| COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES: | NOTE 9 — COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES: Environmental matters: The Company has established comprehensive environmental conservation programs at its mining facilities in Peru and Mexico. The Company’s environmental programs include 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, among others. Environmental capital investments in the three-month period ended March 31, 2024 and 2023 were as follows (in millions): 2024 2023 Peruvian operations $ 1.6 $ 2.7 Mexican operations 42.1 23.2 $ 43.7 $ 25.9 Peruvian operations: Air Quality Standards (“AQS”): In November 2023, MINAM enacted a new AQS 10 AQS Soil Environmental Quality Standards (“SQS”) Climate change: Mexican operations: The principal legislation applicable to the Company’s Mexican operations is the Federal General Law of Ecological Balance and Environmental Protection (the “General Law”), which is enforced by the Federal Bureau of Environmental Protection (“PROFEPA”). 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. 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. Additionally, amendments to the Civil Federal Procedures Code (“CFPC”) were enacted in 2011 and established three categories of collective actions under which a group of 30 or more individuals can be considered sufficient to prove a “legitimate interest” to file civil actions for injuries arising out of alleged violations of environmental, consumer protection, financial services and Antitrust laws. The group can seek restitution or economic compensation for the alleged injuries or suspension of the activities which allegedly caused 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. In 2013, the Environmental Liability Federal Law was enacted. The law establishes general guidelines for actions considered likely to cause environmental harm. If a possible determination regarding harm occurs, environmental clean-up and remedial actions sufficient to restore the environment to a pre-existing condition must be taken. If restoration is not possible, compensation measures should be provided. Criminal penalties and monetary fines can be imposed under this law. Guaymas sulfuric acid spill: On July 10, 2019, PROFEPA made a first inspection of the area, concluding that the Company executed all the appropriate procedures to contain the discharge, and no reference was made to the existence of negative impacts on the environment resulting from the incident. On July 19, 2019, PROFEPA revisited the facilities to carry out a second inspection and declared a partial temporary shutdown that only affected 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 in operation since 1979, prior to the 1988 Mexican General Law of Ecological Balance and the Protection of the Environment. Companies that were operating before the enactment of the aforementioned law are exempt from the permit requirement. The Company has solved this issue and expect to restart operations soon. Climate change: The Company believes that all of its facilities in Peru and Mexico are in material compliance with 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 Company’s business, properties, or operating results. On May 09, 2023, Mexican Congress approved several changes effective immediately to the Mining Law, National Waters Law, the General Law of Ecological Balance and Environmental Protection, and the General Law for the Prevention and Integral Management of Waste. The main changes are reducing mining concession terms from 50 to 30 years; new restrictions and conditions on water use; requirements to provide guarantees for closure and remediation of operations; and a requirement to contribute 5% of net earnings to indigenous communities for new projects and significant changes to exploration rules. These amendments to the law have been challenged and are being reviewed by the Supreme Court. The company is not expecting any negative impacts on its operations. Litigation matters Peruvian operations: The Tia Maria Mining Project 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 annul the mining concession application for the Tia Maria project; and (iv) to annul the resolution that approved the construction license. The lawsuits were filed by Messrs. 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), Gobierno Regional de Arequipa (filed December 16, 2019) and Municipalidad Distrital de Dean Valdivia (filed in January 2020 but notified in August 2022). 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. On September 27, 2021, the Court ordered to temporarily archive the case. As of March 31, 2024, the case remains pending resolution. The Guillen Lopez case is currently before the lower court. Oral arguments took place on July 19, 2019. On January 7, 2020, the Judge decided to suspend the proceedings until the del Carpio Lazo case is concluded. On March 8, 2022, SCC’s Peruvian Branch informed the Court that the del Carpio Lazo case had concluded. On September 7, 2023, the Judge cancelled the suspension and declared the case ready for a resolution. As of March 31, 2024, the case remains pending resolution. The Junta de Usuarios del Valle del Tambo case is currently before the lower court. In 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 Lazo case is concluded. On March 11, 2022, SCC’s Peruvian Branch informed the Court that the del Carpio Lazo case had concluded. As of March 31, 2024, the case remains pending resolution. The Gobierno Regional de Arequipa case is currently before the lower court. The Company answered the complaint on September 15, 2020. On February 8, 2021, the Judge decided to suspend the proceeding until the del Carpio Lazo case was concluded. On March 24, 2022, SCC’s Peruvian Branch informed the Court that the del Carpio Lazo case had concluded. On March 28, 2022, the Judge cancelled the suspension. On May 24, 2022, the parties presented their closing arguments. On March 15, 2023, the Judge dismissed the lawsuit. The plaintiff missed the chance to appeal the ruling, therefore, the Judge declared the case had concluded in favor of SCC’s Peruvian Branch. On October 20, 2023 the Superior Court declared that the plaintiff had not been properly informed of the ruling and ordered issuance of a new notification of the First Instance ruling. The Superior Court instructed the First Instance Court to inform the Gobierno Regional de Arequipa The Municipalidad Distrital de Dean Valdivia case is currently before the lower court. On August 17, 2022, the Company was formally notified of the lawsuit and answered the complaint on September 2, 2022. SCC’s Peruvian Branch informed the Court the result of the del Carpio Lazo case. As of March 31, 2024, the case is pending resolution. 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. Special Regional Pasto Grande Project (“Pasto Grande Project”) In 2012, the Pasto Grande Project, an entity of the Regional Government of Moquegua, filed a lawsuit against SCC’s Peruvian Branch alleging property rights over a certain area used by the Peruvian Branch and seeking the demolition of the tailings dam where SCC’s 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 constructed and operated the tailings dams with proper governmental authorization since 1995. Following a motion filed by the Peruvian Branch, the lower court included MINEM as a defendant in this lawsuit. MINEM has answered the complaint and denied the validity of the claim. On July 2, 2022, the case was temporarily archived. On May 26, 2023, the Judge ordered termination of the proceeding due to the lack of interest of the plaintiff. On June 2, 2023, the plaintiff appealed the termination of the proceeding. On September 18, 2023, the Superior Court reversed the termination and ordered the Judge to continue the proceeding. As of March 31, 2024, the case is pending resolution. SCC’s Peruvian Branch asserts that the lawsuit is without merit and is vigorously defending against it. The amount of this contingency cannot be reasonably estimated by management at this time. Mexican operations: The Accidental Spill at Buenavista Mine of 2014 In relation to the 2014 accidental spill of copper sulfate solution at a leaching pond in the Buenavista mine, the following legal procedures are pending against the Company: 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. (“BVC”), a subsidiary of the Company 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 March 31, 2024. On October 12, 2023, SEMARNAT publicly announced the filing of another criminal complaint regarding the Sonora River spill, arguing that remediation of damages to the river was incomplete and compensation for said damages was insufficient. The Company has been directed to provide information regarding remediation activities and compensation for damages. In due course, BVC will analyze this new complaint. Nonetheless, the Company strongly believes that it has duly completed all remediation and compensation-related activities as required by the competent Mexican authorities and as such, this new complaint lacks merit. 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 March 31, 2024, three lawsuits are still pending: two were filed by Acciones Colectivas de Sinaloa, A.C. and one, by Defensa Colectiva, A.C.; requesting precautionary measures about construction of facilities for monitoring public health services and prohibiting the closure of the Rio Sonora Trust. Similarly, during 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 Dominguez 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 Montaño et al; and Juana Irma Alday Villa. In 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 Peña Molina, et al; these actions were dismissed by the court, because they have expired. As of March 31, 2024, forty-five cases were pending resolution. 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 of 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 García Enriquez et al. In 2018, BVC was served with two additional constitutional lawsuits that were filed against SEMARNAT by Norberto Bustamante et al. With regard to the constitutional lawsuit filed by Maria Elena Heredia Bustamante et al; in which it was claimed the lack of community approval regarding 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 carry out a public meeting to inform the community of the technical aspects required to build the dam, potential impacts and prevention measures. This public meeting will have no material effects to BVC’s operations. SEMARNAT has carried out the consultation ordered by the Supreme Court. As a result, it has informed the corresponding Judge about its compliance with the resolution, in which BVC was required to implement additional measures of environmental impact prevention, such as: (i) the building of at least three monitoring wells downstream from the curtain of the contingency dam in a period of six months; (ii) monitoring of the groundwater level and water quality every six months; (iii) carrying out rain collection work in order to restore water to the Sonora River basin, with six months granted to present the execution program; (iv) determine the location of wildlife conservation and protection areas and define the need to establish biological corridors; (v) obtain photographic or videographic evidence every six months; (vi) submitting to SEMARNAT two years before the closure and abandonment of the site, or earlier if necessary, the closure program that includes the cleaning and restoration of the soil including Mexican regulation NOM-141; (vii) include the measures in the Environmental Monitoring Program according to the environmental components impacted; and (viii) hiring an external environmental consultant to validate compliance with the current and new conditions imposed. The foregoing does not impact BVC’s operations. Additionally, the lawsuits filed by Maria de los Angeles Enriquez Bacame and Norberto Bustamante have been dismissed and closed without prejudice to the Company. As of March 31, 2024, the remaining cases were pending resolution. 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. Labor matters Peruvian operations: In the first quarter of 2023, the Company began applying the terms of the agreement entered into with the six unions pursuant to Law 31632, which stipulates new conditions for compensation of leaves granted during COVID-19. Within the current framework of labor regulations and the agreements with all six unions, this compensation has been adapted to align with current working hours of the mining sector. These conditions were in effect until December 1, 2023. In June 2023, the Company held two meetings with the unions to discuss different issues of collective interest. In these meetings, the unions expressed concerns regarding the current economic situation, including the rise in the cost of living in Peru, as well as issues related to the provision of services granted by the Company. In this regard, in the third quarter of 2023, the Company released a formal response to each union where it is confirmed that there are collective labor agreements in force with each union. These agreements have regulated all the benefits related to salaries and working conditions. The Company has been complying with all its obligations under such collective labor agreements and guarantees it will continue to maintain on-going communication with the unions to ensure harmony. In the last quarter of 2023, one of the unions which represents 24.7% of affiliated workers in the Company’s three productive units, held elections for 2023-2025. Another union, which represents 25.7% of affiliated workers, is in the process of electing its new representatives. In the first quarter of 2024, meetings were held with four of the Company's six unions. At the meetings, the unions expressed their support for the Company’s investment projects. Additionally, the unions requested that conversations on collective labor agreements move forward. The Company is still evaluating this request. The Company maintains permanent communication with union representatives to ensure labor harmony and proper management of labor relations. Southern Peru has collective bargaining An important development in labor relations with the Company´s unions stems from a ruling by the Peruvian Supreme Court that was notified to the Company on October 23, 2023. After 12 years of litigation, the Court ruled in favor of the Company to settle a suit involving a worker payment the amount of S/11,000 (approximately $2,956.2) that a lower court had ordered the Company to pay to one of the unions in 2011. The Company had been legally pursuing recovery of the total amount paid to the workers. The union has expressed its intention to comply with the court order and to reach an agreement to return the amount paid by the Company. Mexican operations : The workers of the San Martin mine were on strike since July 2007. On February 28, 2018, the striking workers of the San Martín mine of IMMSA held an election to vote on the union that would hold the collective bargaining agreement at the San Martin 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 Martin 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. Consequently, 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 collective bargaining proceedings shall remain suspended. On June 9, 2023, the Federal Mediation and Arbitration Board, in a ruling that veered from its previous stance, did not recognize the common representatives of the coalition workers and consequently ruled that the agreement which such representatives had made with the Company to lift the strike in 2018 lacked validity. Notwithstanding, on June 14, 2023, in an arbitration proceeding initiated at IMMSA's request, the Federal Mediation and Arbitration Board handed down a ruling that terminated the strike and ordered workers to resume activities within 15 days. The Mining Union filed a protective action (Amparo) against this resolution, which is pending resolution as of March 31, 2024. Additionally, the Mining Union has filed a complaint before the Government of the United States of America under the rules of the Rapid Response Mechanism contained in the Mexico-United States-Canada Treaty (“T-MEC”), alleging denial of free association rights. The Company´s operations at the San Martin unit continue to evolve normally and the conflict is expected to be resolved in accordance with the legal framework set by labor authorities; any actions taken will respect the will of the workers 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 March 31, 2024, the case was pending resolution without further developments. 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. Other legal matters 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. Other commitments: Peruvian Operations: Michiquillay 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 inferred mineral resources of 2,288 million tonnes with an estimated copper grade of 0.43%. It is expected to produce 225,000 tonnes of copper per year (along with by-products of molybdenum, gold and silver) for an initial mine life of more than 25 years. As per the purchase agreement, the Company paid $12.5 million at the signing of the contract and $12.5 million in June 2021. The remaining balance of $375.0 million will be paid if the Company decides to develop the project. Therefore, it is not a present obligation. In June 2022, the Company notified the Peruvian authorities of the end of the suspension period and the start of the preoperational period that lasts 12 years and it can be extended for three In 2021, the Company signed social agreements with the Michiquillay and La Encañada communities. In addition, in October 2021, the Peruvian Ministry of Energy and Mines approved the semi-detailed environmental impact study for the project. In the last quarter of 2022, the Company informed MINEM that exploration activities had begun and that it initiated an in-depth assessment of existing mineral resources. In 2023, in accordance with the social agreements with the Michiquillay and La Encañada communities, the Company has hired unskilled labor and is paying for the use of surface land. The Company is supporting social programs in both communities. Additionally, the Company continues exploration activities on this project and as of March 31, 2024 it had drilled 80,000 meters and obtained 27,902 core samples, which are currently under evaluation. Geological modeling, cross section interpretation, and drilling logging are currently underway. Social agreements with the Michiquillay and La Encañada communities represent an opportunity to improve quality of life for their residents through the Company´s strong social programs, backed by a solid framework for technical work at the project level. The main commitments signed by the Company regarding the social agreements are related to providing support for agricultural and livestock activities, financial support for local initiatives, and social programs in favor of education, water management, waste disposal, and healthcare for vulnerable groups. Corporate Social Responsibility The Company has a corporate social responsibility policy to maintain and promote the continuity of its mining operations while obtaining the best results. The main objective of this policy is to integrate the Company´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: Tacna Region As the Toquepala expansion project was completed, the Company considers that these commitments constitute present obligations of the Company and consequently has recorded a liability of $14.3 million in its consolidated financial statements as of March 31, 2024. In addition, the Company has committed S/97.7 million (approximately $26.3 million) for the construction of a high-achievement school in the Tacna region under the “Works for Taxes” ( obras por impuestos Moquegua Region In addition, the Company has committed S/233.0 million (approximately $62.6 million) to build three infrastructure projects in the Moquegua region and has financed pre-investment studies for basic sanitation for S/0.3 million (approximately $0.1 million), all of that under the “Works for Taxes” (obras por impuestos) program, which allows the Company to use these amounts as an advance payment of taxes. Apurimac Region Arequipa Region Power purchase agreements ● Electroperu S.A.: In June 2014, the Company entered into a power purchase agreement for 120 megawatts (“MW”) 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. ● Kallpa Generacion S.A. (“Kallpa”): In July 2014, the Company entered into a power purchase agreement for 120 MW 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 80 MW 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. Mexican operations: Power purchase agreements ● 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 Company’s Mexican operations through 2032. For further information, please see Note 5 “Related party transactions”. ● Eolica el Retiro, S.A.P.I. de C.V.: In 2013, the Company signed a power purchase agreement with Eolica el Retiro, S.A.P.I. de C.V. a windfarm energy producer that is an indirect subsidiary of Grupo Mexico, to supply power to some of the Company´s Mexican operations. For further information, please see Note 5 “Related party transactions”. ● Parque Eolico de Fenicias, S. de R.L. de C.V.: On February 20, 2020, the Company signed a power purchase agreement with Parque Eolico de Fenicias, S. de R.L. de C.V., an indirect subsidiary of Grupo Mexico, to supply 611,400 MWh of power per year to some of the Company´s Mexican operations for 20 years . This agreement is expected to become effective during the second quarter of 2024 . Corporate operations: Commitment for capital projects As of March 31, 2024, the Company had committed approximately $314.7 million to the development of its capital investment projects at its operations. Tax contingency matters: |
