Form 6-K Piedmont Lithium Ltd For: Jun 25

Exhibit	Description
99.1	Press Release

	Piedmont Lithium Limited
	(registrant)
Date: June 25, 2019	By:  /s/ Bruce Czachor
	Name: Bruce Czachor
	Title:   Vice President and General Counsel

Table 1:  Project Wide Mineral Resource Estimate for the Piedmont Lithium Project (0.4% cut-off)
Resource Category	Core property		Central property		Total
	Tonnes (Mt)	Grade (Li2O%)	Tonnes (Mt)	Grade (Li2O%)	Tonnes (Mt)	Grade (Li2O%)	Li2O (t)	LCE (t)
Indicated	12.5	1.13	1.41	1.38	13.9	1.16	161,000	398,000
Inferred	12.6	1.04	1.39	1.29	14.0	1.06	148,000	366,000
Total	25.1	1.09	2.80	1.34	27.9	1.11	309,000	764,000

Keith D. Phillips		Anastasios (Taso) Arima
President & CEO		Executive Director
T: +1 973 809 0505		+1 347 899 1522
E: [email protected]		E: [email protected]

Table 2:  Depth from Surface for the Core Mineral Resource Estimate (25.1Mt @ 1.09% Li2O)
Depth (from surface) (m)	Tonnes (Mt)	Percentage of Resource (%)	Cumulative Tonnes (Mt)	Cumulative % of Resource
0 - 50	8.7	35	8.7	35
50 - 100	9.9	39	18.6	74
100 - 150	5.7	23	24.3	97
150 +	0.8	3	25.1	100

Table 3:  Project Wide Exploration Target for the Piedmont Lithium Project
Exploration Target	Core Property		Central Property		Total
	Tonnes (Mt)	Grade (Li2O%)	Tonnes (Mt)	Grade (Li2O%)	Tonnes (Mt)	Grade (Li2O%)
Exploration Target*	4.0-4.5	1.0-1.2	2.0-2.5	1.1-1.3	6.0-7.0	1.0-1.3
*The potential quantity and grade of the Exploration Targets is conceptual in nature. There has been insufficient exploration to estimate a Mineral Resource and it is uncertain if further exploration will result in the estimation of a Mineral Resource.

Table 4:  Core Property Mineral Resource Estimate Grade / Tonnage Table
Cut-Off Grade (Li2O%)	Resource Tonnes (Mt)	Grade (Li2O%)	Cut-Off Grade (Li2O%)	Resource Tonnes (Mt)	Grade (Li2O%)
1.30	6.00	1.50	0.60	23.50	1.12
1.00	15.10	1.29	0.50	24.40	1.10
0.90	18.00	1.23	0.40	25.10	1.09
0.80	20.30	1.19	0.20	25.60	1.07
0.70	22.30	1.15	0.10	25.60	1.07

Table 5:  Core Property - Drilling Program Details
Phase	No. Holes	Total Length Drilled (m)
Historical	19	2,544
Phase 1	12	1,667
Phase 2	93	12,263
Phase 3	124	21,363
Phase 4	78	13,210
Total	326	51,047

Table 6:  Laboratories and Analysis Used
Phase	Laboratory	Prep Codes	Analytical Codes
Historical	ACME Labs	-	7TX, 7PF-Li
Phase 1	Bureau Veritas (Reno, NV)	PRP 70-250	MA270, PF370
Phase 2	SGS (Lakefield, ONT)	CRU21, PUL45	GE ICM40B, GE ICP90A
Phase 3	SGS (Lakefield, ONT)	CRU26, PUL45	GE ICP91A
Phase 4	SGS (Lakefield, ONT)	CRU26, PUL45	GE ICP91A

Hole	Easting	Northing	Elev. (m)	Az. (o)	Dip (o)	Depth (m)		From (m)	To (m)	Intercept (m)	Li2O (%)
19-BD-307	473984.2	3916538.9	243.5	308.0	-50.5	171.0		101.76	103.3	1.54	1.00
							and	153.4	163.67	10.27	1.15
							including	153.4	155.9	2.5	1.47
19-BD-308	473731.1	3916807.3	254.5	307.0	-59.6	149.0		21.25	29.23	7.98	0.92
							including	21.25	24.18	2.93	1.86
							and	120.96	129	8.04	1.34
19-BD-309	473977.1	3916915.9	252.6	310.0	-57.1	191.0		15.17	18.65	3.48	1.68
							and	21.22	22.56	1.34	1.08
							and	31.9	32.92	1.02	1.77
							and	68.5	72.42	3.92	0.79
							and	81.46	86.3	4.84	0.86
							including	82.44	85.2	2.76	1.21
							and	98.74	102.45	3.71	0.72
							including	98.74	100.14	1.4	1.27
							and	111.18	112.4	1.22	0.90
19-BD-310	473920.8	3916582.0	253.2	309.0	-50.1	179.0		58.9	59.91	1.01	1.1
							and	107.4	110.84	3.44	1.08
							and	149.88	152.44	2.56	0.96
19-BD-311	473719.1	3916731.7	259.0	310.0	-54.5	155.0		36.28	40.58	4.3	1.47
							and	71	76.22	5.22	1.13
							and	104.38	105.43	1.05	1.38
							and	138.16	140.34	2.18	1.61
19-BD-312	473920.2	3916974.2	268.2	309.0	-57.2	191.0		27.16	29.16	2	0.71
							and	43.08	45.55	2.47	0.81
							and	57.98	61.28	3.3	1.23
							and	97.85	100.42	2.57	1.69
19-BD-313	473868.8	3916783.0	255.5	310.0	-54.3	145.0		61.44	65.98	4.54	0.89
							and	95.4	99.85	4.45	0.61
							and	121.21	122.71	1.5	0.68
							and	130.93	136.37	5.44	1.00
							including	134	136.37	2.37	1.63
19-BD-314	473766.0	3916729.5	255.6	308.0	-51.0	185.0		43.96	45.97	2.01	1.13
							and	49.76	54.2	4.44	1.70
							and	96.4	102.06	5.66	1.19
							including	96.4	98.54	2.14	1.91
							and	113.61	114.97	2.39	1.19
							and	156.89	158.74	1.85	0.70
							and	169.16	172.1	2.94	0.75
19-BD-315	476892.6	3916940.4	260.3	312.0	-56.1	176.0		7.63	10.5	2.87	0.66
							and	61.82	65	3.18	1.41
							and	81.61	84.37	2.76	0.55
							and	101.84	104.5	2.66	1.32
							and	135.57	137.76	2.19	0.90
							and	150.64	152.03	1.39	1.11
19-BD-316	473872.3	3916743.0	259.8	306.0	-54.2	164.0		42.48	43.52	1.04	0.70
							and	49.34	53.88	4.54	0.98
							including	51.6	53	1.4	1.86
							and	93.49	97	3.51	1.6
							and	102.6	104	1.4	0.91
							and	123.26	130.76	7.5	0.87
							including	124.26	127.26	3	1.42
							and	135.1	138.06	2.96	0.73

Hole	Easting	Northing	Elev. (m)	Az. (o)	Dip (o)	Depth (m)		From (m)	To (m)	Intercept (m)	Li2O (%)
19-BD-317	473876.5	3916902.1	260.1	313.0	-53.4	161.0		3.21	4.5	1.29	1.85
							and	16.5	18.52	2.02	0.70
							and	34.47	36.92	2.45	1.09
							and	66.38	69.04	2.66	1.07
							and	103.84	108.6	4.76	1.18
							including	103.84	106.22	2.38	1.62
							and	126.08	127.3	1.22	1.51
19-BD-318	473929.7	3916786.7	250.1	309.0	-54.1	153.0		49.85	53.17	3.32	0.67
							and	125.24	126.51	1.27	1.22
							and	133	134.88	1.88	0.51
							and	149	151.85	2.85	1.7
19-BD-319	473912.8	3916876.6	249.1	311.0	-54.6	140.0		19.2	22.57	3.37	0.60
							and	69.75	71	1.25	1.30
							and	97.21	98.64	1.43	1.16
							and	111.57	116	4.43	0.53
							and	121.42	123.33	1.91	0.94
19-BD-320	473827.2	3916723.3	254.8	308.0	-59.9	146.0		61.55	65.09	3.54	1.29
							and	71.76	74.98	3.22	1.20
							and	104.25	105.93	1.68	0.93
							and	115.5	123.08	7.58	1.53
							including	115.5	119.5	4	1.96
19-BD-321	473935.0	3916911.8	253.1	310.0	-51.9	158.0		0.46	7.5	7.04	0.43
							including	0.46	1.5	1.04	1.60
							and	37.38	38.3	1.12	2.02
							and	46.35	48.87	2.52	0.68
							and	60.96	65.72	4.76	1.15
							and	71	74.6	3.6	1.14
							and	93.4	94.86	1.46	0.61
							and	115.1	118.32	3.22	1.17
							and	151.58	153.24	1.66	0.85
19-BD-322	473864.5	3916678.9	258.6	300.0	-51.3	173.0		17.1	23.48	6.38	1.04
							and	31.58	33.76	2.18	0.66
							and	95.82	97.75	1.93	1.15
							and	103.6	105.58	1.98	1.15
							and	131.77	136.68	4.91	0.79
19-BD-323	474048.7	3916851.4	259.9	309.0	-54.2	152.0		9.37	11.17	1.8	0.79
							and	29.94	35.16	5.22	1.12
							and	38.88	40.48	1.6	1.05
							and	76.97	78.45	1.48	0.83
							and	83.11	85.56	3.45	1.1
							including	83.11	84.64	1.53	2.04
							and	105.98	107.43	1.45	1.33
							and	109.52	111.54	2.02	0.96
							and	139.75	141.47	1.72	0.82
19-BD-324	474010.0	3916804.5	238.3	313.0	-55.7	160.0		0	7.5	7.5	0.89
							including	0	5.3	5.3	1.23
							and	10.65	13.5	2.85	0.77
							and	24.94	26	1.06	1.53
							and	30.62	32.75	2.13	1.82
							and	86.09	87.28	1.19	1.26
							and	107	108.88	1.88	1.28
							and	122.4	123.61	1.21	1.24
							and	142	143.06	1.06	0.55
							and	146.3	149.14	2.84	1.26

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Sampling techniques	>Nature and quality of sampling (e.g. cut channels, random chips, or specific specialised industry standard measurement tools appropriate to the minerals under investigation, such as downhole gamma sondes, or handheld XRF instruments, etc.). These examples should not be taken as limiting the broad meaning of sampling. >Include reference to measures taken to ensure sample representivity and the appropriate calibration of any measurement tools or systems used. >Aspects of the determination of mineralisation that are Material to the Public Report. In cases where ‘industry standard’ work has been done this would be relatively simple (e.g. ‘reverse circulation drilling was used to obtain 1 m samples from which 3 kg was pulverised to produce a 30 g charge for fire assay’). In other cases more explanation may be required, such as where there is coarse gold that has inherent sampling problems. Unusual commodities or mineralisation types (e.g. submarine nodules) may warrant disclosure of detailed information.	All results reported are from diamond core samples. The core was sawn at an orientation not influenced by the distribution of mineralization within the drill core (i.e. bisecting mineralized veins or cut perpendicular to a fabric in the rock that is independent of mineralization, such as foliation). Diamond drilling provided continuous core which allowed continuous sampling of mineralized zones.  The core sample intervals were a minimum of 0.35m and a maximum of 1.5m for HQ or NQ drill core (except in saprolitic areas of poor recovery where sample intervals may exceed 1.5m in length) and took into account lithological boundaries (i.e. sample was to, and not across, major contacts). Standards and blanks were inserted into the sample stream to assess the accuracy, precision and methodology of the external laboratories used. In addition, field duplicate samples were inserted to assess the variability of the mineralisation., The laboratories undertake their own duplicate sampling as part of their internal QA/QC processes. Examination of the QA/QC sample data indicates satisfactory performance of field sampling protocols and assay laboratories providing acceptable levels of precision and accuracy.
Drilling techniques	>Drill type (e.g. core, reverse circulation, open-hole hammer, rotary air blast, auger, Bangka, sonic, etc.) and details (e.g. core diameter, triple or standard tube, depth of diamond tails, face-sampling bit or other type, whether core is oriented and if so, by what method, etc.).	All diamond drill holes were collared with HQ and were transitioned to NQ once non-weathered and unoxidized bedrock was encountered.  Drill core was recovered from surface. Oriented core was collected on select drill holes using the REFLEX ACT III tool by a qualified geologist at the drill rig. The orientation data is currently being evaluated.
Drill sample recovery	>Method of recording and assessing core and chip sample recoveries and results assessed. >Measures taken to maximise sample recovery and ensure representative nature of the samples. >Whether a relationship exists between sample recovery and grade and whether sample bias may have occurred due to preferential loss/gain of fine/coarse material.	The core was transported from the drill site to the logging facility in covered boxes with the utmost care. Once at the logging facility, the following procedures were carried out on the core: 1.Re-aligning the broken core in its original position as closely as possible. 2.The length of recovered core was measured, and meter marks clearly placed on the core to indicate depth to the nearest centimetre. 3.The length of core recovered was used to determine the core recovery, which is the length of core recovered divided by the interval drilled (as indicated by the footage marks which was converted to meter marks), expressed as a percentage. This data was recorded in the database. The core was photographed wet before logged. 4.The core was photographed again immediately before sampling with the sample numbers visible. Sample recovery was consistently good except for zones within the oxidized clay and saprolite zones.  These zones were generally within the top 20m of the hole.  No relationship is recognized between recovery and grade.  The drill holes were designed to intersect the targeted pegmatite below the oxidized zone.
Logging	>Whether core and chip samples have been geologically and geotechnically logged to a level of detail to support appropriate Mineral Resource estimation, mining studies and metallurgical studies. >Whether logging is qualitative or quantitative in nature. Core (or costean, channel, etc.) photography. >The total length and percentage of the relevant intersections logged.	Geologically, data was collected in detail, sufficient to aid in Mineral Resource estimation. Core logging consisted of marking the core, describing lithologies, geologic features, percentage of spodumene and structural features measured to core axis. The core was photographed wet before logging and again immediately before sampling with the sample numbers visible. All the core from the 326 holes was logged.

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Sub-sampling techniques and sample preparation	>If core, whether cut or sawn and whether quarter, half or all core taken. >If non-core, whether riffled, tube sampled, rotary split, etc. and whether sampled wet or dry. >For all sample types, the nature, quality and appropriateness of the sample preparation technique. >Quality control procedures adopted for all sub-sampling stages to maximise representivity of samples. >Measures taken to ensure that the sampling is representative of the in situ material collected, including for instance results for field duplicate/second-half sampling. >Whether sample sizes are appropriate to the grain size of the material being sampled.	Core was cut in half with a diamond saw. Standard sample intervals were a minimum of 0.35m and a maximum of 1.5m for HQ or NQ drill core, taking into account lithological boundaries (i.e. sample to, and not across, major contacts). The preparation code is CRU21 (crush to 75% of sample <2mm) and PUL45 (pulverize 250g to 85% <75 microns). A CRM or coarse blank was included at the rate of one for every 20 drill core samples (i.e. 5%). Sampling precision is monitored by selecting a sample interval likely to be mineralized and splitting the sample into two ¼ core duplicate samples over the same sample interval. These samples are consecutively numbered after the primary sample and recorded in the sample database as “field duplicates” and the primary sample number recorded. Field duplicates were collected at the rate of 1 in 20 samples when sampling mineralized drill core intervals. Samples were numbered sequentially with no duplicates and no missing numbers. Triple tag books using 9-digit numbers were used, with one tag inserted into the sample bag and one tag stapled or otherwise affixed into the core tray at the interval the sample was collected. Samples were placed inside pre-numbered sample bags with numbers coinciding to the sample tag. Quality control (QC) samples, consisting of certified reference materials (CRMs), were given sample numbers within the sample stream so that they are masked from the laboratory after sample preparation and to avoid any duplication of sample numbers.
Quality of assay data and laboratory tests	>The nature, quality and appropriateness of the assaying and laboratory procedures used and whether the technique is considered partial or total. >For geophysical tools, spectrometers, handheld XRF instruments, etc., the parameters used in determining the analysis including instrument make and model, reading times, calibrations factors applied and their derivation, etc. >Nature of quality control procedures adopted (e.g. standards, blanks, duplicates, external laboratory checks) and whether acceptable levels of accuracy (i.e. lack of bias) and precision have been established.	All samples were shipped to the SGS laboratory in Lakefield, Ontario. The preparation code was CRU21 (crush to 75% of sample <2mm) and PUL45 (pulverize 250g to 85% <75 microns). The analyses code was GE ICP91A, which uses a peroxide fusion with an ICP finish, and has lower and upper detection limits of 0.001 and 50,000 (5%) ppm respectively. Selected samples were analyzed using ICM40B (multi-acid digestion with either an ICP-ES or ICP-MS finish), which has a range for Li of 1 to 10,000 (1%) ppm Li and samples >5,000ppm were run using GE ICP90A. Accuracy monitoring was achieved through submission and monitoring of certified reference materials (CRMs). Sample numbering and the inclusion of CRMs was the responsibility of the project geologist submitting the samples. A CRM or coarse blank was included at the rate of one for every 20 drill core samples (i.e. 5%). The CRMs used for this program were supplied by Geostats Pty Ltd of Perth, Western Australia.  Details of the CRMs are provided below. A sequence of these CRMs covering a range in Li values and, including blanks, were submitted to the laboratory along with all dispatched samples so as to ensure each run of 100 samples contains the full range of control materials. The CRMs were submitted as “blind” control samples not identifiable by the laboratory. Details of CRMs used in the drill program (all values ppm):
		CRM	Manufacturer	Lithium	1 Std Dev
		GTA-04	Geostats	9275	213
		GTA-08	Geostats	1102	50
		GTA-09	Geostats	4837	174
		Sampling precision was monitored by selecting a sample interval likely to be mineralized and splitting the sample into two ¼ core duplicate samples over the same sample interval. These samples were consecutively numbered after the primary sample and recorded in the sample database as “field duplicates” and the primary sample number recorded. Field duplicates were collected at the rate of 1 in 20 samples when sampling mineralized drill core intervals. Random sampling precision was monitored by splitting samples at the sample crushing stage (coarse crush duplicate) and at the final sub-sampling stage for analysis (pulp duplicates).  The coarse, jaw-crushed, reject material was split into two preparation duplicates, sometimes referred to as second cuts, crusher or preparation duplicates, which were then pulverized and analysed separately. These duplicate samples were selected randomly by the laboratory. Analytical precision was also monitored using pulp duplicates, sometimes referred to as replicates or repeats. Data from all three types of duplicate analyses was used to constrain sampling variance at different stages of the sampling and preparation process. Examination of the QA/QC sample data indicates satisfactory performance of field sampling protocols and assay laboratories providing acceptable levels of precision and accuracy.

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Verification of sampling and assaying	>The verification of significant intersections by either independent or alternative company personnel. >The use of twinned holes. >Documentation of primary data, data entry procedures, data verification, data storage (physical and electronic) protocols. >Discuss any adjustment to assay data.	Multiple representatives of Piedmont Lithium, Inc. have inspected and verified the results. CSA has conducted multiple site visits. Dennis Arne (Managing Director -Principal Consultant) toured the site, facilities and reviewed core logging and sampling workflow as well as Leon McGarry (Senior Resource Geologist). Each provided comments on how to improve our methods and have been addressed. Verification core samples were collected by Leon McGarry. No holes were twinned. Three-meter rods and core barrels were used. Li% was converted to Li2O% by multiplying Li% by 2.153.
Location of data points	>Accuracy and quality of surveys used to locate drill holes (collar and down-hole surveys), trenches, mine workings and other locations used in Mineral Resource estimation. >Specification of the grid system used. >Quality and adequacy of topographic control.	Drill collars were located with the Trimble Geo 7 which resulted in accuracies <1m. All coordinates were collected in State Plane and re-projected to Nad83 zone17 in which they are reported. Drill hole surveying was performed on each hole using a REFLEX EZ-Trac multi-shot instrument. Readings were taken approx. every 15 meters and recorded depth, azimuth, and inclination.
Data spacing and distribution	>Data spacing for reporting of Exploration Results. >Whether the data spacing and distribution is sufficient to establish the degree of geological and grade continuity appropriate for the Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve estimation procedure(s) and classifications applied. >Whether sample compositing has been applied.	For selected areas, the drill spacing is approximately 40 to 80 m along strike and down dip.  This spacing is sufficient to establish continuity in geology and grade for this pegmatite system. Composite samples are reported in Li2O%, this is calculated by multiplying drill length by Li2O for each sample; then the weighted averages for multiple samples are totalled and divided by the total drill length for the selected samples.
Orientation of data in relation to geological structure	>Whether the orientation of sampling achieves unbiased sampling of possible structures and the extent to which this is known, considering the deposit type. >If the relationship between the drilling orientation and the orientation of key mineralised structures is considered to have introduced a sampling bias, this should be assessed and reported if material.	The drill holes were designed and oriented with inclinations ranging from -50 to -60 degrees, to best intersect the pegmatite bodies as close to perpendicularly as possible.
Sample security	>The measures taken to ensure sample security.	Drill core samples were shipped directly from the core shack by the project geologist in sealed rice bags or similar containers using a reputable transport company with shipment tracking capability so that a chain of custody can be maintained.  Each bag was sealed with a security strap with a unique security number. The containers were locked in a shed if they were stored overnight at any point during transit, including at the drill site prior to shipping. The laboratory confirmed the integrity of the rice bag seals upon receipt.
Audits or reviews	>The results of any audits or reviews of sampling techniques and data.	CSA Global developed a “Standard Operating Procedures” manual in preparation for the drilling program.  CSA global reviews all logging and assay data, as well as merges all data in to database that is held off site. CSA has conducted multiple site visits. Dennis Arne (Managing Director -Principal Consultant) toured the site and facilities as well as Leon McGarry (Senior Resource Geologist). Each provided comments on how to improve our methods and have been addressed. Verification core samples were collected by Leon McGarry.

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Mineral tenement and land tenure status	>Type, reference name/number, location and ownership including agreements or material issues with third parties such as joint ventures, partnerships, overriding royalties, native title interests, historical sites, wilderness or national park and environmental settings. >The security of the tenure held at the time of reporting along with any known impediments to obtaining a licence to operate in the area.	Piedmont, through its 100% owned subsidiary, Piedmont Lithium, Inc., has entered into exclusive option agreements with local landowners, which upon exercise, allows the Company to purchase (or long term lease) approximately 2,105 acres of surface property and the associated mineral rights from the local landowners. There are no known historical sites, wilderness or national parks located within the Project area and there are no known impediments to obtaining a licence to operate in this area.

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Exploration done by other parties	>Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration by other parties.	The Project is focused over an area that has been explored for lithium dating back to the 1950’s where it was originally explored by Lithium Corporation of America which was subsequently acquired by FMC Corporation. Most recently, North Arrow explored the Project in 2009 and 2010.  North Arrow conducted surface sampling, field mapping, a ground magnetic survey and two diamond drilling programs for a total of 19 holes. Piedmont Lithium, Inc. has obtained North Arrow’s exploration data.
Geology	>Deposit type, geological setting and style of mineralisation.	Spodumene pegmatites, located near the litho tectonic boundary between the inner Piedmont and Kings Mountain belt.  The mineralization is thought to be concurrent and cross-cutting dike swarms extending from the Cherryville granite, as the dikes progressed further from their sources, they became increasingly enriched in incompatible elements such as Li, tin (Sn).  The dikes are considered to be unzoned.   Project-wide 45 samples from drill core and 10 composite samples have been analyzed by either Semi-Quantitative or Quantitative X-Ray Diffraction.  The Quantitative X-Ray Diffraction by Rietveld Refinement was performed on the Panalytical X'pert Pro Diffractometer with interpretations by HighScore Plus software using Crystallography Open Database (COD) and Joint Committee on Powder Diffraction Standards -International Center for Diffraction Data (JCPDS-ICDD).  The Semi-Quantitative X-Ray Diffraction was performed on the BRUKER AXS D8 Advance Diffractometer with interpretations by PDF2/PDF4 powder diffraction databases issued by the International Center for Diffraction Data (ICDD) and DiffracPIus Eva software. Of the 45 samples, 36 samples were of spodumene bearing pegmatite, 6 samples were barren pegmatites and 3 samples from amphibolite host rock.  More specifically, the 36 samples of spodumene bearing pegmatite and the 10 composite samples only contained spodumene and no other lithium bearing minerals above a trace amount.  The amphibolite samples contained varying amounts of holmquistite, lepidolite and petalite which are outside the reported MRE.
Drill hole Information	>A summary of all information material to the understanding of the exploration results including a tabulation of the following information for all Material drill holes: >easting and northing of the drill hole collar >elevation or RL (Reduced Level – elevation above sea level in metres) of the drill hole collar >dip and azimuth of the hole >down hole length and interception depth >hole length. >If the exclusion of this information is justified on the basis that the information is not Material and this exclusion does not detract from the understanding of the report, the Competent Person should clearly explain why this is the case.	Details of all reported drill holes are provided in Appendix 1 of this report.
Data aggregation methods	>In reporting Exploration Results, weighting averaging techniques, maximum and/or minimum grade truncations (e.g. cutting of high grades) and cut-off grades are usually Material and should be stated. >Where aggregate intercepts incorporate short lengths of high grade results and longer lengths of low grade results, the procedure used for such aggregation should be stated and some typical examples of such aggregations should be shown in detail. >The assumptions used for any reporting of metal equivalent values should be clearly stated.	All intercepts reported are for down hole thickness not true thickness. Weighted averaging was used in preparing the intercepts reported. The drill intercepts were calculated by adding the weighted value (drill length x assay) for each sample across the entire pegmatite divided by the total drill thickness of the pegmatite. For each mineralized pegmatite, all assays were used in the composite calculations with no upper or lower cut-offs. Mineralized pegmatite is defined as spodumene bearing pegmatite. Intercepts were reported for entire pegmatites, taking into account lithological boundaries (i.e. sample to, and not across, major contacts), with additional high-grade sub intervals reported from the same pegmatite. In the case where thin wall rock intervals were included, a value of 0% Li2O was inserted for the assay value, thus giving that individual sample a weighted value of 0% Li2O. Cumulative thicknesses are reported for select drill holes. These cumulative thicknesses do not represent continuous mineralized intercepts. The cumulative thickness for a drill hole is calculated by adding the drill widths of two or more mineralized pegmatites encountered in the drill hole, all other intervals are omitted from the calculation. Li% was converted to Li2O% by multiplying Li% by 2.153.

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Relationship between mineralisation widths and intercept lengths	>These relationships are particularly important in the reporting of Exploration Results. >If the geometry of the mineralisation with respect to the drill hole angle is known, its nature should be reported. >If it is not known and only the down hole lengths are reported, there should be a clear statement to this effect (e.g. ‘down hole length, true width not known’).	Drill intercepts are reported as Li2O% over the drill length, not true thickness.  The pegmatites targeted strike northeast-southwest and dip moderately to the southeast.  All holes were drilled to the northwest and with inclinations ranging between -45 and -70 degrees.
Diagrams	>Appropriate maps and sections (with scales) and tabulations of intercepts should be included for any significant discovery being reported These should include, but not be limited to a plan view of drill hole collar locations and appropriate sectional views.	Appropriate diagrams, including a drill plan map are included in the main body of this report.
Balanced reporting	>Where comprehensive reporting of all Exploration Results is not practicable, representative reporting of both low and high grades and/or widths should be practiced to avoid misleading reporting of Exploration Results.	All of the relevant exploration data for the Exploration Results available at this time has been provided in this report.
Other substantive exploration data	>Other exploration data, if meaningful and material, should be reported including (but not limited to): geological observations; geophysical survey results; geochemical survey results; bulk samples – size and method of treatment; metallurgical test results; bulk density, groundwater, geotechnical and rock characteristics; potential deleterious or contaminating substances.	Soil sampling and walking magnetometer geophysical surveys have been completed on the Core and Central property.
Further work	>The nature and scale of planned further work (e.g. tests for lateral extensions or depth extensions or large-scale step-out drilling). >Diagrams clearly highlighting the areas of possible extensions, including the main geological interpretations and future drilling areas, provided this information is not commercially sensitive.	Piedmont plans to release the results of a metallurgical testwork program on composite samples currently in process at SGS Lakefield in the upcoming months. Piedmont plans to release an updated Project wide Scoping Study update in the upcoming months.

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Database integrity	>Measures taken to ensure that data has not been corrupted by, for example, transcription or keying errors, between its initial collection and its use for Mineral Resource estimation purposes.	Geological and geotechnical observations are recorded digitally in Microsoft Excel logging templates using standardized logging codes developed for the project.  Populated templates are imported into a central SQL database by a CSA Global database specialist via Datashed® import and validation functions to minimise risk of transcription errors. Likewise, sample data and analytical results are imported directly into the central database from the independent laboratory.
	>Data validation procedures used.	An extract of the central database was validated by the Competent Person for internal integrity via Micromine ® validation functions. This includes logical integrity checks of drill hole deviation rates, presence of data beyond the hole depth maximum, and overlapping from-to errors within interval data. Visual validation checks were also made for obviously spurious collar co-ordinates or downhole survey values.
Site visits	>Comment on any site visits undertaken by the Competent Person and the outcome of those visits.	CSA Global Competent Person; Leon McGarry P.Geo, has undertaken multiple personal inspections of the property during 2017, 2018 and 2019 to review exploration sites, drill core and work practices. The site geology, sample collection, and logging data collection procedures were reviewed. A semi-random selection of drill collar locations at the Core, Central and Sunnyside properties was verified.. The presence of spodumene hosted lithium mineralisation was verified by the collection of independent check samples from drill core and outcrop. The outcome of the site visit was that data has been collected in a manner that supports reporting a Mineral Resource estimate in accordance with the JORC Code, and controls to the mineralisation are well-understood.
	>If no site visits have been undertaken indicate why this is the case.	Site visits have been conducted.

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Geological interpretation	>Confidence in (or conversely, the uncertainty of) the geological interpretation of the mineral deposit.	Geological models developed for the deposit are based on the lithological logging of visually distinct spodumene bearing pegmatites within amphibolite host facies. Deposit geology is well understood based on surface pegmatite outcrops and extensive drilling at spacings sufficient to provide multiple points of observation for modelled geological features. Thicker units show good continuity between points of observation and allow a higher level of confidence for volume and mineralisation interpretations. Whereas, thinner units tend to be more discontinuous and interpretations have more uncertainty.
	>Nature of the data used and of any assumptions made.	Input data used for geological modelling are derived from qualitative interpretation of observed lithology and alteration features; semi-quantitative interpretation of mineral composition and the orientation of structural features; and quantitative determinations of the geochemical composition of samples returned from core drilling.
	>The effect, if any, of alternative interpretations on Mineral Resource estimation.	Geological models developed for the deposit are underpinned by a good understanding of the deposit geology. Based on input drill hole data, including orientated core measurements, and surface mapping, pegmatite dikes were modelled as variably orientated sub-vertical to sub-horizontal features. Where drill data is sparse (i.e. at 80 m spacings) alternative interpretations, of the continuity of individual pegmatites between holes could be made. Alternate interpretations would adjust tonnage estimates locally but would not likely yield a more geologically reasonable result, or impact tonnage and grade estimates beyond an amount congruent with assigned confidence classifications.
	>The use of geology in guiding and controlling Mineral Resource estimation.	The model developed for mineralisation is guided by observed geological features and is principally controlled by the interpreted presence or absence of spodumene bearing pegmatite. Estimated deposit densities are controlled by interpreted weathering surfaces. Above the saprolite surface, and in outcrop, spodumene bearing pegmatites have variable Li2O grade populations, sufficiently similar to fresh rock, allowing Li2O grade estimates to be uncontrolled by interpreted weathering surfaces.
	>The factors affecting continuity both of grade and geology.	Geological continuity is controlled by the preference for fractionated pegmatitic fluids to follow preferential structural pathways and foliation within the amphibolite-facies host rocks. Grade continuity within the pegmatite is controlled by pegmatite thickness, degree of fluid fractionation and the intensity of spodumene alteration to muscovite and amount of weathering. Modelled continuity is impacted by post mineralisation intrusions and fault offsets in areas of limited extent. Modelled pegmatite extent is limited to within the Core Property permit boundary.
Dimensions	>The extent and variability of the Mineral Resource expressed as length (along strike or otherwise), plan width, and depth below surface to the upper and lower limits of the Mineral Resource.	Spodumene bearing pegmatite dikes on the Core property are assigned to three major corridors. Corridors extend over a strike length of up to 1.7 km and commonly have a set of thicker spodumene bearing pegmatite dikes of 10 m to 20 m true thickness at their core. These major dikes strike north-east and dip steep to moderately toward the south-east. Dikes are curvi-planar in aspect. Flat to shallowly dipping dikes dipping dikes are encountered across the Core property and extend up to 600 m along strike and 400 m across strike. The vertical thickness of individual flat lying dikes range from 1 m to 10 m. A close spaced series of flat lying dikes may have cumulative thicknesses greater than 10 m. Mineralized dikes, or a close spaced series of dikes, dike can be traced between drill hole intercepts and surface outcrops for over 1,400 meters. Dikes are intersected by drilling to a depth of 300 m down dip. Although individual units may pinch out, the deposit is open at depth. The Mineral Resource has a maximum vertical depth of 210 m, beginning at the topography surface. Ninety-seven percent of the Mineral Resource is within 150 m of the topography surface. Predominantly, entire intervals of spodumene bearing pegmatite are selected for modelling. Occasionally interstitial waste material 1 m to 2 m in thickness may be included to facilitate modelling at a resolution appropriate for available data spacings. No minimum thickness criteria are used for modelling of dikes; however pegmatite must be present in at least two drill holes, and in at least two cross sections to ensure adequate control on model geometry. Generally, spodumene bearing pegmatite models are sufficient for use as MRE domains. Completely waste intervals below a nominal low-grade limit of 0.25% Li2O were removed from the peripheries of the model.
Estimation and modelling techniques	>The nature and appropriateness of the estimation technique(s) applied and key assumptions, including treatment of extreme grade values, domaining, interpolation parameters and maximum distance of extrapolation from data points. If a computer assisted estimation method was chosen include a description of computer software and parameters used.	Samples coded by the modelled pegmatite domain they exploit were composited to a 1 m equal to the dominant raw drill hole sample interval and evaluated for the presence of extreme grades. Domained samples were grouped by their dominant orientation, as controlled by the structures they exploit, into six groups for spatial analysis within the Supervisor™ software which was used to define semi-variogram models for the Li2O grades and develop search ellipsoids and parameters. A four-pass search strategy was employed, with successive searches using more relaxed parameters for selection of input composite data and/or a larger search radius. The Core Property Mineral Resource has been estimated using Ordinary Kriging into a block model created in Datamine StuidoRM®. The variable Li2O was estimated independently in a univariate sense.

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	>The availability of check estimates, previous estimates and/or mine production records and whether the Mineral Resource estimate takes appropriate account of such data.	This Mineral Resource estimate is an update to the maiden Mineral Resource Estimate for the Core Property reported on June 14, 2018. Estimates Li2O grades and tonnages show good agreement with previous estimates. The resource estimate interpolation was checked using an Inverse Distance Weighted (IDW3) estimate and visually.
	>The assumptions made regarding recovery of by-products.	Bench-scale metallurgical test work undertaken at NCSU-MRL announced on September 4, 2018, recovered quartz, feldspar and mica concentrates as by-products to spodumene. These products were recovered at sufficient amounts and qualities to support the by-product Mineral Resource Estimate for the Core Property reported on September 6, 2018. This updated Mineral Resource Estimate is for spodumene hosted Li2O only.
	>Estimation of deleterious elements or other non-grade variables of economic significance (e.g. sulphur for acid mine drainage characterisation).	Within the resource model, deleterious elements, such as iron are reported to be at acceptably to low levels. Metallurgical testwork demonstrates that deleterious elements will not impede the economic extraction of the modelled grade element (Li) and no estimates for other elements were generated.
	>In the case of block model interpolation, the block size in relation to the average sample spacing and the search employed.	A rotated block model orientated at 35 degrees was generated. Given the variable orientation and the thickness the domains, a block size of 6 mE × 12 mN × 6 mRL, sub-celled to a minimum resolution of 2 mE × 4 mN × 1 mRL, was selected to honour moderately dipping pegmatites in the across strike dimension, and the shallow dipping pegmatites in the vertical dimension. This compares to an average drill hole spacing of 40 m within the more densely informed areas of the deposit, that increases up to an 80 m spacing in less well-informed portions of the deposit. Blocks fit within all search ellipse volumes and are aligned to the dominant strike of pegmatites.
	>Any assumptions behind modelling of selective mining units.	Block dimensions are assumed to be appropriate for the mining selectivity achievable via open-pit mining method and likely bench heights. At the neighbouring Hallman-Beam mine operating benches of 9 m were mined.
	>Any assumptions about correlation between variables.	Only one variable is modelled. Other than lithium analyses, there are insufficient geochemical data to allow a meaningful analysis of correlation between lithium and, for example, tin and tantalum. There is no obvious correlation between pegmatite Li2O grade and density, and the relationship is not considered in the estimate.
	>Description of how the geological interpretation was used to control the resource estimates.	The modelled pegmatite dikes host and constrain the mineralisation model. Each pegmatite domain was estimated independently with hard boundaries assumed for each domain. The dominant modelled orientation of pegmatite dike groups was used to inform search ellipse parameters so that in-situ grade trends are reflected in the block model.
	>Discussion of basis for using or not using grade cutting or capping.	Domained Li2O grade data was assessed via histogram and log probability plots to identify extreme values based on observed breaks in the continuity of the grade distributions. Samples with extreme grades were visually compared to surrounding data.  Most extreme grades are encountered in high-grade portions of modelled dikes and are well constrained by surrounding holes. Where extreme grades were unusually high relative to surrounding samples, they were capped at 2.8% Li2O.
	>The process of validation, the checking process used, the comparison of model data to drill hole data, and use of reconciliation data if available.	Block model estimates for the Core property resource were validated visually and statistically. Estimated block grades were compared visually in section against the corresponding input data values. Additionally, trend plots of input data and block estimates were compared for swaths generated in each of the three principal geometric orientations (northing, easting and elevation). Statistical validation included a comparison of composite means, and average block model grades, and a validation by Global Change of Support analysis.
Moisture	>Whether the tonnages are estimated on a dry basis or with natural moisture, and the method of determination of the moisture content.	Tonnages are reported on a dry basis.
Cut-off parameters	>The basis of the adopted cut-off grade(s) or quality parameters applied.	The Mineral Resource is reported using a 0.4% Li2O cut-off which approximates cut-off grades used for comparable spodumene bearing pegmatite deposits exploited by open pit mining.
Mining factors or assumptions	>Assumptions made regarding possible mining methods, minimum mining dimensions and internal (or, if applicable, external) mining dilution. It is always necessary as part of the process of determining reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider potential mining methods, but the assumptions made regarding mining methods and parameters when estimating Mineral Resources may not always be	The methods used to design and populate the Piedmont Mineral Resource block model were defined under the assumption that the deposit will be mined via open pit methods, since the depth, geometry and grade of pegmatites at the property make them amenable to exploitation by those methods. Inspection of drill cores and the proximity of open pit mines in similar rock formations indicate that ground conditions are likely suitable for such a mining method. The resource is constrained by a conceptual pit shell derived from a Whittle optimisation using estimated block value and mining parameters appropriate for determining reasonable prospects of economic extraction. These include a commodity price equivalent to approximately $750/t for spodumene concentrate (at 6% Li2O), a

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	>rigorous. Where this is the case, this should be reported with an explanation of the basis of the mining assumptions made.	mining cost of $1.85/t, a processing cost of $20/t, a maximum pit slope of 50° and appropriate recovery and dilution factors.
Metallurgical factors or assumptions	>The basis for assumptions or predictions regarding metallurgical amenability. It is always necessary as part of the process of determining reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider potential metallurgical methods, but the assumptions regarding metallurgical treatment processes and parameters made when reporting Mineral Resources may not always be rigorous. Where this is the case, this should be reported with an explanation of the basis of the metallurgical assumptions made.	The material targeted for extraction comprises the mineral spodumene, for which metallurgical processing methods are well established. No specific detail regarding metallurgical assumptions have been applied in the estimation the current Mineral Resource. Based on metallurgical flotation test work reported by the company, which indicates spodumene concentrate grades exceeding 6.0% Li2O and less than 1.0% Fe2O3, the Competent Person has assumed that metallurgical concerns will not pose any significant impediment to the economic processing and extraction of spodumene from mined pegmatite.
Environmental factors or assumptions	>Assumptions made regarding possible waste and process residue disposal options. It is always necessary as part of the process of determining reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider the potential environmental impacts of the mining and processing operation. While at this stage the determination of potential environmental impacts, particularly for a greenfields project, may not always be well advanced, the status of early consideration of these potential environmental impacts should be reported. Where these aspects have not been considered this should be reported with an explanation of the environmental assumptions made.	No assumptions have been made regarding waste streams and disposal options, however the development of local pegmatite deposits within similar rock formations was not impeded by negative environmental impacts associated with their exploitation by open cut mining methods. It is reasonable to assume that in the vicinity project there is sufficient space available for the storage of waste products arising from mining.
Bulk density	>Whether assumed or determined. If assumed, the basis for the assumptions. If determined, the method used, whether wet or dry, the frequency of the measurements, the nature, size and representativeness of the samples.	In situ bulk densities for the Piedmont Mineral Resource have been assigned based on representative averages developed from determinations made on drill core collected from throughout the property. The Competent Person considers the values chosen to be suitably representative.
	>The bulk density for bulk material must have been measured by methods that adequately account for void spaces (vughs, porosity, etc.), moisture and differences between rock and alteration zones within the deposit.	Densities have been assigned on a lithological basis based on a total of 125 dry bulk density determinations made by SGS Labs, Lakefield, Ontario on selected drill core from the deposit using the displacement method. A further 318 determinations were made by Piedmont geologists in the field also using the displacement method allowing compatibility with, and use alongside, the SGS results. Determinations made by Piedmont were predominately collected from weathered rock. Void spaces were adequately accounted for by coating samples in cling film.
	>Discuss assumptions for bulk density estimates used in the evaluation process of the different materials.	Simple averages were generated for fresh pegmatite (2.72 t/m3), pegmatite saprolite (2.04 t/m3), overburden waste (1.34 t/m3), saprolite waste rock (1.27 t/m3) and amphibolite country rock (2.81 t/m3)
Classification	>The basis for the classification of the Mineral Resources into varying confidence categories.	The Mineral Resource has been classified as Indicated and Inferred on a qualitative basis; taking into consideration numerous factors such as: the validity and robustness of input data and the estimator’s judgment with respect to the proximity of resource blocks to sample locations and confidence with respect to the geological continuity of the pegmatite interpretations and grade estimates. All blocks captured in pegmatite dike interpretation wireframes below the topography surface are classified as Inferred. Indicated classification boundaries were generated that define a region of blocks that, overall, meet the following criteria: Within major pegmatite dikes that have an along strike and down dip continuity greater than 200 m and 50 m respectively and that have a true thickness greater than 2.5 m; and that are informed by at least two drill holes and eight samples within a range of approximately 20 m to the nearest drill hole in the along strike or strike and downdip directions. No Measured category resources are estimated.
	>Whether appropriate account has been taken of all relevant factors (i.e. relative confidence in tonnage/grade estimations, reliability of input data, confidence in continuity of geology and metal values, quality, quantity and distribution of the data).	The classification reflects areas of lower and higher geological confidence in mineralised lithological domain continuity based on the intersecting drill sample data numbers, spacing and orientation. Overall mineralisation trends are reasonably consistent within the various lithology types over numerous drill sections.
	>Whether the result appropriately reflects the Competent Person’s view of the deposit	The Mineral Resource estimate appropriately reflects the Competent Person’s views of the deposit.

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Audits or reviews	>The results of any audits or reviews of Mineral Resource estimates.	Internal audits were completed by CSA Global which verified the technical inputs, methodology, parameters and results of the estimate. The current model has not been audited by an independent third party.
Discussion of relative accuracy/ confidence	>Where appropriate a statement of the relative accuracy and confidence level in the Mineral Resource estimate using an approach or procedure deemed appropriate by the Competent Person. For example, the application of statistical or geostatistical procedures to quantify the relative accuracy of the resource within stated confidence limits, or, if such an approach is not deemed appropriate, a qualitative discussion of the factors that could affect the relative accuracy and confidence of the estimate.	The Mineral Resource accuracy is communicated through the classification assigned to the deposit. The Mineral Resource estimate has been classified in accordance with the JORC Code, 2012 Edition using a qualitative approach. All factors that have been considered have been adequately communicated in Section 1 and Section 2 of this Table.
	>The statement should specify whether it relates to global or local estimates, and, if local, state the relevant tonnages, which should be relevant to technical and economic evaluation. Documentation should include assumptions made and the procedures used.	The Mineral Resource statement relates to a global estimate of in-situ mineralised rock tonnes, Li2O grade, estimated Li2O tonnage and the calculated lithium carbonate equivalent.
	>These statements of relative accuracy and confidence of the estimate should be compared with production data, where available.	There is no recorded production data for the property.