BOXS BoxScore Brands Inc (PK)

 

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

 

FORM 8-K

 

CURRENT REPORT

Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

 

Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): July 24, 2023

 

AMERICAN BATTERY MATERIALS, INC.

(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Charter)

 

Delaware		001-41594		22-3956444
(State or Other Jurisdiction of Incorporation)		(Commission File Number)		(IRS Employer Identification No.)

 

500 West Putnam Ave. Suite 400

Greenwich, Connecticut 06830

(Address of Principal Executive Offices)

 

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: 800-998-7962

 

Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions:

 

☒	Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act

 

☐	Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act

 

☐	Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act

 

☐	Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act

 

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

 

Title of each class		Trading Symbol(s)		Name of each exchange on which registered
None		N/A		N/A

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an emerging growth company as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act of 1933 (§230.405 of this chapter) or Rule 12b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (§240.12b-2 of this chapter).

 

Emerging growth company ☐

 

If an emerging growth company, indicate by checkmark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ☐

 

 

 

ITEM 7.01 REGULATION FD DISCLOSURE.

 

The information set forth below under this Item 7.01, including the exhibits attached hereto, is intended to be furnished and shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended from time-to-time (the “Exchange Act”), or otherwise subject to the liabilities of that section, nor shall such information be deemed incorporated by reference in any filing under the Exchange Act or the Securities Act of 1933, as amended from time-to-time, except as shall be expressly set forth by specific reference in such a filing.

 

Updated Technical Report and Updated Corporate Presentation 

 

On July 24, 2023, American Battery Materials, Inc. (the “Company” or “ABM”) posted an updated version of its (i) Technical Report Summary dated 06 July 2023 (the “Updated Report”); and, (ii) corporate presentation the Company expects to use, in whole or in part, and possibly with modifications, in connection with presentations to investors, analysts, and others during the next 6-months (the “Updated Presentation”), to its website, both are which are available at www.americanbatterymaterals.com by clicking on the “Projects” link. A copy of the Updated Report is included as Exhibit 99.1 to this Current Report on Form 8-K. A copy of the Updated Presentation is included as Exhibit 99.2 to this Current Report on Form 8-K.

 

The information contained in the Updated Presentation is summary information that is intended to be considered in the context of the Company’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and other public announcements that the Company may make, by press release or otherwise, from time-to-time. The Updated Presentation does not provide information concerning the financial condition of the Company. The Company undertakes no duty or obligation to publicly update or revise the information contained in the Updated Presentation, although it may do so from time-to-time as the Company’s management believes is warranted.  Any such updating may be made through the filing of other reports or documents with the SEC, through press releases, or through other public disclosure. By filing this Current Report on Form 8-K, and furnishing the information contained herein, the Company makes no admission as to the materiality of any information in this Current Report that is required to be disclosed solely by reason of Regulation FD.

 

The Company intends to use both the Updated Report and the Updated Presentation in presentations to investors and analysts from time-to-time in the future, including in connection with the proposed business combination involving the Company and Seaport Global Acquisition II Corp., a Delaware corporation (NASDAQ: SGII) (“SGII”). The furnishing of the information in this Current Report on Form 8-K is not intended to, and does not, constitute a determination by the Company that the information in this Current Report on Form 8-K is material or complete, or that investors should consider this information before making an investment decision with respect to any security of the Company. The Company does not assume any obligation to update information in the future in either the Updated Report or the Updated Presentation.

 

Press Release

 

On 24 July 2023 the Company issued a press release relating to the Company’s acquisition of additional lithium mining claims adjacent to its Lisbon Valley Project, located in San Juan County, Utah. A copy of the press release is attached hereto as Exhibit 99.3.

 

Important Information and Where to Find It

 

The Company has previously disclosed a proposed business combination with SGII (the “Proposed Business Combination”) and related transactions (collectively, the “Transactions”). In connection with the Transactions, (i) the Company intends to file Schedule 14C Information Statements with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”); and, (ii) SGII intends to file a registration statement on Form S-4, which will include a proxy statement/prospectus of SGII (the “S-4”), as well as other documents filed with the SEC in connection with the Proposed Business Combination. Stockholders will be able to obtain copies of the S-4 and other documents filed with the SEC that will be incorporated by reference therein, without charge, once available, at the SEC's website at www.sec.gov. The information contained on, or that may be accessed through, the websites referenced in this communication is not incorporated by reference into, and is not a part of, this communication.

 

 

Participants in the Solicitation

 

SGII and the Company and certain of their respective directors, executive officers, and other members of management and employees may be deemed participants in the solicitation of proxies from SGII’s and ABM’s stockholders in connection with the Transactions. SGII’s and ABM’s stockholders and other interested persons may obtain, without charge, more detailed information regarding the directors and officers of SGII and ABM, in, respectively, SGII’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year-ended December 31, 2022 filed with the SEC on April 4, 2023; and, ABM’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year-ended December 31, 2022 filed with the SEC on April 21, 2023. Information regarding the persons who may, under SEC rules, be deemed participants in the solicitation of proxies to SGII stockholders in connection with the Proposed Business Combination will be set forth in the proxy statement for the Proposed Business Combination to be filed by SGII. Additional information regarding the interests of participants in the solicitation of proxies in connection with the Proposed Business Combination will be included in the Registration Statement that SGII intends to file with the SEC. Free copies of these documents may be obtained as described in the preceding paragraph. Additional information regarding the interests of participants in the solicitation of proxies in connection with the Proposed Business Combination will be included in the Form S-4 that SGII intends to file with the SEC.

 

No Offer or Solicitation

 

This Current Report on Form 8-K and the exhibits hereto do not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any securities, nor shall there be any sale of securities in any jurisdiction in which the offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful prior to the registration or qualification under the securities laws of any such jurisdiction.

 

Forward Looking Statements

 

This Report includes certain statements that are not historical facts but are forward-looking statements for purposes of the safe harbor provisions under the United States Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements generally are accompanied by words such as “believe,” “may,” “will,” “estimate,” “continue,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “expect,” “should,” “would,” “plan,” “predict,” “potential,” “seem,” “seek,” “future,” “outlook,” and similar expressions that predict or indicate future events or trends or that are not statements of historical matters. All statements, other than statements of present or historical fact included in this communication, regarding the Proposed Business Combination, ABM’s ability to consummate the Transactions, the benefits of the Transactions and the combined company’s future financial performance, as well as the combined company’s strategy, future operations, estimated financial position, estimated revenues and losses, projected costs, prospects, plans and objectives of management are forward-looking statements. These statements are based on various assumptions, whether or not identified in this communication, and on the current expectations of the respective management of SGII and ABM and are not predictions of actual performance. These forward-looking statements are provided for illustrative purposes only and are not intended to serve as, and must not be relied on as, a guarantee, an assurance, a prediction or a definitive statement of fact or probability. Actual events and circumstances are difficult or impossible to predict and will differ from assumptions. Many actual events and circumstances are beyond the control of SGII or ABM. Potential risks and uncertainties that could cause the actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied by forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, changes in domestic and foreign business, market, financial, political and legal conditions; the inability of the parties to successfully or timely consummate the business combination, including the risk that any regulatory approvals are not obtained, are delayed or are subject to unanticipated conditions that could adversely affect the combined company or the expected benefits of the business combination or that the approval of the stockholders of SGII or ABM is not obtained; failure to realize the anticipated benefits of business combination; risk relating to the uncertainty of the projected financial information with respect to ABM; the amount of redemption requests made by SGII’s stockholders; the overall level of consumer demand for lithium; general economic conditions and other factors affecting; disruption and volatility in the global currency, capital, and credit markets; ABM’s ability to implement its business and growth strategy; changes in governmental regulation, ABM’s exposure to litigation claims and other loss contingencies; disruptions and other impacts to ABM’s business, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and government actions and restrictive measures implemented in response, and as a result of the proposed transaction; ABM’s ability to comply with environmental regulations; competitive pressures from many sources, including those, having more experience and better financing; changes in technology that adversely affect demand for lithium compounds; the impact that global climate change trends may have on ABM and its potential extraction operations; any breaches of, or interruptions in, SGII’s or ABM’s information systems; fluctuations in the price, availability and quality of electricity and other raw materials and contracted products as well as foreign currency fluctuations; changes in tax laws and liabilities, tariffs, legal, regulatory, political and economic risks.

  

 

More information on potential factors that could affect SGII’s or ABM’s financial results is included from time-to-time in SGII’s and ABM’s respective public reports filed with the SEC, including their respective Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, and Current Reports on Form 8-K, as well as the S-4 SGII plans to file with the SEC in connection with SGII’s solicitation of proxies for the meeting of stockholders to be held to approve, among other things, the Proposed Business Combination. If any of these risks materialize or SGII’s or ABM’s assumptions prove incorrect, actual results could differ materially from the results implied by these forward-looking statements. There may be additional risks that neither SGII nor ABM presently know, or that SGII and ABM currently believe are immaterial, that could also cause actual results to differ from those contained in the forward-looking statements. In addition, forward-looking statements reflect SGII’s and ABM’s expectations, plans or forecasts of future events and views as of the date of this communication. SGII and ABM anticipate that subsequent events and developments will cause their assessments to change. However, while SGII and ABM may elect to update these forward-looking statements at some point in the future, SGII and ABM specifically disclaim any obligation to do so, except as required by law. These forward-looking statements should not be relied upon as representing SGII’s or ABM’s assessments as of any date subsequent to the date of this communication. Accordingly, undue reliance should not be placed upon the forward-looking statements.

 

ITEM 9.01 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND EXHIBITS.

 

(d) Exhibits

 

Exhibit No.		Description
99.1		Updated Technical Report Summary.
99.2		Updated Corporate Presentation.
99.3		Press Release issued on 24 July 2023.
104		Cover Page Interactive Data File (embedded within the Inline XBRL document).

 

 

SIGNATURE

 

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.

 

Date: 25 July 2023	AMERICAN BATTERY MATERIALS, INC.
	BY:	/s/ SEBASTIAN LUX
		Sebastian Lux,
		Co-Chief Executive Officer

 

	BY:	/s/ DAVID GRABER
		David Graber,
		Co-Chief Executive Officer

 

 

4

Exhibit 99.1

 

TECHNICAL REPORT SUMMARY

 

 

 

ABM LISBON VALLEY LITHIUM PROJECT SAN JUAN COUNTY, UTAH, USA

 

Effective Date: July 6, 2023

 

Prepared for:

 

American Battery Materials, Inc.

 

By:

 

Bradley C. Peek, MSc., CPG

 

Peek Consulting, Inc.

 

V.07.2023.02

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.	SUMMARY	1
1.1	Introduction	1
1.2	Property Description and Location	1
1.3	Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography	2
1.4	History	2
1.5	Geologic Setting and Mineralization	3
1.6	Deposit Types	4
1.7	Exploration	5
1.8	Drilling	6
1.9	Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing	6
1.10	Adjacent Properties	6
1.11	Interpretation and Conclusions	7
1.12	Recommendations	7
2.	INTRODUCTION	8
3.	RELIANCE ON OTHER SPECIALISTS	10
4.	PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION	11
5.	ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSIOGRAPHY	16
6.	HISTORY	19
7.	GEOLOGIC SETTING AND MINERALIZATION	22
7.1	Stratigraphy	23
7.2	Structure	28

 

 

7.3	Geophysics	30
8.	DEPOSIT TYPES	33
8.1	Brines	34
8.2	Wells Located on the Subject Property	48
9.	EXPLORATION	50
10.	DRILLING	52
11.	SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES AND SECURITY	53
12.	DATA VERIFICATION	54
13.	MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING	55
14.	ADJACENT PROPERTIES	58
15.	OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION	61
16.	INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS	62
17.	RECOMMENDATIONS	64
18.	REFERENCES	65
19.	CERTIFICATE OF THE AUTHOR	68
20.	CONSENT OF COMPETENT PERSON	69

 

 

List of Figures

 

Figure 4.1 – Road map of Utah with project location.	12
Figure 4.2 - Overview of ABM’s Lisbon Lithium claims in San Juan County, Utah.	14
Figure 4.3 – An example of one of the claim stakes found on the property May 7, 2023.	15
Figure 5.1 – Topographic map underlying a plot of the ABM claim blocks. CI=40’.	17
Figure 5.2 - Climate data for Moab, Utah.	18
Figure 6.1 - Lisbon Valley Lithium claims in relation to the Superior Peterson Fed 88-21P well.	21
Figure 7.1 - Structural elements of the Paradox Basin and adjacent areas (from Nuccio and Condon, 1996).	23
Figure 7.2 - Generalized stratigraphic nomenclature within the greater Paradox Basin area.	26
Figure 7.3 - Geologic map of the LVL claim area outlined in red. Modified after Doelling (2002).	27
Figure 7.4 – W-E Cross section through the Lisbon Oil field on the north flank of the Lisbon Valley Anticline.	29
Figure 7.5a - Three-dimensional analysis of the Lisbon Valley gravity anomaly (Byerly and Joesting, 1959).	31
Figure 7.5b – Two-dimensional analysis of the Lisbon Valley gravity anomaly (Byerly and Joesting, 1959).	32
Figure 8.1 – Oil and gas wells occurring on the ABM claims.	49
Figure 9.1 – Stratigraphic column and type log for the units showing (Pennsylvanian) clastic and salt section (Mayhew and Heylmann 1965)	51
Figure 13.1 - Process flow diagram of a typical lithium extraction process.	56
Figure 14.1 – The location of ABM’s Lisbon Lithium Project relative to Anson’s project and the Cane Creek Potash Mine.	60

 

List of Tables

 

Table 1.1 - Chemical analysis of brine from the Superior Fed 88-21 Pwell from Hite (1978).	3
Table 1.2 - Anson Resources announced resources from their DFS.	7
Table 2.1 - Abbreviations and Acronyms used in report.	9
Table 4.1 - Claims with BLM UT numbers.	13
Table 6.1 - Chemical analysis of brine from the Superior Fed 88-21P well from Hite (1978).	20
Table 8.1 - Amerada Petroleum No. 2 Green River	35
Table 8.2 - British-American No. 1 Gov’t.-Norwood	35
Table 8.3 - California Oil No. 1, Navajo 177	36
Table 8.4 - Delhi-Taylor No. 2, Seven Mile	37
Table 8.5 - Humble No. 1 Rustler Dome	38
Table 8.6 - King Oil No. 2 Big Flat	39
Table 8.7 - Pure Oil No. 1 Hobson-USA

 

 

Table 8.8 - Pure Oil No. 1 Hobson-USA	40
Table 8.9 - Pure Oil No. 2 Big Flat	40
Table 8.10 - Roberts Brine Well	41
Table 8.11 - Southern Natural No. 1 Long Canyon	42
Table 8.12 - Southern Natural No. 1 Long Canyon	43
Table 8.13 - Suburban Storage No. 1	43
Table 8.14 - Superior No. 22-34 Salt Wash	44
Table 8.15 - Superior No. 14-5 Bowknot	44
Table 8.16 - Texaco No. 2 Navajo AC	45
Table 8.17 - Texaco No. 1 Smoot (Salt Wash field)	45
Table 8.18 - Tidewater No. 74-11 Big Flat	46
Table 8.19 - Tidewater No. 74-11 Big Flat	46
Table 8.20 - White Cloud #2 (aka. Roberts Brine Well)	47
Table 8.21 - Oil & gas wells drilled within the LVL claim block.	48
Table 14.1 – Anson Resources announced resources from their DFS.	58
Table 14.2 – Financial highlights from the Anson Resources DFS.	58

 

 

1. Summary

 

1.1 Introduction

 

American Battery Materials, Inc. (ABM)(formerly BoxScore Brands Inc.) acquired the rights to the Lisbon Lithium Project from Plateau Ventures LLC. Peek Consulting was engaged by ABM to write this report to document progress on the property and for funding purposes.

 

The report has been written to conform to the U. S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC’s) Subpart 1300 of Regulation S-K for a Technical Report Summary. The subject property is an exploration stage property that currently has no mineral resources or mineral reserves yet defined. No exploration has been conducted on the property to date. This report is a summary of the data reviewed and the conclusions drawn from that data.

 

This report is an update of a previous report entitled “ABM Lisbon Valley Lithium Project, San Juan County, Utah, USA” with an effective date of May 15, 2023. The current report includes a substantial increase in the land position of the project.

 

1.2 Property Description and Location

 

The property is located in San Juan County, Utah. The center of the claims lies approximately 35 miles (58 kilometers) southeast of the city of Moab. The property position consists of 743 placer mining claims staked on U. S. Government land administered by the U. S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM).

 

The claims are a semi-contiguous group named the LVL group covering roughly 23 square miles. The original 102 claims were staked in portions of Sections 17-18, 20-22, and 27-29, T30S, R25E, Salt Lake Baseline and Principal Meridian in 2017, with additional claims staked in Q2, 2023 in Sections 22, 25-28, 33-35 in T30S, R25E; Section 31, T30S, R26E; Sections 1, 3-4, 8-15, 17, T 31S, R25E; and Sections 5-8, 17-18, T31S, R26E (Figure 4.2). The original 102 claims were located on September 8, 9 and 10, 2021. All original claim corners and location monuments were located using handheld Garmin GPS units (Gavin Harrison, personal communication). Additional claims were located and staked by a (confidential) mining consulting company between May 3, 2023 and June, 12 2023.

 

It will be necessary for ABM to re-enter an oil and gas well or to drill a new well to obtain brine samples for analysis and metallurgical testing. Permits for such operations will be required from the BLM and the Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining. These permits are currently in process.

 

 

1.3 Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography

 

Moab, Utah, the nearest population center to the property, is a city of 5,336 persons (2020 Census). It is located in a relatively remote portion of Utah but is easily accessed by U. S. Highway 191. Highway 191 intersects with Interstate 70 about 30 miles (48 kilometers) north of Moab, at Crescent Junction. Moab is a tourist destination and has numerous motels and restaurants. Moab would also be the nearest source of labor in the region.

 

The region has a history of mining, primarily uranium and vanadium that dates back as far as 1881. The Lisbon Valley Copper Mine is in the heart of the Lisbon Valley and is currently producing copper cathode. An all-weather road and electric power supply the mine.

 

All the ABM claims fall between elevations of 6200 and 6900 feet (1890 and 2100 meters) above sea level.

 

It is anticipated that ABM will use a Direct Lithium Extraction (DLE) method rather than using evaporation ponds to recover the lithium and other potential mineral from brines, should the project advance to the production stage. The project should therefore have sufficient space on the ABM claims to construct processing facilities.

 

The climate is arid, also termed “high desert”. Moab has average annual precipitation of 9.02 inches (229 mm). The climatic conditions allow for fieldwork to continue throughout the year.

 

1.4 History

 

The Paradox Basin initially attracted attention because of high lithium values reported in the literature in brines recovered from oil and gas exploration wells. The Paradox Basin has been explored for oil and gas for many years (Durgin, 2011). The earliest discoveries of potash in the area were made in 1924 in oil and gas wells, but the correlation of the beds and the extent and richness of the deposits were not recognized until the 1950s. The Seven Mile, Salt Wash and White Cloud potash target areas, all west of Moab, were quickly identified. Further exploration led to the development of the Cane Creek potash mine adjacent to the Colorado River.

 

 

Brines were commonly encountered in these wells, but none of the wells was of economic significance for brine until in 1962 when the Southern Natural Gas Company drilled a well, Long Canyon Unit #1, which encountered a substantial flow of high-density brine at a depth of 6,013 feet (Durgin, 2011).

 

Several companies have reported high lithium values occurring in brines from oil & gas and potash wells drilled into the Paradox Formation. Hite (1978) investigated the potash potential of the Lisbon Valley area in a USGS Open File Report. The analytical report has been the main impetus for the acquisition of the Lisbon Valley Lithium property. In Hite’s report, he published the analytical results of a brine sample from the Superior Oil Co. Well Fed 88-21P. Table 1.1 lists the analytical results from Hite’s report.

 

Table 1.1 - Chemical analysis of brine from the Superior Fed 88-21P well from Hite (1978).

 

Compound/Element	%	ppm
Na2O	9.24	92,400
K2O	2.91	29,100
Li2O	0.073	730
CaO	1.30	13,000
MgO	7.44	74,400
CO2	0.056	560
SO3	0.021	210
B2O3	0.84	8,400
P2O5	0.0009	9
Cl	19.44	194,400
Br	0.32	3,200
I	0.003	30

 

1.5 Geologic Setting and Mineralization

 

The Paradox Basin is an oval-shaped area located in southeastern Utah and southwestern Colorado that may be defined by the maximum extent of salt deposits in the Paradox Formation (formerly) referred to as the Hermosa Formation of Middle Pennsylvanian age (Hite and others, 1984; Nuccio and Condon, 1996). The basin was primarily a Pennsylvanian and Permian feature that accumulated thick deposits of carbonate, halite, and clastic rocks in response to downwarping and uplift along its northeastern basin. The basin was later modified, largely due to the Laramide Orogeny 50 to 70 million years (Ma) ago. Today the basin has been eroded in places by uplift of the Colorado Plateau and downcutting by the Colorado River and its tributaries (Nuccio and Condon, 1996).

 

 

The Paradox Basin is composed of sedimentary rocks that overlie an Early Proterozoic basement of metamorphic gneiss and schist that is locally intruded by granite (Nuccio and Condon, 1996; Tweto,1987). Cambrian through Jurassic sedimentary rocks unconformably overlie the basement rock in much of the basin. Cretaceous rocks are also noted in the southeastern part of the basin.

 

The Paradox Formation, which is of primary interest to this study, contains dolomite, black shale, anhydrite, halite, and other salts. The lithium-rich brines of the Paradox Basin have all been derived from the Paradox Formation. Halite is the most abundant rock type, occurring in beds tens of feet thick. The black, dolomitic shale is the source rock of some of the oil and gas recovered in the basin. The Paradox was deposited in a series of cycles that represent repeated desiccation and marine flooding of the basin (Hite and Buchner, 1981). The black shales of the Paradox have been used as marker beds to correlate depositional cycles throughout the basin. The cycles have been grouped into larger zones, or “substages” (Barnes and others, 1967), or “production intervals” (Hite and others, 1984).

 

The primary structure in the area of the ABM claims is the Lisbon Valley anticline. It is bordered on its northeast side by the Lisbon Valley fault. The fault zone can be traced on surface northwest and southeast for a distance of 41 miles (66 km). The fault and anticline are the result of salt tectonics prevalent in the Paradox Basin (Hite, 1978).

 

1.6 Deposit Types

 

There is currently no known production of lithium from the Paradox Basin. The deposit model and exploration target for the Lisbon Lithium Project is very similar to the model defined by Anson Resources in the Paradox Basin to the northwest of ABM’s claim block (See Section 13 – Adjacent Properties). Anson, an Australian company, operating in the U. S. as A1 Lithium Incorporated, has defined a major lithium and bromine resource and has completed a Definitive Feasibility Study. ABM’s target deposit model is similar in all respects to that of Anson’s deposit.

 

In the Paradox Basin the lithium-rich brines occur in the “saline facies” of the Paradox Member of the Hermosa Formation of Pennsylvanian age and are totally in the subsurface. The “saline facies” of the Paradox Formation is composed of at least 29 evaporite cycles. Many of the cycles are potash-bearing and there is an active potash mine in the basin.

 

 

The method of extraction of the lithium from the brines is foreseen to be by Direct Lithium Extraction (DLE) and reinjection of the processed brine back into the subsurface. This method has been gaining favor in the lithium industry over the last several years because it does not involve the use of evaporation ponds. DLE uses a much smaller footprint than evaporation ponds and is therefore more acceptable from an environmental standpoint. As yet, ABM has not done any testing for the possibility of using DLE and will not be able to do any testing until samples of brine are acquired from the target formations.

 

The brines were not considered important until 1962, when Southern Natural Gas intersected the brine zone and a very substantial flow of brines under tremendous pressure. A second well was drilled 500 feet (152 meters) northeast of the first well and encountered flows estimated to be in excess of 50,000 barrels of brine per day. Many of the wells had analyses showing lithium assays. These are partially enumerated in Section 8.1 – Brines.

 

Seven oil and gas wells have been drilled on the property now held by ABM according to records of the Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining. Unfortunately, no analyses of the brines from these wells have been found in the literature. Six of the wells have been plugged and abandoned. One well is being used as a water disposal well.

 

1.7 Exploration

 

There has been no exploration conducted on the property by ABM or its predecessors other than the gathering and assimilation of data from all available sources.

 

A thorough review of 40 historic well files and corresponding well log data was conducted in the fall and winter of 2022-2023. Formation tops were picked in 23 of the available 40 wells that penetrated some or all of the Paradox salts/clastics and/or the Leadville Limestone.

 

Structure contour maps of the zones have been generated but are currently proprietary. The primary targets include Clastic Zones 17 and 31, as well as the Leadville Limestone. These zones have been shown by historical records and recent production to have free flowing brines with high lithium concentrations – in some cases above 200 ppm Li. Secondary targets are Clastic Zones 19, 29, 33, and 39. These zones have been recently identified by Anson Resources’ drilling and testing (see Section 13 on Adjacent Properties) to contain supersaturated brines with elevated lithium concentrations.

 

 

Though potential targets have been identified, ABM intends to test all clastic zones encountered in future appraisal wells.

 

1.8 Drilling

 

No drilling has been conducted by ABM or its predecessors. Drilling has been conducted by oil and gas and by potash interests on and in the area surrounding the LVL claims, which has provided much of the information for this report.

 

1.9 Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing

 

No metallurgical testing has been conducted by ABM and none can be conducted until brine samples can be collected from wells drilled or re-entered on the subject property. The anticipated type of processing envisioned by ABM for extraction of lithium and possibly other commodities from the brines is summarized here.

 

The use of open ponds for evaporation and concentration of lithium brines is nominally inexpensive, however, the evaporation process is time consuming, land intensive and wasteful of water. The development of new brine resources from undeveloped lithium brine deposits is likely to meet significant environmental and social barriers to implementation, particularly in the US, and evaporation ponds are not considered environmentally sustainable.

 

Over the past decade many direct lithium extraction (DLE) technologies have arisen due to intense research and economic drive to separate lithium from other ions in a feed solution. These processes can involve organic and inorganic sorption reagents based on polymers, membranes, manganese, titanium, or aluminum oxides and form the backbone of DLE extraction technologies.

 

1.10 Adjacent Properties

 

There is no known lithium production in the Paradox Basin. The Cane Creek potash mine is located 32 miles (51 kilometers) northwest of the LVL claim group. The mine has been operating since 1965, initially as an underground room and pillar style mine. It was converted to a solution mining operation in 1970.

 

 

Anson Resources, an Australian company whose properties are primarily west of Moab, Utah, has been active over the past few years in the Paradox Basin. Anson has re-entered four abandoned oil and gas wells and performed extensive testing of the wells’ brine recovery performance and methods for recovering the lithium and bromine from the brines. According to their website, www.ansonresources.com , they have completed a Definitive Feasibility Study (DFS) on September 8, 2022, and have identified substantial indicated and inferred resources of Lithium Carbonate Equivalent (LCE) and Bromine (Br₂) as shown in Table 1.2.

 

Table 1.2 - Anson Resources announced resources from their DFS.

 

					Contained
				Contained LCE	Br2
Category	Brine (Mt)	Li (ppm)	Br (ppm)	(’000t)	(’000t)
Indicated	530	123	3,474	346	1,840
Inferred	1,038	125	3,308	692	3,434

 

1.11 Interpretation and Conclusions

 

There is abundant evidence from oil, gas and potash wells drilled in the Paradox Basin that indicates that there is a high probability of identifying and producing super saturated brines from beneath the ABM property position. The geology of the area of the ABM claims and of the Paradox Basin as a whole is quite complex although zones that have been targeted and proven by Anson Resources exist and they are mappable within and beyond the claims area.

 

The only way to determine if the lithium enriched brines exist and can be economically produced from the target zones is to drill exploration wells to produce and test brine from the targeted zones. American Battery Materials intends to drill two exploratory/appraisal wells within its claims position and is currently waiting permit approval. The estimated spud dates for the two wells is expected to be 6-12 months for this report’s effective date.

 

1.12 Recommendations

 

It is recommended that ABM drill and complete two appraisal wells and perform comprehensive testing on key horizons within the Paradox clastic members and Leadville (Mississippian) Limestone. Individual formations should be evaluated for overall reservoir quality, bottom hole pressures and flow rates from conventional completions. Any extracted brines should be tested to determine lithium concentrations and to prove economic viability of a pilot and permanent production program. The company has identified an appraisal and development program that is proprietary. This information will be disclosed in an advanced technical report after the appraisal wells are drilled and individual zones are identified and fully evaluated.

 

 

2. Introduction

 

American Battery Materials, Inc. (ABM)(formerly BoxScore Brands Inc.) acquired the rights to the Lisbon Lithium Project from Plateau Ventures LLC. Peek Consulting was engaged by ABM to write this report to document progress on the property and for funding purposes.

 

The report has been written to conform to the U. S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC’s) Subpart 1300 of Regulation S-K for a Technical Report Summary. The subject property is an exploration stage property that currently has no mineral resources or mineral reserves yet defined. No exploration has been conducted on the property to date. This report is a summary of the data reviewed and the conclusions drawn from that data.

 

This report is an update of a previous report entitled “ABM Lisbon Valley Lithium Project, San Juan County, Utah, USA” with an effective date of May 15, 2023. The current report includes a substantial increase in the land position of the project.

 

Peek Consulting, Inc. and Bradley C. Peek, CPG were retained by ABM to prepare this technical report summary. The author is an independent consultant and is not an employee of ABM. The author is a Qualified Person as defined by Canada’s NI 43-101 and the SEC’s Regulation S-K 1300.

 

The majority of information contained in this report was gleaned from various sources and, when possible, verified by the author. These other sources being:

 

●

Published literature.

 

●

Utah Geological Survey website.

 

●

Oil, gas and potash well logs from various sources.

 

●

Plateau Ventures LLC concerning the claim staking and ownership.

 

●

A confidential claim staking company also concerning claim staking and ownership.

 

 

●

The U. S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) MLRS website for verification that the mining claims are active.

 

●

Sources are also referenced in the text of this document, where pertinent.

 

The author lived in Moab from 2006 until 2010, so is familiar with the general area of the claims and the geology of the Paradox Basin. The author consulted for the Lisbon Valley Mining Company at the Lisbon Valley Copper Mine in 2007. The mine is adjacent to the placer claims that are the subject of this report, so the author is familiar with the area’s geology and surface expression.

 

Table 2.1 - Abbreviations and Acronyms used in report.

 

BLM	U. S. Bureau of Land Management
BSWPD	Barrels Salt Water Per Day
LCE	Lithium Carbonate Equivalent
Li	Chemical symbol for lithium
Ma	Million years before present
mD	Millidarcy
Psi	Pounds per square inch
PPM	Parts per million
TDS	Total Dissolved Solids
USGS	U. S. Geological Survey

 

All dollar figures in this report are in U. S. dollars unless otherwise noted. 

 

 

3. Reliance on Other Specialists

 

Gavin Harrison of Plateau Ventures LLC, who is not a Qualified Person, supplied most of the information regarding the staking and locations of the placer mining claims. Mr. Harrison has more than 20 years of experience staking and recording claims on BLM land in several states in the western U. S.

 

Kenneth C. “Scott” Avanzino, Jr., ABM’s current COO is an exploration and wellsite geologist with 18 years of industry experience. Mr. Avanzino holds a B. S. in Geology from Colgate University and M. S. in Geology from Tulane University. Mr. Avanzino assisted the author with well log interpretation, subsurface mapping, and reviewed the technical report summary. Subsurface mapping is currently proprietary and confidential and will be included in later advanced technical reports.

 

The author takes full responsibility for the content of this report summary.

 

 

4. Property Description and Location

 

The property is located in San Juan County, Utah. The center of the claims lies approximately 35 miles (58 kilometers) southeast of the city of Moab (Figure 4.1). The property position consists of 743 placer mining claims staked on U. S. Government land administered by the U. S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Each claim covers an area of 20 acres (8.1 hectares).

 

The claims are a semi-contiguous group named the LVL group covering roughly 23 square miles. The original 102 claims were staked in portions of Sections 17-18, 20-22, and 27-29, T30S, R25E, Salt Lake Baseline and Principal Meridian in 2017, with additional claims staked in Q2, 2023 in Sections 22, 25-28, 33-35 in T30S, R25E; Section 31, T30S, R26E; Sections 1, 3-4, 8-15, 17, T 31S, R25E; and Sections 5-8, 17-18, T31S, R26E (Figure 4.2). The original 102 claims were located on September 8, 9 and 10, 2021. All original claim corners and location monuments were located using handheld Garmin GPS units (Gavin Harrison, personal communication). Additional claims were located and staked by a (confidential) mining consulting and survey company between May 3, 2023, and June 12, 2023.

 

 

 

Figure 4.1 – Road map of Utah with project location.

 

 

The original 102 placer claims were staked by Plateau Ventures LLC. and sold to Boxscore Brands who changed its corporate name to American Battery Materials, Inc. All 102 claims were originally owned 100% by Boxscore Brands and were transferred to American Battery Material’s operating company Mountain Sage Minerals, LLC in June of 2023. An additional 641 placer claims have been staked since the last technical report dated May 15, 2023. All claims are registered or filed in the name of Mountain Sage Mineral’s, a wholly owned operating company registered in the state of Utah. The previous (102) placer claims and those (172) have been registered currently in good standing according to BLM records. There are 469 claims that are pending review by BLM.

 

Table 4.1 is a listing of the claim names with BLM UT numbers for the claims as posted in the BLM’s MLRS online database. The author has witnessed several of the original claim group corners and location monuments on the ground and has been furnished with copies of the claim location certificates time- and date-stamped by the San Juan County Recorder.

 

Table 4.1 - Claims with BLM UT numbers.

 

Claim No.	Claim No.	BLM No.	BLM No.
From	To	From	To
LVL-001	LVL-102	UT105270470	UT105270571
LVL-103	LVL-274	UT105835855	UT105836026
LVL - 275	LVL - 743	PENDING	PENDING

 

Annual holding costs for the claims are $165 per claim per year to the BLM, due September 1^st. There is also a $2 per claim annual document fee to be paid to San Juan County, Utah each year, due November 1^st. There is no set expiration date for the claims if the payments are made annually. There are currently no required royalties to be paid on production from U. S. Government mining claims.

 

Currently there are no known significant factors or risks that may affect access, title, or right/ability to perform work on the Company’s property. The current land under claims contains no buildings or structures. All lithium mineralization is interpreted to be in the form of brines in the subsurface. There are no known mineralized zones on or below the surface of ABM’s staked land other than those defined by the information presented in this report. There are no known environmental liabilities associated with the property position. To the author’s knowledge the only development on the property are some oil and gas wells with associated roads and pipelines.

 

 

It will be necessary for ABM to re-enter an oil and gas well or to drill a new well to obtain brine samples for analysis and metallurgical testing. Permits for such operations will be required from the BLM and the Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining. These permits are currently in process.

 

 

Figure 4.2 - Overview of ABM’s Lisbon Lithium claims in San Juan County, Utah.

 

 

Figure 4.3 below is an example of one of the claim stakes found on the property during the author’s site visit on May 7, 2023. The stake is the location monument for claim number LVL#5.

 

 

Figure 4.3 – An example of one of the claim stakes found on the property May 7, 2023.

 

 

5.	Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography

 

Moab, Utah, the nearest population center to the property, is a city of 5,336 persons (2020 Census). It is located in a relatively remote portion of Utah but is easily accessed by U. S. Highway 191. Highway 191 intersects with Interstate 70 about 30 miles (48 kilometers) north of Moab, at Crescent Junction. Moab is a tourist destination and has numerous motels and restaurants. Moab would also be the nearest source of labor in the region.

 

The region has a history of mining, primarily uranium and vanadium that dates back as far as 1881. The Lisbon Valley Copper Mine is in the heart of the Lisbon Valley and is currently producing copper cathode. An all-weather road and electric power supply the mine.

 

To access the property from Moab, travel south on Highway 191 for 25 miles (40 kilometers) to La Sal Junction. Turn east on State Highway 49. Travel 7 miles (11 kilometers) and turn south onto Highway 113. Go another 13 miles (21 kilometers) to the northeast corner of the property. A few gravel roads cross the property. Oil and gas drilling and production, along with ranching have made the area relatively accessible.

 

All the ABM claims fall between elevations of 6200 and 6900 feet (1890 and 2100 meters) above sea level.

 

It is anticipated that ABM will use a Direct Lithium Extraction (DLE) method rather than using evaporation ponds to recover the lithium and other potential mineral from brines, should the project advance to the production stage. The project should therefore have sufficient space on the ABM claims to construct processing facilities.

 

The vegetation of the region is sparse, mostly consisting of widely spaced low brush. Juniper and pinion trees are sparsely dispersed on the uplands and are more prevalent in the canyons. Much of the surface is bare rock. Topography is low to moderate but is often steep, or even vertical, where the thick Jurassic sandstone units are cut by the ephemeral streams. Figure 5.1 is a topographic map of the Lisbon Valley area with the ABM claim block superimposed. The contour interval on the map is 40 feet.

 

At present, ABM does not own water rights in the Lisbon Valley area. The company will need to obtain water rights and a source of fresh water to process the brines and extract lithium, should the property reach production.

 

 

 

Figure 5.1 – Topographic map underlying a plot of the ABM claim blocks. CI=40’.

 

The climate is arid, also termed “high desert”. Moab has average annual precipitation of 9.02 inches (229 mm). In July, the hottest month, it has an average high temperature of 99°F (37°C) and an average low temperature of 65°F (18°C). In January, the coldest month, it has an average high temperature of 43°F (6°C) and an average low of 20°F (-7°C) (Source: Wikipedia.com). The chart below is a graphic representation of the Moab average temperatures (Source: www.usclimatedata.com). The climatic conditions allow for fieldwork to continue throughout the year.

 

 

 

The Paradox Basin covers a large portion of the central part of the Colorado Plateau. The landscape is dominated by thick sections of mostly red Jurassic sandstones cut by streams and rivers into deep, steep-sided canyons. Mattox (1968) describes the Paradox Basin in the following way:

 

“The Paradox Basin, here defined as being that area in southeastern Utah and southwestern Colorado that is underlain by saline strata of Pennsylvanian age, has an aerial extent of approximately 1,000 square miles. The climate is essentially arid over much of the basin, the only exceptions being in the Abajo and La Sal Mountains. The vegetation is sparse except in the mountains, where there are heavy stands of timber. The Colorado River traverses the basin, and it and some of its tributaries are permanent streams; in general, however, the streams of the area are ephemeral, and flash flooding is a characteristic phenomenon of their flow.”

 

 

Figure 5.2 - Climate data for Moab, Utah.

 

 

6.

History

 

The Paradox Basin initially attracted attention because of high lithium values reported in the literature in brines recovered from oil and gas exploration wells. The Paradox Basin has been explored for oil and gas for many years (Durgin, 2011). The earliest discoveries of potash in the area were made in 1924 in oil and gas wells, but the correlation of the beds and the extent and richness of the deposits were not recognized until the 1950s. The Seven Mile, Salt Wash and White Cloud potash target areas, all west of Moab, were quickly identified. Further exploration led to the development of the Cane Creek potash mine adjacent to the Colorado River.

 

Brines were commonly encountered in these wells, but none of the wells was of economic significance for brine until in 1962 when the Southern Natural Gas Company drilled a well, Long Canyon Unit #1, which encountered a substantial flow of high-density brine at a depth of 6,013 feet (Durgin, 2011).

 

In 1964 the White Cloud #2 well was drilled by J.E. Roberts, 500 feet northeast of the Long Canyon #1 well, specifically for testing the “Brine Zone.” Brine was encountered at 6,013 feet and it was recorded that artesian brine flow was so strong that drilling had to be suspended after penetrating only 6 feet of the 28 foot pay zone. The hole was eventually deepened. Brine from the well was tested by a U. S. Geological Survey laboratory and was reported to contain 1700 ppm lithium (Gwynn, 2008). See note in table 8.20 relating to this reported value.

 

In 1953 Delhi Oil Corporation explored the Seven Mile area, seven miles NW of Moab, drilling 10 holes on one-half mile centers and identifying a substantial potash resource. In 1956 Delhi identified an excellent potash target at Cane Creek, nine miles south of the Seven Mile area. They drilled 7 test holes there and decided that the Cane Creek target was thicker and higher grade. In 1957 a wildcat oil hole 10 miles west of the Seven Mile area intersected a 16-foot-thick high grade potash bed at the same stratigraphic horizon as Cane Creek and Seven Mile.

 

In 1960 Texas Gulf Sulfur acquired the Delhi potash properties and was in full production from an underground mine by early in 1965. They announced that the Cane Creek potash bed was 11 feet thick and averaged 25 to 30% potash (Jackson, 1973). The Cane Creek mine, now owned by Intrepid Potash switched to solution mining and solar evaporative precipitation in 1971 and as of Intrepid’s 2020 annual report is still producing at a rate between 75,000 and 120,000 tons of potash per year. Its expected mine life is +100 years with proven and probable reserves at grades of 44.4% and 46.2% KCl, respectively.

 

 

Hite (1978) investigated the potash potential of the Lisbon Valley area in a USGS Open File Report. The analytical report has been the main impetus for the acquisition of the Lisbon Valley Lithium property. Hite examined the available data from oil and gas wells and the potash wells drilled into the Lisbon Valley oil field up until that time. He found significant potential for the development of a potash mine. In Hite’s report, he published the analytical results of a brine sample from the Superior Oil Co. Well Fed 88-21P. Table 6.1 lists the analytical results from Hite’s report and Figure 6.1 shows the location of Fed 88-21 in relation to the ABM claim block.

 

Table 6.1 - Chemical analysis of brine from the Superior Fed 88-21P well from Hite (1978).

 

Compound/Element	%	ppm
Na2O	9.24	92,400
K2O	2.91	29,100
Li2O	0.073	730
CaO	1.30	13,000
MgO	7.44	74,400
CO2	0.056	560
SO3	0.021	210
B2O3	0.84	8,400
P2O5	0.0009	9
Cl	19.44	194,400
Br	0.32	3,200
I	0.003	30

 

The analysis for lithium from the brine yielded a value of 0.073% Li₂O or 730 ppm. This converts to 340 ppm Li. The analysis also showed high values for other salts that could be recovered as byproducts of lithium production.

 

Unfortunately, at the time the brine sample was collected, it was uncertain which horizon was producing the brine flow. As Hite states:

 

“The stratigraphic position of the brine source could never be established even though the company cored continuously through the evaporites.”

 

 

If the well were to be re-entered, the different zones would need to be isolated and tested to establish which stratigraphic horizons produce brines with the highest lithium values. Based on the casing point and Superior 88-21 well’s total depth, the producing horizon lies between 2400 to 3500 feet below the ground surface.

 

Anson Resources, an Australian company operating in the United States as A1 Lithium Incorporated, has taken their project in the Paradox Basin to the Definitive Feasibility stage (See Section 13 – Adjacent Properties). To date, no lithium production has occurred in the Paradox Basin.

 

 

Figure 6.1 - Lisbon Valley Lithium claims in relation to the Superior Peterson Fed 88-21P well.

 

 

7. Geologic Setting and Mineralization

 

The Paradox Basin is an oval-shaped area located in southeastern Utah and southwestern Colorado that may be defined by the maximum extent of salt deposits in the Paradox Formation (formerly referred to as the Hermosa Formation of Middle Pennsylvanian age (Hite and others, 1984; Nuccio and Condon, 1996). The basin was primarily a Pennsylvanian and Permian feature that accumulated thick deposits of carbonate, halite, and clastic rocks in response to downwarping and uplift along its northeastern basin. The basin was later modified, largely due to the Laramide Orogeny 50 to 70 million years (Ma) ago. Today the basin has been eroded in places by uplift of the Colorado Plateau and downcutting by the Colorado River and its tributaries (Nuccio and Condon, 1996). Figure 7.1 shows the structural features in and surrounding the Paradox Basin.

 

 

 

Figure 7.1 - Structural elements of the Paradox Basin and adjacent areas (from Nuccio and Condon, 1996).

 

7.1	Stratigraphy

 

The Paradox Basin is composed of sedimentary rocks that overlie an Early Proterozoic basement of metamorphic gneiss and schist that is locally intruded by granite (Nuccio and Condon, 1996; Tweto,1987). A stratigraphic column of the basin is presented in Figure 7.2. Cambrian through Jurassic sedimentary rocks unconformably overlie the basement rock in much of the basin. Cretaceous rocks are also noted in the southeastern part of the basin.

 

 

The collision of the Laurentia and Gondwana super-continents in the Pennsylvanian and Permian affected the basin, as the Uncompahgre Plateau to the northeast experienced rapid and large-scale uplift as the northeastern side of the basin subsided. All Cambrian through Mississippian rocks were eroded from the plateau as well as some of the Precambrian rocks. Isopach maps in Nuccio and Condon (1996) show that as much as 12,000 feet of sediment accumulated in a trough to the southwest of the Uncompahgre Plateau during Pennsylvanian and Permian time. Deposits of the Pennsylvanian Period, in ascending order, include the Molas Formation, Hermosa Group, Paradox Formation, and Honaker Trail Formation. The Molas Formation is transitional from nonmarine to marine, with marine limestone deposited by the transgressive Middle Pennsylvanian sea.

 

The Middle and Upper Pennsylvanian Hermosa Group makes up most of the Pennsylvanian strata in the basin. From oldest to youngest, the Hermosa includes the Pinkerton Trail, Paradox, and Honaker Trail Formations (Wengerd and Metheny, 1958). The Pinkerton Trail Formation is composed of interbedded marine limestone and dark shale, deposited in shallow marine conditions of normal salinity.

 

The Paradox Formation, which is of primary interest to this study, contains dolomite, black shale, anhydrite, halite, and other salts. The lithium-rich brines of the Paradox Basin have all been derived from the Paradox Formation. Halite is the most abundant rock type, occurring in beds tens of feet thick. The black, dolomitic shale is the source rock of some of the oil and gas recovered in the basin. The Paradox was deposited in a series of cycles that represent repeated desiccation and marine flooding of the basin (Hite and Buchner, 1981). In the southwestern part of the basin, the Paradox Formation grades into shelf carbonates, including algal-mound deposits that have served as oil and gas reservoir rocks. In the easternmost part of the basin, the Paradox Formation cannot be differentiated. The black shales of the Paradox have been used as marker beds to correlate depositional cycles throughout the basin. The cycles have been grouped into larger zones, or “substages” (Barnes and others, 1967), or “production intervals” (Hite and others, 1984). Figure 6 is a correlation chart showing the stratigraphy across the Paradox Basin.

 

 

For references regarding the sedimentary units lying above the Hermosa Group, additional information can be found in Campbell (1980), Wengerd and Metheny (1958), Nuccio and Condon (1996), Huntoon (1992), Huntoon, et al (1994), Dubiel (1989), Stewart, et al (1972), Pipiringos and O’Sullivan (1978), Peterson and Turner-Peterson (1987), Turner and Fishman (1991), Molenaar (1981), Robinson (1972), McDonald (1972), Spieker (1949), Fouch (1976), and Fouch et al (1983).

 

Figure 7.2 below is the generalized stratigraphic nomenclature within the greater Paradox Basin area. North American series names have been added for the Mississippian, Pennsylvanian and Permian; however, there is not an intended exact respective match with the formations. Formations assigned to the Hermosa Group are after Rasmussen, D.L. and L. Rasmussen (2009) and Rasmussen (2014). The halite-and potash-bearing interval is marked by green shading. Regional unconformities are shown by the undulating line separating some formations and groups.

 

 

Figure 7.2 - Generalized stratigraphic nomenclature within the greater Paradox Basin area.

 

 

The ABM claims are underlain by Quaternary through Pennsylvanian sedimentary units. Figure 7.3 shows the surficial geology on and around the LVL claim block.

 

 

Figure 7.3 - Geologic map of the LVL claim area outlined in red. Modified after Doelling (2002).

 

 

 

7.2

Structure

 

The primary structure in the area of the ABM claims is the Lisbon Valley Anticline. The Lisbon Valley Anticline was originally identified by gravity anomaly in 1959 (Figure 7.5a) and later supported by 2D seismic surveys and subsurface mapping using available oil and gas well data. The structure is a 4-way anticlinal closure that is cut by a large listric normal fault on its northeast side by the NW/SE trending, down to the northeast, Lisbon Valley Fault (shown in Figure 7.3). The Lisbon Valley Fault zone can be traced on the surface (northwest and southeast trend) for a distance of 41 miles (66 km). The fault and anticline are the result of salt tectonics prevalent in the Paradox Basin (Hite, 1978). Bedding and dip of the Paradox and younger sedimentary rocks generally conform to the structure map presented in Figure 7.5a, showing the top of salt. On the crest of the anticline, salt dissolution has occurred in the upper salt members and salt/clastics zones are highly folded and, in some cases, faulted with increasing depth. Figure 7.4 is a cross section across the NW flank of the Lisbon Valley Anticline showing Robert Hite’s interpretation of the intense structural deformation caused by salt flowage (from Hite 1978). It is important to note that the ABM claims sit on the southeast flank of the Lisbon Valley Anticline where deformation is less prevalent, and individual beds are mappable. Salt is typically encountered between 2200 and 2500 feet below ground level and is generally 6500’ thick in vicinity of the ABM claims area.

 

 

 

Figure 7.4 – W-E Cross section through the Lisbon Oil field on the north flank of the Lisbon Valley Anticline.

 

 

7.3	Geophysics

 

No geophysical surveys have been conducted by ABM on the property. There are numerous 2D seismic lines and a single 3D seismic survey in the vicinity of the ABM claims that may be purchased, but these have not been pursued at this point in time.

 

A published study (Byerly and Joesting, 1959) included a gravity survey across Lisbon Valley. The three and two-dimensional survey results are shown in Figures 7.5a and 7.5b. The gravity anomalies are caused by density contrasts and changes in thickness of the evaporites in the Paradox Formation relative to the other intrabasement rocks. In general, these early geophysical results match up very well to standard subsurface mapping using formation tops identified in the later oil and gas well logs. (Section 9 – Exploration).

 

 

 

Figure 7.5a - Three-dimensional analysis of the Lisbon Valley gravity anomaly (Byerly and Joesting, 1959).

 

 

 

Figure 7.6b – Two-dimensional analysis of the Lisbon Valley gravity anomaly (Byerly and Joesting, 1959).

 

 

8.	Deposit Types

 

There is currently no known production of lithium from the Paradox Basin. The deposit model and exploration target for the Lisbon Lithium Project is very similar to the model defined by Anson Resources in the Paradox Basin to the northwest of ABM’s claim block (See Section 13 – Adjacent Properties). Anson, an Australian company, operating in the U. S. as A1 Lithium Incorporated, has defined a major lithium and bromine resource and has completed a Definitive Feasibility Study. ABM’s target deposit model is similar in all respects to that of Anson’s deposit.

 

In the Paradox Basin the lithium-rich brines occur in the “saline facies” of the Paradox Member of the Hermosa Formation of Pennsylvanian age and are totally in the subsurface. The “saline facies” of the Paradox Formation is composed of at least 29 evaporite cycles. Many of the cycles are potash-bearing and there is an active potash mine in the basin. Each cycle, if complete, consists of, in ascending order, (1) limestone, (2) dolomite, (3) anhydrite, and (4) halite with or without potash salts. The sequence is then repeated in a reverse order of (3) anhydrite, (2) dolomite, and (1) limestone to complete the cycle. Units 1, 2 and 3 of each cycle include some clastic material that is commonly euxinic black shale, mudstone, and siltstone. A complete vertical succession in any one cycle is not everywhere present because of a lateral gradation from a hypersaline or saline facies in the basin deep to a limestone facies on the basin shelf. Thus, in the basin deep, only units 3 and 4 may be present, while at some point intermediate between the basin deep and basin shelf all units may be present, and the vertical succession is complete (Hite, 1961).

 

Halite (NaCl), anhydrite (CaSO₄), carnallite (KMgCl₃·6H₂O), and sylvite (KCl) are the most common evaporite minerals in the Paradox Formation. Halite is the most common salt, totaling over ten thousand feet of thickness in some wells (Mayhew and Heylman, 1966). Anhydrite is also common in dolomite and black shale in the clastic breaks that separate the salt beds.

 

Depths to the base of the Paradox Formation range from 3,500 feet to over 15,000 feet, depending on the structure and the topographic location (Mayhew and Heylman, 1965). The Paradox Formation is almost entirely in the subsurface, coming to surface only in some salt-cored anticlines in the eastern part of the area, but these are not known to contain lithium-rich brines. As previously noted in section 7.2 (Structure) of this report, the top of salt is generally encountered between 2200 and 2500 feet below ground level in the vicinity of the ABM claims.

 

 

The method of extraction of the lithium from the brines is foreseen to be by Direct Lithium Extraction (DLE) and reinjection of the processed brine back into the subsurface. This method has been gaining favor in the lithium industry over the last several years because it does not involve the use of evaporation ponds. DLE uses a much smaller footprint than evaporation ponds and is therefore more acceptable from an environmental standpoint. As yet, ABM has not done any testing for the possibility of using DLE and will not be able to do any testing until samples of brine are acquired from the target formations.

 

8.1

Brines

 

The brines were not considered important until 1962, when Southern Natural Gas intersected the brine zone and a very substantial flow of brines under tremendous pressure. A second well was drilled 500 feet (152 meters) northeast of the first well and encountered flows estimated to be in excess of 50,000 barrels of brine per day. The brine was at a temperature of 145°F (62.8°C).

 

Many of the early oil and gas wells drilled into the brine zones encountered over-pressured brines and some well blowouts resulted. There are several instances of wells with shut-in pressures between 3,000 and 4,000 psi. The brines tend to be super saturated with a large area of the basin reporting more than 400,000 ppm total dissolved solids (40% solids). In addition to lithium, there is potential to produce other minerals from the brines, including magnesium, boron, bromine and potassium salts. There is also potential for the production of oil and gas.

 

Partial analyses are available from over 200 brine samples taken from wells in southeastern Utah (Mayhew and Heylman, 1965). Analyses from 17 wells are recorded below (Tables 8.1-8.20). As can be seen, the composition of the brines varies considerably in the different parts of the basin. Most of the wells are somewhat distant from the LVL claims but are important in that they show some of the levels of the different elements in the brines found in the Paradox Formation. Brine analyses shown in these tables are not necessarily indicative of brines to be tested from beneath the ABM claims.

 

 

Table 8.1 - Amerada Petroleum No. 2 Green River

 

Section 2, T22S, R16E, Grand County, Paradox Formation. Analysis by California Testing Laboratories.

 

Compound	Concentration, ppm
Bicarbonate	919
Borate	2,362
Calcium	76,176
Carbonate	0
Chloride	249,600
Magnesium	9,484
Sodium	58,301
Sulfate	49
Silica	10
Total solids	397,061
pH	6.3

 

Table 8.2 - British-American No. 1 Gov’t.-Norwood

 

Section 15, T40S, R22E., San Juan County, Paradox Formation, Desert Creek zone, 5802-5812 feet. Analysis by Core Laboratories.

 

Compound	Concentration, ppm
Barium	0
Bicarbonate	220
Calcium	25,600
Carbonate	0
Chloride	171,820
Magnesium	2,916
Sodium	78,513
Sulfate	4,185
Total Solids	283,402
pH	5.0
Specific Gravity (70ºF)	1.17

 

 

Table 8.3 - California Oil No. 1, Navajo 177

 

Section 3, T40S, R24E, San Juan County, Paradox Formation, 5612-1622 feet. Analysis by Chemical and Geological Laboratories.

 

Compound	Concentration, ppm
Bicarbonate	255
Calcium	24,200
Carbonate	0
Chloride	182,000
Magnesium	5,073
Sodium	80,872
Sulfate	286
Total solids	304,500
pH	5.4
Specific Gravity (70ºF)	1.18

 

 

Table 8.4 - Delhi-Taylor No. 2, Seven Mile

 

Section 18, T25S, R21E, Grand Cony. Paradox Formation (From Hite, 1963).

 

Compound	Concentration, ppm
Aluminum	66
Ammonia	849
Bicarbonate	1,010
Boron	660
Bromine	3,080
Calcium	52,700
Chloride	241,000
Copper	6
Fluorine	25
Iodine	42
Iron	750
Lead	6
Lithium	66
Magnesium	39,200
Manganese	260
Potassium	18,800
Sodium	5,990
Sulfate	4
Zinc	60
Total solids	366,000

 

 

Table 8.5 - Humble No. 1 Rustler Dome

 

Section 4, R29, R20E, San Juan County. Mississippian 4905-5076 feet. Analysis by Core Laboratories.

 

Compound	Concentration, ppm
Calcium	12,000
Chloride	208,740
Magnesium	4,860
Sodium	115,335
Sulfate	6,770
Total solids	348,681
pH	5.0
Specific Gravity	1.2

 

 

Table 8.6 - King Oil No. 2 Big Flat

 

Section 11, T26S, R19E, Grand County. Paradox Formation, 6196-6220 feet. Analysis by Chemical and Geological Laboratories.

 

Compound	Concentration, ppm
Ammonia	1,330
Borate (B4O7)	2,922
Bromine	1,150
Calcium	40,742
Chloride	259,106
Lithium	173
Magnesium	47,789
Potassium	41,957
Sodium	25,966
Sulfate	754
Total solids	421,889

 

Table 8.7 - Pure Oil No. 1 Hobson-USA

 

Section 30, T26S, R20E, Grand County. Paradox Formation, 5425-5435 feet. Analysis by Ethyl Corporation.

 

Compound	Concentration, ppm
Boron	1,260
Bromine	1,612
Calcium	55,740
Chlorine	249,300
Lithium	134
Magnesium	31,350
Potassium	25,500
Sodium	22,000
Strontium	1,300
Sulfate	23

 

 

Table 8.8 - Pure Oil No. 1 Hobson-USA

 

Section 30, T26S, R20E, Grand County. Paradox Formation. Analysis of solids collected from tubing. Analysis by Titanium Metals.

 

Compound	Concentration, (%)
Boron	0.19%
Bromine	3.42
Calcium	1.23
Chloride	70.70
Copper	0.001
Iron	0.20
Lithium	0.002
Magnesium	1.20
Potassium	12.25
Sodium	10.60
Strontium	0.50
Sulfate	0.0

 

Table 8.9 - Pure Oil No. 2 Big Flat

 

Section 14, T26S, R19E, Grand County. Mississippian, approximately 7,200 feet.

 

Analysis by Ethyl Corporation.

 

Compound	Concentration, (ppm)
Boron	780
Bromine	2,041
Calcium	41,800
Chlorine	210,500
Lithium	81
Magnesium	33,100
Potassium	21,000
Sodium	9,100
Sulfate	31

 

 

Table 8.10 - Roberts Brine Well

 

Section 9, T26S, R20E, Grand County. Paradox Formation (sample collected from drippage at well head). Analysis by Ford Chemical Laboratories.

 

Compound	Concentration, (ppm)
Bicarbonate	0
Boron	20,000
Bromine	2,500
Calcium	3,000
Carbonate	200
Chlorine	53,000
Iodine	450
Magnesium	34,000
Phosphate	15
Potassium	33,000
Sodium	43,000
Sulfate	500
Total solids	250,000
pH	6.1

 

 

Table 8.11 - Southern Natural No. 1 Long Canyon

 

Section 9, T26S, R20E, Grand County. Paradox Formation, Cane Marker, 7050-7075 feet. Brine produced with oil, collected from separator. Analysis by Ford Chemical Laboratory.

 

Compound	Concentration, (ppm)
Bicarbonate	1,600
Boron	600
Bromine	3,000
Calcium	34,000
Carbonate	2,200
Chloride	45,000
Iodine	300
Magnesium	21,000
Phosphate	2,000
Potassium	20,000
Sodium	13,000
Sulfate	1,800
Total solids	388,000
pH	4.8

 

 

Table 8.12 - Southern Natural No. 1 Long Canyon

 

Section 9, T26S, R20E, Grand County. Paradox Formation, clastic zone 31. Analysis by U.S. Geological Survey.

 

Compound	Concentration, (ppm)
Bicarbonate	1,400
Bromine	6,100
Calcium	65,800
Chloride	29,800
Lithium	500
Magnesium	45,500
Nitrate	6
Potassium	23,400
Rubidium	700
Sodium	9,800
Sulfate	80
Total solids	439,000
pH	6.0
Specific Gravity (24ºC)	1.37

 

Table 8.13 - Suburban Storage No. 1

 

Section 26, T25S, R21E, Grand County. Paradox Formation. Sample taken from zone in which storage cavity was washed. This zone includes one bed of sylvite and one bed of carnallite.

 

Compound	Concentration, (ppm)
Bicarbonate	110
Calcium	648
Carbonate	0
Chloride	182,730
Magnesium	1,388
Potassium	7,460
Sodium	116,923
Total solids	322,059
Specific Gravity (60ºF)	1.21

 

 

Table 8.14 - Superior No. 22-34 Salt Wash

 

Section 34, T22S, R17E, Grand County. Mississippian, 10,053-10,173 feet. Analysis by Superior Oil Company.

 

Compound	Concentration, (ppm)
Bicarbonate	169
Calcium	5,563
Carbonate	0
Chloride	152,698
Magnesium	1,383
Sodium & Potassium	90,949
Sulfate	1,768
Total solids	251,719
pH	6.7
Specific Gravity (60ºF)	1.18

 

Table 8.15 - Superior No. 14-5 Bowknot

 

Section 5, T26S, R17E, Emery County. Mississippian, 6,270-6,350 feet. Analysis by Core Laboratories.

 

Compound	Concentration, (ppm)
Barium	0
Bicarbonate	146
Calcium	240
Carbonate	0
Chloride	171,820
Magnesium	266
Sodium	110,004
Sulfate	240
Total solids	283,720
pH	5.0

 

 

Table 8.16 - Texaco No. 2 Navajo AC

 

Section 34, T40 S, R26 E, San Juan County. Paradox Formation (Ismay zone). Analysis by Core Laboratories.

 

Compound	Concentration, (ppm)
Barium	0
Bicarbonate	488
Calcium	3,600
Carbonate	0
Chloride	205,900
Iron	0
Magnesium	7,533
Sodium	115,455
Sulfate	200
Total Solids	333,176
pH	4.5
Specific Gravity (66ºF)	1.13

 

Table 8.17 - Texaco No. 1 Smoot (Salt Wash field)

 

Section 17, T23S, R17E, Grand County. Mississippian, 8785-8876 feet. Analysis by Rocky Mountain Engineering Company.

 

Compound	Concentration, (ppm)
Bicarbonate	951
Calcium	2,865
Carbonate	0
Chloride	190,640
Magnesium	1,801
Sodium	119,418
Sulfate	4,320
Total Solids	324,656
pH	6.0
Specific Gravity (70ºF)	1.14

 

 

Table 8.18 - Tidewater No. 74-11 Big Flat

 

Section 11, T26S, R19E, Grand County. Paradox Formation, interval 5920-5950. Analysis by Chemical and Geological Laboratories.

 

Compound	Concentration, (ppm)
Bicarbonate	890
Calcium	32,900
Chloride	132,810
Magnesium	23,800
Sodium & Potassium	36,283
Sulfate	323
Total Solids	338,952
pH	5.7

 

Table 8.19 - Tidewater No. 74-11 Big Flat

 

Section 11, T26S, R19E, Grand County. Paradox Formation, clastic zone 31. Analysis by U.S. Geological Survey.

 

Compound	Concentration, (%)
Calcium Chloride	11.36
Magnesium Chloride	15.31
Potassium Chloride	4.32
Total Chloride	22.40
Total Sulfate	0.04

 

 

Table 8.20 - White Cloud #2 (aka. Roberts Brine Well)

 

Section 9, T26S, R20E Grand County. Analysis by the U. S. Geological Survey (Gwynn, 2008).

 

Compound	Concentration, (ppm)
Sodium	28,500
Potassium	47,000
Lithium	1,700*
Calcium	46,700
Magnesium	43,600
Total Halides as Chorine	184,200
Specific Gravity (23ºC)	1,282

 

*

According to a website release by the TRU Group (trugroup.com), the 1,700 ppm Li value quoted above for the White Cloud #2 well brine is incorrect. They present evidence from unpublished sources that the value is off by a factor of 10 and the actual value should be 170 ppm Li.

 

 

8.2 Wells Located on the Subject Property

 

Seven oil and gas wells have been drilled on the property now held by ABM according to records of the Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining. Unfortunately, no analyses of the brines from these wells have been found in the literature. Six of the wells have been plugged and abandoned. One well is being used as a water disposal well. The seven wells are:

 

Table 8.21 - Oil & gas wells drilled within the LVL claim block.

 

						Location
								1/4		Elev		Year		Year		Current
API		Drilled By		Well Name		Sec		Sec		(ft)		Drilled		(ft)		Status
43-037-30029		Union Oil		Little Valley Federal #1		18		SWSE		6318		1969		9100		P&A
43-037-30464		Cordillera Corp		Federal 1-20		20		NENE		6750		1980		9555		Disposal
43-037-15768		Pubco Petroleum		Lisbon Federal 2-21F		21		SENW		6864		1961		9560		P&A
43-037-30436		Mesa Petroleum		Lisbon Federal 21-3		21		NWNE		6710		1978		9953		P&A
43-037-10944		Pubco Petroleum		Lisbon Federal 3-27C		27		NENW		6679		1962		9580		P&A
43-037-10807		Pacific Natural Gas		Little Valley #1		28		SWNW		6521		1963		9712		P&A
43-037-10808		Pacific Natural Gas		Little Valley #2		29		SESE		6528		1964		8964		P&A
43-037-10667		Lone Star Producing		Federal Utah A-1		18		NENE		6676		1966		10328		P&A

 

All the wells are in Township 30S, Range 25E of the Salt Lake Principal Meridian except the Lone Star well located in Township 31S, Range 26E of the Salt Lake Principal Meridian. The Superior Fed 88-21P Well does not appear in this table since it was not drilled for oil and gas, but for potash. Data for potash exploration are not posted by the Utah Geological Survey. The locations of the oil and gas wells occurring on the ABM claims are shown in Figure 8.1.

 

 

 

 

Figure 8.1 – Oil and gas wells occurring on the ABM claims.

 

 

9. Exploration

 

There has been no exploration conducted on the property by ABM or its predecessors other than the gathering and assimilation of data from all available sources.

 

A thorough review of 40 historic well files and corresponding well log data was conducted in the fall and winter of 2022-2023. Formation tops were picked in 23 of the available 40 wells that penetrated some or all of the Paradox salts/clastics and/or the Leadville Limestone. Nearly one third of the wells did not penetrate the salts/clastics. Figure 9.1 is a stratigraphic column and type log using the Southern Natural Gas Long Canyon #1 well as an example. This well does not occur within the ABM claims area. It only serves as an example of the stratigraphic section present throughout most of the Paradox Basin. Structure contour maps of the zones have been generated but are currently proprietary. The primary targets include Clastic Zones 17 and 31, as well as the Leadville Limestone. These zones have been shown by historical records and recent production to have free flowing brines with high lithium concentrations – above 200 ppm Li.

 

Secondary targets are Clastic Zones 19, 29, 33, and 39. These zones have been recently identified by Anson Resources’ drilling and testing (see Section 13 on Adjacent Properties) to contain supersaturated brines with elevated lithium concentrations.

 

 

 

Figure 9.1 – Stratigraphic column and type log for the units showing (Pennsylvanian) clastic and salt section (Mayhew and Heylmann 1965).

 

 

10. Drilling

 

No drilling has been conducted by ABM or its predecessors. Drilling has been conducted by oil and gas and by potash interests on and in the area surrounding the LVL claims, which has provided much of the information for this report. ABM is in the process of permitting 2 appraisal wells in Lisbon Valley. Assuming no significant delays are encountered during the review process, the wells will be scheduled for drilling as early as 2023Q4 and 2024Q1. It is important to note that two historical wells within or in close proximity to the claims block took kicks and presumably encountered high pressure brines or gases during drilling or coring operations within the clastic/salt sections. The Superior 88-21 Federal in Section 21 T 30S and R25E (discussed in section 6)  encountered a high-pressure brine between 2500 and 3400 feet measured depth and the Pure Oil Spiller Canyon #1 in Section 16, T30S and R 25E (less than 1500 feet from northern claim boundary) encountered high pressure while drilling the Cane Creek Marker (Clastic 43) at 4700 feet measured depth. The chemistry of the brine from the Superior 88-21 well is discussed further in this report. There is no sample data reported from the Pure Oil Spiller Canyon #1 well.

 

 

11. Sample Preparation, Analyses and Security

 

No sampling has been conducted by ABM or its predecessors. No information is available concerning the procedures used by the oil and gas or potash companies for sample preparation, analytical techniques or security for the lithium analyses stated in this report.

 

 

12. Data Verification

 

Data used in this report is mostly from published information and, in a few cases, from unpublished sources. Where possible, the author and the other experts have made efforts to verify the sources of the data.

 

 

13. Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing

 

No metallurgical testing has been conducted by ABM and none can be conducted until brine samples can be collected from wells drilled or re-entered on the subject property. The summary below shows some aspects of the anticipated type of processing envisioned by ABM for extraction of lithium and possibly other commodities from the brines. ABM’s technical team and third-party consultants are reviewing and pursuing available technologies based on the water chemistry from the Superior Oil Company Peterson 88-21 Federal well referenced in Table 6.1

 

The use of open ponds for evaporation and concentration of lithium brines is nominally inexpensive, however, the evaporation process is time consuming, land intensive and wasteful of water. The development of new brine resources from undeveloped lithium brine deposits is likely to meet significant environmental and social barriers to implementation, particularly in the US, and evaporation ponds are not considered environmentally sustainable.

 

Over the past decade many direct lithium extraction (DLE) technologies have arisen due to intense research and economic drive to separate lithium from other ions in a feed solution. These processes can involve organic and inorganic sorption reagents based on polymers, membranes, manganese, titanium, or aluminum oxides and form the backbone of DLE extraction technologies. These materials are utilized in DLE projects in China and Argentina to extract lithium from geological brines. Many of these projects have come online over the past 10 years and have been operating successfully producing battery grade lithium materials. It is estimated that approximately 12% of the world’s lithium supply in 2019 was produced using direct lithium extraction technology.

 

Direct lithium extraction from a brine relies on the ability of a material to “pluck” lithium ions out of a complex geochemical soup, while leaving all other salts and metals in solution. Shown in Figure 13.1 is a typical process flow diagram for a DLE process. DLE technologies are broadly grouped into three main categories: adsorption, ion exchange, and solvent extraction.

 

 

 

 

Figure 13.1 - Process flow diagram of a typical lithium extraction process.

 

●

Adsorption physically absorbs LiCl molecules onto the surface of a sorbent from a lithium loaded solution. The lithium is then stripped from the surface of the sorbent with water.

 

●

Ion exchange takes lithium ions from the solution and replaces them with a different positively charged cation that is contained in the sorbent material. An acidic (or basic) solution is required to strip the lithium from the material and regenerate the sorbent material.

 

●

Solvent extraction removes lithium ions from solution by contacting the solution with an immiscible fluid (i.e., oil or kerosene) that contains a extractant that attaches to lithium ions and brings them into the immiscible fluid. The lithium is then stripped from the fluid with water or chemical treatment.

 

Regardless of the method, the product is a solution of LiCl which is concentrated and processed into the final battery grade lithium compounds (LiOH∙H₂O or Li₂CO₃) upon the addition of electricity or chemical inputs.

 

 

It is recognized that direct lithium extraction will have higher upfront capital costs than evaporation ponds. A technoeconomic analysis (Warren, 2021) of several brine projects was published in 2021 evaluating several DLE projects. These projects had submitted a Preliminary Economic Assessments (PEA) to Canadian stock exchanges or a Pre-Feasibility Studies (PFS) to Australian stock exchanges (public availability determined by company boards of directors). The range of brine types and lithium extraction processes reviewed herein the report suggest an OPEX near $4,000/mt lithium carbonate equivalent (LCE) is achievable with modeled prices assumed to be >$11,000/mt Li₂CO₃ and >$12,267/mt LiOH·H₂O.

 

Evaporative technology is 22.5 m³ and 50 m³ per tonne Li₂CO₃ for Salar de Atacama and Salar de Olaroz, respectively (Orocobre, 2021) (SQM, 2022). With this as a reference, Livent, which has an active DLE production in the Salar del Hombre Muerto since 1996 does not report its freshwater usage. The overall water use of the entire facility is reported as 71 m³ per tonne Li₂CO₃. (Livent, 2021) The freshwater requirements will be assessed and could change depending on the different methods/materials and if water is recovered during the DLE process.

 

 

14. Adjacent Properties

 

There is no known lithium production in the Paradox Basin. The Cane Creek potash mine is located 32 miles (51 kilometers) northwest of the LVL claim group. The mine has been operating since 1965, initially as an underground room and pillar style mine. It was converted to a solution mining operation in 1970. It currently produces 700 to 1000 tons per day of potash from the same sedimentary units that underly ABM’s project. The author has not verified the information about the Cane Creek potash mine and the mineralization reported at the mine is not necessarily indicative of mineralization found on the property that is the subject of this report.

 

Anson Resources, an Australian company whose properties are primarily west of Moab, Utah, has been active over the past few years in the Paradox Basin. Anson has re-entered four abandoned oil and gas wells and performed extensive testing of the wells’ brine recovery performance and methods for recovering the lithium and bromine from the brines. According to their website, www.ansonresources.com , they have completed a Definitive Feasibility Study (DFS) on September 8, 2022, and have identified substantial indicated and inferred resources of Lithium Carbonate Equivalent (LCE) and Bromine (Br2) as shown in Table 13.1.

 

Table 14.1 – Anson Resources announced resources from their DFS.

 

					Contained
				Contained LCE	Br2
Category	Brine (Mt)	Li (ppm)	Br (ppm)	(’000t)	(’000t)
Indicated	530	123	3,474	346	1,840
Inferred	1,038	125	3,308	692	3,434

 

The financial highlights of the DFS were announced as:

 

Table 14.2 – Financial highlights from the Anson Resources DFS.

 

Scenario	Pre-Tax (USD)			Post-Tax (USD)
	NPV (7%)		IRR	NPV (7%)		IRR
Base Case	$1,306m		47%	$922m		37%

 

These calculations do not take into account the potential replenishment of the brine zones.

 

 

In 2022, Anson Resources reported flow rates from Clastic Zone 31 on the order of 4000 BSWPD with lithium concentrations of 183 and 216 ppm (respectively); from one-hour tests of Skyline Unit 2 and Long Canyon #2 wells; Anson also reported formation porosities of 20% and tests indicating greater than 1500 mD permeabilities. Given the tight nature of the zones, fracture porosity is strongly indicated. Both wells offset the Southern Natural Gas Long Canyon #1. The Clastic 31 zone is present and mappable in the ABM claims area and is located at shallower depths compared to Cane Creek and Big Flat fields in Grand County to the north of Lisbon Valley where the highest known Li Concentration of 500 ppm occurred from the Southern Natural Gas Long Canyon #1 well.

 

The location of ABM’s property relative to Anson’s and the Cane Creek Potash Mine is shown in Figure 13.1.

 

The author of the report herein has been unable to verify the information in the Anson Resources announcement and the mineralization is not necessarily indicative of the mineralization on the property that is the subject of this technical report.

 

 

 

 

Figure 14.1 – The location of ABM’s Lisbon Lithium Project relative to Anson’s project and the Cane Creek Potash Mine.

 

 

15. Other Relevant Data and Information

 

There are no other relevant data and information that must be presented at this time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

16. Interpretation and Conclusions

 

There is abundant evidence from oil, gas and potash wells drilled in the Paradox Basin that indicates that there is a high probability of identifying and producing super saturated brines from beneath the ABM property position. The geology of the area of the ABM claims and of the Paradox Basin as a whole is quite complex although zones that have been targeted and proven by Anson Resources exist and they are mappable within and beyond the claims area. It is not likely that the same zones vary significantly in terms of reservoir quality and thickness as evidenced by log analysis, however these parameters have not been confirmed by actual testing by ABM. Given the extensive folding in vicinity of the Lisbon Valley Dome formation, it is believed but not yet confirmed that fracture porosity and permeability may be enhanced within the clastic zones that underly the current claims position.

 

The only way to determine if the lithium enriched brines exist and can be economically produced from the target zones is to drill exploration wells to produce and test brine from the targeted zones. American Battery Materials intends to drill two exploratory/appraisal wells within its claims position and is currently waiting permit approval. The estimated spud dates for the two wells is expected to be 6-12 months for this report’s effective date.

 

From the author’s review of the data, it is believed that there is a substantial indication that lithium mineralization in brines occurs beneath the subject property. The existing evidence is based on ABM’s well log analysis and the Hite (1978) study, as well as a substantial number of other studies with lithium analyses from the Paradox Basin. Hite’s report presents a geologically sound picture of the potential brine target. The occurrence of the Superior Fed 88-21P well within the ABM claim block and the recorded lithium value in the Hite study are strong incentives to pursue the exploration effort. There is also substantial evidence that other valuable minerals besides lithium, such as potassium, magnesium, calcium chloride, iodine, bromine and boron, may be recoverable from the brines, as well.

 

 

The abandoned/existing oil well re-entry and brine testing program by Anson Resources has resulted in that company’s Definitive Feasibility Study. The same stratigraphic units have been shown to exist beneath the ABM land position and there is clear evidence from Hite (1978) that the brines in the Paradox Formation contain high lithium concentrations. These are considered to be evidence that the Lisbon Lithium project has potential to become an economically viable undertaking. It is anticipated that the target grades and tonnages for the Lisbon Lithium Project will be similar to those reported by Anson Resources, i.e., approximately 1 billion tonnes of brine at +100 ppm Li for a potential 1 million tonnes of LCE. As in the case with Anson Resources and their anticipated recovery of bromine, other elements and salts may well be economically recoverable.

 

 

17. Recommendations

 

It is recommended that ABM drill and complete two appraisal wells and perform comprehensive testing on key horizons within the Paradox clastic members and Leadville (Mississippian) Limestone. Individual formations should be evaluated for overall reservoir quality, bottom hole pressures and flow rates from conventional completions. Any extracted brines should be tested to determine lithium and other important mineral concentrations and to prove the economic viability of a pilot and permanent production program. The company has identified an appraisal and development program that is proprietary. This information will be disclosed in an advanced technical report after the appraisal wells are drilled and individual zones are identified and fully evaluated. ABM has retained a third-party consulting firm to assist with drilling, completion, and review of test results for the two appraisal wells.

 

 

18. References

 

Byerly, P. Edward and Joesting, H. R., 1959, Investigations of the Lisbon Valley Area, Utah and Colorado, USGS Professional Paper 316-C, p. 39-50.

 

Doelling, Hellmut H., 2002, Geologic map of the Moab and eastern part of the San Rafael Desert 30’ X 60’ quadrangles, Grand and Emery Counties, Utah, and Mesa County, Colorado: Utah Geol. Surv. Geologic Map 180.

 

Durgin, Dana, 2011, Technical Report, Geology and Mineral Resources, Green Energy Project, Grand County, Utah, USA, 34 p.

 

Gwynn, Wally, 2008, Various Reports and Letters Regarding the White Cloud Property, Grand County, Utah, Utah Geologic Survey files, 67 pages.

 

Hintze, L.F., 1974, Geologic Map of Utah: Brigham Young University Geology Studies— Special Publication 2.

 

Hite, R.J., 1961, Potash-bearing Evaporite Cycles in the Salt Anticlines of the Paradox Basin, Colorado and Utah: U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 424-D, p. D135-D138.

 

Hite, R.J., 1978, The Geology of the Lisbon Valley Potash Deposits, San Juan County, Utah: U. S. Geological Survey Open File Report 78-148.

 

Hite, R.J., and Buchner, D.H., 1981, Stratigraphic correlations, facies concepts, and cyclicity in Pennsylvanian rocks of the Paradox Basin, in Wiegand, D.L., ed., Geology of the Paradox Basin: Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists Guidebook, p. 147-159.

 

Hite, R.J., Anders, D.E., and Ging, T.G., 1984, Organic–rich source rocks of Pennsylvanian age in the Paradox Basin of Utah and Colorado, in Woodward, Jane, Meissner, F.F., and Clayton, J.L., eds., Hydrocarbon source rocks of the Greater Rocky Mountain Region: Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists Guidebook, p. 255-274.

 

Hite, R.J., 1961, Potash-bearing evaporite cycles in the salt anticlines of the Paradox Basin, Colorado, and Utah: U.S. Geological Survey Prof. Paper 424-D, p. D135-D138.

 

Kelley, V.C., 1958, Tectonics of the region of the Paradox Basin: Intermountain Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Guidebook, 9th Annual Field Conference, p. 31-38.

 

 

Livent, 2021, Sustainability Report: Retrieved from https://livent.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Livent_2021SustainabilityReport-English.pdf

 

Mattox, R. B. 1968, Salt Anticline Field Area, Paradox Basin, Colorado and Utah: Geol. Soc. Of America Special Paper 88, pp. 5-16.

 

Mayhew, E.J., and Heylman, E.B., 1965, Concentrated Subsurface Bines in the Moab Region, Utah: in Special Studies 13, Utah Geological and Mineralogical Survey, 30 p.

 

_____, 1966, Complex Salts and Brines of the Paradox Basin: in Jon L. Rau, Editor, Second Symposium on Salt, Vol. One, The Northern Ohio Geological Society, Inc., Cleveland, Ohio, p. 221-235.

 

Munk, LeeAnn and Chamberlain, C. Page, 2011, Final Technical Report: G10AP00056 – Lithium Brine Resources: A Predictive Exploration Model: USGS Mineral Resources External Research Program.

 

Munk, LeeAnn; Hynek, Scott A.; Bradley, Dwight C.; Boutt, David; Labay, Keith; and Jochens, Hillary, 2016: Soc. of Econ. Geol., Reviews in Econ. Geol, V. 18, pp. 339-365.

 

Nuccio, V.F., and Condon, S.M., 1996, Burial and Thermal History of the Paradox Basin, Utah and Colorado, and Petroleum Potential of the Middle Pennsylvanian Paradox Formation: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 2000-O, p. O1-O41.

 

Orocobre, 2021, Sustainability Report: Retrieved from https://www.orocobre.com/wp/?mdocs-file=7259.

 

Pipiringos, G.N., and O’Sullivan, R.B., 1978, Principal unconformities in Triassic and Jurassic rocks, Western Interior United States; a preliminary survey: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1035-A, 29 p.

 

Rasmussen, L., and Rasmussen, D.L., 2009, Burial history analysis of the Pennsylvanian petroleum system in the deep Paradox Basin Fold and Fault Belt, Colorado and Utah, in Houston, W.S., Wray, L.L., and Moreland, P.G., editors, The Paradox Basin revisited—new developments in petroleum systems and basin analysis: Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists Special Publication, p. 24-94.

 

 

Rasmussen, D.L., 2014, Namakiers in Triassic and Permian formations in the Paradox Basin (USA) with comparisons to modern examples in the Zagros Fold Belt, Iran, in MacLean, J.S., Biek, R.F., and Huntoon, J.E., editors, Geology of Utah’s Far South: Utah Geological Association Publication 43, p. 689-756.

 

Severy, C.L., Kline, M.H., and Allsman, P.T, 1949, Investigations of the Thompson magnesium well: U.S. Bureau of Mines Rept. Inv. 4496.

 

Spanjurs, Raymond P., 2015, Inferred Resource Estimate of Lithium, Clayton Valley South Project, Clayton Valley, Esmeralda County, Nevada, USA: Technical Report for NI 43-101, Prepared on Behalf of Pure Energy Minerals Ltd.

 

SQM, 2022, Sustainability report: Retrieved from https://www.sqmlithium.com/en/nosotros/producion-sustentable/.

 

Stewart, J.H., Poole, F.G., and Wilson, R.F., 1972, Stratigraphy and origin of the Triassic Moenkopi Formation and related strata in the Colorado Plateau region: U.S. Geological Survey Prof. Paper 691, 195 p.

 

Tweto, Ogden, 1987, Rock units of the Precambrian basement in Colorado: U.S.Geological Survey Prof. Paper 1321-A, 54 p.

 

Warren, I., 2021, Techno-economic analysis of lithium extraction from geothermal brines, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden CO: NREL/TP-5700-79178.Wengerd, S.A., and Metheny, M.L., 1958, Pennsylvanian System of Four Corners region: Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Bull., v. 42, p. 2048-2106.

 

 

19. Certificate of the Author

 

I, Bradley C. Peek, MSc., CPG do hereby certify that:

 

1.

I am currently employed as a Consulting Geologist at 438 Stagecoach Lane, NewCastle, Colorado 81647, USA

 

2.

This certificate applies to the Technical Report titled “ABM Lisbon Lithium Project, San Juan County, Utah, USA” with the effective date July 6, 2023 (the “Technical Report”).

 

3.

I graduated in 1970 from the University of Nebraska with a Bachelor of Science degree in Geology and in 1975 from the University of Alaska with a Master of Science degree in Geology.

 

4.

I am a member in good standing with the Society of Economic Geologists and the American Institute of Professional Geologists (Certified Professional Geologist #11299).

 

5.

I have continuously practiced my profession for 52 years in the areas of mineral exploration and geology. I have explored copper, lead, zinc, silver and gold in 10 states of the USA and 8 foreign countries. I managed a waterflood oilfield in Oklahoma in the 1980s. I have spent most of 2016 through 2023 exploring for lithium deposits in the USA, including in the Clayton Valley, Nevada and in the Paradox Basin of Utah.

 

6.

I visited the American Battery Materials Lisbon Lithium Project area most recently on May 7, 2023, and on several occasion prior to that date, having lived in Moab, UT from 2006 to 2010 and consulted for the Lisbon Valley Copper Mine in 2007.

 

7.

I wrote the report entitled “ABM Lisbon Lithium Project, San Juan County, Utah, USA” and take full responsibility for all sections of the report, including the conclusions reached and the recommendations made.

 

8.

I am independent of American Battery Materials Inc. and hold no stock in the company.

 

9.

I have had no prior involvement with the property that is the subject of the Technical Report Summary.

 

10.

I have read the definition of “Qualified Person” set out in 17 CFR 229.1300 and certify that by reason of my education, professional affiliation, and past relevant work experience, I fulfill the requirement to be an independent qualified person for the purposes of this Technical Report Summary.

 

11.

I have read the SME Guide for Reporting Exploration Information, Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves and believe the report has been prepared in compliance with the Guide.

 

	Bradley C. Peek, CPG	/s/ Bradley C. Peek
	438 Stage Coach Lane	Dated: July 6, 2023
	New Castle, Colorado 81647, USA

 

 

20. Consent of Competent Person

 

I, Bradley C. Peek, consent to the disclosure of the information in the Technical Report Summary, ABM Lisbon Lithium Project, San Juan County, Utah, USA that is dated July 6, 2023 and confirm that the information for which I am responsible is based on, and fairly and accurately reflects, in the form and context in which it appears, the information in my supporting documentation relating to the exploration information.

 

Dated this 6th  Day of July 2023
/s/ Bradley C. Peek

 

American Institute of Professional Geologists, CPG # 11299

Bradley C. Peek

 

 

 

 

Exhibit 99.2

 

INVESTOR PRESENTATION | July 2023 | v6.0.0 Extracting American Lithium OTC: BLTH

Safe Harbor The statements contained in this presentation that are not historical facts are forward - looking statements as defined in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 . Words such as “may”, “will”, “could”, “should”, “expect”, “plan”, “project”, “intend”, “anticipate”, “believe”, “estimate”, “predict”, “potential”, “pursuant,” “target”, “continue”, and similar expressions are intended to identify such forward - looking statements . Statements herein that are not historical statements, including statements regarding ABM’s plans, objectives, opportunities, future financial performance and operating results and any other statements regarding ABM’s future expectations, beliefs, plans, objectives, financial conditions, assumptions or future events or performance (including, without limitation, the proposed business combination with Seaport Global Acquisition II Corp . and ABM’s ability to consummate the transaction, the benefits of the transaction and the combined company’s future financial performance) that are not historical facts, are forward - looking statements within the meaning of the federal securities laws . These statements are not guarantees of future performance and are subject to numerous risks, uncertainties, and assumptions, many of which are beyond ABM’s control, and which could cause actual results to differ materially from the results expressed or implied by these statements . These statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions that are difficult to predict, and include, without limitation, results of litigation, settlements and investigations ; actions by third parties, including governmental agencies ; volatility in customer spending ; global economic conditions ; ability to hire and retain personnel ; loss of, or reduction in business with, key customers ; difficulty with growth and integration of acquisitions ; product liability ; cybersecurity risk ; anti - takeover measures in our charter documents ; and, the uncertainties created by the ongoing impact of COVID - 19 . These and other important risk factors are described more fully in our reports and other documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“the SEC”), including under (i) “Part I, Item 1 A . Risk Factors”, in our Annual Report on Form 10 - K for the year - ending December 31 , 2022 filed with the SEC on April 21 , 2023 ; and, (ii) subsequent filings . Undue reliance should not be placed on the forward - looking statements herein, which are based on information available to us on the date hereof . Except as otherwise required by applicable law, we undertake no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward - looking statements, whether because of new information, future events, or otherwise . This presentation contains additional trade names, trademarks, and service marks of others, which are the property of their respective owners . ABM does not intend its use or display of other companies’ trade names, trademarks, or service marks to imply a relationship with, or endorsement, or sponsorship by, those other companies . © 2023 American Battery Materials, Inc . OTC: BLTH | 2

Investment Highlights Market opportunity Comparable Differentiation Financial Highlights Management Team Global Opportunity A U.S.A. asset on 14,260 acres of super - saturated 340+ ppm Lithium brine in Utah’s mineral rich Paradox Basin using an environmentally friendly direct lithium extraction process (DLE) An underleveraged company that operates in an industry with low extraction costs and capital expenditures Positioned with a jurisdictional and extraction process advantage that allows access to both the U.S critical mineral supply chain as well as all other global markets. Defining a faster time to market with assets located in state & federal mining zoned districts that includes access to an existing energy and logistical Infrastructure. Leadership team of experienced natural resource extraction, geological engineering and global commodity logistics executives and operators, with a track record of de - risking through strategic & government partnerships. OTC: BLTH | 3

An environmentally responsible minerals exploration and development company • Focused on direct lithium extraction (DLE ) and other minerals critical to the global energy transition • Spearheading the effort to domestically support the U.S.’s urgent need for critical minerals Corporate Overview 743 mineral rights on 14,260 acres with 8 wells and existing infrastructure in Utah Technical reports indicate assets are mineral rich with supersaturated lithium brines Li DLE reduces the industry’s environmental footprint Expert team with 100+ years of oil, gas & mineral extraction and drilling experience OTC: BLTH | 4

Lithium Demand is Far Outpacing Supply Global Lithium Supply & Demand 1 Kilotons lithium carbonate equivalent OTC: BLTH | 5 0 2015 2020 2025 2030 1 Mined production volume. Forecasted potential production accounts for historical utilization rates as a result of external disruptions and economic curtailments (7%) – modeled at 93% of available capacity. Production includes volumes which may not have been refined, including stockpiled direct shipping ore and spodumene concentrate. Source: MineSpans; McKinsey lithium demand model 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 Demand, high case Demand, base case Unannounced supply Secondary supply Confirmed supply Additional early - stage supply Despite an abundance of rich domestic sources, the US is almost entirely dependent on foreign sources of lithium. Transformation to a clean energy economy requires U.S. lithium independence. What the data shows is that we are at just the beginning of a generational challenge, not one that’s going to be solved in the 2020s.” - Simon Moores, CEO, Benchmark

Global Lithium Market Pricing 1 Prices for 2010 - 2021 are annual averages from the U.S. Geological Survey. Prices for 2022 is from S&P Global Commodity Insights on May 4,2022. Chart: Canary Media | Source: U.S. Geological Survey Lithium Carbonate DDP China Yuan/mt spot price in January 2023 up nearly 550% from March 2021. $41,727 (July 2023) 1,2 Battery - grade lithium prices continue to rise driven by strong electric vehicle (EV) demand Governments are phasing out internal combustion engines in favor of EVs, resulting in increased demand for metals needed to produce EV batteries Even with increased lithium carbonate production, supply is expected to fall woefully short of demand in coming years Global lithium pricing expected to normalize after a period of fluctuating market speculation, however, demand is expected to grossly outstrip supply Lithium Prices Continue To Rise Price of battery - grade lithium carbonate per metric ton USD OTC: BLTH | 6 1 Fastmarkets , Battery material price data 2 Tradingeconomics.com price data …and, for minerals such as lithium and graphite used in electric vehicle (EV) batteries, demand will increase as much as 4,000 percent.” – Tesla Chairwoman Robyn Denholm $0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 As the world transitions to a clean energy economy, global demand for these critical minerals is set to skyrocket by 400 - 600 percent over the next several decades… 2023

3. U.S . 4. Finland 5. Norway 6. Germany 7. South Korea 8. Sweden 9. Japan 10. Australia 11. France 12. U.K. 13. Czechia 14. Poland 15. Hungary 1. China 2. Canada The U.S. Domestic Lithium Supply Crisis Chart: BloombergNEF. The U.S. is 2 nd in global battery demand, but only 6 th in raw materials necessary to provide the supply American dependency on foreign lithium has reached crisis levels The U.S. government has mandated that it extracts itself from foreign supply dependency The U.S. currently produces less than 5% of the global lithium supply No U.S. company is at production level using ESG friendly direct lithium extraction methods New EV rebates require minimum U.S. sourced lithium quantities to be used in the manufacturing of batteries CA, NY, and VA are the first states to require that all new cars sold in 2035 be electric vehicles is strongly positioned to meet the required U.S. Li production with proven mineral rich assets in southern Utah 6 9 18 21 17 21 13 2 24 26 23 24 26 1 3 4 15 10 6 2 9 3 15 10 15 10 5 6 1 8 16 2 1 4 10 3 8 9 5 7 11 15 13 17 6 5 1 3 7 6 2 12 13 10 8 11 16 14 9 4 2 11 7 2 5 8 8 11 5 4 18 15 20 1 10 Country (Overall Ranking) Raw Materials Battery Manufacturing ESG BNEF 2022 global lithium - ion battery supply chain ranking Industry, Innovation & Infrastructure Downstream Demand OTC: BLTH | 7

Recent Industry Transactions Mergers & Acquisitions • Lithium Americas (LAC) acquires 100% of Millennial Lithium for $482MM • SZZL SPAC merges with European Lithium. $750MM to the equity to the asset. Date • January 2022 • October 2022 Off - Take transactions • European Lithium / Critical Minerals & BMW. $15MM • Piedmont Lithium & Tesla Tons • 50,000 TPA • 125,000 tons (SC6) Financings • LG Chem invests in Piedmont Lithium (PLL). • GM makes $600mm equity investment in Lithium Americas. • Anson Resources issues US $35mm common stock • Lilac Solutions raises $150mm valuation – BMW Valuation • $1.2B • $3B • US $250MM • $450MM pre - $ • Lilac Solutions • Piedmont Lithium • Albermarle US DOE & DOD grants Amount • $50MM • $141.7MM • $150MM Off - Take Transactions US DOE & DOD grants Tons Valuations Amount Volume and Scale of growth opportunity demonstrated by recent industry moves Mergers & Acquisitions Date Financing OTC: BLTH | 8

Growth & Development Strategy Acquisition Geo/Entry study Permitting Site Drill SK - 1300 report. Extraction Pilot Production PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PHASE 5 PHASE 4 2023 Launching project in the early stages of a global lithium super cycle forecasted to expand significantly for 20+ years Partner with leading brine extraction (DLE) technologies that are fastest into production, most efficient, cost effective and can deliver at the highest extraction rates Become a vertically integrated, leading service provider for the critical mineral extraction process for owners Continue the acquisition, exploration and extraction of significant US lithium resources in historically proven territories. OTC: BLTH | 9

Lisbon Valley, Utah DLE Project Mining process currently accounts for roughly half the carbon footprint of a battery cell and the best way to reduce the carbon footprint of minerals is to stop shipping them across 9,000 kilometers of ocean before refining them.” - Tesla Chairwoman Robyn Denholm OTC: BLTH | 10

Flagship Lithium DLE Project DLE mitigates environmental concerns relating to lithium extraction Technical reports show Paradox Basin supersaturated brines of 500 ppm Li (2661 ppm LCE) Li Developed infrastructure, including high voltage electrical, roads and access to rail lines Located in Eastern Utah consisting of 743 mineral rights across 14,260 Acres of Federal land, including 8 existing re - entry well candidates Historical data shows supersaturated brine (40% minerals, 60% water) with reported Lithium values ranging from 81 to 500ppm and estimated flows 2,000 - 4,000 barrels of daily production brine per well Lisbon Valley, Utah OTC: BLTH | 11 ABM’s property position consists of 743 placer mining claims staked in one contiguous group on U.S. Government lands administered by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

Project location The Uniquely - Positioned Paradox Basin With over 300+ climate friendly days and a fully developed infrastructure, the Paradox Basin is one of the most attractive places in the U.S. for a successful and efficient extraction process. 25 miles southwest of Moab Not adjacent to any national parks or recreational sites Area is a mix of federal, state and private lands High desert climate with year - round access Historically rich industrial and natural resource extraction area OTC: BLTH | 12

Lisbon Assets Technical Report The brines were not thought to be important until 1962, when Southern Natural Gas intersected the brine zone with a very substantial flow of brines under tremendous pressure . There is abundant evidence from oil and gas and potash wells drilled in the Paradox Basin that indicate that there is a high probability of intersecting super saturated brines . It is believed that there is a substantial indication that lithium mineralization in brines occurs beneath the subject property . There is also substantial evidence that other valuable minerals besides lithium, such as potassium, magnesium, calcium chloride, bromine and boron, may be recoverable from the brines, as well. – Prepared by Peek Consulting, Inc. July 6, 2023 ppm % Compound/Element 92,400 9.24 Na 2 O 29,100 2.91 K 2 O 730 0.073 Li 2 O 13,000 1.30 CaO 74,400 7.44 MgO 560 0.056 CO 2 210 0.021 SO 3 8,400 0.84 B 2 O 3 9 0.0009 P 2 O 5 194,400 19.44 Cl 3,200 0.32 Br 30 0.003 I Specific Gravity 60/60 ƒ F = 1.261 pH = 5.5 Target compounds/minerals OTC: BLTH | 13

Geotech Engineering & The Lisbon Valley ABM has retained RESPEC Company LLC as its geotech, engineering and resource management partner to assist in the exploration and development of its Lisbon Valley properties . RESPEC provides services to the energy industries from grassroots exploration to operating mine settings. Project focus is directed on services, drill program design, full procurement drilling and well completion to various brine and disposal projects. OTC: BLTH | 14 With more than 50 years of experience in service to the extraction, mining and oil and gas market worldwide, RESPEC has performed extensive geological and engineering work in the Paradox Basin stratigraphy.

Positioned as a Lower Risk Industry Profile Infrastructure Geology Permitting Time to Market Market Demand • Utah based project meets both U.S. critical mineral and Global requirements • Fully developed infrastructure for logistical and energy needs • USGS open file report data confirm brines of 340ppm+ Lithium • Access to both State and Federal lands in a mining zone 60 + miles from National parks • DLE Brine with smaller footprint, capex and permitting requirements OTC: BLTH | 15 1. https:// www.grandviewresearch.com/industry - analysis/lithium - marketUS • US Li CAGR is 11.9% 1 through 2030 • Electrical, Gas, Solar and Wind power available • Paradox Basin is a proven Li geological resource • Utah is a historically pro - mining state that fully supports extraction of natural resources • ABM permitting process has started with the completion of archeological studies

Direct Li Extraction & the American Environment DLE offers significant promise of increasing supply, reducing the industry’s environmental, social, and governance (ESG) footprint, and lowering costs, with already announced capacity contributing to around 10 percent of the 2030 lithium supply, as well as to other less advanced projects in the pipeline.” – McKinsey & Company OTC: BLTH | 16

DLE vs. Traditional Lithium Mining ABM will deploy DLE in selective brine extraction to provide a cost - effective, efficient, faster - to - production, and significantly more environmentally friendly method versus traditional mining practices. American dependency on foreign lithium has reached crisis levels. DLE addresses this critical need without destroying the earth. Direct Lithium Extraction (DLE) Traditional Lithium mining faces major hurdles with important considerations of environmental damage, regulatory issues, controversial mining practices and territorial litigation. The environmental toll has often been overlooked in part because there is a race underway among the United States, China, Europe and other major powers.” – NYTimes Underground brine Conventional evaporation ponds (~2 years) ABM Direct Lithium Extraction (DLE) (~2 h) Li2CO3 Mg/Ca removal Boron removal LiCl ESG OTC: BLTH | 17

The Engineering Behind DLE Targeting Highly Efficient Direct Lithium Extraction (DLE) Technology ABM is evaluating leading DLE technology companies • The most technologically advanced approach for DLE from brines is adsorption of lithium using inorganic sorbents • Extraction of lithium with inorganic molecular sieve ion - exchange sorbents appears to offer one of the most immediate pathways for the development of economic lithium extraction Competitive advantages of the technology • Reduced impurities – by over 99% • Rapid and high recovery • Low energy consumption • No evaporation • Lower water consumption • Not weather dependent • Smaller environmental footprint Extraction of brine Re - injection of lithium deprived brine Li Salts Saline Aquifer Produced Brine Components Direct Lithium Extraction Lithium Injection well Production well x x F e F e N a N a L i M g C a S i S i M g C a S N i a M L g i C a F e L L L i i i L i F e N a M g C a S i Lithium deprived spent brine Pumping of native brine Saline Aquifer Non - evaporitic Extractive Method X Solar Panel OTC: BLTH | 18

DLE lowers greenhouse gas emissions, leaving a substantially lower carbon footprint than traditional extraction methods DLE reduces the land requirements by over 97% when compared to evaporation and hard - rock projects DLE reduces waste production with no tailings, ponds or open pits, and returns 100% of the brine brought to the surface to similar depths in a closed loop system DLE extracts brackish water far below the water table and with salinity levels that significantly exceed any acceptable levels for human or animal consumption DLE reduces the overall amount of time needed for the lithium extraction process DLE removes the need for large fresh water sources Environmental & Economic Advantages of DLE Closed Loop DLE Production from geothermal deposits could be the holy grail of sustainable lithium production, providing both clean geothermal energy and a source of lithium. Fastmarkets estimates put 168 ktpa LCE of geothermal capacity in the pipeline, with potential for a further 280 ktpa LCE from one project alone.” – Fastmarkets OTC: BLTH | 19

Accelerated Time to Market with DLE Potential aggregate delay Extraction process Infrastructure buildout Permit acquisition process Land Acquisition 7 - 12 6 - 9 3 - 4 Crustal Project Spod - umene Project Brine Project This significant advantage in positioning will allow ABM to select the very best of developing technology in brine extraction, leading to cost and production efficiencies . This ultimately allows ABM to shorten its time to market over other resource - heavy mining projects, pointing to an anticipated shorter return on investment. ABM is positioned far ahead of new and developing lithium projects, including area selection, permitting and partner selection. ABM has the significant advantage of being one of the first to market with a U.S. brine that is available for DLE brine extraction pilot programs. DLE extraction methods have successfully been utilized in other industries such as Water Treatment and Oil Waste for decades. Est. Project Length in Years 8 - 15 OTC: BLTH | 20

Management & Advisory Team Sebastian Lux Co - CEO | MBA, MSAS 25 years in business dev. with multinational companies; Co - founded Genuine Origin, a division of Volcafe & ED&F Man; Created multiple disruptive international logistic commodity supply chains. Agustin Cabo Director of Finance | CFA, MBA Chartered Financial Analyst with 13 years of experience in finance across equity research, investment management, corporate finance and accounting. Scott Avanzino COO | MS Geology Oil and gas development and marine construction expert with 25 years of experience in exploration geology, wellsite operations, marine logistics and operations. Brad Peek Geologist | MS Geology |Qualified Person 35 years experience in project management, mineral exploration and in computer applications in mineral exploration and mining and water engineering - qualified person. Ryan Zarkesh DLE Chemist | PhD inorganic Chemistry 20 years expert in inorganic and DLE process chemistry. Previously Co - Founder and Dir. of Chemistry of of Lilac Solutions where he developed materials and manufacturing processes for the lithium mining industry. David Graber Co - CEO | Chairman | MBA Managing Principal of Cobrador Capital, LLC,. He was Managing Director, Invest. Banking at New Century Capital Partners and National Securities Corporation, Sr. VP and Director at Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette and Credit Suisse First Boston OTC: BLTH | 21

Board of Directors Adam Lipson MD Neuroscience Managing partner as a neurosurgeon at IGEA Brain, Spine & Orthopedics in New York City and New Jersey. He has over a decade of experience as a private investor in over 20 biotechnology and biomedical device companies Justin Vorwerk MBA, AB Economics Has held positions as a Managing Director in Investment Banking with Goldman Sachs, The Royal Bank of Scotland, Deutsche Bank Securities, as well as Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette, and Credit Suisse. FINRA Series 7,63,24 Dylan Glenn Senior Director At Eldridge Partners. former Chairman of Guggenheim KBBO Dubai. Special Assistant to President George W. Bush on economic policy. Former Director Renewable Energy Group now a division of Chevron David Graber MBA Managing Principal of Cobrador Capital, LLC,. He was Managing Director, Invest. Banking at New Century Capital Partners and National Securities Corporation, Sr. VP and Director at Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette and Credit Suisse First Boston Andrew Suckling MA Non - Executive Chairman of Cadence Minerals the Non - Executive Director of Macarthur Minerals and a board member of the privately held company, IronMan Ltd. Jared Levinthal J.D. Attorney, Partner with Lightfoot Franklin & White, PLLC in Houston, Texas . Mr . Levinthal is a graduate of the University of Texas School of Law and is a graduate of Tulane University . Sebastian Lux MBA, MSAS, AB Economics 25 years in business dev. with multinational companies; Co - founded Genuine Origin, a division of Volcafe & ED&F Man; Created multiple disruptive international logistic commodity supply chains. OTC: BLTH | 22

Upcoming Milestones for Corporate Actions Recent Key Accomplishments Acquired the rights to 743 federal mining claims in the Lisbon Valley of Utah . Completed SK1300 compliant technical report. Signed agreement to merge with Seaport Global Acquisition II Corp. (NASDAQ: SGII). Eliminated over $11MM of debt through note conversions. Completed name and symbol change. Milestones for Next 6 - Months Up - list to OTC QB. Uplist to NASDAQ through closing of merger with SGII. Begin application process for federal loan programs. Pursue off - take partner. Complete drill permits for exploration wells. Actively pursue additional land & project acquisitions. Milestones Beyond Next 6 - Months Meet exploratory well drilling objectives. Complete 43 - 101/SK - 1300. Begin permitting process for phase one facility. Finalize drill programs and initiate extraction operations. Select DLE extraction partner with potential for a Joint Venture. OTC: BLTH | 23

OTC: BLTH (July 21, 2023) Share Price $0.014 Market Cap $46.226M Avg. Volume (3 month avg.) 1.0M Cash Balance $650,000 Debt $500,000 3,301,910,170 Shares: Issued & Outstanding 159,000,000 Unexercised Warrants (85%* owned by insiders) 0 Options Granted 3,687,483,646 Fully Diluted 65% Insider & Key Stakeholder Ownership Financial & Share Structure OTC: BLTH | 24

Investment Highlights Market opportunity Comparable Differentiation Financial Highlights Management Team Global Opportunity A U.S.A. asset on 14,260 acres of super - saturated 340+ ppm Lithium brine in Utah’s mineral rich Paradox Basin using an environmentally friendly direct lithium extraction process (DLE) An underleveraged company that operates in an industry with low extraction costs and capital expenditures Positioned with a jurisdictional and extraction process advantage that allows access to both the U.S critical mineral supply chain as well as all other global markets. Defining a faster time to market with assets located in state & federal mining zoned districts that includes access to an existing energy and logistical Infrastructure. Leadership team of experienced natural resource extraction, geological engineering and global commodity logistics executives and operators, with a track record of de - risking through strategic & government partnerships. OTC: BLTH | 25

OTC: BLTH | 26 Company +1 - 800 - 998 - 7962 IR@AmericanBatteryMaterials.com Investor Relations Brooks Hamilton MZ North America +1 - 949 - 546 - 6326 ABM@mzgroup.us americanbatterymaterials.com 500 West Putnam Avenue | Suite 400 Greenwich, CT 06831| USA

Exhibit 99.3

 

 

 

AMERICAN BATTERY MATERIALS ACQUIRES SUBSTANTIAL MINING CLAIMS TO INCREASE DOMESTIC PRODUCTION OF LITHIUM

 

Company Releases Updated Technical Report Detailing Claim Expansion to 14,300 Acres

 

GREENWICH, Conn., July 24, 2023 -- American Battery Materials, Inc. (OTC Pink: BLTH) (“ABM”, the “Company”), an environmentally responsible minerals exploration and development company focused on direct lithium extraction (DLE) and other critical minerals for the global energy transition, today announced that it has acquired and staked additional lithium mining claims adjacent to its Lisbon Valley Project, located in San Juan County, Utah.

 

The newly acquired mining claims expand ABM’s strategic land position to approximately 14,300 acres, a seven-fold increase from its current position of 2,000 acres. The Company’s actions follow the release of a new Technical Report Summary focused on ABM’s Lisbon Valley Project, highlighting the scope of the opportunity and progress toward direct lithium extraction.

 

“The results of our latest Technical Report Summary validated our belief that there are substantial lithium deposits in brine to be extracted from the Lisbon Valley,” said Sebastian Lux, Co-Chief Executive Officer of ABM. “Expanding access to lithium deposits further diversifies our portfolio and represents a critical step in the pursuit of our mission to become a leader in the commercial production of lithium in the U.S. Our continued investment and progress on our strategic roadmap reflect our commitment to creating shareholder value while providing domestic support for our country’s initiative for a green future.”

 

The new claims have been registered with the Bureau of Land Management. ABM now holds a total of 743 placer claims over 14,320 acres, comprised of (i) the 102 original claims held by ABM; and, (ii) the 641 new claims. ABM will continue to seek additional opportunities to increase its claims, properties, and projects.

 

Proposed Business Combination

 

On June 2, 2023, ABM and Seaport Global Acquisition II Corp. (NASDAQ: SGII) (“SGII”), a publicly-listed special purpose acquisition company, announced the signing of a definitive merger agreement for a business combination (the “Proposed Business Combination”) that will result in ABM becoming a wholly-owned subsidiary of SGII. The combined company is expected to be renamed “American Battery Materials Holdings”, and its common stock and warrants are expected to be listed on the Nasdaq Global Market (“Nasdaq”).

 

About American Battery Materials, Inc.  

 

American Battery Materials, Inc., (OTC Pink: BLTH), is a U.S.-based environmentally responsible critical minerals exploration and development company focused on Direct Lithium Extraction (DLE) as well as other minerals for refining, processing, and distribution to support the country’s urgent critical minerals need to bolster long-term energy transition and the electrification of the US domestic and global economy. For more information, visit www.americanbatterymaterials.com. The information contained on, or that may be accessed through, this website is not incorporated by reference into, and is not a part of, this communication.

 

To receive American Battery Materials, Inc. company updates via email, visit the Contact page of our web site, www.americanbatterymaterials.com/contact.

 

About Seaport Global Acquisition II Corp.

 

Seaport Global Acquisition II Corp. is a blank check company formed for the purpose of effecting a merger, capital stock exchange, asset acquisition, stock purchase, reorganization or similar business combination with one or more businesses. Although SGII’s efforts to identify a prospective business combination opportunity will not be limited to a particular industry, it intends to focus on companies undergoing transformational, transitional, or reorganizational business strategies.

 

Additional Information about the Proposed Business Combination and Where to Find It

 

In connection with the Proposed Business Combination, SGII intends to file a preliminary and definitive proxy statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). SGII’s stockholders and other interested persons are advised to read, when available, the registration statement on Form S-4, which will include a proxy statement/prospectus of SGII (“the S-4”), as well as other documents filed with the SEC in connection with the Proposed Business Combination, as these materials will contain important information about ABM, SGII and the Proposed Business Combination. When available, the S-4 will be mailed to stockholders of SGII as of a record date to be established for voting on, among other things, the Proposed Business Combination. Stockholders will also be able to obtain copies of the S-4 and other documents filed with the SEC that will be incorporated by reference therein, without charge, once available, at the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov. The information contained on, or that may be accessed through, the websites referenced in this communication is not incorporated by reference into, and is not a part of, this communication.

 

Participants in Solicitation

 

SGII and its respective directors and executive officers may be deemed participants in the solicitation of proxies from SGII’s stockholders in connection with the Proposed Business Combination. SGII’s and ABM’s stockholders and other interested persons may obtain, without charge, more detailed information regarding the directors and officers of SGII and ABM in SGII’s Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the SEC on April 4, 2023 and ABM’s Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the SEC on April 21, 2023. Information regarding the persons who may, under SEC rules, be deemed participants in the solicitation of proxies to SGII stockholders in connection with the Proposed Business Combination will be set forth in the proxy statement for the Proposed Business Combination when available. Additional information regarding the interests of participants in the solicitation of proxies in connection with the Proposed Business Combination will be included in the Form S-4 that SGII intends to file with the SEC.

 

 

Forward Looking Statements

 

This press release includes certain statements that are not historical facts but are forward-looking statements for purposes of the safe harbor provisions under the United States Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements generally are accompanied by words such as “believe,” “may,” “will,” “estimate,” “continue,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “expect,” “should,” “would,” “plan,” “predict,” “potential,” “seem,” “seek,” “future,” “outlook,” and similar expressions that predict or indicate future events or trends or that are not statements of historical matters. All statements, other than statements of present or historical fact included in this communication, regarding SGII’s Proposed Business Combination with ABM, SGII’s ability to consummate the transaction, the benefits of the transaction and the combined company’s future financial performance, as well as the combined company’s strategy, future operations, estimated financial position, estimated revenues and losses, projected costs, prospects, plans and objectives of management are forward-looking statements. These statements are based on various assumptions, whether or not identified in this communication, and on the current expectations of the respective management of SGII and ABM and are not predictions of actual performance. These forward-looking statements are provided for illustrative purposes only and are not intended to serve as, and must not be relied on as, a guarantee, an assurance, a prediction or a definitive statement of fact or probability. Actual events and circumstances are difficult or impossible to predict and will differ from assumptions. Many actual events and circumstances are beyond the control of SGII or ABM. Potential risks and uncertainties that could cause the actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied by forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, changes in domestic and foreign business, market, financial, political and legal conditions; the inability of the parties to successfully or timely consummate the business combination, including the risk that any regulatory approvals are not obtained, are delayed or are subject to unanticipated conditions that could adversely affect the combined company or the expected benefits of the business combination or that the approval of the stockholders of SGII or ABM is not obtained; failure to realize the anticipated benefits of business combination; risk relating to the uncertainty of the projected financial information with respect to ABM; the amount of redemption requests made by SGII’s stockholders; the overall level of consumer demand for lithium; general economic conditions and other factors affecting; disruption and volatility in the global currency, capital, and credit markets; ABM’s ability to implement its business and growth strategy; changes in governmental regulation, ABM’s exposure to litigation claims and other loss contingencies; disruptions and other impacts to ABM’s business, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and government actions and restrictive measures implemented in response, and as a result of the proposed transaction; ABM’s ability to comply with environmental regulations; competitive pressures from many sources, including those, having more experience and better financing; changes in technology that adversely affect demand for lithium compounds; the impact that global climate change trends may have on ABM and its potential mining operations; any breaches of, or interruptions in, SGII’s or ABM’s information systems; fluctuations in the price, availability and quality of electricity and other raw materials and contracted products as well as foreign currency fluctuations; changes in tax laws and liabilities, tariffs, legal, regulatory, political and economic risks.

 

More information on potential factors that could affect SGII’s or ABM’s financial results is included from time to time in SGII’s and ABM’s public reports filed with the SEC, including their Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, and Current Reports on Form 8-K as well as the S-4 that SGII plans to file with the SEC in connection with SGII’s solicitation of proxies for the meeting of stockholders to be held to approve, among other things, the proposed business combination. If any of these risks materialize or SGII’s or ABM’s assumptions prove incorrect, actual results could differ materially from the results implied by these forward-looking statements. There may be additional risks that neither SGII nor ABM presently know, or that SGII and ABM currently believe are immaterial, that could also cause actual results to differ from those contained in the forward-looking statements. In addition, forward-looking statements reflect SGII’s and ABM’s expectations, plans or forecasts of future events and views as of the date of this communication. SGII and ABM anticipate that subsequent events and developments will cause their assessments to change. However, while SGII and ABM may elect to update these forward-looking statements at some point in the future, SGII and ABM specifically disclaim any obligation to do so, except as required by law. These forward-looking statements should not be relied upon as representing SGII’s or ABM’s assessments as of any date subsequent to the date of this communication. Accordingly, undue reliance should not be placed upon the forward-looking statements.

 

No Offer or Solicitation

 

This communication shall neither constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any securities, nor shall there be any sale of securities in any jurisdiction in which the offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful prior to the registration or qualification under the securities laws of any such jurisdiction. This communication does not constitute a solicitation of a proxy, consent or authorization with respect to any securities or in respect of the Proposed Business Combination. No offering of securities shall be made except by means of a prospectus meeting the requirements of Section 10 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended from time-to-time, or an exemption therefrom.

 

Investor Relations Contacts:

 

American Battery Materials, Inc.

Investor Relations

Email: ir@americanbatterymaterials.com

Tel: (800) 998-7962

 

or

 

MZ Group

Michael Kim

(737) 289-0835

ABM@mzgroup.us

 

 

 

v3.23.2

Cover	Jul. 24, 2023
Cover [Abstract]
Document Type	8-K
Amendment Flag	false
Document Period End Date	Jul. 24, 2023
Entity File Number	001-41594
Entity Registrant Name	AMERICAN BATTERY MATERIALS, INC.
Entity Central Index Key	0001487718
Entity Tax Identification Number	22-3956444
Entity Incorporation, State or Country Code	DE
Entity Address, Address Line One	500 West Putnam Ave. Suite 400
Entity Address, City or Town	Greenwich
Entity Address, State or Province	CT
Entity Address, Postal Zip Code	06830
City Area Code	800
Local Phone Number	998-7962
Written Communications	true
Soliciting Material	false
Pre-commencement Tender Offer	false
Pre-commencement Issuer Tender Offer	false
Entity Emerging Growth Company	false

---