that an
accident would only represent a minor local impact. The mitigation process to prevent spills involves the
design of proper containment areas around the equipment and will be included in any design of the
circuit.

11
Mixer-settler equipment is a generic piece of equipment offered by many of the metallurgical
equipment vendors, especially at a larger scale. Such vendors would include Quinn Process Equipment,
SX Kinetics, Metso-Outotec Group and FLSmidth.
The ionic liquids utilized in the proposed rare earth separation circuit are not commercially available but
can be manufactured by the project utilizing commercially available reagents and a simple acid-base
neutralization synthesis procedure. Solvay, the sole supplier of Cyphos 101 IL (c101) and Cyanex 572
(c572) confirmed that there were no supply constraints for either product and that the key reagent
[c101] is manufactured in Ontario, Canada, an American ally. D2EHPA is a generic reagent with market
availability from Solvay and Italmatch among others.
Unfortunately, the yttrium circuit extractant, sec-octyl phenoxy acetic acid (CA-12, SOPAA) is not
produced outside China as its primary use is the separation of yttrium from heavy rare earth
concentrates. Its supply represents a critical disruption risk to the project and effort should be invested
in developing a synthesis procedure with an organic chemical contract manufacturer.
The Hela Novel Metal carboxylate reduction process is a novel process for the direct production of
micron size metal powders from metal carboxylate salts. It is currently being operated as a fully
integrated demonstration scale at Hela Novel Metals facility in Woburn, MA. The equipment involved in
this process is generic processing equipment with trade secret modifications to allow for the process
operation. The reduction process poses no environmental risk as it only uses benign raw materials and is
a small-scale process.
Primary Circuit
In this unit, the neutralized PLS from the Pre-Concentrate Leach Unit is contacted with [c101][c572]
diluted in kerosene in a series of mixer-settlers where all rare earth elements heavier than terbium are
extracted in the organic phase along with some MREE. The loaded organic is then scrubbed of most
MREE and all LREE before being fully stripped of its HREEY rare earth content. The LREE/MREE raffinate
solution is sent to the didymium recovery circuit while the HREEY strip solution is sent to the Y recovery
circuit.
Didymium Recovery Circuit
The primary circuit raffinate is contacted with [c101][D2EHP] diluted in kerosene in a series of mixer-
settlers where all rare earth elements heavier than praseodymium are extracted in the organic phase
along with some cerium. The loaded organic is then scrubbed of its cerium content before being
stripped of its didymium content along with some MREEs. The organic is then fully stripped of its MREE
rare earth content and the MREE strip solution is sent to the MREE Oxalate recovery circuit. The
didymium strip solution is re-contacted with [c101][D2EHP] organic to recover all MREEs and produce a
pure didymium solution which is sent to the didymium precipitation circuit. This later MREE loaded
organic is recycled to the didymium strip circuit.
The pure didymium strip solution is reacted with oxalic acid in a series of agitated tanks to precipitate
the didymium as an oxalate. The reactor discharge is dewatered and washed using a press filter and
dried in a rotary dryer. The dried solids are then reduced in a Hela Novel Metal Process Module using
their proprietary process to produce metal powder. The residual aqueous solution is sent to water
treatment.
MREE Oxalate Recovery Circuit
The MREE strip solution is reacted with oxalic acid in a series of agitated tanks to precipitate the MREEs
as oxalates. The reactor discharge is dewatered using a filter press. The solids can be successively

12
washed and dried in a rotary dryer before being either stored in poly barrels pending further processing
or calcined in a rotary calciner and sold as a MREO product. The residual aqueous solution is sent to
water treatment.
Yttrium Recovery Circuit
The HREE PLS from the primary circuit is contacted with [c101][SOPA] diluted in kerosene in a series of
mixer-settlers where all rare earth elements except yttrium are extracted in the organic phase. The
loaded organic is then scrubbed of its yttrium using hydrochloric acid in a cascade of mixer-settler
equipment and the scrub solution is sent back to the extraction cascade. The organic is then fully
stripped of its HREE rare earth content and the HREE strip solution is sent to the HREE Oxalate recovery
circuit.
The raffinate solution is re-contacted with [c101][SOPA] organic to recover all HREEs and produce a pure
yttrium raffinate solution which is sent to the yttrium precipitation circuit. This later HREE loaded
organic is recycled to the HREE extraction circuit.
The pure yttrium raffinate solution is reacted with oxalic acid in a series of agitated tanks to precipitate
the yttrium as an oxalate. The reactor discharge is dewatered and washed using a press filter and dried
in a rotary dryer. The dried solids are then reduced in a Hela Novel Metal Process Module using their
proprietary process to produce metal powder. The residual aqueous solution is sent to water treatment.
HREE Oxalate Recovery Circuit
The HREE strip solution is reacted with oxalic acid in a series of agitated tanks to precipitate the HREEs
as oxalates. The reactor discharge is dewatered using a filter press. The solids can be successively
washed and dried in a rotary dryer before being either stored in poly barrels pending further processing
or calcined in a rotary calciner and sold as a HREO product. The residual aqueous solution is sent to
water treatment.
Advanced Separation Process
The Advanced Separation Process Unit (ASP) is used to separate MREE and HREE into individual
elements prior to their reduction to individual metal powders. The ASP is designed to be operated in
sequential campaigns with Tb/Dy/Ho+ and MREE configurations being operated more often and the Ho+
separation configuration being operated when the stockpile of Ho+ material justifies a campaign. The
unit is designed such that no more than 3 different campaign configurations are operated per year to
minimize the startup effort associated to a configuration change.
Four separation configurations are possible for the ASPU: MREE, Tb/Dy/Ho+, Ho/Er/Tm+ and Tm/Yb/Lu.
The process will be described generally for the [LE, ME, HE] configuration as it is the most economically
profitable, but the same unit operations can be operated using other configurations. In the following
description, [Sm, Tb, Ho, Tm] can be substituted for the element termed “light element, LE”, [Eu, Dy, Er,
Yb] can be substituted for the element termed “medium element, ME” and [Gd, Ho+, Tm+, Lu] can be
substituted for the element termed “heavy element, HE”.
The current configuration assumes that only Sm, Eu, Gd, Tb and Dy products will be produced. The
production of other products would result in less production of the intended products but is
nevertheless available to the operator should it be required for national security purposes. As such, the
unit can be operated as presented in the feasibility study report. However, in the present study, the ASP
uses [c101][c572] ionic liquid to separate the rare earths.

13
ASPU Metathesis and Leach Unit
REE oxalates are first reacted with a sodium carbonate solution in a series of agitated tanks to yield a
slurry composed of a sodium oxalate solution and REE carbonates solids. The slurry is filtered and
washed, and the solids are leached in a cascade of agitated tanks using hydrochloric acid while the
sodium oxalate solution is recycled in the process. The resulting REE PLS is sent to the ASP Separation
Circuit.
ASP Separation Circuit
The REE PLS from the ASPU Metathesis and Leach circuit is contacted with [c101][c572] diluted in
kerosene coming from the LE scrub cascade in a series of mixer-settlers where most of the ME and HE
elements are extracted in the organic phase with limited amounts of LE. The raffinate is sent back to the
LE scrub cascade where ammonium hydroxide is added to the raffinate prior to entering a scrubbing
cascade using fresh organic. The raffinate containing pure LE chloride is sent to the LE recovery circuit
while the loaded organic is sent to the ASP extraction cascade.
The loaded organic from the ASP extraction cascade is sent to the ME scrub cascade where hydrochloric
acid is used to scrub all LE chlorides and a portion of the ME chlorides. The scrub solution is refluxed to
the extraction cascade while the scrubbed organic is sent to the ME stripping circuit.
The loaded organic from the ME scrub cascade is partially stripped using hydrochloric acid to recover all
ME chlorides in a series of mixer-settlers along with some HE chlorides. The ME strip solution is re-
contacted with [c101][c572] organic to recover all LE and produce a pure ME solution which is sent to
the ME precipitation circuit. This later HE loaded organic is recycled to the ME recovery circuit.
The HE loaded organic is stripped of its HE chlorides content and sent to the HE recovery circuit.
LE Recovery Circuit
When the ASP is operated in MREE configuration, the LE strip solution is first reacted in the LE europium
recovery circuit using zinc pellets and sulfuric acid to recover the europium as crude europium sulfate.
The europium-free solution is then sent to the LE oxalate precipitation reactors.
The LE strip solution is reacted with a oxalic acid in a series of agitated tanks to precipitate the LE as LE
oxalate. The reactor discharge is dewatered using a filter press. The solids are successively washed and
dried in a rotary dryer before being reduced in a Hela Novel Metal Process Module using their
proprietary process to generate a LE micron-sized metal powder to be sold as a product. The metal
powder is packaged in appropriate containers under an inert atmosphere. The residual aqueous solution
is sent to water treatment.
ME Purification and Recovery Circuit
When the ASP is operated in MREE configuration, the ME strip solution is first reacted in the ME
europium recovery circuit using zinc pellets and sulfuric acid to recover the europium as crude europium
sulfate. The europium-free solution is then sent to the ME oxalate precipitation reactors.
The ME strip solution is reacted with an oxalic acid in a series of agitated tanks to precipitate the ME as
ME oxalate. The reactor discharge is dewatered using a filter press. The solids are successively washed
and dried in a rotary dryer before being reduced in a Hela Novel Metal Process Module using their
proprietary process to generate a ME micron-sized metal powder to be sold as a product. The metal
powder is packaged in appropriate containers under an inert atmosphere. The residual aqueous solution
is sent to water treatment.

14
HE Recovery Circuit
The HE strip solution is reacted with a oxalic acid in a series of agitated tanks to precipitate the HE as HE
oxalate. The reactor discharge is dewatered using a filter press. The solids are successively washed and
dried in a rotary dryer before being reduced in a Hela Novel Metal Process Module using their
proprietary process to generate a HE micron-sized metal powder to be sold as a product. The metal
powder is packaged in appropriate containers under an inert atmosphere. The residual aqueous solution
is sent to water treatment.
Manganese Recovery Unit
The manganese recovery unit will produce a manganese oxide product. Raffinate from the primary
circuit is neutralized with quicklime and reacted with recycled sodium hypochlorite and sodium
hydroxide from the leach scrubber and with in-situ generated ozone. The precipitated manganese oxide
is then dewatered and recovered as a product. The resulting solution is then sent to the Nickel/Cobalt
circuit.
The manganese recovery process is based on redox reactions of manganese. During the leach process
manganese (IV) is reduced to manganese (II) by reaction with hydrochloric acid, which is oxidized to
chlorine. The chlorine is absorbed in caustic to form sodium hypochlorite, which is then used as an
oxidizing agent in basic condition to precipitate manganese as manganese (IV) oxide.
The scale up of the process will be based on chemical concentrations of oxidizing materials (NaOCl and
O3) as well as residence time in the reaction vessels. The dewatering process will be scaled up according
to rules of thumb for such equipment, a well know procedure in the mineral processing industry.
The process presents low environmental risks, mostly related to spills of sodium hypochlorite. Such spills
can be contained using proper containment design principles. Equipment in this unit are generic pieces
of equipment offered by many of the metallurgical equipment vendors, especially at a larger scale. Such
vendors would include the Metso-Outotec Group and FLSmidth.
Nickel / Cobalt Recovery Unit
The low concentration manganese solution from the manganese recovery unit is contacted with
undiluted [P8888][Oleate] in a series of mixer-settlers where all nickel, residual manganese and cobalt
present in the raffinate is extracted in the organic phase. The raffinate is sent to the water treatment
unit. The loaded organic is then successively stripped of its nickel content using 12 M hydrochloric acid
of its manganese content using 6 M hydrochloric acid and finally of its cobalt content using a 0.5 M
hydrochloric acid.
The nickel strip solution is crystallized using vacuum crystallization to produce a nickel chloride
hexahydrate product and allow for the recycle of the strip hydrochloric acid.
The manganese strip solution is recycled to the manganese recovery unit.
The cobalt strip solution is reacted with oxalic and a sodium hydroxide solution in a series of agitated
tanks to precipitate the cobalt as cobalt oxalate. The reactors’ discharge is dewatered using a filter
press. The solids are successively washed and dried in a rotary dryer before being reduced to metal in a
Hela Novel Metal Process Module using their proprietary process to generate a cobalt micron-sized
metal powder to be sold as a product. The metal powder is packaged in appropriate containers under an
inert atmosphere. The residual aqueous solution is sent to water treatment.
Similar to the rare earth separation circuit, the Nickel / Cobalt Recovery Unit solvent extraction
processes using ionic liquids are controlled using a combination of chloride (Cl-) and hydrogen (H+) ions

15
concentration. Additionally, the concentration profile of the various phases and the volume flow ratios
across the system are key operating parameters. Mixer settler equipment are built with internal recycle
piping to allow for efficient phase mixing when the flow ratios are not similar.
The scale up procedure for mixer settlers involves a three-part process. The mixer portion of the
equipment is sized based on residence time for the continuous phase. The settler area is scaled up
based on phase separation parameters and the volume of the settler portion of the equipment is sized
based on residence time to allow for full separation.
The solvent extraction separation circuit presents a very low environmental risk, primarily related to
their organic and acidic contents. The volume of the equipment in the proposed circuit is such that an
accident would only represent a minor local impact. The mitigation process to prevent spills involves the
design of proper containment areas around the equipment and will be included in any design of the
circuit.
The ionic liquid utilized in the proposed separation circuit is not commercially available but can be
manufactured by the project utilizing a specialty organic reagent tetra octyl phosphonium [P8888]
chloride or bromide and oleic acid. Its supply represents a critical disruption risk to the project and effort
should be invested in developing a synthesis procedure with an organic chemical contract manufacturer.
Oleic acid is readily available on the market and present no risk of disruption.
Wastewater Treatment Unit
The wastewater treatment unit is composed of a series of stages used to ensure the compliance of any
liquid effluent with environmental regulations. Of significance is the removal of hydrocarbons and
metals from the wastewater while ensuring the discharge pH is in line with the regulations.
Air Scrubbing Unit
The air scrubbing unit is used to remove acidic vapor and volatile organic compounds from the facility air
discharge. It is composed of a series of two scrubbers, a water scrubber containing amphiphilic block
copolymers to remove VOCs from the air and. a caustic scrubber to remove any acidic vapor from the
discharged air.
Assessment of Available Data for Commercial Equipment and Vendor Contacts
List of Commercial Equipment
The major equipment items have been identified at this stage of the project (Table ). They consist of typical
hydrometallurgical processing equipment such as an agitated tanks / reactor, mixer-settlers, pumps,
clarifiers, centrifuges, vacuum belt filter, filter press, rotary dryers/ calciners and powder distribution
equipment (see Conceptual Equipment List in Appendix B). Other minor, yet commonly used
hydrometallurgical processing minor equipment may be added to the flowsheet during subsequent
phases of the project.
Table 3: Major Equipment Suppliers

Process Process Unit Potential OEMs

AMD treatment & in- Clarifiers Phoenix, Weir, Westech
field precipitation Geotubes TenCate
Leaching and Quinn Process Equipment,
Leach Reactors
separations Metso-Outotec Group

16
 FLSmidth Decanter, Metso-
Dewatering Centrifuges
Outotec Group
Precipitation Reactors Quinn Process Equipment
Quinn Process Equipment, Weir,
Process Thickeners Phoenix, FLSmidth Door-Oliver,
Metso-Outotec Group
Quinn Process Equipment; SX
Mixer-Settlers Kinetics; Metso-Outotec Group;
FLSmidth
Phoenix, FLSmidth, Metchem,
Filter Press Evoqua, McLanahan, Metso-
Outotec Group
Rotary Dryers Feeco
Metal Reduction
Metal Reduction Hela Novel Metals
Process

Proposed Equipment: Access to Information

L3Eng, the process and project engineering firm has sufficient and adequate access to the relevant
information for all equipment included in the proposed concept. L3 Eng has been involved in the
development of Hela Novel Metals’ technology since its inception and have extensive experience with
manufacturers of all proposed, commercially available equipment. Both companies’ personnel have
extensive working relationships with vendors’ employees having interacted with them for many years
across multiple projects.
Non-commercial equipment
Three equipment items are not commercially available: the Electrolytic Recovery Unit for lithium and
rubidium, the Hydrochloric Acid Leach Pug Mill and the Hela Novel Metal furnaces (part of the Hela
Novel Metal Process Unit).
It is unlikely that either the Electrolytic Recovery Unit or the pug mill will be commercially available.
L3 Process Development, an affiliated company to L3 Eng has the expertise to design and fabricate both
the Electrolytic Recovery Unit and the pug mill at the demonstration scale, having built and operated
similar units in the past. Commercial scale up would need to be addressed with commercial equipment
vendors based on the demonstration scale equipment design and performance.
The Hela Novel Metal furnace is proprietary equipment based on commercially available furnaces. The
specific modifications are considered trade secrets by Hela Novel Metals and will therefore not be
discussed herein.

Subtask 4.2: Process Synthesis and Modeling

Approach
In this subtask, the Recipient will develop an integrated process flowsheet model to include all unit
operations from raw AMD to the final production of RE and CM metals. The flowsheet model will be
developed using an innovative REE separation technique developed on an industry-standard commercial
simulation software, and all the unit operation models will conform to standard design and operating
principles. At this stage, some components of the model, particularly those in the downstream
separation and refining steps will be largely based on literature values and process assumptions;

17
however, the model will be leveraged to define a technical research plan to systemically address these
uncertainties. The complete process model will be used to estimate final product purity and to generate
a process flow diagram showing mass and energy balances around each unit. It is envisioned that this
same process model will be utilized in subsequent project phases to guide, direct, and interpret bench
and pilot scale testing campaigns.

Results and Discussion

Two METSIM models were developed as part of the project to cover the unit operation for the recovery
of all products. The first model was used to evaluate the recovery of lithium and rubidium from acid
mine drainage using the A34 site as a baseline. The second model was used to evaluate the recovery of
rare earth elements and critical minerals from AMD-derived pre-concentrate material. The underlying
parameters driving the model are based on a combination of experimental and literature data,
supplemented by engineering experience. The complete process model was used to estimate final
product purity and to generate a process flow diagram showing mass and energy balances around each
unit. It is envisioned that this same process model will be utilized in subsequent project phases to guide,
direct, and interpret bench and pilot scale testing campaigns.
Recovery of Lithium and Rubidium from AMD Feed Composition
AMD treatment site A34 near Mt. Storm WV has been recovering REE/CM from AMD since October
2022. Table 4 shows the average elemental concentrations including REE and other candidates for latter
recovery.
Table 4. Average concentrations in raw A34 AMD.

REE ug/L other mg/L

Sc 12.79 Al 61.95
Y 318.96 Ca 175.13
La 65.08 Co 0.77
Ce 177.87 Fe 3.09
Pr 34.08 Ge 0.01
Nd 180.19 Mg 91.19
Sm 52.92 Mn 23.18
Eu 13.42 Na 4.16
Gd 79.66 Ni 0.89
Tb 11.22 Si 16.85
Dy 63.00 Zn 2.41
Ho 11.49 Rb 28.88
Er 30.80 In 0.20
Tm 3.74 Li 0.55
Yb 22.00 pH* 3.46
Lu 3.08
TREE 1080.30 ug/L
Th 2.10
U 6.76
8.86

18
In order to classify potential, additional, candidate elements for recovery, a simple value index, using
aqueous (AMD) concentration and market value was developed (table 5). Four elements are highlighted.
Of these Rb and Ge were rejected based on low concentrations. Li and In were selected for further
consideration. Li has the added benefit of concentration in leach residues to the extent of 0.25%.
Exploratory work on its recovery from this solid residue is discussed later in this report.
Table 5. A simple value index for evaluating candidate elements for recovery.

A B AxB
analysis MDL ug/L Value
date Lab ID AQ65 22'0651 $/kg index
Rb ug/L 4/13/22 0.005 Rb 35.36 82,700 2,924,272 35.360 ug/L
In ug/L 3/7/22 0.017 In 256.00 360 92,160 0.256 mg/L
Pd ug/L 4/13/22 0.004 Pd 1.27 27,650 35,116 1.270 ug/L
Ge ug/L 3/7/22 0.013 Ge 14.00 1,358 19,012 0.014 mg/L
Be ug/L 3/7/22 0.001 Be 11.00 630 6,930 0.011 mg/L
Li ug/L 3/7/22 0.048 Li 293.00 14 4,073 0.293 mg/L
Pt ug/L 4/13/22 0.003 Pt 0.00 30,865 123 0.004 ug/L
As ug/L 3/7/22 0.006 As 37.00 2 74 0.037 mg/L
V ug/L 3/7/22 0.002 V 2.00 11 23 0.002 mg/L
Ta ug/L 4/13/22 0.003 Ta 0.06 193 11 0.055 ug/L
Hf ug/L 4/13/22 0.012 Hf 0.18 0.181 ug/L

Sn mg/L 3/7/22 0.081 Sn <0.081

Sb mg/L 3/7/22 0.03 Sb <0.030
Cr mg/L 3/7/22 0.015 Cr <0.015
Ir ug/L 4/13/22 0.014 Ir <0.014
Ga mg/L 3/7/22 0.009 Ga <0.009
Ru ug/L 4/13/22 0.006 Ru <0.006
Cs ug/L 4/13/22 0.004 Cs <0.004
Rh ug/L 4/13/22 0.002 Rh <0.002
Ti mg/L 3/7/22 0.001 Ti <0.001

Table shows the typical aggregated composition of the Pre-Concentrate Material.

Table 6: Pre-Concentrate Feed Rate and Compositions. *The Li value is based on its concentration in
leach residue.

Pre-
Feed
Concentrate

Mass Flow Rate [mtpy] 53,354

Composition (wt%)
Li* 0.23
Al 5.03
Si 27.7
Ca < 0.1
Sc 0.002
Mn 13.3

19
 Fe < 0.1
Co 0.39
Ni 0.39
Zn 1.71
Y 0.22
La 0.08
Ce 0.22
Pr 0.03
Nd 0.15
Sm 0.04
Eu 0.01
Gd 0.05
Tb 0.008
Dy 0.046
Ho 0.009
Er 0.021
Tm 0.003
Yb 0.016
Lu 0.002

Plant Inputs
Table presents the process inputs to the various units of the refinery facility. The ASP is configured to
separate all elements in linear fashion, but the sizing only reflects a three-configuration operation:
MREE, Tb and Dy . Temporal utilization fractions have been estimated and are presented in Table.
Table 7: Raw Materials, Consumables and Energy Inputs

Complete Primary Mn, Ni &

ASP
Facility Circuit Co Circuit

mtpy mtpy mtpy mtpy

Hydrochloric Acid 22,858 22,146 220 493
Oxalic Acid 996 454 339 203
Sodium Oxalate /
(40) (40)
Ammonium Oxalate
Ammonium Hydroxide 484 29 345 110
Ammonium Chloride 113 113
Sodium Hydroxide 5,278 5,278
Sodium Carbonate 16,231 16,064 167
Sulfuric Acid 22 22
Zinc Pellets 3 2.6

20
 Quicklime 4,523 623 3,900
Ozone Generation 313 313
Carbon Dioxide 614 614

Electricity [MW] 16,450 13,043 2,175 1,231

Heating [MMBTU] 192,586 178,704 13,882 -
Cooling [MMBTU] 192,902 178,704 13,882 315
Miles Driven 4,786 4,786

Table 8: Utilization Fraction of the ASP per configuration

MREE Tb Dy
55.0% 25% 20%

Plant Outputs
The primary and critical materials circuit have a fixed product output with an adjustable specification
based on market prices and customer specification. The products presented herein represent generic
products of typical purity. Table 9 to Table 12 present the product output and specification for all
processing circuits. Additionally, while all products are presented as metal powders, intermediate
products such as individually separated high purity elemental oxides and specific mixed rare earth
elements such as didymium oxide and metal powder can also be produced by the processing facility.
Table 9: Production of lithium carbonate and rubidium from A34 AMD

Lithium
Rubidium
Carbonate

Production Rate (kg/yr) 1,559 34.77

Composition [wt%]
Crude LiCO3 > 95%
RbCl > 99.9 %

Table 10: Production of Rare Earth Products from the Primary Circuit

Didymium Yttrium
Primary Circuit
Metal Metal
Rare Earth Elements
Powder Powder

Production Rate [mtpy] 90.65 116.54

Composition [wt%]
TREE % > 99.5 >99.99

21
 TREE / Metals > 99.9 > 99.99
REE / TREE
Y 99.99
La Tr
Ce 0.4
Pr 12.95
Nd 86.46
Sm 0.1
Eu tr
Ho tr
Er tr
Tm tr

Table 11: Production of Critical Materials from the Primary Circuit

Nickel Cobalt
Primary Circuit Zinc Manganese
Chloride Metal
Critical Minerals Carbonate Oxide
Hexahydrate Powder

Production Rate [mtpy] 1,750 5,625 838 207

Composition [wt%]
ZnCO3 > 98
MnO2 > 98
NiCl2 * 6H2O > 99
Co > 99

Table 12: Production of the ASP Unit

Crude Gd Tb Dy HREO
Sm Metal
ASP Eu Metal Metal Metal
Powder Product
Sulfate Powder Powder Powder

Production Rate [mtpy] 480 219.8 600 4.22 24.7 63.18

Composition [wt%]
TREE % > 99.9 > 99 > 99.9 > 99.9 > 99.9 > 99.9
TREE / Metals > 99.9 > 99 > 99.9 > 99.9 > 99.9 > 99.9
REE / TREE > 99.5 > 99 > 99.9 > 99.9 > 99.5 > 99.9
Sc 1.7
Y 0.2
Pr Tr
Nd 0.5
Sm 99.5 4.60 0.1
Eu Tr 57.17 Tr

22
 Gd Tr 0.40 99.9 < 0.1
Tb tr 99.9 < 0.5
Dy < 0.1 99.6 0.1
Ho 7.2
Er 18.5
Tm 2.4
Yb 13.1
Lu 1.8

Elemental Recovery
Table 13 presents the recovery of each element in the AMD treatment process and in the overall
processing plant assuming as full plant configuration.
Table 13: Elemental Recoveries

AMD Processing
Element
Circuit Plant
Li N/A
Rb N/A
Zn 100 % > 95 %
Ni 49 % > 95 %
Co 49 % > 95 %
Mn 20 % > 95 %
Sc 13 % > 95 %
REE, Y 86 % > 95 %

Heat and Material Balance

A full heat and material balance is available in Appendix A – Block Flow Diagrams w/ Heat and Material
Balance.
The heat balance undertaken as part of the feasibility study was used in this study for all unit except the
new zinc and nickel recovery unit as no heat is involved in the solvent extraction circuits. A cursory heat
balance was performed to estimate the energy requirement of the zinc and nickel units.
The chemical balance is a detailed heat and material balance table representing the flow of chemicals
through the system. While similar in nature to the heat and material balance, it also contains the
detailed composition of each stream. The chemical balance attached herein is a high-level chemical
balance, presenting the state, flow and composition of the streams identified on the Block Flow
Diagrams available as Appendix A.
Equipment Summary
An equipment summary is available in Refer to Appendix B – Conceptual Equipment List.

Subtask 4.3: Process Techno-Economic Analysis

Approach

23
The Recipient will utilize existing cost and economic models to develop a techno-economic assessment
that estimates the cost and performance for scale-up to a commercial demonstration. The conceptual
design will principally include a Class V cost study to assess high-level project merit. All analyses will use
guidelines provided by National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), and results will be presented in a
format similar to other mineral project disclosures. At a minimum, the analysis will include: a clear
statement of the assumptions, cash forecasts on an annual basis, a discussion of potential net present
value (NPV) and internal rate of return (IRR), a summary of the tax structure imposed, and a sensitivity
analysis with respect to grade, price, and other significant input factors.

Results
Refinery Operating Scenarios
Capital and operating cost estimates were generated for the following options:
1. Conceptual study using conventional extractants, 2021 pricing (modified from the results of
89243320CFE000059).
2. Conceptual Study using ionic liquid, 2021 pricing.
3. Conceptual Study using ionic liquid, current pricing.
4. Hybrid scenario with conventional primary circuit and ASP, Ionic liquid circuits for yttrium
recovery and Nickel / Cobalt separation using 2021 pricing.

Refinery Capital and Operation Cost Estimate Summary

A summary of the revenues, operating and capital cost estimates for various plant scenarios is presented
as Table 14.
Table 14: Refinery Capital and Operating Cost Estimate Summary

Hybrid IL-Only
MM USD/YR Conv (2021) IL-Only (2021)
(2021) (2023)
Raw Materials $ 15.17 $ 14.42 $ 14.10 $ 20.71
Energy $ 1.45 $ 1.49 $ 1.49 $ 2.42
Labor $ 7.00 $ 6.19 $ 6.19 $ 7.00
Sustaining Capital $ 1.69 $ 0.94 $ 0.94 $ 1.78
Reduction to Metal $ 0.61 $ 0.76 $ 0.76 $ 0.85
Total Operating Cost $ 25.93 $ 23.80 $ 23.48 $ 32.75

Installed Equipment $ 46.77 $ 41.48 $ 47.05 $ 52.13

Other Direct Costs $ 34.88 $ 30.82 $ 38.30 $ 42.56
Indirect Costs $ 37.48 $ 33.17 $ 37.65 $ 41.71
Contingency $ 15.95 $ 17.64 $ 24.03 $ 26.63
Total Capital Costs $ 135.08 $ 123.11 $ 147.04 $ 163.03

Revenues $ 43.30 $ 62.12 $ 62.12 $ 92.40

24
Refinery Capital Cost Estimate
Basis of Estimate
Methodology
The estimate development methodology is consistent with a AACE Class V (FEL-1) level Engineering
study cost estimate. It is based on major unit operation supply costs factored to installed unit cost and
construction costs estimated for a generic site for this type of process.
Indirect costs are factored on the direct costs and have magnitudes selected to account for the
characteristics of the project.
The unit operation items have been identified from the engineering component of the study and a
preliminary major equipment list developed. Pricing was determined using the feasibility study (DE-XY)
pricing factored using relevant size parameters and adjusted to current pricing using the CEPCI index.
Accuracy
The accuracy of a Class IV (FEL-1) level estimate, based on AACE guidelines for this level of development
is +/- 50%.
Qualifications
Budget prices were previously obtained from vendors based on summary specifications only. Therefore,
scope of supply and information inaccuracies may have occurred and be represented herein.
Additionally, costs may have changed significantly in the time between the estimate development and
the implementation of the project. Allowances are based on judgment and experience of engineers
employed by the study. L3Eng used its engineering judgement were relevant to account for supply chain
issues affecting the current industrial cost environment.
Owner’s costs have been assigned according to L3Eng’s convention and experience for projects of this
type. The scope of Owner’s costs included is limited to those defined and other areas of expenditure
may be required.
Estimate Structure
The capital cost estimate is divided in two sections: direct and indirect costs.
Direct costs are divided in two areas:

• Equipment Purchase and Installation Cost

• Factored Direct Costs

Indirect costs are broken into three areas:

• Project Indirect Costs

• Owner’s Indirect Costs
• Contingency

Currency
Unless otherwise specified, the default currency is USD.

25
Direct Costs
Equipment Cost
Equipment costs are presented in line items, each row representing all equipment required in a
specified operating unit and each column representing the equipment purchase cost, the installation
cost factor, the factored installation cost and the equipment installed cost.
Installation costs are factored from the equipment cost according to the generic nature of the
operations. Some equipment requires no installation such as mobile vehicles while other equipment
requires significant installation cost such as chemical process equipment. Installation cost includes
supply of materials for connection to services as well as labor to perform the work.
Other Direct Costs
A series of typically incurred direct costs are estimated as proportions of the equipment purchase cost
as described below.

• Piping - 15%
• Instrumentation and Controls - 10%
• Electrical Equipment - 10%
• Building and Structure - 20%
• Property Improvements - 10%
• Services and Utilities - 20%

Direct Costs excluded

The following direct costs are excluded but are not expected to represent a significant investment
outside the 50% precision margin of the estimate. These cost should be included in the Definitive
Feasibility Study Capital Cost Estimate

• Product Storage and Packaging

• Administration facilities
• Laboratories and analytical facilities

Indirect Costs
A series of typically incurred indirect costs are estimated as proportions of the direct cost as described
below.
Project Indirect Costs
• Process development and piloting – estimated at 10%
• Engineering – assigned at 22% of directs reflecting significant engineering complexity
• Procurement and Construction Management – 5%

Client Owners Costs included

• Operating and Commissioning Spares – spares for start-up and expected breakages during
commissioning estimated at 2% of direct costs
• Outside consultants & vendors support during construction and commissioning – specialist
industry consultants and additional vendor support 5%
• Operation Manuals and Training – development of operating manuals 1%
• Freight and Duties – freight and duties on goods delivered to site 2%

26
Client Indirect Costs excluded
• Client training - operator training. There will be a substantial and important activity required in
this area if successful commissioning, start-up and operations are to be achieved
• Permits – costs associated with developing permit approval applications including baseline
testing expenses and EIA study
• Insurance – insurance against project failure from a range potential causes
• Client Project team – includes the salaries and costs for Owner’s project team personnel Cost of
Land and Building
• Contingency and Escalation
• Project contingency is set at 30% of direct costs and is a standard allowance made for projects at
this level of development and type. The contingency is meant to account for unknowns at the
time of the study.

Client Indirect Costs excluded

• Client training - operator training. There will be a substantial and important activity
required in this area if successful commissioning, start-up and operations are to be
achieved
• Permits – costs associated with developing permit approval applications including baseline
testing expenses and EIA study
• Insurance – insurance against project failure from a range potential causes
• Client Project team – includes the salaries and costs for Owner’s project team personnel
other than related to project management
• Cost of Land and Building
• Cost Escalation

Project Contingency
The project contingency is set at 30% of direct costs which is a typical allowance made for projects at
this level of development and type, reflecting the understanding of the project intricacies by the
engineering team relative to this type of process development projects. The contingency is meant to
account for unknowns at the time of the study and is a function of the level of process development
relative to the project phase. It is the opinion of the engineering team that the process designed during
this study is based on conservative assumptions and has a higher level of definition than is typical for
this phase. As such, the contingency was selected on the lower portion of its typical range.
Capital Cost Estimate
The capital cost estimates summaries are presented in Table through Table .

27
 Table 15: Hybrid Scenario (2021 Pricing) Capital Cost Estimate

Capital Cost Estimate

Inst.
Unit (Module) Cost Facto Inst. Cost Total Cost
r
AREA 100 - Pre-Concentrate Leach Circuit $ 3,669,416 25% $ 917,354 $ 4,586,770
AREA 110 - Oxalates Recovery Circuit $ 723,820 25% $ 180,955 $ 904,775
AREA 120 - Primary Circuit $ 10,799,990 20% $ 2,159,998 $ 12,959,988
AREA 130 - NdPr Recovery Circuit $ 1,345,637 20% $ 269,127 $ 1,614,764
AREA 140 - Y Recovery Circuit $ 4,008,875 20% $ 801,775 $ 4,810,650
AREA 150 - Advanced Separation Process $ 6,623,477 20% $ 1,324,695 $ 7,948,172
AREA 170 - Cobalt Recovery Circuit $ 3,432,418 20% $ 686,484 $ 4,118,902
AREA 180 - Mn Recovery Circuit $ 3,112,850 25% $ 778,213 $ 3,891,063
AREA 210 - Gas Treatment $ 440,400 25% $ 110,100 $ 550,500
Total $ 34,156,882 $ 7,228,701 $ 41,385,583

Solvent Extraction Reagents First Fill

Primary Circuit $ 423,546
Y Circuit $ 137,000
ASP $ 800,000
Ni/Co Circuit $ 357,288
Total $ 1,717,833

Factor Range Factor Total Cost

Instrumentation and Controls 10-20% 10% $ 3,415,688
Piping 20-70% 15% $ 5,123,532
Electrical 10% 10% $ 3,415,688
Buildings and Structure 20-30% 20% $ 6,831,376
Property Improvements 10% 10% $ 3,415,688
Utilities 20-50% 20% $ 6,831,376
Total Direct Costs $ 70,418,933

Indirect Costs Factor Range Factor Cost

Process Piloting and Development 10% $ 7,041,893
Engineering 12-22% 22% $ 15,492,165
Procurement and Construction Management 5-10% 5% $ 3,520,947
Owners Cost 10-20% 10% $ 7,041,893
Contigency 20-30% 25% $ 17,604,733
Total Indirect Costs $ 50,701,632

Total Installed Cost 3.60 +/- 40% $ 122,838,398

28
 Table 16: Conceptual Study using Ionic Liquid (2021 Pricing) Capital Cost Estimate

Capital Cost Estimate

Inst.
Unit (Module) Cost Facto Inst. Cost Total Cost
r
AREA 100 - Pre-Concentrate Leach Circuit $ 3,669,416 25% $ 917,354 $ 4,586,770
AREA 110 - Oxalates Recovery Circuit $ 723,820 25% $ 180,955 $ 904,775
AREA 120 - Primary Circuit $ 6,196,494 20% $ 1,239,299 $ 7,435,793
AREA 130 - NdPr Recovery Circuit $ 8,140,843 20% $ 1,628,169 $ 9,769,011
AREA 140 - Y Recovery Circuit $ 4,008,875 20% $ 801,775 $ 4,810,650
AREA 150 - Advanced Separation Process $ 9,154,785 20% $ 1,830,957 $ 10,985,742
AREA 170 - Cobalt Recovery Circuit $ 3,432,418 20% $ 686,484 $ 4,118,902
AREA 180 - Mn Recovery Circuit $ 3,112,850 25% $ 778,213 $ 3,891,063
AREA 210 - Gas Treatment $ 440,400 25% $ 110,100 $ 550,500
Total $ 38,879,900 $ 8,173,304 $ 47,053,205

Solvent Extraction Reagents First Fill

Primary Circuit $ 3,771,184
ASP $ 1,127,805
Ni/Co Circuit $ 357,288
Total $ 5,256,277

Factor Range Factor Total Cost

Instrumentation and Controls 10-20% 10% $ 3,887,990
Piping 20-70% 15% $ 5,831,985
Electrical 10% 10% $ 3,887,990
Buildings and Structure 20-30% 20% $ 7,775,980
Property Improvements 10% 10% $ 3,887,990
Utilities 20-50% 20% $ 7,775,980
Total Direct Costs $ 80,101,120

Indirect Costs Factor Range Factor Cost

Process Piloting and Development 10% $ 8,010,112
Engineering 12-22% 22% $ 17,622,246
Procurement and Construction Management 5-10% 5% $ 4,005,056
Owners Cost 10-20% 10% $ 8,010,112
Contigency 20-30% 30% $ 24,030,336
Total Indirect Costs $ 61,677,862

Total Installed Cost 3.78 +/- 40% $ 147,035,259

29
Table 17: Conceptual Study using Ionic Liquid (Current, 2023 Pricing) Capital Cost Estimate

Capital Cost Estimate

Inst.
Unit (Module) Cost Facto Inst. Cost Total Cost
r
AREA 100 - Pre-Concentrate Leach Circuit $ 4,065,705 25% $ 1,016,426 $ 5,082,131
AREA 110 - Oxalates Recovery Circuit $ 801,991 25% $ 200,498 $ 1,002,489
AREA 120 - Primary Circuit $ 6,865,702 20% $ 1,373,140 $ 8,238,842
AREA 130 - NdPr Recovery Circuit $ 9,020,036 20% $ 1,804,007 $ 10,824,043
AREA 140 - Y Recovery Circuit $ 4,441,824 20% $ 888,365 $ 5,330,189
AREA 150 - Advanced Separation Process $ 10,143,482 20% $ 2,028,696 $ 12,172,178
AREA 170 - Cobalt Recovery Circuit $ 3,803,112 20% $ 760,622 $ 4,563,734
AREA 180 - Mn Recovery Circuit $ 3,449,031 25% $ 862,258 $ 4,311,289
AREA 210 - Gas Treatment $ 487,962 25% $ 121,991 $ 609,953
Total $ 43,078,845 $ 9,056,003 $ 52,134,848

Solvent Extraction Reagents First Fill

Primary Circuit $ 4,312,646
ASP $ 1,271,384
Ni/Co Circuit $ 357,288
Total $ 5,941,319

Factor Range Factor Total Cost

Instrumentation and Controls 10-20% 10% $ 4,307,884
Piping 20-70% 15% $ 6,461,827
Electrical 10% 10% $ 4,307,884
Buildings and Structure 20-30% 20% $ 8,615,769
Property Improvements 10% 10% $ 4,307,884
Utilities 20-50% 20% $ 8,615,769
Total Direct Costs $ 88,751,867

Indirect Costs Factor Range Factor Cost

Process Piloting and Development 10% $ 8,875,187
Engineering 12-22% 22% $ 19,525,411
Procurement and Construction Management 5-10% 5% $ 4,437,593
Owners Cost 10-20% 10% $ 8,875,187
Contigency 20-30% 30% $ 26,625,560
Total Indirect Costs $ 68,338,937

Total Installed Cost 3.78 +/- 40% $ 163,032,122

30
Refinery Operating Cost Estimate
Basis of Estimate
Introduction
The operating cost is calculated based on four generic cost categories.

• Raw materials, Reagents and Consumables

• Energy
• Manpower
• Capital Spares

Raw materials and consumables consumption have been estimated from the mass balance prepared by
L3Eng.
Electrical energy costs are primarily consumed by the pumping and agitation. The process plant will also
consume natural gas for process heating purposes through hot oil heaters.
Labor costs have been estimated for staffing numbers typical for similar plants.
Waste disposal cost have not been included in the analysis.
Qualifications
Sustaining Capital
This analysis has not considered the cost associated with sustaining capital projects.
Capital Spares
The analysis has made an allowance of 2% of the direct cost for miscellaneous supplies, which includes
capital spares.
Estimate Structure
The operating Cost Estimate is structured in terms of operating costs by category.
Currency
Unless otherwise specified, the default currency is USD.
Raw Materials
Raw materials costs used are estimated commercial prices considering the volumes required by the
process. Where applicable, the prices were determined from publicly available internet data, from
inquiries to distributors and from L3Eng’s past projects.
Energy
The cost of electrical energy has been estimated based on West Virginia industrial rates.
The cost of natural gas has been derived from regional estimated price of delivered natural gas.
The cost of heating and cooling has been estimated using a combination of electricity and natural gas.
Labor
The basis of the estimated cost of labor plant staffing profile was derived from an analysis of the
flowsheet and L3Eng’s engineering judgment. Labor costs were established using occupational codes
relevant to the required position and corresponding salaries from publicly available US Bureau of Labor
Statistics databases. Entry level positions were estimated using 25 th percentiles while management
positions were estimated using 75 and 90th percentiles. All other positions were estimated using median

31
salaries. Fringe benefits of 30% were added to the hourly rate to account for any employment costs and
employee benefits. Table 8 presents the source for labor used in this report while Table 39 presents the
fully loaded cost and worked hours. Rates were updated using relevant labor cost index.
Table 18: Positions Labor Costs

Pay
Position occ Reference
Rate
Operations
Truck Driver (8hr per day) $ 22.88 53-3032 median
Team Leader $ 34.73 51-1011 median
Process Operator $ 41.23 51-8091 median

Operations Support
Area Manager $ 81.38 17-2041 h_pct75
Process Engineer $ 46.08 17-2041 h_pct25
Technician $ 32.58 17-3026 median
Warehouse Personnel $ 18.20 43-5071 median
Clerk $ 19.57 43-3031 median

Maintenance
Superintentdent - Planner - Engineer $ 84.03 17-2141 h_pct90
Mechanical Technician $ 32.58 17-3026 median
Electrician $ 30.26 47-2111 median
Instrumentation Technician $ 39.95 17-3023 median

Laboratory
Analyst - Chemist $ 40.97 19-2031 median
Laboratory Techician $ 32.90 19-4031 median

32
 Table 39: Fully Loaded Labor Rates and Number of Full Time Employees

Hourly No of Full Time

Manpower Cost Fringe Total Comp
Wage Employees
Number of employees at any given time [USD/hr] [%] [USD/hr] [USD/yr] 16.72
Operations
Team Leader $ 22.88 1.3 $ 29.74 $ 61,867 1.00
Process Operator $ 41.23 1.3 $ 53.60 $ 111,492 4.00
Operations Support
Area Manager $ 81.38 1.3 $ 105.80 $ 220,056 1.00
Process Engineer $ 46.08 1.3 $ 59.91 $ 124,607 1.00
Technician $ 32.58 1.3 $ 42.35 $ 88,097 1.00
Warehouse Personnel $ 18.20 1.3 $ 23.66 $ 49,220 2.00
Clerk $ 19.57 1.3 $ 25.45 $ 52,927 1.00
Maintenance
Superintentdent - Planner - Engineer $ 84.03 1.3 $ 109.24 $ 227,221 0.24
Mechanical Technician $ 32.58 1.3 $ 42.35 $ 88,097 1.48
Electrician $ 30.26 1.3 $ 39.34 $ 81,836 1.00
Instrumentation Technician $ 39.95 1.3 $ 51.94 $ 108,034 1.00
Laboratory
Analyst - Chemist $ 40.97 1.3 $ 53.26 $ 110,775 1.00
Laboratory Techician $ 32.90 1.3 $ 42.77 $ 88,969 1.00

Operating Cost Estimate

The operating costs estimate ($/yr) is shown in Table .

33
 Table 20: Conceptual Study using Ionic Liquid (Current, 2023 Pricing) Operating Cost Estimates

Operating Cost Estimate

Complete Primary Mn, Ni & Co

ASP
Facility Circuit Circuit

REE/REO Plant Raw Materials Consumption Raw Material $ 20,710,451 $ 18,406,989 $ 1,778,669 $ 524,793
[USD/Kg] [USD/mt] mtpy mtpy mtpy mtpy
Hydrochloric Acid $ 0.44 $ 437 22,858 22,146 220 493
Oxalic Acid $ 0.99 $ 993 996 454 339 203
Sodium Oxalate / Ammonium Oxalate $ 0.35 $ 350 (40) (40)
Ammonium Hydroxide $ 0.67 $ 667 484 29 345 110
Ammonium Chloride $ 1.63 $ 1,628 113 113
Sodium Hydroxide $ 0.98 $ 984 5,278 5,278
Sodium Carbonate $ 0.17 $ 170 16,231 16,064 167
Sulfuric Acid $ 0.26 $ 260 22 22
Zinc Pellets $ 4.18 $ 4,180 3 2.6
Quicklime $ 0.17 $ 170 4,523 623 3,900
Ozone Generation $ 1,406.53 313 313
Carbon Dioxide $ (40.00) 614 614
Wastewater Treatment $ 0.93 23,641 23,641
Organic Chemical losses 1.00% $ 59,413 $ 43,126 $ 12,714 $ 3,573

REE/REO Plant Energy Consumption Cost $ 2,424,786 $ 2,109,768 $ 236,981 $ 78,036

Electricity [USD/kwh] $ 0.0633 kW 16,450,100 13,043,049 2,175,198 1,231,853
Heating [USD/MMBTU] $ 6.96 MMBTU 192,586 178,704 13,882 -
Cooling [USD/MMBTU] $ 0.19 MMBTU 192,902 178,704 13,882 315
Miles Driven $ 1.25 4,786 4,786

Raw Materials and Energy Cost per day HNM Plant $ 846,379 $ 343,055 $ 417,629 $ 85,696

Manpower Cost $ 6,998,036 $ 3,976,103 $ 1,396,518 $ 1,625,415

Capital Spares % of Capital $ 1,775,037 $ 1,058,442 $ 302,168 $ 414,427

% per year
Capital Spares 2% $ 1,775,037 $ 1,058,442 $ 302,168 $ 414,427
Capital Cost $ 88,751,867 $ 52,922,121 $ 15,108,413 $ 20,721,333

Total Operating Cost $ 32,754,689 $ 25,894,358 $ 4,131,965 $ 2,728,367

34
Refinery Financial Analysis
Economic Scenario Assumptions
The cost estimation data described in the preceding sections was used to support a life-cycle economic
analysis to assess the overall project profitability with respect to common project indicators including
net present value, rate of return, and discounted payback period. In addition, the economic analysis was
used to determine the minimum product selling price needed to achieve a positive net present value.
This analysis was repeated for the four facility options, namely: (1) Conventional Circuits (Feasibility
Study 89243320CFE000059 using 2021 pricing), (2) Hybrid scenario with conventional primary circuit
and ASP, Ionic liquid circuits for yttrium recovery and Nickel / Cobalt separation, 2021 pricing., (3)
Conceptual Study using ionic liquids, 2021 pricing, and (4) Conceptual Study using ionic liquids, 2023
(current) pricing.
Many of the economic assumptions, including those regarding the financing structure, escalation rates,
tax calculations, and operating period were supplied by National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL)
in the RFP for this project. Key economic assumptions utilized in this study include:

• All amounts are in US dollars.

• The total operational period for the plant is 20 years.
• Inflation was applied to sales revenue and operating costs using a fixed rate of 3% per year.
• Capital costs are spread over a period not to exceed three years, and the allocation between
those three years is 10%, 60%, and 30% for years one through three, respectively. Thus, the
total analysis period (capital purchase plus operating) is not to exceed 23 years.
• During the capital expenditure period, capital costs escalate at a constant rate of 3.6% per
year.
• The project is debt financed for 50% of the total overnight capital requirement; the
remaining 50% is financed by equity.
• The debt repayment terms include: 6% interest rate, 10-year loan period, and no grace
period on debt repayment. The repayment uses a standard amortization schedule with
constant payments throughout the payoff period.
• Working capital is not included in this estimate and will instead be borne by the operating
entity at no cost to the project.
• The combined federal and local tax rate is fixed at 26%. This value is lower than the one
required in the NETL guidance document; however, it reflects a recent reduction in
corporate tax rates.
• All capital is depreciable, using a 150% declining balance depreciation schedule over 20
years. The depreciation method was not changed to straight line when conditions favored
the switch.
• The mineral depletion rate for REEs is 14%. Depletion is charged at the appropriate rate
times the net sales revenue after deducting royalties and any severance tax, provided that
the total amount calculated by depletion rates does not exceed 50% of the taxable income
before depletion.
• The plant is part of a larger commercial entity with sufficient revenue to offset negative
taxable income. Thus, losses are not carried forward and are instead calculated as a
“negative tax” that indicates the reduction in tax burden required for overall entity.

35
 • No royalties are charged for the productions of REEs, as this cost is assumed to be borne
with the feedstock acquisition costs.
Lastly, the data presented in this section provide a summary of the most salient outputs needed to
interpret the findings. A more detailed listing of model outputs, assumptions, calculations, and other
factors can be found in the Appendix to this report.
Baseline Product Pricing
Pricing has been established for the project based on supplied pricing from NETL (Source 1) adjusted for
the micron-sized powder (Source 1.1) product, which will be produced by the supply chain. Elements for
which pricing was not provided in the study RFP was established based on ISE reported pricing (Source
2). Alternatively, where not available from source 1 or 2, pricing was derived from Hela Novel Metals
confidential market study (Source 3). Where no pricing was readily available, market prices were
established using specialty chemical selling prices by Fischer correlated to applicable element market
prices (Source 4). Table shows the baseline product price deck used in the economic analysis.
Table 21. Baseline Product Prices

Unit Price ($/kg)

Product
2021 2023
M-MHREO $ 57.36 $ 102.07
Nd(Pr) micro powder $ 69.65 $ 170.40
Y Metal micro powder $ 39.77 $ 45.44
Sm micro powder $ 18.40 $ 17.04
Crude EuSO4 $ 1.00 $ 15.00
Gd Metal micro powder $ 56.81 $ 113.60
Tb Metal micro powder $ 738.58 $ 2,272.00
Dy Metal micro powder $ 340.88 $ 454.40
Manganese Oxide $ 2.77 $ 4.10
Cobalt micro powder $ 41.67 $ 39.43
Nickel Chloride $ 7.57 $ 7.57
Zinc Carbonate $ 2.00 $ 2.00

Economic Results
Table 2 shows the relative revenue contribution from each saleable product for the three TEA scenarios,
including conventional extractants (2021 pricing) and IL extractants (2021 and 2023) pricing. All three
scenarios show a large portion of the revenue is derived from manganese oxide, primarily owing to the
volume of this product produced. In addition, this data shows the increased reliance on magnet critical
elements (NdPr, Tb, and Dy) in the 2023 scenario. Note that the revenue contribution for the hybrid
scenarios are identical to those of the IL-only scenarios, as the product mix does not change.

36
 Table 22. Relative Revenue Contributions from each Product for Alternative Plant Scenarios

Product Conv (2021) IL (2021) IL (2023)

M-HREO 7.7% 5.8% 7.0%

Nd(Pr) micro powder 11.8% 10.2% 16.7%
Y Metal micro powder 9.2% 7.5% 5.7%
Sm micro powder 0.7% 0.6% 0.4%
Crude EuSO4 0.3% 0.2% 0.1%
Gd Metal micro powder 3.1% 2.3% 3.1%
Tb Metal micro powder 6.2% 5.0% 10.4%
Dy Metal micro powder 13.9% 13.6% 12.1%
Manganese Oxide 33.3% 25.1% 24.9%
Cobalt micro powder 13.9% 13.9% 8.8%
Nickel Chloride -- 10.2% 6.9%
Zinc Carbonate -- 5.6% 3.8%

Table summarizes the key financial indicators from the project for the four alternative plant scenarios.
Given the assumptions and inputs described above, the project was found to be economically favorable
in all three cases involving ionic liquids, and only marginally economic in the conventional extractant
scenario. While the overall size of the plant is small relative to that of other prospective producers, the
positive economic indicator shown here suggest that an REE supply chain based on AMD feedstocks may
be commercially viable provided that suitable REE consumers can be identified.

Table 23. Summary of Economic Indicators for Alternative Plant Configurations.

Conv Hybrid IL-Only IL-Only

Parameter
(2021) (2021) (2021) (2023)
REE Production (t/y) 327 353 353 353
Total Production (t/y) 6137 8774 8774 8774
Operating Cost ($/kg REE) $80.49 $66.72 $66.25 $92.45
Operating Cost ($/kg Total) $4.29 $2.69 $ 2.67 $3.72
Capital Intensity ($/(kg/yr REE) $377.24 $347.54 $416.00 $461.25
Capital Intensity ($/(kg/yr Total) $20.08 $14.00 $16.76 $18.58
Net Present Value10% ($ mil) $ (11,563) $107,711,138 $89,049,076 $193,152,044
Rate of Return 10% 24% 20% 28%
Discounted Payback Period 22.5 5.5 8.5 4.5

37
All baseline financial indicators were calculated assuming no royalty is paid from the central plant
operator to the AMD supplies. To determine the optimal range of HPC royalty payments, a sensitivity
analysis was conducted whereby the central plant rate of return was determined as a function of royalty
payment amounts ($/mt). This data is shown in Figure 3. As indicated, in the most favorable scenario (IL-
2023), a royalty payment of $200 / mt still allows the central plant to maintain a 10% rate of return. This
type of analysis can be used to determine the appropriate amount of profit sharing between the various
stakeholders as a function of plant design and operation.

30%
IL - 2023
Hybrid - 2021
Central Plant Rate of Return (%)

25% IL - 2021
Conv - 2021
20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
$- $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300
HPC Royalty Payment ($/mt)

Figure 3 – Sensitivity of HPC royalty payment on central plant rate of return.

Lastly, a price sensitivity analysis was conducted to determine threshold pricing needed to achieve
target rate of return values of 10% (breakeven), 20%, 30%, and 40%. This data is presented in Table and
shown as the percent of the baseline product price as indicated in Table . This data shows that all
projects are able to achieve minimum attractive rate of 10% at baseline pricing values. Most
significantly, the IL-only (2023) scenario is the most robust, producing a 40% rate of return with 1.28x
pricing multiple.
Table 24. Product price multiplier needed to achieve target rate of Return Values. Data shown as % of
baseline price.

Conv Hybrid IL-Only IL-Only

Target Output
(2021) (2021) (2021) (2023)
10% Rate of Return (breakeven) 100% 71% 75% 65%
20% Rate of Return 127% 91% 100% 83%
30% Rate of Return 159% 115% 129% 104%
40% Rate of Return 193% 141% 160% 128%

38
Lithium and Rubidium Recovery from AMD Techno-Economic Analysis
Basis of Capital Cost Estimate
Methodology
The estimate development methodology is consistent with a AACE Class IV (FEL-2) level Engineering
study cost estimate. It is based on major unit operation supply costs factored to installed unit cost and
construction costs estimated for a generic site for this type of process.
Indirect costs are factored on the direct costs and have magnitudes selected to account for the
characteristics of the project.
The ELIP module design is derived from a detailed conceptualization of the equipment. Ancillary
equipment pricing was set at 25% of the module pricing using engineering judgment.
Accuracy
The accuracy of a Class IV (FEL-2) level estimate, based on AACE guidelines for this level of development
is +/- 40%.
Qualifications
Pricing for the ELIP module is based on quotation from vendors and L3’s experience manufacturing pilot
equipment. Allowances are based on judgment and experience of engineers employed by the study.
L3Eng used its engineering judgement were relevant to account for supply chain issues affecting the
current industrial cost environment.
Owner’s costs have been assigned according to L3Eng’s convention and experience for projects of this
type. The scope of Owner’s costs included is limited to those defined and other areas of expenditure
may be required.
Estimate Structure
The capital cost estimate is divided in two sections: direct and indirect costs.
Direct costs are divided in two areas:

• Equipment Purchase and Installation Cost

• Factored Direct Costs

Indirect costs are broken into three areas:

• Project Indirect Costs

• Owner’s Indirect Costs
• Contingency

Currency
Unless otherwise specified, the default currency is USD.
Direct Costs
Equipment Cost
Equipment costs are presented in line items, each row representing all equipment required in a
specified operating unit and each column representing the equipment purchase cost, the installation
cost factor, the factored installation cost and the equipment installed cost.

39
Installation costs are factored from the equipment cost according to the generic nature of the
operations. Some equipment requires no installation such as mobile vehicles while other equipment
requires significant installation cost such as chemical process equipment. Installation cost includes
supply of materials for connection to services as well as labor to perform the work.
Other Direct Costs
A series of typically incurred direct costs are estimated as proportions of the equipment purchase cost
as described below.

• Piping - 5%
• Instrumentation and Controls - 10%
• Electrical Equipment - incl.
• Building and Structure - excl.
• Property Improvements - 10%
• Services and Utilities - N/A

Direct Costs excluded

The following direct costs are excluded but are not expected to represent a significant investment
outside the 40% precision margin of the estimate for large scale facilities. These costs should be
included in the Definitive Feasibility Study Capital Cost Estimate should economically viable scenario be
identified in the future.

• Product Storage and Packaging

• Administration facilities
• Laboratories and analytical facilities

Indirect Costs
A series of typically incurred indirect costs are estimated as proportions of the direct cost as described
below.
Project Indirect Costs
• Engineering – assigned at 12% of directs reflecting low engineering complexity and a pilot unit
design
• Procurement and Construction Management – 5%

Client Owners Costs included

• Operating and Commissioning Spares – spares for start-up and expected breakages during
commissioning estimated at 2% of direct costs
• Outside consultants & vendors support during construction and commissioning – specialist
industry consultants and additional vendor support 5%
• Operation Manuals and Training – development of operating manuals 1%
• Freight and Duties – freight and duties on goods delivered to site 2%

Client Indirect Costs excluded

• Client training - operator training. There will be a substantial and important activity required in
this area if successful commissioning, start-up and operations are to be achieved
• Permits – costs associated with developing permit approval applications including baseline
testing expenses and EIA study

40
 • Insurance – insurance against project failure from a range potential causes
• Client Project team – includes the salaries and costs for Owner’s project team personnel Cost of
Land and Building
• Contingency and Escalation
• Project contingency is set at 30% of direct costs and is a standard allowance made for projects at
this level of development and type. The contingency is meant to account for unknowns at the
time of the study.

Client Indirect Costs excluded

• Client training - operator training. There will be a substantial and important activity
required in this area if successful commissioning, start-up and operations are to be
achieved
• Permits – costs associated with developing permit approval applications including baseline
testing expenses and EIA study
• Insurance – insurance against project failure from a range potential causes
• Client Project team – includes the salaries and costs for Owner’s project team personnel
other than related to project management
• Cost of Land and Building
• Cost Escalation

Project Contingency
The project contingency is set at 30% of direct costs which is a typical allowance made for projects at
this level of development and type, reflecting the understanding of the project intricacies by the
engineering team relative to this type of process development projects. The contingency is meant to
account for unknowns at the time of the study and is a function of the level of process development
relative to the project phase. It is the opinion of the engineering team that the process designed during
this study is based on conservative assumptions and has a higher level of definition than is typical for
this phase. As such, the contingency was selected on the lower portion of its typical range.

41
Capital Cost Estimate Summary
Capital cost estimates for the lithium and rubidium recovery units are shown in Table 2 and Table 2.
Table 25: Lithium Recovery from AMD, A34 Site Capital Cost Estimate

Li From AMD (A34 Site) Capital Cost Estimate

Inst.
Unit (Module) Cost Facto Inst. Cost Total Cost
r
ELIP Modules per 500 gpm $ 291,744 10% $ 29,174 $ 320,918
Ancillary Equipment $ 72,936 25% $ 18,234 $ 91,170
Total $ 364,680 $ 47,408 $ 412,088

Factor Range Factor Total Cost

Instrumentation and Controls 10-20% 10% $ 36,468
Piping 20-70% 5% $ 18,234
Electrical 10% 0% incl. $ -
Buildings and Structure 20-30% 0% $ -
Property Improvements 10% 10% $ 36,468
Utilities 20-50% 0% $ -
Total Direct Costs $ 503,258

Indirect Costs Factor Range Factor Cost

Engineering 12-22% 12% $ 60,391
Procurement and Construction Management 5-10% 5% $ 25,163
Owners Cost 10-20% 10% $ 50,326
Contigency 20-30% 30% $ 150,977
Total Indirect Costs $ 286,857

Total Installed Cost 2.17 +/- 40% $ 790,115

42
 Table 26: Rubidium Recovery from AMD, A34 Site Capital Cost Estimate

Rb From AMD (A34 Site) Capital Cost Estimate

Inst.
Unit (Module) Cost Facto Inst. Cost Total Cost
r
ELIP Modules per 500 gpm $ 379,267 10% $ 37,927 $ 417,194
Ancillary Equipment $ 94,817 25% $ 23,704 $ 118,521
Total $ 474,084 $ 61,631 $ 535,715

Factor Range Factor Total Cost

Instrumentation and Controls 10-20% 10% $ 47,408
Piping 20-70% 5% $ 23,704
Electrical 10% 0% incl. $ -
Buildings and Structure 20-30% 0% $ -
Property Improvements 10% 10% $ 47,408
Utilities 20-50% 0% $ -
Total Direct Costs $ 654,236

Indirect Costs Factor Range Factor Cost

Engineering 12-22% 12% $ 78,508
Procurement and Construction Management 5-10% 5% $ 32,712
Owners Cost 10-20% 10% $ 65,424
Contigency 20-30% 30% $ 196,271
Total Indirect Costs $ 372,914

Total Installed Cost 2.17 +/- 40% $ 1,027,150

43
Operating Cost Estimate Summary
Refer to the section above for the basis of operating cost estimate for the recovery of lithium from AMD.
Results from the lithium recovery unit are shown in Table 4.
An operating cost estimate was not developed for the recovery of rubidium from AMD because a
cursory analysis of the economic viability revealed that no opportunity existed for this element. The A34
site presented a potential revenue of USD 30,700 per year using a market price of USD 883 per kg for
rubidium chloride. Considering the cost of capital, even a nil operating cost would generate an
unprofitable project.
The reader should be cautioned when evaluating publicly available pricing source that some specialty
markets are opaque and often only report public transaction for minute quantities of highly purified
product, suggesting a high market price when, the actual market price for commercial quantities of
industrial grade product is order of magnitude lower. Rubidium salts are such a product.
Table 47: Lithium Recovery from AMD, A34 Site Operating Cost Estimates

Operating Cost Estimate

Raw Materials Consumption $ 470
[USD/mt] kg
Sodium Carbonate $ 210 2,238

REE/REO Plant Energy Consumption Cost $ 333

Electricity [USD/kwh] $ 0.0633 5,256

Manpower Cost $ 111,492

[USD/yr] #FTE
Operations $ 111,492 1

Capital Spares % of Capital $ 10,066

% per year
Capital Spares 2% $ 10,066
Capital Cost $ 503,303

Total Operating Cost $ 122,361

44
Task 5.0 – Technical Research Plan Development
Subtask 5.1: Project Risk Assessment
Approach
The Recipient will synthesize the findings from the preceding tasks to identify technical, economic,
environmental, health and safety, social, and political risks to project scale-up and commercialization.
This risk analysis will include input both from the technical research team and the industrial advisory
board commissioned in Task 2. For each area of concern, major risks will be assessed using standard risk
tracking plots showing severity and likelihood. This analysis will identify high impact risks where a
clearly defined risk mitigation strategy is required.

Results and Discussion

Risk Assessment and Mitigation Plan
Notice
It should be noted that earlier versions of this process were developed in various other DOE projects. As
the overall supply chain and approach to project development is nearly identical to a previously published
feasibility study under contract 89243320CFE000059. Thus, this section has been duplicated from those
prior investigations for the benefit of the reader and amended as applicable.
Specific changes to the risk assessment involve the unmitigated higher risk rating of many technical risks
that are related to the use of a novel technology. However, the mitigated risk level for these risks is
identical to the feasibility study risk level for these technical risks. It is our opinion that the additional risk
involved in this project when compared to the feasibility study is the legal risk related to potential pending
patent application for some of the potential ionic liquids that may be used in the circuit.
General
Risk assessments in industrial process development projects involve the careful evaluation of various risks
in order to assess the vulnerabilities of the project. In the case of this proposed rare earth supply chain
project, the major risks can be divided in broad risk categories related to various aspects of the project.
Risk categories include:

• Financial, Commercial and Legal

• Management, Engineering and Project Delivery
• Operation and Technological
• Environmental, Health and Safety
• Socio-Political

Each risk category will be further defined with specific risks identified and discussed with regards to the
Project. Finally, relevant mitigation strategies will be discussed at a level appropriate for a feasibility study.
It is important to note that the mitigation plan presented herein will be summary in nature and is to serve
as a basis for a detailed Risk Assessment and Mitigation Plan Development effort usually undertaken as
part of the Definitive Feasibility Study (FEL-3) project phase following this feasibility study (FEL-2) phase.
Furthermore, at this level of analysis, risks are identified broadly and are not broken down into ultimate
root causes. As such, many identified risks can be included in more than one risk category.
A process specific risk assessment will also be undertaken in the Definitive Feasibility Study to review and
assess the Environmental, Health and Safety risks specific to the operation of the process plant. It is a
foregone conclusion of this exercise that the project includes likely catastrophic risks related to the
Environment, Health and Safety risk category as do all industrial processing projects. Specific mechanisms

45
for the evaluation and mitigation of these risks will be included in the Definitive Feasibility Study proposal
in addition to the detailed Risk Assessment and Mitigation Plan Development which will only offer an
overview of the process related risks.
The Risk Mitigation Plan involves a discussion of strategies to deal with each identified risk. The strategies can
be placed into four basic categories as described below:

• Acceptance: The risk will not be mitigated as its impact is deemed low enough. However, these
risks will remain tabulated and will be reviewed in subsequent project phases.
• Elimination: The risk is eliminated by removing its cause from the project.
• Mitigation: The risk is recognized as significant, and a plan is established to mitigate it. The
mitigation is plan will be reviewed and updated in subsequent project phases.
• Transfer: The risk is transferred to another party and is no longer impacting the project. Risk
transfer usually involve insurance underwriting for financial and legal risks.

Risk Assessment and Mitigation Plan Work Process

The risk assessment process was derived from L3Eng’s experience with these kinds of assessments,
applied at the level typically required at the feasibility study level and involve a workshop meeting
where key actors of the project were asked to:

• Identify and discuss risks associated with the project.

• Discuss a probability and consequence rating for each of those risks.
• Discuss initial mitigation measures.

The process used for the risk assessment is based on a standard risk management approach and is
described herein:
• Risk Identification: the initial phase of the process involves a guided discussion where a
comprehensive list of risks based on those events that might prevent, degrade, or delay
achievement of the project objectives was generated. All risks identified during this workshop
were initially recorded in the Risk Register with no screening.
• Risk Sorting: following the initial workshop, risks were sorted by risk category and further
expanded and detailed.
• Qualitative Risk Analysis: In a follow-up workshop session, the participants were asked to give
their opinion on the probability and consequence of the unmitigated risks. Risks were then
prioritized and ranked.
• Risk Mitigation: following the risk analysis, the team reviewed unacceptable risks and discussed
initial mitigation strategies. Identified strategies were documented and both the probability and
consequence of the mitigated risks were reassessed.
• Risk Assessment and Mitigations Reporting: a summary of the Risk Assessment and Mitigation
Plan was prepared and included in Section 3.4- Risk Assessment and Mitigation Plan Summary

Risk Index
The risk assessment process is based on the evaluation of identified risks on two scales: a probability
scale and a consequence scale. While the classification is partially subjective, the following guide can be
used in the process. The multiplication of both scales results in a risk index indicating the severity of the
evaluated risk. Risk indices between 12 and 16 at the “High” level or above 16 at the “Extreme” level
should have a corresponding mitigation plan. Risk indices between 5 and 10 at the “Medium” level may

46
require mitigation, or at a minimum a monitoring plan while indices below 5 at the “Low” level risk may
be accepted as-is. Risk indices are presented in Table 2 below.
Table 28. Risk, Probability, and Consequence Indices

Probability
Risk Index Table Unlikely Rare Possible Likely Certain
1 2 3 4 5
Catastrophic 5 Medium Medium High Extreme Extreme
Consequence

Critical 4 Low Medium High High Extreme

Major 3 Low Medium Medium High High
Moderate 2 Low Low Medium Medium Medium
Marginal 1 Low Low Low Low Medium

Probability Scale
The probability scale is a qualitative estimate of the frequency of the occurrence for a particular risk. It is
divided in five tiers of increasing likelihood. The probability scale can be conceptualized as number of
events or likelihood of an event to occur within a given timeframe. The scale is divided in the following 5
categories, each representing a qualitative probability for an event to occur during the life of the
project. For simplification, life of the project is assumed at 23 years, matching the economic analysis
timeframe.
1. Unlikely: unlikely probability represents events or situations not expected to occur during the
life of the project but nevertheless possible. This probability can be conceptualized as a 5σ
probability (~1 in 2,000,000).
2. Rare: rare probability represents event of situations with very low yearly probability of
occurrence. This probability can be conceptualized as a 4σ probability (~1 in 16,000).
3. Possible: possible probability represents events or situations with a low yearly probability of
occurrence. This probability can be conceptualized as a 3σ probability (~1 in 400).
4. Likely: likely probability represents events or situations with a significant yearly probability of
occurrence. This probability can be conceptualized as a 2σ probability (~1 in 20).
5. Certain: certain probability represents events or situations that are reasonably expected to
occur in any given project year. This probability can be conceptualized as a 1σ probability (~1 in
3).

Consequence Scale
The consequence scale is an evaluation of the impact of an identified risk occurring to the project. It is
divided in five tiers of increasing impact. Specific guidelines and discrete parameters are used for each
risk categories to evaluate the impact of a risk occurrence.
1. Marginal
Marginal consequences may have a small impact on the project execution and may result in
short delays and / or relatively small losses of profits. They may lead to non-disabling
operating personal injuries. Specific criterion for each category includes:

a. Financial, Commercial and Legal

i. Project delayed (financial) less than 180 days from base timeline

47
 ii. Unreasonable lawsuit(s) with low chances of delaying the project or
reasonable lawsuit(s) with no impact on project delivery or operation
iii. Loss of ability to sell products for less than 90 days
iv. Financial loses with no significant impact on the project yearly profitability

b. Management, Engineering and Project Delivery

i. Budget overrun by less than 25%
ii. Project delayed (non-financial) less than 180 days from base timeline
c. Operation and Technological
i. Operating downtime less than 10 days
ii. Project delayed less than 180 days from base timeline to address minor
technology inefficiencies
d. Environmental, Health and Safety
i. No impact on the general population
ii. Exposure of the plant personnel to non-disabling injuries with no loss-time
iii. Small contained hazardous release
iv. Short term environmental impacts easily mitigated
e. Socio-Political
i. Punctual opposition from political opponents
ii. Opposition from non-federated legacy opposition groups
iii. No significant public concern
2. Moderate
Moderate consequences have an impact on the project execution and may result in delays
and / or loss of profits. They can also create unease in the neighborhood population due to
punctual or perceived environmental nuisances and may lead to non-disabling operating
personal injuries. Specific criterion for each category includes:

a. Financial, Commercial and Legal

i. Project delayed (financial) between 180 and 365 days from base timeline
ii. Unreasonable lawsuit(s) potentially delaying the project or reasonable
lawsuit(s) with minor impact on project delivery or operation
iii. Loss of ability to sell products bellow 120 days
iv. Financial loses not requiring recapitalization with a significant 1-year impact
on the project financial performance

b. Management, Engineering and Project Delivery

i. Budget overrun by over 25%
ii. Project delayed (non-financial) between 180 and 365 days from base timeline
c. Operation and Technological
i. Operating downtime between 10 and 90 days
ii. Project delayed between 180 and 365 days from base timeline to address
technology inefficiencies
iii. Increase in employee turn-over
d. Environmental, Health and Safety
i. Exposure of the general population to punctual or perceived nuisances

48
 ii. Exposure of the plant personnel to non-disabling injuries with significant loss-
time
iii. Contained hazardous release
iv. Short to medium term environmental impacts
e. Socio-Political
i. Opposition from small segments of the local population
ii. Opposition from specific politicians
iii. Adverse news in local or state media
3. Major
Major consequences are unlikely to jeopardize the whole project but have a significant impact
on its execution and may result in significant delays and / or loss of profits. They can also
expose the neighborhood population to environmental nuisances and the operating personal
to disabling injuries. Specific criterion for each category includes:

a. Financial, Commercial and Legal

i. Project delayed (financial) between 1 and 2 years from base timeline
ii. Reasonable lawsuit(s) delaying the project
iii. Loss of ability to sell products between 120 and 365 days
iv. Financial loses not requiring recapitalization with multi-year impact on
financial performance
b. Management, Engineering and Project Delivery
i. Budget overrun by over 50%
ii. Project delayed (non-financial) between 1 and 2 years from base timeline
c. Operation and Technological
i. Operating downtime between 90 and 180 days
ii. Project delayed between 1 and 2 years from base timeline to address
technology flaws
d. Environmental, Health and Safety
i. Exposure of the general population to constant nuisances which may not be
immediately recognized as leading to injury
ii. Exposure of the plant personnel to disabling injuries
iii. Large contained hazardous release
iv. Long term environmental impacts
e. Socio-Political
i. Mobilization of the county population against the project
ii. Unified opposition from local and county level politicians
iii. Adverse news in national medias
4. Critical
Critical consequences are less likely to jeopardize the whole project but have a significant
impact on its execution and will result in significant delays and loss of profits. They can also
expose the neighborhood population to injuries and the operating personal to life threatening
situations. Specific criterion for each category includes:

a. Financial, Commercial and Legal

i. Project delayed (financial) over 2 years from base timeline

49
 ii. Reasonable lawsuit(s) threatening the project
iii. Loss of ability to sell products between 1 and 2 years
iv. Temporary financial loses requiring recapitalization
b. Management, Engineering and Project Delivery
i. Budget overrun by over 100% of capital cost
ii. Project delayed (non-financial) over 2 years from base timeline
c. Operation and Technological
i. Operating downtime between 180 and 365 days
ii. Project delayed over 2 years from base timeline to address technology flaws
d. Environmental, Health and Safety
i. Exposure of the general population to a situation that may cause injury
ii. Exposure of the plant personnel to a life-threatening situation
iii. Potentially uncontained hazardous release
iv. Lasting negative environmental impacts
e. Socio-Political
i. Mobilization of the state population against the project
ii. Mobilization of the state political class against the project
iii. Damage to the project’s reputation at the national and international levels
5. Catastrophic
Catastrophic consequences are likely to jeopardize the whole project. They can also expose
the neighborhood population and the operating personal to life threatening situations and
cause lasting environmental impacts. Specific criterion for each category includes:
a. Financial, Commercial and Legal
i. Loss of ability to finance the project
ii. Injunctive lawsuit preventing the project from execution or operation
iii. Loss of ability to sell products greater than 2 years
iv. Long term negative profitability
b. Management, Engineering and Project Delivery
i. Project Cancelled
ii. Project delayed over 2 years for non-financial and non-technology related
issues
c. Operation and Technological
i. Operating downtime greater than 365 days
ii. Technology determined fatally flawed
d. Environmental, Health and Safety
i. Exposure of the general population to a life-threatening situation
ii. Exposure of the plant personnel to a life-threatening situation
iii. Large uncontained hazardous release
iv. Significant lasting negative environmental impacts
e. Socio-Political
i. Political decision to stop the project

50
Risk Assessment and Mitigation Plan Summary
Results from the risk assessment are shown in Appendix C – Risk Assessment Table.
General
The team identified 28 risks divided as follows (risks may be counted in more than one category):
14 Financial, Commercial and Legal
7 Management, Engineering and Project Delivery
7 Operation and Technological
6 Environmental, Health and Safety
3 Socio-Political

The risks were then rated and those ranked high or very high were rediscussed to be rated after
mitigation measures are applied. Overall, the team identified the following unmitigated risk breakdown,
including 2 extreme risks and 6 high risks (Table 229).
Table 29. Risk Classification Before Mitigation

Probability
Risk Classification Before
Unlikely Rare Possible Likely Certain
Mitigation
1 2 3 4 5
Catastrophic 5 1 2 0 1 1
Consequence

Critical 4 1 1 2 0 0
Major 3 1 1 3 3 1
Moderate 2 0 3 0 3 2
Marginal 1 0 0 0 2 0

The mitigated risk breakdown is presented in Table 30. Extreme risks have been eliminated and only one
high risk remains. Most moderate risks transitioned to low risk after mitigation while the most important
extreme and high risk were reduced to the moderate level.
Table 30. Risk Classification After Mitigation

Probability
Risk Classification After Mitigation Unlikely Rare Possible Likely Certain
1 2 3 4 5
Catastrophic 5 2 1 1 0 0
Consequence

Critical 4 1 0 0 0 0
Major 3 1 3 0 0 0
Moderate 2 1 6 0 1 0
Marginal 1 2 6 2 1 0

A more detailed discussion of the risk for which mitigation is warranted is included herein and is
sequenced in order of initial unmitigated risk.

51
Extreme Risks
General
Extreme risks are usually meta-level risk that encapsulate other risks and that un-mitigated will be fatal
to the project. In the risk assessment effort, 2 extreme risks were identified and are discussed herein
with mitigation strategies that were developed as part of the discussion.
Financing Risk
As with most industrial mining projects, the financing of the capital required to build and start the
operation of the facility is the single greatest risk facing the project since a failure to finance the project
would result in project termination. This risk can also be conceptualized as the result of the aggregation
of all other risks into a de facto litmus test for the project. Discussion on other risks relevant to the
financing risk will follow in subsequent section. Causes specifically related to the financing risk include:

• Change in government priorities or in leadership that cause hault on government expenses.

• Cost estimate sig. underestimated / Construction cost estimate overrun.
• Legal uncertainty over ownership and structure of the processing plant.

While the financing risk cannot be satisfactorily mitigated using available strategies, a few mitigation
strategies have been identified:

• Identify, track, and mitigate all risks.

The identification and management of other project risks will reduce the overall investment risk
profile of the project and should encourage private, institutional and government investment in
the project.

• Fully define the ownership structure prior to completion of the Definitive Feasibility Study FEL-3.

A clearly defined organizational structure is required prior to capital investment.

• Follow best practices in process, project and cost estimation activities and;
• Prepare a project execution plan at the sufficient level of detail.

Best practices in process, project and cost estimate activities will reduce risks on many levels.; following
best practices in the in the process development activities will reduce the technology and scale up risks.
Following best practices in project management, including preparing, maintaining and following a
comprehensive project execution plan will reduce the execution risks and increase the confidence of
investor in the capability of the project team to successfully execute the project.
Following best practices in cost estimation will reduce the risks of budget overruns and reduce financial
exposure related to increases in required investment cost.
A related moderate risk which was deemed acceptable is the risk of not being able to finance properly
the process development and the engineering phases of the project.
Environmental, Health and Safety Risks
Industrial processing facilities using toxic, reactive, or flammable liquids and gases are inherently risky
areas that need to be managed in order to protect the facility’s personnel, assets and the surrounding
environment and population. Causes for environmental, health and safety risks are numerous, and
cannot all be fully defined at this stage. It is anticipated that the causal list will include process upset,
equipment or piping failure, weather events and vandalism.

52
While this risk presents an unacceptable profile unmitigated, its commonality across industries fostered
a series of processes and strategy to mitigate it. Primary consequences of Industrial accidents and
environmental releases of chemicals include:

• Exposure of the general population to a life-threatening situation

• Exposure of the plant personnel to a life-threatening situation
• Large uncontained hazardous release
• Significant lasting negative environmental impacts

Mitigation plans for various aspects of Environmental, Health and Safety risk will be developed as part of
the project execution during the proper phases for each of the various mitigation strategies. Typical
mitigation strategies include but are not limited to:

• Follow "best practices" in engineering and perform the proper Environmental, Health and
Safety studies during the design and operation phases
Health and Safety studies are an integral part of any process development and engineering
activities starting at the feasibility study level where safety aspects are routinely discussed and
considered during the process design. However, formal and structured reviews will be
included in the Definitive Feasibility Study phase and during the Detailed engineering phase.
• Follow EPA, OSHA, MSHA and other relevant regulation guidelines in design and operation
activities
Because the Environmental, Health and Safety risks are inherent to industrial projects,
significant regulation exist to support the safe design and operation of such projects. A safety
specialist understanding the regulation and the safety aspects of industrial project should be
included as part of the Definitive Feasibility Study and of the Detailed Engineering teams.
• Foster a culture of safety and environmental accountability

While many companies have clear guidelines for safety and environmental protection, we recommend
instilling a culture of safety and environmental accountability rather than solely implement guidelines.
This approach where every action is evaluated with the safety perspective in mind is built on an
actionable framework composed of four pillars:

• Communication: Include safety in every communication starting each gathering with a safety
discussion and increase workers buyout by involving them in leading the discussions.
• Training: Provide frequent and relevant training on safety and environmental protection to
ensure all workers are up to date on best practices in the industry.
• Leadership: Ensure the company leadership leads by example by following all safety policies
and encouraging employees to do the same. If management fully commits to safety,
employees will follow suit. A disconnect between the discourse and the personal actions of
the leadership team would greatly de-incentivize workers from buy-in the safety culture.
• Accountability: Both the leadership and the workers must be held accountable for safety and
environmental protection. In this context, accountability also includes the reinforcement of
positive attitudes and actions with positive accountability strategies.

53
High Risks
General
The High-Risk category contains one meta risk relative to the profitability of the processing plant and a
series of five specific risks related to the proposed supply chain. Of these six high risks, two still present
a significant risk to the project: the profitability meta-risk and the labor shortage risk.
Profitability Risks
The profitability risk is an inherent meta-risk looming over any commercial endeavor. However, specific
factors of the project augment the risk to unacceptable level for private and institutional investors. Only
those specific to the project or the critical materials industry will be discussed herein. The factors of
concern highlighted during the assessment included:

• Change in government priorities reducing support for the project or in import export policies
negatively affecting the project’s economics.
• Critical materials or reagent market manipulations by the Chinese Communist Party.
• Emergence of Delta+ variants or other international health crisis reducing demand.
• Process technology not as efficient as expected at the processing plant scale.
• The project is unable to secure long term purchase agreements.

Any of the identified factor would negatively affect the operating profitability of the plant either
punctually or long term, and in some scenario could render the operation unprofitable. Prolonged
periods of financial losses would likely lead to the loss of key employees and force the transition to care
and maintenance status or outright dismantlement of the equipment.
Strategies to mitigate profitability risk are directly coupled to their respective factors and will be
addressed sequentially. The strategies can be divided in two broad groups: political and technological
strategies. Political strategies as the name imply involves the Unites States government granting special
status to the supply chain to protect it against market forces which are often distorted by rogue States
actors.
Notably, the only proven effective strategy to mitigate Chinese market manipulations is using
protectionist strategies similar as the ones successfully used with other critical materials such as
magnesium (US Mag) and titanium (TIMET) where the United States government guarantees a minimum
production purchase and pricing disconnected from the international markets. This strategy ensures a
minimum agreed upon profit for the companies and ensure they can stay in business. When production
costs raise above international market prices, the pricing and volume guarantees allow the company to
operate at minimum capacity. When international market pricing is above the facilities cost of
production, the companies can increase their production and generate more profits. The government
can then recuperate a portion of the above market payments since they now purchase at a market
discount. Any other attempt at protecting industries without relying on the strategy discussed above has
failed, therefore it is crucial that the project highlights the importance of ensuring a minimum supply of
critical elements to our nation and lobby toward an arrangement similar to US Mag. Such agreements
also shield the supply chain from market disruptions due to other factors such as health crisis or
shipping issues.
Once a minimum viable supply agreement is established with the United States government, the supply
chain will be able to secure other commercial agreements with allied nations.
The second broad group of mitigation strategies involves technological risk factors. These risk factors
should be mitigated using best practices and processes in the industry for the process development and

54
scale up. Test work should be comprehensive, and assumptions should be eliminated, or at least
minimized. Furthermore, the test work dataset should be reviewed and validated using proper statistical
analysis tools and the analytical methods should be validated using outside certification laboratories. A
comprehensive test work program including thorough piloting or recycle loops coupled with best
practices in scale-up and process engineering is the most effective mitigation strategy to ensure the
installed technology meets expectations. The mitigation strategies presented above also apply to all
technological risks identified as a high, moderate and low.
Supply Chain Risks
Similarly, to the profitability risk, the supply chain risk is caused by market manipulations and shipping
disruptions aimed at destabilizing the critical minerals supply chain outside China. The most critical
aspect of the supply chain other than the rare earth themselves are the supply of specialty extractants,
which are mostly manufactured in China. While these chemicals could be avoided through design
modifications, the resulting plant efficiency and profitability would be severely impaired. In order to
mitigate this risk, the project should either evaluate the possibility and profitability of building a small-
scale organic manufacturing plant to produce the chemicals when market disruptions arise or identify a
contract manufacturer that possess this capability domestically.
Labor Scarcity Risks
Labor scarcity was often discussed as a significant risk factor affecting the project. The remote location
of the proposed processing plant offers many advantages to the project. However, it also introduces a
labor scarcity risk which is common to Appalachia. This risk is currently compounded by the COVID-19
pandemic and a qualified labor shortage in the industry in general. Effects from qualified labor shortage
range from project delays, lower profitability and increased technical and regulatory risks. In its most
severe presentation, labor shortages force companies to reduce their processing capacity which
significantly affect the operation. The two primary mitigation strategies involve creating a labor plan in
collaboration with local and regional governments to develop and train a qualified labor force.
Additionally, the project should create and implement an in-house training program aimed at
developing the required competencies.
Related, but less severe since rated at the moderate level is the risk of losing key personnel and project
knowledge due to high levels of competition for resources in the industry. Mitigations measures
identified for the retention of key personnel also apply to the labor scarcity risk. Theses mitigation
measures include ensuring competitive compensation and benefits, career growth opportunities and
implementing succession planning. Finally, a special care should be taken in selecting a high-quality
management team.
Engineering Risks
The primary risk related to the engineering of the project various facility involves the employment of a
firm that delivers a poorly executed or incomplete engineering package causing project delays, rework
and increased capital, operating and financing costs. Poorly executed engineering packages can often be
linked to the selection of an engineering firm that has a poor fit with the project scope and size, the
absence of project oversight from the project team and an incomplete understanding of the process
requirements. It is not uncommon in the industry to have the detailed engineering team change key
aspect of the process due to an incomplete understanding of the process technology.
A few important mitigation strategies have been proposed to reduce the engineering risk. The
recommendations include:

• Following best practices in process, project and cost estimation activities.

55
 • Establishing an experienced project team comprising of representative of the process
development team and project managers and controllers to supervise and validate the
engineering effort.
• Financially incentivizing the engineering firm toward quality
• Ensuring a good fit between the selected firm and the project scope and size

Similarly, a moderate risk related to the construction of the facilities has been identified with regards
potential construction code violations, with different codes applying at different locations in the project
(MSHA vs OSHA). The owner’s team should also be involved in supervising the construction companies
with support from the engineering team.
Feedstock Risks
The final risk identified as high risk in the assessment is the risk of receiving pre-concentrate that does
not meet the minimum quantity (low risk) or specification (high risk) for use by the processing plant
because of higher than expected normally radioactive materials exceeding the permitting limits or lower
than expected overall production amount. This out of specification feed to have ripple effects
throughout the facilities where radioactivity could concentrate above limits which require specific
operating permits and processes (low risk) and to the impossibility of disposing of tailings in the tailings
disposal facility on site (moderate risk). These feedstock related risk affect primarily the profitability of
the operation and the permitting process. These should be mitigations through the implementation of a
standardized protocol for the sampling and analysis of pre-concentrate feed materials.
Medium and Low Risk
General
Many low and moderate risks can also be considered risk factors in higher severity risk and therefore
will not be discussed herein. Those risks have mitigations strategies already implemented to mitigate
those more severe risks with which they are associated.
Intellectual Property Risks
The intellectual property risks can be divided in two categories, infringement on the project’s
intellectual property and infringement of the project onto other’s intellectual property. The assessment
team recommended to accept the risk of infringement against the project unless a significant gain could
be recovered, or injunctions would provide effective relief. The team also recommended a thorough
patent search to be undertaken as part of the interphase test work phase.
Additionally, specifically for this study using novel ionic liquid extractants, the project should establish a
defensive intellectual property strategy including developing a portfolio of patent related to the project.
Resource Ownership Risks
The assessment team noticed that there was still some uncertainty related to the ownership of the acid
mine drainage resource and recommended that the project obtain legal guidance and to establish a
legal framework.
Permitting, Insurance and Stakeholder Opposition Risks
While all these risks are ranked at the moderate and low level, the team recommended that
stakeholders and the various actors in the project be engaged early on and to maintain frequent
discussion and communication to ensure broad support for the project. A detailed permitting plan
should be established and executed.

56
Security Risks
Security is an inherent risk to doing business and should be addressed using typical site and
infrastructure security strategies. Acid mine drainage should be equipped with remote monitoring
instrumentation to ensure no supply disruption.
Proposed Facility Concept Technical Risks and Issues
The proposed supply chain concept is currently based on state-of-the-art industrial technology and with
the exception of the reduction process does not contain any significant technical risk specific to this
project when compared to other similar process development projects based on commercial
technology. The most important technical risk lies with the scale-up of Hela Novel Metals’ reduction
technology.
Additional technical risks would be involved should a novel technology such as RapidSX ™ or membrane
extraction be adopted in lieu of mixer-settler equipment during the feasibility phase. Such additional
technical risk should be highlighted and mitigated through process development activities. While the
transition to an ionic liquid extraction system would be a novel application in the rare earth separation
industry, its fundamentals are sufficiently similar to organic-based extraction systems that it would not
involve a significant technical risk.

Subtask 5.2: Technical Research Plan Formulation

Approach
The recipient will compile findings from the project risk assessment, process flowsheet model, and
techno economic analysis to develop a detailed Technical Research Plan for subsequent project phases.
At a minimum, this plan will include: (1) a description of the technical and industrial partner team; (2)
identification of the REE and CM markets; (3) identification of the CMs used in these applications; (4)
selection of an AMD feedstock to be utilized for producing MREOs at the pilot scale; (5) a technical
description of the four distinct process circuits; (6) the development of a process flow diagram including
mass and energy balances.

Results and Discussion

A detailed technical research plan was provided to the DOE TPM as a milestone/deliverable.

Task 6.0 – Recovery of Lithium from the Leach Residues

Approach
The Recipient will perform scoping experiments to determine a suitable processing pathway to recovery
lithium from the leach residual stream. Data from these experiments will be used to validate and
calibrate process flowsheet models developed for the overall REE/CM recovery process.

Results and Discussion

During the AMDREE process, preconcentrate solids are leached in acid to liberate REE/CM into aqueous
phase where they are further refined during solvent extraction. The resulting solid phase known as leach
residue (LR) is then further leached, resulting an aqueous phase recovery of additional REE/CM. A
subsequent acid leach of LR produces synthetic zeolite (SZ). While both LR and SZ are largely alumino-
silicate, its proportion increases to about 80% in SZ. Analysis of LR and SZ indicate consistent lithium
concentrations of approximately 0.24% DWB. Also, earlier work with produced water from
unconventional oil and gas operations has indicated substantial lithium concentrations (30 to 180 mg

57
Li/L). If LR and SZ have the potential for Li sorption, they might be configured into a recovery process for
PW.
This exploratory task was initiated to determine whether:
• Li can be recovered from LR and SZ through ion exchange.
• Li can be selectively recovered from PW using LR or SZ as sorbents.

Results
Both LR and SZ solids were loaded (spiked) with a lithium solution. None of the loaded lithium was
recovered to solid phase indicating a lack of sorption (figure 4).

Results
Loading
Extraction LR U LR L SZ U SZ L
Ideal Li recovery 2,300 11,500 2,300 11,500 mg Li/kg

AQ
HOH 7.9 34.7 - 5.4 mg Li/L
AC 7.7 37.6 - 5.2 mg Li/L

SL
HOH 2,667.0 2,476.7 2,081.3 2,009.6 mg Li/kg
AC 2,437.6 2,447.2 2,321.8 2,154.1 mg Li/kg
Figure 4. Both LR and SZ were loaded with a lithium solution. The table shows the ideal and realized
lithium recoveries when the resulting solids were leached with pure water and ammonium chloride
(AC).

Curiously, when the Li solution was added to LR in five charges, the mass balance indicates that nearly
all of the added Li was recovered from aqueous phase (figure 5). Two trendlines are presented, one in
which the Li was first neutralized using sodium carbonate and another without. Two items are worth
noting: First, unlike the previous experiment, nearly 100% of the lithium was recovered through
successive PW charges and neutralization improved recovery. Figure 6 shows the pH trend in the two
treatments through the experiment. While lithium recovery is impressive, it is not clear whether it
occurs in exchangeable form or whether it becomes bound within the solid phase’s alumino-silicate
matrix.

58
 Figure 5. Recovery of PW sourced lithium to LR with and without sodium carbonate neutralization.

Figure 6. Changes in pH as a result of successive PW charges and sodium carbonate addition.

Results of the PW recovery experiment are summarized in table 31.

However, attempts to recover lithium from both LR and SZ were unsuccessful. None of the ammonium-
based salts were able to liberate lithium from the solid matrix. It is therefore likely that the lithium is
bound within the alumino-silicate matrix and will require a strong acid leach for recovery.

59
 Table 31. Mass balance showing lithium recovery from PW to LR.
LR mass 200 g
PW per charge 500 mL
Li per charge 0.016 g
added AQ recovered to LR
PW cycle Li g Li g Li g %
not neutralized
0 0.016 0.016 0.000 0%
1 0.032 0.018 0.014 43%
2 0.047 0.011 0.036 76%
3 0.063 0.011 0.052 83%
4 0.079 0.008 0.071 90%
5 0.095 0.009 0.086 91%

Neutralized
0 0.016 0.016 0.000 0%
1 0.128 0.014 0.113 89%
2 0.240 0.012 0.228 95%
3 0.352 0.011 0.341 97%
4 0.464 0.008 0.455 98%
5 0.576 0.009 0.567 99%

Conclusions
The results of this experiment indicated the potential application of leach residue (LR) and possibly
synthetic zeolite (SZ) as sorbents for recovering lithium from produced water (PW). The results indicate
the importance of pH adjustment and the potentially high loading capacity of LR. Further research is
suggested to further verify and quantify the results, particularly determination of the ultimate loading
capacity of LR and SZ. Also, where lithium is recovered to our solid sorbents, it will be necessary to
determine the form and bonding mechanism within or attached to the solid matrix and the most
efficient method for recovery.

Task Completion Status

100% complete.

60
Milestone Status Report
Our Milestone Status Report is contained in Table 32 below.
Table 32. Milestone Status Report

Planned Actual Percent

Milestone Title & Description Verification Method Completion Completion Completed
Date Date to Date
Project kick-off meeting Project kickoff meeting conducted 3/10/22 3/10/22 100%
Initial quarterly technical briefing conducted with
Initial industrial advisory board
industrial advisory board. Board includes 3/31/22 05/03/22 100%
commissioning
representation from all key stakeholder groups.
Assessment of feedstocks confirms sufficient resource
Feedstock analysis complete is available to meet Phase 2 project objectives and 02/28/23 03/06/23 100%
testing needs.
Final process model shows full mass and energy
Process modeling complete balances for complete process from raw AMD to final 02/10/23 03/06/23 100%
metal products.
Techno-economic analysis revels key factors
Process TEA complete influencing economic outcomes while showing a 03/20/23 03/20/23 100%
pathway to economic feasibility.
Risk analysis reveals process risks and uncertainties
Project Risk Assessment
that must be addressed prior to scale up and 03/20/23 03/20/23 100%
complete
commercialization.
Final research plan shows the development pathway
Research plans complete needed to obtain key technical data for the process. 04/13/23 04/13/23 100%
Final plan submitted to DOE.
Complete scoping experiments to determine a suitable
processing pathway to recovery lithium from the leach
Recovery of lithium from leach
residual stream and use data to validate and calibrate 3/20/23 03/22/23 100%
residues
process flowsheet models developed for the overall
REE/CM recovery process.

61
Appendix A – Block Flow Diagrams for Major Unit Operations

62
63
64
65
66
Appendix B – Conceptual Equipment List

67
68
69
70
71
72
Appendix C – Risk Assessment Results

73
74
75