Ochoa Project Preliminary Economic Assessment for Polyhalite Resource

Polyhalite Resources and a Preliminary
Economic Assessment of the Ochoa Project

Lea County, Southeast New Mexico
PREPARED FOR
Dated August 19, 2009
Prepared by
Sean C. Muller, C.P.G., R.G.
Robert Galyen, C.P.G., R.G.
Chemrox Technologies
William J. Crowl, R.G.
Donald E. Hulse, P.E.
Terre A. Lane, Member, AusIMM
Richard D. Moritz, Member, MMSA
Gustavson Associates, LLC
Page |i
LIST OF CONTENTS
1.
SUMMARY.............................................................................................................................................1
2.
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................8
3.
RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS .................................................................................................13
4.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION & LOCATION...................................................................................15

4.1
5.
PROSPECTING PERMITS ...............................................................................................................23

4.1.1
Federal Land Holdings ................................................................................................24
4.1.2
Other Land Requirements ............................................................................................24
4.1.3
Royalties ......................................................................................................................24
4.1.4
Environmental Considerations ....................................................................................25
4.1.5
Retention and Obligations of the Permits ....................................................................25
4.1.6
Bonding and other Financial Obligations ...................................................................26
4.1.7
Boundaries and Survey Requirements .........................................................................26
ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND

PHYSIOGRAPHY ...............................................................................................................................27
6.
HISTORY .............................................................................................................................................30
7.
GEOLOGICAL SETTING..................................................................................................................31
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
REGIONAL GEOLOGY ..................................................................................................................31

LOCAL GEOLOGY .......................................................................................................................36
IDENTIFICATION OF POLYHALITE IN GEOPHYSICAL WELL LOGS ...............................................37
DATA INTERPRETATION ..............................................................................................................38
8.
DEPOSIT TYPES.................................................................................................................................45
9.
MINERALIZATION ...........................................................................................................................46
10. EXPLORATION ..................................................................................................................................48

11. DRILLING ............................................................................................................................................51
12. SAMPLING METHOD AND APPROACH ......................................................................................52
13. SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES AND SECURITY ...........................................................54
14. DATA VERIFICATION ......................................................................................................................56
15. ADJACENT PROPERTIES ................................................................................................................58
16. MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING .................................................59
17. MINERAL RESOURCE AND MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES ............................................62
17.1
17.2
17.3
PETRA MODEL CALCULATIONS ..................................................................................................62

VALIDATION OF PETRA MODEL USING SURPAC .........................................................................66
DEVELOPMENT OF AN INDEPENDENT RESOURCE ESTIMATE .......................................................66
Prepared by: Chemrox Technologies and Gustavson Associates
August 19, 2009
P a g e | ii
18. OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION ......................................................................72

18.1
BACKGROUND TO THE POTASH INDUSTRY .................................................................................72

18.1.1
Fertilizer Products.......................................................................................................73
18.1.2
Polyhalite as a Direct Fertilizer and K2SO4 Feed Stock .............................................75
19. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR TECHNICAL REPORTS ON

DEVELOPMENT PROPERTIES AND PRODUCTION PROPERTIES ........................................77
19.1
19.2
PRELIMINARY ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT .....................................................................................77

MINING .......................................................................................................................................78
19.2.1
Mining Method Selection .............................................................................................78
19.2.2
Mine Design.................................................................................................................78
19.2.3
Mine Development Design ...........................................................................................79
19.2.4
Mobile Equipment........................................................................................................79
19.2.5
Development and Production Schedules .....................................................................79
19.2.6
Mining Support Services ..............................................................................................80
19.3 MINING RECOVERY ....................................................................................................................80
19.4 PROCESS DESCRIPTION ...............................................................................................................81
19.5 MARKETS ...................................................................................................................................81
19.6 CONTRACTS ................................................................................................................................82
19.7 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS ..........................................................................................82
19.8 TAXES.........................................................................................................................................82
19.8.1
Royalties ......................................................................................................................82
19.8.2
Corporate Income Tax .................................................................................................82
19.9 OPERATING COST ESTIMATES (OPEX) ........................................................................................82
19.9.1
Mining OPEX ..............................................................................................................83
19.9.2
Mineral Processing OPEX and Beneficiation .............................................................84
19.9.3
General and Administration and Site Services OPEX .................................................85
19.9.4
OPEX Summary ...........................................................................................................86
19.10 CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES (CAPEX) ................................................................................86
19.10.1 Mining .........................................................................................................................87
19.10.2 Mineral Processing......................................................................................................88
19.10.3 Exploration and Permitting .........................................................................................89
19.10.4 CAPEX Summary.........................................................................................................89
19.11 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................89
19.11.1 Sensitivity Analysis ......................................................................................................90
19.12 PAYBACK ....................................................................................................................................92
19.13 MINE LIFE ..................................................................................................................................92
19.14 OPPORTUNITIES AND RISKS ........................................................................................................92
19.14.1 Opportunities ...............................................................................................................92
19.14.2 Risks.............................................................................................................................92
20. INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................94
21. RECOMMENDATIONS .....................................................................................................................96
22. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 101
23. CERTIFICATES ................................................................................................................................ 105
24. GLOSSARY ........................................................................................................................................ 116

August 19, 2009
P a g e | iii
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A Mineralogical Investigations of Salado and Rustler Polyhalite
APPENDIX B Analytical Results from the Mineral Lab and ALS Chemex
APPENDIX C Metallurgical Test Results from RDi
APPENDIX D Polyhalite Density Calculations
APPENDIX E Mining Support Documents
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1.1 OCHOA AREA OF INTEREST LAND POSITION, PROPOSED DRILL HOLE LOCATIONS
AND POLYHALITE ISOPACHS ...................................................................................................... 2
FIGURE 1.2 K2SO4 PRICE SENSITIVITY .............................................................................................................. 6
FIGURE 2.1 GENERAL LOCATION OF THE OCHOA RESOURCE AREA .................................................. 12
FIGURE 4.1 GENERAL LOCATION MAP OF THE OCHOA PROPERTY IN NEW MEXICO .................... 15
FIGURE 4.2 LOCATION OF OIL AND GAS LEASES THAT OVERLAP POTASH PERMITS HELD BY
ICP IN THE OCHOA AOI ................................................................................................................ 17
FIGURE 4.3 LOCATION OF THE NEWLY ADDED ACREAGE CURRENTLY IN ENVIONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT STAGE..................................................................................................................... 21
FIGURE 4.4 LOCATION OF THE FIVE ADDITIONAL ICP PROSPECTING PERMITS (17-21)................ 22
FIGURE 5.1 TYPICAL TERRAIN AND VEGETATION FOR THE OCHOA AOI (AFTER MICON, 2008) 27
FIGURE 5.2 KPLA & WIPP .................................................................................................................................... 29
FIGURE 7.1 GEOLOGICAL MAP OF NEW MEXICO ....................................................................................... 31
FIGURE 7.2 LOCATION OF DELAWARE SUB-BASIN .................................................................................... 32
FIGURE 7.3 OCHOAN STRATIGRAPHIC MAPPING UNITS ......................................................................... 34
FIGURE 7.4 POLYHALITE SHOWING A HIGH GAMMA RAY RESPONSE................................................ 35
FIGURE 7.5 CONCEPTUAL CROSS SECTION OF THE PERMIAN BASIN (AFTER JONES, 1972) ......... 36
FIGURE 7.6 LOCATION MAP FOR CROSS SECTIONS ................................................................................... 39
FIGURE 7.7 NW-SE CROSS-SECTION A-A ON WEST SIDE OF AOI ........................................................... 40
FIGURE 7.8 N-S CROSS SECTION B-B ON EAST SIDE OF AOI .................................................................... 41
FIGURE 7.9 THICKNESS ISOPACH FOR TAMARISK POLYHALITE BED WITH ICP PERMITS.......... 42
FIGURE 7.10 DEPTH FROM SURFACE ELEVATION TO THE BASE OF THE POLYHALITE IN THE
RUSTLER FM ................................................................................................................................. 43
FIGURE 7.11 CROSS-SECTION C SHOWING SALADO POTASH BED DISTRIBUTION ON THE
WEST ............................................................................................................................................... 44
FIGURE 10.1 PROPOSED DRILL HOLE LOCATIONS IDENTIFIED ............................................................ 50
FIGURE 17.1 SHOWS THE GAMMA RAY TRACK ON THE LEFT ................................................................ 62
FIGURE 17.2 SURPAC ISOPACH OF RUSTLER POLYHALITE BED WITH AOI OUTLINE .................... 68
FIGURE 17.3 LOCATION OF PERMIT TRACTS HAVING GREATER THAN 6 FT OF POLYHALITE IN
THE ICP AREA OF INTEREST.................................................................................................... 70
FIGURE 17.4 OCHOA INFERRED RESOURCE VOLUMES AND TONNAGES BY OBJECT AREA......... 71
FIGURE 19.1 K2SO4 PRICE SENSITIVITY .......................................................................................................... 90
FIGURE 19.2 CONTROLLABLE COST SENSITIVITY ..................................................................................... 91
FIGURE 19.3 CAPITAL COST SENSITIVITY .................................................................................................... 91
FIGURE 19.4 DISCOUNT RATE SENSITIVITY ................................................................................................. 92

August 19, 2009
P a g e | iv
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1.1
TABLE 1.2
TABLE 1.3
TABLE 1.4
TABLE 1.5
TABLE 2.1
INFERRED POLYHALITE RESOURCES IN ICP AREA OF INTEREST ..................................... 3

COST PER TON OF FEED.................................................................................................................... 5
TOTAL ESTIMATED INITIAL CAPITAL COST FOR THE MINE AND PLANT ....................... 5
EXPLORATION, ENGINEERING AND PERMITTING COSTS .................................................... 5
NPVS ...................................................................................................................................................... 6
OCHOA POLYHALITE PROJECT QUALIFIED PERSONS AND THEIR
RESPONSIBILITIES .......................................................................................................................... 10
TABLE 4.1 BLM PROSPECTING PERMITS HELD BY ICP AT OCHOA ....................................................... 18
TABLE 4.2 DESCRIPTION OF ADDITIONAL PERMITS TO BE ADDED TO THE OCHOA AOI...................................... 23
TABLE 7.1 LOG CHARACTERISTICS OF EVAPORITE MINERALS ........................................................... 37
TABLE 9.1 AVERAGE COMPOSITION OF POLYHALITE (DANA, 1927) .................................................... 46
TABLE 17.1 OCHOA INFERRED MINERAL RESOURCES............................................................................. 63
TABLE 17.2 INFERRED RESOURCE TABULATION ....................................................................................... 63
TABLE 18.1 WORLD POTASH PRODUCTION1 (THOUSAND TONS K2O) ................................................... 73
TABLE 19.1 MOBILE UNDERGROUND MINING EQUIPMENT.................................................................... 79
TABLE 19.2 DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE ........................................................................................................ 80
TABLE 19.3 MINE STAFF ...................................................................................................................................... 83
TABLE 19.4 PLANT STAFF ................................................................................................................................... 84
TABLE 19.5 PROCESS OPERATING COSTS EXCLUDING LABOR .......................................................... 85
TABLE 19.6 SURFACE STAFF .............................................................................................................................. 86
TABLE 19.7 COST PER TON OF FEED................................................................................................................ 86
TABLE 19.8 MINE DEVELOPMENT CAPITAL COSTS PHASE I ................................................................... 87
TABLE 19.9 MINE DEVELOPMENT CAPITAL COSTS PHASE II YEAR 14 ............................................... 88
TABLE 19.10 SURFACE AND PROCESS CAPITAL COSTS ............................................................................ 88
TABLE 19.11 EXPLORATION, ENGINEERING AND PERMITTING COSTS .............................................. 89
TABLE 19.12 TOTAL ESTIMATED INITIAL CAPITAL COST FOR THE MINE AND PLANT ................. 89
TABLE 19.13 NPVS ................................................................................................................................................ 90

August 19, 2009
Page |1
1.
SUMMARY
Chemrox Technologies and Gustavson Associates were contracted by Trigon Uranium

Corporation to prepare an independent Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA) for their
interest in the Ochoa polyhalite property in southeastern New Mexico suitable for reporting
under Canadian National Instrument 43-101 (NI43-101). In order to make reasonable
predictions of the economics, a resource assessment was necessary and is part of this PEA. The
target mineral for potential development is a potassium sulfate mineral known as polyhalite.
Polyhalite is an evaporite mineral with chemical formula K2SO4.MgSO4.2CaSO4.2H2O but it
contains no sodium or chloride as its formula might suggest. Trigon and ICPs goal is to produce
polyhalite as a multi-nutrient, chloride-free fertilizer and to produce potassium sulfate for the
agricultural marketplace internationally.
The Ochoa polyhalite property comprises 16 existing federal prospecting permits for potassium
located about 60 miles east-southeast of Carlsbad, New Mexico and less than 20 miles west of
the Texas-New Mexico state line. It also has 5 additional prospecting permits undergoing the
final Environmental Assessment (EA) evaluations by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
although a verbal approval has been given for the locations by BLM field personnel. Combined,
the permit holdings of ICP would be 45,712.66 acres on approximately 100,000 acre trend of
polyhalite at Ochoa.
Geophysical data from oil and gas well holes drilled in and around the Ochoa area of interest
(AOI) were combined with nearby core and local cuttings data to authenticate and model the
presence and thickness of polyhalite on the ICP property that occurs between 1200 and 2200 ft
beneath the property in the Rustler Formation of Permian age. Isopach and structure maps were
generated by Chemrox of the polyhalite using Petra and Surpac software under the supervision of
Chemrox. The Petra software and in-put rationale was also validated by a Gustavson expert in
Petra software. Gustavson also verified the resource estimate using Surfer software. Figure 1.1
shows the Area of Interest outline, proposed holes and polyhalite thicknesses for Ochoa.

August 19, 2009
Page |2
FIGURE 1.1 OCHOA AREA OF INTEREST LAND POSITION, PROPOSED DRILL HOLE LOCATIONS AND POLYHALITE ISOPACHS
August 19, 2009
Page |3
The area of polyhalite greater than 6 feet thick was calculated. The 6 ft thickness was chosen
because that is the minimum mineable thickness used in the Preliminary Economic Assessment.
The area was multiplied by the interpolated thickness to arrive at a volume that was reduced to a
tonnage using a tonnage factor of 11.43 ft3/ton derived from core hole densities. An 85%
polyhalite grade was assumed, based on core samples proximal to the Ochoa area. At this stage,
only inferred mineral resources can be estimated until implementation of a core drilling program
during the fall of 2009. During that drilling program, Trigon and ICP will be able to validate
polyhalite grade, thickness and continuity, in many instances twinning the oil and gas drill hole
locations to see if grade can be predicted using such data.
Below is the Chemrox estimate for the tonnage of the polyhalite inferred mineral resource in the
AOI and under the BLM permits for exploration in the Rustler Formation that are held by ICP
(Table 1.1). It should be noted that these mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not
have demonstrated economic viability.
TABLE 1.1 INFERRED POLYHALITE RESOURCES IN ICP AREA OF INTEREST
PolygonName
AOIWest
TotalArea
(ft2)
Areagreaterthan
6ftthick
Shorttonsinarea
Avg
greaterthan
thickness
6ftthick
(ft)
2,981,316,000
1,182,297,000
699,277,000
6.77
AOIEast
585,775,000
142,207,000
85,167,000
6.85
AOISum
3,567,091,000
1,324,504,000
784,444,000
6.78
1,994,698,000
679,209,000
399,574,000
6.73
ICPPermitSum
Note: Estimates rounded to 1,000s
An independent analysis of the inferred resource in the Rustler Formation supervised by

Chemrox was further validated by Chemrox using Surpac software wherein Chemrox calculated
382Mt of in-place inferred mineral resources, non-adjusted for grade.
Mineralogical and
chemical analyses suggest that an average polyhalite grade in the Rustler Formation of 85%
polyhalite is not an unreasonable expectation for the ICP permits based upon core data from the
area to the northwest of the property.
A significant potential resource of potash bearing beds appears to occur at greater depths within
the Salado Formation on the BLM permits but has not been quantified as part of this report.
August 19, 2009
Page |4
Chemroxs inferred mineral resource estimate within the ICP Permit AOI that is the subject of
the PEA summarized in this report should be considered too speculative geologically to have the
economic considerations applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as mineral
reserves, and there is no certainty that the preliminary assessment will be realized.
In order to evaluate the potential economic viability of the Ochoa polyhalite deposit, the PEA
was prepared. The conceptual mine plans were based on the experience of Randy Foote, Chief
Engineer and VP of Engineering for ICP, who previously worked as a mine manager at
operations of similar mines (potash) in the Carlsbad district. Gustavson developed the mine
staffing, capital and operating costs using the Mine and Mill Equipment Costs, An Estimators
Guide (2009) and the personal experience of Mr. Foote. The conceptual process flowsheet was
proposed by Mr. Foote and is based on work done in the late 1950s and published in a report.
Gustavson utilized Mr. Footes experience and updated process operating costs in the 1958
report with current raw materials and energy cost data. Process operating and capital costs were
estimated by Gustavson and checked by Mr. Foote. Gustavson estimated the General and
Administrative costs as well. The pre-tax economic evaluation included royalties due to the
Federal Government and two other parties. The PEA of ICPs estimated inferred mineral
resources at Ochoa indicates that development of the polyhalite resource is potentially
economically viable based on a conceptual underground room and pillar mining scenario
followed by processing through a plant designed using proven process technology.
Annual full production mining capacity from the underground room and pillar mine is 4.6
million tons per year. The mine will operate 350 days per year for a full daily production
tonnage of 13,143 tons. The process plant design selected utilizes ammonia to precipitate
magnesium hydroxide and in a second step, potassium sulphate. The plant would produce
904,000 tons of K2SO4 per year and 500,000 tons of polyhalite at full capacity.
All costs are stated in 2009 US dollars. Full capacity operating cost per ton of mill feed
estimates are shown in Table 1.2.

August 19, 2009
Page |5
TABLE 1.2 COST PER TON OF FEED

AREA
Mine
Mill
G&A
Total
LifeofMineAverage
$8.84
$26.63
$0.66
$36.13
TypicalYear
$10.74
$27.48
$0.64
$38.86
Total estimated initial capital cost for the mine and plant are shown in Table 1.3:
TABLE 1.3 TOTAL ESTIMATED INITIAL CAPITAL COST FOR THE MINE AND PLANT
Total Mine and Plant Capital
Total Direct Costs
EPCM
Indirects
Subtotal Direct plus Indirect
Owners costs
Contingency
Subtotal Other Costs
$589,884,206
12%
4%
direct
direct
3%
25%
direct
total
$589,884,206
$70,786,105
$23,595,368
$684,265,679
$17,696,526
$175,490,551
$193,187,077
Total Estimated Costs
$877,452,756
The estimated exploration, engineering and permitting costs total $9.8 million, as shown in
Table1.4, bring the total preproduction expenditure to $887.3 million. The ICP Phase 1 drill
program budget is US $550 million and the Phase 2 budget is US$2.5 million US.
TABLE 1.4 EXPLORATION, ENGINEERING AND PERMITTING COSTS
ACTIVITY
PreliminaryDrilling(PhaseI)
DevelopmentDrilling(PhaseII)
PrefeasibilityStudy
FeasibilityStudy
Permitting
Total
COST
$550,000
$2,500,000
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$750,000
$9,800,000
The project will produce two fertilizer products, potassium sulfate, and polyhalite. The potassium
sulfate product is readily marketable as a highly desirable fertilizer. 85% of the project revenue is
derived from potassium sulfate at full production. Test work has shown polyhalite to be a good
direct application fertilizer; however polyhalite is currently not utilized as a fertilizer and will
require market development. Initial polyhalite production is planned for 50,000 tons per year;
rising by 50,000 tons per year for 9 years to a maximum of 500,000 tons per year. Polyhalite
sales at full production represent 15% of the projects revenue. The pricing of the polyhalite

August 19, 2009
Page |6
product is at a discount to competing fertilizer products. The selling price of direct application
polyhalite fertilizer used in the PEA is $250/ton and the selling price used for potassium sulphate
is $750/ton.
It is assumed a 5% gross royalty would be imposed by the federal government. A $1/ton
potassium product produced, and a 3% net profits royalty are also included.
The 30-year life project gives a pre-tax IRR of 43% and NPV of $2.90 billion with a 10%
discount rate. NPVs at other rates are listed in Table 1.5.
TABLE 1.5 NPVS
NPV
15%
12%
10%
8%
5%
BILLION
$1.50
$2.20
$2.90
$3.86
$6.19
The project has a payback period of 3.1 years from the start of production.
Sensitivity analysis was completed on the project to determine those costs to which the project
was most sensitive. The project is most sensitive to the selling price of K2SO4 followed by
controllable cost, capital cost, and discount rate (Figure 1.2).
Product$/Ton
590
640
NPVvs.K2SO4Price
690
740
790
840
890
940
4,000
NPV@10%($000's)
3,500
3,762
3,472
3,000
3,181
2,891
2,500
2,601
2,310
2,000
2,020
1,500
1,000
500
FIGURE 1.2 K2SO4 PRICE SENSITIVITY

August 19, 2009
Page |7
Based on the assumptions and results of the PEA, Gustavson considers that the Ochoa polyhalite
project has potential to be an economically viable operation, annually producing over 900,000
tons of potassium sulphate and 500,000 tons of polyhalite product for the world market.
Gustavson and Chemrox Technologies recommend that Trigon and ICP execute their Phase I
drilling program. If the results are encouraging, we further recommend Phase II drilling and
subsequent metallurgical and other test work and engineering.

August 19, 2009
Page |8
2.
INTRODUCTION
Chemrox and Gustavson were retained by Trigon Uranium Corp to evaluate their potash interests
in the ICP property in southeastern New Mexico known as Ochoa. Chemrox and Gustavson
prepared an independent Technical Report on the Ochoa polyhalite property AOI which is
located in Lea County, New Mexico (Figure 2.1).
Polyhalite is an evaporite mineral with
chemical formula K2SO4.MgSO4.2CaSO4.2H2O. The area of interest is being investigated by

Intercontinental Potash with the ultimate objective of producing and marketing polyhalite as a
multi-nutrient, chloride-free fertilizer (re: new market commodity competing with langbeinite)
and using polyhalite as a feedstock to produce potassium sulfate (re: an established and
significant potash market).
Intercontinental Potash Corp. ("ICP") owns 100% of the Ochoa project. However, the
independent Technical Report on the Ochoa polyhalite property of ICP and the area of interest,
both of which are located in Lea County, New Mexico, has been prepared for Trigon Uranium
Corp. ("Trigon"). Trigon owns 36.8 percent of ICP, a related company by virtue of common
directors and officers. ICP and Trigon have entered into a non-binding letter of intent executed
on June 18, 2009 pursuant to which Trigon intends to make an offer to acquire all of the issued
and outstanding common shares of ICP that it does not already own by way of a share exchange
(the Transaction). In anticipation of the closing of the Transaction, Trigon proposes to
consolidate all of its currently issued and outstanding common shares on the basis of one new
share for each four existing shares (subject to receipt of shareholder and regulatory approval).
Under the terms of the offer, ICP shareholders will receive one new Trigon common share (on a
post-consolidation basis) for each ICP common share. Because Trigon and ICP are not arms
length parties, the Transaction must be approved by an ordinary resolution of shareholders and a
majority of the votes cast by minority shareholders of Trigon. In addition, the consolidation and
name change must be approved by a special resolution of shareholders of Trigon. Completion of
the Transaction is subject to a number of conditions, including the approval of the TSX Venture
Exchange, the execution of definitive documentation, the completion of satisfactory due
diligence, shareholders holding a minimum of 75% of the issued and outstanding common shares
of ICP (excluding common shares held by Trigon) tendering such shares to the offer, and the
approval of the requisite majority vote of shareholders of Trigon. Trigon has no direct

August 19, 2009
Page |9
obligations with respect to the Ochoa project, however if the Transaction closes, then Trigon
must simply ensure that ICP meets its property maintenance obligations to retain its interest in
the property. The initial term of the permits is two years and may be extended to four years in
total if in the opinion of the BLM exploration has proceed in an expeditious manner.
The Qualified Person responsible for the preparation of the resource portion of this report is Sean
C. Muller, C.P.G, R.G. He was supported by the modeling expertise of Robert Galyen, C.P.G.
The effective date of this resource report is August 18, 2009, and the final PEA is included
within this report.
Sean Muller has visited the Ochoa property with ICP personnel and
surrounding area on three occasions in 2009; January 20th to 22nd, March 16th to 19th, and May 4th
to May 8th. During these site visits, Mr. Muller and ICP personnel visited all of the proposed
locations; met with BLM to discuss permits; sampled polyhalite in an underground potash mine;
reviewed and sampled core north of the Ochoa property; examined outcrops of the Rustler
Formation in Nash Draw west of Ochoa; met with landmen, surveyors, archeologists, drillers,
other contractors, and property owners of the surface land over the BLM permits. During these
site visits Mr. Muller gained important insight as to the field conditions, current land use, surface
hydrology, access, surface conditions, vegetation/wildlife and other elements of factors requisite
for future development. Further, samples collected during these field visits have been evaluated
in great detail to develop a conceptual geologic model consistent with the drill hole data on the
property.
The Qualified Persons responsible for the Ochoa Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA) are
William J. Crowl, R.G., Donald E. Hulse, P.E., Terre A. Lane, Member AusIMM and Richard D.
Moritz, Member MMSA, all employees or associates of Gustavson Associates. Hulse, Lane and
Moritz are mining engineers, while Crowl is a geologist. Assisting both Chemrox and Gustavson
with review of the resource estimation efforts in Petra was Briana Lamphier, a Gustavson oil and
gas geologist. A site visit to Ochoa was made by William Crowl on August 13, 2009 to spot
check drilling locations and meet surface land owners. Karl Gurr, Principal Mining Engineer for
Chemrox assisted Gustavson with development of the PEA and the economic model. Table 2.1
summarizes the qualifications of the Qualified Persons for this report, as well as, specifying the
areas of responsibilities in the report, as required by NI43-101.

August 19, 2009
P a g e | 10
TABLE 2.1 OCHOA POLYHALITE PROJECT QUALIFIED PERSONS AND THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES
QualifiedPerson
Sean C. Muller, CPG, R.G.
Chemrox Technologies
Robert Galyen, CPG
Credential
AIPG Certified Professional
Geologist, CPG06942; SME
Registered Member as QP;
Registered Professional Geologist in
7 States
AIPG Certified Professional
Geologist, CPG08505;
William J. Crowl, R.G.

Gustavson Associates
Registered Professional Geologist,

Oregon, G573
Professional Engineer, Colorado
35269
Terre A. Lane, Member AusIMM

Member, Australasian Institute of

Mining and Metallurgy (AusIMM)
Richard D. Moritz, Member MMSA

Member, Mining and Metallurgical

Society of America (MMSA)
AreaofResponsibilityinOchoa
TechnicalReport
Report Sections 1-15, 17 and 18,
specifically Petra mineral resource
estimate and SURPAC validation
estimate
Surpac modeling for validating Petra
model results (Report subsection
17.2)
Entire Report
Verification of Trigon (ICP)
resource estimation methodology
and results
Report Section 19 Conceptual
mining plans, mine operating and
capital cost estimates
Report Section 19 Mine layout,
production scheduling, process
operating and capital cost estimates,
owners costs, economic modeling
and sensitivity
The purpose of a Preliminary Economic Assessment is to present basic analytical assumptions

for decision-making early in the process of a property evaluation. To enable the development of
a PEA, one first must have a resource and if only an Inferred Resource, it should be suitably
evaluated to have a level of certainty that can be used for conducting preliminary economic
evaluation. Secondly, one must have a sound framework and comparable basis for developing a
conceptual production scenario and estimated cost considerations. It is fully understood that this
planning tool is not meant as a substitute for more detailed information requisite for defining
indicated and measured resources and conducting a detailed mine planning effort required for
developing sound and defensible reserves and economics. This level of prefeasibility will only
be possible with comprehensive resource, geotechnical and hydrological drilling due to
commence in the Fall of 2009. That being said, conclusions drawn in this report must be viewed
only for planning purposes and not as an absolute quantification of the resource or economics.
Caution should be used by a reviewer of this document as all results, interpretations, and
conclusions are of a preliminary nature subject to refinement as more information becomes
available.
August 19, 2009
P a g e | 11
The sources of information for this 43-101 included:
Prior publications and internal reports on the subject of polyhalite;

Over 200 oil and gas geophysical logs in the Ochoa area;
Channel samples of polyhalite from one of the operating langbeinite mines in the Salado
Formation;
Core samples or polyhalite from Sandia Laboratories;
Chip samples of polyhalite from the University of New Mexico at Socorro form oil and gas wells
in the AOI;
Analytical test data from The Mineral Lab, ALS-Chemex, Florin Analytical Laboratory;
Microscopy of select polyhalite samples conducted by Dr. John Lufkin;
Metallurgical results from RDi;
Consultations with prior ICP employees and contractors;
Consultation with existing potash mining companies;
Consultation with the Bureau of Land Management;
Legal reviews of contract land personnel;
Filed investigations by the resource QP;
Land survey and archeological survey data and consultations with contractors; and,
Consultations with experienced drillers, construction contractors and reclamation contractors.
The permitted drill sites and area of interest (AOI) are located within the Permian Basin of the
Great Plains physiographic province. Evaporites in New Mexico and Texas occur in the Permian
sedimentary basin which is roughly oval in shape and elongated in a northeast-southwest
direction. The Delaware and Midland sub-basins of the upper Permian Basin are separated by
the Central Basin Platform and contain extensive evaporite deposits of the Ochoa Series which
lie between the Capitan Reef limestone of the underlying Guadalupe Series and the fine clastic
sediments of the Dewey Lake redbeds.

August 19, 2009
P a g e | 12
FIGURE 2.1 GENERAL LOCATION OF THE OCHOA RESOURCE AREA

August 19, 2009
P a g e | 13
3.
RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS
The Ochoa area was originally brought to the attention of ICP by Robert Hite, a former U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) geologist whose specialty is evaporites, in particular, the mineral
polyhalite. Mr. Hite worked for the USGS from 1956 to 1989 and developed knowledge of
polyhalite occurrences in the Carlsbad area through the examination of oil and gas drill
holes/logs comparing the diagnostic signatures of polyhalite in boreholes with that of the minor
occurrence associated with the sylvite and langbeinite deposits in the mines.
Under his supervision, former ICP oil and gas geologist, Susan Wager, mapped the polyhalite
occurrence in the Rustler Formation and equivalents throughout the southeastern part of New
Mexico and west Texas and confirmed that the best occurrence for potential economic
development was in the Ochoa area. She also assisted in the land selection process avoiding the
major oil and gas fields to facilitate mine planning.
Marc Melker, C.P..G., an employee of ICP and an experienced resource modeler, expanded the
interpretation with Petra software volumetric computations under the direct supervision of Sean
Muller, C.P.G, R.G. for Chemrox focusing on the BLM permits. Gustavson had their Petra
modeler, Briana Lamphier review the Petra model and found it to be suitable and defensible for
developing the inferred resources presented in this report. The cooperation of Sandia Labs, US
Department of Energy (DOE) and URS (previously Westinghouse) was extraordinary relative to
accessing pertinent databases and testing information in the Permian Basin and west of the
Ochoa area. The groups collaboratively enabled not only visual inspection of core to the south
of their waste repository known as WIPP, but also allowed ICP to sample polyhalite core just
west of Ochoa.
Additional invaluable consultation was obtained from hydrogeological consultant Dennis
Powers, PhD., of Anthony, Texas who previously worked for Sandia when the relevant WIPP
drill holes intersected polyhalite. Dr. Powers is also an expert in evaporites, and has knowledge
of polyhalite deposits in the Ochoa area.
Dr. Powers has utilized the Rustler Formation
polyhalite as a marker horizon for correlations of drill data in the area. Other support was
available from the active mining companies. One company (name withheld at their request)
allowed ICP to evaluate and sample the thin beds of polyhalite from their potash mine. The
August 19, 2009
P a g e | 14
expertise of ICPs VP of Engineering, Randy Foote, was invaluable. He developed his expertise
managing large scale mining and milling operations in the Carlsbad area for 27 years. ICP
provided complete and total access to all technical data and reports allowing full transparency in
our review.
Micon International Limited, of Toronto, provided an Independent Technical Report on the
Ochoa Polyhalite Project November, 2008, revised January 2009. Chemrox has utilized certain
information from that report in preparing this report. Dr. John Lufkin, formerly a mineralogy
professor at the Colorado School of Mines, provided oversight of the microscopy presented in
this report. Dr. Deepak Malhotra of the metallurgical testing firm of RDi, who is an adjunct
professor of metallurgy at the Colorado School of Mines, provided expertise in the testing and
evaluation of polyhalite samples, and Peggy Dalheim, previous analytical manager at the
Colorado School of Mines Research Institute, provided expertise in evaluating the nature and
concentration of polyhalite using X-ray Diffraction (XRD) and X-ray Fluoroscopy (XRF),
and additionally conducted Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) work to determine
cation/anion location within the mineral grains of polyhalite through her world recognized
company The Mineral Lab.

August 19, 2009
P a g e | 15
4.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION & LOCATION
The Ochoa AOI is located about 60 miles east-southeast of Carlsbad, New Mexico and less than
20 miles west of the Texas-New Mexico state line and spans portions of 8 townships,
specifically: T23S, R33E, T23S, R34E, T23S, R36E, T24S, R33E, T24S, R34E, T24S, R35E,
T24S, R36E and T25S; R36E. The general location is shown in Figure 4.1 below:
FIGURE 4.1 GENERAL LOCATION MAP OF THE OCHOA PROPERTY IN NEW MEXICO

August 19, 2009
P a g e | 16
The Ochoa polyhalite property is comprised of 16 BLM prospecting permits (re: 36,589 acres)
and 5 pending permit applications (re: 9,124 acres) for potassium minerals that would include
polyhalite. The 5 pending permits have gone through the Plan of Operations submittal phase and
BLM has already verbally approved the drill site locations during a field visit in June 2009.
Archeological and land surveys are in progress as is the final EA by the BLM. Verbal
authorization for the site locations has been given by BLM field personnel.
The term of each permit is two years, renewable for an additional two years. A drilling
exploration plan for the required 16 exploration holes was submitted to the BLM on May 27,
2008, and on July 20, 2009 for the 6 exploration holes on the five new permits. The Plan of
Operations describes the drilling methods, drilling stipulations and related reclamation plans.
During June 2008, and June 2009, the BLM inspected the respective proposed drill hole
locations, modified the locations where necessary and approved them with respect to water and
wildlife issues. The drilling exploration plans were modified and resubmitted as a result of this
process. A cultural resource survey was also performed for each of the 16 drill sites with
satisfactory results and no cultural resource sites were identified. Equivalent surveys are ongoing for the other 6 drill sites on the new applications. The drill pad and access roads have been
surveyed for 16 locations.
The property and area of interest are located in Lea County, southeast New Mexico, of which the
county seat is Lovington. The town of Jal, with a population of about 2,000, is the nearest
community to the AOI. Oil and gas production is active in Lea County, with the town of Hobbs,
about 15 miles to the northeast of the property of interest, being the center of this industry. Oil
and gas leases that overlap with the potash permits are seen in Figure 4.2. ICP did make an
effort to avoid oil and gas fields in its acreage selection process to avoid potential conflicts in
development of the mineral resources.

August 19, 2009
P a g e | 17
T23S-R32E T23S-R33E
sect 1
nd
nd
T23S-R33E T23S-R34E
sect 6
nd
3
3 2e
sect 1
sect 6
nd
nd
New Mexico, Ochoa
nd
nd
Oil and Gas Leases in Yellow

and labeled with active lease #
as described below
SG
SG
9 10
nd
SO&G
WELL SYMBOLS
Location Only
Oil Well
Gas Well
Dry Hole
SO
nd
nd
nd
nd
Injection Well
Junked
Unknown Status
Abandoned Well
Dry Hole With Gas Show

Dry Hole With Oil Show
Dry Hole With Oil & Gas Show
SO&G
Filled Large Diamond
SG
SO&G
SO&G
SO
SG
SO
sect 36
sect 31
T23S-R32E T23S-R33E
PETRA 9/4/2009 3:37:19 PM
sect 36
sect 31
T23S-R33ET23S-R34E
ICP permit areas in Diagonal pattern, O+G leases

in yellow, e=expired lease, nd= no detail.
1- NM103609, 2- NM104695, 3- NM20073,
4- NM114985, 5- 121489, 6- 114986,
7- NM112940, 8- NM94186, 9- LC068387,
10- LC065194
10,000
FEET
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
METERS
FIGURE 4.2 LOCATION OF OIL AND GAS LEASES THAT OVERLAP POTASH PERMITS HELD BY ICP IN THE OCHOA AOI

August 19, 2009
P a g e | 18
Other than inactive caliche pits and one permitted land farm for devolatilizing well-field soils,
there are no other mineral development activities excepting minor oil and gas production. No
other mineral claims or leases are known to occur or conflict with ICPs holdings on BLM in the
area.
TABLE 4.1 BLM PROSPECTING PERMITS HELD BY ICP AT OCHOA
TOWNSHIP
ANDRANGE
SECTIONSAND
DESCRIPTIONS
BLMAPPROVAL
DATE
121100
Township24
South,Range35
East,NMPM
Section27:E2,W2SW
Section28:N2NE,E2SE
Section29:W2
Section31:E2,NW,SWSW
Section33:SW,W2SE,NENE
Section34:NE,S2SW,N2SE,
NWNW
Section35:S2NE,S2SE
12/1/2008
121101
Township24
South,Range35
East,NMPM
Section23:AllLands(640ac)
Section26:W2,E2NE,E2SE
12/1/2008
121102
Township24
South,Range35
East,NMPM
Section17:N2,SE
Section22:NE,N2SE,NESW,
SENW
12/1/2008
121103
Township24
South,Range35
East,NMPM
Section14:SWNW,E2NW,E2,
SW
12/1/2008
121104
Township24
South,Range35
East,NMPM
Section1:W2,W2E2
Section7:W2,W2SE
Section8:E2,SW,E2NW
Section11:NENE
Section18:SW
Section19:SW
Section35:SENW,SESW
12/1/2008
121105
Township24
South,Range34
East,NMPM
Section9:N2,SE
Section11:W2W2,E2E2
Section12:E2,SW,E2NW
Section19:N2,SE,N2SW
12/1/2008
Township24
South,Range34
East,NMPM
Section23:E2,SWSW
Section24:SE,NESW,SENE,
N2NW
Section25:W2W2,E2E2
Section26:W2
Section27:S2,E2NE
Section34:NW,N2SW,W2SE
12/1/2008
SERIALNUMBER
121106
ACREAGE
2,200.00
2,400.00
2,080.00
2,520.00
2,520.00
2,560.00
2,360.00

August 19, 2009
P a g e | 19
SERIALNUMBER
TOWNSHIP
ANDRANGE
SECTIONSAND
DESCRIPTIONS
BLMAPPROVAL
DATE
ACREAGE
Section35:E2
Township23
South,Range34
East,NMPM
Section6:Lots17,SENW,
E2SW,S2NE,SE
Section7:Lots12,E2NW,NE
Section18:Lots34,E2SW,SE
Section19:Lots14,E2W2,E2
12/1/2008
121108
Township24
South,Range34
East,NMPM
Section1:Lots14,S2N2,
N2SW,SE
Section3:Lots12,S2NE,SE
Section4:Lots12,S2NE,SE,
S2SW,NWSW
Section5:Lots34,S2NW,SW
Section7:Lots12,E2NW,NE
Section8:N2,SW
12/1/2008
121109
Township24
South,Range33
East,NMPM
Section11:N2
Section13:SE,E2SW
Section14:W2,W2E2
12/1/2008
2,320.00
121110
Township24
South,Range33
East,NMPM
Section24:W2
Section25:W2
12/1/2008
1,280.00
121111
Township23
South,Range33
East,NMPM
12/1/2008
2,560.00
121112
Township24
South,Range34
East,NMPM
Section17allLands(640ac)
Section18:Lot1,NENW,NE
Section21:N2,SW,W2SE
Section22:N2,SESE
12/1/2008
2,440.00
121113
Township23
South,Range33
East,NMPM
Section13:S2
Section14:S2
12/1/2008
1,920.00
121114
Township23
South,Range33
East,NMPM
Section1:Lots14,S2N2,S2
Section6:Lots17,E2SW,
SENW,S2NE,SE
12/1/2008
121115
Township23
South,Range33
East,NMPM
Section7:Lots14,E2W2,E2
12/1/2008
121107
TOTALS:
1,892.00
2,439.00
2,547.00
2,551.00
36,589.00
Figure 4.3 shows the areas held by ICP under BLM prospecting permits 1 through 16 in the AOI
plus five new prospecting permit applications 17 through 21 to the east that are in the final stage
August 19, 2009
P a g e | 20
of review and approval. These new prospecting permits are located in T23S, R36E; T24S, R36E
and T25S, R36E as seen in Figures 4.4. ICP would have an exclusive option to lease these tracks
from BLM during the two year option period or extension, once it confirms reserves.

August 19, 2009
P a g e | 21
FIGURE 4.3 LOCATION OF THE NEWLY ADDED ACREAGE CURRENTLY IN ENVIONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STAGE

August 19, 2009
P a g e | 22
FIGURE 4.4 LOCATION OF THE FIVE ADDITIONAL ICP PROSPECTING PERMITS (17-21)
IN THE AREA OF INTEREST

August 19, 2009
P a g e | 23
These new tracts east of the present permits would cover an extension of a potentially thick but
deep zone of polyhalite in the Rustler Formation and are described in Table 4.2.
TABLE 4.2 Description of Additional Permits to be added to the Ochoa AOI
TRACT
NUMBER
122278
TOWNSHIPAND
RANGE
Township23
South,Range36
East,NMPM
SECTIONSAND
DESCRIPTIONS
Section29:All
Section30:Lots14,E2,E2W2
Section31:Lots14,E2W2
Section6:Lots15,S2NE,
SENW,SE
Section7:E2
Section17:S2SE,S2NW,SW
Section18:Lots12,E2NW,
NESection19:
Lots14,E2W2,E2
Section20:All
Section28:N2NW,E2NE,
E2SE
Section29:NWNW,S2SW
Section30:Lots14,E2W2,SE,
W2NE,NENE
Section31:Lots12,E2NW,
NESection
33:S2SE
BLM
PLANOF
ANTICIPATED
PERMIT
APPLICATION OPERATIONS APPROVAL
ACREAGE
DATE
FILED
DATE
3/19/2009
7/22/2009
8/30/2009
1,591.12
3/19/2009
7/22/2009
8/30/2009
2,081.31
3/19/2009
7/22/2009
8/30/2009
122279
Township24
South,Range36
East,NMPM
122280
Township24
South,Range36
East,NMPM
122281
Township25South,
Range36East,
NMPM
Section6:Lots67,E2SW,SE
Section7:Lots14,E2W2,NE,
N2SE
3/19/2009
7/22/2009
8/30/2009
2,164.90
122282
Township25
South,Range36
East,NMPM
Section8:All
Section9:All
3/19/2009
7/22/2009
8/30/2009
1,280.00
4.1
TOTALS:
2,006.33
9,123.66
Prospecting Permits
To date, exploration activities by ICP have been limited to oil and gas log interpretation and
evaluating polyhalite from potash mines and nearby core. A confirmation core drilling program
is planned for the Fall of 2009, once ICP subsequent to becoming a public company in October.
This drilling program is designed to twin prior oil and gas locations for further validation of the
usefulness of such data for resource appraisals. Further the exploration drilling program will
have strategic locations to extend or better quantify the resource to enable the possible
designation of indicated resources.

August 19, 2009
P a g e | 24
Coring will be an essential part of the planned drilling program so that analysis of the polyhalite
grade can be a part of the next resource appraisal. This will be particularly important for
determining an acceptable drill hole spacing for indicated and measured resources. The results
of this fall program will necessitate another resource evaluation and the determination of the
spacing and location for the next round of drilling in the spring of 2010.
A significant amount of new exploration data has been acquired since Micon wrote their Scoping
Study in 2008, and this is the basis for this 43-101.
4.1.1
Federal Land Holdings
In order to drill on federal land that is not part of a permitted mine, a prospecting permit
application is filed with the BLM office in Carlsbad, New Mexico under 43 CFR 3505 in order
to determine if a valuable deposit exists of potassium (among a list of minerals). Following
review of the application, the BLM requires an exploration plan and a bond before the
prospecting permit is issued. The plan should include the number of holes to be drilled, the
locations of the drilling, size of drill pads and drilling methods. In addition, archeological
clearance must be obtained for each road and drill pad in the plan and the BLM will seek
clearance from the US Fish and Wildlife in order to confirm that breeding grounds of the prairie
chicken are not within the vicinity, as well as the presence of other wildlife concerns.
Prospecting permits for potassium have an initial term of two years and may be renewed for a
further two years.
4.1.2
Other Land Requirements
ICP has invested a great deal of time and effort with surface owners in the area to facilitate
access and good relations. To what extent private and State minerals plus surface rights are
necessary for the development of a large scale project is still unknown at this time and this PEA
does not consider the acquisition of non-BLM ownership.
4.1.3
Royalties
There is a 5% gross royalty on potash production payable to the Federal Government. A further
royalty of $1/ton of any potassium product produced is payable to Robert Hite.

August 19, 2009
P a g e | 25
4.1.4
Environmental Considerations
Preliminary screening of the AOI indicates that there are no existing environmental liabilities
excepting for abandoned oil and gas wells. These would need to be effectively plugged and
abandoned if there was a concern for natural gas leakage into future mine workings.
Shallow aquifers exist in the AOI at or around 300 foot in depth that are utilized for potable
water supply. The continuity and areal extent of these aquifers has not been quantified. For the
most part, the surface conditions throughout the AOI are such that only limited grazing is
possible. This is a function of the arid climate and nature of the poor soils. Water usage for
mine development has not been ascertained from an availability standpoint. Brines, while
present at depth, are thought to exist below the target Rustler Formation polyhalite. If there were
brine producing zones, consideration for disposal or treatment would be necessary.
Surface development activities such as the establishment of tailings impoundments will require
consideration of potential potable water supplies should potential infiltration be an issue. While
it is unlikely that this condition would exist, special studies and infrastructural siting for low
infiltration areas away from shallow aquifers may be necessary.
Some sensitive species such as the Lesser Prairie Chicken and a sand lizard are known in the
area and the habitat appears to be widespread and non-unique. Currently the BLM supports
limiting activities for earth disturbing activities during the mating seasons of the Lesser Prairie
Chicken in the few areas where the birds have been documented. There does not appear to be
any Threatened or Endangered Species or suitable habitat in the AOI, but baseline studies still
need to be conducted.
4.1.5
Retention and Obligations of the Permits
ICP must drill 2 test holes on each prospecting permit within two years of securing the permit or
lose the Permit. An exclusive extension of the permit is possible to meet this obligation and
BLM is amenable to such so long as the company is diligently doing exploration. After the term
of the prospecting permit, should ICP prove reserves of potash minerals, then it may apply for a
mining lease. Since this is in an non-KPLA area, ICP would be granted an exclusive right to
obtain this lease. Data generated would be held in confidence by the BLM.

August 19, 2009
P a g e | 26
4.1.6
Bonding and other Financial Obligations
Bonding has been posted for reclamation at all approved permit locations and no other
compensation other than surface usage compensation to surface landowners is necessary at this
time to retain and explore on the properties.
4.1.7
Boundaries and Survey Requirements
No detailed land surveys are required by BLM at the stage of holding prospecting permits. It is
legally sufficient at this stage to have BLM permits identified by BLM title specialist with only
the legal subdivisions of the respective land Sections. However, before issuing a drilling permit
on the prospecting permit, BLM requires that a land survey be done of the location to ensure
ownership.

August 19, 2009
P a g e | 27
5.
ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND

PHYSIOGRAPHY
The property and area of interest are located in Lea County, southeast New Mexico, of which the
county seat is Lovington. According to the 2000 census, the county population was some 55,500.
The town of Jal, with a population of about 2,000, is the nearest community to the property,
located only a couple of miles from the southeastern portion of the AOI on State Highway 128.
Oil and gas exploration and production is active in Lea County, with Hobbs, about 15 miles to
the northeast of the property.
The Lea County airport is located near Hobbs. Carlsbad has air service from Albuquerque.
Electric power is supplied by Xcel Energy. Water is supplied from local wells. The property is
traversed by County Road 2, as well as two track roads and primitive jeep roads. A rail line runs
24 km (15 miles) to the east of the area of interest, through Jal, south to El Paso, Texas.
FIGURE 5.1 TYPICAL TERRAIN AND VEGETATION FOR THE OCHOA AOI (AFTER MICON, 2008)
August 19, 2009
P a g e | 28
The Federal Department of Energy (DOE) Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) site is located
about 12.5 km (8 miles) west-northwest of the northwest corner of the area of interest. Among the
documents relating to the WIPP site, DOE/CAO 1996-2184, Compliance Recertification
Application, Title 40 CFR 191, provides descriptions of the geology and local resources and is
referenced herein as DOE/CAO 1996-2184. The climate is semi-arid with generally mild
temperatures, low precipitation and humidity, and a high evaporation rate. Moderate winds blow
from the southeast in summer; in winter there may be strong west winds. Temperatures are
moderate. Winter temperatures range from lows around -6oC (20oF) to highs around 10oC (50oF).
Summertime high temperatures are typically above 32oC (90oF). Average precipitation is about
330 mm (13 in) per year, about half of which comes from thunderstorms in June through
September (DOE/CAO 1996-2184, p. 2-178, 2-179). AOI is in the High Plains section of the
southern Great Plains physiographic province. The surface consists of relatively flat terrain with
minor arroyos and low-quality semi-arid rangeland. Vegetation is mesquite, Shinnery oak and
coarse grasses that grow on soil of a fine veneer of sandy caliche rubble to wind-blown sand. On
the new pending permits, the north part is in sandy dune country with much different plant
species.
According to Micon (2008), wildlife includes jack rabbit and the desert cotton tail, with the Ords
kangaroo rat, the Plains pocket mouse and northern grasshopper mouse. Local sensitive species
include the Lesser Prairie Chicken or grouse and a variety of sand lizard. Larger species include
the mule deer, pronghorn antelope and coyote. Reptiles include the side-blotched lizard. Raptors
are a common bird species and loggerhead shrike, Pyrrhuloxias and black-throated sparrows are
also predominant species. (DOE/CAO 1996-2184, p. 2-164).
Elevation ranges from around 900 to 1,005 m (3,100 to 3,750 ft) above sea level and is generally
higher in the northwest corner and lower in the southeast corner of the area of interest.
Exploration, mining and mineral processing may take place year-round. Personnel for
construction, mining and support are available in local southeastern New Mexico communities
such as Carlsbad, Loving, and Hobbs.
The majority of United States potash production takes place in three conventional underground
mines, operated by The Mosaic Company (Mosaic) and Intrepid Potash, Inc. (Intrepid) near
August 19, 2009
P a g e | 29
Carlsbad in Eddy County which is to the west of, and adjacent to, Lea County as outlined in
Figure 5.2 below.
FIGURE 5.2 KPLA & WIPP
ICPs surface rights will be sufficient for development of an underground mine and plant site.
Power will be available from a nearby high voltage line. At this time, no hydrological studies
have been conducted in the area. Skilled labor is available in the area. Surface tailings storage is
expected to be minimal, and waste ponds will be sited where infiltration, if it occurs, will not
adversely affect shallow acquifers. No specific plant site has been selected. Siting the plant will
require studies of geotechnical issues as well as significant hydrological investigations. ICP has
budgeted for these studies in Phase II of their proposed exploration program.
August 19, 2009
P a g e | 30
6.
HISTORY
In the 1920s and 1930s the US Commerce Department in conjunction with the US Bureau of
Mines embarked upon a strategic exploration program across the Permian Basin of Texas and
New Mexico to protect the US from the monopoly of potash resources that the Germans had
under control at that time. During this drilling campaign, polyhalite was found throughout the
region but never in any quantities thought to be mineable. It was shortly after that the sylvite, or
potassium chloride, deposits were discovered near Carlsbad and polyhalite was all but forgotten
until recently.
No major oil fields appear to exist in the AOI with only areas of minor production. These areas
have been avoided by the ICP permits. Gas exploration is more widespread but not concentrated
in any one area. While permits to drill for deep gas have been filed recently, there does not seem
to be the potential for development conflicts. In Section 19, the resources were adjusted to reflect
buffer zones around current product equal to the depth of the target mine zone which is standard
practice in potash mining. Minor caliche deposits have also been found and developed locally for
road and platforms for drilling equipment. Preliminary exploration by ICP first started in the
Ochoa AOI in 2008 under the direction of former USGS geologist, Robert J. Hite. After detailed
log interpretation, exploration permits were procured in 2008. The consulting group, Micon, did a
scoping study in early 2008 concluding that the area had favorable potential for a large polyhalite
deposit. A more comprehensive evaluation of the oil and gas drill log data was then undertaken to
determine the relative uniqueness of the Ochoa occurrence as well as its suitability to
conventional underground mining.
In early 2009, it was determined that in absence of confirmatory drilling, samples needed to be
procured to confirm the oil and gas drill hole logs. Samples of polyhalite within the Salado
Formation from a producing potash mine were procured and tested to determine the nature of
polyhalite and its likely gangue constituents. Chip samples from oil and gas drilling were
available from the university in Socorro which confirmed the presence of polyhalite under the
Ochoa AOI. More recently core samples of the target polyhalite zone in the Rustler Formation
were obtained from Sandia Labs just west of the Ochoa AOI, which confirmed the presence of
polyhalite from oil and gas data. These recent developments afforded a unique opportunity to
assess the physical-chemical characteristics of the target horizon that ICP hopes to mine.
August 19, 2009
P a g e | 31
7.
GEOLOGICAL SETTING
7.1
Regional Geology
The AOI lies in the Delaware Sub-basin of the Permian Basin of the Great Plains physiographic
province. The surface geologic map of New Mexico is shown in Figure 7.1. This map shows
the Ochoa area to mainly have limited, bedrock exposures which indeed is the case.
FIGURE 7.1 GEOLOGICAL MAP OF NEW MEXICO
Large scale evaporite deposits occur throughout the Permian age sedimentary basin elongated in
a northeast-southwest direction. The Delaware and Midland sub-basins of the upper Permian
Basin are separated by the Central Basin Platform on the Texas-New Mexico border and contain
extensive evaporite deposits of the Ochoa Series. These evaporites lie between the Capitan Reef
August 19, 2009
P a g e | 32
limestone of the underlying Guadalupe Series and the fine clastic sediments of the Dewey Lake
redbeds. The location of the Delaware Basin where Ochoa is located can be seen below in Figure
7.2. The other potash deposits that have been developed to date in the Carlsbad area occur in the
Delaware sub-basin of the Permian Basin as well.
FIGURE 7.2 LOCATION OF DELAWARE SUB-BASIN

August 19, 2009
P a g e | 33
The first evaporite cycle of the Ochoa Series is known as the Castile Formation. The Castile
consists of anhydrite and halite within the Delaware Basin. The overlying Salado Formation is
structurally and lithologically complex and, in addition to the cyclic anhydrite, halite, clay
sedimentation, it is also host to the McNutt potash zone. Potassium-bearing salts accumulated in
the northeast Delaware Basin. With later subsidence, the remainder of the Salado Formation
sediments was deposited, followed by anhydrite and dolomite of the Rustler Formation and the
Dewey Lake Formation red beds. Collectively, the Castile, Salado and Rustler formations are
over 4,000 feet thick.
The Ochoa Series underlie an area of about 400,000 square miles. Potash salts are found
throughout the southern half of the area of the Ochoa Series. Potash in the Salado Formation
occurs in both the anhydrite and halite members of the cyclic units. In the former, it occurs in the
form of polyhalite and in the latter as sylvite, langbeinite or carnallite. The Salado Formation in
the northern Delaware Basin is divided into three members, of which the middle zone, known as
the McNutt potash zone, varies in thickness between 120 ft in the northwest part of the Delaware
Basin to over 590 ft in the eastern part of the basin. Within the McNutt zone, there are 11 distinct
potash cycles of which five have been commercially developed in the Carlsbad area but none
have been correlated in the AOI. A stratigraphic column of the Ochoa evaporite series is shown
in Figure 7.3. As noted above, the McNutt potash zone occurs within the Salado Formation. The
target horizon of ICP is the polyhalite in the Rustler Formation which overlies the Salado
Formation.

August 19, 2009
P a g e | 34
FIGURE 7.3 OCHOAN STRATIGRAPHIC MAPPING UNITS
The first evaporite cycle of the Ochoa Series, the Castile Formation, consists of anhydrite and
halite in the Delaware Basin. The overlying Salado Formation is structurally and lithologically
complex and, in addition to the cyclic anhydrite, halite, clay sedimentation, it is also host to the
McNutt potash zone. Potassium-bearing salts accumulated in the northeast Delaware Basin. With
later subsidence, the remainders of the Salado Formation sediments were deposited, followed by
anhydrite and dolomite of the Rustler Formation and the Dewey Lake Formation red beds.
Together, the Castile, Salado and Rustler Formations are some 1,300 m (4,250 ft) thick.

August 19, 2009
P a g e | 35
The occurrence of polyhalite in the AOI has been inferred from analysis of geophysical logs of
oil and gas wells in the Tamarisk member of the Rustler Formation at a depth of between 1,200
and 2,000 ft. although the Salado Formation also has polyhalite and possibly other potash
minerals on the ICP permits. Polyhalite shows a high gamma ray response, high velocity on
sonic logs and relatively high density as seen in Figure 7.4 below. Figure 7.5 shows the Rustler
stratigraphy and that of the underlying Salado Formation that produces sylvite and langbeinite
near Carlsbad.
Figure 7.4
FIGURE 7.4 POLYHALITE SHOWING A HIGH GAMMA RAY RESPONSE

AND A HIGH VELOCITY ON SONIC LOGS AND RELATIVELY HIGH DENSITY

August 19, 2009
P a g e | 36
FIGURE 7.5 CONCEPTUAL CROSS SECTION OF THE PERMIAN BASIN (AFTER JONES, 1972)
7.2
Local Geology
The AOI is located in the southeast corner of New Mexico, southeast of the potash producing
area near Carlsbad. ICPs exploration target is polyhalite in the Rustler Formation which
overlies the Salado Formation. The Salado is host to the McNutt potash zone in the Carlsbad
area. The Rustler Formation is predominantly made up of anhydrite and dolomite and represents
the transition from the predominantly halite-bearing evaporites of the Salado Formation to the
red beds of the Dewey Lake Formation. The occurrence of polyhalite has been inferred from
analysis of geophysical logs of oil and gas wells in the Tamarisk member of the Rustler
Formation.
The Los Medaos member consists of siliclastics, halitic mudstones and muddy halite, and
sulfate minerals, principally anhydrite (Powers and Holt, 1999). The Tamarisk member occurs
between the dolomite sequences of the Culebra and Magenta members and comprises lower and
upper anhydrite beds with an intervening unit that progresses from mudstone in the west to halite

August 19, 2009
P a g e | 37
in the east. The Forty-niner has a similar general stratigraphy to the Tamarisk. The thickness of
the Tamarisk varies principally as a function of the thickness of the middle halite unit.
7.3
Identification Of Polyhalite In Geophysical Well Logs
The following geophysical responses characterize the identification of several evaporite

minerals, namely:
Halite is identified by a uniformly low gamma ray response similar to anhydrite, an oversized
hole (owing to its high solubility) on caliper logs, moderate to low neutron response,
moderate density and sonic log response, and high resistivity.
Anhydrite beds are recognized by low response on gamma ray logs, normal bore-hole
diameter on caliper logs, low count on neutron logs, high velocity on sonic logs, and high
density log response.
Polyhalite can be identified by high gamma ray response, a normal bore hole diameter on
caliper logs, high velocity on sonic logs and relatively high density on density logs. Its
response on caliper and neutron logs distinguishes polyhalite from sylvite.
Sylvite is identified by high gamma ray response, an enlarged bore hole diameter on caliper
logs, relatively low density and low neutron response.
Table 7.1 shows the borehole geophysical response of select evaporite minerals.
TABLE 7.1 LOG CHARACTERISTICS OF EVAPORITE MINERALS
Mineral
Specific
Gravity
Log
Density
AverageInterval
TransitTime
Halite
2.165
2.032
67
GammaRay
Deflection
(API,d=8)
0
Anhydrite
2.960
2.977
50
Gypsum
2.320
2.351
52
Sylvite
1.984
1.863
74
~500
Carnallite
1.610
1.570
78
200
Langbeinite
2.830
2.820
52
275
Polyhalite
2.780
2.810
58
180
Kainite
2.130
2.120
225
*ModifiedafterNurmi(1978)

August 19, 2009
P a g e | 38
Thus, a combination of geophysical logs from drill holes can be used to identify various
evaporite minerals.
7.4
Data Interpretation
The locations of geologic cross sections are shown in Figure 7.6. The NW-SE cross section AA in Figure 7.7 is shown looking eastward in the western part of the AOI. Cross section B-B is
shown looking to the east. The section shows the relation of thickness of the Rustler Formation
to interpreted presence of the polyhalite bed in the Tamarisk member. Where the Rustler is
thinner and relatively less deep, the polyhalite appears to pinch out. To the East, the N-S crosssection in Figure 7.8 shows a relatively thickening trend to the south as the beds dip more
steeply.
Figure 7.9 represents a computer generated thickness isopach for the mappable polyhalite bed in
the Rustler Formation in the AOI. As can be seen from this map, the eastern portion of the
deposit represents a continuous thickness of polyhalite over several square mile sections. Figure
7.10 illustrates the depth to the floor of the Rustler polyhalite from the relatively flat ground
surface. Figure 7.11 is another cross section that highlights the Salado potash beds underlying
the BLM permits in the western AOI.

August 19, 2009
P a g e | 39
FIGURE 7.6 LOCATION MAP FOR CROSS SECTIONS

August 19, 2009
P a g e | 40
AA
FIGURE 7.7 NW-SE CROSS-SECTION A-A ON WEST SIDE OF AOI

August 19, 2009
P a g e | 41
FIGURE 7.8 N-S CROSS SECTION B-B ON EAST SIDE OF AOI

August 19, 2009
P a g e | 42
FIGURE 7.9 THICKNESS ISOPACH FOR TAMARISK POLYHALITE BED WITH ICP PERMITS
August 19, 2009
P a g e | 43
FIGURE 7.10 DEPTH FROM SURFACE ELEVATION TO THE BASE OF THE POLYHALITE IN THE RUSTLER FM

August 19, 2009
P a g e | 44
FIGURE 7.11 CROSS-SECTION C SHOWING SALADO POTASH BED DISTRIBUTION ON THE WEST

August 19, 2009
P a g e | 45
8.
DEPOSIT TYPES
Bedded potash deposits occur in sedimentary basins in which the minerals have formed as a
result of the evaporation of seawater, or mixtures of seawater and other brines, in restricted
marine basins and through post diagenetic processes. The following description is taken from
Williams-Stroud et al., 1994:
The reflux depositional model for evaporite deposition was first described in the literature in 1888 by
Ochsenius. A shallow bar, or sill, across the mouth of a basin lets in a restricted flow of seawater which
evaporates into a salt-precipitating brine. The density of brine at the distal end increases with increased
salinity, sinks to the bottom, and sets up a reflux current of higher density brine back towards the ocean.
The sill, which restricts the inflow of seawater, allows inhibited flow of evaporation-concentrated brines
back to the ocean. The least soluble salts are precipitated nearer the sill, and the most soluble components
come out of solution in the deeper parts of the basin. The result is a lateral facies change in a tabular
shaped deposit that is due to the salinity gradients in the brine. The asymmetrical facies distribution of the
Paradox Formation (Middle Pennsylvanian) Utah, the Prairie Formation (Middle Devonian) in
Saskatchewan, and the Salado Formation (Upper Permian) in New Mexico.
The evaporation of seawater results in the precipitation of alkaline earth carbonate minerals [i.e., calcite,
dolomite], followed by calcium sulfates, halite, magnesium sulfates, and then magnesium and potassium
chlorides. The ratio of sodium to potassium in seawater is 27:1, and, in general, minable potash beds are
accompanied by thicker halite deposits. Often, the potash ore zone is located near the tops of halite beds
in relatively thin layers because the potash is precipitated from brines of higher salinities occurring near
the end of the evaporation sequence. The potash salt precipitated from evaporation of seawater after
precipitation of magnesium sulfates is carnallite (KCl.MgCl2.6H2O) rather than sylvite (KCl) due to the
high concentration of magnesium in seawater.

August 19, 2009
P a g e | 46
9.
MINERALIZATION
In the Tamarisk Member of the Rustler Formation, polyhalite may be an early diagenetic
replacement of a porous gypsum or anhydrite beds by brine. However, there appears to be
abundant anhydrite in correlative areas such as north of the AOI where the Sandia core was
procured suggesting that the origin of polyhalite is more complex.
Polyhalite is a hydrated potassium-calcium-magnesium-sulfate salt. Unlike other potassium salts,
such as sylvite, langbeinite or carnallite, polyhalite dissolves only slowly in water leaving a
residue of calcium sulfate which breaks down further with time and exposure to air and water.
Polyhalite is white, colorless or gray but may be brick red or pink due to the presence of iron
oxides. It has a hardness of 2.5 to 3.5 on the Mohs scale and a specific gravity of approximately
2.8 g/cc. As noted above, it occurs in evaporite deposits in association with halite, anhydrite,
kainite, carnallite and sylvite and has been recognized in Carlsbad, New Mexico, and in western
Texas, at Hallstatt, Austria, Galicia in Poland Stassfurt, Germany and the mid-east..
The composition of polyhalite according to Dana (1927) is defined in Table 9.1:
Potassium
12.97%
K2O
15.62%
Calcium
13.29%
CaO
18.60%
Magnesium
4.03%
MgO
6.68%
Hydrogen
0.67%
H2O
5.98%
Sulfur
21.27%
SO3
53.12%
Oxygen
47.76%
TABLE 9.1 AVERAGE COMPOSITION OF POLYHALITE (DANA, 1927)
Mineralogically, polyhalite exhibits a triclinic crystal habit although it is commonly extremely

fine-grained or aphanitic. When large enough crystals are present to get an interference figure,
polyhalite is biaxial (-) as opposed to anhydrite which is biaxial positive. Anhydrite, a common
August 19, 2009
P a g e | 47
polyhalite gangue mineral, is orthorhombic with perfect cleavage and produces a biaxial (+)
interference figure.
Physical properties such as cleavage and crystal form are sometimes
observed (i.e. Schaller and Henderson, 1932) to be inherited from parent alteration phases, which
sometimes results in polyhalite appearing to have the crystal form, structure and cleavage of
anhydrite for instance. Another common gangue mineral with polyhalite, particularly in the
underlying beds of the Salado Formation, is halite or sodium chloride salt.
Polyhalite, like many of the direct application fertilizers, is very susceptible to change under
moist or wetting conditions. While not extremely soluble, polyhalite will alter to gypsum
(CaSO4) under humid or submerged conditions.
Within the AOI, there is one chief target horizon in the Rustler Formation between 1200 ft below
the surface on the west side of the AOI and up to 1000 feet deeper on the east side of the AOI.
Beneath the Rustler Formation polyhalite bed in the Salado Formation are numerous polyhalite
and undifferentiated potash beds that are not a continuous in nature. In many areas beneath the
target resource in the Rustler, 8 or more beds of varying thickness exist over a thick zone.
Further work will be necessary to evaluate the economic significance of the Salado potash beds.

August 19, 2009
P a g e | 48
10.
EXPLORATION
Since 2008, ICP has spent over $1M in USD for the prupose of identifying, permititing and
evaluating what it consideres to be the best polyhalite trend in New Mexico for potential
development.
This work entailed looking at data throughout New Mexico and several
neighboring states before deciding to focus on the Ochoa target area. For the purpose of
determining the polyhalite trends in the Ochoa area, 216 oil and gas drill holes were evaluated,
72 of which are in the AOI boundary as shown below. While the drill density is variable, with
some distances between holes greater than one mile, there is a remarkable depth and thickness
continuity across the westen part of the AOI that further supports the validity of the oil and gas
data for polyhalite bed correlation. In the area currently developed for sylvite and langbeinite to
the west of the AOI, correlations of beds for several miles is not atypical. This is a function of
the basin-wide uniformity of a depositional environment for many minerals in the evaporative
sequence. However preliminary examination of potash bearing beds within the Salado Formation
(underlying the Rustler) via gamma logs from the same oil and gas wells, as those examined for
the Rustler Formation suggests that the Rustler Formation polyhalite bed is more consistent in
thickness and continuity. This inference is supported by observations of Salado Formation
potash beds within the operating mines to the west. Salt beds in the area attain thicknesses of
over 100 feet indicating relatively quiescent conditions over great expanses of geologic time.
Figure 10.1 below shows the location of ICP drill hole locations permitted by BLM and proposed
drill hole locations currently under review by BLM. The first 8 drill holes currently proposed by
ICP are identified with diamond symbols, and several of these drill holes have alternate locations
in the event that data supports alternate drilling. This program of drilling will entail rotary
drilling to within 20 feet of the target polyhalite zone and continuous corring for at least 40 feet
through the target bed in the Rustler Formation. Several of these drill holes have been located as
twins to prior oil and gas holes to use for validation of the prior correlation of the polyhalite
beds. Borehole geophysics will also be undertaken for correlation purposes and to see if any
data can be calibrated with core analyses to predict polyhalite grade in existing or future drill
holes.
During the planned drilling program, ICP will be able to compare core quality results with the
gamma-acoustic logs of the nearby oil and gas holes. Augmented with analyses of potash and
August 19, 2009
P a g e | 49
mineralogical confirmation studies of the polyhalite concentration and gangue constituents,

the predicailibty of grade over great distance can assessed. If there is a high degree of grade
variability, more in-fill drill holes in subsequent phases of drilling will be required to elevate
inferred resources to either indicated or measured resources that can be used for mine
planning and reserve conversion. Neither polyhalite thickness nor core recovery are thought
to be an issue in that the correlation between the bed over great distances is so strong and the
potash drillers have had tremdous success in achieving near 100% recovery in comparable
potash zones to the west of the property.

August 19, 2009
P a g e | 50
FIGURE 10.1 PROPOSED DRILL HOLE LOCATIONS IDENTIFIED

FOR ICPS FALL DRILLING PROGRAM (2009)

August 19, 2009
P a g e | 51
11.
DRILLING
No new polyhalite exploration drilling has been undertaken on the Ochoa property as yet,
although there is a high degree of confidence in the gamma log interpretation of oil and gas logs,
which is often supported further by acoustic or sonic logs for identifying polyhalite across the
property. Futher, evidence of polyhalite in oil and gas drill cuttings and a polyhalite core sample
just off of the property confirms the oil and gas interpretive assumptions. The thicknesses of
polyhalite beds are reasonably accurate to calculate from the well logs due to the reproducibility
of similar intercepts over several miles. Calculation of the polyhalite grade from well logs is not
veiwed as quantitative. Therefore grade assumptions for an inferred resource have been based
upon analytical results of nearby core samples that are believed to be representative of AOI site
conditions in for the Rustler Formation polyhalite.
Sandia recently (January 2009) attempted to correlate potassium grade from gamma logs and
found that the data was inconsistent. Although the thickness measurements were predictable
from the gamma and density logs, perturbations in the gamma readings did not necessarily
correlate with potassium grade in the core samples. Taking this interpretation yet a step further,
oil and gas gamma measurements would likely be even less accurate given the length of the
geophysical probe and speed at which the probe could have been moving when they logged
intervals that were not within their target zone. However, for purposes of estimating inferred
polyhalite resources, the existing data is deemed adequate.
For indicated and measured
resources, core data will be necessary.

August 19, 2009
P a g e | 52
12.
SAMPLING METHOD AND APPROACH
Using gamma and density logs from a corehole drilled in 1987, ICP was able to locate about an
8-foot sample interval of potential polyhalite core from Sandia Laboratories drilling program at
the WIPP site. A specific protocol for analysis for logging, sampling, sample preparation and
analysis was developed prior to evaluating the polyhalite from the Sandia core. These steps
roughly follow the same procedures that were used to sample and evaluate channel samples of
polyhalite from an underground langbeinite mine. The ICP sampling steps that were followed
for the core were as follows:
(1) The split-core interval was relogged by an ICP geologist, wrapped in plastic,
and placed in an ICP supplied plastic corebox to minimize moisture. The core
splits were carefully photographed with footage increments labeled. Each
piece of split core was wrapped in plastic cling wrap and thermally sealed in
sterile Visqueen flexible tubing before being placed it in the core box.
(2) Discrete lithologic changes were the basis for marking and physically
separating each interval in the ICP core box for later discrete analysis by the
labs.
(3) The core boxes were sealed and transported by a company truck back to
Golden, Colorado for sample preparation at RDi and the Mineral Lab.
(4) Each discrete sample interval was carefully measured and bagged in plastic
sacks to minimize moisture for analytical testing.
(5) Each sample went to RDi labs in Golden, Colorado for sample preparation
and wash-testing (Step 8 below). The discrete samples were weighed and
then crushed to -1 inch then split using a Jones splitter to about 100 grams to
procure a couple samples for microscopy.
(6) The thin sections were carefully prepared to minimize the potential for
dissolution of mineral phases such as halite. Then half of the side of each thin
section was soaked for 1 hour in tap water to stimulate dissolution and to
determine if the effects could be observed though microscopy.
(7) To confirm elemental distributions in select mineral phases, SEM was also
employed. Mineral percentage texture, intergrowths and other characteristics
were reported and photomicrographs were taken by an expert mineralogist.
(8) A 50 gram sample split of the -1 inch sample was pulverized to -400 mesh
and hand blended. A 50 gram sample was sent to the Mineral Lab in
Wheatridge, Colorado for XRD and XRF analyses. The percentage of
August 19, 2009
P a g e | 53
polyhalite in the sample was qualitatively estimated to about 5% depending

upon the other associated minerals. To our knowledge, a standard of
polyhalite for quantifying the mineral concentration using XRD is not
available.
A 200 gram -400 mesh sample was sent to ALS Chemex in Vancouver, BC or
for MS analysis (ME-MS81) of major and trace analytes and ICP-AES
analyses of whole rock oxides. Additionally, chloride and sulfur were
analyzed using methods CL-XRF11 and S-GRA06 respectively and pH using
method OA-ELEO5.
(9) A representative weight percentage equivalent of each sample was combined
into a single sample (composite) of about 500 grams for metallurgical testing
by calcining and leaching methods
(10) A representative split was crushed and screened to +1 inch, <-8 mesh to
>+10mesh; <-20 mesh to >100 mesh; and -200 mesh and weighed.
(11) These samples were then tested for polyhalite and other mineral concentration
using a combination of XRF, XRD and microscopy using a vacuum
impregnated mount to facilitate thin section preparation.
For select solute derived from additional metallurgical testing, Florin Analytical Services
conducted analysis using MS-AA methods. For purposes of this study, nearby core of the target
interval is deemed representative of the likely mineralogy, grade and thickness of polyhalite to
be encountered on the ICP area of interest. This is based upon the authors cross-comparison of
gamma and acoustic logs plus experience with polyhalite and associated potash beds elsewhere
in the Permian Basin of New Mexico.
Further, testing of mine samples believed to be
comparable to the polyhalite in the underlying Salado Formation are likely representative of this
interval as well based upon the unique depositional and post-diagenic environments.

August 19, 2009
P a g e | 54
13.
SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES AND SECURITY
For core sampling, the cutting of the whole core was done by Sandia Laboratories under the
direction of the resource QP. After taking 6 inch lengths of core that were logged by the ICP
geologist in the lab, the Sandia geologist cut the core in half using an automated diamond wire
rock saw. This method was employed so as not to introduce any moisture in the samples with a
drilling lubricant such as water or oil.
Transportation of the secured samples that were individually wrapped and sealed in moistureproof core boxes was performed by a resource QP to ensure that testing and sample preparation
was done by a third-party other than ICP. Upon driving the samples by truck to Golden,
Colorado, the samples were taken to a secure office area where the QP had the only key. The
samples were stored in a locked office area when logging and sample selection for preparation
and analysis was conducted again under the supervision of the QP. Samples were then taken
directly to The Mineral Lab for XRD and XRF.
Select samples were directly given to
microscopist, Dr. John Lufkin. Samples were crushed to minus 8 mesh at The Mineral Lab and
the pulp rejects were transported directly to RDi for compositing and metallurgical testing.
Reject pulps will be securely stored and retained for future testing and/or validation testing.
For polyhalite samples that were channeled sampled by the resource QP from a nearby mine site;
a level of QA/QC was employed to test the XRF accuracy of results from The Mineral Lab a
firm that has been in business for 17 years. The QP had replicate splits of select samples
analyzed by ALS Chemex by AA-MS, trace metals, sulfate and whole rock oxides for
comparison with The Mineral Lab results. ALS Chemex is certified under ISO 9001:200 and for
several specialty methods of analysis, ISO 17025. Results were within an acceptable 10% range
for key cation and sulphate constituents.
The importance of this lab check is due to the lack of a standard for the mineral polyhalite that
also has an affinity to change under most conditions to other minerals phases. This concern will
not be an issue for potential processing to make potassium sulphate but it is an issue for a direct
application fertilizer. The importance of XRF is its ability to derive a semi-quantitative estimate
of the percentages of the other mineral phases confirmed through XRD. There is no industry
standard yet for polyhalite concentrations.
To further validate percentage of polyhalite in

August 19, 2009
P a g e | 55
specific sample splits, microscopy has been employed.
This was
particularly useful for
determining grain size of polyhalite crystals, aphanitic phase of polyhalite and gangue mineral
constituents for process design. SEM has also been used as a back up to microscopy to ascertain
the cations within specific transitional phase of polyhalite minerals.
The work of Florin
Analytical Laboratory by the metallurgical consultant RDi has been cross-checked with splits of
samples using XRF since the laboratory that is owned by Kappes, Cassiday & Associates (KCA)
is not certified by ISO standards. Florin was used on the recent analytical testing for potassium
sulphate amenability.
The work done under the oversight of the resource QP for QA/QC will form the basis for
developing a protocol for sample collection, logging, handling; preservation and future analytical
work for the core drilling program. While the recent work done for this report included the
analysis of replicate splits and check-lab samples, the future program that will include ICP core
will include the addition of sample blanks; potassium standards; possibly magnesium and
sulphate standards and a polyhalite standard that is being prepared from sample spilt of the
Sandia core.
Chemrox considers the sample preparation, analyses and security measures employed by ICP to
be adequate for the project at its current stage of development.

August 19, 2009
P a g e | 56
14.
DATA VERIFICATION
Chemrox examined more than 50% of the drill logs to assess the completeness and acceptability
of the ICP interpretations. While in some instances it could be argued that minor splits of salt or
shale might be present, the author feels that using the data for this purpose is unwarranted for an
inferred resource estimate. Instead, core from west of the property was examined and tested to
ascertain the level of purity in a composite interval and it was found that, in general, at the
centroid of the interval the quality or grade of polyhalite is over 90%. Local grade deviation is
found particularly toward the top and bottom of the interval where grades drop toward 80%, then
to about 23% within 1 foot of the top and bottom boundaries. A sharp contact is defined where
the polyhalite concentration drops to 0% at the bedding plane boundaries. A clear correlation
between the logs and grade was not readily apparent and it would be presumptuous to think that
discriminative analysis of oil and gas logs would provide better information than a hole that was
drilled and logged by Sandia Laboratory.
In all of the polyhalite samples procured for analytical, mineralogical, and metallurgical testing,
a high degree of certainty was obtainable by the careful sampling, logging, and testing
procedures. One of the most difficult QA/QC issues is the fact that standards of polyhalite are
not known to exist to verify the precision of the analytical instrumentation. To reconcile this
issue, samples where polyhalite was quantified using a material balance of XRF against XRD of
the same sample were then compared with optical mineralogy where the relative percentage of
the mineral phase could be cross-compared with the XRF results. Where potential existed for
exsolution phases of minerals from the transformation of polyhalite to other mineral species, the
scanning electron microprobe was utilized for determination of the concentration of metals or
anions per individual crystal.
To enable yet another cross check of the XRF, replicate splits were sent for discriminate
Inductively Coupled Plasma and AA-MS analyses to ALS Chemex verifying that the XRF data
generated by The Mineral Lab was in an appropriate concentration range.
While core samples had been originally logged lithologically by Sandia geologists, under the
supervision of the resource QP, ICP re-logged the samples using knowledge gained from
polyhalite testing. Where the gangue material is anhydrite, it is very difficult to ascertain the
August 19, 2009
P a g e | 57
presence of polyhalite concentrations without analytical testing. There are some field tests that
have been developed by ICP using wetting and drying procedures, but such tests always require
XRD and XRF to confidently determine the concentration of polyhalite (within 5 %) as well as
other mineral phases present. As more and more polyhalite samples are processed through the
lab, the precision of the estimates will increase and the viability of creating laboratory grade
standards will evolve.
Therefore, from a data validation standpoint, the spacing of the drill holes is reasonable for this
level of study; the determination of polyhalite from oil and gas logs has been proven from
cuttings and drill core proximal to the AOI. The methods used in discriminate analysis and
sampling methodologies are most defensible for this level of study. The resource QP has
validated that the data and methodologies are defensible and justifiable for developing an
inferred resource estimate but not indicated until validation coring is employed this fall (2009)
by ICP.
ICP is now at a point where detailed sampling, logging and testing procedures can be developed
at a high level of predictability and confidence for further review and validation.

August 19, 2009
P a g e | 58
15.
ADJACENT PROPERTIES
The property and area of interest lie outside the area designated by the federal government as the
Known Potash Leasing Area (KPLA) of about 1,100 km2 (425 square miles) and which covers
the area of potash mineral reserves and resources in the upper Permian Salado Formation east of
Carlsbad, New Mexico. The KPLA consists of that part of the Carlsbad potash district where
federal lands under BLM management require competitive bidding for mineral leases. The mines
in the Carlsbad district are the only potash mines in the state and produce potassium chloride
from the mineral sylvite and potassium-magnesium sulfate from the mineral, langbeinite. These
potassium salts are used primarily by the fertilizer industry as sources of potassium (or potash)
and magnesium. The eastern boundary of the KPLA is 14.5 km (9 miles) from the west boundary
of the area of interest. Land outside the KPLA is available for potash exploration by means of
filing prospecting permits.
At present, other than oil and gas development and local caliche mining, there are no active
mines in the immediate Ochoa area.
ICPs polyhalite target is in the Tamarisk Member of the Rustler Formation, stratigraphically
overlying the Salado Formation that produces potash minerals in what is known as the Carlsbad
district. There are no publicly available reports on polyhalite occurrences immediately adjacent
to ICPs property.

August 19, 2009
P a g e | 59
16.
MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING
Two basic sample suites were collected and analyzed by ICP and RDis personnel with the
oversight of the resource QP, Sean Muller. One suite of rock samples was collected at two
underground locations in a potash mine where polyhalite was found as a thin (<18 in.) caprock
and in discontinuous stringers or layers. The polyhalite found in these Salado Formation mines
tends to be red in color due iron coloration. After channel sampling and sorting material from a
gob pile, samples were crushed to a minus one inch size fraction and split for testing by XRD,
XRF, AA-MS and IC Plasma. Microscopy and SEM methods were also employed. Sample
splits were further crushed and screened into discrete size fractions (Appendix B). Results of the
testing showed that the samples were generally 80% polyhalite with the chief gangue constituent
being halite. Dry crushing and screening tended to drop halite to the finer fraction likely due to
differential hardness and cleavage fracturing. Polyhalite was further upgraded to nearly 100% by
washing. Other tests were run on these samples originally intended for discrete size fraction
wash analysis. Instead, the samples remained in a bath and it was determined that after 48 hours
certain amounts of potassium were immediately released to the water. Optical mineralogy
(Appendix A) and SEM (Appendix C) confirmed that there were two sizes of polyhalite, but the
testing did not go far enough to determine whether it was the fine or coarse grained polyhalite
that preferentially went into solution with the remainder retained for slower release. This testing
shows that a suitable product for direct application can be readily upgraded if the main gangue
constituent is halite.
Polyhalite core obtained from a Sandia drill site west of Ochoa was carefully split and relogged.
The core is from the Rustler Formation target horizon for prospective mining on the AOI. The
core looks very much like anhydrite macroscopically but possesses a gamma and density
signature typical for polyhalite. Further positive polyhalite wetting test results correlated with
the change from polyhalite to anhydrite at the top and bottom of the bed shown by XRD and
XRF. Discrete 6 inch intervals were collected and several evaluated by microscopy including a
technique by which half of the thin section was soaked to exsolve a portion of the polyhalite
(Appendix A). Select portions of these samples have also been examined by SEM to ascertain
potential phase change and discriminate chemical composition within specific minerals. The
chief gangue constituent in this Rustler Formation polyhalite is anhydrite which has a similar

August 19, 2009
P a g e | 60
hardness and specific gravity to polyhalite.
Further testing has been completed on these core
samples as a composite of its entire core length. A split has also undergone similar testing by
screen fraction as were the Salado samples, described above (Appendix C).
Further, the
composites have undergone further testing by calcining and hot water dissolution to prove that
polyhalite can be effectively dissolved and that the anhydrite can be effectively removed.
Results of this work, as presented in Appendix C, show that 97% the potassium of the polyhalite
in the samples can go into solution. Therefore, the feedstock for the production of potassium
sulfate will be readily available from polyhalite regardless of gangue constituents such as
anhydrite.
This is quite important in that mineralogical results presented by Dr. Lufkin, has shown that
anhydrite was replaced by polyhalite in many instances but the conversion was not complete in
all instances on the edge of the main polyhalite section from Sandia. Work of RDi also shows
that some of the anhydrite can be concentrated by dry physical screening that conforms to
observations in grain size observed in mineralogical investigations. In effect, a dry concentrate
step may reduce the overall feedstock of ROM material at the mill that would need to go into
solution for potassium sulfate production.
Work conducted in the 1940s on polyhalite for fertilizer use focused on the extraction of
potassium sulfate by means which included various approaches using hot dissolution,
calcinations, and reduction. This is documented in Conley and Partridge, 1944.
On the basis of pot tests, Barbarick, 1989 and 1991 has proposed that polyhalite ground to less
than 100 mesh is an effective, slow release, direct application fertilizer providing potassium,
calcium, magnesium, and sulfur.
Both the Salado and Rustler formation polyhalite samples are deemed representative for
purposes of calculating grade and gangue minerals. The Salado polyhalite beds in the Carlsbad
area are intermixed with halite and discontinuous over great distances. This appears to be also
the case with the Salado potash beds beneath the AOI which are not the target of this
investigation. The Salado polyhalite taken from active mines was sampled from two areas with
nearly identical chemistry and mineralogy.

August 19, 2009
P a g e | 61
The Rustler polyhalite is especially representative due to its proximity to the AOI and continuity
of gamma and density signatures in the core hole and on the AOI permits. While in this case,
polyhalite is intermixed with anhydrite, anhydrite has no potassium 40 that makes the contact
easy to pick on gamma logs. For 6 feet of polyhalite to be uniform over 10 or more miles, the
conclusion that the Sandia core is representative of the Rustler polyhalite underlying the AOI is
logical.

August 19, 2009
P a g e | 62
17.
MINERAL RESOURCE AND MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES
17.1
Petra Model Calculations
The thickness model supervised by Chemrox using Petra software was based on top and bottom
picks for the Tamarisk polyhalite bed. These picks were made based on the gamma ray response
from historic geophysical, oil and gas well logs, as shown in Figure 17.1 below.
FIGURE 17.1 SHOWS THE GAMMA RAY TRACK ON THE LEFT

AND THE BULK DENSITY ON THE RIGHT
The parallel black lines show the top and bottom picks for the interpreted polyhalite bed within
the Tamarisk Member of the Rustler Formation. The thickness in Figure 17.1 is about 6.4 feet.
The picks were made in a similar fashion for all logs used in the resource calculation and then
correlated across the entire area of interest. These tops and bottoms were then used to create a
thickness grid of the polyhalite bed using an isotropic search range of 30,000 feet within the grid
made of blocks measuring 2,640 feet by 2,640 feet. Figure 7.9 shows the thickness isopach
developed for the Ochoa study area. The map includes the 72 holes within the area of interest
boundary. The total number of holes used was 216, the balance are found in the area surrounding
the leased lands.
The total inferred resource for the polyhalite bed within the Tamarisk member of the Rustler
August 19, 2009
P a g e | 63
Formation, greater than 6 feet thick and within the boundaries of the ICP permitted land holdings
is approximately 399 million short tons, using a tonnage factor of 11.43 ft3/ton. This tonnage
factor was derived from core samples from the Sandia labs (Appendix E). Table 17.1 below
shows the inferred mineral resources in the AOI area categories which were modeled under the
supervision of Chemrox for this report. Sean C. Muller, C.P.G., R.G. is the Qualified Person
responsible for the inferred mineral resource estimate below and is independent of Trigon and
ICP.
TABLE 17.1 OCHOA INFERRED MINERAL RESOURCES
PolygonName
AOIWest
TotalArea
(ft2)
Areagreaterthan
6ftthick
Shorttonsinarea
Avg
greaterthan
thickness
6ftthick
(ft)
2,981,316,000
1,182,297,000
699,277,000
6.77
AOIEast
585,775,000
142,207,000
85,167,000
6.85
AOISum
3,567,091,000
1,324,504,000
784,444,000
6.78
1,994,698,000
679,209,000
399,574,000
6.73
ICPleasesum
Table 17.2 is tabulation for the resource greater than 6 feet for each ICP Permit boundary.
TABLE 17.2 INFERRED RESOURCE TABULATION
Application
BlockID
TotalArea
(ft2)
Areagreaterthan
6ftthick
Shorttonsinarea
Avg
greaterthan
thickness
6ftthick
(ft)
app1d
27,925,439
0.00
app1c
27,803,507
27,803,507
16,275,090
6.70
App1b
27,872,414
27,872,414
15,878,478
6.52
App1a
27,348,006
27,348,006
16,209,461
6.78
app2b
83,083,172
83,083,172
49,087,942
6.76
app2a
27,842,164
4,215,634
2,247,757
6.10
app3b
27,883,295
27,883,295
15,364,230
6.30
app3a
3,533,950
3,533,950
1,913,955
6.20
app3d
27,820,435
27,820,435
15,540,733
6.39
app3c
27,878,552
27,878,552
15,981,944
6.56
App4c
55,809,587
42,845,581
24,041,909
6.42
app4b
27,874,546
27,874,546
16,402,156
6.73
app4a
27,838,750
27,838,750
17,028,291
7.00
app5a
27,406,686
0.00

August 19, 2009
P a g e | 64
Application
BlockID
TotalArea
(ft2)
Areagreaterthan
6ftthick
Shorttonsinarea
Avg
greaterthan
thickness
6ftthick
(ft)
app5b
13,714,505
0.00
app5c
13,752,891
13,063,912
7,698,936
6.74
App5d
27,557,542
9,859,630
5,459,406
6.34
app6a
13,894,395
13,894,395
8,216,467
6.77
app6b
27,940,168
27,940,168
17,301,650
7.09
app6d
10,471,615
10,471,615
6,235,570
6.81
app6c
20,916,797
12,648,878
7,013,750
6.34
app6e
27,900,976
46,698
24,601
6.03
app7
55,737,408
6,200,450
3,324,768
6.14
app8d
24,366,816
0.00
app8c
13,978,182
7,794,669
4,409,939
6.47
app8b
19,157,303
6,916,726
3,911,089
6.47
app8a
13,917,465
2,856,535
1,538,528
6.16
app8d
34,620,667
26,860,465
15,005,900
6.39
app9a
20,865,169
17,715,282
9,801,678
6.33
app9b
6,973,374
2,891,463
1,587,178
6.28
app9c
6,976,570
0.00
app9d
24,368,456
0.00
app9e
27,838,872
0.00
app9f
24,367,497
3,646,659
1,955,412
6.14
app10b
27,808,422
9,470,147
5,090,139
6.15
app10a
10,424,751
10,424,751
6,180,891
6.78
app10c
27,825,192
0.00
app10d
24,347,203
0.00
app10e
13,969,364
0.00
app10f
1,746,342
0.00
app11b
13,929,817
0.00
app11c
1,734,793
0.00
App11m
8,717,990
0.00
App11n
1,740,403
0.00
App11a
3,477,017
0.00
app11k
6,977,954
0.00
app11L
6,977,938
0.00
app11d
13,945,277
0.00
app11f
13,951,374
0.00
App11e
3,485,470
0.00
app11g
6,974,740
0.00
app11h
3,483,111
0.00
app11i
3,487,008
0.00

August 19, 2009
P a g e | 65
Application
BlockID
TotalArea
(ft2)
Areagreaterthan
6ftthick
Shorttonsinarea
Avg
greaterthan
thickness
6ftthick
(ft)
app11j
13,932,763
0.00
app12g
13,957,340
13,802,335
8,978,944
7.44
app12h
7,011,052
7,011,052
4,916,706
8.02
app12a
27,928,212
0.00
app12b
17,484,379
0.00
app12c
24,463,587
0.00
app12f
1,729,969
1,729,969
1,072,328
7.09
app12d
6,993,021
0.00
app12e
7,005,712
0.00
app12i
1,744,350
0.00
app12j
1,745,986
0.00
app13d
27,878,029
0.00
App13a
27,890,571
25,707,367
19,518,934
8.69
app13b
27,904,330
223,046
117,639
6.03
app13c
26,080,017
0.00
app14a
20,955,971
0.00
app15
104,574,766
0.00
app16m
13,966,233
0.00
app16g
3,487,021
0.00
app16f
3,474,970
0.00
app16h
3,477,401
0.00
app16d
13,963,406
0.00
app16c
13,992,016
2,205,262
1,207,203
6.26
app16b
7,004,401
660,684
350,957
6.08
app16a
1,748,381
1,748,381
1,042,342
6.82
app16e
10,474,000
0.00
app16i
1,736,804
0.00
app16L
10,472,349
0.00
app16k
3,487,403
0.00
app16j
1,740,740
0.00
app16n
3,489,615
0.00
app16o
3,493,577
0.00
app17
69,537,577
18,719,585
10,613,925
6.49
app18
48,657,071
41,627,348
26,416,770
7.26
app18b
13,979,461
11,920,274
6,479,984
6.22
app18c
27,946,387
0.00
app19a
27,853,881
7,431,226
3,950,687
6.08
app19b
45,497,257
0.00
app19c
3,478,190
2,880,854
1,546,152
6.14

August 19, 2009
P a g e | 66
Application
BlockID
TotalArea
(ft2)
Areagreaterthan
6ftthick
Shorttonsinarea
Avg
greaterthan
thickness
6ftthick
(ft)
app19d
6,960,913
4,840,889
2,633,639
6.22
app19e
3,482,532
0.00
app20
94,250,971
0.00
app21
55,708,701
0.00
app14b
55,828,603
0.00
app14c
13,986,289
0.00
1,994,697,544
679,208,558
399,574,056
6.73
ICPPermitSum
17.2
Validation of Petra Model Using Surpac
The objective of this Surpac model validation was to separately calculate the polyhalite resources
using the same input data as the Petra model. The Surpac database contains information on the
same 216 oil/gas wells and dry holes, for which downhole e-logs are available and used in the
Petra model. Of these wells, 72 are located within the AOI. Information in the database includes
well locations, both latitude/longitude and coordinates in New Mexico State Plane (NMSP),
collar elevations and formation intervals determined from e-logs. As downhole drift surveys are
not available, all wells are assumed to be perfectly vertical.
Chemrox validated and used the AOI boundary map developed by ICP in NMSP coordinates
(NAD 27 datum). The AOI covers an area of approximately 128 mi2 and includes property
under permit by ICP as well as property not controlled by ICP. ICP also derived a polyhalite
density estimate, of 2.805 g/cm3 (11.43 ft3/ton) based on 22 density measurements that was
checked by Chemrox (see Appendix D). Software used included both Surpac version 6.1.2 and
Surfer 2009. Surpac is used for geostatistics and to develop the inferred resource estimate.
Surfer is used to perform contouring of polyhalite thickness. AutoCAD LT 2010 was also used
to develop boundary files.
17.3
Development of an Independent Resource Estimate
Variography was attempted, using Surpac, with mixed results.
A strong northwest (330)
orientation was evident in the variograms; however no preferred orientation for radius of
influence was observed.
This is due, at least in part, to the many locations showing no
polyhalite. Radius of influence varied from 20,000 to 40,000 feet, depending on lag distances
August 19, 2009
P a g e | 67
and other variables. The most frequent radius of influence was in the 30,000 to 35,000 foot
range. A more detailed investigation into the variography is warranted to determine polyhalite
continuity when more information from the planned drilling programs is available.
Polyhalite thickness contouring was performed in Surfer using kriging methods with a nodal
search radius of 35,000 feet. The resulting thickness contour isopach map was imported into
AutoCAD LT and combined with the AOI boundary file to create inferred resource boundary
files for use in Surpac.
A 6-foot polyhalite interval was used as the minimum cut-off thickness for conducting the
resource estimate. Four areas inclusive of the 6-foot contour interval and the AOI boundary
were identified for an inferred resource estimate. Polyhalite thicknesses of 5.99 ft occur in the
area around two holes that are located in the NW resource area. These are included in the
inferred resource. The resource in these two holes is slightly below cutoff thickness; however,
this material would likely be recovered during mining operations.
Using Surpac, the polyhalite top and basal surfaces in, and adjacent to, the AOI were gridded
using inverse distance squared methods. These surfaces were then used to form a continuous
solid or wireframe body for the entire area. This solid body was then intersected with each of the
four inferred resource areas to yield four separate resource solids with defined volumes.
Volume measurements in cubic feet, as determined in Surpac, for each of the areas is divided by
the tonnage factor of 11.43 ft3/ton to yield the tons of polyhalite in-place in Table 17.3 for the
entire area of interest regardless of mineral ownership.
The discrete areas that had 6 feet or more of polyhalite thickness on BLM permits were then
specifically evaluated, and inferred resource numbers were calculated independently as depicted
in Figure 17.2. It was estimated that 382 million short tons of inferred polyhalite (in-place)
resources can be found under the BLM tracks that met the 6 foot thickness cut-off criteria. This
estimate does not include a reduction for grade across the 6-foot interval.

August 19, 2009
P a g e | 68
FIGURE 17.2 SURPAC ISOPACH OF RUSTLER POLYHALITE BED WITH AOI OUTLINE

August 19, 2009
P a g e | 69
Next, Chemrox looked at just the permits that comprised 6-foot or better polyhalite and
developed object map only showing the areas and permit tracks where this occurrence was
evident (see Figures 17.3 and 17.4).
These Surpac areas (Figure 17.3) are called northwest, southeast, south and northeast. The
permits with the inferred resources can be seen in Figure 17.4 delimited called Object Areas
numbers 1 through 18 to come open with a cross check of the Petra model Inferred Resource.
The Surpac Inferred Resource was 382M tons or within 96% of the Petra modeled resource,
validating the Petra model results for this 43-101. and The Inferred Resource of 382M tons
reflects the results within the 18 Object areas that are outlined around multiple permit tracts in
many instances. These results are essential a model-check of Petra and validate that the Petra
results are defensible for this level of study. .
Based upon testing with the Sandia core, it is presumed that the polyhalite run-of-mine grade, not
including mine dilution would be 85%. This presumption is based upon the polyhalite analysis
of over a dozen continuous 6 inch increments of polyhalite core with some grades running over
93%.

August 19, 2009
P a g e | 70
FIGURE 17.3 LOCATION OF PERMIT TRACTS HAVING GREATER THAN 6 FT OF POLYHALITE IN THE ICP AREA OF INTEREST

August 19, 2009
P a g e | 71
FIGURE 17.4 OCHOA INFERRED RESOURCE VOLUMES AND TONNAGES BY OBJECT AREA

August 19, 2009
P a g e | 72
18.
OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION
Intercontinental Potash plans to explore and potentially develop polyhalite mineralization within
the Tamarisk member of the Rustler Formation on its AOI. Although polyhalite was considered
as a potential source of potash fertilizer in the 1940s (Conley and Partridge, 1944), this
consideration pre-dated the development of the extensive sylvite resources of Saskatchewan,
Canada, and the former Soviet Union (Belarus and Russia). The development of potash
operations based on sylvite in Saskatchewan, Canada, in the early-1960s (where the grade of
sylvinite was particularly high at approximately 25% K2O) and the expansion of output in the
USSR resulted in those two countries holding the first-ranking positions until the breakup of the
former Soviet Union in 1989.
18.1
Background To The Potash Industry
Potash was first produced near Carlsbad, New Mexico in 1931. At that time, world production
was approximately 1.5 million tons K2O and Germany and France together accounted for 1.3
million tons K2O. By 1943, the United States had overtaken France as the second largest potash
producer. The majority of United States output was from mines established in Eddy County,
New Mexico. The first potash mine in Lea County, New Mexico was opened in 1957 and closed
between 1968 and 1974. The second mine in Lea County was opened in 1965. At that time,
world potash production had increased to over 13.5 million tons K2O and the United States was
the largest single producer, with output of 2.8 million tons K2O, followed by the then USSR and
West Germany, each with output of around 2.4 million tons K2O.
The majority of potash output in New Mexico has been based on mining sylvinite and the First
Ore Zone of the McNutt Potash Zone has provided the greater proportion of mined ore.
Langbeinite is also mined to recover a beneficiated potassium-magnesium sulfate fertilizer. At
present, two companies, Intrepid and Mosaic, mine and process sylvite and langbeinite in New
Mexico. The USGS reports that sales from these two companies account for nearly 80% of total
United States producer sales of potash.
The development of potash operations based on sylvinite in Saskatchewan, Canada in the early1960s and the expansion of output in the USSR resulted in those two countries holding the first-

August 19, 2009
P a g e | 73
ranking positions until the breakup of the former Soviet Union in 1989. Table 18.1 shows the
development of world potash output since 1990.
TABLE 18.1 WORLD POTASH PRODUCTION1 (THOUSAND TONS K2O)
Country
1990
2000
2005
2006
2007P
Belarus2
n.a.
3,400
4,928
4,605
5,400
Brazil
98
340
385
424
410
Canada
7,002
9,033
10,596
8.36
11,426
Chile
20
355
431
374
450
China
46
380
1,480
1,572
1,700
FormerSovietUnion
9,126
France
1,292
321
Germany
4,850
3,409
3,665
3,616
3,700
Israel
1,311
1,710
2,224
2,123
2,000
Italy
68
Jordan
841
1,180
1,098
1,020
1,105
Russia2
n.a.
3,680
6,265
5,724
6,460
Spain
686
522
494
437
450
Ukraine2
n.a.
30
20
60
65
UnitedKingdom
488
590
439
430
450
UnitedStates
1,654
1,300
1,200
1,100
1,200
Total
27,482
26,250
33,225
29,845
34,816
Includes estimated output of primary sulfate and nitrate salts.

Reported as Former Soviet Union in 1990.
P
Sources: USGS; Natural Resources, Canada; corporate reports.
2
18.1.1
Fertilizer Products
Micon (2008) reported that approximately 93% of world potash production is used by the
fertilizer industry as a source of potassium which is one of the three essential plant nutrients,
along with nitrogen and phosphorus. Potassium salts are used in a wide range of non-fertilizer
applications, including glass and ceramics, soaps and detergents, synthetic rubber and chemicals.

August 19, 2009
P a g e | 74
The abstract to Barbarick, 1991 from CSU, is reproduced below:

Acid, infertile soils typically benefit from the addition of K, Ca, Mg, or S fertilizers.
Polyhalite, K2MgCa2(SO4)4.2H2O, may provide a slow-release fertilizer source of these
nutrients. Sorghum-sudan-grass (Sorghum bicolor, L. Moench NB280S S. Sudanese
(Piper) Stapf.) was grown in Red Feather loamy sand soil (Lithic Cryoboralf) in a
greenhouse study to compare responses to polyhalite (<0.15-mm particle size) to soluble
sulfate sources of K, Mg, and Ca. Treatment rates for both fertilizer sources ranged from 0
to 600 mg K kg-1 soil in 100 K kg-1 increments. Eight plant harvests were obtained.
Finely-ground polyhalite produced larger total dry matter yields and total K uptake than
the soluble treatments. Increasing the fertilizer rate produced a positive quadratic dry
matter yield (largest at the 400 mg K kg-1 soil rate) and significant plant K and S uptake
responses. Electrical conductivity (EC) of saturated soil-pastes at the end of the study was
higher in the soluble fertilizer treatments compared to the polyhalite nutrient source. A
column leaching study showed that Ca and K were leached more readily while Mg and
SO4-S were leached to a lesser extent in the polyhalite treatments than the solublefertilizer treatments. In these studies, finely-ground polyhalite provided adequate K, Ca,
Mg, and SO4-S to the plants and performed somewhat like a slow-release fertilizer
compared to more soluble fertilizer sources. This mineral should be an effective fertilizer
in acid, infertile soils.
Barbarick (1991) cites earlier studies that compared polyhalite to other sources of potassium and
magnesium when applied to a variety of plants including corn, sorghum, potato, flax, beet, rye,
mustard, oats, barley and ryegrass. Barbaricks study was based on the hypothesis that polyhalite
applied to sorghum-sudan-grass could provide potassium, calcium, magnesium and sulfur at a
level equivalent to the combined application of potassium sulfate, calcium sulfate and
magnesium sulfate.
Polyhalite, as a potential new fertilizer potash product, is more comparable with other multinutrient potassium fertilizers such as langbeinite or kainite, than with potassium chloride,
potassium sulfate and potassium nitrate. It has the advantage, with potassium nitrate and sulfate
salts, of being chloride-free. As with all new industrial mineral products, extensive market
analysis and market development will be required in order to promote its use. While polyhalite
has not been commercially mined and marketed as a multi-nutrient fertilizer product, Barbaricks
August 19, 2009
P a g e | 75
and others work has shown that it has potential as a slow release, direct application fertilizer
when finely ground, particularly on acid and nutrient-poor soils.
18.1.2
Polyhalite as a Direct Fertilizer and K2SO4 Feed Stock
Potassium chloride is the principal product of the potash industry. Other primary sources of
potassium for fertilizer use are potassium sulfate and potassium nitrate. Langbeinite is recovered
in New Mexico and is marketed as a source of potassium, magnesium and sulfur as sulfate.
Intrepid Potash, Inc. (Intrepid) markets langbeinite under the trade name Trio; The Mosaic
Company (Mosaic) uses the trade name K-Mag. Kainite is recovered in Germany by K+S Kali
to produce a potash fertilizer product known as magnesia-kainit.
While potassium chloride is the most widely available and widely used source of fertilizer
potassium, certain crops are intolerant of, or sensitive to, chloride and in some regions
agricultural soils are naturally salty. In these cases, potassium sulfate, potassium magnesium
sulfate and potassium nitrate are alternative products and, in the case of potassium magnesium
sulfate and potassium nitrate, these also provide magnesium, nitrogen and sulfur.
The development concept being considered by Intercontinental Potash is in part based on the
work at the Colorado State University (CSU) Agricultural Station by Barbarick (1989 and 1991).
This work demonstrated that, in greenhouse tests, finely ground polyhalite was an effective
source of potassium, magnesium, calcium and sulfur as fertilizer nutrients. Intercontinental
Potash and its prior consultant, Robert Hite, believe that polyhalite may be developed as a new
fertilizer material which will provide these four nutrients in a slow-release, chloride-free product.
Polyhalite, as a potential new fertilizer potash product, is more comparable with other multinutrient potassium fertilizers such as langbeinite or kainite, than with potassium chloride,
potassium sulfate and potassium nitrate. It has the advantage, with potassium nitrate and sulfate
salts, of being chloride-free. As with all new industrial mineral products, extensive market
analysis and market development will be required in order to promote its use. While polyhalite
has not previously been commercially mined and marketed as a multi-nutrient fertilizer product,
Barbaricks work and the work of others in the field has shown that it has potential as a direct
application fertilizer when finely ground, particularly on acid and nutrient-poor soils.

August 19, 2009
P a g e | 76
A number of studies comparing polyhalite to either potassium or magnesium fertilizers have

been completed in Eastern Europe.
Lepeshkov and Shoposhnikova (1958) showed that
polyhalite was at least as effective as potassium sulphate for potato (Solanum tubersosm, L.) and
flax (Linum usitatissum, L.) production. Panitkin (1967) concluded that polyhalite was better
than potassium sulfate for potatoes and beets (Beta vulgatis L.) because of the magnesium
derived from the polyhalite. Boguszewski et. Al. (1968) stated that the fertilizer value of
polyhalite was equivalent to potassium sulfate plus magnesium sulfate. Terelak (1974) reported
that crushing and calcinations of polyhalite improved potassium and magnesium solubility in
corn. Terelak (1975) found polyhalite was as effective as potassium chloride plus magnesium
sulfate in producing corn, rye (Secale cereal, L.), mustard (Brassica alba, L.), and oats (Avena
sativa, L.). Literature from eastern European studies indicates that polyhalite may be at least as
effective as potassium chloride or potassium sulfate.

August 19, 2009
P a g e | 77
19.
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR TECHNICAL REPORTS ON

DEVELOPMENT PROPERTIES AND PRODUCTION PROPERTIES
A large number of oil and gas drill holes in the area of interest provided sufficient geophysical
logs to infer polyhalite resources in the Tamarisk member of the Rustler Formation. Exploration
drilling by Intercontinental Potash will be necessary in order to provide core that can be
examined and sampled directly to generate indicated resources. Physical examination of drill
core will allow accurate measurement of the thickness of the polyhalite unit. Correlation between
drill holes and comparison with the geophysical log data, will permit assessment of the
continuity of polyhalite mineralization for classification as indicated and perhaps measured
resources, provided adequate drill hole density is obtained.
Phase I drilling will include the drilling of 8 widely spaced drillholes through the property, some
of which will be twins of dry oil and gas holes or wells. Holes will be located to maximize use
of available information and to verify the grade and thickness of the data used in the exploration
model. The Phase 1 program cost includes the estimated costs to drill holes 1700 feet deep with a
40 foot interval of core through the polyhalite horizon, gamma logging, and analysis of the core
samples.
All bonds for the current drilling programs and Environmental Assessments, excepting new
applications, have been completed for the Phase I drilling program. The BLM bonding covers
any reclamation required over and above that planned in the ICP budget and if for whatever
reason, the reclamation work is not performed.
19.1
Preliminary Economic Assessment
In order to evaluate the potential economic viability of the Ochoa polyhalite deposit, a
preliminary economic assessment (PEA) was prepared. The conceptual mine plans were based
on the experience of Randy Foote, Chief Engineer and VP of Development for ICP, who
previously worked as a mine manager at operations of similar mines (potash) in the Carlsbad
district. Gustavson developed the mine staffing, capital and operating costs using the Western
Mine Engineering Cost Estimators Guide (2009) and the personal experience of Mr. Foote. The
conceptual process flowsheet was proposed by Mr. Foote and is based on work done by others in
the late 1950s and published in a report. Gustavson utilized Mr. Footes experience and updated

August 19, 2009
P a g e | 78
process operating costs in the 1958 report with current raw materials and energy cost data.
Process operating and capital costs were estimated by Gustavson and checked by Mr. Foote.
Gustavson estimated the General and Administrative costs as well.
The pre-tax economic
evaluation included royalties due to the Federal Government and two other parties.
This PEA is preliminary in nature, as it is based on inferred mineral resources which are by
definition too speculative geologically to assign economic certainty. Inferred resources cannot
be treated as mineral reserves. There is no certainty that the results presented in this PEA will be
realized until more is known about these resources.
19.2
Mining
Underground mining is planned for the known polyhalite beds that are approximately 1,500 feet
below the surface and 6.5 feet in thickness. Mining methodologies will be very similar to that
currently conducted for the production of potash within the Permian Basin.
19.2.1
Mining Method Selection
Mining will be room and pillar with a projected extraction of 87% within the active mining
panels. Mining will be in a herringbone pattern as is done in the adjacent potash mines,
(reference drawing 02 and 03 in Appendix E). After development has been completed, mining
will progress in a retreating manner, which will allow for minimal pillars left for support and
increase the mining extraction rate. As in the adjacent mines, it is expected that the panels will
slowly close through plastic deformation of the overlying strata. Directly above the polyhalite
beds is a 60 foot layer of salt that is compatible with the plastic failure model for the pillars.
19.2.2
Mine Design
Two adjacent concrete lined circular shafts 20 feet in diameter will serve the underground mine.
One shaft will be dedicated to production, while the second shaft will be a utility shaft for men
and material transportation. The two shafts will provide ventilation for the mine. One shaft will
serve as an intake and the other as exhaust. Ventilation will be relatively straight forward as the
mine is not expected to be gassy and will only have minimal underground diesel equipment.
Each shaft will be 1,700 feet in depth, extending approximately 200 feet below the polyhalite
beds. This additional depth will be used for ore pockets on the production shaft and access to the
pockets from the utility shaft, (reference drawing 03 in Appendix E). A barrier pillar 1,500 ft. in
August 19, 2009
P a g e | 79
diameter will protect the shafts.

19.2.3
Mine Development Design
Development from the shafts will be by two parallel 8 feet by 30 feet wide main headings that
will extend one mile in an east and west direction from the shaft, (reference drawing 02 and 05 in
Appendix E). Developed at right angles to the main headings will be the panel development,
which will allow for the extraction of a panel 830 feet wide by one mile long. Underground
shops will be constructed adjacent to the shafts for equipment service and maintenance. A 500foot wide barrier pillar will protect the main haulage drifts. The barrier pillars will be recovered
at the end of the mine life.
19.2.4
Mobile Equipment
Capital and operating costs for the required mobile equipment has been included within the
economic analysis. Underground mobile equipment will consist of 50 items as listed in the
following table.
TABLE 19.1 MOBILE UNDERGROUND MINING EQUIPMENT
QUANTITY
10ea
20ea
10ea
10ea
DESCRIPTION
Continuousminers Joy12HM
Shuttlecars
Mantrips diesel
Rockbolters
All equipment is electrically powered with the exception of the man trip, these will be diesel. All
support feeder breakers, conveyors and feeder conveyors at the load out pocket have been
included in support of the mobile equipment.
19.2.5
Development and Production Schedules
Planned production for the mine builds up from 3.06 million tons in year one, to 4.6 million tons
per year of mill feed in year 10. This will result in the production of 904,000 tons of K2SO4 year
two and beyond, and 50,000 tons of polyhalite product the first year, building to 500,000 tons in
year 10. All required labor and equipment have been included in order to meet the planned
production quantities as well as the pre-production panel development. Each shift will require 6
production crews and 1.7 development crews; an allowance of 2 development crews is included
within the costs and schedule. Table 19.2 presents the development schedule.
August 19, 2009
P a g e | 80
TABLE 19.2 DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE
INTERCONTINENTALPOTASHPROJECTDEVELOPMENTSCHEDULE
ACTIVITY
Engineeringstudies
year4
year3
year2
year1
year1
year2
Conceptualstudy
PreFeasibility
Feasibility
Explorationdrilling
PhaseI
PhaseIIDefinitionandmetallurgy
Permitting
Baselinedatacollection
Projectpermitting
Projectdevelopment
Minedesign
Mineconstruction
Shaftsinking
Minedevelopment
Processdevelopment
Processdesign
Processplantconstruction
Processplantcommissioning
19.2.6
Mining Support Services
Mining support services include engineering, mechanical, and electrical maintenance. In
addition, an allowance has been made for laboratory and warehouse facilities.
19.3
Mining Recovery
Based on the planned mining methodology, which is consistent with other mines in the Permian
Basin, it is expected the mining recovery will be 87%. This mine recovery percentage is
considered reasonable as some of the mines in the district exceed this amount.

August 19, 2009
P a g e | 81
19.4
Process Description
There are several processes available to process polyhalite in order to produce potassium sulfate.
The process selected for this study utilizes ammonia to precipitate magnesium hydroxide and in
a second step, potassium sulphate. A brief description of the process follows.
1. Polyhalite is crushed and ground to minus 10 mesh and then subject to a cold water leach
to remove most of the sodium chloride.
2. The salt free solids are then calcined (sintered) to drive of the water of hydration, which
makes the magnesium and potassium sulphates water soluble.
3. The calcined solids are leached with water and the insoluble calcium sulphate is filtered
off and discarded in the waste storage facility.
4. Anhydrous ammonia is introduced into the clarified solution till the ph reaches 10.3 when
Magnesium present in the solution begins to precipitate as magnesium hydroxide which
is filtered off and discarded in a separate waste storage facility.
5. The filtrate is then treated with additional ammonia until a concentration level of 310
grams per liter is reach. This depresses the solubility of the potassium sulphate to an
extent that it crystallizes out of solution. The potassium sulfate is then filtered out,
recovering of 92% potassium sulphate.
6. The filtrate is then heated and passed through a stripping column where free ammonia is
removed and recycled back into the process. Since some of the ammonia took part in a
chemical reaction in step 4 and is no longer free, lime is added to the stripped liquor in
order to free up the ammonia. The treated liquor is then sent to a final stripping column
to recover the final traces of ammonia. The residual liquid from this step is reused in at
the beginning of the process.
The production of the second product, polyhalite, requires only crushing, washing to remove
salt, and then drying.
19.5
Markets
The project will produce two fertilizer products, potassium sulfate, and polyhalite. The potassium
sulfate product is readily marketable as a highly desirable fertilizer. Test work has shown
polyhalite to be a good fertilizer; however polyhalite is currently not employed as a fertilizer and
will require developing a market. Initial polyhalite production is planned for 50,000 tons per
year; rising by 50,000 tons per year for 9 years to a maximum of 500,000 tons per year. The
August 19, 2009
P a g e | 82
pricing of the polyhalite product is at a discount to competing fertilizer products. The polyhalite
price used in the PEA is $250/ton and the price of potassium sulphate is $750/ton.
19.6
Contracts
There are currently no contracts in place for the project.

19.7
Environmental Considerations
An allowance has been made for baseline data collection and project permitting within the
project development capital costs. This cost will need refinement as the project progresses and
the location of surface facilities are chosen. There is significant environmental compliance and
permitting costs associated with the ownership of the surface potentially being used for that
purpose.
19.8
Taxes
Economic modeling was completed pre-tax.

19.8.1
Royalties
It is assumed a 5% gross royalty would be imposed by the federal government. A $1/ton
potassium product produced, and a 3% net profits royalty are also included.
19.8.2
Corporate Income Tax
Economic modeling was completed pre-tax.
19.9
Operating Cost Estimates (Opex)
Operating costs for the project were developed using the Western Mine Engineering Cost
Estimators Guide, firsthand knowledge of the potash operations in Carlsbad, and the Report
Potassium Sulphate and Magnesium Oxide from Polyhalite, written by Cummings, Engelhardt &
Corbin , giving detailed information on a treatment process for the production of potassium
sulfate from polyhalite feed stocks. Staffing levels and operating positions were generated
including overtime allowance and burden at 35% of the base cost.
Detailed equipment costs were developed for the mine, including overhaul parts, maintenance
parts, power / fuel costs, lubricants, and wear parts. As previously noted, the necessary
maintenance and operational staff were included in the staff and operating personnel detail.
August 19, 2009
P a g e | 83
19.9.1
Mining OPEX
Mining costs will be $10.47 per ton for a typical full production year and for the life of mine will
average $10.91 which includes the inefficiencies that will be experienced during year 1 start up.
Table 19.3 is a detailed listing of the staffing for the mine. There are 295 people in the mine at a
fully loaded annual cost of $21 million. Detailed mine equipment and operating cost are included
within the PEA appendix (see Appendix E).
TABLE 19.3 MINE STAFF
MineStaff
QTY
Salary
1
1
1
1
6
2
$134,400
$112,000
$89,600
$89,600
$67,200
$44,800
Hourlyrate
Rollup
OTallowance
Burden
AnnualCost
$47,040
$39,200
$31,360
$31,360
$141,120
$31,360
$181,440
$151,200
$120,960
$120,960
$544,320
$120,960
$1,239,840
MineManagement
MineManager
MineSuperintendent
MaintenanceSuperintendent
ChiefMineEngineer
MineEngineers
Surveyors
$403,200
$89,600
MiningCrew,(6panels,24crews)
Shifters
Miner
Operators
Shuttleoperators
8
24
72
48
$37.70
$22.40
$22.40
$20.00
$627,328
$1,118,208
$3,354,624
$1,996,800
$55,494
$98,918
$296,755
$176,640
$219,565
$391,373
$1,174,118
$698,880
$902,387
$1,608,499
$4,825,498
$2,872,320
SkipTender
Electrician
Oilers
Mechanics
4
4
8
8
$22.40
$27.40
$23.00
$26.40
$186,368
$227,968
$382,720
$439,296
$16,486
$20,166
$33,856
$38,861
$65,229
$79,789
$133,952
$153,754
$268,083
$327,923
$550,528
$631,910
$11,987,149
MineMaintenance(Days)
ElectricalForeman
Electricians
MechanicalForeman
Mechanics
Utility
1
9
4
36
33
$37.70
$27.40
$36.40
$26.40
$21.00
$78,416
$512,928
$302,848
$1,976,832
$1,441,440
$6,937
$45,374
$26,790
$174,874
$127,512
$27,446
$179,525
$105,997
$691,891
$504,504
$112,798
$737,827
$435,635
$2,843,597
$2,073,456
$6,203,314
DevelopmentCrew,(4crews)
Miner
Operators
Shuttleoperators
4
12
8
$22.40
$22.40
$20.00
$186,368
$559,104
$332,800
$16,486
$49,459
$29,440
$65,229
$195,686
$116,480
$268,083
$804,250
$478,720
$1,551,053

August 19, 2009
P a g e | 84
19.9.2
Mineral Processing OPEX and Beneficiation
The equipment and materials portion of the processing costs is $121.18 per ton of potassium
sulphate for a yearly total of $109.6 million. Plant labor at full production is an additional $11.8
million, and an allowance of $6 million is included for production of the polyhalite product.
Table 19.5 shows the equipment and materials cost processing cost. Table 19.4 is a detailed
listing of the staffing for the mill. There are 111 people in the mill at a fully loaded annual cost
of $11.8 million.
TABLE 19.4 PLANT STAFF
PlantStaffing
QTY
Salary
PlantManagement
Millsuperintendant
MaintenanceSuperintendant
Chiefprocessengineer
Processengineers
Labtechnician
1
1
1
4
1
$100,800
$100,800
$95,200
$78,400
$44,800
HotLeachPlant(totalstaff4crews)
ShiftSupervisor
Crushgrind
Leacharea
Crystallizer
Tails
Thickener
Controlroom
Relief
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
$37.70
$23.00
$23.00
$23.00
$22.00
$22.00
$24.00
$24.00
$313,664
$191,360
$191,360
$191,360
$183,040
$183,040
$199,680
$199,680
4
8
$27.40
$26.40
1
6
3
MechanicalForeman
Mechanics
UtilityForeman
UtilityCrew
Electrician
Mechanic
SurfaceMaintenance
ElectricalForeman
Electricians
Instrumenttechnicians
Burden
AnnualCost
$35,280
$35,280
$33,320
$109,760
$15,680
$136,080
$136,080
$128,520
$423,360
$60,480
$884,520
$27,747
$16,928
$16,928
$16,928
$16,192
$16,192
$17,664
$17,664
$109,782
$66,976
$66,976
$66,976
$64,064
$64,064
$69,888
$69,888
$451,194
$275,264
$275,264
$275,264
$263,296
$263,296
$287,232
$287,232
$227,968
$439,296
$20,166
$38,861
$79,789
$153,754
$327,923
$631,910
$3,337,875
$37.70
$27.40
$27.40
$78,416
$341,952
$170,976
$15,683
$68,390
$34,195
$27,446
$119,683
$59,842
$121,545
$530,026
$265,013
2
12
$37.70
$26.40
$156,832
$658,944
$31,366
$131,789
$54,891
$230,630
$243,090
$1,021,363
1
12
$24.00
$18.00
$49,920
$449,280
$9,984
$89,856
$17,472
$157,248
$77,376
$696,384
$9,630,546
$19,600
$125,440
$75,600
$483,840
$559,440
$17,472
$157,248
$77,376
$696,384
$773,760
Labsupport
LabSupervisor
Labtechnician
1
8
ProductLoadoutCrew
LoadoutForeman
Loadoutcrew
1
12
Hourlyrate
Rollup
OTallowance
$313,600
$56,000
$44,800
$56,000
$358,400
$24.00
$18.00
$49,920
$449,280
$9,984
$89,856

August 19, 2009
P a g e | 85
Process operating costs were estimated based upon the information provided within the report;
Potassium Sulphate and Magnesium Oxide from Polyhalite, written by Cummings, Engelhardt
and Corbin, March 31, 1958. Estimated costs and the treatment flowsheet were updated by ICP
and Gustavson to represent current costs. Additional detail of the process can be found within the
report attached in Appendix E. Drawing 04 in Appendix E presents the envisioned flowsheet as a
block flow diagram. Drawing 01 in Appendix E shows the general facilities arrangement.
TABLE 19.5 PROCESS OPERATING COSTS EXCLUDING LABOR

raw
Cost/unit
material Cost/ton
raw
units/ton
units
material
AnnualCost(000's)
K2SO4
K2SO4
RawMaterials
#units
Ammonia 72.6lbs/tonofPotassium
72.6 lbs
Lime
603 lbs
Water
1400 gallons
NaturalGas
6.66 1000CF
Electricity
Laboratory
OperatingSupplies
EquipmentMaintenance
SubtotalOperatingCost
Contingency
20%
TotalProcessingCostwithContingency
160 kwh
allowance
allowance
allowance
$400.00
$100.00
$1.00
$3.50
ton
ton
000'sgal
1000CF
$0.06 kwh
$14.52
$30.15
$1.40
$23.31
$13,126
$27,255
$1,266
$21,072
$9.60
$1.00
$6.00
$15.00
$100.98
$8,678
$904
$5,424
$13,560
$91,285
$20.20
$121.18
$18,257
$109,542
19.9.3
General and Administration and Site Services OPEX
General and administrative costs will be $0.64 per ton for a typical full production year and for
the life of mine will average $0.66 per ton. Annual G&A costs will be $2.96 million.

August 19, 2009
P a g e | 86
TABLE 19.6 SURFACE STAFF

SurfaceStaff
QTY
Salary
1
1
1
5
$168,000
$134,400
$89,600
$44,800
Safetydirector
Safetysupport
1
5
Environmental
EnvironmentalManager
Environmentalsupport
Administration
GeneralManager
MillManager
Controller
Controllersupport
Hourlyrate
Rollup
OTallowance
Burden
AnnualCost
$224,000
$58,800
$47,040
$31,360
$78,400
$226,800
$181,440
$120,960
$302,400
$831,600
$89,600
$44,800
$224,000
$31,360
$78,400
$120,960
$302,400
$423,360
1
2
$89,600
$44,800
$89,600
$31,360
$31,360
$120,960
$120,960
$241,920
5
10
$56,000
$44,800
$280,000
$448,000
$98,000
$156,800
$378,000
$604,800
$982,800
$44,800
$358,400
$125,440
$483,840
$483,840
Safety
Service
Purchasing
Warehouse
CustomerService
OrdersandDistribution
19.9.4
OPEX Summary
TABLE 19.7 COST PER TON OF FEED
AREA
Mine
Mill
G&A
Total
LifeofMineAverage
$8.84
$26.63
$0.66
$36.13
TypicalYear
$10.74
$27.48
$0.64
$38.86
19.10 CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES (CAPEX)

The total estimated initial capital cost for the project is $880.3 million. The capital estimate has
been broken into three general areas
1. Mine capital;
2. Surface and process capital; and
3. Exploration, engineering and permitting.
The following tables contain the detail for the above-mentioned areas. An additional capital
amount of $549 million will be required as sustaining capital over the life of the mine.

August 19, 2009
P a g e | 87
19.10.1
Mining
Initial development capital totals $143.3 million for phase I and an additional $105 million for
phase II in year 14 of the project; this includes all the necessary equipment and mine preproduction. Phase II is not included in the Initial Capital cost. Development of the main access
and production panels is accounted for in the working capital as all of this development produces
mill feedstock. Typically underground mines have significant development in waste. However,
this is not the case in bedded evaporite deposits.
TABLE 19.8 MINE DEVELOPMENT CAPITAL COSTS PHASE I
Mine Development
Sinking
Head Frame
Koepe Hoist / skip / cage
Double drum hoist/skip cage
Concrete Lining (in shaft sinking cost)
Shaft Equip (in shaft sinking cost)
Loading Station
Ore Pocket
Feeders/conveyor to loading pocket
Level Development
Refuge Station
Underground Shop
Underground Shop Equipment
Underground warehouse / spares
Mine transformer and switch gear
Main Vent Fans
Communication system
Production and Development Equipment
panel transformer
Continuous Miner - Joy 12 HM
Feeder Breaker
Sub - conveyor 48"
Main - conveyor 72"
shuttle car
Man trip
Rock bolter
Vent Fans
Vent tube
trash pump - pipe
Electrical - Wire/switch gear
Total Mine Equipment and Development Capital
Initial Capital
Number
Units
2
2
1
2
Cost/Unit
Total Cost
ea
ea
2000 hp ea
1800 hp ea
$6,385,200
$1,500,000
$3,800,000
$2,500,000
$12,770,400
$3,000,000
$3,800,000
$5,000,000
2
2
6
4
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
ea
ea
ea
6000 ft
ea
ea
ea
ea
ea
ea
ea
$250,000
$706,903
$150,000
$300
$200,000
$500,000
$500,000
$5,000,000
$1,500,000
$1,500,000
$1,000,000
$500,000
$1,413,806
$900,000
$7,200,000
$400,000
$500,000
$500,000
$5,000,000
$1,500,000
$3,000,000
$1,000,000
10
10
10
10
10
20
10
10
25
20000
ea
ea
ea
5300 ft
5300 ft
ea
ea
ea
ea
ft
$150,000
$2,500,000
$400,000
$400
$600
$500,000
$50,000
$150,000
$20,000
$10
$1,500,000
$25,000,000
$4,000,000
$21,200,000
$31,800,000
$10,000,000
$500,000
$1,500,000
$500,000
$200,000
ea
ea
$10,000
$50,000
$100,000
$500,000
10
10
Units
$143,284,206

August 19, 2009
P a g e | 88
TABLE 19.9 MINE DEVELOPMENT CAPITAL COSTS PHASE II Year 14

(not included in the Initial Capital)
AREA
Mineequipmentanddevelopment
Surfacefacilitates
Contingency
TOTAL
Millions
$80
$5
$20
$105
19.10.2
Mineral Processing
Mineral processing and surface development capital costs are presented within Table 19.10. The
associated additional direct and indirect costs are shown in Table 19.12. Mineral processing
capital costs were developed based upon experience of ICP personnel, with support from the
Cummings, Engelhardt & Corbin report, and other plant design and capital cost estimates for a
similar plants treating dilute brine solutions or Trona.
TABLE 19.10 SURFACE AND PROCESS CAPITAL COSTS

Surface Development
Buildings
Hoist house
Mine Admin building
Shop - Plant Maintenance
Dry
ProcessWarehouse
Assay Lab
Security
1
1
1
ea
ea
ea
1
1
1
1
ea
ea
ea
ea
$1,000,000
$500,000
$15,000,000
$500,000
$500,000
$500,000
$50,000
Total Surface Development
$1,000,000
$500,000
$15,000,000
$500,000
$500,000
$500,000
$50,000
$18,050,000
Process Capital
1. Crushing and Grinding
2. Calcination
3. Extraction
4. Filtration of Gypsum
5. Ammonia Reaction
6. Filtration of Mg(OH)2
1
1
1
1
1
1
ea
ea
ea
ea
ea
ea
$18,000,000
$15,000,000
$40,000,000
$20,000,000
$220,000,000
$10,000,000
$18,000,000
$15,000,000
$40,000,000
$20,000,000
$220,000,000
$10,000,000
7. Filtration of K2SO4
ea
$10,000,000
$10,000,000
8. Drying of K2SO4
ea
9. Product Storage Bldg.

10. Plant infrastructure-power, water, gas, and roads
11. Paste Thickener
1
1
1
ea
ea
ea
$15,000,000
$25,000,000
$33,000,000
$15,000,000
$25,000,000
$33,000,000
$4,500,000
$4,500,000
Total Plant Capital
$428,550,000

August 19, 2009
P a g e | 89
19.10.3
Exploration and Permitting
Estimated costs prior to a production decision are estimated to be $9.8 million as shown in Table
19.11. This will allow completion of the necessary exploration drilling, engineering studies and
permitting efforts. ICPs Phase 1 and 2 drill program budgets are $550,000 and $2,500,000
respectively. The Exploration and Permitting costs are incurred during years -4 to -1.
TABLE 19.11 EXPLORATION, ENGINEERING AND PERMITTING COSTS

ACTIVITY
PreliminaryDrilling
DevelopmentDrilling
PrefeasibilityStudy
FeasibilityStudy
Permitting
Total
COST
$550,000
$2,500,000
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$750,000
$9,8,000
19.10.4
CAPEX Summary
The total initial capital for the mine and plant of $877.4 million as shown in Table 19.12, plus an
additional amount of $9.8 million during the pre-production phase of the project brings the total
estimated pre-production capital cost to $887.3.
TABLE 19.12 TOTAL ESTIMATED INITIAL CAPITAL COST FOR THE MINE AND PLANT
Total Mine and Plant Capital
Total Direct Costs
EPCM
Indirects
Subtotal Direct plus Indirect
Owners costs
Contingency
Subtotal Other Costs
$589,884,206
12%
4%
direct
direct
3%
25%
direct
total
Total Estimated Costs
$589,884,206
$70,786,105
$23,595,368
$684,265,679
$17,696,526
$175,490,551
$193,187,077
$877,452,756
Additional capital expenditures totaling $549 million are included for sustaining capital and
Phase II mine development.
19.11 Economic Analysis
A 30-year life project gives a pre-tax IRR of 43% and NPV of $2.90 billion with a 10% discount
rate. NPVs at other rates are listed in Table 19.13.

August 19, 2009
P a g e | 90
TABLE 19.13 NPVS

NPV
15%
12%
10%
8%
5%
BILLION
$1.50
$2.20
$2.90
$3.86
$6.19
19.11.1
Sensitivity Analysis
Sensitivity analysis was completed on the project to determine those costs to which the project
was most sensitive. The project is most sensitive to the selling price of K2SO4, followed by
controllable cost, capital cost, and discount rate. Figures 19.1 to 19.4 present the sensitivities
graphically.
NPVvs.K2SO4Price
690
740
790
Product$/Ton
590
640
840
890
940
4,000
NPV@10%($000's)
3,500
3,762
3,472
3,000
3,181
2,891
2,500
2,601
2,310
2,000
2,020
1,500
1,000
500
FIGURE 19.1 K2SO4 PRICE SENSITIVITY

August 19, 2009
P a g e | 91
FIGURE 19.2 CONTROLLABLE COST SENSITIVITY
%ControllableCostIncrease
25%
20%
15%
ControllableCostIncrease
10%
5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
3,400
3,200
3,000
3,173
3,032
2,800
2,891
2,750
2,600
2,609
2,400
2,200
2,000
NPV @ 10% ($000's)
CapitalCostIncrease
%CapitalCostIncrease
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
3,150
NPV @ 10% ($000's)
3,100
3,050
3,000
2,950
2,900
0
3,
94
,
3
02
,9
59
2,850
2,800
2,750
8
2,
91
8
2,
23
2,700
5
,7
,6
88
2,650
FIGURE 19.3 CAPITAL COST SENSITIVITY

August 19, 2009
P a g e | 92
DiscountRate
NPV @ 10% ($000's)
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
FIGURE 19.4 DISCOUNT RATE SENSITIVITY
19.12 Payback
The project has a payback period of 3.1 years from the beginning of production.
19.13 Mine Life
The current mine life is 30 years for the areas selected to begin operations. Depending on the
outcome of subsequent engineering studies and access to additional land, the mine life could be
increased.
19.14 Opportunities and Risks
19.14.1
Opportunities
Process piloting and process flowsheet development could potentially reduce the capital
costs.
Exploration drilling may indicate a larger resource.
Land acquisition may increase the available resource.
19.14.2
Risks
Exploration drilling may not confirm the resource.
Financing risk.
Business risk.
Market risk: the polyhalite market may be more difficult to develop than anticipated.
August 19, 2009
P a g e | 93
Permitting, bonding, and permit requirements may increase the capital requirements, and
the time necessary to develop the project.
Process piloting and process flowsheet development may increase the capital and
operating costs.

August 19, 2009
P a g e | 94
20.
INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS
Based upon an independent review of the data and interpretations done with the database, the
following conclusions can be made at this time:
1. Natural gamma and sonic or acoustic logs from oil and gas drilling are adequate for
calculating polyhalite thickness;
2. Grade calculations from geophysical logs are not currently possible and will need to be
qualified after validation coring;
3. The database is sufficient to warrant a calculation of inferred resources of polyhalite in
the Rustler Formation in the AOI;
4. Drill hole spacing is adequate for estimation of inferred resources for the entire AOI.
For the eastern-most area outside the AOI and under permit application, the drill hole
spacing is not adequate for estimation of mineral resources at this time.
5. The discontinuity of the Rustler polyhalite bed from west to east across the area of
interest does not appear to be a stratigraphic change but a structural or dissolution
phenomenon that is seen both in the top and base of the Rustler Formation. It will not
affect mineability due to the distances involved
6.
Chemrox using the Petra model, estimated 399 Mt inferred resource and 382Mt of
inferred resource using the check-model Surpac.
Petra is a defensible model for
calculation of inferred resources of polyhalite. Analytical and mineralogical data
obtained for the Salado polyhalite from the langbeinite mine and the Rustler polyhalite
from the core likely are representative of the gangue mineral associations and grade to
be expected from core on the property.
7. Based upon preliminary log interpretation and examination of oil and gas cuttings, it is
known that polyhalite and likely other potash also occurs in the underlying Salado
Formation beneath the BLM permits in the AOI. The zones are more discontinuous but
range in thickness up to 8 feet above a depth of 2500 ft. It is unknown at present what
the continuity of the beds might be, due to the drillhole spacing. It appears that the
Salado potash beds are less continuous and more variable in thickness.
8. Using the grade of the Sandia core, 85% percent polyhalite, the Rustler polyhalite bed
contains an inferred polyhalite resource of 339Mt, within the BLM permitted AOI. This
has not been adjusted for mine dilution or buffer zones which would be required around
existing and shut-in oil or gas production wells.
9.
If the polyhalite has halite as a gangue mineral, as the Salado Formation at the
langbeinite mines do, production of a direct application polyhalite product would merely
require crushing and washing. Screening may also be effective to reduce halite gangue
as halite often pulverizes during crushing and reports to the finer fraction, reducing
August 19, 2009
P a g e | 95
washing requirements.
10. Polyhalite in the samples tested in the Salado Formation showed immediate release of
potassium and significant residual potassium for likely slow release.
11. If polyhalite has anhydrite as its main gangue constituent (re: Sandia Rustler Formation),
concentration of a direct application fertilizer by physical methods may be more difficult
or quite costly. However, testing of polyhalite of this nature using calcining and
leaching has proven successful for the extraction of the potassium and sulfate.
12. The positive results of the PEA, (indicating that based on the enumerated assumptions in
Section 19, a potentially economically viable polyhalite mining and processing facility
can be developed at Ochoa), justify the Phase 1 drilling program outlined herein.

August 19, 2009
P a g e | 96
21.
RECOMMENDATIONS
During the data review and continuing through resource development, several features that could
possibly affect geologic or geostatistical interpretations were noted. A major northwest to
southeast structural depression was observed through the eastern portion of the AOI. The nature
of this depression, whether it is synclinal, faulted or another feature is not known. Additionally,
while the trend orientation of the polyhalite can be visually observed to be northwest-southeast,
the numerous wells lacking polyhalite intercepts appears to strongly influence variography.
Polyhalite analytical standards should be developed to satisfy QA/QC needs of the project in the
future. The addition of potassium and other key cation standards during the core preparation
process would enhance the defensibility of the results.
The Phase I exploration program to be carried out by ICP in late 2009 is comprised of drilling 8
core holes, averaging 1700 feet in depth. The budget for Phase I is $550,000, including all
ancillary costs (labor, drilling, geophysical logging, analysis, etc.). With drilling success in
Phase I, ICP will initiate Phase II (in-fill drilling). Phase II is comprised of 30 core holes, with
an estimated budgetary cost of $2.5 million. The budget includes all of the cost categories of
Phase I, plus geotechnical studies, preliminary hydrological studies and other investigations
which will support an eventual pre-feasibility study if the drilling campaign is successful in
defining mineral resources of a higher confidence than inferred.
The Phase I program budget is as follow:
Drill pad construction and reclamation
$40,000
Drilling (8 rotary/core holes)
280,000
Aquifer Protection (temporary casing)
80,000
Geophysical logging
60,000
Geological oversight (labor)
30,000
Analytical
30,000
Field Expenses
30,000
ESTIMATED TOTAL Phase I
$550,000
August 19, 2009
P a g e | 97
The Phase II budget will be largely dependent upon the results of Phase I but at the
present time is:
Drill Pad construction and reclamation
$150,000
Drilling (30 rotary/core in-fill holes)
1,050,000
Aquifer Protection (temporary casing)
300,000
Drilling (5 geotechnical/metallurgical holes)
250,000
Drilling and pump testing (5 water wells)
300,000
Geophysical Logging
120,000
Geological Oversight (labor)
200,000
Field Expenses
100,000
Analytical and Physical Testing

ESTIMATED TOTAL Phase II
75,000
$2,500,000
Chemrox and Gustavson consider that the proposed estimated budgets and plans for the phased
exploration program at Ochoa are reasonable and adequate to test the polyhalite occurrences and
move the project to succeeding stages.
Figure 21.1 below shows the ICP drill hole locations permitted by BLM and proposed drill hole
locations currently under review by BLM. The first 8 drill holes proposed by ICP are identified
with diamond symbols, and several of these drill holes have alternate locations in the event that
data supports alternate drilling. This program of drilling will entail rotary drilling to within 20
feet of the target polyhalite zone and continuous corring for at least 40 feet through the target bed
in the Rustler Formation. Several of these drill holes have been located as twins to prior oil and
gas holes to use for correlation of the polyhalite beds.
Borehole geophysics will also be

August 19, 2009
P a g e | 98
undertaken for correlation purposes and to see if any data can be calibrated with core analyses to
predict polyhalite grade in existing or future drill holes. Chemrox and Gustavson would
recommend modifying ICPs priority holes to concentrate efforts on the northwestern portion of
the AOI for the first Phase of drilling where it appears that the more favaorable trend for mining
might exist.

August 19, 2009
P a g e | 99
FIGURE 21.1 LOCATION OF ICP PRIORITY HOLES

August 19, 2009
P a g e | 100
Chemrox and Gustavson recommend drilling all permitted holes in the northwestern portion of
the AOI for the first phase of drilling.
Based on the assumptions and results of the PEA, Gustavson considers that the Ochoa polyhalite
project has potential to be an economically viable operation annually producing over 900,000
tons of potassium sulphate and 500,000 tons of polyhalite product for the world market.
Chemrox and Gustavson recommend that ICP execute their Phase I drilling program. If the
results are encouraging, we further recommend Phase II drilling and subsequent metallurgical
and other testwork and engineering.

August 19, 2009
P a g e | 101
22.
REFERENCES
Adams, S.S., Hite, R.J., 1983, Potash, in Industrial Minerals and Rocks, 5th ed., AIME, New
York, pp 381-383.
Asquith, G.B., Gibson, C.R., 1982, Basic Well Log Analysis for Geologists, American
Association of Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Bachman, G.O., 1983, Regional geology of Ochoan evaporites, northern part of Delaware Basin,
New Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources, Open File Report 184.
Barbarick, K. A., T. M. Lai, and D. D. Eberl. 1988. Response of sorghum-sudangrass in soils
amended with phosphate rock and NHA-exchange zeolite (clinoptilolite). Colorado State Univ.
Agric. Exp. Sta. Technical Bulletin TB 88-1.
Barbarick, K.A., 1989, Polyhalite as a potassium fertilizer, Colorado State University
Agricultural Station, Technical Bulletin TB89-2.
Barbarick, K.A., 1991, Polyhalite application to sorghum-sudan-grass and leaching in soil
columns, Soil Science, vol. 151, no. 2, pp. 159-164.
Boguszewski, W., K. Drzas, and E. Drzas. 1968. Investigations on the fertilizing values of Polish
polyhalites. Pam. Pulawaki. 32:155-168.
British Sulfur Corporation Limited, 1985, World Survey of Potash Resources, Fourth Edition.
Brookins, D.G., Register, J.K., and Krueger, H., 1980, Potassium- Argon dating of polyhalite in
SE New Mexico. Geochem. Cosmochem. Acta, v. 44, pp. 635-637.
Conley, J. E, Partridge, E. P., 1944, Potash Salts from Texas-New Mexico Polyhalite Deposits,
Commercial Possibilities, Proposed Technology, and Pertinent Salt-Solution Equilibria, United
States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, Bulletin 459.
Dana, E. S., Ford, W. E., 1932, A Textbook of Mineralogy, John Wily & Sons, Inc.

August 19, 2009
P a g e | 102
Dean, W. E., 1978, Theoretical Versus Observed Successions from Evaporation of Seawater, in
Marine Evaporites, SEPM Short Course No. 4, Dean W. E. and Schreiber, B. C., eds.
Fraps, G. S., 1932, Availability to plants of potash in polyhalite. Texas Agricultural Experiment
Station Bulletin No. 449. College Station, Texas.
Grace, K.A., and Spooner, J., 2008. Independent Technical Report on the Ochoa Polyhalite
Project, New Mexico. Micon consultants. 67p.
Havlin, J. L. and P. N. Soltanpour, 1980, A nitric acid plant tissue digest method for use with
inductively coupled plasma spectrometry. Comm. Soil Sci and Plant Anal. 11:969-980.
Holt, R.M., Powers, D.W., 1987, The Permian Rustler Formation at the WIPP Site, Southeastern
New Mexico, Guidebook 18, El Paso Geological Society, pp. 140-148.
Holt, R.M., Powers, D.W, 1988, Facies Variability and Post-depositional Alteration Within the
Rustler Formation in the Vicinity of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, Southeastern New Mexico,
DOE/WIPP 88-004, U.S. Department of Energy, Carlsbad, NM.
Hovorka, S. ca. 2000, online publication, Characterization of Bedded Salt for Storage Caverns,
Case Study from the Midland Basin.http://www.beg.utexas.edu/environqlty/salt/index.htm.
InfoMine USA, Inc., 2009, Mine and Mill Equipment Costs, An Estimators Guide, CostMine,
InfoMine USA, Inc. publisher.
Jones, C. L., 1972, Permian basin potash deposits, south-western United States, in Geology of
Saline Deposits, Proceedings of Hanover Symposium, 1968, Unesco, Paris.
Keith, D., 2008, Preliminary Scoping Study, Environmental Permitting for Underground Potash
Mining in Southeast New Mexico, prepared for Trigon Uranium Corporation by Diane Keith
Consulting LLC, March 14, 2008 (in draft).
Lepeshkou, I. N. and A. N. Shaposhnikova, 1958, Natural polyhalite salt, as a new type of
potassium-magnesium-boron fertilizers. Udobr. Uzozh. 11:33-35.

August 19, 2009
P a g e | 103
Lorenz, J.C., 2005, Assessment for Potential Karst in the Rustler Formation at the WIPP site.
Pre-publication draft of Internal WIPP document, 127 p.
Lowenstein, T.K., 1983 Deposition and Alteration of an Ancient Potash Evaporite: The Permian
Salado Formation of New Mexico and West Texas. PhD. Dissertation, The Johns Hopkins
University. 411 p.
Mercer, J.W., and Snyder, R.P., 1990, Basic Data Report for Drillholes H-17 and H-18 (Waste
Isolation Pilot Plant- WIPP), Sandia Report RS-8232-2/70269.
Mercik, S., 1981, The effect of polyhalite of varying degrees of conununitation on the yield
dynamics and uptake of nutrients by plants. Roczniki Nauk Rolniczych 104(4):53-66.
New Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources, 2008, Potash Past, Present and,
Future, Earth Matters, Summer, 2008.
Nurmi, Roy D., 1978, Use of Well Logs in Evaporite Sequences, in Marine Evaporites, SEPM
Short Course No. 4, Dean, W. E. and Schreiber, B. C., eds.
Panitkin, V. A., 1967, Effect of polyhalite on sandy loam soil. Agrokhimiya. 1:81-84.
Powers, D.W., Holt, R.M., 1999, The Los Medaos Member of the Permian (Ochoan) Rustler
Formation, New Mexico Geology, November, 1999.
Powers, D.W., Holt, R.M., Beauheim, R.L., Richardson, R.G., 2006, Advances in Depositional
Models of the Permian Rustler Formation, Southeastern New Mexico, New Mexico Geological
Society Guidebook, 57th Field Conference, Caves and Karst of Southeastern New Mexico, pp.
267-276.
Roberts, B.L., and Brainard, J.R., 2009, Interim Report on the Use of Oil and Gas Well Logs for
Potash Reserve Identification in Southeastern New Mexico. BLM publication, in press. 56 p.
Schaller, W. T., and Henderson, E.P., 1932, Mineralogy of Drill Cores from the Potash Field of
New Mexico and Texas. USGS Bull. 833, 124 p.

August 19, 2009
P a g e | 104
Snyder, R.P., 1985, Dissolution of Halite and Gypsum, and Hydration of Anhydrite to Gypsum,
Rustler Formation, in the Vicinity of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, Southeastern New Mexico,
United States Geological Survey, Open File Report, 85-229.
Spooner, J., 2007, Potash, in Country and Commodity Reports published by Mining
Journal/Mining Communications Ltd.
Spooner, J., 2006, Potash, in Country and Commodity Reports published by Mining
Journal/Mining Communications Ltd.
Spooner, J., 2000, Potash, Financial Times Executive Commodity Reports.
Terelak, H., 1974, Solubility and fertilizing value of polyhalite as affected by the degree of
crushing and calcination. Pam. Pulawski 59:39-52.
Terelak, H., 1975, The effect of polyhalite fertilizer on the content of potassium and magnesium
in the soil and plants. Pam. Pulawski 63:67-84.
U.S. Department of Energy, Sandia, NM, Compliance Certification Application for the Waste
Isolation Pilot Plant, 21 vols., DOE/CAO, 1996-2184, Title 40 CFR Part 191: vol. 2 and
appendix FAC.
United States Geological Survey, Potash in Annual Yearbooks and Mineral Commodity
Summaries.
Williams-Stroud, S.C., Searls, J. P. and Hite, R. J., 1994, Potash Resources, in Industrial
Minerals and Rocks, 6th Edition, Donald C. Carr, Senior Editor, Society for Mining, Metallurgy,
and Exploration, Inc., Littleton, Colorado.
Workman, S. M., P. N. Soltanpour, and R. H. Follett, 1988, Soil testing methods used at
Colorado State University for the evaluation of fertility, salinity and trace element toxicity.
Colorado State University Agric, Sta. Technical Bulletin LTB88-2.
Wroth, J.S., 1930, Commercial Possibilities of the Texas-New Mexico Potash Deposits. USBM
Bulletin 316. 144 p.
August 19, 2009
P a g e | 105
23.
CERTIFICATES
I, Sean C. Muller of Chemrox Technologies, Inc., do hereby certify that the following are accurate
on August 19, 2009.
1. My business address is 8547 East Arapahoe Road, Suite J-397, , Greenwood Village,
Colorado and work for Chemrox Technologies www.chemrox.com as the Operations
Manager and Senior Resource Geologist
2. I have a Bachelors degree in Earth Science from LaSalle University and a Masters in
Science degree in Geology from Idaho State University.
3. I am a consulting geologist providing professional services internationally. I have been
registered with the American Institute of Professional Geologists since 1985 and hold
licenses to practice in 8 states (one by 16 hours of examination). These licensed
organizations have the attributes of professional associations. Ive been a member of the
Society of Mining Engineers since 1979, a Registered Member and have served as the
National Chairman of the SME National Committee on Mineral Resources in 2002.
4. I have practiced my profession since 1973 and have extensive experience in exploration
and development for evaporite and other bedded deposits. This experience includes the
operation of sample preparation laboratories, drill hole planning and oversight,
geochemistry, data interpretation, metallurgy and data validation. I have also been
responsible for developing QA/QC protocols for various evaporite projects starting in
1973 and have worked over 5 years in the study and evaluation of potassium and other
evaporite deposits throughout the world.
5. I am a qualified person as that term is defined in National Instrument 43-101.
6. I monitored and reviewed relevant drill data, data sampling and laboratory preparation
activities at the Ochoa site January 3, 2009 and have visited proposed drill sites on
January 20th through 22nd, March 16th through 19th and again May 4th through May 8th,
2009 and sampled polyhalite in underground workings and nearby core for analytical and
metallurgical testing.
7. I supervised the modeling of the resource calculations, validated the data and resources
and wrote the respective geologic sections in the report entitled Polyhalite Resources
and a Preliminary Economic Assessment of the Ochoa Project, Lea County, Southeast
New Mexico dated August 19, 2008 for Trigon Uranium using the Intercontinental
Potash data.
8. I have had no prior involvement in the property which is the subject of this technical
report.
9. I am not aware of any material fact or material change with respect of the subject matter
of this Study, which is not reflected in the Study, the omission of which would make the
Study misleading.

August 19, 2009
P a g e | 106
10. I am independent of Trigon Uranium and Intercontinental Potash Corp., pursuant to

Section 1.5 of the NI43-101.
11. I do not have nor do I expect to receive direct or indirect interest in the projects of
Intercontinental Potash Corp. and do not beneficially own, directly or indirectly, any
securities, stock or options, or royalties of resources controlled by Trigon Uranium or
Intercontinental Potash Corp. or any associate or affiliate of such Companies.
12. I have personally completed an independent review and analysis of the data and written
information contained in this Technical Report.
13. I have read NI 43-101 and Form 43-101F1 and have prepared the technical report in
compliance with these, and in conformity with generally accepted Canadian mining
practice.
14. I consent to the filing of this Technical Report with the securities regulatory authorities.

August 19, 2009
P a g e | 107
I, Robert L Galyen, of Chemrox Technologies, Inc., do hereby certify that the following are accurate
on August 19, 2009.
1. My business address is 8547 East Arapahoe Road, Suite J-397, Greenwood Village,
Colorado and I work for Chemrox Technologies www.chemrox.com as the Senior
Resource Geologist
2. I have a Bachelors degree in Geology from Northern Arizona University and a Master of
Science degree in Geology from Idaho State University.
3. I am a consulting geologist providing professional services internationally. I have been
registered with the American Institute of Professional Geologists since 1992. I've been a
registered member of the Society of Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration (SME) since
2008.
4. I have practiced my profession since 1977 and have extensive experience in minerals
exploration and development. This experience includes drill hole planning and oversight,
geochemistry, data interpretation, resource estimation and data validation.
5. I am a "qualified person" as that term is defined in National Instrument 43-101.
6. I conducted modeling of the resource for the report entitled "Polyhalite Resources and a
Preliminary Economic Assessment of the Ochoa Project, Lea County, Southeast New
Mexico" dated August 19, 2008 for Trigon Uranium using the Intercontinental Potash
data.
7. I have had no prior involvement in the property which is the subject of this technical
report.
8. I am not aware of any material fact or material change with respect of the subject matter
of this Study, which is not reflected in the Study, the omission of which would make the
Study misleading.
9. I am independent of Trigon Uranium and Intercontinental Potash Corp., pursuant to
Section 1.5 of the NI43-101.
10. I do not have nor do I expect to receive direct or indirect interest in the projects of
Intercontinental Potash Corp. and do not beneficially own, directly or indirectly, any
securities, stock or options, or royalties of resources controlled by Trigon Uranium or
Intercontinental Potash Corp. or any associate or affiliate of such Companies.

August 19, 2009
P a g e | 108
William J Crowl
Vice President, Mining
274 Union Blvd, Suite 450
Lakewood, Colorado 80228
Telephone: 720-407-4062
Facsimile: 720-407-4067
Email: wcrowl@gustavson.com
CERTIFICATE of AUTHOR
I, William J. Crowl do hereby certify that:

1. I am currently employed as Vice President, Mining by Gustavson Associates, LLC at:
274 Union Boulevard
Suite 450
2. I am a graduate of the University of Southern California with a Bachelor of Arts in Earth Science
(1968), and a MSc. in Economic Geology from the University of Arizona in 1979, and have
practiced my profession continuously since 1973.
3. I am a registered Professional Geologist in the State of Oregon (G573) and am a member in good
standing of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy and the Society of Economic
Geologists.
4. I have worked as a geologist for a total of 37 years since my graduation from university; as a
graduate student, as an employee of a major mining company, a major engineering company, and
as a consulting geologist.
5. I have read the definition of qualified person set out in National Instrument 43-101 (NI 43101) and certify that by reason of my education, affiliation with a professional association (as
defined in NI 43-101) and past relevant work experience, I fulfill the requirements to be a
qualified person for the purposes of NI 43-101.
6. I take full responsibility for the technical report titled Polyhalite Resources and a Preliminary
Economic Assessment of the Ochoa Project Lea County, southeast New Mexico, dated August
19, 2009 (the Technical Report). A Personal visit of the subject properties was conducted on
August 13, 2009.
8. I have not had prior involvement with Intercontinental Potash Corp. on the property that is the
subject of this Technical Report.
9. I am not aware of any material fact or material change with respect to the subject matter of the
Technical Report that is not reflected in the Technical Report, the omission to disclose which
makes the Technical Report misleading.
10. I do not hold, nor do I expect to receive, any securities or any other interest in any corporate
entity, private or public, with interests in the properties that are the subject of this report or in the
properties themselves, nor do I have any business relationship with any such entity apart from a
professional consulting relationship with the issuer, nor to the best of my knowledge do I have
August 19, 2009
P a g e | 109
any interest in any securities of any corporate entity with property within a two (2) kilometer
distance of any of the subject properties.
11. I am independent of Intercontinental Potash Corp. in accordance with Section 1.4 of NI 43-101.
12. I have read National Instrument 43-101 and Form 43-101, and the Technical Report has been
prepared in compliance with that instrument and form.
13. I consent to the filing of the Technical Report with any stock exchanges or other regulatory
authority and any publication by them, including electronic publication in the public company
files on the websites accessible by the public, of the Technical Report.
Dated this 19th day of August, 2009.
________________________.
Signature of Qualified Person
William J Crowl
.
Print name of Qualified Person

August 19, 2009
P a g e | 110

Principal Mining Engineer
Telephone: 720-407-4062
Facsimile: 720-407-4067
Email: dhulse@gustavson.com
I, Donald E. Hulse do hereby certify that:

1. I am currently employed as Principal Mining Engineer by Gustavson Associates, LLC at:
274 Union Boulevard
Suite 450
2. I am a graduate of the Colorado School of Mines with a Bachelor of Science in Mining
Engineering (1982), and have practiced my profession continuously since 1983.
3. I am a registered Professional Engineer in the State of Colorado (35269).
4. I have worked as a mining engineer for a total of 27 years since my graduation from university; as
an employee of a major mining company, a major engineering company, and as a consulting
engineer.
6. I have contributed to the preparation of the technical report titled Polyhalite Resources and a
Preliminary Economic Assessment of the Ochoa Project Lea County, southeast New Mexico,
dated August 19, 2009 (the Technical Report) and take responsibility for verification of
resource estimation methodology and results. I have not made a visit to the project site.
August 19, 2009
P a g e | 111
________________________.

August 19, 2009
P a g e | 112
Terre A. Lane
Principal Mining Engineer
Telephone: 720-407-4062
Facsimile: 720-407-4067
Email: tlane@gustavson.com
I, Terre A. Lane do hereby certify that:

1. I am currently employed as Principal Mining Engineer by Gustavson Associates, LLC at:
274 Union Boulevard
Suite 450
2.
I am a graduate of the Michigan Technological University of Michigan with a Bachelor of

Science degree in Mining Engineering (1982).
3.
I am a member in good standing of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy.
4. I have worked as a Mine Engineer for a total of 22 years since my graduation from university; as
an employee of several mining companies, an engineering company, a mine development and
mine construction company, an exploration company, and as a consulting engineer.
dated August 19, 2009 (the Technical Report) and take responsibility for part of Section 19 of
the report, namely the conceptual mine plans, and the mine operating/capital cost estimates.. I
have not made a visit to the project site.
August 19, 2009
P a g e | 113
________________________.
Terre A. Lane
.

August 19, 2009
P a g e | 114
Richard D. Moritz
Associate Principal Mining Engineer
Telephone: 720-407-4062
Facsimile: 720-407-4067
Email: rmoritz@gustavson.com
I, Richard D. Moritz do hereby certify that:

1. I am currently employed as an Associate Principal Mining Engineer at Gustavson Associates,
LLC at:
274 Union Boulevard
Suite 450
2. I am a graduate of the Mackay School of Mines with a Bachelor of Science degree in Mining
Engineering (1979).
3. I am a member in good standing of the Mining and Metallurgy Society of America.
4. I have worked as a Mine Engineer for a total of 29 years since my graduation from university; as
an employee of several mining companies, an engineering company, and as a consulting engineer.
dated August 19, 2009 (the Technical Report) and take responsibility for part of Section 19 of
the report, namely the mine layout, production schedule, process operating/capital costs, owners
costs, and economic modeling and sensitivity. I have not made a visit to the project site.
August 19, 2009
P a g e | 115
________________________.
Richard D. Moritz

August 19, 2009
D-116
24.
GLOSSARY
Term
Definition
AA-MS
Atomic Absorption Mass Spectrometry method of chemical analysis.
AOI
Dilution
Area of Interest
The chemical analysis of polyhalite or other mineral samples to determine the potassium and
other cations/anions content.
A sedimentary rock unit generally deposited slowly over time as in a basin environment.
Sometimes referred to as seam.
Bureau of Land Management
Capital expenditures for tangible structures, shafts, mine workings and equipment that not
classified as operating costs or royalties or taxes..
Combining more than one sample result to give an average result over a larger distance or
thickness interval.
A mineral or potassium-rich product resulting from a mineral enrichment process such as
washing, in which most of the polyhalite has been separated from the waste material in the ore.
Initial process of reducing ore particle size to render it more amenable for further processing.
The grade of the polyhalite or concentration of polyhalite per weight percentage of rock that
includes gangue constituents.
Wasterock which is unavoidably mined with ore.
Dip
Angle of inclination of a geological feature/rock from the horizontal.
EA
Environmental Assessment
Fault
The surface of a fracture along which movement has occurred.
Footwall
The underlying side of an orebody or stope.
Gangue
Non-valuable components of the polyhalite ore such as halite or anhydrite.
Grade
The measure of concentration within mineralized rock.
Haulage
IRR
A horizontal underground excavation which is used to transport mined ore.

An interpolation method of assigning values from samples to blocks that minimizes the
estimation error.
Internal Rate of Return.
ICP
Intercontinental Potash Corporation
Level
Horizontal tunnel the primary purpose is the transportation of personnel and materials.
Lithological
Geological description pertaining to different rock types.
LoM Plans
Life-of-Mine plans.
Material Properties
Microscopy
Mine and mill properties.

A general term used to describe the process in which the ore is crushed and ground and
subjected to physical or chemical treatment to extract the valuable metals to a concentrate or
finished product.
Microscopic identification of minerals and textures of grains.
Mt
Million tons
Mineral/Mining Lease
A lease area for which mineral rights are held.
Mining Assets
The Material Properties and Significant Exploration Properties.
Ongoing Capital
Capital estimates of a routine nature, which is necessary for sustaining operations.
NPV
Net Present Value
OPEX
Operating expenditures for the mine and mill.
Assay:
Bed:
BLM
CAPEX
Composite
Concentrate
Crushing
Cut-off Grade (CoG)
Kriging
Milling

August 19, 2009
D-117
Term
Definition
Ore Reserve
Pillar
Indicated or measured resources that have been elevated in stature due to economic and mine
planning considerations
Rock left behind to help support the excavations in an underground mine.
QP
Qualified Person under NI 43-101
RoM
Run-of-Mine material (ore)

Pertaining to rocks formed by the accumulation of sediments, formed by the erosion of other
rocks.
An opening cut downwards from the surface for transporting personnel, equipment, supplies,
ore and waste.
Scanning electron microprobe analysis used to determine actual cations and anions in a mineral
phase.
A thin, tabular, horizontal to sub-horizontal body of igneous rock formed by the injection of
magma into planar zones of weakness.
Generally the percentage grade of the floor of an underground mine as consistent with the basal
portion of the
A bed of rock between a potential ore bearing zone that is not ore material but contamination
leading to dilution of the RoM grade. Often these beds are salts, other evaporates, shales,
siltstones or volcanic tuffs but in some instances, the splits can be sands.
Underground void created by mining.
Sedimentary
Shaft
SEM
Sill
Slope
Split
Stope
Stratigraphy
Sulfate
The study of stratified rocks in terms of time and space.

Direction of line formed by the intersection of strata surfaces with the horizontal plane, always
perpendicular to the dip direction.
A sulfur bearing mineral such as polyhalite and langbeinite.
Tailings
Finely ground waste rock from which valuable minerals or metals have been extracted.
Thickening
The process of concentrating solid particles in suspension.
Total Expenditure
All expenditures including those of an operating and capital nature.
Variogram
A statistical representation of the characteristics (usually grade).
XRD
X-ray diffraction identification of solid mineral phases

X-ray fluorescence that identifies the relative concentrations of cations and anions in a dry
sample. Often used in conjunction with XRD and computed to mineral concentrations using
mass balance calculations.
Strike
XRF

August 19, 2009
APPENDIX A
Mineralogical Investigations of Salado and Rustler Polyhalite
PETROGRAPHIC STUDY OF POTASH

CORE SAMPLES,
OCHOA PROPERTY, NEW MEXICO
PART 2
Prepared for
Intercontinental Potash Corp
1600 Jackson Street
Golden, CO 80401
Prepared by
John L. Lufkin, Ph.D.
Consulting Geologist
995 Moss Street
Golden, CO 80401
August 12, 2009
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Four polished thin sections were prepared from core from one drill hole, DDH
H17-14-1A. For brevity, sample numbers in the following discussion are abbreviated as
footage, eg., 651.8, etc. Each section was studied with a standard Nikon petrographic
microscope, equipped with both transmitted and reflected light optics, and a camera for
photomicrography.
2.0 SAMPLE PREPARATION
Four core samples, identified as H17-14-1A-651.1, 651.8, 646.4, and 646.7,
were received from International Potash, and were sent to Montrose for polished thin
section preparation by Mark Mercer. He was instructed to submerge one-half of each
core length in water for 24 hours, and to cut the thin sections perpendicular to the core
axis, producing a rock chip to be mounted that was half water treated, and the other half
not treated. Unfortunately, the competent core samples broke up when submerged,
resulting in a fractured sample that required impregnation.
After receiving the polished sections, Marc Melker suggested that we submerge
half of each of two sections (Nos. 646.4 and 646.7) in water for a short time. After one
hour, we got the desired result, which was a thin white zone of gypsum (Figures 3.3 and
3.4), confirmed later by SEM analysis).
3.0 PETROGRAPHIC STUDY

All sections were examined under transmitted light only, at magnifications of 60x
or less. All textures were very fine grained, typically less than 150 microns in maximum
dimension. Due to this fine texture, no complete optical data could be obtained on any
grains, such as 2V and optical sign. Therefore, SEM and XRD are required for accurate
mineral identification of these samples.
From previous XRD work, it was shown that these rocks contain varying amounts
of polyhalite and anhydrite, with lesser amounts of halite, magnesite, and unidentified
(probably clay). In this study, polyhalite is characterized mainly by its low birefringence,
finer grain size, and is commonly twinned, both as single and polysynthietic twins.
Anhydrite is generally coarser-grained, and features good 2- or 3-directioanl,
pseudocubic cleavage, as well as high birefringence, in blue, green, and yellow colors.
Magnesite was not identified optically.
Figure 3.1 Polished section 651.1. Plastic impregnation

is blue.
Figure 3.2 Polished section 651.8
Figure 3.3 Polished section 646.4, after submersion

in water for one hour.
Figure 3.4 Polished section 646.7, after submersion in

water for one hour.
Section 646.4
This section is very fine grained, with crystals ranging in size from minute to
about 50 microns in maximum dimension. The majority of it consists of polyhalite, with
scattered grains of an unknown, clear mineral with high relief ( labeled A, Figure 4.1).
Patches and seams of clay are widespread, and appear black in transmitted light
(Figures 3.7 and 3.8). Minute grains of polyhalite? are disseminated throughout the clay
patches.
After water treatment of this section, a white zone of gypsum was produced.
Figure 3.5 Polished thin section 646.4. Acicular crystals of gypsum. These
crystals form a very thin layer, a few microns thick, on polyhalite after the
section is placed in water for one hour or less. Transmitted light.
Figure 3.6 Polished thin section 646.4. Concave side of prominent white
gypsum zone, Figure 3.9. Transmitted light.
Figure 3.7 Polished thin section 646.4. Clay seam (black) with tiny, high
birefringent grains (polyhalite?). Transmitted light.
Figure 3.8 Polished thin section 646.4. Abundant clay patches (black).
Transmitted light.
Figure 3.9 Polished thin section 646.4, showing location of traverse

E, locations of photomicrographs, and unknown mineral locations.
Figure 3.10 Polished thin section 646.4. Typical fine-grained texture of polyhalite, with maximum length of elongate grains of approximately 60 microns
or less. Scale bar in microns, transmitted light.
Section 646.7
This section is characterized by fine to relatively coarse grain size of 300
microns, or less. Again, the mineralogy is dominated by polyhalite, which typically
features twinned grains. Unknown clear crystals, about 100 microns in length, are
scattered throughout the section. Patches of clay are also common in this section
(Figure 3.11).
After water treatment, a thin zone of white gypsum was developed (Figure 3.4).
Figure 3.11 Polished thin section 646.7. Cloudy, dark area is clay rich, and
is marked for followup SEM work. Transmitted light.
Figure 3.12 Polished thin section 646.7. Contains crisscrossing, acicular needles
of gypsum developed in thin white zone after water treatment (Figure 3.4)
Transmitted light.
Figure 3.13 Polished thin section 646.7. Well-developed twinned crystal of

polyhalite (ph), after anhydrite? (central photo). Transmitted light, crossed polars.
Section 651.1
Section shows a size range of anhydrite grains, generally 50 to 150 microns.
Anhydrite also is developed as radial clusters, as much 150 microns in diameter.
Again, patches and seams of clay are widely distributed throughout the rock.
Figure 3.14 Polished thin section 651.1. Majority of section consists of

anhydrite; note the high birefringence of grains. Transmitted light, crossed polars.
10
Figure 3.15 Polished thin section 651.1. Note right-angle cleavages in some
larger grains of anhydrite. Transmitted light, crossed polars.
Section 651.8
Section is very similar to 651.1.
Figure 3.16 Polished thin section 651.8. Transmitted light.
11
Figure 3.17 Polished thin section 651.8. Relatively coarse-grained anhydrite,

100-150 microns in diameter. Transmitted light, crossed polars.
Figure 3.18 Polished thin section 651.8. Transmitted light, crossed polars.
12
Figure 3.19 Polished thin section 651.8. Note prominent rectangular cleavage
pattern in anhydrite grain (arrow). Transmitted light, crossed nicols.
Figure 3.20 Same view of previous section. Transmitted light, crossed polars.
13
Figure 3.21 Polished thin section 651.8. Transmitted light, crossed polars.
4.0 MINERAL UNKNOWNS

Several minerals could not be identified during this study. These are pictured
below, and generally include colorless, well-formed crystals. They have been marked
for followup SEM analysis.
Figure 4.1 Polished thin section 646.4. Unknown crystal A, confirmed later
as polyhalite. Transmitted light.
14
.
Figure 4.2 Polished thin section 646.4, showing unknown grains, E1 and E1a.
E1a is site of unknown mass of clay. Unknown grains located along traverse
E, convex side of white area, Figure 3.9. Transmitted light.
Figure 4.3 Polished thin section 646.4, showing unknown grain, E4, along
Traverse E, concave side of white area, Figure 3.9. Transmitted light.
15
Figure 4.4 Polished thin section 651.8. Unknown mineral, D, confirmed later
as anhydrite. Transmitted light.
Figure 4.5 Polished thin section 651.8. Section contains several unknown,
anisotropic grains of high relief (?), confirmed later as anhydrite. Transmitted light.
16
Mineral Paragenesis
Due largely to the fine grain size of the potash samples, the sequence of mineral
deposition, or paragenesis could not be determined with any degree of confidence.
5.0 SUMMARY OF XRD RESULTS
XRD analysis of core samples from H17 are reported in Appendix A. Results of
this study for the interval 646.4-646.7 indicate the dominance of polyhalite (>90%), <5%
magnesite, and <5% unidentified. (The unidentified material most likely is clay, which
was observed in this petrographic study). In samples from 651.1-651.8 ft, anhydrite is
the major phase, 68- >85%, with lesser amounts of polyhalite, magnesite, halite, and
<5% unidentified.
After these samples were submersed in water, a white deposit was formed. XRD
analysis of the white deposit indicated that approximately half of the polyhalite was
converted to gypsum in H17-14-1A (48% gypsum, 45% polyhalite; 55% gypsum and
38% polyhalite in H17-14-1B.
6.0 SUMMARY OF SEM RESULTS
Polished sections were submitted to the Mineral Lab in Golden for followup
analysis of grains that were not identifiable under the petrographic microscope. Results
of this study are presented in Appendix B.
The image of crystal A, sample 646.4 is pictured in Figure 1, Appendix B.
Semi-quantitative SEM analysis indicates that the unidentified grain fits the chemistry
most closely to that of polyhalite---78% total SO3 + CaO, 7.0% MgO, and 13% K2O.
After submersion of the slide in water, the white material gave a non-descript, massive
appearance (Fig. 2). Analysis of this material is similar to the preceeding analysis, but
the K2O content is much higher at 23%. This material is also considered to be
polyhalite.
A thin zone of acicular white crystals near the border of the massive white zone
is shown in Figure 3. SEM analysis at point X indicates that these grains are most
likely gypsum, but they have significant contents of K2O (4.6%) and MgO (1.4%).
The third phase that was unidentified under the petrographic microscope is
shown in Figures 4 and 5, Appendix B. These crystals possess well-developed pseudocubic cleavage, with 3 cleavages intersecting at right angles. This cleavage pattern fits
that of anhydrite, and both the XRD and chemical spectra corroborate this identification.
7.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Four polished thin sections were prepared from core from one drill hole, DDH
H17-14-1A. Sections are labeled according to sample depths, eg., 651.1, 651.8, 646.4,
and 646.7. Core samples were first prepared by submerging in water to see the effects
of dissolution and precipitation of the sulfate minerals. Unfortunately, the competent
17
core samples broke up when first submerged, and the fractured samples required
impregnation. After the polished sections were prepared by Mark Mercer, and delivered
to Lufkin, two of the sections were later placed in water for one hour by Marc Melker.
This action produced the desired result of leaching and precipitation of a thin layer of
white gypsum.
Petrographic study indicates that all of the samples are fine grained, typically less
than 150 microns in maximum dimension. Under these conditions, no complete optical
data could be obtained on any of the grains, such as 2V angles and optic signs.
Therefore, SEM and XRD analyses were required for precise identifications.
Previous XRD data indicate that the majority of minerals in these sections is
either polyhalite or anhydrite. In two sample intervals, 14-1A, 646.7-647.0, and 14-1B,
646.4-646.7, over 90% of the sample contains polyhalite, and less than 5% magnesite
and unidentified (clay). In sample 12A, 651.1-651.4, anhydrite is the dominant phase
(68%), followed by 20% magnesite, 6% polyhalite, and less than 5% halite and
unidentified.
Followup analysis by SEM of several grains that were not identified by optical
microscopy confirmed the presence of polyhalite, anhydrite, and gypsum. The gypsum
is not pure, but contains appreciable K20 (4.6%) and MgO (1.4%) by weight. The clay
minerals could not be identified either by XRD or SEM.
18
APPENDICES
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
APPENDIX B
Analytical Results from the Mineral Lab and ALS Chemex
March 13, 2009

Lab no. 209145
Mr. Sean C. Muller

Intercontinental Potash Corp.
1600 Jackson Street, Suite 160
Golden, Colorado 80401
Dear Mr. Muller:
Enclosed are scanning electron microscopy (SEM) image, EDS (energy-dispersive x-ray
spectroscopy) and elemental map results for thin section samples, 119" and 6013" received
Wednesday, March 11. The analysis was performed on a rush basis so this report will be emailed to
you by Friday, March 13.
The thin sections were mounted on a holder with carbon tape for SEM examination. LV (low vacuum)
mode was used to prevent charging of the samples. LV images of the samples are shown in Figures
1 - 4. EDS spectra for the images are shown in Figures 1a - 4a. Approximate elemental compositions
for the spectra is given in Tables 1 - 4. Elemental maps were collected for each of the four images.
You specifically asked about the presence of Langbeinite (K2 Mg2 (SO4 )3 ) in your Polyhalite
(K2 Ca2 Mg(SO4 )4 . H2 O) ore. Please note that K is always associated with Ca in these samples as
shown by the elemental map data. There are very few locations on sample #119 that show
concentrated Mg. These same areas show little or no K, Ca, or S associated with the Mg. No
locations were found where K and Mg were associated without Ca present hence, no Langbeinite was
found in your two samples.
Thank you for the opportunity to be of service to Intercontinental Potash Corp.
Sincerely,
Joy Maes

SEM Image and EDS Results for Sample, 119"
March 13, 2009

Lab no. 209145
Figure 1. LV Image, 1,000x mag, 25 kV.
Figure 1a. EDS spectra for sample shown in Figure 1. 25 kV accelerating voltage.
Element
Na2 O
MgO
Al2 O3
SiO2
SO3
Cl
K2 O
CaO
Fe2 O3
4.2
10.
1.0
14.
36.
7.8
11.
12.
0.9
Approx. Wt.%
Table 1. Semi-Quantitative elemental composition in weight % for spectra shown in Figure 1a.
Analysis performed by The Mineral Lab, Inc

SEM Elemental Map Results for Sample, 119" Shown in Figure 1
Analysis Performed By The Mineral Lab, Inc.
March 13, 2009

Lab no. 209145

March 13, 2009

Lab no. 209145
Figure 2. LV Image, 500x mag, 25 kV.
Figure 2a. EDS Spectra for sample shown in Figure 2. 25 kV accelerating voltage.
Element
MgO
Al2 O3
SiO2
SO3
K2O
CaO
Fe2 O3
9.9
0.4
2.6
52.
15.
18.
0.5
Approx. Wt.%

Analysis Performed By The Mineral Lab, Inc
March 13, 2009

Lab no. 209145

March 13, 2009

Lab no. 209145
Element
MgO
SiO2
SO3
K2 O
CaO
Fe2 O3
4.6
0.5
54.
17.
21.
0.2
Approx. Wt.%

Analysis Performed By The Mineral Lab, Inc.
March 13, 2009

Lab no. 209145

March 13, 2009

Lab no. 209145
Element
MgO
SiO2
SO3
K2 O
CaO
Fe2 O3
5.0
0.3
56.
16.
20.
0.1
Approx. Wt.%

March 13, 2009

Lab no. 209145
April 2, 2009
Lab no. 209179
Mr. Sean C. Muller

Dear Mr. Muller:
Enclosed are the x-ray fluorescence (XRF) and x-ray diffraction (XRD) results for five samples received last week.
This report will be mailed and emailed to you.
A representative portion of each sample was ground to approximately -400 mesh in a steel swing mill and then
analyzed by our standard XRF procedure for 31 major, minor and trace elements. The relative precision/accuracy
for this procedure is ~510% for majorminor elements and ~1015% for trace elements (those elements listed
in ppm) at levels greater than twice the detection limit in samples of average geologic composition. A replicate
sample and a standard reference material ("SY4", a CANMET standard rock) were analyzed with the samples to
demonstrate analytical reproducibility for your samples and analytical accuracy for a geologic standard,
respectively. The accepted ("known") values for the quality control standard are listed with the XRF results.
A representative portion of each ground sample was packed into a well-type holder and then scanned with the
diffractometer over the range, 3-61 2 using Cu-K radiation. The results of the scans are summarized as
approximate mineral weight percent concentrations on the enclosed table. Estimates of mineral concentrations
were made using our XRF-determined elemental compositions and the relative peak heights/areas on the XRD
scans. The detection limit for an average mineral in these samples is ~1-3% and the analytical reproducibility is
approximately equal to the square root of the amount. "Unidentified" accounts for that portion of the XRD scan
which could not be resolved and a ? indicates doubt in both mineral identification and amount.
Sincerely,
Peggy Dalheim

XRF Results for Samples
(Sample Labels Listed Below)
IDENT
April 2, 2009
Lab no. 209179
----------------------------------------------------- Wt % ------------------------------------------------Na2O
MgO
Al2O3
SiO2
P2O5
S
Cl
K2O
CaO
TiO2
MnO
Fe2O3
BaO
1.00
3.96
0.59
0.04
5.89
0.04
0.69
3.70
1.65
8.09
<0.05
33.3
0.08
<0.01
0.66
<0.01
0.77
3.01
1.43
8.31
0.43
31.7
0.09
<0.01
0.56
<0.01
0.69
4.79
2.77
0.63
29.6
0.14
0.02
1.48
0.03
5
44.4
0.40
0.06
1.19
<0.05
1.26
51.7
0.35
1.48
<0.01
Quality Control - Replicate (R) sample and standard reference material (SY4) analyzed with samples
1(R)
0.99
3.94
14.1
43.1
0.10
5.18
0.34
4.18
8.61
0.58
<0.01
0.11
<0.01
0.04
5.83
0.04
0.11
0.11
5.54
6.21
0.04
0.04
0.75
0.54
14.5
20.7
20.7
43.6
12.5
48.1
49.9
0.10
0.34
4.26
19.6
0.73
0.36
<0.05
18.6
0.92
<0.05
15.9
0.54
0.13
0.13
5.25
<0.05
0.01
0.64
----
1.74
1.66
8.75
SY4-XRF
SY4-known
7.23
7.10
8.45
8.05
0.32
0.29
IDENT
------------------------------------------------- PPM --------------------------------------------------V

Cr
Co
Ni
W
Cu
Zn
As
Sn
Pb
Mo
Sr
U
98
67
16
25
<10
33
76
<20
<50
22
<10
968
<20
<10
<10
<10
10
<10
<10
17
25
<50
21
<10
1267
<20
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
117
20
<50
34
<10
1608
<20
<10
24
<10
14
<10
<10
25
<20
<50
19
<10
1270
<20
5
<10
Quality Control
1(R)
98
<10
<10
12
<10
10
11
21
<50
24
14
116
<20
66
15
26
<10
31
74
<20
<50
21
<10
963
<20
10
12
<10
3
<10
9
15
--
<10
7
98
93
<20
<20
<50
7
13
10
<10
<10
1204
1191
<20
<20
SY4-XRF
SY4-known
<10
8
Ident
--------------- PPM ------------Th

Nb
Zr
Rb
Y
Ident
<20
12
121
99
16
British American 122435 1965'
27
12
35
10
<10
Buckles State #1-35 3523533E 1575'
<20
<10
79
10
<10
Brininstad #1 Quasar Petro 2023533E 1535'
<20
12
52
18
<10
Stricklin #1 Whitton 52436 1965'
5
<20
Quality Control
1(R)
<20
<10
<10
<10
<10
Texaco State #1 17-235-33E 2990'
13
119
102
20
1(R)
British American 122435 1965'
18
13
498
517
60
55
118
119
SY4-XRF
SY4-known
<20
<20
------
Sample Labels ------

XRD Results for Five Samples
Complete sample labels given below
April 2, 2009
Lab no. 209179
Approx. Wt %
Mineral Name
Chemical Formula
Anhydrite
CaSO4
16
83
54
59
<5
Gypsum
CaSO4&2H2O
<3?
20
Polyhalite
K2Ca2Mg(SO4)4&2H2O
<5
Quartz
SiO2
23
10
<3
Mica/Illite
(K,Na,Ca)(Al,Mg,Fe)2(Si,Al)4O10(OH,F)2
36
<5
<5
<5
Plagioclase feldspar
(Na,Ca)Al(Si,Al)3O8
<2?
Kaolinite
Al2Si2O5(OH)4
<3?
Halite
NaCl
<2
87
Dolomite
Ca(Mg,Fe)(CO3)2
11
19
Magnesite
(Mg,Fe)CO3
<3?
<1?
Hematite
Fe2O3
<5
Unidentified
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
Sample Labels:
1. Biritish American 122435 1965'
2. Buckles State #1-35 3523533E 1575'
3. Brininstad #1 Quasar Petro 2023533E 1535'
4. Stricklin #1 Whitton 52436 1965'
5. Texaco State #1 17-235-33E 2990'
May 19, 2009

Lab no. 209283
Mr. Sean C. Muller

Dear Mr. Muller:
Enclosed are the x-ray diffraction (XRD) results for the Tray Sample received last week. This
report will be mailed and emailed to you.
The white powder was scraped from the plastic tray, ground to approximately -400 mesh in an
agate mortar, packed into a well-type holder and then scanned with the diffractometer over the
range, 3-61 2 using Cu-K radiation. The results of the scan are summarized as approximate
mineral weight percent concentrations on the enclosed table. Estimates of mineral
concentrations were made using our XRF-determined elemental composition and the relative
peak heights/areas on the XRD scan. The detection limit for an average mineral in this sample
is ~1-3% and the analytical reproducibility is approximately equal to the square root of the
amount. "Unidentified" accounts for that portion of the XRD scan which could not be resolved.
Sincerely,
Peggy Dalheim

XRD Results for Tray Sample
May 19, 2009

Lab no. 209283
Mineral Name
Chemical Formula
Approx. Wt %
Picromerite
K2Mg(SO4)2&6H2O
62
Syngenite
K2Ca(SO4)2&H2O
12
Hexahydrite
MgSO4&6H2O
15
Gypsum
CaSO4&2H2O
Halite
NaCl
<3
Unidentified
<5
July 8, 2009
Lab no. 209358
Mr. Sean C. Muller

Dear Mr. Muller:
Enclosed are the x-ray fluorescence (XRF) and x-ray diffraction (XRD) results for eight H-17-14" core samples
received last week. This report will be mailed and emailed to you.
Each sample was crushed to -1/4" size before grinding and analysis. A representative portion of each crushed
sample was ground to approximately -400 mesh in a steel swing mill and then analyzed by our standard XRF
procedure for 31 major, minor and trace elements. The relative precision/accuracy for this procedure is ~510%
for majorminor elements and ~1015% for trace elements (those elements listed in ppm) at levels greater than
twice the detection limit in samples of average geologic composition. A replicate sample and a standard reference
material ("SY4", a CANMET standard rock) were analyzed with the samples to demonstrate analytical
reproducibility for your samples and analytical accuracy for a geologic standard, respectively. The accepted
("known") values for the quality control standard are listed with the XRF results.
approximate mineral weight percent concentrations on the enclosed table. Estimates of mineral concentrations
were made using our XRF-determined elemental compositions and the relative peak heights/areas on the XRD
scans. The detection limit for an average mineral in these samples is ~1-3% and the analytical reproducibility is
approximately equal to the square root of the amount. "Unidentified" accounts for that portion of the XRD scan
which could not be resolved and a ? indicates doubt in both mineral identification and amount.
Thank you for the opportunity to be of continuing service to Intercontinental Potash Corp.
Sincerely,
Peggy Dalheim

XRF Results for, H-17-14" Samples
Page 1 of 2 (Sample labels listed on Page 2)
IDENT
July 8, 2009
Lab no. 209358
----------------------------------------------------- Wt % ------------------------------------------------MgO
Al2O3
SiO2
P2O 5
S
Cl
K2 O
CaO
TiO2
MnO
Fe2O3
BaO
Na2O
0.33
8.46
0.05
0.48
<0.05
19.5
0.04
14.0
16.1
<0.01
<0.01
0.03
<0.01
0.39
8.48
0.07
0.44
<0.05
19.3
0.02
13.6
16.2
<0.01
<0.01
0.05
<0.01
0.26
8.90
0.07
0.46
<0.05
19.4
0.03
13.7
16.6
<0.01
<0.01
0.03
<0.01
0.23
8.35
0.07
0.46
<0.05
19.1
0.03
12.9
16.9
<0.01
<0.01
0.03
<0.01
0.25
7.84
0.08
0.59
<0.05
19.6
0.05
12.3
18.8
<0.01
<0.01
0.05
<0.01
0.37
6.35
0.15
1.48
<0.05
19.9
0.18
5.79
28.2
<0.01
<0.01
0.07
<0.01
0.33
5.82
0.13
1.47
<0.05
19.8
0.16
3.96
30.2
<0.01
<0.01
0.07
<0.01
8
0.47
8.65
0.19
2.20
<0.05
18.8
0.30
3.65
28.9
<0.01
1(R)
0.31
8.41
0.06
0.47
<0.05
19.4
0.03
13.9
16.0
<0.01
<0.01
0.08
<0.01
<0.01
0.03
<0.01
0.11
0.11
5.51
6.21
0.04
0.04
SY4-XRF
SY4-known
6.96
7.10
IDENT
------------------------------------------------- PPM --------------------------------------------------V

Cr
Co
Ni
W
Cu
Zn
As
Sn
Pb
Mo
Sr
U
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<20
<50
26
17
3844
<20
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<20
<50
25
18
3788
<20
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
17
<20
<50
29
19
4003
<20
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<20
<50
26
24
4078
<20
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
18
<20
<50
25
20
4901
<20
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<20
<50
28
19
4588
<20
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<20
<50
24
15
3791
<20
8
<10
Quality Control
1(R)
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<20
<50
24
22
5759
<20
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<20
<50
26
17
3828
<20
SY4-XRF
SY4-known
<10
12
<10
3
<10
9
13
--
<10
7
96
93
<20
<20
<50
7
15
10
<10
<10
1193
1191
<20
<20
<10
8
0.76
0.54
20.6
20.7
47.9
49.9
Initial _________
Date ___________
0.14
0.13
<0.05
0.01
0.52
----
1.75
1.66
8.49
8.05
0.32
0.29

XRF Results for, H-17-14" Samples
Page 2 of 2 (Sample labels listed on Page 2)
July 8, 2009
Lab no. 209358
Ident
--------------- PPM ------------Th

Nb
Zr
Rb
Y
Ident
Sample Label
<20
<10
<10
11
17
H-17-14-2, 646.00-646.40
<20
<10
10
<10
15
H-17-14-3, 645.60-646.00
<20
<10
<10
10
16
H-17-14-4, 645.10-645.60
<20
<10
13
<10
17
H-17-14-5, 644.70-645.10
<20
<10
<10
11
16
H-17-14-6A, 644.45-644.70
<20
<10
<10
<10
21
H-17-14-6B, 644.15-644.45
<20
<10
10
<10
17
H-17-14-7, 644.00-644.15
8
<20
Quality Control
1(R)
<20
<10
<10
<10
20
H-17-14-8, 643.60-644.00
<10
<10
<10
15
1(R)
H-17-14-2, 646.00-646.40
11
13
487
517
62
55
112
119
SY4-XRF
SY4-known
<20
<20
Initial _________
Date ___________

XRD Results for H-17-14" Core Samples
Page 1 of 2
July 8, 2009
Lab no. 209358
Approx. Wt %
Mineral Name
Chemical Formula
Polyhalite
K2Ca2Mg(SO4)4&2H2O
Anhydrite
-2
-3
-4
-5
646.00-646.40 645.60-646.00 645.10-645.60 644.70-645.10
>90
>90
>90
>85
CaSO4
Magnesite
MgCO3
<5
<5
<5
<5
Halite
NaCl
Unidentified
<5
<5
<5
<5
Initial ________
Date _________

XRD Results for H-17-14" Core Samples
Page 2 of 2
July 8, 2009
Lab no. 209358
Approx. Wt %
Mineral Name
Chemical Formula
Polyhalite
K2Ca2Mg(SO4)4&2H2O
Anhydrite
-6A
-6B
-7
-8
644.45-644.70 644.15-644.45 644.00-644.15 643.60-644.00
>85
36
25
23
CaSO4
52
63
60
Magnesite
MgCO3
<3?
13
Halite
NaCl
<1?
<1?
<1?
Unidentified
<5
<5
<5
<5
Initial ________
Date _________
July 21, 2009

Lab no. 209386
Mr. Sean C. Muller

Dear Mr. Muller:
Enclosed are the x-ray fluorescence (XRF) results for four H17" core samples and the x-ray diffraction (XRD) results
for the four core samples plus the white deposit scraped from two of the core samples received last week. This report
will be mailed and emailed to you, as usual.
Each core sample was crushed to -1/4" size before grinding and analysis. A representative portion of each crushed
sample was ground to approximately -400 mesh in a steel swing mill and then analyzed by our standard XRF procedure
for 31 major, minor and trace elements. The relative precision/accuracy for this procedure is ~510% for majorminor
elements and ~1015% for trace elements (those elements listed in ppm) at levels greater than twice the detection limit
in samples of average geologic composition. A replicate sample and a standard reference material ("SY4", a CANMET
standard rock) were analyzed with the samples to demonstrate analytical reproducibility for your samples and analytical
accuracy for a geologic standard, respectively. The accepted ("known") values for the quality control standard are listed
with the XRF results.
diffractometer over the range, 3-61 2 using Cu-K radiation. The two white deposits were scraped from the core
samples, ground to approximately -400 mesh in an agate mortar, packed into well type holders and then scanned with
the diffractometer over the range, 3-61 2 using Cu-K radiation. The results of the scans are summarized as
approximate mineral weight percent concentrations on the two enclosed tables of XRD results (one table for core
samples and one table for white deposits). Estimates of mineral concentrations were made using our XRF-determined
elemental compositions and the relative peak heights/areas on the XRD scans. The detection limit for an average
mineral in these samples is ~1-3% and the analytical reproducibility is approximately equal to the square root of the
amount. "Unidentified" accounts for that portion of the XRD scan which could not be resolved and a ? indicates doubt
in both mineral identification and amount.
Sincerely,
Peggy Dalheim

XRF Results for, H17" Samples
(Complete Sample Labels Listed Below)
IDENT
July 20, 2009

Lab no. 209386
----------------------------------------------------- Wt % ------------------------------------------------Na2O
MgO
Al2O3
SiO2
P2O5
S
Cl
K2O
CaO
TiO2
MnO
Fe2O3
BaO
H17-14-1A
0.24
7.96
0.04
0.41
<0.05
20.0
0.02
12.9
15.1
<0.01
<0.01
0.02
<0.01
H17-14-1B
0.18
7.47
0.06
0.42
<0.05
19.0
<0.02
12.4
14.4
<0.01
<0.01
0.03
<0.01
H17-12A
0.91
0.38
2.81
<0.05
18.3
1.04
29.1
0.01
<0.01
0.14
<0.01
H17-12B
2.08
2.62
0.09
0.77
<0.05
21.1
2.37
0.04
35.1
<0.01
H17-14-1A(R)
0.24
7.89
0.04
0.40
<0.05
19.8
0.04
12.8
15.0
<0.01
<0.01
0.04
<0.01
<0.01
0.02
<0.01
0.10
0.11
5.39
6.21
0.04
0.04
10.6
SY4-XRF
SY4-known
7.01
7.10
IDENT
------------------------------------------------- PPM --------------------------------------------------V

Cr
Co
Ni
W
Cu
Zn
As
Sn
Pb
Mo
Sr
U
H17-14-1A
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<20
<50
15
22
3953
<20
H17-14-1B
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<20
<50
12
20
3668
<20
H17-12A
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<20
<50
10
20
1171
<20
H17-12B
<10
Quality Control
H17-14-1A(R)
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<20
<50
16
16
1134
<20
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<20
<50
13
23
3939
<20
SY4-XRF
SY4-known
<10
8
<10
12
<10
3
<10
9
17
--
<10
7
97
93
<20
<20
<50
7
12
10
<10
<10
1168
1191
<20
<20
Ident
--------------- PPM ------------Th

Nb
Zr
Rb
Y
------ Complete Sample Labels ----Ident
H17-14-1A
<20
<10
<10
<10
11
H17-14-1A 646.70'-647.00'
H17-14-1B
<20
<10
<10
<10
<10
H17-14-1B 646.40'-646.70'
H17-12A
<20
<10
<10
<10
<10
H17-12A 651.10'-651.40'
H17-12B
<20
Quality Control
H17-14-1A(R)
20
<10
<10
<10
<10
H17-12B 651.40'-651.80'
<10
<10
<10
15
15
13
494
517
60
55
112
119
SY4-XRF
SY4-known
<20
<20
0.79
0.54
19.6
20.7
48.3
49.9
Initial
Date
0.15
0.13
<0.05
0.01
0.54
----
1.04
1.68
1.66
8.27
8.05
0.32
0.29
H17-14-1A 646.70'-647.00'(R)

XRD Results for H17 Core Samples
July 21, 2009

Lab no. 209386
Approx. Wt %
14-1A
646.7-647.0
14-1B
646.4-646.7
12A
651.1-651.4
12B
651.4-651.8
Mineral Name
Chemical Formula
Polyhalite
K2Ca2Mg(SO4)4&2H2O
>90
>90
Magnesite
MgCO3
<5
<5
20
<5
Anhydrite
CaSO4
68
>85
Halite
NaCl
<3
<5
Unidentified
<5
<5
<5
<5
Initial _______
Date ________

XRD Results for White Deposits on H17 Core Samples
July 21, 2009

Lab no. 209386
Approx. Wt %
Mineral Name
Chemical Formula
H17-14-1A
H17-14-1B
Gypsum
CaSO4&2H2O
48
55
Polyhalite
K2Ca2Mg(SO4)4&2H2O
45
38
Magnesite
MgCO3
<5
<3
Unidentified
<5
<5
Initial ________
Date ________
July 31, 2009

Lab no. 209418
Mr. Sean C. Muller

Dear Mr. Muller:
Enclosed are the x-ray fluorescence (XRF) and the x-ray diffraction (XRD) analytical results for eleven samples
submitted yesterday, July 30 by RDI on your behalf. These samples were analyzed on a rush basis (one business
day to the next turnaround) so this report will be emailed to you on Friday, July 31.
approximate mineral weight percent concentrations on the enclosed table of XRD results. Estimates of mineral
concentrations were made using our XRF-determined elemental compositions and the relative peak heights/areas
on the XRD scans. The detection limit for an average mineral in these samples is ~1-3% and the analytical
reproducibility is approximately equal to the square root of the amount. "Unidentified" accounts for that portion of
the XRD scan which could not be resolved and a ? indicates doubt in both mineral identification and amount.
Sincerely,
Peggy Dalheim

XRF Rush Results for Samples Received Thursday, July 30
Page 1 of 2
IDENT
July 31, 2009

Lab no. 209418
----------------------------------------------------- Wt % ------------------------------------------------Na2O
MgO
Al2O3
SiO2
P2O5
S
Cl
K2O
CaO
TiO2
MnO
Fe2O3
BaO
IP HEAD
0.96
8.15
0.86
4.20
<0.05
18.1
0.95
7.97
19.7
0.03
<0.01
0.56
<0.01
+8 MESH
0.70
6.83
0.06
0.77
<0.05
19.8
0.74
9.23
20.8
<0.01
<0.01
0.05
<0.01
8X14 MESH
0.54
6.74
0.11
1.04
<0.05
19.0
0.52
8.88
19.7
<0.01
<0.01
0.07
<0.01
14X28 MESH
0.92
7.87
0.33
2.20
<0.05
18.2
0.86
8.08
19.8
0.01
<0.01
0.16
<0.01
28x48 mesh
0.96
7.71
0.53
2.88
<0.05
18.9
1.02
8.61
19.9
0.02
<0.01
0.35
<0.01
48X65 MESH
1.17
7.67
1.07
4.83
<0.05
18.3
1.26
8.34
19.0
0.04
<0.01
0.82
<0.01
-65 MESH
1.04
7.78
2.02
8.60
<0.05
17.6
1.11
7.10
19.3
0.08
0.02
1.70
<0.01
1 AFTERWASH
0.08
4.69
0.77
4.03
<0.05
18.9
<0.02
0.37
30.5
0.03
<0.01
0.62
<0.01
1 AFTERLEACH
0.13
4.81
0.80
3.95
<0.05
18.8
0.02
1.45
29.0
0.03
<0.01
0.65
<0.01
2 AFTERWASH
0.08
5.14
0.80
4.25
<0.05
18.9
<0.02
0.35
30.4
0.03
<0.01
0.71
<0.01
2 AFTERLEACH
0.08
4.11
0.73
3.72
<0.05
18.9
<0.02
0.95
29.8
0.03
IP HEAD(R)
0.93
8.06
0.82
4.11
<0.05
17.9
0.92
7.75
19.2
0.03
<0.01
0.73
<0.01
<0.01
0.55
<0.01
SY4-XRF
SY4-known
IDENT
7.19
0.70
21.4
48.9
0.10
<0.05
0.52
1.67
8.34
0.30
0.10
5.38
0.04
7.10
0.54
20.7
49.9
0.13
0.01
---1.66
8.05
0.29
0.11
6.21
0.04
------------------------------------------------- PPM --------------------------------------------------V
Cr
Co
Ni
W
Cu
Zn
As
Sn
Pb
Mo
Sr
U
IP HEAD
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
47
68
28
<50
75
14
3399
<20
+8 MESH
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<20
<50
18
12
4009
<20
8X14 MESH
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<20
<50
15
12
3705
<20
14X28 MESH
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<20
<50
14
13
3493
<20
28x48 mesh
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
35
43
28
<50
57
16
3675
<20
48X65 MESH
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
55
113
44
<50
106
17
3460
<20
-65 MESH
<10
<10
13
<10
<10
238
287
57
<50
329
17
2908
<20
1 AFTERWASH
<10
<10
<10
10
<10
62
88
30
<50
91
12
4755
<20
1 AFTERLEACH
<10
<10
<10
10
<10
70
99
33
<50
104
12
4755
<20
2 AFTERWASH
<10
<10
<10
10
<10
75
107
41
<50
94
13
4640
<20
2 AFTERLEACH
<10
<10
<10
11
<10
80
109
30
<50
116
13
4891
<20
IP HEAD(R)
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
46
66
26
<50
73
17
3343
<20
SY4-XRF
SY4-known
<10
8
<10
12
<10
3
<10
9
15
--
<10
7
95
93
<20
<20
<50
7
12
10
<10
<10
1167
1191
<20
<20
Initial
Date

Page 2 of 2
Ident
--------------- PPM ------------Th

Nb
Zr
Rb
Y
IP HEAD
<20
<10
12
<10
15
+8 MESH
<20
<10
<10
<10
14
8X14 MESH
23
<10
<10
<10
13
14X28 MESH
<20
<10
<10
<10
11
28x48 mesh
26
<10
<10
<10
17
48X65 MESH
<20
<10
10
<10
16
-65 MESH
<20
<10
32
14
19
1 AFTERWASH
<20
<10
<10
<10
19
1 AFTERLEACH
<20
<10
12
<10
18
2 AFTERWASH
<20
<10
10
<10
20
2 AFTERLEACH
<20
Quality Control
IP HEAD(R)
<20
<10
10
<10
19
<10
15
<10
14
12
13
477
517
62
55
113
119
SY4-XRF
SY4-known
<20
<20
Initial
Date
July 31, 2009

Lab no. 209418
52
<3?
K2Ca2Mg(SO4)4&2H2O
CaSO4
(K,Na)Al3(SO4)2(OH)6
K2Ca5(SO4)6&H2O
MgCO3
NaCl
SiO2
(Mg,Fe,Al)6(Si,Al)4O10(OH)
?
Polyhalite
Anhydrite
Alunite
Gorgeyite
Magnesite
Halite
Quartz
Mica/illite
Chlorite
Unidentified
<5
<1?
<2
27
62
+8 Mesh
<5
<2?
<1
26
64
8x14 Mesh
<5
<2
<2
28
58
<5
<3
<2
25
62
<5
<5
<5
<3
23
55
14x28 Mesh 28x48 Mesh 48x65 Mesh
Approx. Wt %
July 31, 2009

Lab no. 209418
Date ________
Initial _______
Note - Sr and Mg probably substitute for Ca in the sulfate minerals. The hydration may be more or less than indicated in the above general formulae.
<5
<5
<2
10
28
IP Head
Chemical Formula
Mineral Name

XRD Rush Results for Samples Received July 30
Page 1 of 2
46
K2Ca2Mg(SO4)4&2H2O
CaSO4
K2Ca5(SO4)6&H2O
MgCO3
NaCl
SiO2
?
Polyhalite
Anhydrite
Alunite
Gorgeyite
Magnesite
Halite
Quartz
Mica/illite
Chlorite
Unidentified
<5
<5
<5
79
<5
<3?
<5
10
72
<5?
<5
<3
<5
10
80
<5
<3
<5
75
1 AfterWash 1 AfterLeach 2 AfterWash 2 AfterLeach
Approx. Wt %
July 31, 2009

Lab no. 209418
Date ________
Initial _______
<5
<3?
<5
<5
<3
10
29
-65 Mesh
Chemical Formula
Mineral Name

Page 2 of 2
APPENDIX C
Metallurgical Test Results from RDI
Appendix
Project:
Date:
Int. Potash
29-Jul-09
Screen Assay Test No. 1

Purpose:
To determine the distribution of polyhalite in the sample.
Sample:
Approximately 1 kilogram of the Composite sample crushed to a nominal 6 mesh.
Procedure:
The sample was dry screened and a representative portion from each screen fraction removed, then
pulverized and submitted for chemical analysis by XRF/XRD
Results:
Product
Mesh
Microns
(Retained)
Feed (Analyzed)
Feed (Calculated)
+8
8 x 14
14 x 28
28 x 48
48 x 65
- 65
3,350
1,180
600
300
212
212
Weight
Direct
grams
%
1000.0
999.6
100.0
120.6
320.4
206.1
138.4
43.8
170.3
12.1
32.1
20.6
13.8
4.4
17.0
Cumm
% Retained
12.1
44.1
64.7
78.6
83.0
100.0
Analysis
% Polyhalite
52
58.78
% Dist.
Polyhalite
62
64
58
62
55
46
12.72
34.90
20.34
14.60
4.10
13.33
Cumm %
Polyhalite Passing
Assay, % Polyhalite in
screen undersize
87.28
52.38
32.03
17.43
13.33
0.00
58.34
55.10
53.40
47.84
46.00
0.00
100.0
Weight Percent and Percent Passing
100
90
80
Percent
70
60
50
40
30
20
Weight % Passing
10
Percent of polyhalite passing
0
10
100
1,000
Screen Size, Microns
10,000
Appendix
Agitated Leaching Test 1
RDi Project:
Date:
Int. Potash
29-Jul-09
Purpose:
To examine the solubility of polyhalite.
Sample:
Approximately 500 g of Composite sample.
Procedure:
The composite material was staged ground until it passed a 20 mesh screen. It was then heated for one hour in an oven at 450 C.
The material was then transferred to a beaker and quenched with water at 210 F at a solids of 25%.The slurry was maintained at
o
210 F under agitation for 50 minutes. After 50 minutes, a sample of solution was removed for ICP analysis. The slurry was filtered,
repulped, and washed three times with 1.5 liters of water (4.5 L Total). The combined wash water was sampled for ICP analysis.
After washing, the slurry was filtered and dried. After drying, a representative sample of the solids was submitted for XRF/XRD and
ICP analysis.
Conditions:
Grind
100% minus 20 mesh
Leach Time
50 minutes
% Solids
25% Solids
Summary of Results:
Parameter
Total Extraction, % (1)
Extraction before wash, % (1)
Assayed Head, % (XRF)
Calculated Head, %
Final Tail Assay, %
Ca
Mg
Min.
97.9
93.1
6.6
14.19
0.33
5.1
0.8
14.1
14.60
23.00
67.8
63.5
4.9
4.19
2.31
50

K
Ca
Mg
97.9
67.8
5.1
% solids of composite sample

% solids of leach cake after filtration
95.8%
69.0%
Detailed Results:
A. Leach Conditions
Time
min
0
50
Total
Net Pulp
Weight
g
Net Soln
Volume
ml
1977
2100
1750
1873
Reagents Added, g
B. Products and Analyses
Leach Product
Feed (analyzed by XRF)
Feed (computed)
50 min Preg
Dry Residue before Wash
Wash
Dry Residue after Wash
(1)
Based on calculated head assays.
Weight
g
Volume
ml
500
K
%
6.6
14.19
1873
72.7
35274
323
Sulfate Sulfur
%
7113
2.06
632
23.00
ppm
4.9
4.19
23.40
696
0.33
Mg
ppm
14.1
14.60
1.01
4916
227.2
Ca
ppm
14.41
184
2.31
13.13
Appendix
Agitated Leaching Test 2
RDi Project:
Date:
Int. Potash
29-Jul-09
Purpose:
To examine the solubility of polyhalite.
Sample:
Approximately 500 g of Composite sample.
Procedure:
The composite material was staged ground until it passed a 20 mesh screen. It was then heated for one hour in an oven at 450 C.
The material was then transferred to a beaker and quenched with water at 210 F at a solids of 25%.The slurry was maintained at
o
210 F under agitation for 50 minutes. After 50 minutes, a sample of solution was removed for ICP analysis. The slurry was filtered,
repulped, and washed three times with 1.5 liters of water (4.5 L Total). The combined wash water was sampled for ICP analysis.
After washing, the slurry was filtered and dried. After drying, a representative sample of the solids was submitted for XRF/XRD and
ICP analysis.
Conditions:
Grind
100% minus 20 mesh
Leach Time
50 minutes
% Solids
25% Solids
Summary of Results:
Parameter
Extraction before wash, % (1)
Assayed Head, % (XRF)
Calculated Head, %
Final Tail Assay, %
Ca
Mg
Min.
97.8
95.1
6.6
10.94
0.30
5.2
0.7
14.1
15.60
25.42
60.3
58.4
4.9
3.63
2.47
50

K
Ca
Mg
97.8
60.3
5.2
% solids of composite sample

% solids of leach cake after filtration
95.8%
68.2%
Detailed Results:
A. Leach Conditions
Time
min
0
50
Total
Net Pulp
Weight
g
Net Soln
Volume
ml
1981
1851
1746
1616
Reagents Added, g
B. Products and Analyses
Leach Product
Feed (analyzed by XRF)
Feed (computed)
50 min Preg
Dry Residue before Wash
Wash
Dry Residue after Wash
(1)
Based on calculated head assays.
Weight
g
Volume
ml
500
K
%
6.6
10.94
1616
69.3
32198
352
Sulfate Sulfur
%
6556
2.00
759
25.42
ppm
4.9
3.63
20.44
325
0.30
Mg
ppm
14.1
15.60
0.73
4555
235.2
Ca
ppm
15.08
77
2.47
13.58
Sample Label
H 17 - 1
H 17 - 2
H 17 - 3
H 17 - 4
H 17 - 5
H 17 - 6
H 17 - 7
H 17 - 12A
H 17 - 12B
H 17 - 14 - 1A
H 17 - 14 - 1B
H 17 - 14 - 2
H 17 - 14 - 3
H 17 - 14 - 4
H 17 - 14 - 5
H 17 - 14 - 6A
H 17 - 14 - 6B
H 17 - 14 - 7
H 17 - 14 - 8
Total
Total Wt (g)
697.5
675.4
763.1
634
888.6
868.1
71.2
212.7
290.7
239
125
235
429
156.5
434.4
249.2
279.8
89.9
338.2
Wt in Composite (g)
348.7
337
381.6
317.1
444.3
433.9
35.6
106.3
145.4
119.5
62.5
117
214.5
78.1
217.1
124.6
139
45
169.2
3836.4
Wt %
9.1%
8.8%
9.9%
8.3%
11.6%
11.3%
0.9%
2.8%
3.8%
3.1%
1.6%
3.0%
5.6%
2.0%
5.7%
3.2%
3.6%
1.2%
4.4%
100%
July 31, 2009

Lab no. 209418
Mr. Sean C. Muller

Dear Mr. Muller:
Enclosed are the x-ray fluorescence (XRF) and the x-ray diffraction (XRD) analytical results for eleven samples
submitted yesterday, July 30 by RDI on your behalf. These samples were analyzed on a rush basis (one business
day to the next turnaround) so this report will be emailed to you on Friday, July 31.
diffractometer over the range, 3-61 22 using Cu-K" radiation. The results of the scans are summarized as
approximate mineral weight percent concentrations on the enclosed table of XRD results. Estimates of mineral
concentrations were made using our XRF-determined elemental compositions and the relative peak heights/areas
on the XRD scans. The detection limit for an average mineral in these samples is ~1-3% and the analytical
reproducibility is approximately equal to the square root of the amount. "Unidentified" accounts for that portion of
the XRD scan which could not be resolved and a ? indicates doubt in both mineral identification and amount.
Sincerely,
Peggy Dalheim

Page 1 of 2
IDENT
July 31, 2009

Lab no. 209418
----------------------------------------------------- Wt % ------------------------------------------------Na2O
MgO
Al2O3
SiO2
P2O5
S
Cl
K2O
CaO
TiO2
MnO
Fe2O3
BaO
IP HEAD
0.96
8.15
0.86
4.20
<0.05
18.1
0.95
7.97
19.7
0.03
<0.01
0.56
<0.01
+8 MESH
0.70
6.83
0.06
0.77
<0.05
19.8
0.74
9.23
20.8
<0.01
<0.01
0.05
<0.01
8X14 MESH
0.54
6.74
0.11
1.04
<0.05
19.0
0.52
8.88
19.7
<0.01
<0.01
0.07
<0.01
14X28 MESH
0.92
7.87
0.33
2.20
<0.05
18.2
0.86
8.08
19.8
0.01
<0.01
0.16
<0.01
28x48 mesh
0.96
7.71
0.53
2.88
<0.05
18.9
1.02
8.61
19.9
0.02
<0.01
0.35
<0.01
48X65 MESH
1.17
7.67
1.07
4.83
<0.05
18.3
1.26
8.34
19.0
0.04
<0.01
0.82
<0.01
-65 MESH
1.04
7.78
2.02
8.60
<0.05
17.6
1.11
7.10
19.3
0.08
0.02
1.70
<0.01
1 AFTERWASH
0.08
4.69
0.77
4.03
<0.05
18.9
<0.02
0.37
30.5
0.03
<0.01
0.62
<0.01
1 AFTERLEACH
0.13
4.81
0.80
3.95
<0.05
18.8
0.02
1.45
29.0
0.03
<0.01
0.65
<0.01
2 AFTERWASH
0.08
5.14
0.80
4.25
<0.05
18.9
<0.02
0.35
30.4
0.03
<0.01
0.71
<0.01
2 AFTERLEACH
0.08
4.11
0.73
3.72
<0.05
18.9
<0.02
0.95
29.8
0.03
IP HEAD(R)
0.93
8.06
0.82
4.11
<0.05
17.9
0.92
7.75
19.2
0.03
<0.01
0.73
<0.01
<0.01
0.55
<0.01
SY4-XRF
SY4-known
IDENT
7.19
0.70
21.4
48.9
0.10
<0.05
0.52
1.67
8.34
0.30
0.10
5.38
0.04
7.10
0.54
20.7
49.9
0.13
0.01
---1.66
8.05
0.29
0.11
6.21
0.04
------------------------------------------------- PPM --------------------------------------------------V
Cr
Co
Ni
W
Cu
Zn
As
Sn
Pb
Mo
Sr
U
IP HEAD
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
47
68
28
<50
75
14
3399
<20
+8 MESH
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<20
<50
18
12
4009
<20
8X14 MESH
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<20
<50
15
12
3705
<20
14X28 MESH
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<20
<50
14
13
3493
<20
28x48 mesh
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
35
43
28
<50
57
16
3675
<20
48X65 MESH
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
55
113
44
<50
106
17
3460
<20
-65 MESH
<10
<10
13
<10
<10
238
287
57
<50
329
17
2908
<20
1 AFTERWASH
<10
<10
<10
10
<10
62
88
30
<50
91
12
4755
<20
1 AFTERLEACH
<10
<10
<10
10
<10
70
99
33
<50
104
12
4755
<20
2 AFTERWASH
<10
<10
<10
10
<10
75
107
41
<50
94
13
4640
<20
2 AFTERLEACH
<10
<10
<10
11
<10
80
109
30
<50
116
13
4891
<20
IP HEAD(R)
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
46
66
26
<50
73
17
3343
<20
SY4-XRF
SY4-known
<10
8
<10
12
<10
3
<10
9
15
--
<10
7
95
93
<20
<20
<50
7
12
10
<10
<10
1167
1191
<20
<20
Initial
Date

Page 2 of 2
Ident
--------------- PPM ------------Th

Nb
Zr
Rb
Y
IP HEAD
<20
<10
12
<10
15
+8 MESH
<20
<10
<10
<10
14
8X14 MESH
23
<10
<10
<10
13
14X28 MESH
<20
<10
<10
<10
11
28x48 mesh
26
<10
<10
<10
17
48X65 MESH
<20
<10
10
<10
16
-65 MESH
<20
<10
32
14
19
1 AFTERWASH
<20
<10
<10
<10
19
1 AFTERLEACH
<20
<10
12
<10
18
2 AFTERWASH
<20
<10
10
<10
20
2 AFTERLEACH
<20
Quality Control
IP HEAD(R)
<20
<10
10
<10
19
<10
15
<10
14
12
13
477
517
62
55
113
119
SY4-XRF
SY4-known
<20
<20
Initial
Date
July 31, 2009

Lab no. 209418

Page 1 of 2
July 31, 2009

Lab no. 209418
Approx. Wt %
Mineral Name
Chemical Formula
IP Head
+8 Mesh
8x14 Mesh
14x28 Mesh 28x48 Mesh 48x65 Mesh
Polyhalite
K2Ca2Mg(SO4)4C2H2O
52
62
64
58
62
55
Anhydrite
CaSO4
28
27
26
28
25
23
Alunite
<3?
Gorgeyite
K2Ca5(SO4)6CH2O
Magnesite
MgCO3
10
Halite
NaCl
<2
<2
<1
<2
<2
<3
Quartz
SiO2
<5
<1?
<2?
<2
<3
<5
Mica/illite
<5
Chlorite
Unidentified
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
Initial _______
Date ________

Page 2 of 2
July 31, 2009

Lab no. 209418
Approx. Wt %
Mineral Name
Chemical Formula
-65 Mesh
1 AfterWash 1 AfterLeach 2 AfterWash 2 AfterLeach
Polyhalite
K2Ca2Mg(SO4)4C2H2O
46
<5?
Anhydrite
CaSO4
29
79
72
80
75
Alunite
Gorgeyite
K2Ca5(SO4)6CH2O
Magnesite
MgCO3
10
10
10
Halite
NaCl
<3
Quartz
SiO2
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
Mica/illite
<5
<5
<3?
<3
<3
Chlorite
<3?
Unidentified
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
Initial _______
Date ________
LABORATORY
Florin Analytical Services, LLC
FAS_CLIENT
F-174
F-174
F-174
F-174
COMPANY
Resource Development, Inc.
FAS_WORK_O
092040
092040
092040
092040
FAS_SAMPLE
1
2
3
4
CLIENT_SAM
IP #1 After Leach
IP #2 After Leach
IP #1 After Wash
IP #2 After Wash

7950 Security Circle - Reno, Nevada 89506 - Phone (775) 677-2177 - FAX (775) 972-4567
Certificate of Analysis
Submitted By: Resource Development, Inc
11475 West I-70 Frontage Road
North Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
Attention: Mr. Deepak Malhotra
Method: 4 Acid digestion, ICP Analysis.
Element:
Al
As
Ba
Detection Limit:
0.01
10
1
Reporting Unit:
% ppm ppm
Bi
10
ppm
Ca
0.01
%
Cd
1
ppm
Co
1
ppm
Cr
1
ppm
Cu
2
ppm
Fe
0.01
%
K
0.01
%
Mg
0.01
%
Mn
1
ppm
Mo
5
ppm
Na
0.01
%
Ni
5
ppm
Pb
10
ppm
Laboratory No.: 092040

Client Number: F174
Date Received: 08/31/2009
Date Completed: 08/07/2009
Lab code: 7045
Sr
Ti
V
W
Zn
5 0.01
1
10
2
ppm
% ppm ppm ppm
IP #1 After Leach
IP #2 After Leach
IP #1 After Wash
IP #2 After Wash
<10
<10
<10
<10
23.40
20.44
23.00
25.42
2
2
2
2
2
1
3
2
5
8
8
4
28
39
32
43
0.46
0.43
0.47
0.49
1.01
0.73
0.33
0.30
2.06
2.00
2.31
2.47
51
50
56
62
<5
<5
<5
<5
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.04
9
8
7
8
163
143
103
148
3553
4643
4553
4462
0.39
0.43
0.48
0.51
<10
<10
<10
<10
52
62
65
62
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
2
<1
<1
<1
<10
<10
<10
<10
117
161
153
84
Richard A. Grondin QC Manager
Nevada Assembly Bill No. 519.130 requires the following statement: The results of this assay were based solely upon the content of the sample submitted. Any decision to invest should be made only after the potential investment value of the claim or deposit
has been determined based on the results of assays of multiple samples of geologic materials collected by the prospective investor or by a qualified person selected by him/her and based on an evaluation of all engineering data which is available concerning any
proposed project.
Page 1 of 1

7950 Security Circle - Reno, Nevada 89506 - Phone (775) 677-2177 - FAX (775) 972-4567
Certificate of Analysis
Submitted By: Resource Development, Inc
11475 West I-70 Frontage Road
North Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
Attention: Mr. Deepak Malhotra
Method: LECO CS-400
Lab code:
7036
Element:
Detection Limit:
Units:
IP #1 After Leach
IP #2 After Leach
IP #1 After Wash
IP #2 After Wash
Laboratory No.: 092040

Client Number: F174
Date Received: 08/31/2009
Date Completed: 08/07/2009
Sulfate Sulfur
0.01
%
14.41
15.08
13.13
13.58
Richard A. Grondin QC Manager
Nevada Assembly Bill No. 519.130 requires the following statement: The results of this assay were based solely upon the content of the sample submitted. Any decision to invest
should be made only after the potential investment value of the claim or deposit has been determined based on the results of assays of multiple samples of geologic materials
collected by the prospective investor or by a qualified person selected by him/her and based on an evaluation of all engineering data which is available concerning any proposed
project.
Page 1 of 1
D-1
APPENDIX D
Polyhalite Density Calculations
PolyhaliteDensityCalculations
71309(revised81909SCM)
ChrisBrus
Therearetwodifferentmethodsnormallyusedtocalculatethedensityofsolidbodiessuchasrock
samples.Thefirstmethodusesaratiobetweenadirectlymeasuredmassandacalculatedvolumeofa
rocksample.Thesecondmethodusedtodeterminethedensityofarocksampleistocomparethemass
ofthesampleinairversusthemassofthesamplewhilesuspendedinafluidofaknowndensity,inthis
casewater.Thematerialsandproceduresforeachmethodarediscussedbelow.
MaterialsNeeded:
1. MassBalance,preferablyoneonwhichyoucansuspendthedesiredbelowthescale.(Triple
beambalanceusedinthesemeasurements.)
2. Fishingline,orotherstringwhichdoesnotabsorbliquidandhasanegligiblemass.
3. Containerlargeenoughtocompletelyholdsampletobemeasured
4. Water(preferablydistilled,=1)
5. GraduatedCylinder
6. TowelorPaperTowels
7. RockSample
Theprocedureforthewaterdisplacementmethodisasfollows.
1. Measureandrecordthemassoftherocksampleyouwishtoknowthedensityof.Mass=m
2. Fillagraduatedcylinderpartiallywithwaterandrecordthevolume.Makesurethereisenough
tocompletelysubmersethesample.Initialvolume=Vi
3. Droprocksampleintothegraduatedcylinderandrecordthevolume.Finalvolume=Vf
4. Calculatethedensityoftherocksampleusingthefollowingformula:=m/(VfVi)
5. Drythesampleafteritisremovedfromthewater.
6. Becausepolyhaliteiswatersoluble,makesurethesamplespendsaslittletimeinthewateras
possible.
Theprocedureforthewatersuspensionisasfollows.
1. Measurethemassoftherocksample.(Ma)
2. Usingthefishingline,suspendthesamplefromthescaleplatformsoitisbothcompletely
submersedandsuspendedinthewatermakingsureitdoesnottouchthebottomofthe
container.Measurethemassofthesample.(Mw)
3. Drythesamplesaftertheyareremovedfromthewater.
4. Calculatethedensityoftherocksampleusingtheformula:=Ma/(MaMw)
5. Becausepolyhaliteiswatersoluble,makesurethesamplespendsaslittletimeinthewateras
possible.
ResultsandData:
Table1:PolyhaliteDensityMeasurementsUsingWaterSuspensionMethod
Sample
H17142
H17144
H17146S
H17146L
H17148
H17148S
H17142C
H17144C
H17148L
Trial
Ma
Mw
Density(g/cc)
(g)0.05 (g)0.05
67.45
43.00
2.759
67.50
43.30
2.789
67.50
43.90
2.860
51.80
33.00
2.755
51.90
33.40
2.805
51.60
33.20
2.804
11.80
7.70
2.878
11.90
7.70
2.833
3*
12.00
7.55
2.697
24.50
15.75
2.800
24.45
15.90
2.860
24.40
15.80
2.837
51.00
33.00
2.833
1*
9.8
6.05
2.613
2*
9.75
2.600
315.1
201.9
2.784
314.75
201.3
2.774
314.55
201.15
2.774
279.3
178.3
2.765
279.4
177.85
2.751
279.2
178.65
2.910
41.5
26.85
2.833
41.7
27
2.837
*IndicatesOutlier
2.788
2.856
2.832
2.833
2.607*
2.777
2.764
2.835
2.783
178
DensityFormula:=m/(VfVi)
2.805
AverageDensityw/out
Outliers
Table2:PolyhaliteDensityUsingWaterDisplacementMethod
TotalMass Vi
Vf
(g)0.05
(ml)1.0 (ml)1.0 V
Density(g/cc)
146
2.803
AverageDensity
DensityFormula:=Ma/(MaMw)
87.95
AverageDensity
(g/cc)
32
2.7484375
PolyhaliteDensity
2.900
2.850
H17142
Density(g/cc)
2.800
H17144
H17146S
2.750
H17146L
2.700
H17148
2.650
H17148S
H17148L
2.600
H17142C
2.550
H17144C
1
Trial
PlotofMassvs.DensityofPolyhalite
2.900
2.850
Density(g/cc)
2.800
2.750
2.700
2.650
2.600
2.550
0.00
50.00
100.00
150.00
200.00
250.00
300.00
350.00
Mass(g)
MassofSampleinEachTrial
80.00
70.00
60.00
H17142
Mass(g)
50.00
H17144
40.00
H17146S
30.00
H17146L
20.00
H17148
10.00
H17148L
0.00
1
Trial
SampleMassesinEachTrial
320
315
310
Mass(g)
305
300
295
H17142C
290
H17144C
285
280
275
1
Trial
Analysis:
Basedonthedatagathered,threedifferentdatapointswerefoundtobeinvalidduetosignificantly
largedeviationfrommedianofthedataset.Thesepointsareindicatedwitha(*)andwerenotincluded
inthefinalpolyhaliteaveragedensity.Theaveragedensityofthepolyhaliteusingthewatersuspension
methodwasfoundtobe2.805g/ccwhiletheaveragepolyhalitedensitycalculatedusingthewater
displacementmethodwasfoundtobe2.748.Thewatersuspensionmethodsislikelythemostaccurate
methodfordeterminingthedensityofarocksampledotothelesseramountofmeasurementsandthe
smalleramountoferrorinthesemeasurements.
Thedensityofpolyhalitecalculatedinthisreportcanbeusedforanumberofapplications.Itcanbe
usedtohelpidentifypolyhaliteinsubsurfacewelllogswhenlookingatgammarayanddensitylogs.If
thegradeoftheoreisknownandthevolumetricextentofthedepositismapped,thisvaluecanbeused
toestimatethetonnageofpolyhalitethatlieswithinthecompanysleasearea.Irecommendthatthe
polyhalitedensityvalueof2.805g/cccalculatedusingthewatersuspensionmethodbeusedinthe
futureforanynecessaryapplications.
APPENDIX E
Mining Support Documents
IntercontinentalPostash,ConceptualStudyEconomicModel(AnnualValuesin1,000s)
Basis
Units
Year4
Year3
Year2
Year1
Year1
Year2
Year3
Year4
Year5
Year6
Year7
Year8
Year9
Year10
Year11
Year12
Year13
Year14
Year15
Year16
Year17
Year18
Year19
Year20
Year21
Year22
Year23
Year24
Year25
Year26
Year27
Year28
Year29
Year30
Totals
PRODUCTION
TonsFeed
TonsProductK2SO4
tons
tons
3,060
678
4,120
904
4,180
904
4,240
904
4,300
904
4,360
904
4,420
904
4,480
904
4,540
904
4,600
904
4,600
904
4,600
904
4,600
904
4,600
904
4,600
904
4,600
904
4,600
904
4,600
904
4,600
904
4,600
904
4,600
904
4,600
904
4,600
904
4,600
904
4,600
904
4,600
904
4,600
904
4,600
904
4,600
904
4,600 134,300
904 26,894
TonsProductPolyhalite
tons
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500 12,750
REVENUE
SalePriceK2SO4(FOBMine)
$750
$/TON
750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750
SalePricePolyhalite(FOBMine)
$250
$/TON
250 250 250 250 250
TotalRevenue
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
520,996
702,994
715,494
727,994
740,494
752,994
765,494
777,994
790,494
802,994
802,994
802,994
802,994
802,994
802,994
802,994
802,994
802,994
802,994
802,994
802,994
802,994
802,994
802,994
802,994
802,994
802,994
802,994
802,994
802,994 23,357,822
11,848 189,572
250
250
CASHPRODUCTIONCOSTS
ControllableCosts
Labor(000's)
Plant
$11,848
$000's
11,848
11,848
11,848
11,848
11,848
11,848
11,848
11,848
11,848
11,848
11,848
11,848
11,848
11,848
11,848
11,848
11,848
11,848
11,848
11,848
11,848
11,848
11,848
11,848
11,848
11,848
11,848
11,848
11,848
Mine
G&A
$20,981
$2,964
$000's
$000's
20,981
2,964
20,981
2,964
20,981
2,964
20,981
2,964
20,981
2,964
20,981
2,964
20,981
2,964
20,981
2,964
20,981
2,964
20,981
2,964
20,981
2,964
20,981
2,964
20,981
2,964
20,981
2,964
20,981
2,964
20,981
2,964
20,981
2,964
20,981
2,964
20,981
2,964
20,981
2,964
20,981
2,964
20,981
2,964
20,981
2,964
20,981
2,964
20,981
2,964
20,981
2,964
20,981
2,964
20,981
2,964
20,981
2,964
20,981 335,702
2,964 88,906
TotalLabor
$35,793
$000's
35,793
35,793
35,793
35,793
35,793
35,793
35,793
35,793
35,793
35,793
35,793
35,793
35,793
35,793
35,793
35,793
35,793
35,793
35,793
35,793
35,793
35,793
35,793
35,793
35,793
35,793
35,793
35,793
35,793
35,793 1,073,794
Equipment,Facilities&Supplies
$28,403
$000's
28,403
28,403
28,403
28,403
28,403
28,403
28,403
28,403
28,403
28,403
28,403
28,403
28,403
28,403
28,403
28,403
28,403
28,403
28,403
28,403
28,403
28,403
28,403
28,403
28,403
28,403
28,403
28,403
28,403
28,403 852,091
ProcessCostK2SO4
$121.18
$/tonK2SO4
82,159
109,546
109,546
109,546
109,546
109,546
109,546
109,546
109,546
109,546
109,546
109,546
109,546
109,546
109,546
109,546
109,546
109,546
109,546
109,546
109,546
109,546
109,546
109,546
109,546
109,546
109,546
109,546
109,546
109,546 3,258,986
$10.00
$/tonPolyhaliteproduct
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000 127,500
143,332
168,528
166,057
163,672
161,367
159,138
156,982
154,896
152,875
150,918
150,918
150,918
150,918
150,918
150,918
150,918
150,918
150,918
150,918
150,918
150,918
150,918
150,918
150,918
150,918
150,918
150,918
150,918
150,918
150,918 4,477,324
3,511
6,179
9,106
11,933
14,664
17,305
19,860
22,332
24,726
27,046
27,046
27,046
27,046
27,046
27,046
27,046
27,046
27,046
27,046
27,046
27,046
27,046
27,046
27,046
27,046
27,046
27,046
27,046
27,046
27,046 707,548
ProcessCostPolyhalite
TotalControllableCosts(K2SO4)
TotalControllableCosts(Polyhalite)
$/TONFEED
$/SALESTON(K2SO4)
46.84 40.90 39.73 38.60 37.53 36.50 35.52 34.57 33.67 32.81 32.81 32.81 32.81 32.81 32.81 32.81 32.81 32.81 32.81 32.81 32.81 32.81 32.81 32.81 32.81 32.81 32.81 32.81 32.81 32.81 33.34
211.41
186.43
183.69
181.05
178.50
176.04
173.65
171.35
169.11
166.95
166.95
166.95
166.95
166.95
166.95
166.95
166.95
166.95
166.95
166.95
166.95
166.95
166.95
166.95
166.95
166.95
166.95
166.95
166.95
166.95
166.48
$/SALESTON(Polyhalite)
70.23
61.79
60.71
59.66
58.66
57.68
56.74
55.83
54.95
54.09
54.09
54.09
54.09
54.09
54.09
54.09
54.09
54.09
54.09
54.09
54.09
54.09
54.09
54.09
54.09
54.09
54.09
54.09
54.09
26,050
54.09
55.49
NONCONTROLLABLECOSTS
35,150
35,775
36,400
37,025
37,650
38,275
38,900
39,525
40,150
40,150
40,150
40,150
40,150
40,150
40,150
40,150
40,150
40,150
40,150
40,150
40,150
40,150
40,150
40,150
40,150
40,150
40,150
40,150
40,150 1,167,891
728
1,004
1,054
1,104
1,154
1,204
1,254
1,304
1,354
1,404
1,404
1,404
1,404
1,404
1,404
1,404
1,404
1,404
1,404
1,404
1,404
1,404
1,404
1,404
1,404
1,404
1,404
1,404
1,404
1,404 39,644
LandCost
RoyaltyPayments
5.0%
$000s
GeneralInsurance
Other
$000s
$000s
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
26,778
36,154
38,854
39,529
40,204
40,879
41,554
41,554
41,554
41,554
41,554
41,554
41,554
ProductionRoyalty
$1.00
%ofRevenue
pertonofproduct
TotalNonControllableCashCosts
36,829
37,504
38,179
TotalNonControllableCosts(K2SO4)
25,425
33,900
33,900
33,900
33,900
33,900
33,900
33,900
33,900
33,900
33,900
33,900
33,900
33,900
33,900
33,900
33,900
33,900
33,900
33,900
33,900
33,900
33,900
33,900
33,900
33,900
33,900
33,900
33,900
33,900 1,008,516
TotalNonControllableCosts(Polyhalite)
625
1,250
1,875
2,500
3,125
3,750
4,375
5,000
5,625
6,250
6,250
6,250
6,250
6,250
6,250
6,250
6,250
6,250
6,250
6,250
6,250
6,250
6,250
6,250
6,250
6,250
6,250
6,250
6,250
6,250 159,375
$/TONFEED
$/SALESTON(K2SO4)
1,207,535
8.75 8.78 8.81 8.85 8.88 8.91 8.94 8.97 9.00 9.03 9.03 9.03 9.03 9.03 9.03 9.03 7.91 7.91 7.91 7.91 7.91 7.91 7.91 7.91 7.91 7.91 7.91 7.91 7.91 7.91 8.99
37.50
37.50
37.50
37.50
37.50
37.50
37.50
37.50
37.50
37.50
37.50
37.50
37.50
37.50
37.50
37.50
37.50
37.50
37.50
37.50
37.50
37.50
37.50
37.50
37.50
37.50
37.50
37.50
37.50
37.50 37.50
12.50
12.50
12.50
12.50
12.50
12.50
12.50
12.50
12.50
12.50
12.50
12.50
12.50
12.50
12.50
12.50
12.50
12.50
12.50
12.50
12.50
12.50
12.50
12.50
12.50
12.50
12.50
12.50
12.50
12.50 12.50
173,621
0
210,860
0
211,992
0
213,108
0
214,210
0
215,297
0
216,371
0
217,431
0
218,480
0
219,517
0
219,517
0
219,517
0
219,517
0
219,517
0
219,517
0
219,517
0
177,964
0
177,964
0
177,964
0
177,964
0
177,964
0
177,964
0
177,964
0
177,964
0
177,964
0
177,964
0
177,964
0
177,964
0
177,964
0
177,964 5,919,482
0
200,881
198,472
196,130
150,260
150,260
150,260
150,260
150,260
150,260
TOTALCASHCOSTS
Subtotal
Contingency
$
%ofCashCosts
0%
TotalControllableCosts(K2SO4)
TotalControllableCosts(Polyhalite)
$/SALESTON(K2SO4)
169,456
4,166
TotalEBITDA
NetProfitsRoyalty(3%)
TotatEBITDAafterNPR
3%
TotalEBITA(K2SO4)
TotalEBITA(Polyhalite)
$/TONFEED
$/SALESTON(K2SO4)
203,361
7,499
11,111
14,637
18,080
193,853
21,444
191,638
24,732
189,484
27,948
187,387
31,093
185,346
34,172
185,346
34,172
185,346
34,172
185,346
34,172
185,346
34,172
185,346
34,172
185,346
34,172
150,260
27,703
150,260
27,703
150,260
27,703
150,260
27,703
150,260
27,703
27,703
150,260
27,703
27,703
150,260
150,260 5,131,727
27,703
27,703
27,703
27,703
27,703
249.94
224.96
222.22
219.55
216.96
214.44
211.99
209.61
207.29
205.03
205.03
205.03
205.03
205.03
205.03
205.03
166.22
166.22
166.22
166.22
166.22
166.22
166.22
166.22
166.22
166.22
166.22
166.22
166.22
166.22
190.81
83.31
74.99
74.07
73.18
72.32
71.48
70.66
69.87
69.10
68.34
68.34
68.34
68.34
68.34
68.34
68.34
55.41
55.41
55.41
55.41
55.41
55.41
55.41
55.41
55.41
55.41
55.41
55.41
55.41
27,703 787,755
55.41
61.78
347,374
492,134
503,502
514,886
526,284
537,697
549,123
560,563
572,014
583,477
583,477
583,477
583,477
583,477
583,477
583,477
625,030
625,030
625,030
625,030
625,030
625,030
625,030
625,030
625,030
625,030
625,030
625,030
625,030
625,030 17,438,340
10,421
336,953
14,764
477,370
15,105
488,397
15,447
499,439
15,789
510,496
16,131
521,566
16,474
532,650
16,817
543,746
17,160
554,853
17,504
565,972
17,504
565,972
17,504
565,972
17,504
565,972
17,504
565,972
17,504
565,972
17,504
565,972
18,751
606,279
18,751
606,279
18,751
606,279
18,751
606,279
18,751
606,279
18,751
606,279
18,751
606,279
18,751
606,279
18,751
606,279
18,751
606,279
18,751
606,279
18,751
606,279
18,751
606,279
18,751 (523,150)
606,279
16,915,190
328,869
460,394
462,799
465,137
467,408
469,617
471,765
473,855
475,889
477,869
477,869
477,869
477,869
477,869
477,869
477,869
511,902
511,902
511,902
511,902
511,902
511,902
511,902
511,902
511,902
511,902
511,902
511,902
511,902
511,902 14,587,437
8,084
16,976
25,598
34,302
43,087
51,949
60,885
69,891
78,965
88,103
88,103
88,103
88,103
88,103
88,103
88,103
94,378
94,378
94,378
94,378
94,378
94,378
94,378
94,378
94,378
94,378
94,378
94,378
94,378
94,378 2,327,753
110.12 115.87 116.84 117.79 118.72 119.63 120.51 121.37 122.21 123.04 123.04 123.04 123.04 123.04 123.04 123.04 131.80 131.80 131.80 131.80 131.80 131.80 131.80 131.80 131.80 131.80 131.80 131.80 131.80 131.80 129.85
485.06
509.29
511.95
514.54
517.05
519.49
521.87
524.18
526.43
528.62
528.62
528.62
528.62
528.62
528.62
528.62
566.27
566.27
566.27
566.27
566.27
566.27
566.27
566.27
566.27
566.27
566.27
566.27
566.27
566.27
542.41
161.69
169.76
170.65
171.51
172.35
173.16
173.96
174.73
175.48
176.21
176.21
176.21
176.21
176.21
176.21
176.21
188.76
188.76
188.76
188.76
188.76
188.76
188.76
188.76
188.76
188.76
188.76
188.76
188.76
336,953
477,370
488,397
499,439
510,496
521,566
532,650
543,746
554,853
565,972
565,972
565,972
565,972
565,972
565,972
565,972
606,279
606,279
606,279
606,279
606,279
606,279
606,279
606,279
606,279
606,279
606,279
606,279
606,279
606,279 16,915,190
188.76
182.57
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000 728,550
NETINCOMEBEFOREFINANCIALS
NetIncomeBeforeFinancials
CAPITAL
FacilitiesandEquipment
$000s
MineEquipmentandDevelopment
SurfaceFacilities
ProcessPlant
EPCM
$143,284
$000s
71,642
$18,050
$000s
9,025 9,025
$428,550
$000s
214,275 214,275
87,745 87,745
$94,381
71,642
80,000
36,000
10,000
10,000
36,000
259,284
5,000
36,000
10,000
36,000
131,050
47,191 47,191
94,381
Owner'sCost
$17,697
Contingency
$175,491
$000s
8,848 8,848
PreliminaryDrilling
$1,000
$000s
1,000
1,000
DevelopmentDrilling
$2,500
$000s
2,500
2,500
17,697
20,000
195,491
$000s
ExplorationandPermitting
PrefeasibilityStudy
$2,000
2,000
2,000
FeasibilityStudy
$4,000
$000s
4,000
4,000
$750
$000s
375 375
750
Contingency
TotalInitialCapital
$0
$887,703
$000s
$000s
3,875 6,375 367,084 438,726
Sustaining&ReplacementCapital
(Years230)
TotalCapital
$549,000
$000s
1,436,703
$000s
Permitting
$000s
887,703
71,642
10,000
3,875
6,375
367,084
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
46,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
115,000
46,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
46,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
46,000
10,000
10,000
10,000 549,000
438,726
81,642
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
46,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
115,000
46,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
46,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
46,000
10,000
10,000
10,000 1,436,703
438,726
Year1
336,953
81,642
Year1
477,370
10,000
Year2
488,397
10,000
Year3
499,439
10,000
Year4
510,496
10,000
Year5
521,566
10,000
Year6
532,650
10,000
Year7
543,746
46,000
Year8
554,853
10,000
Year9
565,972
10,000
Year10
565,972
10,000
Year11
565,972
10,000
Year12
565,972
10,000
Year13
565,972
115,000
Year14
565,972
46,000
Year15
565,972
10,000
Year16
606,279
10,000
606,279
10,000
606,279
10,000
606,279
10,000
606,279
46,000
606,279
10,000
606,279
10,000
606,279
10,000
606,279
10,000
606,279
10,000
606,279
46,000
606,279
10,000
606,279
10,000
606,279 16,915,190
10,000 1,436,703
Totals
255,311
467,370
478,397
489,439
500,496
511,566
522,650
497,746
544,853
555,972
555,972
555,972
555,972
450,972
519,972
555,972
596,279
596,279
596,279
596,279
560,279
596,279
596,279
596,279
596,279
596,279
560,279
596,279
596,279
(560,750)
(93,380)
385,017
874,456
1,374,952
1,886,518
2,409,168
2,906,914
3,451,767
4,007,740
4,563,712
5,119,684
5,675,657
6,126,629
6,646,602
7,202,574
7,798,853
8,395,133
8,991,412
9,587,692
10,147,971
10,744,251
11,340,530
11,936,810
12,533,089
13,129,369
13,689,648
14,285,928
14,882,207
CASHFLOW&NPV
NetIncomebeforeFinancials
LessCapital
3,875
Year4
NetCashFlow
CumulativeNetCashFlow
6,375
Year3
367,084
Year2
(3,875)
(6,375)
(367,084)
(438,726)
(3,875)
(10,250)
(377,334)
(816,061)
NPV
IRR
PaybackfromYear2
596,279 15,478,487
15,478,487
83.43 113.44 114.45 115.43 116.39 117.33 118.25 111.10 120.01 120.86 120.86 120.86 120.86 98.04 113.04 120.86 129.63 129.63 129.63 129.63 121.80 129.63 129.63 129.63 129.63 129.63 121.80 129.63 129.63 129.63 115.25
350.70 465.51 453.89 443.34 433.71 424.89 416.79 381.71 402.41 395.99 395.99 395.99 395.99 321.21 370.35 395.99 424.70 424.70 424.70 424.70 399.06 424.70 424.70 424.70 424.70 424.70 399.06 424.70 424.70 424.70 390.44
$/TONFEED
$/SALESTON
10%
Years
$2,890,822
43%
5.1
PaybackCalc
(3,875)
0
(10,250)
0
(3,875)
(377,334)
1
(10,250)
(816,061)
2
(377,334)
(560,750)
3
(816,061)
(93,380)
4
(560,750)
1
385,017
5
(93,380)
874,456
6
385,017
1,374,952
7
874,456
1,886,518
8
1,374,952
2,409,168
9
1,886,518
2,906,914
10
2,409,168
3,451,767
11
2,906,914
4,007,740
12
3,451,767
4,563,712
13
4,007,740
5,119,684
14
4,563,712
5,675,657
15
5,119,684
6,126,629
16
5,675,657
6,646,602
17
6,126,629
7,202,574
18
6,646,602
Equipment operating costs

Operating Cost Per Hour
supplies
Koepe Hoist / skip / cage
Double drum hoist/skip cage
Loading Station
Feeders/conveyor to loading pocket
Refuge Station
Underground Shop
Mine transformer and switch gear
Main Vent Fans 1500
Communication system
Production Equipment
panel transformer
Continuous Miner - Joy 12 HM
Feeder Breaker
Sub - conveyor 48"
Main - conveyor 72"
shuttle car
Man trip
Rock bolter
Vent Fans 25 hp
Vent tube
trash pump - pipe
Electrical - Wire/switch gear
Surface
Hoist house
Mine Admin building
Shop - Plant Maintenance
Dry
MineWarehouse
Assay Lab
Security
18.9
Overhaul
Parts
Maintenance
Parts
Fuel / Power
Lube
Tires
Wear
Parts
Total
per hour
operating
units
Hours
per day
dollars/day
Total
17.98
17.98
10.39
3.98
33.39
33.39
19.29
2.88
83.32
83.32
9.26
3.47
14.56
14.56
4.21
1.65
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.26
0.00
7.90
3.92
14.65
7.27
0.00
82.13
0.00
2.11
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
$149.25
$149.25
$46.41
$11.98
$1.00
$10.00
$22.55
$95.43
$20.00
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
18
12
18
18
24
20
24
24
24
0.74
33.83
6.17
23.90
76.18
6.71
1.46
1.71
0.99
1.37
41.35
5.05
17.31
55.16
12.45
2.71
1.40
1.84
0.00
42.59
8.33
23.14
83.32
1.85
10.37
1.85
1.36
0.00
14.21
2.12
9.89
31.52
3.02
1.52
0.88
0.53
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.37
0.16
0.04
0.00
0.00
25.80
2.22
0.00
0.00
2.70
0.00
6.95
0.00
$2.11
$157.78
$23.89
$74.24
$246.18
$37.10
$16.22
$31.73
$4.72
8
8
8
8
4
8
8
8
20
20
18
18
18
18
18
3
18
24
0.15
0.14
0.12
0.26
0.41
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
$0.73
$0.40
3
3
3
3
$2,687
$1,791
$1,671
$431
$48
$200
$541
$4,581
$480
$0
$0
$338
$22,720
$3,440
$10,691
$17,725
$5,342
$389
$4,569
$2,266
$0
$0
$7
$4
$7.50
$10.00
$20.00
$5.00
$7.50
$10.00
$3.00
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
24
10
24
24
24
10
24
$180
$100
$480
$120
$180
$100
$72
$81,152
Mining
4
0.6
350
13,143
1,000
6
2
170
100
87%
Hoisting
20
20
1.5
657
milliontonsperyearforK2SO2
milliontonsperyearforPolyhaliteproduct
daysperyear
tonsperday
tonspercrewshift
productioncrewspershift
developmentcrewspershift
poundspercubicft.inplace
poundspercubicft.broken
panelextraction
hrsperday
tonsperskip
minutes/halfcycle
tonsperhour
Processing
903,992 tonsK2SO4peryear
500,000 tonsperyearpolyhalite
22.60% K2SO4equivalentbasisasfeed
92% recoveryofcontainedK2SO4
Pricing
$750.00 pertonK2SO4
$250.00 pertonpolyhalite

Ochoa Project Preliminary Economic Assessment for Polyhalite Resource

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Ochoa Project Preliminary Economic Assessment for Polyhalite Resource

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Polyhalite Resources and a Preliminary

Economic Assessment of the Ochoa Project

Dated August 19, 2009

RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS .................................................................................................13

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION & LOCATION...................................................................................15

PROSPECTING PERMITS ...............................................................................................................23

ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND

REGIONAL GEOLOGY ..................................................................................................................31

10. EXPLORATION ..................................................................................................................................48

PETRA MODEL CALCULATIONS ..................................................................................................62

18. OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION ......................................................................72

BACKGROUND TO THE POTASH INDUSTRY .................................................................................72

19. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR TECHNICAL REPORTS ON

PRELIMINARY ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT .....................................................................................77

Prepared by: Chemrox Technologies and Gustavson Associates

Prepared by: Chemrox Technologies and Gustavson Associates

INFERRED POLYHALITE RESOURCES IN ICP AREA OF INTEREST ..................................... 3

Prepared by: Chemrox Technologies and Gustavson Associates

Chemrox Technologies and Gustavson Associates were contracted by Trigon Uranium

Prepared by: Chemrox Technologies and Gustavson Associates

Note: Estimates rounded to 1,000s

An independent analysis of the inferred resource in the Rustler Formation supervised by

Prepared by: Chemrox Technologies and Gustavson Associates

TABLE 1.2 COST PER TON OF FEED

Total Estimated Costs

Prepared by: Chemrox Technologies and Gustavson Associates

FIGURE 1.2 K2SO4 PRICE SENSITIVITY

Prepared by: Chemrox Technologies and Gustavson Associates

Prepared by: Chemrox Technologies and Gustavson Associates

Polyhalite is an evaporite mineral with

chemical formula K2SO4.MgSO4.2CaSO4.2H2O. The area of interest is being investigated by

Prepared by: Chemrox Technologies and Gustavson Associates

Prepared by: Chemrox Technologies and Gustavson Associates

Robert Galyen, CPG

William J. Crowl, R.G.

Registered Professional Geologist,

Terre A. Lane, Member AusIMM

Member, Australasian Institute of

Richard D. Moritz, Member MMSA

Member, Mining and Metallurgical

The purpose of a Preliminary Economic Assessment is to present basic analytical assumptions

The sources of information for this 43-101 included:

Prior publications and internal reports on the subject of polyhalite;

Prepared by: Chemrox Technologies and Gustavson Associates

FIGURE 2.1 GENERAL LOCATION OF THE OCHOA RESOURCE AREA

Prepared by: Chemrox Technologies and Gustavson Associates

RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS

Dr. Powers has utilized the Rustler Formation

Prepared by: Chemrox Technologies and Gustavson Associates

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION & LOCATION

Prepared by: Chemrox Technologies and Gustavson Associates

Prepared by: Chemrox Technologies and Gustavson Associates

New Mexico, Ochoa

Oil and Gas Leases in Yellow

Dry Hole With Gas Show

ICP permit areas in Diagonal pattern, O+G leases

Prepared by: Chemrox Technologies and Gustavson Associates

Prepared by: Chemrox Technologies and Gustavson Associates

Prepared by: Chemrox Technologies and Gustavson Associates

Prepared by: Chemrox Technologies and Gustavson Associates

Prepared by: Chemrox Technologies and Gustavson Associates

Prepared by: Chemrox Technologies and Gustavson Associates