1. Executive Summary
Indicative assumptions. Replace with metallurgical testwork, vendor quotes, and mine feed data.Purpose
This plant upgrades mined lithium ore into saleable or internally usable spodumene concentrate. The target is to produce consistent 5.5%–6.0% Li₂O concentrate for downstream lithium sulphate production.
Current View: Conditional
Strategic Role
The concentration plant is the bridge between the mine and the chemical plant. If this stage fails to produce quality concentrate, the lithium sulphate plant economics collapse.
Critical Question
Can the ore be upgraded to 6% Li₂O concentrate at 70%+ recovery, with acceptable impurities, water use, tailings handling, and operating cost?
No sulphate EPC before beneficiation validation
Investment gate: the lithium sulphate plant should not proceed until this concentration stage proves stable concentrate quality,
recovery, mass yield, impurity control, and plant-feed continuity.
2. Project Snapshot
Base-case concentration plant assumptions.Concentration Plant Capex
$15M
Base case within $10M–20M range
Ore Feed
174 ktpa
Assumes 1.2% Li₂O ore
Concentrate Output
25 ktpa
Feed for sulphate plant
Concentrate Grade
6.0%
Li₂O target grade
Recovery
72%
Base-case beneficiation recovery
Mass Yield
14.4%
Concentrate / ore feed
Processing Cost
$38/t ore
Indicative beneficiation opex
Validation Status
Pending
Requires pilot testwork
3. Process Route
Typical hard-rock spodumene beneficiation route.Beneficiation Flow
ROM Ore→
Primary Crushing→
Secondary Crushing→
Screening→
Ore Sorting / DMS Optional→
Grinding→
Desliming→
Flotation→
Thickening→
Filtration→
6% Spodumene Concentrate→
Lithium Sulphate Plant Feed
Route A: DMS-Heavy
Best if ore has coarse spodumene liberation. Lower reagent use and lower grinding cost, but may not recover fine spodumene.
Lower opex if ore is suitable
Route B: Flotation-Heavy
Better for fine-grained or complex ore. More flexible but higher reagent, water, and tailings complexity.
Higher process control required
Route C: DMS + Flotation
Often the most balanced option: DMS recovers coarse spodumene and flotation treats fines or middlings.
Recommended base-case route
4. Indicative Mass Balance
Base case: 1.2% Li₂O ore, 6% Li₂O concentrate, 72% recovery.Mass Balance Chart
Mass Balance Table
| Parameter | Value | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| Annual ore feed | 174,000 tonnes | Required to produce 25 ktpa concentrate at base assumptions |
| Ore grade | 1.2% Li₂O | Preferred minimum for this project |
| Contained Li₂O in ore | 2,088 tonnes | Ore feed × grade |
| Beneficiation recovery | 72% | Requires testwork confirmation |
| Recovered Li₂O | 1,503 tonnes | Contained Li₂O × recovery |
| Concentrate grade | 6.0% Li₂O | Target feed quality for sulphate plant |
| Concentrate output | ~25,000 tonnes/year | Base case target |
| Tailings / rejects | ~149,000 tonnes/year | Requires tailings and water management |
5. Capex Cost Breakdown
Indicative small commercial concentration plant capex.Capex Breakdown Chart
Cost Breakdown Table
| Section | Low | Base | High |
|---|---|---|---|
| ROM pad, feed hopper, conveyors | $0.5M | $1.0M | $1.8M |
| Primary and secondary crushing | $1.2M | $2.2M | $3.5M |
| Screening and classification | $0.5M | $1.0M | $1.8M |
| Ore sorting / DMS module | $1.5M | $3.0M | $5.0M |
| Grinding circuit | $1.2M | $2.5M | $4.0M |
| Desliming and conditioning | $0.4M | $0.9M | $1.5M |
| Flotation circuit | $1.5M | $3.0M | $5.5M |
| Thickening, filtration, concentrate handling | $1.0M | $2.0M | $3.5M |
| Tailings and water circuit | $0.8M | $1.8M | $3.2M |
| Power, utilities, lab, automation | $1.0M | $2.0M | $3.5M |
| Civil works, EPCM, commissioning, contingency | $2.0M | $3.6M | $6.7M |
| Total Estimated Cost | $11.6M | $23.0M | $40.0M |
Note: The project KPI uses a USD 15M optimized base-case target. The detailed line-item table shows a broader scope envelope before vendor quotes, infrastructure exclusions, and process-route optimization.
6. Major Equipment Required
Equipment list for a DMS + flotation spodumene concentration plant.| Area | Main Equipment | Indicative Cost | Importance |
|---|---|---|---|
| ROM handling | ROM pad, grizzly, feed hopper, apron feeder, belt conveyors | $0.5M–1.8M | Medium |
| Crushing | Jaw crusher, cone crusher, VSI if required, magnets, dust suppression | $1.2M–3.5M | Critical |
| Screening | Vibrating screens, classification screens, oversize return conveyors | $0.5M–1.8M | High |
| Ore sorting / DMS | Sensor sorter if used, dense media cyclones, DMS screens, medium recovery system | $1.5M–5.0M | High |
| Grinding | Ball mill or rod mill, hydrocyclones, slurry pumps | $1.2M–4.0M | Critical |
| Desliming | Hydrocyclones, attrition scrubbers, conditioning tanks | $0.4M–1.5M | High |
| Flotation | Rougher, cleaner, scavenger flotation cells, reagent dosing skids | $1.5M–5.5M | Critical |
| Dewatering | Concentrate thickener, filter press, concentrate dryer if required | $1.0M–3.5M | High |
| Tailings | Tailings thickener, pumps, tailings storage, water return system | $0.8M–3.2M | Critical |
| Utilities and control | MCC, switchgear, PLC/SCADA, lab, water system, compressed air | $1.0M–3.5M | High |
7. Operating Cost Analysis
Indicative beneficiation operating cost before mine mining cost and chemical refining cost.Opex Cost Stack
Opex Table
| Cost Item | Indicative Cost | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| Power | $8/t ore | Crushing, grinding, pumps, flotation |
| Reagents | $7/t ore | Collectors, frothers, pH modifiers, flocculants |
| Labour | $6/t ore | Operators, supervisors, lab, maintenance |
| Maintenance | $6/t ore | Wear liners, pumps, mills, screens |
| Water and tailings | $4/t ore | Water recovery, tailings pumping, compliance |
| Consumables | $3/t ore | Grinding media, filter cloth, lubricants |
| G&A and lab testing | $4/t ore | Admin, sampling, assay, QA/QC |
| Total Beneficiation Opex | $38/t ore | Base-case assumption |
Cost per Tonne Concentrate
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Annual ore feed | 174,000 tpa |
| Beneficiation opex | $38/t ore |
| Annual beneficiation cost | $6.61M |
| Annual concentrate production | 25,000 tpa |
| Beneficiation cost per tonne concentrate | ~$264/t concentrate |
Integrated Feed Cost Warning
The lithium sulphate plant economics should not use beneficiation cost alone. It should include mining cost, beneficiation cost, site logistics, concentrate handling, sustaining capex, and working capital.
Use full concentrate transfer cost in sulphate ROI model
8. Concentrate Quality and Plant-Feed Requirements
These specifications must be confirmed with the lithium sulphate plant process vendor and buyer.Concentrate Specification
| Parameter | Target | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Li₂O grade | 5.5%–6.0% | Test Required |
| Recovery | 70%+ preferred | Test Required |
| Moisture | <8% | Process dependent |
| Particle size | Suitable for calcination feed | Vendor confirmation |
| Iron | Low / vendor specification | Test Required |
| Mica | Low | Flotation risk |
| Fluorine | Low | Process and ESG risk |
| Consistency | Stable monthly grade | Required |
Quality Risk Score
Impurity Watchlist
| Impurity / Issue | Why It Matters | Risk |
|---|---|---|
| Iron minerals | Can affect downstream sulphate product quality | High |
| Mica | Can consume reagents and reduce concentrate grade | High |
| Fine slimes | Can reduce flotation recovery | High |
| High feldspar/quartz dilution | Can lower concentrate grade | Medium |
| Variable ore zones | Can create unstable plant feed | High |
| Moisture | Affects handling, transport, and calcination | Medium |
Required Testwork
| Test | Purpose | Pass Criteria |
|---|---|---|
| Mineralogy / liberation study | Confirm liberation size and gangue minerals | Clear concentration route |
| DMS test | Evaluate coarse pre-concentration | Economic recovery and grade uplift |
| Flotation test | Produce 5.5%–6% concentrate | 70%+ recovery preferred |
| Locked-cycle flotation | Simulate continuous operation | Stable grade and recovery |
| Thickening and filtration test | Confirm dewatering performance | Moisture target achieved |
| Concentrate calcination test | Confirm downstream sulphate feed suitability | Good conversion and leachability |
9. ROI Impact and Sensitivity
Concentration performance flows directly into lithium sulphate plant economics.Recovery Impact on Concentrate Output
Grade and Recovery Matrix
| Ore Grade / Recovery | 60% | 72% | 82% |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.8% Li₂O | Too Weak | High Risk | Possible |
| 1.0% Li₂O | High Risk | Conditional | Good |
| 1.2% Li₂O | Conditional | Preferred | Strong |
| 1.5% Li₂O | Good | Strong | Excellent |
Impact on Lithium Sulphate Plant
| Concentration Outcome | Effect on Sulphate Plant |
|---|---|
| 6% concentrate, 72%+ recovery | Base-case sulphate economics supported |
| 5.5% concentrate, 65% recovery | Lower throughput or higher feed cost |
| <5.5% concentrate | Sulphate plant may need redesign or reject feed |
| High iron / mica / fluorine | Higher purification cost and buyer risk |
| Unstable monthly concentrate quality | Chemical plant uptime and product quality risk |
Concentration Plant Viability Score
64 / 100
Pending Beneficiation Testwork
Score can improve after DMS/flotation tests prove 6% concentrate, 70%+ recovery, manageable impurities, reasonable opex, and stable dewatering.
10. Risk Register
Key concentration-stage risks before committing to downstream chemical plant.| Risk | Description | Rating | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Recovery risk | Plant may not recover enough lithium into concentrate. | Critical | DMS/flotation pilot testwork and process guarantees. |
| Grade risk | Plant may not consistently achieve 5.5%–6% Li₂O concentrate. | Critical | Locked-cycle testing and blend strategy. |
| Mineralogy risk | Ore may not liberate well or may contain mica/fines. | High | Mineralogy, liberation, and comminution study. |
| Impurity risk | Iron, mica, fluorine, or other impurities may affect sulphate plant. | High | Impurity profiling and vendor feed acceptance tests. |
| Water risk | Flotation and tailings need reliable water supply. | High | Water balance and recycling system design. |
| Tailings risk | Large reject volume must be safely stored or dry-stacked. | High | Tailings management plan and EIA approval. |
| Power risk | Grinding and flotation require reliable power. | High | Power study and backup/captive options. |
| Capex overrun | Scope can expand if DMS + flotation + tailings are all required. | High | FEED, vendor quotes, staged implementation. |
| Opex risk | Reagent, power, maintenance, and water costs may be higher. | Medium | Pilot opex model and supplier quotations. |
| Downstream mismatch | Concentrate may not fit sulphate plant calcination/leach requirements. | Critical | Test concentrate directly in sulphate process route. |
11. Decision Framework
Go / no-go screen for concentration plant investment.Decision Scorecard
| Criteria | Weight | Current Score | Weighted Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ore grade suitability | 15% | 60 | 9.0 |
| Spodumene liberation | 15% | 55 | 8.3 |
| Ability to achieve 6% concentrate | 20% | 55 | 11.0 |
| Recovery level | 20% | 55 | 11.0 |
| Impurity control | 10% | 60 | 6.0 |
| Opex competitiveness | 10% | 65 | 6.5 |
| Water / tailings / ESG | 5% | 60 | 3.0 |
| Downstream sulphate fit | 5% | 50 | 2.5 |
| Total | 100% | 57.3 / 100 |
Board Recommendation
57 / 100
Proceed to Pilot Beneficiation Testwork
Do not commit to full concentration plant EPC yet. Proceed with mineralogy, liberation study, DMS testing, flotation testing, dewatering tests, and downstream sulphate feed acceptance.
| Decision | Condition |
|---|---|
| Proceed | 6% concentrate, 70%+ recovery, stable impurity profile, acceptable opex, tailings solution approved. |
| Redesign | 5.5%–6% concentrate possible but recovery, water, or opex is weak. |
| Reject / Pause | Cannot produce 5.5% concentrate, recovery below 60%, or feed unsuitable for sulphate conversion. |
12. Recommended Next Steps
| Priority | Action | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Collect representative bulk ore sample | Needed for reliable DMS/flotation and dewatering tests. |
| 2 | Run mineralogy and liberation study | Determines whether DMS, flotation, or combined route is best. |
| 3 | Run DMS testwork | Checks if low-cost coarse upgrading is possible. |
| 4 | Run flotation locked-cycle tests | Confirms concentrate grade, recovery, and stability. |
| 5 | Test concentrate in sulphate process | Confirms compatibility with calcination, acid roast, and leaching. |
| 6 | Prepare preliminary process design | Confirms equipment sizing and capex. |
| 7 | Build full opex model | Includes power, reagents, labour, maintenance, water, tailings, and lab. |
| 8 | Update integrated project dashboard | Feed actual concentrate cost and recovery into lithium sulphate ROI model. |