Hi Melv, not an expert but here are are fewt houghtsThe amount...

 

Hi Melv, not an expert but here are are fewt houghtsThe amount oflithium in the reservoir is fixed.

 

Set asidethe relative permeability of the host sands for this comparison for which  Lake claims Kachi has an advantage

If tworeservoirs contain the same volume of brine but one has a  concentration of 350  mg/l and the other 700 mg/l then the pumpingcost per tonne of of contained Li for the “350” brine will be double the cost than the higher concentration

The nextstep is to recover the Lithium as carbonate or hydroxide

Usingevaporation ponds the recovery is 45% to 50%.  The Lilac process claims80% to 90%. So the same weight of Li would be recovered from 350 using Lilac asfrom 750 using evaporation ponds.

You are correctthat if evaporation ponds were no longer used worldwide the extraction of Li frombrine would double (The amount from hard rock would not change)

The Lilacprocess is only a part of the total line. It “collects” the Li onto "beads" using anion exchange process. The Li is “harvested” from the beads   furtherprocessing

The line envisaged by LKE incorporating the Lilac technology is NOT theonly process that eliminates evaporation ponds

In a previouspost I mentioned the Canadian  listed  Pure Energy Minerals brine project in the ClaytonValleyNevada (alsothe location of Anson Resources Paradox Lithium project). I noted the processingoperation developed by Italian Tenova (founded in Argentinacirca 1946)  with involvement of Frenchgiant SUEZ.

 

That line achieves the same result asthe line envisaged for Kacha - no evaporationponds, 80% - 90% recovery. 2-3 hours recovery instead of months.

 

The differenceis that the Tenova line separates  the Liwith membranes and solvent extraction . Lilac's ion exchange process is lesschemical intensive and subject to the cost of the beads and their"upkeep" would seem to be preferred and possibly less costly.

Note thatLlilac have largely relied on grants for their research and probably not be able tofinance the design of the entire line. The Tenova development partnerscontributed $600,000 for the design of their pilot line. SUEZ has the financial clout that Lilac doesnot

 

Lake will in any event have to contract an engineering organizationsuch as Tenova. Presumably the front end of the Pure Energy Minerals line couldbe dropped out and the Lilac “module “dropped in”if it fulfils expectations

 

The main pointis that it is NOT the end of the world if Lilac does not perform technically orfinancially.

 

It is improbable that Lakewill hold exclusive rights to the Lilac technology. Anson Mineral Resources(ASN) are also “partnering” Lilac and obtained their lithium hydroxide labsamples from Lilac shortly before Lake. Thre will be others.

 

These are the leads from my previous post to assist withyour own research         

 

Video  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFDzl4cMuG8

 

Technologyoverview  http://www.pureenergyminerals.com/technology-overview/

 

Projectoverview  http://www.pureenergyminerals.com/projects1

 

Pilotplant   (cost $600,000 plus)

http://www.pureenergyminerals.com/pure-energy-minerals-announces-completion-of-pilot-plant-basic-design-at-the-clayton-valley-lithium-project/

 

Tenova https://www.tenova.com/product/lithium-processing

Lilac  http://www.lilacsolutions.com/news/
 
Anson   http://www.mining.com/anson-resources-produces-first-lithium-hydroxide-utah-project/

Hope thathelps

 

Note I haveno technical expertise to support these observations.  Comment and corrections will be appreciated