The above process generates data bases for the 3D block model, containing all the necessary information for evaluating the proven reserves. The following is an example of 3D data bases.
For a given operational cut off, a calculation is made of the tonnage and grades of the proven reserves contained in the ore bodies represented by the 3D block model. The resulting ore grade is adjusted by operational factors which reflect the dilution of ore grade between the in-situ reserves and the reserves after extraction for processing. These factors are variable and they depend on the continuity of mineralization, the lithology, lixiviation of the ore body, geological sector, etc.
The tonnage of Reserves calculated in those sectors that have been explored with a 100 x 100 m drill hole grid pattern are corrected by a geological continuity factor in order to express it in terms of a 50 x 50 m pattern. This factor has been determined from practical experience at the various caliche mining operations.
B. | Methodology for Evaluating and Calculating Probable Reserves |
The methodology for determining probable reserves, corresponding to data obtained from drill hole grid patterns having 200 m x 200 m spacing, is similar to that used for the proven reserves, in terms of interpretation, creation of the Geological Data Base and the application of limiting operational parameters, which help select the blocks that make up the reserve. Probable reserves, however, are obtained using a 2D block model, which takes into account the thickness of overburden, thickness of the caliche ore layer, mineral grade and density. The tonnage of each block is then calculated by means of the Polygon Method.
As in the case of proven reserves, the ore grade calculated for each sector is corrected by operational factors which reflect dilution of ore grades.
Explanation of our Reserve Estimates for the Atacama Salar Brines Mines
To determine the annual tonnage of ion reserves contained in the brine deposits recognized to date in the Salar de Atacama mining properties, the following stages are developed:
1. | Updating of Geological and Geochemical Planimetry |
This includes incorporating new exploration information from either surface or stratigraphic sections, into the geological study defined in the year 2000.
This geological study divides the recognized deposit into 5 Deposits in accordance with its geochemistry and geological reconnaissance:
| • | MOP 1 PRINCIPAL DEPOSIT (In operation) |
| • | MOP 2 SOUTH-WEST DEPOSIT |
| • | MOP 3 NORTH-WEST DEPOSIT |
| • | SOP DEPOSIT (In operation) |
All the above updated information is incorporated into the digital geological database and managed by a GIS software (“MAPINFO”).
In each one of these 5 Deposits, brine samples are taken from production and exploration drill-holes. This sampling is realized in the month of January of each year. The breakdown of the sampled drill-holes in each Deposit is as follows:
| • | MOP 1 PRINCIPAL DEPOSIT (In operation):. Samples are taken from production and exploration drill-holes, including a total of 233 drill-holes in a regular grid pattern spacing equal to 500 x 500 meters and a depth of 50 to 100 meters. |
14
| • | MOP 2 SOUTHWEST DEPOSIT: Samples are taken from exploration drill-holes, including 64 drill-holes in a regular grid pattern spacing equal to 1000 x 1000 meters and a depth of up to 100 meters. |
| • | MOP 3 NORTHWEST DEPOSIT: Samples are taken from exploration drill-holes, including 45 irregularly distributed perforations with a depth of up to 100 meters. |
| • | INTERMEDIATE DEPOSIT: Samples are taken from exploration drill-holes, including 25 drill-holes with 100 meters of depth. |
| • | SOP DEPOSIT: Samples are taken from exploration drill-holes, including 112 drill-holes with irregular distribution and a depth of 40 to 60 meters. |
All the samples collected are analyzed in SQM Salar S.A.’s own laboratory for the purpose of determining the density of the brine and the value of the following chemical elements:
K%, Mg%, Li%, SO4%, H3BO3%, Na%, Cl%, Ca%, Density
The measuring method applied is ICP (Induction Coupled Plasma) and atomic absorption.
The results of these analyses are geo-referenced and stored in an Excel database.
To estimate the proven and probable reserves existing by the end of 2005, the information and sampling realized in January 2006 are taken into consideration.
The method used in the evaluation of reserves corresponds to a geostatistical study using the ordinary Kriging method in 2D1, including the following stages:
4.1. | Updating of Variograms: Activity realized by external consultant. |
4.2. | Entry of chemical data to the Kriging Program to obtain an estimated grade or concentration of the elements to be evaluated (K, SO4, Mg, Li, B, Ca, and H2O). |
4.3. | The minimum evaluation unit used is a block measuring 500 x 500 meters of surface area and 30 meters of depth for the MOP 1 Principal, MOP 3 Northwest, Intermediate, and SOP Deposits. For the MOP 2 Southwest deposit, a block is configured of 500 x 500 meters of surface area and 50 meters of depth. |
4.4. | A value is assigned to each block in a percentage of the Specific Yield which corresponds to the quantity of brine effectively drainable or exploitable in situ in each one of the evaluation units. This coefficient has been modeled and calibrated based on the MOD/FLOW and MT3D model (External Consultants: Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, DICTUC). |
1 | The program was designed for Salar de Atacama brines by external consultant expert in Geostatistics. |
15
The value assigned to the MOP 1 Principal, Intermediate, and MOP 3 Northwest Deposits varies between 3% and 20% while the MOP 2 Southwest Deposit is 7% and SOP Deposit varies between 1 to 20%.
4.5. | Calculation of Reserves |
To calculate the recoverable reserves of each Deposit, the chemical restrictions must be considered that will define the type of process that should be applied to the brines obtained. For this reason, each one of the blocks receives a characterization of the estimated SO4/Mg and SO4/(Mg+Li) ratio.
4.5.1. | Chemical Parameters considered |
MOP 1, 2, and 3 Deposits | | |
Ratio | | SO4/Mg = < 0.5 |
| | SO4/Mg > 0.5 and =< 1.1 |
| | SO4/Mg > 1.1 and =< 2.0 |
Elements to evaluate | | K, Li, SO4, and B. |
| | |
MOP 1 Deposit | | |
Ratio | | SO4/(Mg+1.75Li) > 2.0 |
Elements to evaluate | | K, Li, SO4, and B. |
| | |
Intermediate Deposit | | |
Ratio | | SO4/Mg => 1.1 and =< 2.0 |
Elements to evaluate | | K, Li, SO4, and B. |
| | |
SOP Deposit | | |
Ratio | | SO4/(Mg+1.75Li)=>1.8 |
| | Mg/Li > 6.3 |
| | SO4/K > 1.2 |
Elements to evaluate | | K, Li, SO4, and B. |
| | |
Ratio | | SO4/Mg > 2.9, without complying with previous ratios. |
Elements to evaluate | | K, Li, SO4, and B. |
Based on the chemical characteristics of each block, the volume of brine contained and the Specific Yield (drainable percentage), it is possible to calculate the quantity of K, Li, SO4 and B ions that can be extracted from each one of the different Deposits and for each one of the ranges of the SO4/Mg and/or SO4/(Mg+1.75Li) ratios.
MAPINFO software is used to sum up the corresponding blocks in accordance with the chemical selection parameters, which select the blocks that comply with the conditions established by the selection, providing accumulated tonnages for the various elements to be evaluated. With this same software, the distribution of the reserves evaluated in each one of the Deposits can be visualized planimetrically.
16
Example of Reserve Estimates and Supporting Materials for Area VIII of Sector 4 of Pampa Blanca Mine from our Caliche Deposits Group
a) | Below are the results of the tonnage / ore-grade curve for iodine, after applying the calculation methodology for proven and probable reserves to area VIII of sector 4 of Pampa Blanca mine. |
Evaluation by Iodine (l2)
Cut off ppm | | Average Grade | | Tonnage (kMT) | | Thickness (m) | |
|
| |
| |
| |
| I2(ppm) | | NaN03(%) | | ore (caliche) | | overburden | | ore (caliche) | | overburden | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
350 | | 473 | | 4.9 | | 867,029 | | 383,369 | | 1.9 | | 1.1 | |
400 | | 502 | | 5.1 | | 640,591 | | 285,977 | | 1.8 | | 1.1 | |
450 | | 546 | | 5.4 | | 417,318 | | 172,941 | | 1.8 | | 1.0 | |
b) | Example of spreadsheet with detail of Resources and Reserves in Sector 4 of the Pampa Blanca mine, by sector and with a cut-off of 350 ppm Iodine: |
PAMPA BLANCA SECTOR 4 IODINE
| | Grid | | Comment | | kMt | | %NaNo3 | | ppm I2 | | Thick. overb. m | | Thick. ore. m | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
PAMPA BLANCA | | 50 | | SECTOR II | | 2,326,379 | | 6.5 | | 469 | | 1.1 | | 2.3 | |
| | 50 | | SECTOR VIII | | 867,029 | | 4.9 | | 473 | | 1.1 | | 1.9 | |
| | 50 | | SECTOR IX-X | | 1,681,142 | | 5.9 | | 472 | | 1.0 | | 1.8 | |
| | 50 | | SECTOR XI | | 1,016,496 | | 5.3 | | 469 | | 1.8 | | 2.8 | |
| | 50 | | SECTOR I | | 3,904,060 | | 6.0 | | 523 | | 1.4 | | 2.7 | |
| | 50 | | SECTOR III | | 1,013,235 | | 5.5 | | 440 | | 1.2 | | 1.8 | |
| | 50 | | SECTOR IV | | 899,531 | | 6.8 | | 487 | | 0.8 | | 2.5 | |
| | 50 | | SECTOR V | | 2,984,979 | | 6.2 | | 488 | | 1.6 | | 2.6 | |
| | 50 | | SECTOR VI | | 8,090,285 | | 6.2 | | 544 | | 1.0 | | 2.7 | |
| | 50 | | SECTOR VII | | 4,302,622 | | 7.0 | | 538 | | 1.6 | | 2.5 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | Total grid 50 | | 27,085,759 | | 6.2 | | 512 | | 1.3 | | 2.5 | (a) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | 100 | | SECTOR 4 | | 6,097,000 | | 6.8 | | 550 | | 0.7 | | 2.9 | (b) |
| | 200 | | SECTOR 4 | | 10,096,800 | | 7.8 | | 618 | | 1.1 | | 3.9 | (c) |
| | 400 | | SECTOR 4 | | 11,289,600 | | 8.9 | | 573 | | 1.4 | | 2.4 | (d) |
(a) | Total Resources in a 50 x 50 grid; |
(b) | Total Resources in a 100 x 100 grid |
(c) | Resources in a 200x200 grid |
(d) | Resources in a 400x400 grid |
17
c) | Example of spreadsheet summarizing proven reserves in Pampa Blanca mine, after applying the adjustment factor for dilution of estimated ore grades. Also shown is the adjustment applied to the 100 x 100 m drilling grid. |
| | GEOLOGICAL RESOURCES DIC/31/2005 | | PROVEN RESERVES DIC/31/2005 | |
| |
| |
| |
Sierra Gorda | | kMT | | %NaNo3 | | ppm I2 | | kMT | | %NaNo3 | | ppm I2 | | kMT | | %NaNo3 | | ppm I2 | | kMT | | %NaNo3 | | ppm I2 | | kMT | | %NaNo3 | | ppm I2 | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
Pampa Blanca-4(Cp) | | 27.1 | | 6.2 | | 512 | | 6.1 | | 6.8 | | 550 | | 27.1 | | 5.3 | | 461 | | 4.3 | | 5.8 | | 495 | | 31.4 | | 5.4 | | 466 | (a)(b) |
Pampa Blanca-4(Cp) | | 20.9 | | 8.7 | | 689 | | 17.8 | | 9.3 | | 667 | | 20.9 | | 7.4 | | 620 | | 12.4 | | 7.9 | | 600 | | 33.3 | | 7.6 | | 613 | |
Ampliación Pampa Blanca | | 16.8 | | 6.3 | | 626 | | | | | | | | 16.8 | | 5.3 | | 563 | | | | | | | | 16.8 | | 5.3 | | 563 | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
Total | | 64.7 | | 7.0 | | 599 | | 23.9 | | 8.7 | | 637 | | 64.7 | | 6.0 | | 539 | | 16.7 | | 7.4 | | 573 | | 81.4 | | 6.3 | | 546 | (T1) |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
(T1) | Total Proven Reserves |
d) | Example of spreadsheet summarizing Probable Reserves in Pampa Blanca mine, after applying the adjustment factor for dilution of estimated ore grades. |
| | GEOLOGICAL RESOURCES DIC/31/2005 | | PROBABALE RESERVES 31/DIC/2005 | |
| |
| |
| |
| | GRID 200 | | GRID 200 PROY. | | TOTAL PROBABLE | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
Sierra Gorda | | kMT | | %NaNo3 | | ppm I2 | | kMT | | %NaNo3 | | ppm I2 | | kMT | | %NaNo3 | | ppm I2 | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
Pampa Blanca-3 (Cp) | | 27.6 | | 9.8 | | 580 | | 27.6 | | 8.3 | | 522 | | 27.6 | | 8.3 | | 522 | |
Pampa Blanca-4 (Cp) | | 10.1 | | 7.8 | | 618 | | 10.1 | | 6.6 | | 556 | | 10.1 | | 6.6 | | 556 | (c) |
Pampa Blanca-5 (Cp) | | 51.9 | | 9.2 | | 588 | | 51.9 | | 7.8 | | 529 | | 51.9 | | 7.8 | | 529 | |
Blanco Encalada (Cp) | | 48.3 | | 10.5 | | 425 | | 48.3 | | 8.9 | | 383 | | 48.3 | | 8.9 | | 383 | |
Ampliación Pampa Blanca (Cp) | | 285.2 | | 5.8 | | 611 | | 285.2 | | 4.9 | | 550 | | 285.2 | | 4.9 | | 550 | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
Total | | 423.1 | | 7.1 | | 585 | | 423.1 | | 6.0 | | 526 | | 423.1 | | 6.0 | | 526 | (T2) |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
(T2) | Total Probable Reserves |
e) | Summary Table of Proven and Probable Reserves, which includes Pampa Blanca Reserves |
Mine | | Proven Reserves (millions of metric tons) | | Nitrate Average Grade (percentage by weight) | | Iodine Average Grade (parts per million) | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
Pedro de Valdivia | | 144.0 | | 7.2 | % | 387 | |
Maria Elena | | 146.8 | | 7.3 | % | 415 | |
Pampa Blanca | | 81.4 | | 6.3 | % | 546 | (T1) |
Nueva Victoria | | 95.3 | | 4.2 | % | 467 | |
Mapocho | | 4.6 | | 5.3 | % | 436 | |
Soronal | | 158.9 | | 7.1 | % | 405 | |
Mine | | Probable Reserves (millions of metric tons) | | Nitrate Average Grade (percentage by weight) | | Iodine Average Grade (parts per million) | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
Pedro de Valdivia | | 134.7 | | 6.9 | % | 441 | |
Maria Elena | | 97.6 | | 7.3 | % | 380 | |
Pampa Blanca | | 423.1 | | 6.0 | % | 526 | (T2) |
Nueva Victoria | | 66.0 | | 3.7 | % | 443 | |
18
Example of Reserve Estimates and Supporting Materials for Atacama Salar Brines Mines
5.1. | Reception of chemical analysis and creation of database. |
Analytical results are received from 479 sampled drill-holes. These results are electronically filed in an evaluation worksheet, as shown in Figure A.
Figure A
Sample | | East | | North | | %K | | %Mg | | %Li | | % S04 | | % H3B03 | | %Ca | | H2O | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
W-1 | | 562585 | | 7394136 | | 3,87 | | 1,42 | | 0,23 | | 0,71 | | 0,32 | | 0,06 | | 70,3 | |
W-10 | | 563588 | | 7394635 | | 2,69 | | 1,33 | | 0,22 | | 1,42 | | 0,36 | | 0,04 | | 70,9 | |
W-17 | | 564094 | | 7394635 | | 3,45 | | 1,62 | | 0,28 | | 0,93 | | 0,42 | | 0,05 | | 70,6 | |
W-2 | | 561990 | | 7393637 | | 3,08 | | 1,86 | | 0,33 | | 1,10 | | 0,44 | | 0,04 | | 71,1 | |
W-18 | | 564089 | | 7395282 | | 2,98 | | 1,44 | | 0,24 | | 1,31 | | 0,39 | | 0,04 | | 70,7 | |
W-5 | | 563087 | | 7394134 | | 3,88 | | 1,50 | | 0,25 | | 0,87 | | 0,33 | | 0,05 | | 70,1 | |
W-40 | | 560992 | | 7394146 | | 2,65 | | 1,65 | | 0,28 | | 1,54 | | 0,37 | | 0,03 | | 70,9 | |
W-35 | | 561487 | | 7393139 | | 3,81 | | 1,83 | | 0,33 | | 0,73 | | 0,38 | | 0,06 | | 70,1 | |
W-34 | | 561993 | | 7394158 | | 2,57 | | 1,42 | | 0,24 | | 1,56 | | 0,37 | | 0,03 | | 70,9 | |
W-38 | | 560988 | | 7393140 | | 3,36 | | 1,12 | | 0,18 | | 1,02 | | 0,30 | | 0,05 | | 70,6 | |
W-6 | | 563093 | | 7394560 | | 3,03 | | 1,40 | | 0,23 | | 1,28 | | 0,36 | | 0,04 | | 70,8 | |
W-16 | | 564122 | | 7394169 | | 2,55 | | 1,21 | | 0,19 | | 1,59 | | 0,38 | | 0,04 | | 70,7 | |
W-54 | | 561487 | | 7392640 | | 3,50 | | 1,79 | | 0,33 | | 0,78 | | 0,39 | | 0,06 | | 70,6 | |
19
5.2. | Updating of variograms and evaluation software. |
The grade information organized in a database is sent to an outside consultant, who, based on this information, builds the new variograms that indicate the geostatistical behavior of the ions to be evaluated and that allow defining the new scope of grade estimation used by the Kriging method, as shown in Figure B.
Figure B
20
5.3. | Assignation of attributes per block. |
Numerical information is entered into evaluation software and graphs are produced demonstrating the generation of evaluated blocks. The chemical ratios (restrictions), Specific Yield, density and tonnage calculations are added to the previously generated blocks with grades. All this information can be displayed by means of a GIS or electronic worksheet as shown in Figure C.
FIGURE C
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f35ed/f35ed360dc2f5b5ef80ee29339cec1939433177c" alt=""
21
5.4. | Chemical selection parameters for the evaluation. |
Once the prior process of assigning attributes to each one of the blocks is completed, the blocks are selected for determining the volume with the MAPINFO software and according to the chemical parameters and limits defined in section 4.5.1., which are based on economical criteria for obtaining different commercial products resulting from each ion.
This allows selecting and adding up the reserve blocks in accordance with their selection criteria, the results of which are shown in section 5.5.
5.5. | Reserve calculation and evaluation results |
| | Chemical Parameter SO4/Mg <=0.5, January 2006 | | | | | | | |
| |
| | | | | | | |
| | MOP 1 Deposit | | MOP 2 S-W Deposit | | MOP 3 N-W Deposit | | | | Reserve | |
| |
| |
| |
| | | |
| |
| | Proven | | Probable | | Err > 35% | | Total | | Proven | | Probable | | Err > 35% | | Total | | Proven | | Probable | | Err > 35% | | Total | | | | Proven | | Probable | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | | |
| |
| |
K | | 1.697 | | 0.00 | | 0.00 | | 1.697 | | 5.230 | | 0.155 | | 0.000 | | 5.385 | | 0.398 | | 0.476 | | 0.097 | | 0.972 | | K | | 7.325 | | 0.631 | |
S04 | | 0.177 | | 0.110 | | 0.026 | | 0.314 | | 0.074 | | 0.444 | | 0.037 | | 0.555 | | 0.000 | | 0.100 | | 0.146 | | 0.247 | | SO4 | | 0.251 | | 0.654 | |
Li | | 0.133 | | 0.048 | | 0.000 | | 0.181 | | 0.340 | | 0.042 | | 0.000 | | 0.382 | | 0.000 | | 0.042 | | 0.057 | | 0.098 | | Li | | 0.473 | | 0.132 | |
H3BO3 | | 0.192 | | 0.00 | | 0.00 | | 0.192 | | 0.206 | | 0.296 | | 0.000 | | 0.502 | | 0.044 | | 0.075 | | 0.000 | | 0.119 | | B | | 0.077 | | 0.065 | |
| | Chemical Parameter SO4/Mg > 0.5- SO4/Mg <= 1.1, January 2006 | | | | | |
| |
| | | | | |
| | MOP 1 Deposit | | MOP 2 S-W Deposit | | MOP 3 N-W Deposit | | | | Reserve | |
| |
| |
| |
| | | |
| |
| | Proven | | Probable | | Err > 35% | | Total | | Proven | | Probable | | Err > 35% | | Total | | Proven | | Probable | | Err > 35% | | Total | | | | Proven | | Probable | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | | |
| |
| |
K | | 3.179 | | 0.000 | | 0.000 | | 3.179 | | 0.502 | | 0.236 | | 0.000 | | 0.738 | | 2.492 | | 0.889 | | 0.097 | | 3.479 | | K | | 6.174 | | 1.125 | |
S04 | | 1.301 | | 0.046 | | 0.000 | | 1.346 | | 0.188 | | 0.034 | | 0.000 | | 0.193 | | 0.696 | | 0.676 | | 0.094 | | 1.466 | | SO4 | | 2.155 | | 0.756 | |
Li | | 0.260 | | 0.030 | | 0.002 | | 0.292 | | 0.005 | | 0.045 | | 0.000 | | 0.050 | | 0.111 | | 0.092 | | 0.120 | | 0.324 | | Li | | 0.376 | | 0.187 | |
H3BO3 | | 0.403 | | 0.000 | | 0.000 | | 0.403 | | 0.009 | | 0.070 | | 0.000 | | 0.079 | | 0.317 | | 0.143 | | 0.000 | | 0.459 | | B | | 0.127 | | 0.037 | |
| | Chemical Parameter SQ4/Mg >1.1 SO4/Mg <= 2, January 2006 | | | | | |
| |
| | | | | |
| | MOP 1 Deposit | | MOP 2 S-W Deposit | | MOP 3 N-W Deposit | | | | Reserve | |
| |
| |
| |
| | | |
| |
| | Proven | | Probable | | Err > 35% | | Total | | Proven | | Probable | | Err > 35% | | Total | | Proven | | Probable | | Err > 35% | | Total | | | | Proven | | Probable | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | | |
| |
| |
K | | 6.774 | | 0.000 | | 0.000 | | 6.774 | | 0.000 | | 0.031 | | 0.000 | | 0.031 | | 2.539 | | 0.032 | | 0.000 | | 2.571 | | K | | 9.313 | | 0.063 | |
S04 | | 5.332 | | 0.000 | | 0.000 | | 5.332 | | 0.018 | | 0.000 | | 0.000 | | 0.018 | | 2.188 | | 0.029 | | 0.000 | | 2.217 | | SO4 | | 7.538 | | 0.029 | |
Li | | 0.576 | | 0.004 | | 0.000 | | 0.579 | | 0.000 | | 0.002 | | 0.000 | | 0.002 | | 0.069 | | 0.169 | | 0.000 | | 0.238 | | Li | | 0.645 | | 0.174 | |
H3BO3 | | 1.070 | | 0.000 | | 0.000 | | 1.070 | | 0.000 | | 0.003 | | 0.000 | | 0.003 | | 0.411 | | 0.006 | | 0.000 | | 0.417 | | B | | 0.259 | | 0.002 | |
Intermediate area (between Mop y Sop geographic limits) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | SO4/Mg >1.1 SO4/Mg <= 2 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Reserve | |
| |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
| | Proven | | Probable | | Err > 35% | | Total | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Proven | | Probable | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
| |
K | | 6.524 | | 0.155 | | 0.000 | | 6.679 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | K | | 6.524 | | 0.155 | |
S04 | | 6.049 | | 0.117 | | 0.000 | | 6.166 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | SO4 | | 6.049 | | 0.117 | |
Li | | 0.294 | | 0.258 | | 0.000 | | 0.551 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Li | | 0.294 | | 0.258 | |
H3BO3 | | 1.065 | | 0.049 | | 0.000 | | 1.114 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | B | | 0.186 | | 0.009 | |
| | SOP Area | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Chemical Parameter SO4/(Mg + 1.75Li) > 1.8 Mg/Li > 6.3 SO4/K > 1.2 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Reserve | |
| |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
| | Proven | | Probable | | Err > 35% | | Total | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Proven | | Probable | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
| |
K | | 7.982 | | 3.011 | | 0.000 | | 10.993 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | K | | 7.982 | | 3.011 | |
S04 | | 16.862 | | 0.000 | | 0.000 | | 16.862 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | SO4 | | 16.862 | | 0.000 | |
Li | | 0.170 | | 0.509 | | 0.169 | | 0.847 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Li | | 0.170 | | 0.509 | |
H3BO3 | | 2.089 | | 0.346 | | 0.000 | | 2.435 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | B | | 0.365 | | 0.061 | |
| | SOP Area | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Chemical Parameter SO4/(Mg + 1.75Li) > 2.0 Mg/Li < 6.3 SO4/K < 1.2 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Reserve | |
| |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
| | Proven | | Probable | | Err > 35% | | Total | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Proven | | Probable | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
| |
K | | 2.479 | | 0.048 | | 0.000 | | 2.528 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | K | | 2.479 | | 0.048 | |
S04 | | 3.015 | | 0.000 | | 0.000 | | 3.015 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | SO4 | | 3.015 | | 0.000 | |
Li | | 0.035 | | 0.168 | | 0.000 | | 0.203 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Li | | 0.035 | | 0.168 | |
H3BO3 | | 0.467 | | 0.006 | | 0.000 | | 0.473 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | B | | 0.082 | | 0.001 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | TOTAL | | Reserve | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Proven | | Proven | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
| |
| |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | K | | 39.8 | | 5.0 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | SO4 | | 35.9 | | 1.6 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Li | | 2.0 | | 1.4 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | B | | 1.1 | | 0.2 | |
22
6. | Process recovery yields |
The proven and probable reserves indicated in section 5 do not include adjustments due to evaporation and metallurgical processes, which must be taken into consideration to obtain the ions that will finally become the recoverable reserves.
The yields obtained in the evaporation and metallurgical processes to which the ions are submitted are as follows:
| | Characteristics | | Ponds | | Yield Plant | | Other processes | | Total Recovery Yield | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
K | | MOP Area | | 82 | % | 82 | % | | | 67 | % |
K | | SOP Area | | 73 | % | 82 | % | | | 60 | % |
K | | SO4/(Mg+1.75Li) >= 1.8, Mg/Li >= 6.3 SO4/K <= 2.0 | | 60 | % | 49 | % | | | 29 | % |
Li | | SO4/Mg <= 0.5 | | 35 | % | 83 | % | | | 29 | % |
Li | | SO4/Mg > 0.5 | | 35 | % | 83 | % | 86 | % | 25 | % |
SO4 | | SO4/Mg <= 0.5 | | 0 | % | | | | | 0 | % |
SO4 | | SO4/Mg > 0.5 | | 82 | % | 55 | % | 62 | % | 28 | % |
SO4 | | SO4/(Mg+1.75Li) >= 1.8, Mg/Li >= 6.3 SO4/K <= 2.0 | | 82 | % | 55 | % | 62 | % | 28 | % |
SO4 | | SO4/Mg > 2.0 | | 62 | % | 55 | % | | | 34 | % |
B | | | | 81 | % | 37 | % | | | 30 | % |
Based on these yields, the following recoverable reserves are obtained for each one of the deposits and process chemical parameters, in millions of metric tons:
1) MOP area and SO4/Mg<=0.5: |
| | | Reserve | | Recov. Yield | | Recoverable reserve | |
| | |
| | |
| |
| | | Proven | | Probable | | | Proven | | Probable | |
| | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| K | | 7.3 | | 0.6 | | 67 | % | 4.9 | | 0.4 | |
| SO4 | | 0.3 | | 0.7 | | 0 | % | 0.0 | | 0.0 | |
| Li | | 0.5 | | 0.1 | | 29 | % | 0.1 | | 0.0 | |
| B | | 0.1 | | 0.1 | | 30 | % | 0.0 | | 0.0 | |
2) MOP area and 0.5< SO4/Mg <=1.1: |
| | | Reserve | | Recov. Yield | | Recoverable reserve | |
| | |
| | |
| |
| | | Proven | | Probable | | | Proven | | Probable | |
| | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| K | | 6.2 | | 1.1 | | 67 | % | 4.1 | | 0.8 | |
| SO4 | | 2.2 | | 0.8 | | 28 | % | 0.6 | | 0.2 | |
| Li | | 0.4 | | 0.2 | | 25 | % | 0.1 | | 0.0 | |
| B | | 0.1 | | 0.0 | | 30 | % | 0.0 | | 0.0 | |
23
3) MOP area and 1.1< SO4/Mg <=2.0:
| | | Reserve | | | | Recoverable reserve | |
| | |
| | | |
| |
| | | Proven | | Probable | | Recov. Yield | | Proven | | Probable | |
| | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| K | | 9.3 | | 0.1 | | 67 | % | 6.3 | | 0.0 | |
| SO4 | | 7.5 | | 0.0 | | 28 | % | 2.1 | | 0.0 | |
| Li | | 0.6 | | 0.2 | | 25 | % | 0.2 | | 0.0 | |
| B | | 0.3 | | 0.0 | | 30 | % | 0.1 | | 0.0 | |
4) Intermediate area (between MOP & SOP geographic limits), and 1.1< SO4/Mg <=2.0:
| | | Reserve | | | | Recoverable reserve | |
| | |
| | | |
| |
| | | Proven | | Probable | | Recov. Yield | | Proven | | Probable | |
| | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| K | | 6.5 | | 0.2 | | 60 | % | 3.9 | | 0.1 | |
| SO4 | | 6.0 | | 0.1 | | 28 | % | 1.7 | | 0.0 | |
| Li | | 0.3 | | 0.3 | | 25 | % | 0.1 | | 0.1 | |
| B | | 0.2 | | 0.0 | | 30 | % | 0.1 | | 0.0 | |
5) SOP area and SO4/(Mg+1.75Li) >= 1.8, Mg/Li>6.3 and SO4/K>1.2:
| | | Reserve | | | | Recoverable reserve | |
| | |
| | | |
| |
| | | Proven | | Probable | | Recov. Yield | | Proven | | Probable | |
| | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| K | | 8.0 | | 3.0 | | 60 | % | 4.8 | | 1.8 | |
| SO4 | | 16.9 | | 0.0 | | 28 | % | 4.7 | | 0.0 | |
| Li | | 0.2 | | 0.5 | | 25 | % | 0.0 | | 0.1 | |
| B | | 0.4 | | 0.1 | | 30 | % | 0.1 | | 0.0 | |
6) SOP area and SO4/(Mg+1.75Li) >= 1.8, Mg/Li<=6.3 or SO4/K=<1.2:
| | | Reserve | | | | Recoverable reserve | |
| | |
| | | |
| |
| | | Proven | | Probable | | Recov. Yield | | Proven | | Probable | |
| | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| K | | 2.5 | | 0.0 | | 29 | % | 0.7 | | 0.0 | |
| SO4 | | 3.1 | | 0.0 | | 34 | % | 1.0 | | 0.0 | |
| Li | | 0.0 | | 0.2 | | 25 | % | 0.0 | | 0.0 | |
| B | | 0.1 | | 0.0 | | 30 | % | 0.0 | | 0.0 | |
24
In this way, we can quantify the proven and probable reserves, the recoverable reserves and the average yields for the recovery of each ion as shown in the following table:
| | | Reserve | | Recoverable reserve | | Average Recovery Yield | |
| | |
| |
| |
| |
| | | Proven | | Probable | | Proven | | Probable | | Proven | | Probable | |
| | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| K | | 39.8 | | 5.0 | | 24.7 | | 3.1 | | 62 | % | 62 | % |
| SO4 | | 35.9 | | 1.6 | | 10.2 | | 0.3 | | 28 | % | 16 | % |
| Li | | 2.0 | | 1.4 | | 0.5 | | 0.4 | | 26 | % | 26 | % |
| B | | 1.1 | | 0.2 | | 0.3 | | 0.1 | | 30 | % | 30 | % |
Justification for the basis we use for distinguishing between proven and probable reserves for our Caliche and Atacama Salar Brines mines
Caliche Ore Mines
The definition of reserves is based on the classification proposed by the Instituto de Ingenieros de Minas de Chile (Institute of Mining Engineers of Chile), which in turn is based on the Australian JORC classification.
We have defined Probable Reserves as the resources obtained by calculations based on drill hole grid patterns having a 200 x 200 meter spacing over the caliche ore. These resource calculations are corrected by factors that take into account mining, metallurgical, and economic parameters, among others. Due to the nature of the caliche ore, which is found in horizontal layers of great extension, the information obtained from the 200 x 200 meter drill hole grid pattern allows us to predict that there is continuity between the characteristics of the individual sampling points in the grid. These reserves are obtained by the evaluation of Polygons, and have an uncertainty or error margin greater than that of proven reserves.
We have defined Proven Reserves as the resources obtained by calculations based on drill hole grid patterns having a 100 x 100 meter and 50 x 50 meter spacing over the caliche ore bodies. These resource calculations are corrected by factors that take into account mining, metallurgical, technical, and economic parameters, among others. Due to the nature of the caliche ore, the 100 x 100 meter and 50 x 50 meter drill hole grid patterns allow us to state that there is reasonable continuity between the characteristics of the individual sampling points in the grid. These reserves are obtained using the Kriging evaluation and the application of operational parameters to obtain economically profitable reserves. These parameters take into account:
25
| | | Pedro de Valdivia | | María Elena | | Pampa Blanca | | Nueva Victoria | |
| | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| NaNO3(%) referential | | ≥ 7,0 | | ≥ 7,5 | | ≥ 5,0 | | — | |
| I2 (ppm) referential | | ≥ 350 | | ≥ 400 | | ≥ 450 | | ≥ 500 | |
| Overburden depth | | < 3,0 m | | < 3,0 m | | < 3,0 m | | < 3,0 m | |
| Caliche depth | | ≥ 1,0 m | | ≥ 1,0 m | | ≥ 1,0 m | | ≥ 1,0 m | |
| Waste/mineral ratio | | < 1,5 | | < 1,5 | | < 1,5 | | < 1,5 | |
| Clay and fines | | Low | | Low | | Low | | Low | |
| SO4 useful | | < 12% | | < 12% | | < 12% | | < 12% | |
| Geomechanic Quality | | Good | | Good | | Good to medium | | Good to medium | |
Resources calculated on the basis of drill hole patterns having a spacing of 400 x 400 meters or more are not considered as reserves.
Exploitable Reserves Factor
In order to express the proven in terms of final exploitable reserves, it is necessary to consider additional operational extraction restrictions; therefore an adjustment is needed for these reserves in order to get a trustworthy approximation of exploitable reserves. This adjustment is effected by multiplying reserves by an empirical historical factor of 80%. Thus, historically exploitable reserves represent 80% of reserves.
The exploitable reserves factor is defined by two main criteria: maximum exploitation base and walls slopes of 4%, and minimum width of exploitation sectors.
Atacama Salar Brines Mines
Definition of Proven and Probable Reserves
The Kriging method assigns an estimation error to each one of the blocks evaluated. This error expresses a percentage of uncertainty in the estimated grade for the point that sustains the block. This uncertainty is calculated according to the variograms, block size, and distance between the samples.
For each one of the chemical ions, proven reserves of the deposit are defined as those blocks that comply with an estimation error of up to 15%. This estimation error is associated to the element or ion under evaluation.
In the case of probable reserves, the selected blocks must comply with an estimation error between 15 and 35%. All those blocks with an error greater than 35% are not considered in this evaluation of reserves.
26
Should you have any question or comments about the responses in this letter, please contact the undersigned at (56-2)-425-2479. Alternatively, please contact Patricio Vargas at (56-2) 425-2274.
| | | Very truly yours, |
| | | |
| | | /s/ Ricardo Ramos R. |
| | |
|
Date: January 8, 2007 | | | Ricardo Ramos R. Chief Financial Officer |
27