Itafos Completes Updated Feasibility Study FOR the Farim Phosphate Project
TSX-V: IFOS
News Release
ITAFOS COMPLETES UPDATED FEASIBILITY STUDY
FOR THE FARIM PHOSPHATE PROJECT
HOUSTON, TX – May 17, 2023 – Itafos Inc. (TSX-V: IFOS) (“Itafos” or the “Company”) is pleased to announce the results of the updated
Feasibility Study (“FS” or “feasibility study”) for the Farim Phosphate Project (the “Farim Project”), a high-grade phosphate mine project
located in Guinea-Bissau, West Africa.
Farim Project 2023 FS Highlights:
After-tax net present value (“NPV”) (10%) of $572 million at a base case life-of-mine (“LOM” ) average rock price of
US$197.5 per tonne concentrate.
After-tax internal rate of return (“IRR”) of 34.9% and a fter-tax payback on pre-producti on capital expenditures of 4.2
years.
High-grade, free-dig open-pit mine with an average run-of-mine (“ROM”) P2O5 grade (dry basis) of 30.0% and an overall
ROM strip ratio of 10.09 bank cubic meters (bcm) per tonne of ROM phosphate matrix.
LOM production of approximately 2.19 million tonnes per annum (“Mt/a”) of ROM phosphate matrix on an as-received
basis (at approximately 20% moisture) or 1.75 Mt/a ROM phosphate matrix on a dry basis.
The process plant is designed to achieve an annual throughput of 1.75 Mt/a. The material from the south and north pits
are expected to produce 1.36 Mt/a and 1.30 Mt/a of dried concentrate product annually, respectively.
Estimated pre-production capital expenditures (“CAPEX”) of $308 million, yielding after-tax NPV:CAPEX ratio of 1.9:1
LOM all-in Operating Cost of $70.9/tonne rock concentrate loaded Free on Board (“FOB”) basis.
Proven and Probable Mineral Reserves of 43.8 million tonnes at 30.0% P2O5.
David Delaney, the Company’s CEO commented, “The updated feasibility study confirms that the Farim Project has robust economics
and demonstrates that the Farim Project has the potential to be an impo rtant phosphate producing asset. Additional new phospha te
capacity and capital investment are require d to meet projected phosphate global demand growth over the medium- to long-term, wh ich
bodes well for the Farim Project, as we believe it is one of the highest-grade undeveloped deposits in the world.”
Farim Project Feasibility Study
A technical report, entitled “Farim Phosphate Project – NI 43-101 Technical Report and Feasibility Study,” (the ”Farim Technical Report”),
was prepared for the Company by Ausenco Engineering Canada Inc. (“Ausenco”) in accordance with National Instrument 43-101 –
Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (“NI 43-101”). The Report was prepared to summarize the results of the Feasibility Study
and consolidate all project de-risk work conducted between 2015 an d 2022. Ausenco was supported by KEMWorks Technology, Inc.,
WSP/Golder, Knight Piésold Consulting, WF Baird and Kristal Font Inc.
Data Verification
The Mineral Resource Qualified Person (“QP”), Jerry DeWolfe, P.Geo. considers sample preparation, analytical, and security prot ocols
employed by the Farim Project to be acceptable. The QP has review ed the QA/QC procedures used by the Company including the use
of certified reference materials, blank, duplicate, and umpire data, and considers the assay database to be adequate for Mineral Resource
estimation. The QP also carried out data verification both on site and on the database. This included a review of the assay database and
collar locations. The QP considers the assay database to be acc eptable for Mineral Resource esti mation. In addition, there are no
identified significant factors or concerns regarding the accuracy and reliability of the results from the exploration programs in the Project
area.
Farim Project Mineral Resource Estimate
The Farim Project’s current Mineral Resource estimate, as shown in Table 1, was completed by WSP/Golder and has an effective date
of September 30, 2022. The QP is not awar e of any material changes between the Septem ber 30, 2022, effective date of the Miner al
Resource estimate and the May 17, 2023 publication date of this News Release that would affect the resource model or Mineral Resource
estimate. The Mineral Resource estimate forms the basis for t he FS and are reported inclusive of Mineral Reserves. Mineral Reso urces
that are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability at this time.
Farim Project Mineral Reserve Estimation
The assessment of mineable phosphate matrix reserves within the project area was based on the 25-year mine plan and corresponding
open pit design. The pit design was developed based on a pit optimiz ation exercise that delineated the most economical 43.75 Mt of
ROM material to feed a 25-year plan at a rate of 1.75 Mt/a on a dry basis. The Mineral Reserve Estimate is shown in Table 2 and concerns
the decarbonized phosphate unit (“FPA”) only, as the calcareous phosphate member (“FPB”) was previously deemed to be uneconomic.
No additional mineralization outside the modelled deposit was considered in the Mineral Resource and Reserve estimates. The Mineral
Reserve estimate has an effective date of S eptember 30, 2022. The QP is not aware of any material changes between the September
30, 2022, effective date of the Mineral Rese rve estimate and the May 17, 2023 publicatio n date of this News Release that would affect
the Mineral Reserve estimate.
As per the Mineral Resource estimation methodology, a 20% P 2O5 technical cut-off grade was applied to target the in-situ Mineral
Resource grade requirements that would subsequently meet the plant feed and product grade requirements. This technical cut-off grade
did not change in the Mineral Reserve estimation.
Table 1: Global Mineral Resource Statement, Farim Phosphate Deposit, September 30, 2022.
Class Block
Tonnage,
Dry Basis
(Mt)
FPA
(m)
P2O5,
Dry Basis
(%)
Al2O3,
Dry Basis
(%)
CaO,
Dry Basis
(%)
Fe2O3,
Dry Basis
(%)
SiO2,
Dry Basis
(%)
Overburden
(Mbcm)
Stripping
Ratio
(bcm/t)
Measured
North of River 102.5 2.91 28.53 2.69 39.71 5.65 11.28 1,162.30 11.34
South of River - - - - - - - - -
Subtotal 102.5 2.91 28.53 2.69 39.71 5.65 11.28 1,162.30 11.34
Indicated
North of River - - - - - - - - -
South of River - - - - - - - - -
Subtotal - - - - - - - - -
Measured +
Indicated
North of River 102.5 2.91 28.53 2.69 39.71 5.65 11.28 1,162.30 11.34
South of River - - - - - - - - -
Subtotal 102.5 2.91 28.53 2.69 39.71 5.65 11.28 1,162.30 11.34
Inferred
North of River 6.8 2.30 25.17 2.99 39.08 4.86 10.46 119.62 17.63
South of River 24.4 2.21 29.06 5.32 36.21 4.97 11.62 236.18 9.70
Subtotal 31.1 2.23 28.08 4.73 36.94 4.94 11.32 355.80 11.42
Notes: 1. Mineral resources are reported on a dry in-situ basis and are inclusive of Mineral Reserves. 2. The statement of estimates of Mineral Resources
has been compiled by Mr. Jerry DeWolfe, who is a full-time empl oyee of WSP Canada Inc. (formerly WSP Golder) and a professional geologist (P.Geo.)
with the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA). Mr. DeWolf e has sufficient experience that is relevant to the style
of mineralization and type of deposit under c onsideration and to the activity that he has undertaken to qualify as a Qualified Person (“QP”) as defined in
NI 43-101. 3. All Mineral Resources figures reported in the table above repres ent estimates at September 30, 2022. Mineral Resource estimate s are not
precise calculations, being dependent on the interpretation of li mited information on the location, shape and continuity of the occurrence and on the
available sampling results. The totals c ontained in the above table have been rounded to reflect the relative uncertainty of th e estimate. Rounding may
cause some computational discrepancies. 4. Mineral Resources are reported in accordance with NI 43-101 and CIM Definition Standards for Mineral
Resource and Mineral Reserves (2014) and CIM Estimation of Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve Best Practices (2019). 5. The reported Mineral
Resource estimate was constrained by a conceptual Mineral Resource optimized pit shell for the purpose of establishing reasonable prospects of economic
extraction based on potential mining, metallurgical and processing grade parameters identified by mining, metallurgical and processing studies performed
to date on the project. Key inputs in developing the Mineral Resource pit shell included a mining cost of US$1.69/tonne for mineralization and US1.41/tonne
for waste, plus processing costs of US$31.72/ ROM tonne, phosphat e recovery of 76%, pit slope angle of 20°, and a concentrate s elling price of
US$147/tonne. In addition, a minimum FPA P2O5 grade of 20%, a minimum FPA thickness of 1 m as well as a restriction on any FPA within 50 m of River
Cacheu was applied.
Table 2: Proven and Probable Reserves
Category
ROM (Plant Feed)
FPA Tonnes,
Dry Basis (Mt)
Mean ROM
P2O5, Dry
Basis (%)
Mean ROM
Al2O3, Dry
Basis (%)
Mean ROM
CaO, Dry
Basis (%)
Mean ROM
Fe2O3, Dry
Basis (%)
Mean ROM
SiO2, Dry
Basis (%)
Proven 43.8 30.0 2.6 41.1 4.8 10.6
Probable - - - - - -
Total 43.8 30.0 2.6 41.1 4.8 10.6
Notes: 1. Mineral Reserves are reported on a dry in-situ basis. 2. The statement of estimates of Mineral Reserves has been compiled by Mr. Terry Kremmel,
who is a full-time employee of WSP USA Inc. (formerly WSP Golder) and a professional engineer (P.E.) and registered member with the Society for Mining,
Metallurgy, and Exploration. Mr. Kremmel has sufficient experience that is relevant to the style of mineralization and type of deposit under consideration
and to the activity that he has undertaken to qualify as a QP as defined in NI 43-101. 3. All Mineral Reserve figures reported in the table above represent
estimates at September 30, 2022. Mineral Reserve estimates are not precise calculations, being dependent on the interpretation of limited information on
the location, shape and continuity of the occurrence and on the av ailable sampling results. The totals contained in the above table have been rounded to
reflect the relative uncertainty of the estimate. Rounding may cause some computational discrepancies. 4. Mineral Reserves are reported in accordance
with NI 43-101. 5. The reported Mineral Reserve estimate was constrained by the Ri ver Cacheu, the Rio de Bunja, and surface encumbrances including
the two ex-pit waste dumps, tailings storage facility, and processing plant.
Mining Methods
The FPA matrix is mined by a free-dig, multiple-bench, open-pit, haul-back mine using excavators and trucks. Mining will be accomplished
using conventional loader, excavator and truck materials handling with an average strip ratio of 10 bcm/t of ROM phosphate matr ix.
Overburden excavation will advance ahead of the matrix extrac tion in maximum 10 m height production benches. The overburden
thickness ranges from 26 to 68 m within the 25-year pit, mult iple overburden stripping benches will be developed and maintained in
advance of the matrix extraction. The matrix thickness ranges between 1.5 m and 6.25 m within the 25-year pit.
The most critical design element of the proposed mining plan is water management. All mining areas must be dewatered in advance of
mining activities to allow sufficient depressurization and dissipation of pore water pressure and to accommodate dry mining of the deposit.
Dewatering pump test data indicates that dry open-pit mining will be feasible. The proximity of the mine site to the River Cach eu will
require the construction of a protective wa ter control berm (bund) to prevent in-pit flooding. In addition to advanced dewateri ng, in-pit
water management is critical and has been accounted for in the feasibility study.
Metallurgy and Processing
At the process plant, the objective is to remove impurities to achieve the required minor element ratio and phosphate grade in the
concentrate. Impurity removal is achieved by concentrating the -20 µm to +1,180 µm pa rticle size fraction of the ROM ore and re jecting
the remainder. ROM ore is processed throu gh drum and attrition scrubbing stages, and cl assified by cyclones, vibrating screens, and
hydro separators. The -20 µm size fraction is thickened and pumpe d to the TSF. The +1,180 µm material is rejected and trucked t o a
waste stockpile. The resulting fine concentr ate stream is thickened and f iltered in a vertical plate and frame filter press. Th e coarse
concentrate stream does not require thickening and is sent directly to two vertical plate-and-frame filter presses operating in parallel. The
concentrate filter cakes are combined and conveyed to a covered filtered concentrate stockpile at the truck load-out area. The filtered
concentrate is then reclaimed and trucked to the Mineral Terminal.
The process objective at the Mineral Terminal site is to dry t he concentrate to a moisture content suitable for transport after which it is
loaded on to ships. Filtered concentrate is received at the Mineral Terminal site in a covered stockpile building. The material is then
reclaimed and dried in a diesel fired rotary dryer. Dry concentrate is then stockpiled in a covered building, prior to reclamat ion and ship
loading.
The process plant is designed to achieve an annual throughput of 1.75 Mt/a. The material from the south and north pits are expected to
produce 1.36 Mt/a and 1.30 Mt/a of concentrate annually, respectively. The process developed for the beneficiation of Farim pho sphate
ore is robust, continuous, and reliable, rendering reproducible metallurgical results. The flowsheet is based upon unit operations that are
proven in industry. Continuous pilot plant tests indicate most likely results of yield (mass recovery) of 77.5%, P 2O5 recovery of 81.8%,
and likely P2O5 grade of 33.6% for the South pit. T he phosphate rock produced is a high-grade, high -quality product that will attract a
premium price.
Project Infrastructure
Local mining infrastructure is limited and must be upgraded, or in some cases, designed and built as part of the initial construction plan.
Although the government of Guinea-Bissau is advancing infrastructure improvements across the country, this study assumes the following
key infrastructure works:
Hybrid power plants (solar and diesel generator) are locate d at Ponta Chugue and north-east of the Farim process plant.
Truck loading facility on the south side of River Cacheu. Concen trate will be transported from the plant (north side of the River),
via a conveyor over the River Cacheu. These facilities are all within the mining lease.
Upgraded access road from Ponta Chugue to Mansoa (remainder of road to the truck loading site is approved and acceptable
for truck haulage and access).
Mineral Terminal at Ponta Chugue to load and ship the dried conc entrate. Ponta Chugue will also be used to accept diesel fuel
into holding tanks for delivery to Farim. The channel design has been assessed against PIANC channel design guidelines and
with desktop and real-time navigation simulations. The channel alignment, including through the Bernafel section, is suitable
for the water depths, design depths and prevailing currents. The navigation fairway surrounding the Ponte Chugue Marine
Terminal is suitable and provides a generous maneuvering area for inbound and departing vessels.
Tailings storage facility (“TSF”) adjacent to the beneficiation plant to store fines generated fr om the process facility. This TSF
will be developed in stages as individual cells over the life of mine.
Waste overburden storage piles for perman ent storage of overburden. A cell within one of the waste storage piles will be
designed to store potentially acid generating (“PAG”) material based on the mining sequence and expected PAG volumes.
Temporary topsoil storage piles sufficient to manage developmen t of waste piles, roads, TSF ce ll construction, and for use in
closure plans.
Water management system including supply wells, dewatering wells, water diversion channels, flood prevention berms, and
settlement ponds. The site will continuously discharge water throughout the operation.
Camp facilities already built will be supported by local contractors and be secure.
All associated infrastructure costs are c aptured in the construction and operating pl ans. All future infrastructure development by the
Government of Guinea-Bissau is considered as opportunities to enhance the Farim Project.
Capital Cost Estimate
Table 3 provides a summary of the project capital cost estimate , with costs grouped into major scope areas, expressed in Q4 202 2 US
dollars. The estimate conforms to Class 3 guidelines for a feasibil ity study level estimate with a ±15% accuracy according to t he
Association of the Advancement of Cost Engineering International (AACE Internat ional). Major cost categories (permanent equipme nt,
material purchase, installation, subcontra cts, indirect costs, and Owner’s costs) were identified and analyzed. A percentage of
contingency was allocated to each of these categories on a line-item basis based on the accuracy of the data. An overall weight ed
contingency amount was derived in this fashion.
Table 3: Project Capital Cost Estimate
Description Initial Capital
(US$M)
Sustaining Capital
(US$M)
Total Capital
(US$M)
Mining 32.243 265.348 297.591
Process Plant and Infrastructure 68.934 - 68.934
Ponte Chugue Infrastructure (Mineral Terminal & Drying) 99.728 12.050 111.778
Tailings Storage Facility & Water Management 14.049 57.722 71.771
South Pit Dewatering 4.420 12.737 17.157
North Pit Dewatering - 20.995 20.995
Resettlement and Livelihood Restitution 11.9 85 5.635 17.620
EPCM 27.452 - 27.452
Indirects 6.057 - 6.057
Owners’ Cost 11.637 - 11.637
Contingency 31.765 - 31.765
Progressive Closure and Rehabilitation (TSF) - 58.817 58.817
Progressive Closure and Rehabilitation (Pits & WDs) 21.169 21.169
Total Site Closure 33.997 33.997
Salvage Value – Mine -12.893 -12.893
Salvage Value – Port - -8.433 -8.433
Total 308.270 467.142 775.413
Operating Cost Estimate
The operating cost estimate includes mining, processing, ship loading, environmental, fuel, and general and administration (G&A) costs.
A summary of the average annual operating costs is presented in Table 4. The estimate conforms to Class 3 guidelines for a feasibility
study level estimate with a ±15% accuracy according to the Association of the Advancem ent of Cost Engineering International (AA CE
International). The capital and operating cost estimates were re viewed by the respective QP’s. See section titled “Technical Report and
Qualified Persons” below for further details.
Table 4: Operating Cost Estimate Summary - Average Costs per pit
Description
Life-of-Mine Operating Cost South Pit North Pit
US$M US$/t
Feed
US$/t
Conc. US$M/a US$/t
Feed
US$/t
Conc. US$M/a US$/t
Feed
US$/t
Conc.
Mining 661.4 15.1 20.1 31.3 17.9 23.1 24.6 14.0 18.9
Process 343.0 7.8 10.4 13. 9 7.9 10.3 13.6 7.8 10.5
Ship loading 111.3 2.5 3.4 4.5 2.5 3.3 4.5 2.5 3.4
Tailings, Environment, Water 15.7 0. 4 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.5
G&A 186.8 4.3 5.7 7.5 4.3 5.5 7.5 4.3 5.7
Fuel 952.3 21.8 28.9 35.4 20.2 26.1 39.1 22.4 30.1
Total 2,270.5 51.9 69.0 93.2 53.2 68.7 89.9 51.4 69.1
Note: Fuel is itemized separately and is not included in mining, processing, ship loading or G&A costs.
Economic Analysis
The results of the economic analyses in this report represent forward-looking information as defined under Canadian securities law. The
results are subject to several known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause actual results to differ materially
from those presented here. See the sectio n titled “Forward-Looking Information” below for further details. Salient financial data of the
Farim Project is shown in Table 5.
Table 5: Financial Data (US$, Millions)
Description Life-of-Mine (US$M)
Revenue 6,497.2
Total Preproduction Capital 308.3
Total All-in LOM Operating Costs (see below) 2,332.1
Total Sustaining Capital (including Progressive Closure and Final Closure Costs – See
Below) 467.1
Operating Margin Ratio (Operating Revenue / Operating Cost) 2.8
Royalties 129.9
Income Taxes 714.8
Pre-Tax Cumulative Cash Flow 3,259.8
After-Tax Cumulative Cash Flow 2,545.0
Detail of Expenditures
Total Operating Costs 2,270.5
Total Other Costs (Corporate Overhead) 61.7
Total All-in LOM Operating Costs 2,332.1
Sustaining Capital Cost 374.5
Sustaining Capital Cost – Progressive Closure 80.0
Closure Capital Cost 12.7
Total Sustaining Capital (including Progressive Closure and Final Closure Costs) 467.1
A sensitivity analysis was conducted on the post-tax NPV, IRR and payback period of t he project using the following variables: revenue
(P2O5 rock price), operating cost, total capital cost, and fuel. The anal ysis revealed that the project is most sensitive to changes in P2O5
rock price. The after-tax NPV, IRR and Payback sensitivities to rock price is shown in Table 6.
Table 6: After-Tax NPV, IRR and Payback Sensitivities to Rock Price assumptions
Change in Rock Price
Units -20% -10% Base case +10% +20%
Average Rock Price US$/t $158.0 $177.7 $197.5 $217.2 $237.0
Net Present Value
Discounted at 5% US$M $643 $896 $1,149 $1,402 $1,655
Discounted at 8% US$M $391 $570 $749 $929 $1,108
Discounted at 10% US$M $280 $426 $572 $718 $864
Discounted at 15% US$M $114 $207 $301 $394 $488
Internal Rate of Return % 22.6% 28.9% 34.9% 40.5% 46.0%
Payback Period years 5.4 4.7 4.2 3.9 3.6
After tax NPV10/Initial Capex ratio 0.9 1.4 1.9 2.3 2.8
Undiscounted cumulative net cashflow US$M $1,535 $2,040 $2,545 $3,050 $3,555
Environmental and Permitting Considerations
The Farim Phosphate Project lies within Mining Lease License No. 004/2009 (“Mining Lease 004/2009”), covering 30,625 hectares (“ha”),
granted by the Government of Guinea-Bissau on May 28, 2009 to GB Minerals AG (“GBMAG”). GBMAG is registered in Switzerland and
is a wholly owned subsidiary of Itafos Farim Holdings, which is registered in the Cayman Islands. Itafos Farim Holdings is 100% owned
by Itafos Guinea-Bissau Holdings, also registered in the Cayman Islands. Itafos Guinea-Bissau Holdings is 100% owned by Itafos Inc., a
corporation headquartered in Delaware.
A Mining Agreement was negotiated and signed between the Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources and GBMAG on May 1, 2009.
The Mining Agreement allowed for the subsequent issuance of the following:
Mining Lease 004/2009 was granted by the Government of Gu inea-Bissau to GBMAG for the exploration and extraction of
mining substances within the License Area with the objective of commercializing them. The exclusive right of GBMAG to perform
mining operations within the license area is subject to the payment of an annual license fee to the Government of Guinea-Bissau
and to reporting requirements.
In addition to Mining Lease 004/2009, GB Minerals AG was granted on May 28, 2009, a mining license, Mining License No.
001/2009 (“Mining License 001/2009”), for a period of 25 years, giving it the exclusive right to; (i) execute its mining operat ions
within the License Area; (ii) erect the equipment, installati ons and buildings necessary for the extraction, transportation and
treatment of minerals; (iii) commercializ e the minerals, inside or out side the national territory; (iv) undertake prospecting
activities; and (v) store or discharge any mining product or waste.
Since the initial mining license term of 25 years is from 2009, Itafos is in the process of filing a request with the Minister of Natural
Resources of Guinea-Bissau for a 25-year mining license term extension which effectively prov ides a 25-year term from the
issue of the request. A mining license and a mining lease may be renewed repeatedly by the holder according to the 2000 Mining
Law.
GBMAG is in good standing on both the mining lease and mining license.
Comprehensive environmental and social baseline studies were conducted for the project from 2011 through 2015, supporting an ES IA
published by Knight Piésold in September 2015. The 2015 ESIA for the project, as well as a subsequent ESIA for the Buredanfa
Resettlement Village, were approved by the Government of Gui nea-Bissau, according to a Declaração de Conformidade Ambiental
(Declaration of Environmental Compliance) issued to Itafos on September 14, 2018.
Additional baseline studies were conducted from 2016 to 2019 in t he areas of meteorology, air quality, noise, groundwater resou rces,
and groundwater and surface water quality to establish an additiona l and contemporary pre-developm ent baseline record that can be
used for comparison in future monitoring programs.
Closure and Reclamation Considerations
A preliminary Mine Reclamation and Closure Plan (MRCP) and closur e cost estimate has been prepar ed that meets the requirements
under Guinea-Bissau’s Mining and Minerals Law 1/2000. The MRCP adopts the International Finance Corporation’s closure objectives in
terms of protecting future public health and safety; ensuring the after-use of the site is benefic ial, sustainable, and appropr iate for the
affected communities in the long-term; minimizing adverse socioeconomic impacts; and maximizing benefits.
The MRCP contemplates the progressive rehabilitation of several facilities at the mine, including the TSF, overburden waste dumps and
the north and south open pits. The south pit and most of the north pit will be backfilled with waste overburden as part of operations.
At the Ponte Chugue Mineral Terminal, buildings, machinery and equipment will be decommissioned and removed from the site.
Remediation will be undertaken, as required, so that the Mineral Terminal site will be compatible with future commercial or industrial land
use.
Post-closure monitoring and maintenance will take place for a peri od of at least 15 years to veri fy that the site has been retu rned to a
physically and chemically stable state t hat is compatible with and capable of sust aining the agreed-upon final land uses. Furth ermore,
the MRCP commits to developing post-closure social management plans to address potential adverse socioeconomic impacts of closure
as part of the Company’s Community Development Plan.
Social and Community Considerations
Key social impacts that require management include:
Community health, safety, and security – The project will inte rrupt the current flow of mostly pedestrian and bicycle traffic
between the regional service center of Fari m to villages and the west and north of t he mine. In addition, t he presence of the
mine and project traffic to and from the mine will present safety hazards. Traffic safety and other community health and safety
risks will extend along the transport route to the Mineral Terminal site.
Risk of influx and associated impacts – The presence of the mi ne may result in an influx of people into the region, which will
require management in conjunction with the regional and natio nal governments. The effects can be far-reaching in terms of
social unrest, overloading of available public services and infrastructure, and causing increased pressures on ecological
resources. A Community Health, Safety and Security Management Plan identifies these issues and proposes preliminary
mitigation measures that can be discussed with the appropriate authorities.
Involuntary resettlement – The project wi ll require the acquisition of approximately 3,000 ha of l and resulting in the physica l
and/or economic displacement of an estimated 175 households in villages in the mine area. Candidate host sites were identified,
and a preferred site was selected at Buredanfa, immediately northwest of the mine. A livelihoods baseline and restoration
strategy and resettlement action plan (“RAP”) was also prepared in 2017. Because time has passed since this work was
completed, the communities that require resettlement may have grown, and it will be necessary to conduct another land and
asset survey to update the RAP.
Livelihood restoration – Other mine project components, such as the truck loadout fa cility, highway bypass around the town of
Mansoa, and Mineral Terminal facility and associated access road, will be positioned on lands held by others. Compensation is
planned as part of securing land tenure for these areas, although no household resettlement is required.
Cultural Heritage – Development of the project will result in direct and unavoidable physical impacts on the following cultura l
heritage resources:
o three cemeteries (one of high and two of low sensitivity);
o two mosques (both of high sensitivity);
o three sacred sites (one of high and two of low sensitivity); and
o six archaeological sites (two of medium and four of low sensitivity).
Risks and Opportunities
Project risks have been outlined in the feasibility study along with mitigation plans to de-risk the project. Costs have been estimated to a
level of accuracy suitable for a feasibility study. Overall economic risks include financing, price escalation, inflation, commodity sales price
variability, and general global economic conditions. General te chnical risks include project construction timeline, dewatering and water
management, mining productivity, achieving optimum P2O5 grade and recovery, and waste management.
Geopolitical risk of operating in a relatively underdeveloped region must be managed through ongoing local engagement and responsible
social practices.
Opportunities exist to de-risk the project or improve economics which will be investigated furt her during the detailed design s tage. This
includes connecting to the planned Guinea-Bissau electrical grid and the option to trans-ship dried concentrate using barges to offshore
ships.
Recommendations
The financial analysis of the feasibility study demonstrates that the Farim Project has robust economics, and it is recommended to
continue developing the project through detailed engineering and de-risking, to support a construction decision. Analysis of the results of
the feasibility study suggests numerous recommendations for furt her investigations to mitigate risks and/or improve the base ca se
designs. Costs associated with future recommendations are included within the detailed design initial capital costs or operating costs.
Recommended work for the next phase, based on the feasibility study, include:
Confirm that the dry density values used are representative for future resource and reserve estimations. Additional density
measurements should be taken to verify these values.
A lack of geotechnical samples in the vicini ty of the East highwall of the South pit (“Area 4”) has prevented a thorough evaluation
of the liquefaction susceptibility in this Area. Samples in Area 4 should be collected and screened prior to excavation to evaluate
the soil’s liquefaction susceptibility.
An important component of the slope development will be to monitor the degree of pore pre ssure reduction that has been
achieved in the bench face that is being excavated. This can be achieved by installation of piezometers or pushed probes with
pressure transducers into critical areas along the pit slopes. Supplemental pumping wells or horizontal drains will be needed
where isolated pressurized zones are enco untered. Further studies should be done to advise the precise locations of these
piezometers for optimized performance.
Conduct continuous phosphoric acid plant tests to assess likel y performance in an industrial plant. Results from this test wor k
will be used in product off-take negotiations and is independent of the investment decision.
Further evaluate tailings thickening and dewatering to maximize achievable underflow density and optimize thickener sizing.
Complete additional tailings characterization and settling test work to improve Tailings Storage Facility design, including ta ilings
settled dry density and tailings entrainment among other design parameters.
Additional closer spaced drilling and testing of boreholes to determine the depth to bedrock, c ontinuity of clay and sandstone
lenses with installation of more vibrating wire piezometers (VWP) to monitor pressure heads in different units, particularly in the
vicinity of the pit walls closest to planned infrastructure (Tailings Storage Facility, overburden dumps).
Update the transshipping trade-off study to evaluate barge loadi ng to offshore ships. This includes updating the costs from the
previously performed work, re-evaluating barge, vessel requirem ents and throughput, updating the social impacts, and overall
project benefits.
The Resettlement Action Plan should be updated following completion of an updated land and asset survey.
The Biodiversity Management Plan should be updated based on updated biodiversity surveys.
The project should seek the renewal of the Declaration of Environmental Compli ance from the Competent Environmental
Assessment Authority.
Each recommendation is independent and is not contingent on the other recommendations.
Farim Technical Report and Qualified Persons
The Farim Technical Report, prepared in accordance with NI 43-101, will be filed on SEDAR (www.sedar.com) within 45 days. Readers
are encouraged to read the Farim Technical Report in its entiret y once it is available, includi ng all qualifications, assumptio ns and
exclusions that relate to the feasibility study. The Farim Technical Report is intended to be read as a whole, and sections should not be
read, or relied upon, out of context.
Scientific and technical information contained in this news release was reviewed and verified by:
Tommaso Roberto Raponi, P. Eng, Ausenco Engineering Canada In c., Processing, infrastructure, hybrid power plans and truck
loadout facility
Dr. Francisco J. Sotillo, P.E., KEM Works Technology Inc., Metallurgy
Jerry DeWolfe, P.Geo, WSP Canada Inc. (forme rly WSP Golder), Geology and Mineral Resource
Terry L. Kremmel, P.E. WSP USA Inc. (formerl y WSP Golder), Mineral Reserve and mining methods
Alex Duggan, P.Eng, Kristal Font, Economic Analysis and review of capital and operating cost estimates
Ed Liegel, P.E., Baird, Mineral Terminal
Richard Michael Elmer, C.Eng. MIMMM MCSM, Knight Piésold Ltd., Geotechnical and all other infrastructure but excluding the
hybrid power plants, truck loadout facility and the Mineral Terminal
Richard Cook, P.Geo, Knight Piésold Lt d, Environmental and permitting, closure and reclamation plans, and social and
community considerations.
Each of these persons is a “Qualified Pe rson” as defined by NI 43-101 for this Pr oject and have the ability and authority to ve rify the
authenticity and validity of the data and is independent from the Company. Each of these QP’s has reviewed and verified the respective
scientific and technical disclosure contained in this news release.
Further information about the Farim Project, including a description of the key assumptions, parameters, description of sampling methods,
data verification and QA/QC programs, methods relating to resource s and reserves and factors that may affect those estimates wi ll be
contained in the Farim Technical Report.
About Itafos
The Company is a phosphate and specialty fertilizer company. The Company’s businesses and projects are as follows:
Conda – a vertically integrated phosphate fertilizer business loca ted in Idaho, US with production capacity as follows:
- approximately 550 kt per year of monoammonium p hosphate (“MAP”), MAP with micronutrients (“MAP+”),
superphosphoric acid (“SPA”), merchant grade phosphoric acid (“MGA”) and ammonium polyphosphate (“APP”); and
- approximately 27 kt per year of hydrofluorosilicic acid (“HFSA”);
Arraias – a vertically integrated phosphate fertilizer business lo cated in Tocantins, Brazil with production capacity as follows:
- approximately 500 kt per year of single superphosph ate (“SSP”) and SSP with micronutrients (“SSP+”); and
- approximately 40 kt per year of exce ss sulfuric acid (220 kt per year gross sulfuric acid production capacity);
Farim – a high-grade phosphate mine project located in Farim, Guinea-Bissau;
Santana – a vertically integrated high- grade phosphate mine and fertilizer plant project located in Pará, Brazil; and
Araxá – a vertically integrated rare earth elements and niobiu m mine and extraction plant project located in Minas Gerais,
Brazil.
In addition to the businesses and projects described above, the Company also owns Mantaro (Junin, Peru), a phosphate mine project
that is in the process of being wound down.
The Company is a Delaware corporation that is headquartered in Houston, TX. The Company’s shares trade on the TSX Venture
Exchange (“TSX-V”) under the ticker symbol “IFOS”. The Company’s principal shareholder is CL Fertilizers Holding LLC (“CLF”). CLF is
an affiliate of Castlelake, L.P., a global private investment firm.
For more information, or to join the Company’s mailing list to receive notification of future news releases, please visit the Company’s
website at www.itafos.com.
Forward-Looking Information
Certain information contained in this news release constitutes forward-looking information (“FLI”). Except for statements of historical fact
relating to the Company , information contained herein may constitute FLI, including any information related to: the successful
development of the Farim Project; capital expenditures; operating costs; sustaining capital requirements; after-tax NPV and sen sitivity
analyses; cash flows and IRR; estimates of mineral resources and mineral reserves; development of mineral resources and mineral
reserves; government regulation of mining operations and trea tment under governmental and taxation regimes; future price of