Shared claim between PE.V and CYP.V - Glory hole I ordered some material on Cypress Development company from News Network and Lithium Investing News, to better understand what to expect from the common claim Glory hole and also to learn a little more about Cypress Development Dean claim.
Can see on this bullbard and also on CYP:V there is a lot of hype right now, and it certainly sounds interesting, but I am not well read into the matter.
However I had a though which could prove interesting if that was viable, I am no scientist or aything in that line, but i see for me an interesting flowsheet, incorporating the glory hole lithium formation in mudstone and claystone into the Tenova Bateman plant, suggested at PE.V
I saw a claim of approx double amount of lithium (the average CV1 drillhole) that can be exstracted from samples taken on the glory hole hole with either plain water leach with 35% recovery or 95% with dilute aqua regia (not sure what the last is yet, but sounds more complicated).
Consider tenova plant pump up brine and in the first membraneproces you take out the magnesium LiP i think it is called and then th rets is industrystanard procedure from other materials. it is suggest to reenter the now free from lithium and magnesium into the under ground. However why not use this saltwater in combination with the mudstone on the glory hole either in a pond or in an industrial mixer and the take the water back to go through the the bateman plant again.
Some advantages could be
- you can mix the brine from PE.V and from the synthetic brine from CYP.V, in the ratio most optimal for the plant. (lithium content and magnesium content etc.)
-My guess It is a cheap and fast way to utilize the Glory hole formation
-You optimize the large investment the bateman plant is.
- You grow your inferred resource rapidly.
The big question mark is and I am not a chemist, they have done test on what equals"rain water" however what is preventing that from working with salty water?
This would be a nice flowsheet.