VISION LITHIUM FILES UPDATED PRELIMINARY ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT TECHNICAL REPORT FOR THE SIRMAC LITHIUM PROJECT

Original announcement by tmx on

Company
Vision Lithium Inc.
Ticker
VLI
Exchange
TSX
Region
Quebec
Primary commodity
Lithium
Secondary commodities
Tantalum
Document categories
Resource update, Other
Extracted
2026-09-13 06:58:42 UTC

Analysis by Minestarters Atlas

Minestarters Atlas analysis

Summary

Vision Lithium has filed an updated Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA) for its 100%-owned Sirmac Lithium Project in Quebec. The updated report highlights a pre-tax NPV of C$183.6M and an IRR of 839%, based on a 4-year mine life producing 321,000 tonnes of DSO at 1.33% Li2O.

Reasoning: The update to the PEA confirms strong economic indicators (NPV/IRR) for the Sirmac project, though it remains a preliminary study with a significant M&I component.

Positive factors

  • High IRR (839% pre-tax) and quick payback (<1 year)
  • Strong M&I resource component (85%)
  • Direct Shipping Ore (DSO) potential reduces processing complexity

Negative factors

  • PEA is preliminary in nature
  • Includes Inferred resources that are speculative

Facts used in scoring: 1

Classification and evidence

PEA-Supportingneutral

Resource estimate prepared to support a Preliminary Economic Assessment — early-stage study.

Why it applies: The document is an update to a Preliminary Economic Assessment technical report.

Evidence · text

“filed an updated technical report supporting the Preliminary Economic Assessment ("PEA")”

NI 43-101 Compliantpositive

Resource estimate prepared in compliance with NI 43-101 (Canada) — high reporting standard.

Why it applies: The report was prepared in accordance with NI 43-101 standards.

Evidence · text

“prepared in accordance with National Instrument 43-101”

QP/CP Signedpositive

Qualified Person (QP) or Competent Person (CP) named and signed off — a member of a recognized professional association (e.g., AusIMM, SME, AIG, P.Geo) with relevant experience.

Why it applies: Claude Duplessis and Daniel Dufort are named as Qualified Persons.

Evidence · text

“reviewed and approved by Claude Duplessis , P.Eng., and Daniel Dufort , P.Eng.”

Extracted facts

Stored fact records: 1. Some facts used in scoring do not have a stored record.

Resource Estimates (1)

indicatedlithiumTonnes: 321000Grade: 1.33Grade Unit: % Li2OView all details
Link to this fact

Identity

Commodity
lithium
Region
canada_qc
Reported Region
Quebec
Ticker
VLI

Resource scope

Estimate type
resource
Reporting standards
ni_43_101
Resource group id
resource:306ed966a30bfebabf8d
Ownership percent
100 %

Resource Data

Category
indicated
Tonnes
321000
Grade
1.33
Grade Unit
% Li2O

Review

Needs Review
No
Historical
No

Dates

Event date
2023-08-10T00:00:00.000Z

Reasoning: Reported grade for the PEA production scenario.

Positive factors

  • High grade for DSO operation

Evidence · text

“4 years of mine life with 321,000 tonnes of DSO at 1.33 % Li 2 O”

Tags used in scoring

Indicated Resourcepositive

Reasonable geological confidence based on adequate drilling; continuity can be assumed. Basis for Probable Reserves.

Why it applies: category is "indicated"

Cut-off Undisclosednegative

High-grade interval reported without stating the cut-off grade used for compositing.

Why it applies: no cutoff_grade was stated

NI 43-101 Compliantpositive

Resource estimate prepared in compliance with NI 43-101 (Canada) — high reporting standard.

Why it applies: reporting_standards includes ni_43_101

No Contained Metalnegative

Tonnage and grade reported but contained metal not calculated or disclosed — incomplete reporting.

Why it applies: contained_metal was not reported

PEA-Supportingneutral

Resource estimate prepared to support a Preliminary Economic Assessment — early-stage study.

Why it applies: the release names the study this estimate supports

How Atlas produces this analysis

Minestarters Atlas uses automated extraction to summarize mining announcements, identify reported measurements, and classify supporting evidence. Sentiment reflects the extracted narrative and classification rules; it is an interpretation, not a reported measurement. Evidence quotes and context are provided where available. Missing data, low-confidence results, and review flags indicate limitations. Check the original publisher announcement before relying on an interpretation.