Compass Minerals Ogden Lithium RE - Report - Final

Technical Report Summary
Initial Assessment
Lithium Mineral Resource Estimate
Compass Minerals International, Inc.
GSL / Ogden Site
Ogden, Utah, USA
Effective Date: June 1, 2021

Report Date: July 13, 2021
SEC Technical Report Summary – Lithium Mineral Resource Estimate Page 3
Table of Contents
Signature ............................................................................................................................ 2
1 Executive Summary ..................................................................................................... 9
1.1 Property Description and Ownership .................................................................................................. 9
1.2 Geology and Mineralization ................................................................................................................ 9
1.3 Status of Exploration, Development and Operations ........................................................................ 10
1.4 Mineral Resource Estimates ............................................................................................................. 11
1.5 Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................................................................ 12
2 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 15
2.1 Terms of Reference and Purpose ..................................................................................................... 15
2.2 Sources of Information ...................................................................................................................... 15
2.3 Details of Inspection .......................................................................................................................... 15
2.4 Report Version .................................................................................................................................. 16
3 Property Description.................................................................................................. 17
3.1 Property Location .............................................................................................................................. 17
3.2 Mineral Right ..................................................................................................................................... 19
3.2.1 Royalties ................................................................................................................................ 21
3.2.2 Acquisition of Mineral Rights ................................................................................................. 21
3.3 Encumbrances .................................................................................................................................. 22
3.4 Other Significant Factors and Risks.................................................................................................. 22
4 Physiography, Accessibility and Infrastructure ...................................................... 23
4.1 Topography, Elevation and Vegetation ............................................................................................. 23
4.2 Accessibility ....................................................................................................................................... 23
4.3 Climate and Operating Season ......................................................................................................... 23
4.4 Infrastructure Availability and Sources.............................................................................................. 23
5 History......................................................................................................................... 24
6 Geological Setting, Mineralization, and Deposit ..................................................... 26
6.1.1 Regional Geology .................................................................................................................. 26
6.1.2 Local Geology ....................................................................................................................... 27
6.1.3 Property Geology .................................................................................................................. 29
6.2 Mineral Deposit ................................................................................................................................. 32
7 Exploration ................................................................................................................. 33
7.1 Non-Drilling Exploration Activities ..................................................................................................... 33
7.1.1 Great Salt Lake ..................................................................................................................... 33
7.1.2 Evaporation Pond Salt Mass ................................................................................................. 42
JH/BP/JP Final GreatSaltLakeMRE_SEC_Report_final.DOCX July 2021

7.2 Exploration Drilling ............................................................................................................................ 44

7.2.1 Drilling Type and Extent ........................................................................................................ 44
7.2.2 Drilling, Sampling, or Recovery Factors ................................................................................ 49
7.2.3 Drilling Results and Interpretation ......................................................................................... 49
7.3 Hydrogeology .................................................................................................................................... 53
7.3.1 Relative Brine Release Capacity ........................................................................................... 53
7.3.2 Hydraulic Testing of Pond 96 and Pond 98 Halite Aquifer .................................................... 55
7.3.3 Hydraulic Testing of the Pond 113 Halite Aquifer ................................................................. 58
7.3.4 Halite Aquifer Hydrogeology Summary ................................................................................. 62
7.4 Geotechnical Data, Testing and Analysis ......................................................................................... 63
8 Sample Preparation, Analysis and Security ............................................................ 64
8.1 Pond Sampling .................................................................................................................................. 64
8.2 GSL Sampling ................................................................................................................................... 64
8.3 Quality Control Procedures/Quality Assurance ................................................................................ 65
8.3.1 Blanks .................................................................................................................................... 65
8.3.2 Field Duplicates ..................................................................................................................... 67
9 Data Verification ......................................................................................................... 70
9.1 Data Verification Procedures GSL .................................................................................................... 70
9.2 Data Verification Procedures Ponds ................................................................................................. 70
10 Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing ........................................................ 72
11 Mineral Resource Estimate ....................................................................................... 72
11.1 Great Salt Lake ................................................................................................................................. 73
11.1.1 Key Assumptions and Parameters ........................................................................................ 73
11.1.2 Data Validation ...................................................................................................................... 73
11.1.3 Resource Estimate ................................................................................................................ 77
11.1.4 Cutoff Grade Estimate ........................................................................................................... 80
11.1.5 Uncertainty ............................................................................................................................ 81
11.1.6 Resource Classification and Criteria ..................................................................................... 82
11.1.7 Mineral Resource Statement – Great Salt Lake.................................................................... 82
11.2 Evaporation Ponds ............................................................................................................................ 84
11.2.1 Key Assumptions, Parameters, and Methods Used ............................................................. 84
11.2.2 Resource Estimate – Pond 1b............................................................................................... 84
11.2.3 Resource Estimate – Pond 96............................................................................................... 87
11.2.6 Resource Estimate – Pond 113............................................................................................. 96

11.2.7 Resource Estimate – Pond 114........................................................................................... 100

11.2.8 Consolidated Pond Mineral Resources ............................................................................... 103
11.3 Summary Mineral Resource Statement .......................................................................................... 104
12 Mineral Reserve Estimates ...................................................................................... 106
13 Mining Methods ........................................................................................................ 107
14 Processing and Recovery Methods........................................................................ 108
15 Infrastructure ............................................................................................................ 109
16 Market Studies ......................................................................................................... 110
17 Environmental, Social and Permitting.................................................................... 111
18 Capital and Operating Costs ................................................................................... 112
19 Economic Analysis .................................................................................................. 113
20 Adjacent Properties ................................................................................................. 114
21 Other Relevant Data and Information ..................................................................... 115
22 Interpretation and Conclusions .............................................................................. 116
23 Recommendations ................................................................................................... 117
23.1 Recommended Work Programs ...................................................................................................... 117
23.2 Recommended Work Program Costs ............................................................................................. 117
24 References ................................................................................................................ 118
25 Reliance on Information Provided by the Registrant ............................................ 118
List of Tables
Table 1-1: Lithium Mineral Resource Statement for GSL Facility, Compass Minerals as of June 1, 2021...... 12
Table 2-1: Site Visits ......................................................................................................................................... 15
Table 3-1: Land Tenure - (Lakebed Leases) .................................................................................................... 19
Table 3-2: GSL Water Rights............................................................................................................................ 19
Table 3-3: Non-Solar Leases/Easements......................................................................................................... 21
Table 3-4: Inactive Leases/Easements ............................................................................................................ 21
Table 7-1: UGS Sampling locations ................................................................................................................. 39
Table 7-2: Summary of Compass Minerals Sampling Split by Location and Depth Classification .................. 41
Table 7-3. Halite Thickness and Brine Chemistry from Seven Sample Locations in Pond 114....................... 44
Table 7-4: Location and Number of Drillholes by Year ..................................................................................... 45
Table 7-5. Halite Thickness and Brine Chemistry from Locations in Pond 1b ................................................. 50
Table 7-6. Halite Thickness and Brine Chemistry from Locations in Pond 96 ................................................. 50

Table 7-9. Halite Thickness and Brine Chemistry from Locations in Pond 113 ............................................... 52
Table 7-10. RBRC Test Data for Pond 96 and Pond 98 Halite Aquifer Sediments.......................................... 53
Table 7-11: RBRC Test Statistics for Pond 96 and Pond 98............................................................................ 54
Table 7-12. RBRC Test Data for Pond 113 and Pond 114 Halite Aquifer Sediments ..................................... 54
Table 7-13: RBRC Test Statistics for Pond 113 and Pond 114........................................................................ 54
Table 7-14: Summary of 2018 Single Well Pumping Tests .............................................................................. 57
Table 7-15: Summary of 2018 Single Well Pumping Tests .............................................................................. 61
Table 8-1: Summary of laboratories used by UGS during historical sampling programs ................................ 65
Table 8-2: Blank submissions to Brooks Applied Labs for Compass Minerals GSL submissions ................... 66
Table 8-3: Duplicate submissions to Brooks Applied Labs for Compass Minerals GSL submissions ............. 68
Table 11-1: Great Salt Lake Lithium Mass Load Statistics............................................................................... 79
Table 11-2: Great Salt Lake Lithium Resource Concentration at Varying Lake Elevation. .............................. 80
Table 11-3: Mineral Resource Statement for Great Salt Lake Lithium, Compass Minerals June 1, 2021 ....... 83
Table 11-4: Tabulation of Lithium Resources by Polygon, and Totals, for Pond 1b ........................................ 86
Table 11-5: Inferred Mineral Resources, Pond 1b ........................................................................................... 86
Table 11-6: Tabulation of Lithium Resources by Polygon, and Totals, for Pond 96 ........................................ 89
Table 11-7: Indicated Mineral Resources, Pond 96 ......................................................................................... 89
Table 11-8: Tabulation of Lithium Resources by Polygon, and Totals, for Pond 97 ........................................ 92
Table 11-9: Inferred Mineral Resources, Pond 97 ........................................................................................... 92
Table 11-10: Tabulation of Lithium Resources by Polygon, and Totals, for Pond 98 ...................................... 95
Table 11-11: Indicated Mineral Resources, Pond 98 ....................................................................................... 95
Table 11-12: Tabulation of Lithium Resources by Polygon, and Totals, for Pond 113 .................................... 98
Table 11-13: Indicated Mineral Resources, Pond 113 ..................................................................................... 99
Table 11-14: Tabulation of Lithium Resources by Polygon, and Totals, for Pond 114 .................................. 102
Table 11-15: Inferred Mineral Resources, Pond 114 ..................................................................................... 102
Table 11-16: Lithium Mineral Resource Statement for GSL Facility Ponds, Compass Minerals June 1,
2021 ................................................................................................................................................... 104
Table 11-17: Lithium Mineral Resource Statement for GSL Facility, Compass Minerals June 1, 2021 ........ 105
Table 23-1: Summary of Costs for Recommended Work............................................................................... 117
List of Figures
Figure 3-1: Location of Compass Minerals’ GSL Facility within Northern Utah ............................................... 18
Figure 6-1: Former Extent of Lake Bonneville, Relative to Current Remnant Lakes and Cities ...................... 27
Figure 6-2: Railroad Causeway Segregating the North and South Arms of the GSL ...................................... 28

Figure 6-3: Locations of Pond 1b, Pond 96, Pond 97, Pond 98, Pond 113, and Pond 114 Relative to the Central
Processing Facility at the GSL Facility and the Great Salt Lake ......................................................... 30
Figure 6-4: Precipitated Halite Surface within Pond 113 .................................................................................. 31
Figure 6-5: Sample of Precipitated Halite from Pond 113 ................................................................................ 31
Figure 6-6: Geologic Cross Section within Evaporation Ponds at the GSL Facility ......................................... 32
Figure 7-1: Lake Elevation Data for the Great Salt Lake.................................................................................. 34
Figure 7-2: Bathymetric Map of the South Part of the Great Salt Lake ............................................................ 35
Figure 7-3: Bathymetric Map of the North Arm of the Great Salt Lake ............................................................ 36
Figure 7-4: Relationship between Lake Water Elevation and Total Volume of the Lake ................................. 37
Figure 7-5: UGS Brine Sample Locations in the Great Salt Lake .................................................................... 38
Figure 7-6: Great Salt Lake Lithium Concentration, UGS Sampling Data ....................................................... 40
Figure 7-7: Location of Pot-Hole Trenches within Pond 114 ............................................................................ 43
Figure 7-8: Sonic Drill Rig Operating on the Halite Salt Bed in Pond 113 ....................................................... 45
Figure 7-9: Location of Sonic Drillholes Completed in Pond 1b in 2018 .......................................................... 46
Figure 7-10: Location of Sonic Drillholes Completed in Pond 96, Pond 97, and Pond 98 in 2020 .................. 47
Figure 7-11: Location of Sonic Drillholes Completed in Pond 113 in 2018 and 2019 ...................................... 48
Figure 7-12: Sonic Drill Continuous Sample Showing Base of Salt and Transition to Sand at Bottom of Right
Sample Sleeve..................................................................................................................................... 49
Figure 7-13: Histogram of RBRC Data; 18 Total Samples Analyzed by DBS&A ............................................. 55
Figure 8-1: Blank submissions to Brooks Applied Labs for Compass Minerals GSL submissions .................. 67
Figure 8-2: Duplicate Submissions to Brooks Applied Labs for Compass Minerals GSL Submissions........... 69
Figure 9-1: Comparison of Lithium Assay Values for Brooks Applied Labs and Chemtech-Ford Laboratories,
for Analysis of Lithium in Brine ............................................................................................................ 71
Figure 11-1: North Arm Same Day Sample Data Comparison......................................................................... 76
Figure 11-2: South Arm Same Day Sample Data Comparison ........................................................................ 76
Figure 11-3: Calculated Lithium Mass Loading, Individual Sites, Great Salt Lake North Arm ......................... 77
Figure 11-4: Calculated Lithium Mass Loading, Individual Sites, Great Salt Lake South Arm ........................ 78
Figure 11-5: Calculated Lithium Mass Loading, Combined Sites, Great Salt Lake North Arm ........................ 78
Figure 11-6: Calculated Lithium Mass Loading, Combined Sites, Great Salt Lake South Arm ....................... 78
Figure 11-7: Consolidated Lithium Mass Load Data ........................................................................................ 79
Figure 11-8: Voronoi Polygons utilized for Pond 1b Resource Estimation, Color Shaded to Show Distribution
of Lithium Concentrations in Brine within the Halite Aquifer................................................................ 85
Figure 11-9: Voronoi Polygons utilized for Pond 96 Resource Estimation, Color Shaded to Show Distribution

Figure 11-12: Pond 113 Voronoi Polygons Color Shaded to Show Spatial Distribution of Lithium
Concentrations in Brine within the Halite Aquifer ................................................................................ 97
Figure 11-14: Voronoi Polygons utilized for Pond 1b Resource Estimation, Color Shaded to Show Distribution
of Lithium Concentrations in Brine within the Halite Aquifer.............................................................. 101

1 Executive Summary
This Technical Report Summary (this “TRS”) was prepared in accordance with Items 601(b)(96) and
1300 through 1305 of Regulation S-K (Title 17, Part 229, Items 601(b)(96) and 1300 through 1305 of
the Code of Federal Regulations) promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”)
for Compass Minerals International, Inc. (“Compass Minerals”) with respect to estimation of lithium
mineral resources for Compass Minerals’ existing operation producing various minerals from the Great
Salt Lake (“GSL”), located in Ogden, Utah (referred to as the “GSL Facility”, the “Operation” or the
“Ogden Plant”).
1.1 Property Description and Ownership

Compass Minerals’ GSL Facility is located on the shores of the Great Salt Lake in northern Utah. The
Great Salt Lake is the largest saltwater lake in the Western Hemisphere, and the fourth largest terminal
lake in the world, covering approximately 1,700 square miles. The Great Salt Lake is bordered by the
Wasatch Mountains to the east, and the western desert area and salt flats associated with basin and
range topography to the west. The GSL Facility lies on the margin between the Great Salt Lake, an
area dominated by surficial salt deposits, mud flats, and salt and freshwater wetlands where the
Jordan, Weber, and Bear Rivers intersect with the lake.
The GSL Facility is a processing facility that beneficiates and separates potassium, magnesium and
sodium salts (collectively referred to as “Salts”) from brine, sourced from the Great Salt Lake. The
primary salt produced is sulfate of potash, K2SO4 (referred to as “SOP”), with coproduct production of
sodium chloride (NaCl or Halite) and magnesium chloride (MgCl). The Operation relies upon solar
evaporation to concentrate brine and precipitate the salts in large evaporation ponds, prior to
harvesting and processing at the Ogden Plant.
The Great Salt Lake and minerals associated with the lake are owned by the State of Utah.
Compass Minerals is able to produce Salts from the lake pursuant to multiple lease agreements for
the area of its ponds with the State of Utah, with a royalty payable per pound of Salt. The leases were
issued over the years between 1965 and 2012, with the total lease area 140,332 acres among 13
active leases (not all are currently utilized). The leases held by Compass Minerals are currently
managed by the Utah Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands, which was created in 1994.
The volume of Salt production is controlled by water rights that dictate the amount of brine that can be
pumped from the lake on an annual basis. Compass Minerals has a 156,000 acre-foot (acre-ft)
extraction right from the north arm of the lake that it relies upon for its production. Compass Minerals
also holds an additional 225,000 acre-ft water extraction right in the south arm of the lake that is not
being utilized.
1.2 Geology and Mineralization

The Great Salt Lake is a remnant of Lake Bonneville, a large Late-Pleistocene pluvial lake that once
covered much of western Utah. At its maximum extent, Lake Bonneville covered an area of
approximately 20,000 square miles. Lake Bonneville has been in a state of contraction for the past
15,000 years and has resulted in the formation of remnant lakes that include the Great Salt Lake,
Sevier Lake, and Utah Lake (Figure 6-1). Evaporation rates higher than input from precipitation and

runoff have driven the lake contraction and has served to concentrate dissolved minerals in the lake
water.
The Great Salt Lake currently covers approximately 1,700 square miles. But due to fluctuation in
evaporation rates and precipitation, that size has ranged from 950 square miles to 3,300 square miles
over the past 60 years. On a geologic timeframe, the Great Salt Lake water level has varied by many
hundreds of feet over the past 10,000 years (SRK, 2017; UGS, 1980).
Compass Minerals’ operating GSL Facility extracts brine from the North Arm of the Great Salt Lake
into a series of evaporation ponds located on the west and east side of the lake. The ponds on the
west side are pre-concentration ponds and the ponds on the east side finalize the concentration
process with the extraction plant located on the east side of the lake adjacent to the concentration
ponds.
The brine is concentrated in these ponds, moving from pond to pond as the dissolved mineral content
in the brine increases. The largest of these ponds are the first three ponds through which brine flows,
these are Pond 1b in the east ponds, and Ponds 113 and 114 of the west ponds. Pond 1b covers an
area of approximately 2,700 acres, Pond 113 is approximately 17,000 acres, and Pond 114 is
approximately 10,600 acres in size. Pond 96 is approximately 1,430 acres, Pond 97 is approximately
983 acres, and Pond 98 is approximately 1,142 acres. These ponds are periodically flooded with brine
for solar concentration and are subsequently drained to the top of the precipitated halite surface within
the pond.
There are two types of mineral deposits considered for lithium resources; 1) the brines of the
Great Salt Lake; and 2) the brine aquifers hosted within the precipitated halite beds of Ponds 1b, 96,
97, 98, 113, and 114.
The Great Salt Lake is a brine lake that hosts dissolved minerals at concentrations sufficient for
economic recovery of resources. The resources of the Great Salt Lake currently support economic
recovery of sodium (as NaCl), potassium (as SOP), and magnesium (as MgCl2). The Ogden Plant
does not currently extract lithium from the Great Salt Lake for commercial sale, but Compass Minerals
is investigating expanding the existing facilities to add lithium extraction as coproduct production.
The dissolved minerals within the brine aquifer hosted by the halite beds of Ponds 1b, 96, 97, 98, 113,
and 114 were originally sourced from the North Arm of the Great Salt Lake. The concentration of
dissolved minerals in these brines were subsequently increased through solar evaporation. These
aquifers are located within man-made evaporation ponds, and process derived sediments (i.e.
precipitated halite).
1.3 Status of Exploration, Development and Operations

The brines of the Great Salt Lake have been historically sampled by the Utah Geological Survey
(“UGS”) since the 1960s. Over much of the sample history, lithium has been included in the sample
analyses. However, the UGS sampling for lithium has become much more sporadic since the 1990s
which results in limited recent lithium data from the UGS. Beginning in 2020, Compass Minerals started
to collect samples from the GSL at sample locations historically utilized by the UGS to supplement the
historic UGS database. Additional data collected by the UGS and United States Geological Survey
(“USGS”) includes inflow data for the lake, precipitated salt mass studies and bathymetric data for the
GSL, all of which can be utilized to support mineral resource estimates.

Beginning in 2018, Compass Minerals undertook a program to better understand lithium

concentrations within the processes of the ongoing operations at the GSL Facility, and specifically,
within the brine remnants hosted within the halite beds of the largest evaporation ponds. Activities
undertaken to date have included pot-hole trenching, sonic core drilling, aquifer testing within the salt
mass, brine sampling and analysis, and geotechnical analysis of the halite to better understand its
hydraulic properties.
It is the Qualified Person’s (“QP’s”) opinion that the results of this work are appropriate for the
characterization of aquifer volumes, aquifer hydraulic properties, and brine chemistry in support of a
mineral resource estimate.
1.4 Mineral Resource Estimates

Compass Minerals has estimated a lithium mineral resource estimate for its GSL Facility. This includes
an estimate of lithium contained in the Great Salt Lake, from which Compass Minerals has legal right
to extract minerals, and an estimate of lithium contained in brine within precipitated halite mass within
certain evaporation ponds at the Operation.
Great Salt Lake
The mineral resource estimate for the Great Salt Lake was calculated for the North and South Arms
individually, given the difference in brine composition within these two areas. It is based on historic
data collected by the UGS and USGS over an extended period for brine concentration and volume.
The primary criteria considered for classification of the mineral resource estimate consists of
confidence in chemical results, accuracy of bathymetric data, dynamic interaction of surface and
subsurface brines, and representativeness of a relatively small areal extent samples for the entire
Great Salt Lake volume. In the QP’s opinion, the confidence in continuity and volume of the lake is
very good based on the visible nature and relative ease of measuring volumes (notwithstanding
uncertainty in bathymetric data). However, the QP also opines there are a relatively small number of
sample locations, even with largely consistent chemical concentrations in the North and South Arm
from mixing (USGS 2016). Further, the impact of surface/subsurface brine interactions adds material
uncertainty. These factors drive volatility that can be seen in the calculated mass load over time.
However, this volatility is quantified with a relative standard deviation between 14% (South Arm) and
16% (North Arm) and calculated standard error of approximately 4% for both data sets. In the QP’s
opinion, this level of quantified variability, combined with a qualitative evaluation of points of uncertainty
reasonably reflect a classification of indicated for the Great Salt Lake.
Evaporation Ponds
The mineral resource estimates for Pond 1b, Pond 96, Pond 97, Pond 98, Pond 113, and Pond 114
evaluated the available information for each pond individually. In particular, brine chemistry and halite
aquifer properties were sufficiently different to warrant that the resource estimate for each pond utilize
different parameters. These parameters are identified within the discussion of the mineral resource
estimate for the halite aquifer in each pond.
Mineral resources were estimated utilizing Voronoi polygonal methods. The lateral extent of each
polygon was defined by bisector between drillholes, and the vertical extent of each polygon was
defined by the measured halite aquifer stratigraphy. The brine volume for each polygon was

determined through analysis of hydrogeologic data that characterized the specific yield of the halite
aquifer. The brine assay data for lithium from each drillhole was applied to that polygon for that drillhole.
There was no treatment, averaging, or cut-off applied to the brine assay data.
Classification of mineral resources was determined through analysis in the spatial distribution of
available data, and uncertainty around key brine volumetric parameters (specific yield) which aids in
defining potentially extractable resources. Indicated resources have pond sufficient specific yield data
available, while inferred resources generally have limited specific yield data available.
Mineral Resource Estimate
The lithium mineral resource estimate for the GSL Facility is presented in Table 1-1.
Table 1-1: Lithium Mineral Resource Statement for GSL Facility, Compass Minerals as of June
1, 2021
Average Grade Lithium Resource LCE
Resource Area
(mg/L) (tons) (tons)
Indicated Resources
Great Salt Lake North Arm 51 250,000 1,330,750
Great Salt Lake South Arm 25 230,000 1,224,290
Pond 96, Halite Aquifer 214 1,003 5,335
Pond 98, Halite Aquifer 221 957 5,090
Total Indicated Resources 44 497,066 2,645,828
Pond 1b, Halite Aquifer 318 2,231 11,870
Total Inferred Resources 256 9,335 49,663
Source: Compass Minerals
(1) Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability. There is no certainty that all
or any part of the mineral resource will be converted into mineral reserve upon application of modifying factors.
(2) Mineral resources are reported as in situ for the Great Salt Lake and evaporation pond salt mass aquifers. The Great Salt
Lake estimate does not include any restrictions such as recovery or environmental limitations. Pond resources incorporate
specific yield which has been measured or estimated for each pond to reflect the portion of in situ brine potentially available
for extraction. No other restrictions have been applied to the pond resource estimate.
(3) Individual items may not equal sums due to rounding.
(4) The mineral resource estimate does not utilize an economic cutoff grade. This is due to the lake concentration being
variable dependent upon lake surface elevation and the use of solar concentration ponds to increase lithium concentration
in the process to levels appropriate for lithium processing. As no lithium cutoff grade has been applied, the resource
estimate does not assume an effective lithium sales price.
(5) Reported lithium concentrations for the Great Salt Lake assume an indicative lake level of 4,194.4 ft in the South Arm and
4,193.5 ft in the North Arm
(6) Mineral resources in the Great Salt Lake are controlled by the State of Utah. Compass Minerals’ ability to extract resources
from the lake are dependent upon a range of entitlements and rights, including lakebed leases (allowing development of
extraction facilities) and water rights (allowing extraction of brine from the lake). The water rights most directly control
Compass Minerals’ ability to extract brine from the lake and Compass Minerals currently has right to extract 156,000 acre-
feet per annum from the North Arm of the lake and an additional 205,000 acre-feet per annum of idle brine right that can
be extracted from the North or South Arm. Compass Minerals currently utilizes its 156,000 acre foot water right to support
existing mineral production at its GSL Facility. It does not currently utilize its 2005,000 acre-foot water right.
(7) Compass Minerals does not have exclusive access to mineral resources in the lake and other existing operations, including
those run by US Magnesium, Morton Salt and Cargill also extract dissolved mineral from the lake (all in the South Arm).
(8) Lithium to lithium carbonate equivalent (LCE) uses a factor of 5.323 tons LCE per ton Li
(9) Joe Havasi is the QP responsible for the mineral resources.
1.5 Conclusions and Recommendations

The Great Salt Lake and Compass Minerals’ Operation on the Great Salt Lake host lithium mineral
resources. These mineral resource estimates have been developed using the most representative

available data, both generated through studies completed by Compass Minerals and other research
organizations. The data have been reviewed, verified, and analyzed to develop a lithium mineral
resource estimate for the Great Salt Lake and halite aquifers within three constructed evaporation
ponds at the GSL Facility.
In the QP’s opinion, primary points of uncertainty surrounding the resource estimate follow:
 Interactions between surface and subsurface brines in the Great Salt Lake basin: the resource
estimate for the lake only considers surface brine and has not attempted to evaluate or model
the presence or interaction of subsurface brine, even though it almost certainly has an impact
on the surface brine. This is hypothesized by the QP to largely be driven by net outflow from
surface to subsurface during periods of rising lake levels and net inflows from subsurface to
surface during periods of falling lake levels.
 Fresh water inflows and mineral depletion from the Great Salt Lake: the mineral resource
estimate for the lake reflects a static snapshot of the lithium mineral content in the Great Salt
Lake. However, the lake is a dynamic system and freshwater inflows contain trace mineral
levels that continue to add loading to the lake. Mineral extraction activities conversely are
continually depleting the mineral resource basis. Net depletion / addition of dissolved lithium
was assumed to be immaterial and with no net trend in the data established. However, given
the volatility of the overall data, it is possible there is a net trend (either positive or negative)
that has not been captured.
 Efficiency of mixing of brine in the Great Salt Lake: the mineral resource estimate for the lake
accounts for minor changes in resource concentration over the vertical column of brine by
averaging multiple sample data points across the vertical water column. However, the estimate
effectively assumes that the lateral concentration of dissolved minerals in the lake is
homogenous and relies on a small number of sample stations to reflect the overall
concentration of dissolved mineral in the lake. From comparison of data from those sample
stations, the QP believes this is a reasonable assumption (see Section 0), although there is
still a small amount of variability in the data.
 Bathymetric data for the Great Salt Lake: there are two relatively recent bathymetric surveys
of the Great Salt Lake and a comparison of these two data sets show limited variability of 1-
2% typical at each elevation and 5% maximum (see Section 7.1.1). However, dissolution /
precipitation of halite in the North Arm (where sodium can reach saturation at times) could
impact bathymetry. Further, the resolution of the bathymetric data (0.5 foot) is lower than the
water level data resolution (0.1) and while bathymetry data can be interpolated between
reported values, this adds uncertainty.
 The assumption that brine fluids within the evaporation pond halite aquifers are homogenized
vertically. The methods used to collect brine samples within the halite aquifers was not capable
of determining if there was vertical stratification within the aquifer. The presence of this
stratification may change the interpretation of the lithium grades hosted in the brine and
subsequently the mineral resource estimate.
 The hydraulic properties of the halite aquifers within the evaporation ponds may not be uniform
or may have a specific yield higher or lower than the currently utilized 0.32 (Ponds 1b, 113,
and 114) and 0.30 (Ponds 96, 97, and 98) values. Additional aquifer characterization activities
in the halite aquifers of the evaporation ponds may alter the current understanding of these

hydraulic properties. Such findings may change the amount of brine available within the halite
aquifer of each pond and subsequently affect the mineral resource estimate.
 The lateral spacing of brine sample locations within the halite aquifers within the evaporation
ponds may not be sufficient to adequately characterize variations in the brine chemistry.
 The temporal spacing of brine sampling within the halite aquifers within the evaporation ponds
may not be sufficient to adequately characterize seasonal variations in brine chemistry.
 The concept of the extraction of coproduct lithium at the GSL Facility remains at a relatively
early stage. While preliminary metallurgical testwork for extraction of lithium has been
completed with good results in the extraction of lithium from host brines and rejection of
impurities, final advanced onsite pilot plant design is in progress and a flow sheet has not been
finalized. Therefore, uncertainty remains high in process performance and economics have
not yet been quantified. Nonetheless, from a qualitative review of similar global projects, in the
QP’s opinion, there is a reasonable potential for economic extraction of lithium at the
Operation. Going forward, continued study and engineering work will be completed to reduce
this uncertainty.
Additional study is required to support the economics of adding lithium extraction infrastructure to the
GSL Facility. With that in mind, the recommendations included in this report are focused on better
defining the extractive metallurgy associated with lithium production and defining economic
parameters to support potential future lithium production.

2 Introduction
This Technical Report Summary (this “TRS”) was prepared in accordance with Items 601(b)(96) and
1300 through 1305 of Regulation S-K (Title 17, Part 229, Items 601(b)(96) and 1300 through 1305 of
the Code of Federal Regulations) promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”)
for Compass Minerals International, Inc. (“Compass Minerals”) with respect to estimation of lithium
mineral resources for Compass Minerals’ existing operation producing various minerals from the Great
Salt Lake (“GSL”), located in Ogden, Utah (referred to as the “GSL Facility”, the “Operation” or the
“Ogden Plant”).
2.1 Terms of Reference and Purpose

The quality of information, conclusions, and estimates contained herein are based on: i) information
available at the time of preparation and ii) the assumptions, conditions, and qualifications set forth in
this TRS.
The purpose of this TRS is to fulfill the requirements of an Initial Assessment to report lithium mineral
resources for the GSL Facility.
The effective date of this Technical Report Summary is July 13, 2021.
2.2 Sources of Information

This Technical Report Summary is based on public data sourced from the Utah Geological Survey
(“UGS”), United States Geological Survey (“USGS”), internal Compass Minerals technical reports,
previous technical studies, maps, Compass Minerals letters and memoranda, and public information
as cited throughout this TRS and listed in Section 24 “References”.
Reliance upon information provided by the registrant is listed in Section 0, where applicable.
This report was prepared by Joseph R. Havasi, MBA, CPG-12040, a qualified person.
2.3 Details of Inspection

Table 2-1 summarizes the details of the personal inspections on the property by the qualified person.
Table 2-1: Site Visits

Date(s) Details of
QP
of Visit Inspection
Joe Havasi August 2018 – September 2018 Drilled west pond 113 salt probes (SP-1 through SP-82)
Joe Havasi September 7 – 10 2018 Drilled east pond 1B salt probes 1BSP-01 through
1BSP-13
Joe Havasi November 2018 – December 2018 Conduct pump testing at select Pond 113 wells
Joe Havasi July 15-17 2019 Drilled west pond113 salt probes SP-36 & 24, SP-83
through SP-89
Joe Havasi March 2020 Excavated 7 test pits (114TP-01 through 114TP-07) in
Pond 114
Joe Havasi August 2020 Drilled 21 drillholes in Ponds 96, 97, and 98 and
conducted pump testing
Joe Havasi September 2020 – May 2021 Conducted six excursions in the GSL to collect ambient
lake brine samples from RD-2, LVG4, and FB-2 sample
locations.

2.4 Report Version

This TRS is not an update of a previously filed TRS.

3 Property Description
The GSL Facility is a processing facility that beneficiates and separates “Salts” from brine, sourced
from the Great Salt Lake. The primary salt produced is SOP (K2SO4), with coproduct production of
halite (NaCl) and magnesium chloride (MgCl). The Operation relies upon solar evaporation to
concentrate brine and precipitate the salts in large evaporation ponds, prior to harvesting and
processing at the Ogden Plant. Lithium is contained in the brine currently processed by the Operation,
but is not extracted for sale with the existing facilities.
3.1 Property Location

The GSL Facility infrastructure is located in Box Elder and Weber County, Utah. The Ogden Plant is
located approximately 15 miles (by road) to the west of Ogden, Utah and 50 miles (by road) to the
northwest of Salt Lake City, Utah. The Ogden Plant is located at the approximate coordinates of
41˚16’51” North and 112˚13’53” West. There are two large areas of solar evaporation ponds
associated with the GSL Facility, known as the east and west ponds. The East Ponds are located
adjacent (to the north and west) of the Ogden Plant in Bear River Bay. The West Ponds are located
on the opposite side of the lake (due west) in Clyman and Gunnison Bays (Source: SRK Consulting
(US) Inc.
Figure 3-1).

Source: SRK Consulting (US) Inc.
Figure 3-1: Location of Compass Minerals’ GSL Facility within Northern Utah

3.2 Mineral Right

The Great Salt Lake and minerals associated with the lake are owned by the State of Utah.
Compass Minerals able to extract and produce Salts from the lake by right of a combination of lakebed
lease agreements, water rights for consumption of brines and freshwater, a royalty agreement, and a
mineral extraction permit. Compass Minerals pays a royalty to the State of Utah based on gross
revenues of Salts produced. The royalty agreement and lakebed leases are evergreen (i.e., do not
expire), so long as paying quantities of minerals are produced from the leases.
The lakebed leases provide the right to develop mineral extraction and processing facilities on the
shore of the GSL. Compass Minerals’ lakebed leases were issued over the years between 1965 and
2012, with the total lakebed lease area 163,681 acres between 13 active leases (Table 3-1, not all are
currently utilized). The leases held by Compass Minerals are currently managed by the Utah
Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands (“FFSL”), which was
created in 1994.
Table 3-1: Land Tenure - (Lakebed Leases)

Regulatory Office Lease ID Location County Area (acres)
FFSL ML 19024-SV East Ponds Box Elder 20,826.56
FFSL ML 23023-SV Promontory (PS 1) Box Elder 14,380.56
FFSL ML 43388-SV Promontory (PS 1) Box Elder 708.00
FFSL ML 44607-SV West Ponds Box Elder 37,829.82
FFSL 20000107 West Exp (D.Island) Box Elder 23,088.00
SITLA SULA 1186 West of Pond 114 Box Elder 1,595.90
SITLA SULA 1267 Clyman Bay Box Elder 21,753.85
The actual extraction of minerals from the GSL is controlled by water rights that dictate the amount of
brine that can be pumped from the lake on an annual basis. Compass Minerals’ water rights are listed
in Table 3-2. Compass Minerals has 156,000 acre-ft extraction rights from the north arm of the lake
that it relies upon for its current production. Compass Minerals holds additional 205,000 acre-ft water
extraction rights from the south arm that are not being utilized. As a limit on the volume of brine that
can be pumped in a year, these water rights also cap the mass production of Salt that is possible in
any year.
Table 3-2: GSL Water Rights

Source Points of Diversion Priority County WR/CH/EX#1 Volume2
Box 134 cfs or
Great Salt Lake PS 1 1/8/62 13-246
Elder 27,000 AF
PS 1, PS 23 (segregated from Box 46 cfs or
Great Salt Lake 1/8/62 13-3091
13-246) Elder 67,000 AF
PS 1, PS 23 (segregated from Box 50 cfs or
13-3091) Elder 62,000 AF
PS 1 and PS 112 (changed Box 180 cfs or
from 13-246 and 13-3091) Elder 94,000 AF

Source Points of Diversion Priority County WR/CH/EX#1 Volume2

Box
Great Salt Lake Clyman Bay 6/13/20 13-3457 180,992 AF
Elder
Bangerter Pump Station Canal,
Bangerter Pump Box
ear Hogup Bridge Lucin Cutoff 11/9/95 13-3742 25,000 AF
Station Sump Elder
PS 2, PS 8, Northern Lease Box
Bear River 6/11/65 13-1109 17,792 AF
Border Elder
Box
Bear River PS 2, PS 3, 1B Cut 2/20/81 13-3345 49,208 AF
Elder
Pond water impoundment
Bear River/Great Box
North of PS 2 (non- 12/14/81 13-3404 8,000 cfs
Salt Lake Elder
consumptive)
Underground Box 0.17 cfs or
PS 112 Well (Lakeside) 8/20/92 13-3592
Water Well Elder 100 AF
Underground Box
PS 114 Well 2/19/03 13-3800 0.22 cfs
Water Well Elder
Underground Box
PS 112 Well (New) 2/6/08 13-3871 66 AF
Water Well Elder
Underground PS 113, 114, 7000 ac, Box 1.84 cfs or
12/16/08 13-3885
Water Wells Lakeside, 115 Elder 784 AF
Underground Box
PS 113 Well (New) 12/16/08 13-3887 66 AF
Water Wells Elder
Underground
Pond Control Well 7/27/65 Weber 35-2343 0.15 cfs
Water Well
Underground Near Ponds 26/91/88, Pond
7/27/65 Weber 35-5373 24.85 cfs
Water Wells (5) Control
Underground East of Pond 26 (same as 13-
6/17/66 Weber 35-4012 1.5 cfs
Water Wells (10) 5325)
Underground East of Pond 26 (same as 13-
6/17/66 Weber 35-5325 6.5 cfs
Water Wells (10) 4012)
Underground
Southeast of Mg Plant 8/19/60 Weber 35-1201 0.00054 cfs
Water Well
Underground
East of Little Mountain 7/19/40 Weber 35-162 0.583 cfs
Water Wells (7)
Underground
Southeast of Mg Plant 3/23/36 Weber 35-2730 0.089 cfs
Water Well
1
WH=, CH=, EX=
2
AF=acre-feet, cfs=cubic feet per second
In addition to the key lakebed leases and water rights, which provide Compass Minerals the right to
develop its extraction/processing facilities and extract brine from the GSL, respectively,
Compass Minerals also holds a range of other leases / easements that have allowed development of
specific aspects of key infrastructure for the operation. These leases are described in Table 3-3 (active
leases / easements) and Table 3-4 (inactive leases / easements).
Brine and ultimate mineral extraction from brines extracted from the GSL is enabled by a Large Mine
Operation mineral extraction permit (GSL Mine M/057/0002) (“Mine Permit”) through the Utah
Department of Natural Resources (“DNR”), Division of Oil, Gas and Mining (“DOGM”). The mineral
extraction permit enables all lake extraction, pond operations, and plant / processing operations
conducted by Compass Minerals. The Mine Permit is supported by a reclamation plan that documents
all aspects of current operations and mandates certain closure and reclamation requirements in
accordance with Utah Rule R647-4-104. Financial assurance for the ultimate reclamation of facilities
is documented in the reclamation plan, and security for costs that will be incurred to execute site
closure is provided by a third party insurer to the State of Utah in the form of a surety bond. With

respect to lithium, the existing mineral extraction permit is expected to apply to lithium extraction as
well since the permit conditions are specific to development of ponds and appurtenances, and
extraction of lithium from current production of existing products concentrated in the ponds will not
yield incremental ponds or facility development. Any greenfield expansion of ponds or appurtenances
beyond the existing facility footprint would require a permit modification regardless of the mineral(s)
being developed.
Table 3-3: Non-Solar Leases/Easements

Regulatory Office Lease ID Location County Area
FFSL ESMT 95 Behrens Trench Box Elder 1,099
FFSL SOV-0002-400 PS 113 Inlet Canal Box Elder 41.19
SITLA ML 50730 MP Strong's Knob Box Elder 57.00
SITLA ESMT 96 S.Knob Access Road Box Elder 28.00
SITLA ESMT 143 PS 112 Flush Line Box Elder 21.68
Table 3-4: Inactive Leases/Easements

Regulatory Office Lease ID Location County Area
FFSL ESMT 97 Willard Canal Weber 11.00
3.2.1 Royalties
Compass Minerals has rights to all ‘salts’ from the Great Salt Lake, which is inclusive of lithium chloride.
Compass Minerals’ existing royalty agreement that covers halite, SOP, and magnesium chloride will
need to be modified to include lithium products. The current statutory royalty rate for lithium products
in Utah is 5% of revenues, less certain costs. For the production of either lithium carbonate or lithium
hydroxide, the cost of imported carbonate or hydroxide inputs would reasonably be expected to be
deducted.
3.2.2 Acquisition of Mineral Rights

Leasable areas for mineral extraction on the GSL lakebed are identified in the Great Salt Lake
Comprehensive Management Plan (“GSL CMP”). The GSL CMP is updated approximately every
10 years, or when there are major changes to the GSL environment and setting.
A party interested in leasing lakebed for mineral extraction may nominate an area within the area
designated by the GSL CMP as leasable, at which time, the FFSL will issue public notice of lease
nomination, conduct an environmental assessment on the nominated lease area, and ultimately
consider approval of the lease nomination.
This process was followed historically in the acquisition of existing leases held by Compass Minerals.
Most leasable area on the GSL lakebed is held by existing mineral extraction companies, including
Compass Minerals, US Magnesium, Inc., Cargill, and Mineral Resources International, Inc.
Compass Minerals has two leases with State of Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands
Administration (“SITLA”), for lands upland of the GSL. Special Use Lease Agreement (“SULA”) 1186
was acquired in May 1999, while the rights to SULA 1267 were acquired from Solar Resources
International in 2013. As described above, leases held with Utah FFSL are evergreen, held by

production, while SULA 1186 expires in April 2049, and SULA 1267 expires in December 2041, with
an option to extend by two, five year terms. Both SULA agreements allow for the construction and
operation of evaporation ponds on the subject properties.
3.3 Encumbrances
Mineral extraction activities at the GSL Facility are regulated by the Utah DNR, DOGM, under permit
# M/057/002. The site is to be reclaimed in accordance with the approved reclamation plan.
The reclamation plan for the solar evaporation and harvest ponds was developed as part of the mining
portion of the permit will be deconstructed in two separate phases. Phase I involves the final return of
all accumulated salts within the evaporation and harvest beds. The salts will be dissolved using fresh
water obtained via the GSL Facility’s freshwater rights. Similar to Compass Minerals’ yearly return flow
operations, the dissolved rinseate will be returned to the Great Salt Lake at the current point of
discharge for prior salt return activities at the southern end of Bear River Bay. The Phase I portion of
the plan will be conducted during the late fall for about three to four months in duration. If necessary,
these salt return activities may be conducted over multiple years to substantially dissolve accumulated
salts and return those salts to the Great Salt Lake. The salt removal process may require some
mechanical removal, if necessary, to return the evaporation ponds and harvest ponds to a natural lake
bed surface to the satisfaction of the oversight state regulatory agency.
Upon completion of the Phase I salt removal activities, the Phase II rip-rap management plan will
commence. This Phase II will involve the collection of rip-rap from the lake side of the GSL Facility’s
dikes and cluster the rip-rap them in piles separated by about 1 mile. The rip-rap clusters will be formed
on the pond side of historic dikes. The rip-rap clusters will be designed to enhance the natural migratory
bird habitat. Additionally, the rip-rap clusters will be fortified with some fine-grained materials to partially
fill some interstitial voids to enhance bird nesting habitat.
In conjunction with Phase II, the exterior and interior dikes will be breached every mile to allow wave
action from the Great Salt Lake to erode the remaining dike structures. All other structures and
equipment will be removed from State lands. The process plant is a part of an industrial park and will
remain after cessation of operations. At the request of the State Division of Wildlife Resources,
Compass Minerals may negotiate the possibility of leaving some ponds in place to create bird refuges.
Borrow pits high walls will be recontoured to a 45° angle or less and the pit floors completed so that
the pits will not impound water. Revegetation will take place where sufficient soils exist. No plans for
soil importation to revegetate the borrow pits are being considered.
All equipment and structures located on lands owned by the State of Utah will be removed. The Ogden
Plant site will be left intact for use in the existing industrial park. Allowing the plant to remain as a part
of this park was approved by the Weber County Commission of March 29, 1986.
The commitment to perform required reclamation activities is secured by a surety bond. The current
total reclamation obligation is US$4.36 million dollars.
3.4 Other Significant Factors and Risks

There are no other significant factors or risks that may affect access, title, or the right or ability to
perform work on the GSL Facility.

4 Physiography, Accessibility and Infrastructure

4.1 Topography, Elevation and Vegetation
The GSL Facility is located along the middle to northern extent of the Great Salt Lake at an elevation
ranging between 4,208 ft and 4,225 ft. The topography of the facility area is generally flat, as it is
situated along the marginal lake sediments of the Great Salt Lake. Local vegetation is dominated by
shrubs and grasses associated with a desert ecosystem, and a relatively low precipitation
environment.
4.2 Accessibility
Access to the GSL Facility is considered excellent. The City of Ogden, Utah has established
infrastructure for both mining and exporting salt. Access to the Operation is via Ogden and vicinity on
paved two-lane roads. From Salt Lake City, located 40 miles to the south, Ogden is accessible is via
Interstate Highway 15.
Commercial air travel is accessible from Salt Lake City, and rail access is provided by an existing
siding at the Ogden Plant.
4.3 Climate and Operating Season

The climate at the GSL Facility varies significantly from summer to winter, ranging from an average
low of 20 F in January, to an average high in August of 90 F. The summer period from May to
September sees the highest evaporation rates and imparts a cyclic nature to the Operation with
evaporative concentration in the summer months, and salt harvesting from late fall to early spring.
4.4 Infrastructure Availability and Sources

The GSL Facility is connected to the local municipal water distribution system, Weber Basin Water
Conservation District.
The GSL Facility is connected to the local electrical and natural gas distribution systems via Rocky
Mountain Power and Dominion Energy, respectively. The GSL facility houses an existing substation
as well that services the east-pond complex and Promontory Point.
The population of Ogden, Utah is approximately 88,000, which is included in the greater Ogden-
Clearfield metropolitan area population of approximately 600,000. The area population provides a
more than adequate base for staffing the GSL Facility, with a pool of talent for both trades and technical
management.
The cities of Ogden and Salt Lake City, Utah provide all necessary resources for the GSL Facility and
is a major urban center in the western United States. In addition to a central transportation hub for
airline, rail, and over-the-highway cargo, the region is a major support hub for the mining industry in
the western United States.

5 History
Operations have been ongoing at the Ogden Plant site since the late 1960s, with commercial
production starting in 1970. The Ogden Plant site has been operated under various owners and has
historically produced halite, potash, and as of 1998, magnesium chloride.
During the early 1960s, chemical companies, including Dow Chemical Company, Monsanto Chemical
Company, Stauffer Chemical Company, Lithium Corporation of America (“Lithcoa”), and Salzdetfurth
A.G., reserved acreage for lakeside developments on Great Salt Lake (Kerr, 1965). Of these, Lithcoa
and Salzdetfurth A.G. were the first to develop commercial brine/salt operations.
The potash facility operated by Compass Minerals Ogden Inc. (which was initially formed in 1967 and
was formerly known as Great Salt Lake Minerals Corporation, IMC Kalium Ogden Corp. and Great
Salt Lake Minerals & Chemicals Corp.) was constructed after an exploration project and feasibility
study was carried out by Lithcoa. Laboratory studies were conducted in 1963 and 1964, followed by
three years of pilot plant testing and construction of pilot evaporation ponds (Industrial Minerals, 1984).
During 1964, Lithcoa representatives appeared before the Utah State Land Board (the State agency
that regulated lake development, now the FFSL) in order to acquire permission to extract minerals
from the Great Salt Lake (Lewis, 1965; Woody, 1982). Within the next year or so, permission was
granted.
In 1965, studies continued on methods for extracting minerals from Great Salt Lake. During that same
year, Lithcoa entered into a partnership with Salzdetfurth, A.G., of Hanover, West Germany, an
important producer of potash and salt (Lithcoa 51% and Salzdetfurth A.G. 49% ownership) to develop
the land and mineral rights on the lake held by Salzdetfurth A.G. (Lewis, 1966: Engineering and Mining
Journal, 1970).
In 1967, Lithcoa and Chemsalt, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Salzdetfurth, A.G., proceeded with
plans to build facilities on the north arm of the Great Salt Lake to produce potash, sodium sulfate,
magnesium chloride, and salt from the lake brine (Lewis, 1968). Lithcoa was acquired that same year
by Gulf Resources and Minerals Co. (Houston, Texas) and at that point Gulf Resources and A.G.
Salzdetfurth began developing a US$38 million solar evaporation and processing plant west of Ogden,
Utah (Knudsen, 1980). The new facility began operating in October 1970. The plant was designed to
produce 240,000 short tons (218,000 metric tons (mt)) of potassium sulfate, 150,000 short tons
(136,000 mt) of sodium sulfate, and up to 500,000 short tons (454,000 mt) of magnesium chloride
annually (Gulf Resources & Chemical Corporation, 1970; Eilertsen, 1971).
In May 1973, Gulf Resources bought its German partner's share of the Great Salt Lake project. At that
time, the German partner had also undergone some changes and was known as Kaliund Salz A.G.
(Gulf Resources & Chemical Corporation, 1973; Behrens, 1980; Industrial Minerals, 1984).
The initial mining sequence consisted of pumping brine directly from the North Arm of the Great Salt
Lake. The brine was pumped from Pump Station 1 on the southwest shore of Promontory Point to an
overland canal that flowed the brine by gravity to the east side of Promontory mountains and was
distributed through a series of solar ponds.
As Great Salt Lake rose to its historic high in the 1980s, the company spent US$8.1 million in 1983,
US$8.1 million in early 1984, US$3.0 million in 1985, and US$4.8 million in 1986 to protect its
evaporation pond system at the Ogden Plant site against the rising lake level. On May 5, 1984, a

northern dike of the system breached, resulting in severe flooding and damage to about 85% of the
pond complex. The breach resulted in physical damage to dikes, pond floors, bridges, pump stations,
and other structures. In addition, brine inventories were diluted, making them unusable for producing
SOP (Gulf Resources & Chemical Corporation, 1986). During the next five years, the company
pumped the water from its solar ponds, reconstructed peripheral and interior dikes and roads, replaced
pump stations, and laid down new salt floors in order to restart its operation at the Ogden Plant site.
A 25,000-acre evaporation pond complex was constructed at the Ogden Plant site on the west side of
the lake in 1994. The new western ponds were connected to the east-pond complex by a 21-mile,
open, underwater canal called the Behrens Trench which was dredged in the lakebed, from the
western pond's outlet near Strong’s Knob to a pump station located just west of the southern tip of
Promontory Point. The concentrated brine from the west pond, which is more dense than the lake
brine due to its mineral concentration, is fed into the low-gradient canal, where it flows slowly by gravity
eastward, beneath the less-dense Great Salt Lake brine, to the primary pump station. From there, the
dense brine travels around the south end of Promontory Point, then northward, where it enters the
east pond complex.
In 1993, D.G. Harris & Associates acquired the Ogden Plant site operations, and in 1997, Harris
Chemical Group (part of D.G. Harris & Associates) was acquired by IMC Global. In 2001, IMC Salt
(part of IMC Global) was acquired by Apollo Management. In 2003, Apollo Management changed the
name of IMC Salt to Compass Minerals International, Inc. and the Company had an initial public
offering.
On September 16, 2004, the Ogden Plant applied to DOGM to add solar Pond 1B to its permitted
operations area. On October 8, 2004, DOGM gave formal approval of this permit revision, and Pond
1B construction was completed in 2006. This pond is located on the east side of Promontory Point and
due east of Pond 1A and of the Bear River Channel.
On November 11, 2011, the Ogden Plant submitted a Notice of Intent (“NOI”) to amend mining
operations to integrate pond technology enhancements (“PTE”) in existing perimeter dikes located in
Bear River Bay. PTE is designed to improve the functionality of existing dikes and is fully encapsulated
within the dikes. PTE is implemented by excavating a 24-inch trench within the existing perimeter dikes
and backfilling the excavation with inert cement bentonite grout. The PTE then acts to reduce leakage
of refined brines back into the Great Salt Lake. Due to the low compressive strength of the vertical
cement bentonite seam (which is similar to the strength of the surrounding dike materials), the existing
reclamation plan which provides for wave action to ultimately remove dikes will also be effective in
reclaiming PTE-integrated dikes. PTE construction was completed in 2014.

6 Geological Setting, Mineralization, and Deposit

The GSL Facility produces saleable minerals from brines sourced from the Great Salt Lake. These
brines are upgraded through solar evaporation within large constructed ponds. The following describes
the geologic relevance of the Great Salt Lake and lays out the man-made aquifers within the
evaporation ponds which host brines with high lithium concentrations.
6.1.1 Regional Geology

The GSL Facility is located on the shore of the Great Salt Lake in northern Utah. This location is within
the geographic transition from the Rocky Mountains, to the Basin and Range Province to the west.
The Great Salt Lake is a remnant of Lake Bonneville, a large Late-Pleistocene pluvial lake that once
covered much of western Utah. At its maximum extent, Lake Bonneville covered an area of
approximately 20,000 square miles. Lake Bonneville has been in a state of contraction for the past
15,000 years and has resulted in the formation of remnant lakes that include the Great Salt Lake,
Sevier Lake, and Utah Lake (Figure 6-1). Evaporation rates higher than input from precipitation and
runoff have driven the lake contraction and has served to concentrate dissolved minerals in the lake
water. The GSL is one of the most saline lakes in the world; overall, the dissolved solids indicate that
it is very similar to the world’s oceans in chemical composition (UGS, 1980).
The Great Salt Lake is currently the largest saltwater lake in the western hemisphere, covering
approximately 1,700 square miles. But due to fluctuation in evaporation rates and precipitation, that
size has ranged from 950 square miles to 3,300 square miles over the past 60 years. On a geologic
timeframe, the Great Salt Lake water level has varied by many hundreds of feet over the past
10,000 years (SRK, 2017; UGS, 1980).

Source: UGS 1980
Figure 6-1: Former Extent of Lake Bonneville, Relative to Current Remnant Lakes and Cities
6.1.2 Local Geology

Over the course of modern record keeping, the water level of the Great Salt Lake has not varied by
more than 20 ft. This is controlled through the balance of recharge and discharge from the lake. Lake
level data indicated that historical lows were seen in the 1960s, while historical highs were seen in the

mid-1980s, which required discharge of the Great Salt Lake brine into the west desert by the Utah
Division of Water Resources and Utah Department of Natural Resources in an effort to control the lake
level.
Inflow contributions to the Great Salt Lake are from surface water (66%), rainwater (31%), and
groundwater (3%), with seasonal variation impacting the annual contribution (UGS, 1980). Discharge
from the Great Salt Lake is primarily through evaporation.
In 1960, a railroad causeway was constructed in replacement of a 12-mile-long wooden trestle. The
causeway is a permeable rockfill barrier with box concrete box culverts that permit limited brine
transfer, but prevent full mixing of brine on either side of the causeway. The causeway has therefore
effectively divided the Great Salt Lake into two bodies of water (the North Arm and the South Arm),
which have each developed distinct physical and chemical attributes most readily identified through a
noticeable color difference in the waters (Figure 6-2).
Figure 6-2: Railroad Causeway Segregating the North and South Arms of the GSL

Due to the location of the causeway, all surface freshwater flow enters into the South Arm of the lake
as river inflow from the Jordan, Weber, and Bear Rivers. Conversely, the North Arm of the lake
receives only mixed brine via limited recharge through the causeway and minor contributions from
precipitation and groundwater. Furthermore, due to topography and microclimate conditions, the South
Arm receives greater precipitation, while the North Arm has more favorable evaporative conditions
(UGS, 1980). These conditions have resulted in the preferential concentration of minerals within the
North Arm brine relative to the South Arm brine.
Recent sampling for the Utah Geological Survey (UGS) (2020) data shows that overall lithium
concentrations in the North Arm are typically more than double those found in the South Arm. These
data reflect the impact of the causeway and environmental factors and allow for a review of potential
resources to consider the North Arm and South Arm of the Great Salt Lake independently.
6.1.3 Property Geology

Compass Minerals’ GSL Facility extracts brine from the North Arm of the Great Salt Lake into a series
of evaporation ponds. The brine is concentrated in these ponds, moving from pond to pond as the
dissolved mineral content in the brine increases. The largest of these ponds are the first three ponds
through which brine flows, these are Pond 1b in the east ponds, and Ponds 113 and 114 of the west
ponds. Pond 1b covers an area of approximately 2,700 acres, Pond 113 is approximately 17,000
acres, and Pond 114 is approximately 10,600 acres in size. Additional smaller evaporation ponds
considered within the mineral resource estimate include Ponds 96, 97, and 98 on the north end of the
GSL Facility. Pond 96 is approximately 1,431 acres, Pond 97 is approximately 983 acres, and Pond
98 is approximately 1,142 acres (Source: SRK, 2020
Figure 6-3). These ponds are periodically flooded with brine for solar concentration and are
subsequently drained to the top of the precipitated halite surface within the pond (Figure 6-4).
Through the course of operation, halite is precipitated within these ponds at an average rate of net
four inches per year. The thickness of the halite beds in each of the ponds ranges from 5.0 to 6.5 ft in
Pond 1b, 7.0 to 15.5 ft in Pond 113, and 0.0 to 8.0 ft in Pond 114 where the salt beds taper out along
a beach head on the western side of the pond. The deposited halite in Pond 96 ranges from 6.5 to
9.0 ft, 8.0 to 9.5 ft in Pond 97, and 9.0 to 9.5 ft in Pond 98. The precipitated halite has a coarse granular
texture, unconsolidated, with individual grains having a subangular shape (Figure 6-5).
The halite beds in the evaporation ponds host a residual brine aquifer. These residual brines remain
after the brine level in the pond has been pumped down for transfer to the top of the halite bed. This
brine aquifer, hosted in the halite beds, contains the dissolved lithium mineralization considered in the
mineral resource estimate.

Source: SRK, 2020
Figure 6-3: Locations of Pond 1b, Pond 96, Pond 97, Pond 98, Pond 113, and Pond 114 Relative
to the Central Processing Facility at the GSL Facility and the Great Salt Lake

Source: SRK, 2020
Figure 6-4: Precipitated Halite Surface within Pond 113
Figure 6-5: Sample of Precipitated Halite from Pond 113

6.2 Mineral Deposit

There are two primary mineral deposits considered for lithium mineral resources; 1) the brines of the
Great Salt Lake; and 2) the brine aquifers hosted within the halite beds of Ponds 1b, 96, 97, 98, 113,
and 114.
The Great Salt Lake is a brine lake that hosts dissolved minerals at concentrations sufficient for
economic recovery of certain resources. The mineral resource of the Great Salt Lake currently
supports economic recovery of sodium (as NaCl), potassium (as SOP), and magnesium (as MgCl2).
Lithium is not currently extracted from the brine of the Great Salt Lake for commercial sale, but lithium
is included in the existing process streams at the Operation and is undergoing study for potential
extraction and sale. As a generally homogenous surface water body (within each arm of the lake), no
stratigraphic column is presented for the GSL.
The brine aquifers within the halite beds of Ponds 1b, 96, 97, 98, 113, and 114 were originally sourced
from the North Arm of the Great Salt Lake. These brines were subsequently concentrated through
solar evaporation, significantly elevating concentrations of dissolved minerals. These aquifers are
located within man-made evaporation ponds, and process derived sediments (halite).
The stratigraphy of the evaporation ponds at the GSL Facility is relatively simplistic. The ponds are
constructed on top of native clays and sandy clays on the shore of the GSL, with constructed clay
berms (Figure 6-6). The brines were then pumped into the constructed evaporation ponds which
resulted in precipitation of halite. The brine aquifer water table within the halite aquifer is generally at,
or immediately below the surface of the halite. Ponds 96, 97, and 98 have halite deposition which has
topped the berms that separates the three ponds, this allows these three ponds to be currently
operated as a single pond.
Source: SRK, 2019
Figure 6-6: Geologic Cross Section within Evaporation Ponds at the GSL Facility

7 Exploration
Exploration activities related to the lithium mineral resources at Compass Minerals’ GSL Facility
include sampling and surveys of the GSL as well as drilling, pothole trench excavation, and
hydrogeologic testing both in the field and laboratory for the ponds. The following describes the
exploration activities undertaken to develop the data utilized within the mineral resource estimate.
7.1 Non-Drilling Exploration Activities

For the GSL, non-drilling exploration is the primary source of information supporting the resource
estimate. For the ponds, there are more limited exploration activities outside of drilling that have been
completed.
7.1.1 Great Salt Lake

As a water body, data collection for the Great Salt Lake necessarily does not rely upon drilling.
Data to support the lithium resource estimate for the Great Salt Lake was sourced from historical
literature and data produced by the UGS or USGS related to the Great Salt Lake, supplemented by
recent sampling data performed by Compass Minerals. Compass Minerals did not conduct an
independent audit of historic exploration methods or sampling and analytical analysis. However, given
that almost all data is sourced from the USGS and UGS, in the QP’s opinion, it is reasonable and
appropriate to rely upon this data, especially given the wide range of data over many years that reflects
consistency from data set to data set, including recent sample data collected by Compass Minerals.
The data available for the Great Salt Lake include the following:
 Lake level elevation data and trends to estimate total brine volume, measured by the USGS
 Historical lithium concentrations within the Great Salt Lake, measured by the UGS
 Recent lithium concentrations within the Great Salt Lake, measured by Compass Minerals
 Recent lithium concentrations at the intake for brine into Compass Minerals’ evaporation
ponds, measured by Compass Minerals
 Bathymetry data for the lake bottom, measured by the USGS
Lake Level Elevation and Brine Volume
The water level within the Great Salt Lake is monitored at several points within the North and South
Arms of the lake. Sample data is collected by the USGS and the locations utilized for this resource
estimate include USGS 10010100 Saline (North Arm) and USGS 10010000 Saltair Boat Harbor
(South Arm).
As noted in Section 4.2, the water elevation in the lake has varied significantly over time. Over the past
50 years, the lake elevation has ranged from a low of approximately 4,189 ft amsl to a high of
approximately 4,211 ft amsl in the North Arm of the lake, equating to a variation of more than 20 ft in
elevation (Figure 7-1). As seen in this figure, the water elevation in the South Arm is close to that in
the North Arm although almost always higher, with the average differential typically around 1 ft.

4215
4210
Measured Lake Surface Elevation (feet)
4205
4200
4195
4190
4185
North Arm (Saline) South Arm (Saltair)
Source: Modified from USGS 2021
Figure 7-1: Lake Elevation Data for the Great Salt Lake
The depth profile, or bathymetry, of the Great Salt Lake has also been studied in detail, with
bathymetric studies completed in 2000, 2005 and 2006 (USGS 2000, 2005, 2006). Figure 7-2 shows
the 2005 bathymetric data for the South Arm of the lake and Figure 7-3 shows the 2006 bathymetric
data for the North Arm. Notably, the more recent 2005/2006 data only surveyed the lake to an elevation
of 4,200 feet. While there are limited periods where the lake is above this level, the 2000 lake survey
includes survey data to 4,216 feet that can be utilized for these higher lake levels. Given the use of
both data sets in the analysis, Compass Minerals took the average of the older 2000 data and the
more recent 2005/2006 data for elevations where both data points were available. For levels above
4,200 feet, Compass Minerals solely relied upon the 2000 data. Notably, within the range of lake levels
evaluated, the average of the data set was within 1-2% of the 2005 / 2006 data with a maximum of 5%
differential. Therefore, in the QP’s opinion, the use of the average is a reasonable approach.

Source: USGS, 2005
Figure 7-2: Bathymetric Map of the South Part of the Great Salt Lake

Source: USGS, 2006
Figure 7-3: Bathymetric Map of the North Arm of the Great Salt Lake
Based on the water elevation of the lake, the overall volume of each arm of the lake can be calculated
with analysis of the bathymetry data. The USGS analyses present this data on 0.5 ft increments
(Figure 7-4). Daily lake elevation data is generally collected in 0.1 foot increments and therefore, for
volume calculations, lake volume data between the 0.5 foot elevation data increments is interpolated
linearly.

25,000,000
20,000,000
Lake Volume (acre‐feet)
15,000,000
10,000,000
5,000,000
0
4160.0 4170.0 4180.0 4190.0 4200.0 4210.0 4220.0
Lake Surface Elevation (ft)
South Arm North Arm
Source: Modified from USGS, 2000, 2005, 2006
Figure 7-4: Relationship between Lake Water Elevation and Total Volume of the Lake
Historical Lithium Concentration in Great Salt Lake Brine
The UGS has completed periodic sampling of the GSL for specific stations since 1966 (Figure 7-5),
which are available through a public database, accessible at the following web location:
https://geology.utah.gov/docs/xls/GSL_brine_chem_db.xlsx (UGS, 2020). The database was
updated most recently on October 15, 2020. Analysis of lithium in those samples is sporadic, with
dense data in the 1960s and 1970s, becoming sparser into the 1980s and 1990s, and almost none
collected since the 2000s (the exception being a single sample event in 2019). During the initial
analysis the UGS conducted a total of 57 sampling locations within the north and south arms combined
(Figure 7-5). After the initial sampling periods the UGS concluded that the lateral chemical variation
within the arms was not material and therefore the number of sampling stations was reduced to 3
stations in the South Arm (AS-2, AC-3 and FB-2) and 2 stations in the North Arm (LVG-4 and RD-2).

Source: UGS, 2016, modified to show Compass Minerals Sampling Locations
Figure 7-5: UGS Brine Sample Locations in the Great Salt Lake
The sampling locations by the UGS are summarized in UTM format using a NAD83 grid in Table 7-1.
Sampling is completed using the following procedures:
 Travel by boat to the defined coordinates using the boats navigational systems
 Sampling is completed by using a graduated hose with a weighted metal screen

 Sample intervals of 5 ft across the full depth profile of the lake. This is important given that ion
concentration over the water column can vary significantly (generally increasing at depth,
especially in the South Arm)
 Prior to each sample being taken the hose is flushed with water from the desired depth to clear
brine from the previous sample and reduce potential contamination
 Samples are collected in pre-labelled 250 mL bottles, and dispatched to the laboratory.
Table 7-1: UGS Sampling locations

Sample Location Lake Longitude Latitude UTM Easting UTM Northing
ID Arm
LVG-4 North 112.7616 41.3240 352571 4576225
RD-2 North 112.7483 41.4415 353947 4589248
AS-2 South 112.3249 40.8165 388265 4519236
AC-3 South -112.4466 40.9999 378337 4539758
FB-2 South 112.4608 41.1349 377394 4554765
Source: UGS, 2012, modified by SRK
While sample data for the lake, including lithium concentrations, has been collected since the 1960’s,
the mineral loading in the lake was dramatically changed in the late 1980’s as significant volumes of
brine were pumped from the lake to the desert located to the west of the lake to control flooding1. This
resulted in a significant reduction in overall dissolved mineral content in the lake. Therefore, data older
than June 30, 1989 (the final date of pumping with this project) was excluded from the analysis as it is
no longer representative of the overall dissolved mineral load in the lake in the QP’s opinion.
In total, post June 30, 1989 sample counts from the UGS for each sample site follow:
 AS2: 11
 AC3: 1
 FB2: 9
 LVG4: 9
 RD2: 6
Lithium concentration is heavily influenced by water levels in the GSL which creates significant volatility
in the data. The range of UGS sample results from these five sites is presented in Figure 7-6. As seen
in this figure, while the UGS has consistently sampled AC-3 for other elements, there is a single lithium
1
The West Desert pumping project was implemented to slow the rise of lake levels between 1987 and 1989. During this
time frame, reduced evaporation and increased inflow caused the lake to rise to historically high levels and caused
significant flood damage to structures and infrastructure, including US Magnesium and the Ogden Plant’s evaporation
ponds. This pumping project had a material negative impact on ion content of the Great Salt Lake with most of the salt
content of the lake water pumped to the West Desert lost from the system. The USGS completed a study in 1992
evaluating the amount of ion load lost due to the first year of pumping from this project (USGS, 1992). This study
estimated that in this first year of pumping, approximately 7.2% of the contained ion load was pumped out of the lake
with approximately 10% of that amount eventually making its way back to the lake. However, there is significant
uncertainty as to the amount of loss for the remainder of the project and around the USGS estimate so the true dissolved
mineral mass lost in the West Desert pumping project is not quantified.
sample at this site as AC-3 was not consistently historically sampled during earlier periods for which
lithium was typically included in the chemical analyses.
Source: Modified from UGS, 2020
Figure 7-6: Great Salt Lake Lithium Concentration, UGS Sampling Data
Recent Lithium Concentration Data in Great Salt Lake Brine
During 2020 and the first half of 2021, Compass Minerals has conducted independent sampling within
the GSL from the three of the five sampling locations used by the UGS. Sampling has been completed
from LGV-4 and RD-2 in the north arm, and from FB-2 in the south arm (Figure 7-5). The AS-2 location
has not been sampled as it lies further south within the lake.
Sampling procedures have been designed where possible to mimic the methodology used by UGS in
the historical database.
Sampling is completed using the following procedures
 Travel by boat to the defined coordinates using the boats navigational systems
 Sampling is completed by using a graduated high density polyethylene (HDPE) hose with a
weighted metal screen
 Sample intervals of 5 ft have been used
 Prior to each sample being taken the hose is flushed with water from the desired depth to clear
brine from the previous sample and reduce potential contamination
 Samples are collected in pre-labelled 250 mL bottles, and dispatched to the laboratory.
Compass Minerals has taken a total of 70 samples during this period plus additional sampling for
quality control including field duplicates and field blanks, from the three locations. Compass Minerals
has split each of the sampling locations into four portions which are defined as the deep, intermediate,
shallow and surface samples. A summary of the results over the time period is presented in Table 7-4.

Table 7-2: Summary of Compass Minerals Sampling Split by Location and Depth Classification
Average
Average of Average of Average of Average of
of Boron Calcium Potassium Lithium Magnesium
Row Labels Count (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
FB-2 Deep 6 34.9 314 4,642 37.8 7,293
FB-2 Deep Intermediate 6 28.0 306 3,908 30.7 6,102
FB-2 Deep Shallow 6 24.5 282 3,162 25.9 5,002
FB-2 Shallow 5 23.8 280 3,380 27.2 5,274
FB-2 Shallow Intermediate 6 25.0 275 3,442 27.6 5,347
LVG-4 Deep 6 45.9 398 7,870 58.6 11,877
LVG-4 Intermediate 6 46.2 355 7,475 56.8 11,448
LVG-4 Shallow 6 45.8 348 7,545 57.0 11,550
LVG-4 Surface 4 42.8 342 7,058 52.6 10,595
RD-2 Deep 6 47.7 349 7,305 55.2 11,073
RD-2 Intermediate 6 46.6 371 7,463 56.8 11,332
RD-2 Shallow 6 48.5 401 7,665 57.4 11,545
RD-2 Surface 1 48.4 266 7,380 51.6 9,920
Sub Total 70 38.5 335 5,934 45.4 9,058
Source: Compass Minerals, 2021
It is the QP’s opinion the sampling methods involved are appropriate and representative of the GSL
and by using a similar process to the UGS allows for the databases to be combined within the current
estimates. The QP believes that the samples labelled as shallow, intermediate and deep in the North
Arm of the GSL are the most indicative of lake concentration since surface samples are susceptible to
recent precipitation events and the stratification of fresher water. Review of lithium concentrations in
the shallow, intermediate and deep profiles generally fall within the 55 mg/L and 60 mg/l range.
Pond 114 Intake Sampling
In addition to the historical data collected by the UGS, Compass Minerals has collected lithium samples
from the intake pump for Pond 114 in 2018 and 2021. Samples have been taken via the use of a
weighted high density polyethylene hose which is inserted into the water column. The depth to the lake
bed is tagged for depth and then the hose is raised one foot to produce a clean sample. Sampling
occurred over and approximate sampling interval of 3ft within the water column, using the same
pumping system as used in the GSL sampling program. To reduce the possibility of cross sampling
contamination, the pump was run for a minimum of 5 minutes between samples to clean any potential
brine from the previous sampling. These samples are indicative of the Great Salt Lake brine that is
pulled from the North Arm and pumped into Pond 114 for the first phase of evaporative concentration.
The Compass Minerals dataset covers the fall of 2018, spring/summer of 2019, spring/summer of
2020, and the latest sampling period in April 2021, presenting multiple years of seasonal data. Lithium
concentrations by year are as follows:
 Fall 2018: 4 samples ranging from 93 to 103 mg/L averaging 98 mg/L,
 Spring/summer 2019: 5 samples ranging from 52 to 70 mg/L, averaging 63 mg/L.
 Spring/summer 2020: 4 samples, ranging from 56 to 70 mg/L, averaging 58 mg/L.
 Spring 2021: a single sample at 67.5 mg/L

These samples represent a different style of sampling than those taken at the main GSL sample
locations and therefore have not been utilized for the current mineral resource estimate, but have been
used for verification purposes.
7.1.2 Evaporation Pond Salt Mass

Limited exploration activities outside of drilling associated investigations have been completed for the
evaporation ponds. The only data included in this report from other data collection programs, includes
pothole trenching within the halite aquifer of Pond 114.
Seven (7) pot-hole trenches were completed in Pond 114 in March 2018. All trenches were excavated
to the depth of the halite–native sand contact. The contact was measured and serves as the basis for
the mapped thickness of the halite aquifer.
The brine elevation within the Pond 114 halite deposits was found to be at the surface or immediately
below (<2 inches) the top of the halite. Brine samples were collected from the completed trenches by
inserting the intake tube from a peristaltic pump into the brine fluid column within the trench. The end
of the intake tube was placed in the bottom half of the halite deposits. The pump was then used to
complete the purge and sample the brine for laboratory analysis.
The method of sample collection assumes that the brine is vertically homogenous within the halite
aquifer, however this has not been confirmed through discretized sampling.
A total of seven pot-hole trenches were excavated within Pond 114, spread across 10,575 acre area.
Although there is good spatial distribution of these trenches, the rate of one trench per 1,500 acres,
there is some potential that the investigation method did not adequately characterize all variability in
brine chemistry. The location of these pot-hole trenches in Pond 114 is shown in Source: SRK 2020
Figure 7-7 (Source: SRK 2020).

Source: SRK 2020
Figure 7-7: Location of Pot-Hole Trenches within Pond 114

Results from the pot-hole trench sampling included measurements of precipitated halite thickness,
brine chemistry (Table 7-3), and aquifer properties (discussed in Section 7.3). The halite ranged in
thickness from 5.5 to 8.0 ft at the seven sample locations in Pond 114. The analysis of brine chemistry
from Pond 114 resulted in a range of 125 to 328 mg/L for lithium, with an average of 252 mg/L. The
average magnesium to lithium ratio for the seven samples was 166:1.
Table 7-3. Halite Thickness and Brine Chemistry from Seven Sample Locations in Pond 114
Halite Thickness Li K Na Ratio Ratio
Location ID Sample Date Mg (mg/L)
(ft) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) K : Li Mg : Li
114TP01 8.0 3/3/2020 238 18400 41400 63300 77 : 1 174 : 1
114TP02 6.5 3/3/2020 328 26700 50100 51800 81 : 1 153 : 1
114TP03 6.5 3/3/2020 321 25300 50900 52600 79 : 1 159 : 1
114TP04 6.5 3/3/2020 279 23800 46100 52400 85 : 1 165 : 1
114TP05 5.5 3/3/2020 265 23100 43000 46700 87 : 1 162 : 1
114TP06 6.5 3/3/2020 125 12900 23400 89000 103 : 1 187 : 1
114TP07 6.5 3/3/2020 208 17400 38400 68000 84 : 1 185 : 1
Average 252 21100 41900 60500 84 : 1 166 : 1
Source: Compass Minerals Sampling Data
The brine sampling methods within Pond 114 did not allow for vertical discretization of brine variability.
Samples are assumed to be full thickness and believed to be a homogenous mix across the total halite
thickness.
Overall the samples did display a level of lateral heterogeneity, especially in the northeast of the pond
(location 114TP06 & 114TP07)), where an increase in Na is observed, along with a decrease in k, Li,
and Mg. It is the QP’s opinion that these values are more representative of pond conditions, than any
bias induced by the sampling method.
7.2 Exploration Drilling

Exploration drilling activities only apply to salt mass investigations as drilling is not an appropriate
method of sample collection from the lake body.
Significant exploration drilling was completed in Pond 1b and Pond 113 in 2018 and 2019, and in Pond
96, Pond 97, and Pond 98 in 2020 to collect both brine samples for analysis, and to characterize
hydrogeologic properties of the halite aquifers.
7.2.1 Drilling Type and Extent

Drillholes completed within the halite beds of Pond 1b, Pond 96, Pond 97, Pond 98, and Pond 113
were completed via sonic drilling methods (Figure 7-8). Sonic drilling allowed for rapid advancement
of the drillholes, halite sample collection for laboratory analysis, and provided access to inter-aquifer
brines sampling during drilling. Sonic drilling is an advanced form of drilling which employs the use of
high-frequency, resonant energy generated inside the Sonic head to advance a core barrel or casing
into subsurface formations. During drilling, the resonant energy is transferred down the drill string to
the bit face at various Sonic frequencies. It is the preferred drilling method when drilling loose or
unconsolidated material, as it minimizes movement of the soil adjacent to the hole and maintains
ground conditions over the sampling interval.
A total of 72 sonic drillholes were completed in 2018, with an additional 10 completed in 2019, and 21
completed in 2020 (Table 7-4). The 2019 drillholes were limited to Pond 113 and were primarily drilled
adjacent to previous drillholes for confirmatory sampling. Locations of all drillholes are shown in Figure
7-9, 7-10, and Figure 7-11 (SRK, 2019). In the QPs opinion, the drillhole spacing is appropriate for
characterization of the brine aquifer.
Figure 7-8: Sonic Drill Rig Operating on the Halite Salt Bed in Pond 113
Table 7-4: Location and Number of Drillholes by Year

Number of Drillholes Completed
Location Total
2018 2019 2020
Pond 1b 13 - - 13
Pond 96 - - 8 8
Pond 97 - - 6 6
Pond 98 - - 7 7
Pond 113 59 10 - 69
Total 72 10 21 103
Drillholes were completed with nominal 6-inch sonic drill tooling, with continuous sampling (5.25-inch
core diameter). Samples were extracted on 3 ft intervals and provided to the geologist at the rig for
lithological logging (Figure 7-12). The major geologic contacts were logged (halite, original sand
surface deposits, and underlying clays), which form the basis of mapped thicknesses. As necessary,
geologic samples were collected for laboratory analysis.

Figure 7-9: Location of Sonic Drillholes Completed in Pond 1b in 2018

Figure 7-10: Location of Sonic Drillholes Completed in Pond 96, Pond 97, and Pond 98 in 2020

Figure 7-11: Location of Sonic Drillholes Completed in Pond 113 in 2018 and 2019

The brine samples were collected by retracting the drill string to expose open halite formation. A clean
length of polypropylene tubing was then inserted to the depth of the exposed interval for sampling. A
peristaltic pump was utilized to pull brine from the interval to the surface. Prior to sample collection,
two gallons of brine was purged from the drillhole prior to sampling, to ensure a representative sample
was collected.
Figure 7-12: Sonic Drill Continuous Sample Showing Base of Salt and Transition to Sand at
Bottom of Right Sample Sleeve
7.2.2 Drilling, Sampling, or Recovery Factors

Core recovery with the sonic tooling was excellent and near 100% in every drillhole completed. The
brine sampling methodology was designed to assess the homogenous full thickness sample of the
brine aquifer within the accumulated halite. The SONIC Drilling methodology was appropriate for this
sampling design as the drilling process introduces no drilling or process water.
7.2.3 Drilling Results and Interpretation

Results from the drilling included measurements of precipitated halite thickness, brine chemistry (Table
7-5, Figure 7-4, Figure 7-5, Figure 7-6, and Table 7-9), and aquifer properties (discussed in Section
7.3).

Table 7-5. Halite Thickness and Brine Chemistry from Locations in Pond 1b
Halite
Li K Mg Na Ratio Ratio
Location ID Thickness Sample Date
(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) K : Li Mg : Li
(ft)
1BSP1 6.0 9/9/2018 245 19000 49000 13500 78 : 1 200 : 1
1BSP2 6.5 9/9/2018 361 20000 64500 15300 55 : 1 179 : 1
1BSP3 6.0 9/9/2018 310 23000 56500 22200 74 : 1 182 : 1
1BSP4 6.0 9/9/2018 300 19200 53900 13200 64 : 1 180 : 1
1BSP5 5.0 9/9/2018 272 20200 53100 15100 74 : 1 195 : 1
1BSP6 6.0 9/9/2018 363 22100 59300 18500 74 : 1 199 : 1
1BSP7 6.0 9/9/2018 401 21400 62600 15600 60 : 1 174 : 1
1BSP8 6.0 9/9/2018 359 27100 75300 20300 68 : 1 188 : 1
1BSP9 6.0 9/9/2018 298 19800 64800 15200 55 : 1 179 : 1
1BPS10 6.0 9/10/2018 273 20900 52800 17100 77 : 1 193 : 1
1BSP11 6.0 9/10/2018 326 18300 66200 15200 56 : 1 203 : 1
1BSP12 6.0 9/10/2018 335 19700 65300 15200 59 : 1 195 : 1
1BSP13 6.0 9/10/2018 292 20500 59000 19300 70 : 1 202 : 1
Average 318 20900 60200 16600 66 : 1 190 : 1
Table 7-6. Halite Thickness and Brine Chemistry from Locations in Pond 96
Halite
(ft)
96SP01 8.5 214 23200 39600 41700 108 : 1 185 : 1
96SP02 8.5 222 22900 40400 40600 103 : 1 182 : 1
96SP03 6.5 232 23700 44500 41800 102 : 1 192 : 1
96SP04 7.8 215 23400 43100 40700 109 : 1 200 : 1
96SP05 7.8 220 22600 42600 40400 103 : 1 194 : 1
96SP06 8.5 211 21700 39500 41700 103 : 1 187 : 1
96SP07 8.0 204 21900 39300 45600 107 : 1 193 : 1
96SP08 9.0 190 21800 37000 45800 115 : 1 195 : 1
Average 214 22650 40750 42288 106 : 1 191 : 1
Halite
Li K Ratio Ratio
Location ID Thickness Sample Date Mg (mg/L) Na (mg/L)
(mg/L) (mg/L) K : Li Mg : Li
(ft)
97SP01 8.5 210 23400 40900 42400 111 : 1 195 : 1
97SP02 8.5 203 21900 38500 41700 108 : 1 190 : 1
97SP03 9.5 222 27800 41300 45300 125 : 1 186 : 1
97SP04 8.0 198 21700 37100 51500 110 : 1 187 : 1
97SP05 8.7 217 22700 39000 47300 105 : 1 180 : 1
97SP06 9.5 219 22800 41500 40900 104 : 1 190 : 1
Average 212 23383 39717 44850 111 : 1 188 : 1

Halite
(ft)
98SP01 9.0 212 23300 39700 45300 110 : 1 187 : 1
98SP02 9.0 227 22900 41400 43500 101 : 1 182 : 1
98SP03 9.5 223 22200 39600 42500 100 : 1 178 : 1
98SP04 9.5 216 22000 38400 45600 102 : 1 178 : 1
98SP05 9.25 224 22500 39400 45100 100 : 1 176 : 1
98SP06 9.25 217 25000 41500 43900 115 : 1 191 : 1
98SP07 9.5 230 22600 39900 43000 98 : 1 173 : 1
Average: 221 22929 39986 44129 104 : 1 181 : 1

Halite
Li K Ratio Ratio
(ft)
SP01 8.0 9/7/2020 162 19700 33000 76100 122 : 1 204 : 1
SP02 10.0 9/7/2020 150 17800 29700 77500 119 : 1 198 : 1
SP03 9.0 9/7/2020 181 21000 35700 69600 116 : 1 197 : 1
SP04 7.0 9/6/2020 171 19500 33300 77700 114 : 1 195 : 1
SP06 8.5 9/7/2020 168 20300 34800 75400 121 : 1 207 : 1
SP07 10.5 9/6/2020 168 19900 33800 78600 118 : 1 201 : 1
SP08 11.0 9/6/2020 158 18600 32100 77400 118 : 1 203 : 1
SP10 8.0 9/5/2020 135 16200 27100 75700 120 : 1 201 : 1
SP11 11.5 9/6/2020 193 19300 38100 75700 100 : 1 197 : 1
SP12 8.0 9/5/2020 169 18100 34400 60900 107 : 1 204 : 1
SP13 11.0 9/6/2020 178 18300 35500 80400 103 : 1 197 : 1
SP14 10.0 9/5/2020 177 17600 35000 60200 99 : 1 198 : 1
SP15 11.0 9/6/2020 166 18400 32500 72700 111 : 1 196 : 1
SP16 8.0 9/4/2020 159 18000 31900 81900 113 : 1 201 : 1
SP18 8.0 9/4/2020 165 18900 33300 76600 115 : 1 202 : 1
SP19 9.0 9/4/2020 197 20200 39000 62000 103 : 1 198 : 1
SP20 12.0 9/4/2020 225 19800 45000 55400 88 : 1 200 : 1
SP21 14.5 9/4/2020 215 20100 42500 63600 93 : 1 198 : 1
SP22 11.0 9/4/2020 165 19700 33200 72400 119 : 1 201 : 1
SP24 8.0 9/5/2020 188 19500 39800 74100 104 : 1 212 : 1
SP26 9.0 9/1/2018 173 17100 34300 56600 99 : 1 198 : 1
SP27 12.0 9/1/2018 186 18300 37400 61300 98 : 1 201 : 1
SP28 15.0 9/1/2018 233 22000 46500 68800 94 : 1 200 : 1
SP29 13.0 9/1/2018 233 22000 46500 68800 94 : 1 200 : 1
SP30 11.0 9/2/2020 169 17700 34400 62600 105 : 1 204 : 1
SP31 11.0 9/2/2020 165 16900 32900 60300 102 : 1 199 : 1
SP32 12.0 9/2/2020 232 21800 46700 30500 94 : 1 201 : 1
SP33 8.5 9/5/2020 188 19500 41700 54400 104 : 1 222 : 1
SP34 12.0 9/3/2020 229 22600 45700 54500 99 : 1 200 : 1
SP35 9.0 8/30/2018 311 32700 60700 67800 105 : 1 195 : 1
SP36 11.0 8/30/2018 179 17900 38500 54200 100 : 1 215 : 1
SP37 8.5 9/2/2020 200 30000 46500 62300 150 : 1 233 : 1
SP38 12.0 9/2/2020 186 18000 38000 51400 97 : 1 204 : 1
SP39 9.0 9/2/2020 186 18000 38000 51400 97 : 1 204 : 1
SP40 9.0 9/3/2020 183 22700 44700 50400 124 : 1 244 : 1
SP41 10.0 9/3/2020 213 23800 43600 54800 112 : 1 205 : 1
SP42 9.5 9/3/2020 232 25500 48700 50400 110 : 1 210 : 1
SP43 10.0 9/3/2020 235 25300 45300 61800 108 : 1 193 : 1
SP45 9.0 8/30/2018 272 30700 55700 65500 113 : 1 205 : 1
SP46 9.5 8/31/2018 364 38700 77200 80300 106 : 1 212 : 1
SP47 9.5 8/31/2018 182 17800 40300 38600 98 : 1 221 : 1
SP48 11.0 8/31/2018 233 23900 47000 43900 103 : 1 202 : 1
SP49 11.0 8/31/2018 205 20200 41200 55700 99 : 1 201 : 1
SP50 12.0 9/1/2018 189 20800 36900 55600 110 : 1 195 : 1
SP51 13.0 9/3/2020 212 20900 42000 57200 99 : 1 198 : 1
SP58 8.0 8/30/2018 208 23500 48800 41900 113 : 1 235 : 1
SP59 8.5 8/31/2018 219 23300 51500 44600 106 : 1 235 : 1
SP60 9.5 8/31/2018 211 23400 46300 43600 111 : 1 219 : 1
SP66 10.0 8/30/2018 269 26400 56900 69200 98 : 1 212 : 1
SP67 8.0 8/29/2018 241 26000 53700 48500 108 : 1 223 : 1
SP73 7.5 8/30/2018 189 23200 44400 44600 123 : 1 233 : 1
SP74 8.0 8/29/2018 194 23000 43900 40800 119 : 1 226 : 1
SP75 8.0 8/29/2018 243 28600 56000 48300 118 : 1 230 : 1
SP76 9.0 8/29/2018 256 28000 54500 48600 109 : 1 213 :1

Halite
Li K Ratio Ratio
(ft)
SP77 10.0 8/29/2018 207 24800 42100 41600 120 : 1 203 : 1
SP79 8.5 8/29/2018 280 34300 58800 60000 123 : 1 210 : 1
SP80 7.5 8/29/2018 242 31800 54500 62200 131 : 1 225 : 1
SP81 9.5 8/28/2018 182 21200 37100 72000 116 : 1 204 : 1
SP82 8.0 8/28/2018 172 22000 34300 61200 116 : 1 199 : 1
SP83 15.0 7/15/2019 218 17900 36700 64100 82 : 1 168 : 1
SP84 15.0 7/16/2019 288 22500 47800 74000 78 : 1 166 : 1
SP85 15.5 7/16/2019 243 20200 40700 59300 83 : 1 167 : 1
SP86 14.0 7/16/2019 229 19500 38400 58300 85 : 1 168 : 1
SP87 11.0 7/16/2019 210 18400 36100 61300 88 : 1 172 : 1
SP88 12.0 7/16/2019 208 19600 35800 63800 94 : 1 172 : 1
SP89 12.0 7/16/2019 215 18200 36500 65700 85 : 1 170 : 1
SP90 UNK 7/17/2019 256 22200 45200 46400 87 : 1 177 : 1
Average 206 21800 41900 61400 106 : 1 203 : 1
7.3 Hydrogeology
The QP did not evaluate subsurface brines when considering the mineral resource estimate for the
Great Salt Lake. Therefore, as the resource estimate for the lake focuses on the surface water body
only, evaluation and discussion of hydrogeology herein only applies to the properties of the salt
masses within certain evaporation ponds lying above naturally occurring water bearing strata.
7.3.1 Relative Brine Release Capacity

Samples from Pond 96, Pond 98, Pond 113 and Pond 114 were submitted for Relative Brine Release
Capacity (“RBRC”) testing at Daniel B. Stephens & Associates Inc. (“DBS&A”) Soil Testing and
Research Laboratory in Albuquerque, New Mexico, a third-party geotechnical laboratory with no
relationship to Compass Minerals. RBRC testing follows Stormont et al. (2011); this testing is widely
adopted across the brine exploration and production industry and has results analogous to specific
yield (Sy). Three (3) samples from Pond 96, two (2) samples from Pond 98, sixteen (16) samples from
across Pond 113, and two (2) samples from Pond 114, were submitted to DBS&A for RBRC testing.
With all samples representing typical salt mass aggregate material. Samples were disturbed at the
time of sampling and repacked to enable completion of the test. The samples were saturated with a
brine having a density between 1.17 and 1.22 grams per cubic centimeter (g/cm3) to emulate in situ
conditions. Table 7-10 provides RBRC data for Pond 96 and Pond 98, with Table 7-11 providing the
RBRC statistical summary. Table 7-12 provides RBRC data for Pond 113 and Pond 114, with Table
7-13 providing the RBRC statistical summary.
Table 7-10. RBRC Test Data for Pond 96 and Pond 98 Halite Aquifer Sediments
Saturated Volumetric Brine Content Relative Brine Release Capacity
Pond Sample Location
(% cm3/cm3) (% cm3/cm3)
96SP02 41.7 28.5
Pond 96 96SP06 38.0 31.2
96SP05 37.5 31.3
98SP02 35.2 27.4
Pond 98
98SP06 39.2 33.3

Table 7-11: RBRC Test Statistics for Pond 96 and Pond 98

Number of
Location (% cm3/cm3) (% cm3/cm3)
Samples
Minimum Maximum Geomean Minimum Maximum Geomean
Pond 113 3 37.5 41.7 39.0 28.5 31.3 30.3
Pond 114 2 35.2 39.2 37.2 27.4 33.3 30.2
All Samples 5 35.2 41.7 38.3 27.4 31.3 30.3
Table 7-12. RBRC Test Data for Pond 113 and Pond 114 Halite Aquifer Sediments
Pond Sample Location
(% cm3/cm3) (% cm3/cm3)
SP02 42.1 34.0
SP14 48.1 37.9
SP19 46.8 38.3
SP20 46.3 39.1
SP27 34.1 20.6
SP30 37.9 29.3
SP33 38.5 26.3
SP34 36.1 28.7
Pond 113
SP37 45.3 41.6
SP38 44.6 38.1
SP46 37.9 26.0
SP51 42.8 34.2
SP58 38.3 26.7
SP60 43.0 31.4
SP66 40.7 33.7
SP76 48.4 36.6
114TP04 41.3 30.9
Pond 114
114TP07 46.8 41.0
Table 7-13: RBRC Test Statistics for Pond 113 and Pond 114
Number of
Location (% cm3/cm3) (% cm3/cm3)
Samples
Minimum Maximum Geomean Minimum Maximum Geomean
Pond 113 16 34.1 48.4 41.7 20.6 41.6 32.1
Pond 114 2 41.3 46.8 44.0 30.9 41.0 35.6
All Samples 18 34.1 48.8 42.0 20.6 41.6 32.5
The distribution of the RBRC values within Pond 113 demonstrates a plateau shape with the limited
data available, with no significant outliers to the dataset (Source: Compass Minerals Sampling Data
Figure 7-13). Therefore, the geomean of this data at 32.1% appears to be an accurate representation
of the data population and suggests an average Sy value for the salt mass aquifer within Pond 113.
Additionally, the saturated volumetric brine content measured by DBS&A closely matches the in-field
bulk density measurements completed in 2014. The effects of repacking the samples for testing are
believed to be minimal but likely had some impact on the measured values. The number of data points
within Pond 114, is not sufficient for analysis of the value distribution; however, the data do fall within
the range of values within the larger Pond 113 dataset.

Figure 7-13: Histogram of RBRC Data; 18 Total Samples Analyzed by DBS&A
The data from Pond 96 and Pond 98 were also not sufficient for analysis of value distribution; however,
the data do fall within the low to mid-range values from Pond 113. Based on review solely of RBRC
data it would appear that Pond 96 and Pond 98 have a slightly lower average saturated volumetric
brine content and relative brine release capacity than was demonstrated in Pond 113 and Pond 114.
The same can also be inferred for Pond 97 due to the similar age and operating history to Pond 96
and Pond 98.
7.3.2 Hydraulic Testing of Pond 96 and Pond 98 Halite Aquifer

In 2020, single well, short-term pumping tests were completed at two locations within Pond 96 and
one location within Pond 98. These tests were completed in shallow 6-inch drillholes completed
through the salt mass and into the upper portion of the underlying clayey sands. A 2-inch diameter
PVC screen was installed at these locations to prevent total collapse of the salt and loss of the location.
Groundwater levels within both Pond 96 and Pond 98 were at the surface or within 2 inches of the
surface and allowed for the use of low-cost trash pumps for brine pumping. Pumping rates during the
tests ranged averaged 60 gpm. The pumped brine fluid was discharged a minimum of 100 ft from the
pumping well. Pumping rates were measured periodically through each test via bucket measurements.
Drawdown and recovery were measured by a pressure transducer with a direct read cable for real
time monitoring of test progress.
Due to the high hydraulic conductivity of the salt mass, only limited drawdown could be achieved during
these short-term tests. Additionally, the limited distance of the discharge allowed for the test to be
impacted by the recharge to the system. However, in certain locations, data of sufficient quality was

collected to estimate hydraulic parameters of the salt mass aquifer and aid in analyzing these
parameters against the RBRC data.
Analysis of the short-term tests was complicated due to the extremely high transmissivity and short
duration of pumping. The analyses can be further complicated if the data is dirty with variable pumping
rates, on/off pumping, or other complexities within the aquifer response, which need to be dealt with
in the analysis. As such, this type of analysis will typically have a range of plus/minus one order of
magnitude for hydraulic conductivity and transmissivity. Sy can range by as much as two orders of
magnitude, and in some cases can be physically unreasonable. Therefore, the data derived from this
testing program will not provide absolute values but rather an indication of hydraulic parameter
consistency across the salt mass and for comparison against laboratory testing. Analysis of the raw
test data was completed with AqtesolvPro®, with significant trial and error to address resolve the
sometimes-irregular data.
The data presented in Table 7-12 displays the hydraulic value ranges that are characteristic of short-
term hydraulic testing in a high transmissivity environment. It is noted that the average hydraulic
conductivity of (474 ft/d) and transmissivity (35,473 gpd/ft) are within the range of values seen in test
data from Pond 113 (Section 7.3.3). Sy values are high, with both tests resulting in an Sy of 0.5, in
QP’s opinion, this value is reasonable for the aquifer hosting sediments and support the high RBRC
values derived from laboratory testing.
The results of the short-term hydraulic testing demonstrate the difficulty in assessing the Sy of the
halite aquifer due to its high transmissivity and near immediate propagation of recharge into the
aquifer. Therefore, analysis of Sy within this system is better suited to more stable test processes that
can be completed external to the high transmissivity aquifer dynamics.

Table 7-14: Summary of 2018 Single Well Pumping Tests

Pumping Pumping Maximum
K T
Location Date Duration Rate Drawdown Sy Comments
(ft/d) (gpd/ft)
(min) (gpm) (ft)
96SP02 8/20/2020 62 60 0.18 - - - Minimal drawdown. Pump stop/starts. Difficult analysis.
Short pump stoppage early in pumping did not affect
96SP05 8/22/2020 93 60 2.99 226 16,870 0.5
analysis of data.
98SP06 8/21/2020 110 60 1.11 722 54,076 0.5 Clean data for analysis.
Average 474 35,473 0.5

SEC Technical Report Summary – Lithium Mineral Resource Estimate. Page 58
7.3.3 Hydraulic Testing of the Pond 113 Halite Aquifer

2014 Long-Term Aquifer Test
Gerhart Cole Inc. completed a long-term aquifer test in the southwest corner of Pond 113 in November
2014. The pumping test was confined to the precipitated salt bed layer, which at that time was
approximately 6.5 feet (ft) thick in the location of the test. The pumping well was constructed by
excavating a pit and installing a 24-inch Advanced Drainage Systems (“ADS”) drainpipe perforated in
the field. Four monitoring piezometers were placed radially at distances of 13, 56, 59, and 106 ft from
the pumping well. A 24-hour aquifer test was completed at a near constant pumping rate of 215 gallons
per minute (gpm), with a discharge set up approximately 1,000 ft from the pumping well to limit potential
recycling of pumped water during the test.
Analysis of the test data was completed with varying methods to confirm aquifer parameters. The
results of the test indicated a hydraulic conductivity (K) of 13,000 gallons per day per square foot
(gpd/ft2) (~1,740 feet per day (ft/d)), transmissivity of (T) of 87,000 gallons per day per foot (gpd/ft),
and a storage coefficient of 0.19 (dimensionless) (Billings, 2014). These hydraulic parameters are
consistent with a clean, coarse sand to fine gravel aquifer (Driscoll, 1986).
Additionally, bulk density testing of the salt mass was completed as part of the same 2014 data
collection program. Dry bulk densities were measured in the field and utilized to estimate open pore
space (total porosity) within the salt mass at 30% to 55% (Billings, 2014).
In review of this test data, the provided test geometry, pumping rates, and measured drawdowns were
utilized to calculate Sy measured during this test. Sy was calculated utilizing Ramsahoye and
Lang (1961), where Equation 1 defines the volume of dewatered material within the cone of depression
that has reached equilibrium in shape:
୕୰మ ହ.ସହ୘ୱ
log V ൌ log ൅ (1)
ସ୘ ୕
Where:
V = the volume of dewatered material in cubic feet

Q = the discharge rate of the pumped well in gallons per day (gpd)
r = the horizontal distance from the axis of the pumped well to a point on the cone of depression
in ft
s = the drawdown at distance r in ft
T = the coefficient of transmissibility of the aquifer in gpd/ft
Utilizing this calculated volume of the dewatered material within the cone of depression and the known
extracted volume of groundwater, Equation 2 can be used to determine Sy:
୕୲
S୷ ൌ (2)
଻.ସ଼ ୚
Where:
Q = the average discharge rate of the pumped well in gpd

t = the time since pumping began in days
V = the volume of dewatered material determined from Equation 1 in cubic feet (ft3)
MH Final GreatSaltLakeMRE_SEC_Report_final.DOCX July 2021

It should be noted that Equation 2 assumes that the duration of pumping is sufficient to impart the
greatest cone of depression (i.e., stress to the aquifer) without that groundwater withdrawal being
affected by recharge.
Utilizing Equations 1 and 2, Sy was calculated from the 2014 aquifer test data. The calculation resulted
in a V of 82,772 ft3 and a Sy of 0.50. Although this Sy value is within the range of measured total
porosity (30% to 55%) in 2014, it is likely on the high side when considering the relationship between
total porosity and Sy (Equation 3):
Total Porosity (Pt) = Specific Retention (Sr) + Sy (3)
Based on the measured total porosity, and the known very high hydraulic conductivity (1,740 ft/d)
attributable to the unique textural uniformity of the salt mass, it could be assumed that there was some
amount of aquifer recharge during the 24-hour pump test even with the pump discharge set at a
distance of 1,000 ft from the pumping well. As such, the calculated Sy could be significantly
overestimated.
2018 Single Well Hydraulic Testing
In 2018, single well, short-term pumping tests were completed at 11 locations within Pond 113. These
tests were completed in shallow 6-inch drillholes completed through the salt mass and into the upper
portion of the underlying clayey sands. A 2-inch diameter PVC screen was installed at these locations
to prevent total collapse of the salt and loss of the location. Groundwater levels within Pond 113 were
at the surface or within 2 inches of the surface and allowed for the use of low-cost trash pumps for
brine pumping. Pumping rates during the tests ranged from 3.5 to 60 gpm, with significant variability
due to on/off pumping and salt encrustation within the pump. The pumped brine fluid was discharged
a minimum of 100 ft from the pumping well. Pumping rates were measured periodically through each
test via bucket measurements, with associated uncertainties in accuracy as pumping rates increased.
Drawdown and recovery were measured by a pressure transducer with a direct read cable for real
time monitoring of test progress.
Due to the high hydraulic conductivity of the salt mass, only limited drawdown could be achieved during
these short-term tests. Additionally, the limited distance of the discharge allowed for the test to be
impacted by the recharge to the system. However, in certain locations, data of sufficient quality was
collected to estimate hydraulic parameters of the salt mass aquifer and aid in analyzing the consistency
of these parameters across the large extent of Pond 113.
Analysis of the short-term tests was complicated due to the extremely high transmissivity, low pumping
rates, and short duration of pumping. The analyses can be further complicated if the data is dirty with
variable pumping rates, on/off pumping, or other complexities within the aquifer response, which need
to be dealt with in the analysis. As such, this type of analysis will typically have a range of plus/minus
one order of magnitude for hydraulic conductivity and transmissivity. Sy can range by as much as two
orders of magnitude, and in some cases can be physically unreasonable. Therefore, the data derived
from this testing program will not provide absolute values but rather an indication of hydraulic
parameter consistency across the salt mass. Analysis of the raw test data was completed with
AqtesolvPro®, with significant trial and error to address resolve the sometimes-irregular data.
The data presented in Table 7-15 displays the hydraulic value ranges that are characteristic of short-
term hydraulic testing in a high transmissivity environment. It is noted that the geomean for hydraulic

conductivity (1,163 ft/d) and transmissivity (73,403 gpd/ft) match well to the parameters derived from
the 2014 long-term pumping test, demonstrating the overall consistent hydraulic characteristics of the
salt mass within Pond 113. Sy values vary highly, from 0.001 to 0.5, with the geomean of 0.012, in
Compass Minerals’ opinion, are reasonable for the aquifer hosting sediments.
The results of both the long-term aquifer test and short-term hydraulic testing demonstrate the difficulty
in assessing the Sy of the halite aquifer due to its high transmissivity and near immediate propagation
of recharge into the aquifer. Therefore, analysis of Sy within this system is better suited to more stable
test processes that can be completed external to the high transmissivity aquifer dynamics.

Table 7-15: Summary of 2018 Single Well Pumping Tests

Pumping Pumping Maximum
K T
Location Date Duration Rate Drawdown Sy Comments
(ft/d) (gpd/ft)
(min) (gpm) (ft)
Multiple pumps used, Variable pumping rates. Analysis of recovery data
SP-02 12/30/2018 65 5 to 18 0.20 2,818 210,927 0.001
only, questionable analysis result.
Logarithmic data recording missed all the data inflection points. No
SP-14 11/3/2018 93 26 to 30 0.65 - - -
analysis
Multiple pump stoppages, and highly variable pumping rate. Difficult
SP-16 1/2/2019 93 6 to 18 0.45 - - -
analysis.
SP-19 11/4/2018 74 28 to 30 0.67 883 66,100 0.013 Clean data for analysis.
SP-20 11/3/2018 120 30 0.83 1,748 130,837 0.001 Pump switching off/on during recovery; difficult/questionable analysis.
SP-30 11/4/2018 66 0 to 30 0.50 1,174 87,874 - Multiple pump stoppages, analyzed as a slug test.
SP-29 9/3/2018 30 3.5 to 3.7 0.10 596 44,640 0.13 Clean data for analysis.
SP-37 9/3/2018 50 3.8 0.03 - - - Pump died after 50 min, insufficient drawdown. No analysis.
Multiple pump stoppages. Pump intake not deep enough. Utilized average
SP-46 11/9/2018 27 0 to 60 3.49 763 14,528 0.05
pumping rate.
9/3/2018 51 3.5 to 3.8 0.19 2,646 198,053 0.5 Limited drawdown, difficult/questionable analysis
SP-50 Multiple pumps used, Variable pumping rates. Transducer moved during
12/29/2018 55 <15 to 18 - - - -
pumping. Data unusable.
11/8/2018 6 0 to 30 - - - - Pumping problems. No analysis.
SP-51 Clean data for analysis. Well shows some level of increasing development
12/29/2018 62 18 0.71 547 40,935 .001
during pumping.
Minimum 547 14,528 .001
Maximum 2,818 210,927 .5
Geomean 1,163 73,403 0.012

7.3.4 Halite Aquifer Hydrogeology Summary

The salt mass that comprises the halite aquifer across all ponds characterized is best described as a
well sorted, angular, gravelly sand to fine gravel. The various testing programs have demonstrated the
salt mass to have high porosity and very high hydraulic conductivity and transmissivity.
The available data points for Sy include the following:
 Analysis of the 24-hour pumping test completed in 2014 indicated a Sy of 0.50.

 Analysis of seven short-term pumping tests within Pond 113 during 2018 with a geomean Sy
of 0.012 and a range of 0.001 to 0.5.
 Analysis of one short term pumping test within Pond 96, and on test within Pond 998, both of
which resulted in a Sy of 0.5.
 RBRC testing of 16 samples from Pond 113 produced a geomean of 32.2% and a range of
20.6% to 41.6%.
 RBRC testing completed in Pond 114 (2 tests), falls within the range of RBRC data collected
from Pond 113 (16 tests) demonstrating consistent parameters for similar materials in different
ponds.
 RBRC testing completed in Pond 96 and Pond 98 falls within the range of data from Pond 113
and Pond 114, but with a slightly lower geomean of 30.3%.
Furthermore, previous research by the USGS has described gravelly sands and fine gravels as having
a Sy of 0.20 to 0.35 (USGS, 1967), in the QP’s opinion the salt mass crystal sediments likely fall in the
high end of that range based on measured porosity and average grain size.
Consequently, the holistic review of available Sy data for the salt mass suggest the following:
 The Sy calculated from the 24-hour pumping test are unrealistically high, an indication that the
test was likely affected by the pumping test discharge as it entered back into the aquifer at a
distance that was not sufficient to preclude impacts of recharge.
 The Sy values as determined from the short-term aquifer tests were highly variable, with the
average being unrealistically low. The inconclusiveness of this data is due to the high hydraulic
conductivity and transmissivity of the salt mass, the lack of sufficient stress (pumping rate)
applied by the test, and relatively noisy data associated with on/off pumping and variable
pumping rates.
 The RBRC testing fits closely with expected values for the aquifer sediments.
Review of the available data indicate that a Sy of 0.32 should be utilized for calculating dissolved
mineral resources for the aquifer residing in the salt mass of Pond 113 and Pond 114, while a Sy value
of 0.30 should be used for Pond 96 and Pond 98. These values were derived from resource-specific
sediments through a peer reviewed and industry accepted analytical methods. Although this value was
not directly confirmed through the in-field testing programs, the consistent high hydraulic conductivity
and transmissivity throughout the salt mass of Pond 113, with similar values derived from testing in
Pond 96, Pond 98 and Pond 114, validate the use of a relatively high Sy values for the halite aquifers.

7.4 Geotechnical Data, Testing and Analysis

A brine-based resource does not require any significant geotechnical data, testing or analysis to
estimate mineral resources.

8 Sample Preparation, Analysis and Security

In the QP’s opinion, the sample preparation, sample security, and analytical procedures utilized by
Compass Minerals all follow industry standards with no noted issues that would suggest inadequacy
in any areas. Because review of sampling conducted by the UGS yielded generally consistent results
and was supported by the more recent Compass Minerals sampling programs, it is the QP’s opinion,
this data also is reliable and reasonable to utilize for the purpose of a mineral resource estimate.
8.1 Pond Sampling

Brine samples and halite samples for RBRC testing were collected rig side by Compass Minerals
personnel. Samples were labeled, packaged, and sealed on site, and transported back to the GSL
Facility for storage on a daily basis. Once each sampling program was completed, samples were
shipped to laboratories for testing.
Brine samples from the Pond 1b, Pond 96, Pond 97, Pond 98, Pond 113, and Pond 114 halite aquifers
were analyzed for a suite of dissolved metals, including lithium, and density by Brooks Applied Labs
in Bothell, Washington. Brine samples for metals were preserved with 2% nitric acid (HNO3) and 1%
hydrochloric acid (HCl). All samples were digested in a closed vessel and placed in an oven and
heated overnight. Trace metals were analyzed using inductively coupled plasma triple quadrupole
mass spectrometry (ICP-QQQ-MS) (EPA method 1368 Mod).
A subset of samples from Pond 113 for dissolved metals was submitted to Chemtech-Ford
Laboratories in Sandy, Utah for verification testing (see Section 9).
Analysis of anions in the brine was completed on brine by ACZ Laboratories in Steamboat Springs,
Colorado. These analyses included alkalinity as CaCO3, bicarbonate as CaCO3, carbonate as CaCO3,
hydroxide as CaCO3, total alkalinity, chloride, and sulfate. The alkalinity testing was completed
following EPA method SM2320B-Titration, chloride analysis was completed following EPA method
SM4500Cl-E, and sulfate analyzed with EPA method D516-02/-07-turbidmetric.
All three laboratories are independent of Compass Minerals and are accredited analytical laboratories
under the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (“NELAP”).
8.2 GSL Sampling

Several laboratories have been used over the time period to conduct the water sampling analysis for
the GSL. All sampling has been conducted at commercial laboratories which are independent of
Compass Minerals. Sampling has been completed over time for the following major ions:
 Sodium – NA+ (g/L)

 Magnesium – Mg+ (g/L)
 Potassium – K+ (g/L)
 Calcium – Ca+2 (g/L)
 Chloride – Cl- (g/L)
 Sulfate – SO4-2 (g/L)
With occasional sampling at various periods for Lithium (ppm) and Boron (ppm).

A list of the historical laboratories and procedures used is shown in taken from (Strum 1986) is shown
Table 8-1. The QP notes from review of the historical reports that it was concluded that the UGMS
information was of a lower quality. The QP has not used this information during the current estimate
and therefore it not considered material.
Table 8-1: Summary of laboratories used by UGS during historical sampling programs
Source: Strum (1986)
The Compass Minerals sampling analysis has been completed using two independent commercial
laboratories using Brooks Applied Laboratory of Bothell, Washington and IEH Analytical Laboratories
in Seattle, Washington for Boron, Calcium, Potassium, Lithium, Magnesium and Sodium, and ACZ
Laboratory in Steamboat Springs, Colorado IEH Analytical Laboratories in Seattle, Washington, for
Bicarbonate as CaCO, Carbonate as CaCO3, Chloride, Hydroxide as CaCO3, Sulfate and total
Alkalinity.
8.3 Quality Control Procedures/Quality Assurance

Laboratory quality control at both Brooks Applied Labs, IEH Analytical Laboratories, and ACZ
Laboratories followed industry standard practices. No issues were noted in the review of laboratory
analysis results, or Quality Assurance/Quality Control (“QA/QC”) data in support of the completed
analyses at either laboratory.
During the 2020 and 2021 GSL Sampling programs Compass Minerals has included independent
QA/QC samples for analysis which were in the form of field duplicates and blanks, and submitted as
part of the routine sample stream. A total of 6 blanks and 12 duplicates have been submitted during
this period with results of the submission are discussed below.
8.3.1 Blanks
A total of 6 samples, which represents 6.8% of the submissions, has been included in the result for
the Brooks Applied laboratory analysis are shown in Table 8-2. The results show one of the 6 samples
has reported elevated results but in the opinion of the QP these values are within acceptable limits
and do not suggest any contamination issues at the laboratory.

Table 8-2: Blank submissions to Brooks Applied Labs for Compass Minerals GSL submissions
Brooks Applied Labs (mg/L)
Date Sample / Depth Boron Calcium Potassium Lithium Magnesium Sodium

4/2/2021 FieldBlank1 0.009 0.212 0.576 0.005 0.990 10.3
4/2/2021 FieldBlank2 0.006 0.176 0.551 0.005 0.893 10.1
Field 4/2/2021 FieldBlank3 0.012 0.211 0.600 0.006 1.070 10.8
Blanks 4/18/2021 FieldBlank3 0.021 0.296 2.710 0.021 4.510 32.5
5/9/2021 FieldBlank5 0.010 0.240 1.050 0.009 1.710 13.5
5/9/2021 FieldBlank6 0.007 0.177 0.553 0.005 0.908 7.1
Field Blanks ‐ Boron Field Blanks ‐ Lithium

0.050 0.050
0.040 0.040
Lithium (mg/L)
0.030 0.030
Boron (mg/L)
0.020 0.020
0.010 0.010
0.000 0.000
Field Blank 1 Field Blank 2 Field Blank 3 Field Blank 3 Field Blank 5 Field Blank 6 Field Blank 1 Field Blank 2 Field Blank 3 Field Blank 3 Field Blank 5 Field Blank 6
Blank Submission Blank Submission
Field Blanks ‐ Calcium Field Blanks ‐ Magnesium

0.500 10.000
0.450 9.000
0.400 8.000
0.350 7.000
Magnesium (mg/L)
Calcium (mg/L)
0.300 6.000
0.250 5.000
0.200 4.000
0.150 3.000
0.100 2.000
0.050 1.000
0.000 0.000
Field Blanks ‐ Potassium Field Blanks ‐ Sodium

5.0 50.0
4.5 45.0
4.0 40.0
3.5 35.0
Potassium (mg/L)
Sodium (mg/L)
3.0 30.0
2.5 25.0
2.0 20.0
1.5 15.0
1.0 10.0
0.5 5.0
0.0 0.0
Source: Compass Sampling Data

Figure 8-1: Blank submissions to Brooks Applied Labs for Compass Minerals GSL submissions
8.3.2 Field Duplicates

A total of 12 field duplicates have been taken during the period which accounts for 13.6% of the total
submissions. The results indicate a strong correlation between the original and field duplicates with
the R2 values typically greater than 0.9, which is deemed acceptable. The Calcium results display the
poorest correlation (R2=0.67) which is impacted by one high grade outlier. A comparison of the mean
grades for the original and duplicates show the means are within ± 2% with the exception of the
Calcium which reported a difference of 5.4% (duplicate higher). Overall it is the QP’s opinion that the
duplicate results indicate an acceptable level of precision at the laboratory.

Table 8-3: Duplicate submissions to Brooks Applied Labs for Compass Minerals GSL submissions
Original Duplicate
Sample / GSL
Date Depth Elevation Boron Calcium Potassium Lithium Magnesium Sodium Boron Calcium Potassium Lithium Magnesium Sodium
RD-2 Deep 5/9/2021 RD-2 14' 4,192.1 46.3 316 7,150 54.6 10,700 94,100 44.6 324 6,950 53.3 10,500 91,000
RD-2 Intermediate 4/18/2021 RD-2 9' 4,192.2 55.1 395 8,540 65.3 13,200 117,000 54.2 401 7,810 67.3 12,200 102,000
LVG-4 Deep 5/9/2021 LVG-4 15' 4,192.1 46.3 334 7,190 55.5 10,900 93,300 45.2 321 7,040 54.3 10,700 91,000
LVG-4 Intermediate 4/2/2021 LVG-4 10' 4,192.2 56.4 461 8,960 67.3 13,900 115,000 58.7 626 9,160 71.4 14,400 118,000
LVG-4 Intermediate 4/18/2021 LVG-4 10' 4,192.2 55.5 429 8,430 69.6 13,000 107,000 53.0 371 8,100 62.2 12,700 105,000
FB-2 Deep 5/9/2021 FB-2 22' 4,192.6 28.8 294 4,310 34.8 6,780 57,700 31.3 306 4,800 37.9 7,510 63,500
48.1 371.5 7,430.0 57.9 11,413.3 97,350.0 47.8 391.5 7,310.0 57.7 11,335.0 95,083.3
-0.5% 5.4% -1.6% -0.2% -0.7% -2.3%

Field Duplicates: Boron Field Duplicates: Calcium
70.0 700
60.0 600
50.0 500
Duplicate (mg/L)
Duplicate (mg/L)
40.0 400
30.0 300
20.0 200
y = 1.4779x ‐ 157.55
y = 0.9112x + 4.0335 R² = 0.6752
R² = 0.9621 100
10.0
0
0.0
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Original (mg/L) Original (mg/L)
Field Duplicates: Potassium Field Duplicates: Lithium
10,000 90.0
9,000
80.0
8,000
70.0
7,000
60.0
Duplicate (mg/L)
6,000
Duplicate (mg/L)
50.0
5,000
40.0
4,000
30.0
3,000
20.0
2,000
y = 0.8428x + 1048.3 y = 0.8823x + 6.6919
R² = 0.9499 R² = 0.8939
1,000 10.0
0 0.0
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0
Original (mg/L) Original (mg/L)
Field Duplicates: Magnesium Field Duplicates: Sodium
16,000 140,000
14,000 120,000
12,000
100,000
10,000
Duplicate (mg/L)
Repeat (mg/L)
80,000
8,000
60,000
6,000
40,000
4,000 y = 0.8026x + 16947
y = 0.8782x + 1311.4 R² = 0.9045
R² = 0.9492 20,000
2,000
0
0
0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000
Original (mg/L)
Original (mg/L)
Figure 8-2: Duplicate Submissions to Brooks Applied Labs for Compass Minerals GSL
Submissions

9 Data Verification
There are no limitations on the review, analysis, and verification of the data supporting mineral
resource estimates within this TRS.
It is the opinion of the QP that the geologic, chemical, and hydrogeologic data presented in this TRS
are of appropriate quality and meet industry standards for data adequacy for mineral resource
estimation.
9.1 Data Verification Procedures GSL

The qualified person has reviewed historical databases and documentation produced by the UGS on
the sampling process and procedures within the GSL. Validation steps for the GSL database included
comparison of sample pairs between sampling points on the same date (discussed in Section 0), to
ensure major fluctuations were not noted within the UGS database, which reported strong correlations
between all paired data.
Compass Minerals conducted an independent sampling program from using four of the same sampling
locations. The Compass Minerals sampling procedures follow a similar process to the UGS and are
considered comparable. One limitation on providing a direct comparison of results is due to a time
component related to fluctuations in the water levels, the average values of the sampling are consistent
with the results reported from the UGS. The latest Compass Minerals sampling has been supported
by a QA/QC program which reported satisfactory results for both the field duplicates and field blanks.
It is the QP’s opinion that the results from the UGS and Compass Minerals database are valid to be
used within the current mineral resource estimate for the GSL.
9.2 Data Verification Procedures Ponds

The QP reviewed the data collection procedures, sample security and chain of custody, and laboratory
assay data and corresponding QA/QC procedures for both chemical analysis samples, and aquifer
parameter samples of the halite material. Where necessary the QP referred to original data to verify
numeric entry into the project database developed by Compass Minerals.
The QP reviewed the data results from the work of each laboratory. Overall, the data quality is
appropriate. In the QP’s opinion, there are no notable discrepancies or variances in duplicate samples
in the analyses completed. Source: Compass Minerals Sampling Data
Figure 9-1 plots the lithium concentrations where duplicate samples were available with results from
both Brooks Applied Labs and Chemtech-Ford Laboratories for Pond 113. Note that Chemtech-Ford
Laboratories results are generally similar or higher for almost all samples. This is likely due to small
differences in dilution methodology between laboratories for analysis of samples with extremely high
dissolved solids content which can serve to increase noticeable differences in overall base standards
of the CP-[QQQ-]MS methods. The sample data from Brooks Applied Labs is generally a more
conservative value, and contain data for all sample locations, therefore the data from Brooks Applied
Labs are used for mineral resource estimation purposes within this report to address any uncertainty.

Figure 9-1: Comparison of Lithium Assay Values for Brooks Applied Labs and Chemtech-Ford
Laboratories, for Analysis of Lithium in Brine

10 Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing

Compass Minerals has conducted bench-top and pilot scale mineral processing and metallurgical
testing to evaluate the efficacy of lithium extraction from GSL brine as a coproduct to existing
production of other Salts. Four technologies were initially evaluated, with two technologies advanced
to pilot-scale stage. The evaluations included both onsite and offsite testing of selective adsorption
and ion exchange direct lithium extraction (“DLE”) technologies. Both testing programs were
successful in the extraction of lithium from different host brines within Compass Minerals’ pond
process, including ambient North Arm brine, interstitial brine, and magnesium chloride brines, with
successful rejection of magnesium. While the field testing and data analysis of the initial pilot testing
programs are complete, advanced data analysis is ongoing in support of more advanced onsite pilot
testing design. Therefore, the DLE testing program data is not reported in this TRS.
Based on a qualitative review of process technology (e.g., selective adsorption and ion exchange) for
extraction of lithium from similar brines with low lithium and high impurity (applicable for magnesium,
calcium, boron, and other ions), such technology has advanced rapidly in recent years. This is
evidenced by the successful commercial economic extraction of lithium from similar low lithium
concentration / high magnesium brines from salt lakes in China and development of extraction
technology for other relatively low concentration / high impurity brines such as those found at
geothermal power plants and oil fields. Based on the QP’s knowledge of existing studies and projects,
DLE technology, including selective absorption, membrane filtration and solvent extraction, has been
successful in extracting lithium and rejecting magnesium impurities of up to 500:1 magnesium to
lithium source brine at existing commercial production operations in China.
The Lanxess Group and Standard Lithium Ltd. are in advanced pilot testing stages of assessing oil-
field brine using DLE technology in the Smackover Formation in Arkansas. Standard Lithium has also
issued a Preliminary Economic Assessment (“PEA”) and a 43-101 compliant resource estimate for its
Smackover Formation Project in Arkansas. While brines derived from the Smackover Formation have
relatively low magnesium and boron concentrations, concentrations of calcium and sodium are higher
than GSL brines, and DLE is technology is necessary to extract lithium from source brine (Standard
Lithium, 2019).
With an average magnesium to lithium ratio in ambient GSL brines sampled and described in this TRS
of 238:1, in the QP’s opinion, it is likely and reasonable that Compass Minerals will utilize a similar
method of extraction (e.g. selective adsorption) as a key component of its flow sheet for separation of
lithium from impurities. Selective adsorption technology for lithium extraction and separation from
impurities has been in commercial use in Argentina for decades and some of the aforementioned
Chinese operations also utilize this technology commercially. However, it still is relatively uncommon
in comparison to traditional lithium processing (based on removal of impurities through evaporation
and chemical precipitation) and therefore is still a novel technology in the QP’s opinion.
Continued development of an appropriate method for extraction of lithium from the resources
described in this TRS is critical to the ability to economically extract the lithium, but in the opinion of
the QP, there is a reasonable probability to do so based on the methods used by existing Chinese
operations and the ongoing development of similar technologies at numerous other lithium brine
sources.

11 Mineral Resource Estimate

The following outlines lithium mineral resource estimates for the GSL, halite aquifers in Pond 1b, Pond
113, and Pond 114.
11.1 Great Salt Lake

11.1.1 Key Assumptions and Parameters
Prospects for Economic Extraction
Spot prices for LCE support the development of lithium from the brine derived from the Great Salt Lake
and interstitial brine. According to an article dated June 16, 2021, Narrowing Gap Between Spot,
Contract Lithium Prices, Underlines Supply Tightness and Price Evolution, battery grade 99.5% LCE
was priced at $13,500-$14,500 per tonne on May 26 (Fastmarkets, 2021). Benchmark Mineral
intelligence LCE spot price for May 21, 2021 was $14,200/tonne as well (Piedmont Lithium, 2021).
Review or spot prices over a five year run (from 2016 to present), LCE spot prices troughed at
$7,500/tonne in 2020, but market projections of expected tightness in supply-demand for LCE has
caused a recent increase in spot prices for LCE since January 2021 (Fastmarkets, 2021, Piedmont
Lithium, 2021).
As described in Section 10, DLE is a new technology that has enabled the development of lower
concentration lithium brine sources as well as enabling the extraction of lithium from high magnesium
brines. While DLE is a new technology, it is in use at Livent Corporation’s operation in Hombre Muerto,
Argentina (Livent Corporation, 2018). According to Livent Corporation’s 2018 prospectus, the cost of
all-in LCE production at its Hombre Muerto operation was below $4,000/tonne. Also, according to
Standard Lithium’s June 2019 Preliminary Economic Analysis for its Smackover Project in Arkansas,
calculated all-in costs in accordance with 43-101 reporting requirements for the production of LCE was
$4,319/tonne brine (Standard Lithium, 2019).
The QP believes that there are reasonable parallels to the possible means of lithium extraction from
the brines of the Great Salt Lake to Standard Lithium’s operating model. The brines of the Great Salt
Lake are extracted from the lake and are in current production at the Ogden Plant for the production
of SOP, magnesium chloride, and sodium chloride, similar to Standard Lithium’s operating model that
extracts lithium from oilfield brines that have already been extracted. As ion concentrations, including
lithium, increase by design during Compass Minerals’ three-year pond concentration process, it is
expected that lithium would be extracted at one or more points along the existing pond concentration
process, and thus costs incurred from the extraction and concentration of brines from the Great Salt
Lake are already borne by existing production. Therefore, it is the QP’s opinion based on demonstrated
and projected costs for the production of LCE using DLE technology, relative to current LCE spot
pricing as well as spot pricing over the past five years, development of lithium from the brine derived
from the Great Salt Lake and interstitial brine has reasonable prospects for economic extraction.
Compass Minerals has developed the resource estimate for the Great Salt Lake following logic utilized
to support prior estimates of resources and reserves for potassium (potassium as SOP), magnesium
(magnesium as MgCl2), and sodium (sodium as NaCl) (SRK, 2017).

Resource estimation for a body of water is significantly different than a typical mining operation that
exploits rocks in a static state. As a surface body of water, the Great Salt Lake is dynamic and exhibits
unique characteristics which must be addressed when evaluating the lake as a mineral resource:
 While the dissolved mineral load is generally fixed, freshwater inflows of surface and
groundwater contribute minor amounts of active mineral loading. This is offset to a certain
extent by current mineral extraction activities on the lake that deplete the dissolved mineral
content of the lake.
 Rising and falling lake levels drive significant changes in brine volume. As seen in Figure 7-1
and Figure 7-4, the volume change between the recent historical low lake elevation (4,189
feet in 2016) and the recent historical high elevation (4,212 feet in 1986 and 1987) is several
multiples. With a largely fixed dissolved mineral content in any year, an increase in water
volume decreases the concentration (grade) of the contained minerals and conversely, a
decrease in water volume increases the concentration (grade) of the contained minerals.
Given the exponential increase or decrease in volume related to elevation shown in this figure,
the impact to concentration can more than double (or more than cut in half) concentration
levels.
 Changes in the concentration of dissolved minerals can cause some ions to reach saturation
and begin precipitating from solution (i.e., deposited on the bed of the lake). This is primarily
relevant to sodium ions.
Because there is significant variability in lake levels and associated impacts to the dissolved mineral
concentration (and content), for the purposes of the resource estimate, Compass Minerals has
estimated the mineral load in the lake and then applied a static lake level and calculated the lithium
concentration at that lake level based on the mineral load. In the QP’s opinion, this is reasonable due
to the following:
 Although concentration of dissolved minerals changes dramatically, the total contained

mineral content, which is reported in the resource estimate is largely fixed (precipitation of
minerals is addressed in the next point), and
 Sodium is the only ion that reaches saturation in the Great Salt Lake and therefore natural
precipitation or dissolution of lithium with changing lake levels is likely limited. An evaluation
of mineral content in salt crust formed in the North Arm of the lake in 2016 confirmed the
precipitate was almost exclusively halite (UGS, 2016).
With these considerations in mind, a mineral resource estimate has been developed for lithium in the
Great Salt Lake as a potential resource base for the Operation.
The presence of the railway causeway discussed in Section 6.1.2 effectively splits the Great Salt Lake
into two water bodies that are hydraulically connected, but maintain different physical parameters (e.g.
dissolved mineral concentration). Because of this, Compass Minerals has estimated and reported the
lithium resources in the North Arm and South Arm of the Great Salt Lake independently. However, as
the North and South Arms are hydraulically connected, even though Compass Minerals exclusively
extracts brine from the North Arm of the lake, the South Arm resource recharges the North Arm and
therefore is part of the resource base available to Compass Minerals at the Ogden Plant.

As previously mentioned, there is ongoing recharge of the ions present in the Great Salt Lake brine
from the surface and groundwater inflows to the lake. In addition, there has been significant mineral
extraction that has occurred on the lake from the Ogden Plant as well as Cargill Salt, Morton Salt and
US Magnesium, which has depleted the mineral content in the lake. While lithium has generally not
been targeted for extraction from these facilities, lithium has still likely been depleted to a certain extent
from these activities (for example Compass Minerals’ magnesium chloride product contains material
quantities of lithium). However, when evaluating calculated lithium mass loading over time (after the
West Desert pumping project that ended in 1989 – see Section 7.1.1), there is no discernable trend of
either depletion or loading (see Figure 11-5 and Figure 11-6). Therefore, in the QP’s opinion, it is
reasonable to utilize all lithium sample data post June 30, 1989 to support an estimate of lithium
resource in the Great Salt Lake.
11.1.2 Data Validation

Validation of the resource estimate begins with the long history of sample data (approximately 30 years
post West Desert pumping) and the consistency of data over that period. There is volatility in the data,
but that volatility has been in a consistent range and the calculated relative standard error is in the
range of 4% and relative standard deviation in the range of 14% (Table 11-1). Although the number of
dates lithium was sampled over this period is modest (15 in the South Arm and 13 in the North Arm),
data for other ions show similar volatility with much more extensive sample data (for example
potassium data at AS2 over the same period, covering 66 sample events, has a relative standard
deviation of 13% and standard error of approximately 2%.
Further, when comparing results from individual sample sites in both the North and South Arms, the
results are consistent between the sites at any point in time. To quantify the differential between the
sites the samples on dates that stations were sampled on the same date and results can be directly
compared. There are 10 dates over the post West Desert period of sampling where the two North Arm
stations were sampled on the same date. When comparing this data, on average, results from LVG4
and RD2 varied by 1% for lithium. Eight of the ten samples had a differential of less than 4% and the
maximum differential is approximately 8% (Source: Compass Minerals
Figure 11-1). As an additional point of comparison / validation, Compass Minerals has intake sample
data from pump PS114 (pond intake data) which also is sourced from the North Arm of the lake. This
pump data is reflective of actual inflow to the Ogden operation’s ponds. Intake data is available on the
same date as the lake sampling data on September 4, 2020. On this date, the PS114 intake sample
concentration is within 5% of the average of the LVG4/RD2 sample data.

80.0 20%
70.0 15%
Li Concentration (mg/l) 60.0 10%
Relative Differential
50.0 5%
40.0 0%
30.0 ‐5%
20.0 ‐10%
10.0 ‐15%
‐ ‐20%
Jan‐93 Jul‐98 Jan‐04 Jul‐09 Dec‐14 Jun‐20
LVG4 RD2 Relative Differential
Figure 11-1: North Arm Same Day Sample Data Comparison
In the South Arm, AS2 versus FB2 showed similar results with 1% differential on average between
nine dates with same day samples. The max differential is higher at 18% (in June 1995), but the
remainder are 8% or below with more than half (six) having a differential below 3% (Source: Compass
Minerals
Figure 11-2).
25.0 20%
15%
20.0
10%
Li Concentration (mg/l)
Relative Differential
5%
15.0
0%
10.0
‐5%
‐10%
5.0
‐15%
‐ ‐20%
May‐90 Sep‐91 Jan‐93 Jun‐94 Oct‐95 Mar‐97 Jul‐98 Dec‐99
AS2 FB2 Relative Differential
Figure 11-2: South Arm Same Day Sample Data Comparison
Based on these comparisons, in the QP’s opinion, the data consistency and comparability between
sample stations is reliable.

11.1.3 Resource Estimate

Given the long history of data available regarding water level and brine chemistry for the Great Salt
Lake, Compass Minerals utilized the time series of data to estimate the total dissolved ion load for
lithium in the lake for each point of sampling data. This is possible as there are water level readings
associated with every sample collected and there is a water level / lake brine level relationship table
that has been published by USGS (see Section 7.1.1). The total dissolved lithium mass load for each
sample site on each sample date can therefore be estimated by multiplying the average measured
lithium concentration (utilizing a simple average across the full depth of the lake) by the lake brine
volume on that date, based on the recorded water level.
The results of this analysis are shown for four of the five sample sites (note site AC3 in the South Arm
has a single data point so a time series is not possible for this site) in Figure 11-3 and Figure 11-4.
350,000
300,000
North Arm Lithium Mass Load (tons Li)
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
LVG4 RD2
Figure 11-3: Calculated Lithium Mass Loading, Individual Sites, Great Salt Lake North Arm
350,000
300,000
South Arm Lithium Mass Load (tons Li)
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
7/1/1989
7/1/1990
7/1/1991
7/1/1992
7/1/1993
7/1/1994
7/1/1995
7/1/1996
7/1/1997
7/1/1998
7/1/1999
7/1/2000
7/1/2001
7/1/2002
7/1/2003
7/1/2004
7/1/2005
7/1/2006
7/1/2007
7/1/2008
7/1/2009
7/1/2010
7/1/2011
7/1/2012
7/1/2013
7/1/2014
7/1/2015
7/1/2016
7/1/2017
7/1/2018
7/1/2019
7/1/2020
AS2 FB2

Figure 11-4: Calculated Lithium Mass Loading, Individual Sites, Great Salt Lake South Arm
Compass Minerals has also consolidated the data into a single chart for each of the North and South
Arms, taking the average of all sites in each arm if sampled on the same day or using the single site
sample result if only one site was sampled. This data is presented in Figure 11-5 and Figure 11-6.
350,000
300,000
North Arm Lithium Mass Load (tons Li)
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
Figure 11-5: Calculated Lithium Mass Loading, Combined Sites, Great Salt Lake North Arm
300,000
250,000
South Arm Lithium Mass Load (tons Li)
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
7/1/1989
7/1/1990
7/1/1991
7/1/1992
7/1/1993
7/1/1994
7/1/1995
7/1/1996
7/1/1997
7/1/1998
7/1/1999
7/1/2000
7/1/2001
7/1/2002
7/1/2003
7/1/2004
7/1/2005
7/1/2006
7/1/2007
7/1/2008
7/1/2009
7/1/2010
7/1/2011
7/1/2012
7/1/2013
7/1/2014
7/1/2015
7/1/2016
7/1/2017
7/1/2018
7/1/2019
7/1/2020
Figure 11-6: Calculated Lithium Mass Loading, Combined Sites, Great Salt Lake South Arm
As noted in Section 11.1.1, the QP’s interpretation of this data is that there is not an established trend
of mass load increase (driven by new mineral addition from surface / groundwater inflow) or decrease

(driven by mineral extraction activities). The data is volatile but historic and recent data remains within
the same range with a simple linear trend line in the North Arm showing no slope. The South Arm has
a slight positive slope. However, in the QP’s opinion, this slope is too minor to suggest any strong
trend and a review of the data indicates it is likely driven by volatility inherent in the data more than
any defined change in mineral loading.
As there is no established trend over time in mineral load, to try to reduce the impact of volatility in the
loading data, the QP utilized an average of all dates samples were collected to reflect the most likely
lithium mass load in the lake. The summary statistics, as generated by Microsoft Excel are provided
in Table 11-1 and a box-whisker plot of this data is presented in Figure 11-7.
Table 11-1: Great Salt Lake Lithium Mass Load Statistics

Statistic South Arm North Arm
Mean 233,453 252,906

Standard Error 8,964 10,591
Relative Standard Error 4% 4%
Median 243,012 241,582
Standard Deviation 34,716 38,185
Relative Standard Deviation 14% 16%
Range 114,744 110,938
Minimum 170,040 195,881
Maximum 284,784 306,819
Count (Sample Dates) 15 13
Figure 11-7: Consolidated Lithium Mass Load Data
For the purpose of the resource estimate, Compass Minerals utilized the mean of the data for both the
South and North Arms of the lake to estimate the lithium resource mass, averaged to the nearest
10,000 tons (to reflect the accuracy of the estimate). This results in a lithium resource of 250,000 tons
(as lithium) in the North Arm and 230,000 tons (as lithium) in the South Arm.
Concentration is variable and dependent upon lake elevation. Utilizing a fixed 250,000 tons of lithium
in the North Arm and 230,000 tons of lithium in the South Arm, resultant lithium concentrations at a
range of lake elevations is presented in Table 11-2. Notably, the lake elevation in the South Arm is
higher than in the North Arm due to inflows primarily entering the South Arm and higher evaporation
rates in the North Arm with restricted flow between the two arms limiting the lake’s ability to balance.
This differential can range from 0.1 foot to more than three feet with an average of around one foot
differential.
Table 11-2: Great Salt Lake Lithium Resource Concentration at Varying Lake Elevation.
S. Arm N. Arm
Surface S. Arm Volume Concentration N. Arm Volume Concentration
Elevation (ft) (acre‐feet) (mg/l Li) (acre‐feet) (mg/l Li)
4190 4,982,206 34 2,770,610 66
4191 5,354,231 32 2,994,695 61
4192 5,737,330 29 3,227,200 57
4193 6,131,058 28 3,468,716 53
4194 6,540,431 26 3,722,180 49
4195 7,024,900 24 3,990,369 46
4196 7,492,800 23 4,280,622 43
4197 8,000,900 21 4,592,312 40
4198 8,549,200 20 4,925,583 37
4199 9,137,800 19 5,280,252 35
4200 9,766,600 17 5,656,176 33
For the purpose of reporting a lithium concentration on the resource statement, Compass Minerals
utilized the average of the past 10 years of water elevation data reported by the USGS at USGS
10010100 Saline (North Arm) and USGS 10010000 Saltair Boat Harbor (South Arm). This results in a
water level of 4,194.4 ft for the South Arm and 4,193.5 ft for the North Arm.
11.1.4 Cutoff Grade Estimate

Due to the dynamic nature of the Great Salt Lake, other than some gradation at depth, the
concentration of lithium in the lake is largely homogenous in each of the North and South Arms of the
lake (i.e. mixing of the lake is generally effective within each arm). Further, changes in lake surface
elevation driven by the balance of inflows and evaporation can significantly change the average
concentration of lithium in the lake (see Table 11-2). Finally, the use of solar evaporation ponds at the
Ogden operation effectively increases the concentration of lithium in the brine with minimal expenditure
(this concentration process is already established to extract potassium, sodium and magnesium from
the lake with lithium concentrations in the final processing stages of the current operation averaging
greater than 1,000 mg/l). Therefore, in the QP’s opinion, a cutoff grade, such as would typically be
used at a hard rock mining operation, establishing the difference between ore and waste, is not
applicable to the potential extraction of lithium from the Great Salt Lake and has not been applied in
this instance.
As no cutoff grade has been applied to the resource, no lithium price has been applied to this resource
estimate. Compass Minerals is evaluating the potential to produce lithium from the Great Salt Lake as

a coproduct to its production of other minerals (most significant being potassium as sulfate of potash).
However, the extraction of lithium from the existing process brine will have a cost to it and while this
should not be represented as a cutoff grade on the mineral resource for the reasons noted above,
there still will be a lithium price that represents an economic breakeven for the production of lithium.
At this stage of development though, Compass Minerals is working on evaluating process technologies
most applicable to the extraction of lithium and has not yet quantified the operating cost for extraction.
While the QP opines that there is a reasonable prospect of economic extraction of lithium from the
Great Salt Lake based on a qualified analysis of similar lithium operations (see Section 10), at this
stage of development the threshold economic lithium price specific to the Great Salt Lake cannot be
reasonably quantified.
11.1.5 Uncertainty
Key points of uncertainty in the lithium resource estimate for the Great Salt Lake include the following:
 Interactions between surface and subsurface brines in the lake basin: the resource estimate
only considers surface brine in the estimate and has not attempted to evaluate or model the
presence or interaction of subsurface brine, even though it almost certainly has an impact on
the surface brine. This is hypothesized by the QP to largely be driven by net outflow from
surface to subsurface during periods of rising lake levels and net inflows from subsurface to
surface during periods of falling lake levels.
 Fresh water inflows and mineral depletion from the Great Salt Lake: the mineral resource
estimate reflects a static snapshot of the lithium mineral content in the Great Salt Lake.
However, the lake is a dynamic system and freshwater inflows contain trace mineral levels
that continue to add loading to the lake. Mineral extraction activities conversely are continually
depleting the mineral resource basis. Net depletion / addition of dissolved lithium has assumed
to be immaterial and with no net trend in the data established. However, given the volatility of
the overall data, it is possible there is a net trend (either positive or negative) that has not been
captured.
 Efficiency of mixing in the Great Salt Lake: the mineral resource estimate accounts for minor
changes in resource concentration over the vertical column of brine by averaging multiple
sample data points across the vertical water column. However, the estimate effectively
assumes that the lateral concentration of dissolved minerals in the lake is homogenous and
relies on a small number of sample stations to reflect the overall concentration of dissolved
mineral in the lake. From comparison of data from those sample stations, the QP believes this
is a reasonable assumption (see Section 0), although there is still a small amount of variability
in the data.
 Bathymetric data: there are two relatively recent bathymetric surveys of the Great Salt Lake
and a comparison of these two data sets show limited variability of 1-2% typical at each
elevation and 5% maximum (see Section 7.1.1). However, dissolution / precipitation of halite
in the North Arm (where sodium can reach saturation at times) could impact bathymetry.
Further, the resolution of the bathymetric data (0.5 foot) is lower than the water level data
resolution (0.1) and while bathymetry data can be interpolated between reported values, this
adds uncertainty.

11.1.6 Resource Classification and Criteria

Mineral resource classification is typically a subjective concept, and industry best practices suggest
that resource classification should consider the confidence in the geological continuity of the modelled
mineralization, the quality and quantity of exploration data supporting the estimates, and the
geostatistical confidence in the estimates. Appropriate classification criteria should aim at integrating
these concepts to delineate regular areas at a similar resource classification.
The QP is satisfied that the hydrological/chemical model for the Great Salt Lake honors the current
hydrological and chemical information and knowledge. The mineral resource model is informed from
brine sampling data spanning almost 30 years and relatively recent bathymetry data. Continuity of the
resource is not a concern as the lake is a visible, continuous body.
The primary criteria considered for classification consists of confidence in chemical results, accuracy
of bathymetric data, dynamic interaction of surface and subsurface brines, and representativeness of
a relatively small areal extent of samples for the entire lake volume. In the QP’s opinion, the confidence
in continuity and volume of the lake is very good based on the visible nature and relative ease of
measuring volumes (notwithstanding the uncertainty noted in bathymetry data above). However, the
QP also opines that three sample locations in the South Arm and two sample locations in the North
Arm are a relatively small number of locations, even with largely consistent chemical concentrations
in the North and South Arm from mixing (USGS 2016). Further, the impact of surface/subsurface brine
interactions adds material uncertainty. These factors are likely the major drivers in the volatility seen
in the calculated mass load over time (see Figure 11-3 and Figure 11-4). This volatility is quantified
though with a relative standard deviation between 14% (South Arm) and 16% (North Arm) and
calculated standard error of approximately 4% for both data sets. In the QP’s opinion, this level of
quantified variability, combined with a qualitative evaluation of points of uncertainty reasonably reflect
a classification of indicated for the Great Salt Lake.
11.1.7 Mineral Resource Statement – Great Salt Lake

In the QP’s opinion, the mineral resources were estimated in conformity with CRIRSCO Guidelines.
The resource statement for the Great Salt Lake, effective June 1, 2021, is presented in Table 11-3.

Table 11-3: Mineral Resource Statement for Great Salt Lake Lithium, Compass Minerals June
1, 2021
Li Li (tons) Li as LCE Mg/Li Ratio
Concentrati (tons)
Class on (mg/l)
North Arm
Measured - - - -
Indicated 51 250,000 1,330,750 238
M&I 51 250,000 1,330,750 238
South Arm
Measured - - - -
Indicated 25 230,000 1,224,290 247
M&I 25 230,000 1,224,290 247
Combined Great Salt Lake
Measured - - - -
Indicated 39 480,000 2,555,040 242
M&I 39 480,000 2,555,040 242
(2) Mineral resources are reported as in situ for the Great Salt Lake with no restrictions such as recovery or environmental
limitations.
(6) Reported lithium concentration assumes an indicative lake level of 4,194.4 ft in the South Arm and 4,193.5 ft in the North
Arm
from the lake are dependent upon a range of leases and rights, including lakebed leases (allowing development of pond
facilities) and water rights (allowing extraction of brine from the lake). The water rights most directly control Compass
Minerals’ ability to extract brine from the lake and Compass Minerals currently has right to extract 156,000 acre-feet per
annum from the North Arm of the lake and 205,000 acre-feet per annum of brine from the South Arm. Compass Minerals
currently utilizes its North Arm water rights to support existing mineral production at its GSL Facility. It does not currently
utilize its South Arm water rights.
In the QP’s opinion, key points of risk associated with the lithium estimate for the Great Salt Lake
include the following:
 Data uncertainty: the Great Salt Lake lithium resource has been classified as indicated to
account for this uncertainty (see Section 11.1.5). However, the mineral resources may still be
affected by further sampling work such as water sampling or sonar testing (for bathymetry)
and future data collection may result in increases or decreases in subsequent mineral
resource estimates.
 Future lake surface elevation levels: lake levels are driven by climatic factors as well as
alternative usage of fresh water flows that currently drain into the lake. High lake levels put
operational infrastructure at risk and dilute lithium concentrations. Low lake levels can benefit
the operation with higher concentrations, but can also impact Compass Minerals’ ability to
extract brine if the levels are too low.

11.2 Evaporation Ponds

11.2.1 Key Assumptions, Parameters, and Methods Used
The mineral resource estimates for (Pond 1b, Pond 113, Pond 114, Pond, 96, Pond 97 and Pond 98)
which are detailed below. The QP evaluated the available information for each pond individually. In
particular, brine chemistry and halite aquifer properties were sufficiently different to warrant that the
resource estimate for each pond utilize different parameters. These parameters are identified within
the discussion of the mineral resource estimate for the halite aquifer in each pond.
All pond mineral resource estimates were completed utilizing basic Voronoi polygonal methods. The
lateral extent of each polygon was defined by bisector between drillholes, and the vertical extent of
each polygon was defined by the measured halite aquifer stratigraphy. The brine volume for each
polygon was determined through analysis of hydrogeologic data that characterized the specific yield
of the halite aquifer. The brine assay data for lithium from each drillhole was applied to that polygon
for that drillhole. There was no treatment, averaging, or cut-off applied to the brine assay data.
The basis of the lithium mineral resource estimates is the 2018 and 2019 drillhole data, and 2020 pot-
hole trenching data.
Any difference to the key assumptions, parameters and methods utilized in the resource estimates are
identified in the following sections.
11.2.2 Resource Estimate – Pond 1b

The data supporting a mineral resource for Pond 1b includes the following:
 Thirteen (13) drillholes advanced for continuous samples, lithological logging, and brine
sampling
 Brine samples from each of the 13 drill locations analyzed for lithium and other dissolved
minerals
 Analysis of both aquifer test data, and laboratory data for RBRC values.
The lithium mineral resources contained within the halite sediments of Pond 1b were calculated
through the use of Voronoi Polygons due to the overall homogeneity of the host aquifer sediments,
consistency of aquifer thickness, lateral extent of the resource area, and the overall spatial consistency
of the lithium concentration in the brine. The centers of the polygons were based on the locations of
the 13 drillholes utilized in the analysis, with no drillhole data or assay data excluded from the analysis.
Once the boundaries and surface areas of each polygon were defined, a halite sediment thickness
was assigned, based on lithologic logging of each drillhole, for total volume calculations.
Brine volumes within each polygon were based on the Sy calculation of 0.32 as described in
Sections 7.3.4 of this report. The resultant volume of brine was then assigned a lithium concentration
based on the assay value reported for the drillhole associated with each polygon for determination of
the total dissolved mineral content. No cut-off value or grade capping was applied to the dataset.
Figure 11-8 shows the location and sizes of the Voronoi polygons within Pond 1b and the relative
concentration of lithium across the pond. Table 11-4 provides the polygon sizes, volumes, and
subsequent lithium resource calculations, and Table 11-5 provides the mineral resource summary.

Figure 11-8: Voronoi Polygons utilized for Pond 1b Resource Estimation, Color Shaded to
Show Distribution of Lithium Concentrations in Brine within the Halite Aquifer

Table 11-4: Tabulation of Lithium Resources by Polygon, and Totals, for Pond 1b
Salt Brine Brine Li
Li Area Volume
Polygon Thickness Volume Volume Resource
(mg/L) (ft2) (ft3)
(ft) (ft3) (acre-ft) (tons)
1BSP1 245 6 13,548,203 81,289,219 26,093,839 599 200
1BSP2 361 6.5 11,466,926 74,535,018 23,925,741 549 270
1BSP3 310 6 11,883,323 71,299,939 22,887,280 525 221
1BSP4 300 6 7,259,402 43,556,412 13,981,608 321 131
1BSP5 272 5 8,663,131 43,315,655 13,904,325 319 118
1BSP6 363 6 9,225,596 55,353,576 17,768,498 408 201
1BSP7 401 6 11,029,428 66,176,569 21,242,679 488 266
1BSP8 359 6 8,752,812 52,516,874 16,857,916 387 189
1BSP9 298 6 15,171,183 91,027,097 29,219,698 671 272
1BSP10 273 6 5,824,250 34,945,499 11,217,505 258 96
1BSP11 326 6 2,779,218 16,675,310 5,352,775 123 54
1BSP12 335 6 4,458,213 26,749,276 8,586,518 197 90
1BSP13 292 6 7,462,413 44,774,478 14,372,608 330 131
Table 11-5: Inferred Mineral Resources, Pond 1b

Inferred Mineral Resources
Parameter Pond 1b
Resource area (ft2) 117,524,098
Halite aquifer volume (ft3) 702,214,922
Sy (%) 32
Brine volume (ft3) 224,708,775
Brine volume (acre-ft) 5,159
Mean concentration, weighted (mg/L) 318
Total lithium resource (tons) 2,231
Lithium carbonate equivalent (tons) 11,876
Cut-Off Grades Estimates
Due to the dynamic nature of the Great Salt Lake, changes in lake surface elevation driven by the
balance of inflows and evaporation can significantly change the average concentration of lithium that
feeds the evaporation ponds and ends up in the salt mass in those ponds. Further, the use of these
solar evaporation ponds effectively increases the concentration of lithium in the brine with minimal
expenditure (this concentration process is already established to extract potassium, sodium and
magnesium from the lake with lithium concentrations in the final processing stages of the current
operation averaging greater than 1,000 mg/l). Therefore, in the QP’s opinion, a cutoff grade, such as
would typically be used at a hard rock mining operation, establishing the difference between ore and
waste, is not applicable to the potential extraction of lithium from salt masses within its solar
evaporation ponds at the Ogden operation and has not been applied in this instance.

Therefore, while the QP opines that there is a reasonable prospect of economic extraction of lithium
from the Great Salt Lake based on a qualified analysis of similar lithium operations (see Section 10),
at this stage of development the threshold economic lithium price cannot be reasonably quantified.
Resource Classification and Criteria
The lithium mineral resources in Pond 1b are classified as inferred. This is due to the consistent aquifer
lithology, limited thickness of the aquifer, even spatial distribution of brine chemistry data, lack of pond-
specific hydraulic testing and assumption of hydraulic parameters similar to that observed in Pond 113,
and containment of the resource in a man-made structure. Although the collected data is of high
quality, the lack of pond-specific aquifer parameters justify the resource classification of Pond 1b as
inferred.
Uncertainty
Key sources of uncertainty identified by the QP for the Pond 1b lithium mineral resource estimate
 Assumed homogenization of the brine fluids within the halite aquifer. This sampling
assumption potentially biases the brine assay data. Chemo-stratification of the brine could
negatively or positively affect the mineral resource estimate.
 The lack of Pond 1b specific aquifer parameters, specifically Sy. The assumption that the Pond
1b halite aquifer has hydraulic parameters similar to Pond 113 and Pond 114 may be incorrect.
A difference in the halite aquifer hydraulic parameters in Pond 1b could negatively or positively
affect the mineral resource estimate.
These factors impacted the decision to classify the lithium mineral resources of Pond 1b as inferred.
11.2.3 Resource Estimate – Pond 96

The data supporting a mineral resource for Pond 96 includes the following:
 Eight (8) drillholes advanced for continuous samples, lithological logging, and brine sampling
minerals
 Analysis of both aquifer test data, and laboratory data for RBRC values
The lithium mineral resources contained within the halite sediments of Pond 96 were calculated

Figure 11-9 shows the location and sizes of the Voronoi polygons within Pond 96 and the relative
concentration of lithium across the pond. Figure 11-3 provides the polygon sizes, volumes, and

Figure 11-9: Voronoi Polygons utilized for Pond 96 Resource Estimation, Color Shaded to
Table 11-6: Tabulation of Lithium Resources by Polygon, and Totals, for Pond 96
Salt Brine Brine Li
Li Area Volume
(mg/L) (ft2) (ft3)
(ft) (ft3) (acre-feet) (tons)
96SP01 214 8.5 4,536,278 36,290,225 10,887,067 250 69
96SP02 222 8.5 7,236,970 61,514,242 18,454,273 424 128
96SP03 232 6.5 9,991,005 77,929,836 23,378,951 537 161
96SP04 215 7.8 6,512,463 58,612,171 17,583,651 404 105
96SP05 220 7.8 8,489,592 72,161,532 21,648,460 497 144
96SP06 211 8.5 9,168,889 59,597,779 17,879,334 410 129
98SP07 204 8.0 7,753,930 60,480,652 18,144,196 417 121
98SP08 190 9.0 8,626,664 73,326,647 21,997,994 505 144
Table 11-7: Indicated Mineral Resources, Pond 96

Indicated Mineral Resources
Parameter Pond 96
Sy (%) 30
Brine volume (acre/ft) 3,443
The lithium mineral resources in Pond 96 are classified as Indicated. This is due to the consistent
aquifer lithology and limited thickness, even spatial distribution of brine chemistry data, completion of
both field-based and laboratory hydraulic property testing, and containment of the resource within a
man-made structure.
Uncertainty
Key sources of uncertainty identified by the QP for the Pond 96 lithium mineral resource estimate
These factors impacted the decision to classify the lithium mineral resources of Pond 96 as Indicated.

 Six (6) drillholes advanced for continuous samples, lithological logging, and brine sampling
minerals
 Analysis of laboratory data for RBRC values
(Source: SRK Consulting (US) Inc.


Source:
Salt Brine Brine Li
Li Area Volume
(mg/L) (ft2) (ft3)
97SP01 210 8.5 5,344,499 45,428,245 13,628,473 313 89
97SP02 203 8.5 3,363,745 28,591,828 8,577,549 197 54
97SP03 222 9.5 5,034,945 47,831,973 14,349,592 329 99
97SP04 198 8.0 10,928,056 87,424,448 26,277,334 602 162
97SP05 217 8.7 8,447,583 73,493,970 22,048,191 506 149
97SP06 219 9.5 9,712,576 92,269,473 27,680,842 635 190
Table 11-9: Inferred Mineral Resources, Pond 97

Parameter Pond 97
Sy (%) 30
Total Lithium Resource (tons) 744
Lithium Carbonate Equivalent (tons) 3,961

The lithium mineral resources in Pond 97 are classified as inferred. This is due to the consistent aquifer
lithology and limited thickness, even spatial distribution of brine chemistry data, completion of one
difficult to analyze pumping tests suggestive of high hydraulic conductivity, and containment of the
resource within a man-made structure. The current operation of Pond 96, Pond 97, and Pond 98 as a
singular pond drives the inferred classification of the mineral resource in Pond 96 with only limited
hydrogeologic characterization.
Uncertainty
 There is no pond-specific RBRC data nor complete analysis of in-field hydraulic testing for
Pond 97. Therefore, the current operation of Ponds 96, 97, and 98 as one large evaporation
pond, was utilized to support the inferred classification of the mineral resource. This
association may be incorrect. A difference in the halite aquifer hydraulic parameters in Pond
97 could negatively or positively affect the mineral resource estimate.
These factors impacted the decision to classify the lithium mineral resources of Pond 97 as inferred.

 Seven (7) drillholes advanced for continuous samples, lithological logging, and brine sampling
minerals
 Analysis of both aquifer test data, and laboratory data for RBRC values


Salt Brine Brine Li
Li Area Volume
(mg/L) (ft2) (ft3)
98SP01 212 9.0 6,329,960 56,969,641 17,090,892 392 114
98SP02 227 9.0 5,181,575 46,634,176 13,990,253 321 99
98SP03 223 9.5 7,638,577 72,566,483 21,769,945 500 151
98SP04 216 9.5 11,026,269 104,749,554 31,424,866 721 212
98SP05 224 9.3 7,778,614 71,952,179 21,585,654 496 151
98SP06 217 9.3 6,256,028 57,868,262 17,360,479 399 118
98SP07 230 9.5 5,513,468 52,377,943 15,713,383 361 112

Parameter Pond 98
Sy (%) 30
Total lithium resource (tons) 957

man-made structure.
Uncertainty

 Sixty-seven (67) drillholes, advanced for continuous samples, lithological logging, and brine
sampling
 Brine samples from each of the 67 drill locations, analyzed for lithium and other dissolved
minerals
 Laboratory analysis of the halite for Relative Brine Release Capacity (RBRC)
 Completion of multiple hydraulic tests within the halite hosted brine aquifer
through the use of Voronoi Polygons due to the overall homogeneity of the both the host aquifer
sediments, consistency of aquifer thickness, lateral extent of the resource area, and the overall spatial
consistency of the lithium concentration in the brine.
The centers of the polygons were based on the locations of the 66 drillholes utilized in the analysis.
Drillhole SP-90 was removed from the analysis due to a lack of geologic information, although it did
have an attributable assay. SP-90 was drilled directly adjacent (twinned drillhole) to drillhole SP-75 in
an area of relatively tight drilling.
Once the boundaries and surface areas of each polygon was defined, a halite sediment thickness was
assigned, based on lithologic logging of each drillhole, for total volume calculations. Brine volumes
within each polygon were based on the Sy calculation of 0.32 as described in Section 7.3.4 of this
report. The resultant volume of brine was then assigned a lithium concentration based on the assay
value reported for the drillhole associated with each polygon for determination of the total dissolved
mineral content. No cut-off value or grade capping was applied to the dataset. Source: SRK Consulting
(US) Inc.

Figure 11-12: Pond 113 Voronoi Polygons Color Shaded to Show Spatial Distribution
of Lithium Concentrations in Brine within the Halite Aquifer

Li Salt Thickness Surface Area Aquifer Volume Brine Volume Brine Volume Li Resource
Polygon
(mg/L) (ft) (ft2) (ft3) (ft3) (acre-feet) (tons)
SP-01 162 8.0 13,865,601 110,924,809 35,606,864 817 180
SP-02 150 10.0 8,065,707 80,657,071 25,890,920 594 121
SP-03 181 9.0 9,226,106 83,034,954 26,654,220 612 151
SP-04 171 7.0 13,310,956 93,176,689 29,909,717 687 160
SP-06 168 8.5 9,971,030 84,753,755 27,205,955 625 143
SP-07 168 10.5 7,052,472 74,050,956 23,770,357 546 125
SP-08 158 11.0 10,224,855 112,473,401 36,103,962 829 178
SP-10 135 8.0 15,814,957 126,519,653 40,612,809 932 171
SP-11 193 11.5 7,005,698 80,565,527 25,861,534 594 156
SP-12 169 8.0 13,828,855 110,630,844 35,512,501 815 187
SP-13 178 11.0 6,207,119 68,278,314 21,917,339 503 122
SP-14 177 10.0 11,077,917 110,779,174 35,560,115 816 196
SP-15 166 11.0 10,757,905 118,336,957 37,986,163 872 197
SP-16 159 8.0 17,620,712 140,965,697 45,249,989 1,039 225
SP-18 165 8.0 14,437,752 115,502,015 37,076,147 851 191
SP-19 197 9.0 14,838,089 133,542,804 42,867,240 984 264
SP-20 225 12.0 10,034,457 120,413,485 38,652,729 887 271
SP-21 215 14.5 7,874,474 114,179,870 36,651,738 841 246
SP-22 165 11.0 15,487,888 170,366,764 54,687,731 1,255 282
SP-24 188 8.0 15,846,040 126,768,319 40,692,631 934 239
SP-26 173 9.0 14,137,011 127,233,100 40,841,825 938 221
SP-27 186 12.0 9,259,965 111,119,582 35,669,386 819 207
SP-28 233 15.0 3,718,319 55,774,789 17,903,707 411 130
SP-29 233 13.0 10,825,358 140,729,654 45,174,219 1,037 329
SP-30 169 11.0 11,425,513 125,680,638 40,343,485 926 213
SP-31 165 12.0 15,358,628 184,303,533 59,161,434 1,358 305
SP-32 232 12.0 6,837,802 82,053,624 26,339,213 605 191
SP-33 188 8.5 15,188,751 129,104,387 41,442,508 951 243
SP-34 229 12.0 3,784,382 45,412,580 14,577,438 335 104
SP-35 311 9.0 10,364,323 93,278,908 29,942,529 687 291
SP-36 179 11.0 10,689,948 117,589,431 37,746,207 867 211
SP-37 200 8.5 21,363,011 181,585,593 58,288,975 1,338 364
SP-38 186 12.0 15,874,039 190,488,467 61,146,798 1,404 355
SP-39 186 9.0 9,353,586 84,182,276 27,022,511 620 157
SP-40 183 9.0 15,169,130 136,522,173 43,823,618 1,006 250
SP-41 213 10.0 13,156,690 131,566,896 42,232,974 970 281
SP-42 232 9.5 22,590,523 214,609,966 68,889,799 1,581 499
SP-43 235 10.0 13,351,997 133,519,969 42,859,910 984 314
SP-45 272 9.0 11,367,984 102,311,856 32,842,106 754 279
SP-46 364 9.5 9,006,295 85,559,804 27,464,697 631 312
SP-47 182 9.5 7,202,790 68,426,509 21,964,909 504 125
SP-48 233 11.0 8,641,036 95,051,395 30,511,498 700 222
SP-49 205 11.0 9,989,867 109,888,540 35,274,221 810 226
SP-50 189 12.0 20,300,556 243,606,668 78,197,740 1,795 461
SP-51 212 13.0 23,644,781 307,382,155 98,669,672 2,265 653
SP-58 208 8.0 9,942,924 79,543,390 25,533,428 586 166
SP-59 219 8.5 6,957,679 59,140,269 18,984,026 436 130
SP-60 211 9.5 10,512,869 99,872,256 32,058,994 736 211
SP-66 269 10.0 11,262,475 112,624,750 36,152,545 830 304
SP-67 241 8.0 18,318,532 146,548,256 47,041,990 1,080 354
SP-73 189 7.5 5,565,781 41,743,357 13,399,617 308 79
SP-74 194 8.0 6,392,574 51,140,595 16,416,131 377 99
SP-75 243 7.8 7,037,555 54,541,048 17,507,677 402 133
SP-76 256 9.0 9,109,225 81,983,022 26,316,550 604 210
SP-77 207 10.0 16,383,104 163,831,043 52,589,765 1,207 340
SP-79 280 8.5 23,316,968 198,194,228 63,620,347 1,461 556
SP-80 242 7.5 15,283,699 114,627,740 36,795,504 845 278
SP-81 182 9.5 10,106,358 96,010,403 30,819,339 708 175
SP-82 172 8.0 7,053,174 56,425,393 18,112,551 416 97
SP-83 218 15 3,990,847 59,862,712 19,215,931 441 131
SP-84 288 15 4,457,636 66,864,541 21,463,518 493 193
SP-85 243 15.5 6,302,708 97,691,969 31,359,122 720 238
SP-86 229 14 5,030,788 70,431,038 22,608,363 519 162
SP-87 210 11 7,450,687 81,957,558 26,308,376 604 172
SP-88 208 12 8,771,027 105,252,321 33,785,995 776 219
SP-89 215 12 6,263,365 75,160,379 24,126,482 554 162


Parameter Pond 113
Halite aquifer volume (ft3) 7,386,349,817
Sy (%) 32
Brine volume (ft3) 2,363,631,942
Brine volume (acres per foot (acre/ft)) 54,262
man-made structure.
Uncertainty


 Seven (7) sample trenches excavated for lithological logging and brine sampling
 Brine samples from each of the seven (7) excavated trenches analyzed for lithium and other
dissolved minerals
 Laboratory analysis of two (2) halite samples for RBRC
through the use of Voronoi Polygons due to the overall homogeneity of the both the host aquifer
sediments, consistency of aquifer thickness, lateral extent of the resource area, and the overall spatial
consistency of the lithium concentration in the brine. The centers of the polygons were based on the
locations of the seven pot-hole trenches utilized in the analysis, with no trenching data or assay data
excluded from the analysis.
was assigned, based on lithologic logging of each drillhole, for total volume calculations. Note that
because the 114TP04 and 114TP05 polygons are adjacent to a shoreline beachfront, a 0.5 mile
boundary was segregated from the polygon, and the volume of that beachfront transition was reduced
to 50% to account for the pinch out in the halite aquifer, which was reviewed to be a constant slope
based on USGS topographical mapping prior to pond construction. These polygons bearing the
reduction for the slope were labeled 114TPSS and 114TP05SS.

Figure 11-13: Voronoi Polygons utilized for Pond 1b Resource Estimation, Color Shaded to

Salt Surface Aquifer Brine Brine Li
Li
Polygon Thickness Area Volume Volume Volume Resource
(mg/L)
(ft) (ft2) (ft3) (ft3) (acre-feet) (tons)
114TP01 238 8 27,522,670 220,181,360 70,678,217 1,623 525
114TP02 328 6.5 31,954,540 207,704,510 66,673,148 1,531 683
114TP03 321 6.5 44,791,854 291,147,051 93,458,203 2,146 936
114TP04 279 6.5 42,788,686 278,126,459 89,278,593 2,050 777
114TP04SS 279 3.25 20,344,877 66,120,850 21,224,793 487 185
114TP05 265 5.5 95,047,666 522,762,163 167,806,654 3,852 1,388
114TP05SS 265 2.75 73,217,074 201,346,954 64,632,372 1,484 535
114TP06 125 6.5 63,270,756 411,259,914 132,014,432 3,031 515
114TP07 208 6.5 61,734,194 401,272,261 128,808,396 2,957 836
Table 11-15: Inferred Mineral Resources, Pond 114

Parameter Pond 114
Halite aquifer volume (ft3) 2,599,921,522
Sy (%) 32
The lithium mineral resources in Pond 114 are classified as inferred. This is due to the consistent
aquifer lithology, assumptions associated with beach slope geometry, even spatial distribution of brine
chemistry data, limited sample density, assumption of hydraulic parameters similar in nature to the
adjacent Pond 113 based solely on RBRC data, and containment of the resource within a man-made
structure.
Uncertainty
 The assumed geometry of the halite aquifer tapering to a beach front along the western
perimeter of Pond 114. A significant difference in that geometry could negatively or positively
affect the mineral resource estimate.
 Limited pond-specific hydraulic parameters for the halite aquifer of Pond 114. The assumption
that the hydraulic parameters are the same as Pond 113, based on two RBRC samples may
be incorrect. A difference in the halite aquifer hydraulic parameters in Pond 114 could
These factors impacted the decision to classify the lithium mineral resources of Pond 114 as inferred.
11.2.8 Consolidated Pond Mineral Resources

Table 11-16 summarizes lithium resource estimate for the precipitated halite mass in the Evaporation
ponds at Compass Minerals’ GSL Facility.

Table 11-16: Lithium Mineral Resource Statement for GSL Facility Ponds, Compass Minerals
June 1, 2021
Li2CO3
Brine Volume Average Grade Lithium Resource
Resource Area Equivalent
(acre/ft) (mg/L) (tons)
(tons)
Indicated Resources
Pond 96, Halite Aquifer 3,443 214 1,003 5,335
Pond 98, Halite Aquifer 3,190 221 957 5,090
Total Indicated Resources 60,895 206 17,066 90,789
Pond 1b, Halite Aquifer 5,158 318 2,231 11,870
Pond 97, Halite Aquifer 2,583 212 744 3,957
Total Inferred Resources 26,841 256 9,335 49,663
(2) Mineral resources are reported as in situ for the evaporation pond salt mass aquifers. Specific yield has been measured
or estimated for each pond to reflect the portion of in situ brine potentially available for extraction. No other restrictions
such as process recovery or environmental limitations have been applied.
11.3 Summary Mineral Resource Statement

Table 11-17 summarizes lithium resource estimate for Compass Minerals’ GSL Facility.

Table 11-17: Lithium Mineral Resource Statement for GSL Facility, Compass Minerals June 1,
2021
Average Grade Lithium Resource LCE
Resource Area
(mg/L) (tons) (tons)
Indicated Resources
Great Salt Lake North Arm 51 250,000 1,330,750
Great Salt Lake South Arm 25 230,000 1,224,290
Total Indicated Resources 44 497,066 2,645,828
Pond 1b, Halite Aquifer 318 2,231 11,870
Total Inferred Resources 256 9,335 49,663
(2) Mineral resources are reported as in situ for the Great Salt Lake and evaporation pond salt mass aquifers. The Great Salt
Lake estimate does not include any restrictions such as recovery or environmental limitations. Pond resources incorporate
specific yield which has been measured or estimated for each pond to reflect the portion of in situ brine potentially available
for extraction. No other restrictions have been applied to the pond resource estimate.
(5) Reported lithium concentration for the GSL assumes an indicative lake level of 4,194.4 ft in the South Arm and 4,193.5 ft
in the North Arm.
from the lake are dependent upon a range of leases and rights, including lakebed leases (allowing development of
extraction facilities) and water rights (allowing extraction of brine from the lake). The water rights most directly control
Compass Minerals’ ability to extract brine from the lake and Compass Minerals currently has right to extract 156,000 acre-
feet per annum from the North Arm of the lake and 205,000 acre-feet per annum of brine from the South Arm. Compass
Minerals currently utilizes its North Arm water rights to support existing mineral production at its GSL Facility. It does not
currently utilize its South Arm water rights.

12 Mineral Reserve Estimates

No mineral reserves are reported in this TRS.

13 Mining Methods
Mining methods have not been evaluated for the mineral resource presented in this TRS. Current
operations at the GSL Facility pump brine from the North Arm of the GSL into evaporation ponds for
processing. Compass Minerals expects to produce lithium as a co-product from existing operations
and does not anticipate modifying current mining methods.

14 Processing and Recovery Methods

Compass Minerals has not completed an evaluation of lithium recovery and processing methods for
inclusion in this TRS. See Chapter 10 for additional commentary.

15 Infrastructure
Compass Minerals has not completed studies to determine the infrastructure requirements for lithium
extraction for this TRS. Compass Minerals expects to produce lithium as a coproduct from its existing
GSL Facility and anticipates largely relying upon existing infrastructure supporting the current
Operation.

16 Market Studies
No market studies have been completed in support of the lithium mineral resource presented in this
TRS.

17 Environmental, Social and Permitting

Compass Minerals has not completed any environmental studies, review of permitting, or agreements
with local groups that may be required, beyond those currently required for ongoing mineral extraction
and processing activities in support of other mineral commodities.

18 Capital and Operating Costs

A study of capital and operating costs has not been completed as part of this TRS.

19 Economic Analysis
An economic analysis has not been completed as part of this TRS.

20 Adjacent Properties
The brines of the Great Salt Lake host several mineral extraction facilities along its shoreline that utilize
solar evaporation to concentrate the lake brine. In total, over 170,000 acres of evaporation ponds exist
to support these salt recovery and processing operations. In addition to Compass Minerals, the
following companies also have operations on the lake:
U.S. Magnesium – produces approximately 14% of the world’s magnesium from brines sourced from
the South Arm of the Great Salt Lake and concentrated through solar evaporation in over 65,000 acres
of constructed ponds.
Morton Salt – produces water softening salt and ice melt mixes with brine sourced from the South
Arm of the Great Salt Lake.
Cargill – Food grade and industrial salts, with brine sourced from the South Arm of the Great Salt
Lake.
No other major salt extraction operation of the Great Salt Lake utilizes North Arm brine.

21 Other Relevant Data and Information

The QP is not aware of any other relevant data or information to disclose in this TRS.

22 Interpretation and Conclusions

The GSL Facility hosts lithium mineral resources within constructed evaporation ponds and Compass
Minerals has the right access the significant lithium mineral resource present in the Great Salt Lake.
These mineral resource estimates have been developed using appropriate available data, both
generated through studies completed by Compass Minerals and other organizations. The data have
been reviewed, verified, and analyzed to develop the lithium mineral resource estimates.
While there is uncertainty associated with the mineral resources, in the QP’s opinion, the presence of
a large lithium base has been reliably established to support further investigation of economic
extraction, which should be the focus of the next stage of study for Compass Minerals.

23 Recommendations
The GSL Facility currently has lithium mineral resources hosted within constructed ponds and the
ability to extract lithium from the Great Salt Lake mineral resource. However, additional resources are
likely required to support the economics of adding a lithium processing facility to the GSL Facility. With
that in mind, the recommendations are focused on advancing studies to evaluate the economics of
extracting lithium from the mineral resources. In addition, the QP recommends continuing to collect
lithium concentration data from the Great Salt Lake to further expand on the current time series of
lithium data for the lake.
23.1 Recommended Work Programs

The following activities are proposed to further inform the lithium concentration data for the GSL, with
the objective of continuing the existing time series of data.
 Continue to collect sample data from UGS sample locations in the Great Salt Lake:
o LVG-4
o RD-2
o FB-2
 Continue to follow the UGS methodology for sample collection with the addition of blanks and
sample duplicates for QA/QC purposes.
 These samples should be collected at minimum on a quarterly period, as is currently the
practice for the UGS when sampling for other ions in the GSL.
 Collection and analysis of lithium samples from the Pond 114 intake should continue to for
verification purposes as comparison to the data at LVG4 and RD2 sites.
Continue ongoing metallurgical test programs evaluating the most appropriate technology to extract
lithium from the existing GSL Facility process streams (including supplementing the process streams
with concentrated brine from the existing pond halite aquifers). This testwork should benchmark
alternative technologies available to select the most appropriate for the Operation. Initial testwork
should be completed at laboratory bench scale and then scaled to pilot level. As it is likely Compass
Minerals will utilize novel technology to extract lithium at the Operation, following pilot scale testwork,
Compass Minerals should either develop a demonstration scale plant or small scale commercial
production circuit to prove out the technology prior to full scale production.
23.2 Recommended Work Program Costs

Based upon the recommendations presented in Section 23.1, the following cost estimate has been
completed to summarize costs for recommended work programs (Table 23-1).
Table 23-1: Summary of Costs for Recommended Work

Activity Cost (US$)
Quarterly GSL Brine Sampling, (12) Quarters $60,000
Laboratory Costs for Brine Analysis $10,000
Full Analysis of GSL, Brine Chemistry Data $60,000
Further Metallurgical Testing and Demonstration Plant TBD*
Total Estimated Cost $130,000
*The cost of a demonstration scale plant will be estimated once a technology and targeted production rate are defined.

24 References
Billings, D. A., (2014). Technical Memorandum: Pond 113 Salt Aquifer Pumping Test, From Daniel A.
Billings of Gerhart Cole Inc., to Thayne Clark, Bowen Collins and Associates, November 18, 2014.
Driscoll, Fletcher G., (1986). Groundwater and Wells. Johnson Screens, St. Paul, Minnesota.
Fastmarkets (2021. Narrowing Gap Between Spot, Contract Lithium Prices, Underlines Supply
Tightness and Price Evolution. Written by Susan Zou and Dalila Ouerghi.
https://www.fastmarkets.com/article/3994042/focus-narrowing-gap-between-spot-contract-lithium-
prices-underlines-supply-tightness-price-evolution
Livent Corporation (2018). Prospectus for initial public offering of 20,000,000 shares. October 10,
2018.
Piedmont Lithium, Inc. (2021). Press Release: Scoping update highlights the exceptional economics
and industry-leading sustainability of Piedmont’s Carolina lithium project. June 9, 2021.
Ramsahoye, L. E. and Lang, S. M., (1961). A simple method for determining specific yield from
pumping tests, Geologic Survey Water Supply Paper 1536-C. United States Geological Survey,
Washington D.C.
SRK, (2020). Lithium Mineral Resource Estimate and Exploration Targets. Technical Memorandum,
from M. Hartmann, SRK, to J. Havasi, Compass Minerals. April 21, 2020.
SRK, (2019). Review of Brine Aquifer Specific Yield for Pond 113 and Pond 114. Technical
Memorandum, from M. Hartmann, SRK, to J. Havasi, Compass Minerals. January 15, 2019.
SRK, (2017). Resource and reserve audit report, Great Salt Lake, Ogden, Utah. Report prepared for
Compass Minerals, February 16, 2017. SRK Consulting (U.S.) Inc. 51p.
Standard Lithium Limited (2019). Preliminary Economic Assessment of LANXESS Smackover

Project. Report prepared by Advisian, the consulting arm of WorleyParsons Canada Services Ltd
(Worley), with Roy Eccles P. Geol. of APEX Geoscience Ltd. was the Qualified Person.
Stormont, J. C., Hines, J. S., O’Dowd, D. N., Kelsey, J. A., and Pease, R. E., (2011). A method to
measure the relative brine release capacity of geologic material. Geotechnical Testing Journal 34(5),
September 2011.
Sturm, P.A., 1986, Utah Geological and Mineral Survey’s Great Salt Lake brine sampling program—
1966 to 1985—history, database, and averaged data: Utah Geological and Mineralogical Survey
Open-File Report 87, variously paginated
USGS, (1967). Specific yield – compilation of specific yields for various materials. United States
Geological Survey, Water Supply Paper 1662-D. 80p.
USGS, (2006). Calculation of area and volume for the north part of Great Salt Lake, Utah. United
States Geological Survey Open-File Report 2006-1359.
UGS, (1980). Great Salt Lake, a scientific, historical and economic overview, The Great Salt Lake
Brine System, edited by J.W. Gwynn, Utah Geological Survey. 147p.
UGS, (2016). Great Salt Lakes North Arm salt crust. Utah Geological Survey, Report of Investigation
276.

UGS, (2020). Great Salt Lake brine chemistry database, Revision June 26, 2019.
http://geology.utah.gov/popular/general-geology/great-salt-lake/#tab-id-5.

25 Reliance on Information Provided by the Registrant

The Qualified Person did not rely on information provided by the registrant, as all areas of the report
are within the expertise and experience of the Qualified Person.

Compass Minerals Ogden Lithium RE - Report - Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Compass Minerals Ogden Lithium RE - Report - Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Compass Minerals Ogden Lithium RE - Report - Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Technical Report Summary

Effective Date: June 1, 2021

JH/BP/JP Final GreatSaltLakeMRE_SEC_Report_final.DOCX July 2021

7.2 Exploration Drilling ............................................................................................................................ 44

JH/BP/JP Final GreatSaltLakeMRE_SEC_Report_final.DOCX July 2021

11.2.7 Resource Estimate – Pond 114........................................................................................... 100

JH/BP/JP Final GreatSaltLakeMRE_SEC_Report_final.DOCX July 2021

JH/BP/JP Final GreatSaltLakeMRE_SEC_Report_final.DOCX July 2021

JH/BP/JP Final GreatSaltLakeMRE_SEC_Report_final.DOCX July 2021

JH/BP/JP Final GreatSaltLakeMRE_SEC_Report_final.DOCX July 2021

1.1 Property Description and Ownership

1.2 Geology and Mineralization

JH/BP/JP Final GreatSaltLakeMRE_SEC_Report_final.DOCX July 2021

1.3 Status of Exploration, Development and Operations

JH/BP/JP Final GreatSaltLakeMRE_SEC_Report_final.DOCX July 2021

Beginning in 2018, Compass Minerals undertook a program to better understand lithium

1.4 Mineral Resource Estimates

Great Salt Lake

JH/BP/JP Final GreatSaltLakeMRE_SEC_Report_final.DOCX July 2021

Mineral Resource Estimate

1.5 Conclusions and Recommendations

JH/BP/JP Final GreatSaltLakeMRE_SEC_Report_final.DOCX July 2021

JH/BP/JP Final GreatSaltLakeMRE_SEC_Report_final.DOCX July 2021

JH/BP/JP Final GreatSaltLakeMRE_SEC_Report_final.DOCX July 2021

2.1 Terms of Reference and Purpose

2.2 Sources of Information

2.3 Details of Inspection

Table 2-1: Site Visits

JH/BP/JP Final GreatSaltLakeMRE_SEC_Report_final.DOCX July 2021

2.4 Report Version

JH/BP/JP Final GreatSaltLakeMRE_SEC_Report_final.DOCX July 2021

3.1 Property Location

JH/BP/JP Final GreatSaltLakeMRE_SEC_Report_final.DOCX July 2021

Source: SRK Consulting (US) Inc.

JH/BP/JP Final GreatSaltLakeMRE_SEC_Report_final.DOCX July 2021

3.2 Mineral Right

Table 3-1: Land Tenure - (Lakebed Leases)

Source: Compass Minerals

Table 3-2: GSL Water Rights

JH/BP/JP Final GreatSaltLakeMRE_SEC_Report_final.DOCX July 2021

Source Points of Diversion Priority County WR/CH/EX#1 Volume2

JH/BP/JP Final GreatSaltLakeMRE_SEC_Report_final.DOCX July 2021

Table 3-3: Non-Solar Leases/Easements

Table 3-4: Inactive Leases/Easements

3.2.2 Acquisition of Mineral Rights

JH/BP/JP Final GreatSaltLakeMRE_SEC_Report_final.DOCX July 2021

3.4 Other Significant Factors and Risks

JH/BP/JP Final GreatSaltLakeMRE_SEC_Report_final.DOCX July 2021

4 Physiography, Accessibility and Infrastructure

4.3 Climate and Operating Season

4.4 Infrastructure Availability and Sources

JH/BP/JP Final GreatSaltLakeMRE_SEC_Report_final.DOCX July 2021

JH/BP/JP Final GreatSaltLakeMRE_SEC_Report_final.DOCX July 2021

JH/BP/JP Final GreatSaltLakeMRE_SEC_Report_final.DOCX July 2021

6 Geological Setting, Mineralization, and Deposit

6.1.1 Regional Geology

JH/BP/JP Final GreatSaltLakeMRE_SEC_Report_final.DOCX July 2021

Source: UGS 1980

6.1.2 Local Geology