| COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES: | NOTE 10 ā COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES: ā Environmental matters: ā The Company has instituted extensive environmental conservation programs at its mining facilities in Peru and Mexico. The Companyās environmental programs include, among others, water recovery systems to conserve water and minimize the impact on nearby streams, reforestation programs to stabilize the surface of the tailings dams and the implementation of scrubbing technology in the mines to reduce dust emissions. ā Environmental capital investments in the first nine months of 2021 and 2020 were as follows (in millions): ā ā ā ā ā ā ā ā ā 2021 2020 Peruvian operations (*) ā $ 2.9 ā $ (4.0) Mexican operations ā 57.7 ā 28.6 ā ā $ 60.6 ā $ 24.6 (*) ā Peruvian operations ā Air Quality Standards (āAQSā): ā Soil Environmental Quality Standards (āSQSā) ā Climate change: Framework. This law establishes that promoting public and private investments in climate change management is of national interest. The law proposes creating an institutional framework to address climate change in Peru, and outlines new measures, particularly with respect to climate change mitigation. It includes, for example, provisions dealing with: increasing carbon capture and use of carbon sinks; afforestation and reforestation practices; land use changes; and sustainable systems of transportation, solid waste management, and energy systems. This is the first Latin American climate change framework law to incorporate obligations from the Paris Agreement. Regulations to this law were enacted by Supreme Decree 013-2019 published on December 31, 2019 and are applicable to all Peruvian institutions and agencies. It is expected that further Peruvian regulations will be applicable to non-governmental entities. The Company has initiated a multi-year process to align its reporting on climate change for its Peruvian operations with the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD). The Company is committed to the environment and to managing climate-related impacts. The Companyās focus is to seek continuous improvement in the responsible use of natural resources while complying with strict applicable legal standards for prevention, mitigation, control and remediation of environmental impacts. Implementing continuous improvement in the Companyās processes improves efficiency in the use and consumption of energy, water, and other natural resources. ā Mexican operations ā The principal legislation applicable to the Companyās Mexican operations is the Federal General Law of Ecological Balance and Environmental Protection (the āGeneral Lawā), which is enforced by the Federal Bureau of Environmental Protection (āPROFEPAā). PROFEPA monitors compliance with environmental legislation and enforces Mexican environmental laws, regulations and official standards. It may also initiate administrative proceedings against companies that violate environmental laws, which in the most extreme cases may result in the temporary or permanent shutdown of non-complying facilities, the revocation of operating licenses and/or other sanctions or fines. ā In 2011, the General Law was amended to provide an individual or entity the ability to contest administrative acts, including environmental authorizations, permits or concessions granted, without the need to demonstrate the actual existence of harm to the environment as long as it can be argued that the harm may be caused. In addition, in 2011, amendments to the Civil Federal Procedures Code (āCFPCā) were enacted, which established three categories of collective actions under which a group of 30 or more individuals can be considered sufficient to prove a ālegitimate interestā to file civil actions for injuries derived from alleged violations of environmental, consumer protection, financial services and economic competition laws and to seek restitution or economic compensation for the alleged injuries or the suspension of the activities which allegedly generated the injuries in question. The amendments to the CFPC may result in more litigation, with plaintiffs seeking remedies, including suspension of the activities alleged to cause harm. ā In 2013, the Environmental Liability Federal Law was enacted. The law establishes general guidelines for actions to be considered likely to cause environmental harm. If a possible determination regarding harm occurs, environmental clean-up and remedial actions sufficient to restore environment to a pre-existing condition should be taken. Under this law, if restoration is not possible, compensation measures should be provided. Criminal penalties and monetary fines can be imposed under this law. ā Guaymas sulfuric acid spill ā On July 9, 2019, there was an incident at the CompanyĀ“s Marine Terminal in Guaymas, Sonora, that caused the discharge of approximately three cubic meters of sulfuric acid into the sea in the industrial port area. ā The Guaymas bay has an estimated water volume of 340 million cubic meters. The spill, upon entering in contact with the seaās alkaline conditions, led to quick dilution of the discharge and the sulfuric acid was naturally and immediately neutralized. As a result, the discharge was considered harmless; the report from the Ministry of Navy found that neither the flora nor fauna of the port area were affected. On July 10, 2019, PROFEPA made a first inspection of the area, concluding that the Company executed all the appropiate procedures in order to contain the discharge, and no reference was made to the existence of negative impacts on the environment resulting from the incident. ā On Friday, July 19, 2019, PROFEPA revisited the facilities to carry out a second inspection, declaring a partial temporary shutdown that affected only the storage process and transportation of sulfuric acid at the terminal, arguing the absence of an authorization of environmental impact. It is important to note that these facilities have been operating since 1979, prior to the 1988 Mexican General Law of Ecological Balance and the Protection of the Environment. Companies that were operating before the aforementioned law are exempt from the permit requirement. In addition, in 2009, PROFEPA awarded a certification of āClean Industry and Environmental Qualityā to the facility which was subsequently renewed four times (for a two-year period each time). ā The Company filed a lawsuit against the closure, which was dismissed by a ruling on August 25, 2021. This ruling has been challenged through a motion to reopen the case, which was submitted on September 28, 2021. ā The Company is not aware of the reasons or causes for this partial and temporary closure, but will continue working with the environmental authorities to provide certainty that the operation is in strict compliance with environmental regulations. The Company expects the environmental authorities to suspend the partial temporary shutdown, once they resolve their concerns. Currently, the Company does not expect any impact on its operations. As of September 30, 2021, the matter is pending resolution. ā Climate change ā Grupo Mexico, the indirect parent of SCC, has issued sustainability reports under the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) for more than 10 years. Grupo Mexico also participates in different Mexican and international reporting programs such as the Greenhouse Gases (GHG) Mexico Program and the Carbon Disclosure Program (CDP). ā In 2020, the Company began to align its disclosure of efforts to manage climate-related risks and opportunities with the recommendations of the TCFD (Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures). Grupo Mexicoās Sustainable Development Report 2020 included a section with specific details on the Companyās progress in this regard. This report includes information for all business divisions and subsidiaries, including information on the Companyās operations. ā The Company believes that all of its facilities in Peru and Mexico are in material compliance with applicable environmental, mining and other applicable laws and regulations. The Company also believes that continued compliance with environmental laws of Mexico and Peru will have no material adverse effects on the Companyās business, properties, or operating results. ā Litigation matters ā Peruvian operations ā The Tia Maria Mining Project ā There are five lawsuits filed against the Peruvian Branch of the Company related to the Tia Maria project. The lawsuits seek (i) to declare null and void the resolution that approved the Environmental Impact Assessment of the project; (ii) the cancellation of the project and the withdrawal of mining activities in the area; (iii) to declare null and void the mining concession application for the Tia Maria project; and (iv) to declare null and void the resolution that approved the construction license. The lawsuits were filed by Messrs. Jorge Isaac del Carpio Lazo (filed May 22, 2015), Ernesto Mendoza Padilla (filed May 26, 2015), Juan Alberto Guillen Lopez (filed June 18, 2015), Junta de Usuarios del Valle del Tambo (filed April 30, 2015), and Gobierno Regional de Arequipa (filed December 16, 2019). ā The del Carpio Lazio case was rejected by the court of first instance on November 14, 2016. The plaintiff filed an appeal before the Superior Court on January 3, 2017. On January 9, 2018, the lawyers of both parties presented their respective positions before the Appellate Court. On March 8, 2018, the Appellate Court issued its final decision, which upheld the first instance ruling. On April 27, 2018, the plaintiff filed an extraordinary appeal before the Supreme Court. As of September 30, 2021, the case remains pending resolution. ā The Mendoza Padilla case was initially rejected by the lower court on July 8, 2015. This ruling was confirmed by the Superior Court on June 14, 2016. On July 12, 2016, the case was appealed before the Constitutional Court. On November 20, 2018, the Constitutional Court reversed the previous decisions and remanded the case to the lower court for further action. In the third quarter of 2020, the Company was notified that the complaint had been reinstated. The Company answered the complaint on September 15, 2020. On December 2, 2020, the lower court issued a resolution, considering the complaint answered. As of September 30, 2021, the case remains pending resolution. ā The Guillen Lopez case is currently before the lower court. On July 19, 2019, the oral arguments took place. On January 7, 2020, the Judge decided to suspend the proceeding until the del Carpio Lazio case is concluded. Therefore, as of September 30, 2021, the case remains pending resolution. ā The Junta de Usuarios del Valle del Tambo case is currently before the lower court. On May 2016, the Company was included in the process, after the Ministry of Energy and Mines filed a civil complaint. On March 6, 2019, the Company was formally notified of the lawsuit and answered the complaint on March 20, 2019. On July 8, 2019, the Company requested the suspension of the proceeding until the del Carpio Lazio case is concluded. As of September 30, 2021, the case remains pending resolution. ā The Gobierno Regional de Arequipa case is currently before the lower court and the Company answered the complaint on September 15, 2020. As of September 30, 2021, the case remains pending resolution. ā The Company asserts that these lawsuits are without merit and is vigorously defending against them. The potential contingency amount for these cases cannot be reasonably estimated by management at this time. ā Special Regional Pasto Grande Project (āPasto Grande Projectā) ā In 2012, the Pasto Grande Project, an entity of the Regional Government of Moquegua, filed a lawsuit against SCCās Peruvian Branch alleging property rights over a certain area used by the Peruvian Branch and seeking the demolition of the tailings dam where SCCās Peruvian Branch has deposited its tailings from the Toquepala and Cuajone operations since 1995. The Peruvian Branch has had title to use the area in question since 1960 and has, since 1995, constructed and operated the tailings dams with proper governmental authorization. Following a motion filed by the Peruvian Branch, the lower court has ā Mexican operations ā The Accidental Spill at Buenavista Mine of 2014 ā In relation to the 2014 accidental spill of copper sulfate solution that occurred at a leaching pond in the Buenavista mine, the following legal procedures are pending against the Company: ā On August 19, 2014, PROFEPA, as part of the administrative proceeding initiated after the spill, announced the filing of a criminal complaint against Buenavista del Cobre S.A. de C.V. (āBVCā), a subsidiary of the Company, in order to determine those responsible for environmental damages. During the second quarter of 2018, the criminal complaint was dismissed. This decision was appealed and was pending resolution as of September 30, 2021. ā Through the first half of 2015, six collective action lawsuits were filed in federal courts in Mexico City and Sonora against two subsidiaries of the Company seeking economic compensation, clean up and remedial activities in order to restore the environment to its pre-existing conditions. Three of the collective action lawsuits have been dismissed by the court. As of September 30, 2021, three lawsuits were in process: two were filed by Acciones Colectivas de Sinaloa, A.C. and one by Defensa Colectiva, A.C., requesting precautionary measures about construction of facilities to monitor public health services and prohibiting the closure of the Rio Sonora Trust. ā Similarly, in 2015, eight civil action lawsuits were filed against BVC in the state courts of Sonora seeking damages for alleged injuries and for moral damages as a consequence of the spill. The plaintiffs in the state court lawsuits are: Jose Vicente Arriola Nunez et al; Santana Ruiz Molina et al; Andres Nogales Romero et al; Teodoro Javier Robles et al; Gildardo Vasquez Carvajal et al; Rafael Noriega Souffle et al; Grupo Banamichi Unido de Sonora El Dorado, S.C. de R.L. de C.V; and Marcelino Mercado Cruz. In 2016, three additional civil action lawsuits, claiming similar damages, were filed by Juan Melquicedec Lebaron; Blanca Lidia Valenzuela Rivera et al and Ramona Franco Quijada et al. In 2017, BVC was served with thirty-three additional civil action lawsuits, claiming similar damages. The lawsuits were filed by Francisco Javier Molina Peralta et al; Anacleto Cohen Machini et al; Francisco Rafael Alvarez Ruiz et al; Jose Alberto Martinez Bracamonte et al; Gloria del Carmen Ramirez Duarte et al; Flor Margarita Sabori et al; Blanca Esthela Ruiz Toledo et al; Julio Alfonso Corral DomĆnguez et al; Maria Eduwiges Bracamonte Villa et al; Francisca Marquez Dominguez et al; Jose Juan Romo Bravo et al; Jose Alfredo Garcia Leyva et al; Gloria Irma Dominguez Perez et al; Maria del Refugio Romero et al; Miguel Rivas Medina et al; Yolanda Valenzuela Garrobo et al; Maria Elena Garcia Leyva et al; Manuel Alfonso Ortiz Valenzuela et al; Francisco Alberto Arvayo Romero et al; Maria del Carmen Villanueva Lopez et al; Manuel Martin Garcia Salazar; Miguel Garcia Arguelles et al; Dora Elena Rodriguez Ochoa et al; Honora Eduwiges Ortiz Rodriguez et al; Francisco Jose Martinez Lopez et al; Maria Eduwiges Lopez Bustamante; Rodolfo Barron Villa et al, Jose Carlos Martinez Fernandez et al, Maria de los Angeles Fabela et al; Rafaela Edith Haro et al; Luz Mercedes Cruz et al; Juan Pedro MontaƱo et al; and Juana Irma Alday Villa. During the first quarter of 2018, BVC was served with another civil action lawsuit, claiming similar damages. The lawsuit was filed by Alma Angelina Del Cid Rivera et al. In the last quarter of 2018, BVC was served with other three civil action lawsuits, claiming similar damages. These lawsuits were filed by Los Corrales de la Estancia, S.C. de R.L.; Jose Antonio Navarro; Jesus Maria PeƱa Molina, et al; these actions were dismissed by the court, because they have expired. As of September 30, 2021, forty-five cases were pending resolution. ā In 2015, four constitutional lawsuits (juicios de amparo) were filed before Federal Courts against various authorities and against a subsidiary of the Company, arguing; (i) the alleged lack of a waste management program approved by SEMARNAT; (ii) the alleged lack of a remediation plan approved by SEMARNAT with regard to the August 2014 spill; (iii) the alleged lack of community approval regarding the environmental impact authorizations granted by SEMARNAT to one subsidiary of the Company; and (iv) the alleged inactivity of the authorities with regard to the spill in August 2014. The plaintiffs of these lawsuits are: Francisca Garcia Enriquez, et al filed two lawsuits, Francisco Ramon Miranda, et al and Jesus David Lopez Peralta et al. In the third quarter of 2016, four additional constitutional lawsuits, claiming similar damages were filed by Mario Alberto Salcido et al; Maria Elena Heredia Bustamante et al; Martin Eligio Ortiz Gamez et al; and Maria de los Angeles Enriquez Bacame et al. In the third quarter of 2017, BVC was served with another constitutional lawsuit filed by Francisca GarcĆa Enriquez et al. In 2018, BVC was served with two additional constitutional lawsuits that were filed against SEMARNAT by Norberto Bustamante et al. Regarding the constitutional lawsuit filed by Maria Elena Heredia Bustamante et al; which claimed the lack of community approval for the authorization granted by SEMARNAT to build the new BVC tailings dam, on September 5, 2018, the Supreme Court of Justice issued a resolution establishing that such authorization was granted to BVC in compliance with the applicable legislation. However, SEMARNAT must hold a public meeting to inform the community of the technical aspects required to build the dam, potential impacts and prevention measures, with no material effects to Enriquez Bacame and Norberto Bustamante have been dismissed and closed without prejudice to the Company. As of September 30, 2021, the remaining cases were still pending resolution. ā It is currently not possible to determine the extent of the damages sought in these state and federal lawsuits but the Company believes that these lawsuits are without merit. Accordingly, the Company is vigorously defending against them. Nevertheless, the Company believes that none of the legal proceedings resulting from the spill, individually or in the aggregate, would have a material effect on its financial position or results of operations. ā Corporate operations ā Carla Lacey, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated stockholders of Southern Copper Corporation, and derivatively on behalf of Southern Copper Corporation ā In April 2019, a derivative lawsuit was filed against the Company, certain current and former Directors, and Grupo Mexico in the Delaware Court of Chancery relating to certain construction contracts, contracts for the purchase and sale of minerals, and transportation contracts entered into between the Companyās subsidiaries and subsidiaries of Grupo Mexico. ā In October 2019, the plaintiff amended the complaint to include claims related to certain administrative services contracts between the Companyās subsidiaries and Grupo Mexico. The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the construction contracts, the mineral contracts, the transportation contracts, and the administrative services contracts were unfair as a result of breaches of fiduciary duties and the Companyās charter. The amended complaint also added Americas Mining Corporation (āAMCā) as a defendant, alleging that AMC breached its fiduciary duties as a controlling stockholder of the Company. The amended complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified monetary damages. In January 2020, the Company, the current and former Directors, and Grupo Mexico responded to the complaint by filing motions to dismiss. The Plaintiff filed a brief in response to the motions on March 13, 2020. On July 16, 2020, the Court denied the motions to dismiss the breach of fiduciary duty claims against the Directors. On October 6, 2020, the Court dismissed the Plaintiffās claims against Grupo Mexico for lack of personal jurisdiction. On February 11, 2021, the Court granted the Directorsā motion to dismiss plaintiffās breach of contract claim. The Court also granted AMCās motion to dismiss all claims against AMC other than those related to the mineral contracts. ā On July 12, 2021, the parties reached an agreement-in-principle to settle the lawsuit, subject to Court approval. On September 29, 2021, the parties filed a Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise, Settlement and Release with the Court. The Court has scheduled a hearing to consider the proposed settlement on February 1, 2022. ā As of September 30, 2021, and until the Court has ruled on the proposed settlement, the Company is unable to determine whether an unfavorable outcome is either remote or probable. ā Labor matters ā Peruvian operations: ā The Company decided to hold talks with the six unions to sign collective agreements prior to their effective dates. In June 2021, the Company signed a four-year collective agreement with one of the unions and granted, among other things, annual salary increases of 5% for each year from December 2021 and a signing bonus of S/ 60,000 (approximately $ 14,507 ā On July 12, 2021, collective agreement extensions were signed with two other unions, under the same conditions as those indicated in the previous paragraph. ā On July 22, 2021, a collective agreement with another union was extended for six years. This agreement granted, among other things, annual salary increases of 5% for each year from September 2021; a signing bonus of S/ 90,000 (approximately $ 21,760); and another long-term agreement bonus of S/ 10,000 (approximately $ 2,418), all of which which are being recorded as labor expense. ā The Company continues to hold conversations in advance with the union whose agreement is in effect until August 31, 2022 for the purpose of extending the collective agreement. Finally, the last of the six unions, whose agreement expired in September 2021, decided to forego advancing conversations (in contrast with the decision taken by the other five unions). Currently, the Company is in the process of establishing a venue of formal negotiation with this union. The Company has decided, in accordance with the law, to end direct negotiations and enter into a conciliation phase with the participation of government labor authorities. ā Mexican operations : ā The workers of the San Martin mine began a strike in July 2007. On February 28, 2018, the striking workers of the San MartĆn mine of IMMSA held an election to vote on the union that would hold the collective bargaining agreement at the San MartĆn mine. The Federacion Nacional de Sindicatos Independientes (the National Federation of Independent Unions) won the vote by a majority. Nevertheless, the vote was challenged by the National Mining Union. On June 26, 2018, the Federal Mediation and Arbitration Board issued a ruling recognizing the election results. Due to the agreement between workers and the Company to end the protracted strike, on August 22, 2018, the Federal Mediation and Arbitration Board authorized the restart of operations of the San MartĆn mine. Such authorization was challenged by the National Mining Union. On April 4, 2019, the Federal Mediation and Arbitration Board recognized, once again, the election results from February 28, 2018, by which the National Federation of Independent Unions won by a majority. In the last quarter of 2019, a Federal Court issued a resolution that established that the Labor Court should analyze the list of workers with the right to vote in the union election. The Company and the National Federation of Independent Unions challenged such determination before the Supreme Court of Justice. Such challenges were dismissed by the Supreme Court. As a consequence, on September 6, 2021, the Federal Mediation and Arbitration Board issued a new resolution determining that, based on the documents submitted by the National Federation of Independent Unions and given the status of the strike until 2018, it was not possible to create a registry of workers holding a right to vote. Therefore, in case of a strike, any economic collective proceedings shall remain suspended. The Company expects that the conflict will be solved in accordance with the legal framework set by labor authorities and that any actions taken will respect the workersā will. ā As of September 30, 2021, the Company had completed most of the rehabilitation plan to restore operations at the San Martin mine, at a total expense of approximately $90.1 million; the mine has since reached full operating capacity. ā In the case of the Taxco mine, its workers have been on strike since July 2007. After several legal procedures, in August 2015, the Supreme Court decided to assert jurisdiction over the case and to rule on it directly. As of September 30, 2021, the case was pending resolution without further developments. ā It is expected that operations at the Taxco mine will remain suspended until the labor issues are resolved. In view of the lengthy strike, the Company has reviewed the carrying value of the Taxco mine to ascertain whether impairment exists. The Company concluded that there is a non-material impairment of the assets located at this mine. ā In 2020, a small group of workers at the Charcas mine claimed an additional workersā participation payment and a minor incident was reported. This claim lacked legal basis given that the Company had already completely fulfilled said obligation with the workers in question. Consequently, the Company took legal action and through conciliation and mediation with labor authorities, the incident concluded with no further repercussions for the Company. ā Other legal matters ā The Company is involved in various other legal proceedings incidental to its operations, but the Company does not believe that decisions adverse to it in any such proceedings, individually or in the aggregate, would have a material effect on its financial position or results of operations. ā Other commitments: ā Peruvian Operations ā Tia Maria: ā On August 1, 2014, the Company received final approval for Tia MariaĀ“s Environmental Impact Assessment (āEIAā). On July 8, 2019, the Company received the construction permit for this 120,000 ton annual SX-EW copper greenfield project with a total capital budget of $1,400 million. This permit was obtained after completing an exhaustive review process, complying with all established regulatory requirements and addressing all observations raised. ā On July 15, 2019, anti-mining groups staged a violent demonstration affecting economic as well as other activities in the Islay province. These actions were followed by the filing of three complaints, sponsored by groups opposing the Tia Maria project, with the Mining Council, which is the Peruvian administrative authority responsible for ruling on these complaints. The Mining Council temporarily suspended the construction permit on August 8, 2019. On October 7, 2019, as part of the process, the Mining Council conducted a hearing to hear the complaints and the CompanyĀ“s position. On October 30, 2019, the Mining Council of the Peruvian Ministry of Energy and Mines ratified the construction permit for the Tia Maria project. ā The Company has been working to promote the welfare of the Islay province population. As part of these efforts, the Company has implemented social programs in education, healthcare and productive development to improve the quality-of-life in the region. The Company also has promoted agricultural and livestock activities in the Tambo Valley and supported growth in manufacturing, fishing and tourism in Islay. ā During the construction and operation phase, the Company will make it a priority to hire local labor to fill the 9,000 jobs (3,600 direct and 5,400 indirect) that the Company expects to generate during Tia Mariaās construction phase. When operating, the Company expects Tia Maria to directly employ 600 workers and indirectly provide jobs for another 4,200. Additionally, from day one of its operations, the Company will generate significant contributions to revenues in the Arequipa region via royalties and taxes. ā Tia MariaĀ“s project budget is approximately $1.4 billion, of which $340.7 million had been invested as of September 30, 2021. This project will use state-of-the-art SX-EW technology with the highest international environmental standards. SX-EW facilities are the most environmentally friendly in the industry as they do not require a smelting process and therefore, do not release any emissions into the atmosphere. ā Michiquillay: ā In June 2018, the Company signed a contract for the acquisition of the Michiquillay copper project in Cajamarca, Peru, at a purchase price of $400 million. Michiquillay is a world-class mining project with estimated mineralized material of 1,150 million tons and a copper grade of 0.63%. It is expected to produce 225,000 tons of copper per year (along with by-products of molybdenum, gold and silver) for an initial mine life of more than 25 years. ā On September 3, 2021, the Company signed a social agreement with the Michiquillay community. The Company is also conducting talks to sign a similar agreement with the La EncaƱada community. Additionally, on October 1, 2021, the Peruvian Ministry of Energy and Mines approved the semi-detailed environmental impact study for the project. These events will allow the Company to initiate an in-depth exploration program in 2022. ā The Company paid $12.5 million at the signing of the contract. In June 2021, the Company made an additional payment of $12.5 million. The balance of $375.0 million will be paid if the Company decides to develop the project, which is not a present obligation. ā Corporate Social Responsibility: ā The Company has a corporate social responsibility policy to maintain and promote the continuity of its mining operations and obtain the best results. The main objective of this policy is to integrate the CompanyĀ“s operations with local communities in the areas of influence of its operations by creating permanent positive relationships to develop optimum social conditions and promote sustainable development in the area. Accordingly, the Company has made the following commitments: ā Tacna Region: ā As the Toquepala expansion project has been completed, the Company considers that these commitments constitute present obligations of the Company and consequently has recorded a liability of $32.5 million in its condensed consolidated financial statements as of September 30, 2021. ā In addition, the Company has committed S/69.0 million (approximately $16.7 million) for the construction of a high-performance school in the Tacna region under the āsocial investment for taxesā (obras por impuestos) program, which allows the Company to use these amounts as an advance payment of taxes. ā Moquegua Region: ā In addition, the Company has committed S/86.7 million (approximately $21.0 million) to build two infrastructure projects in the Moquegua region under the āsocial investment for taxesā (obras por impuestos) program, which allows the Company to use these amounts as an advance payment of taxes. ā Power purchase agreements: ā ā Electroperu S.A.: In June 2014, the Company entered into a power purchase agreement for 120 megawatts (āMWā) with the state power company Electroperu S.A., under which Electroperu S.A. began supplying energy for the Peruvian operations for twenty years starting on April 17, 2017. ā ā Kallpa Generacion S.A. (āKallpaā): In July 2014, the Company entered into a power purchase agreement for 120MW with Kallpa, an independent Israeli owned power company, under which Kallpa will supply energy for the Peruvian operations for ten years starting on April 17, 2017 and ending on April 30, 2027. In May 2016, the Company signed an additional power purchase agreement for a maximum of 80MW with Kallpa, under which Kallpa began supplying energy for the Peruvian operations related to the Toquepala Expansion and other minor projects starting on May 1, 2017 and ending on October 31, 2029. ā Mexican operations ā Power purchase agreements: ā ā MGE: In 2012, the Company signed a power purchase agreement with MGE, an indirect subsidiary of Grupo Mexico, to supply power to some of the Companyās Mexican operations through 2032. For further information, please see Note 5 āRelated party transactionsā. ā ā Eolica el Retiro, S.A.P.I. de C.V.: In 201 |
