0001285785false2021FY12/31368,309,27512.10.010.0115,000,00015,000,000————0.010.011,000,000,0001,000,000,000389,974,041389,646,939379,091,544378,764,4420.300.200.10P3YP3YP3Y325P3Y340RECENTLY ISSUED ACCOUNTING GUIDANCEIn June 2016, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued guidance which revises the accounting for credit losses on financial instruments within its scope. The standard introduces an approach, based on expected losses, to estimate credit losses on certain types of financial instruments, including trade and other receivables, and modifies the impairment model for available-for-sale (“AFS”) debt securities. The guidance amends the current other-than-temporary impairment model for AFS debt securities and provides that any impairment related to credit losses be recognized as an allowance (which could be reversed) rather than as a permanent reduction in the amortized cost basis of that security. We adopted this standard prospectively on January 1, 2020 and revised our accounting policies and procedures to reflect the requirements of this standard related to our trade receivables and AFS debt securities. Based on the composition of our trade receivables, current market conditions, and historical credit loss activity, adoption of this standard did not significantly impact our consolidated results of operations or financial condition as reported in this 10-K Report.http://fasb.org/us-gaap/2021-01-31#OtherAssetsNoncurrenthttp://fasb.org/us-gaap/2021-01-31#AccruedLiabilitiesCurrenthttp://fasb.org/us-gaap/2021-01-31#AccruedLiabilitiesCurrenthttp://fasb.org/us-gaap/2021-01-31#OtherLiabilitiesNoncurrenthttp://fasb.org/us-gaap/2021-01-31#OtherLiabilitiesNoncurrenthttp://fasb.org/us-gaap/2021-01-31#PropertyPlantAndEquipmentNethttp://fasb.org/us-gaap/2021-01-31#PropertyPlantAndEquipmentNethttp://fasb.org/us-gaap/2021-01-31#LongTermDebtAndCapitalLeaseObligationsCurrenthttp://fasb.org/us-gaap/2021-01-31#LongTermDebtAndCapitalLeaseObligationsCurrenthttp://fasb.org/us-gaap/2021-01-31#LongTermDebtAndCapitalLeaseObligationshttp://fasb.org/us-gaap/2021-01-31#LongTermDebtAndCapitalLeaseObligationsREVENUEOn January 1, 2018, we adopted ASC Topic 606, Revenue from Contracts with Customers and related amendments (new revenue standard) using the modified retrospective method applied to those revenue contracts which were not completed as of January 1, 2018. Information regarding our revenue recognition policy is included in Note 2 of our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements. Under the new revenue standard, the timing of revenue recognition is accelerated for certain sales arrangements due to the emphasis on transfer of control rather than risks and rewards. Certain sales where revenue was previously deferred until risk was fully assumed by the customer are now recognized when the product is shipped. The adoption of the new revenue standard did not have a significant impact on our consolidated financial statements.3.255.63—7.30.619.726.5381/1/202212/31/204312/31/20281/1/202212/31/20301/1/202212/31/20267.4554.274.7582.600012857852021-01-012021-12-3100012857852021-12-31iso4217:USD00012857852022-02-01xbrli:shares00012857852020-01-012020-12-3100012857852019-01-012019-12-31iso4217:USDxbrli:shares00012857852020-12-3100012857852019-12-3100012857852018-12-310001285785us-gaap:CommonStockMember2018-12-310001285785us-gaap:AdditionalPaidInCapitalMember2018-12-310001285785us-gaap:RetainedEarningsMember2018-12-310001285785us-gaap:AccumulatedOtherComprehensiveIncomeMember2018-12-310001285785us-gaap:NoncontrollingInterestMember2018-12-310001285785us-gaap:AccountingStandardsUpdate201409Memberus-gaap:RetainedEarningsMember2018-12-310001285785us-gaap:RetainedEarningsMember2019-01-012019-12-310001285785us-gaap:AccumulatedOtherComprehensiveIncomeMember2019-01-012019-12-310001285785us-gaap:NoncontrollingInterestMember2019-01-012019-12-310001285785us-gaap:CommonStockMember2019-01-012019-12-310001285785us-gaap:AdditionalPaidInCapitalMember2019-01-012019-12-310001285785us-gaap:CommonStockMember2019-12-310001285785us-gaap:AdditionalPaidInCapitalMember2019-12-310001285785us-gaap:RetainedEarningsMember2019-12-310001285785us-gaap:AccumulatedOtherComprehensiveIncomeMember2019-12-310001285785us-gaap:NoncontrollingInterestMember2019-12-310001285785us-gaap:RetainedEarningsMember2020-01-012020-12-310001285785us-gaap:AccumulatedOtherComprehensiveIncomeMember2020-01-012020-12-310001285785us-gaap:NoncontrollingInterestMember2020-01-012020-12-310001285785us-gaap:CommonStockMember2020-01-012020-12-310001285785us-gaap:AdditionalPaidInCapitalMember2020-01-012020-12-310001285785us-gaap:CommonStockMember2020-12-310001285785us-gaap:AdditionalPaidInCapitalMember2020-12-310001285785us-gaap:RetainedEarningsMember2020-12-310001285785us-gaap:AccumulatedOtherComprehensiveIncomeMember2020-12-310001285785us-gaap:NoncontrollingInterestMember2020-12-310001285785us-gaap:RetainedEarningsMember2021-01-012021-12-310001285785us-gaap:AccumulatedOtherComprehensiveIncomeMember2021-01-012021-12-310001285785us-gaap:NoncontrollingInterestMember2021-01-012021-12-310001285785us-gaap:CommonStockMember2021-01-012021-12-310001285785us-gaap:AdditionalPaidInCapitalMember2021-01-012021-12-310001285785us-gaap:CommonStockMember2021-12-310001285785us-gaap:AdditionalPaidInCapitalMember2021-12-310001285785us-gaap:RetainedEarningsMember2021-12-310001285785us-gaap:AccumulatedOtherComprehensiveIncomeMember2021-12-310001285785us-gaap:NoncontrollingInterestMember2021-12-310001285785mos:MiskiMayoJointVentureMember2018-01-08xbrli:pure0001285785mos:MaadenWaadAlShamalPhosphateCompanyMember2021-12-310001285785mos:MaadenWaadAlShamalPhosphateCompanyMember2021-01-012021-12-310001285785srt:MaximumMember2021-01-012021-12-310001285785us-gaap:OtherAffiliatesMember2021-12-310001285785us-gaap:OtherAffiliatesMember2020-12-310001285785mos:CanpotexMember2021-01-012021-12-310001285785mos:CanpotexMember2020-01-012020-12-310001285785mos:CanpotexMember2019-01-012019-12-310001285785us-gaap:MachineryAndEquipmentMembersrt:MinimumMember2021-01-012021-12-310001285785us-gaap:MachineryAndEquipmentMembersrt:MaximumMember2021-01-012021-12-310001285785us-gaap:LandAndBuildingMembersrt:MinimumMember2021-01-012021-12-310001285785us-gaap:LandAndBuildingMembersrt:MaximumMember2021-01-012021-12-310001285785us-gaap:LiabilitiesTotalMember2021-12-310001285785us-gaap:LiabilitiesTotalMember2020-12-310001285785mos:CurrentMaturitiesOfLongTermDebtMember2021-12-310001285785mos:CurrentMaturitiesOfLongTermDebtMember2020-12-310001285785us-gaap:LongTermDebtMember2021-12-310001285785us-gaap:LongTermDebtMember2020-12-310001285785us-gaap:OtherNoncurrentAssetsMember2021-12-310001285785us-gaap:OtherNoncurrentAssetsMember2020-12-310001285785us-gaap:LandMember2021-12-310001285785us-gaap:LandMember2020-12-310001285785us-gaap:MiningPropertiesAndMineralRightsMember2021-12-310001285785us-gaap:MiningPropertiesAndMineralRightsMember2020-12-310001285785us-gaap:BuildingImprovementsMember2021-12-310001285785us-gaap:BuildingImprovementsMember2020-12-310001285785us-gaap:MachineryAndEquipmentMember2021-12-310001285785us-gaap:MachineryAndEquipmentMember2020-12-310001285785us-gaap:ConstructionInProgressMember2021-12-310001285785us-gaap:ConstructionInProgressMember2020-12-310001285785mos:EquityMethodInvesteeGulfSulphurServicesMember2021-12-310001285785mos:EquityMethodInvesteeRiverBendAgMember2021-12-310001285785mos:EquityMethodInvesteeIFCMember2021-12-310001285785us-gaap:EquityMethodInvesteeMembermos:MaadenWaadAlShamalPhosphateCompanyMember2021-12-310001285785mos:EquityMethodInvesteeCanpotexMember2021-12-310001285785us-gaap:EquityMethodInvestmentsMember2021-01-012021-12-310001285785us-gaap:EquityMethodInvestmentsMember2020-01-012020-12-310001285785us-gaap:EquityMethodInvestmentsMember2019-01-012019-12-310001285785us-gaap:EquityMethodInvestmentsMember2021-12-310001285785us-gaap:EquityMethodInvestmentsMember2020-12-310001285785us-gaap:EquityMethodInvestmentsMember2019-12-310001285785us-gaap:EquityMethodInvesteeMembermos:MaadenWaadAlShamalPhosphateCompanyMember2016-07-012016-07-010001285785us-gaap:EquityMethodInvesteeMembermos:MaadenWaadAlShamalPhosphateCompanyMember2021-01-012021-12-310001285785us-gaap:EquityMethodInvesteeMembermos:MaadenWaadAlShamalPhosphateCompanyMember2020-01-012020-12-310001285785us-gaap:EquityMethodInvesteeMembermos:MaadenWaadAlShamalPhosphateCompanyMember2019-01-012019-12-31utr:t0001285785us-gaap:EquityMethodInvesteeMembermos:MaadenWaadAlShamalPhosphateCompanyMember2014-06-30mos:financialinstitution0001285785us-gaap:EquityMethodInvesteeMembersrt:MaximumMembermos:MaadenWaadAlShamalPhosphateCompanyMember2014-01-012014-06-300001285785us-gaap:EquityMethodInvesteeMembermos:MaadenWaadAlShamalPhosphateCompanyMember2017-04-300001285785us-gaap:EquityMethodInvesteeMembermos:MaadenWaadAlShamalPhosphateCompanyMember2019-12-310001285785mos:PotashSegmentMember2019-12-310001285785mos:MosaicFertilizantesMember2019-12-310001285785mos:CorporateEliminationsAndOtherSegmentMember2019-12-310001285785mos:PotashSegmentMember2020-01-012020-12-310001285785mos:MosaicFertilizantesMember2020-01-012020-12-310001285785mos:CorporateEliminationsAndOtherSegmentMember2020-01-012020-12-310001285785mos:PotashSegmentMember2020-12-310001285785mos:MosaicFertilizantesMember2020-12-310001285785mos:CorporateEliminationsAndOtherSegmentMember2020-12-310001285785mos:PotashSegmentMember2021-01-012021-12-310001285785mos:MosaicFertilizantesMember2021-01-012021-12-310001285785mos:CorporateEliminationsAndOtherSegmentMember2021-01-012021-12-310001285785mos:PotashSegmentMember2021-12-310001285785mos:MosaicFertilizantesMember2021-12-310001285785mos:CorporateEliminationsAndOtherSegmentMember2021-12-310001285785srt:MinimumMember2021-01-012021-12-310001285785mos:PhosphatesSegmentMember2019-01-012019-12-3100012857852021-08-1900012857852016-11-180001285785us-gaap:RevolvingCreditFacilityMember2021-12-310001285785us-gaap:RevolvingCreditFacilityMember2020-12-310001285785us-gaap:RevolvingCreditFacilityMember2021-01-012021-12-310001285785us-gaap:RevolvingCreditFacilityMember2020-01-012020-12-310001285785us-gaap:RevolvingCreditFacilityMember2019-01-012019-12-3100012857852020-01-070001285785mos:InventoryFinancingArrangementMember2021-01-012021-12-310001285785mos:InventoryFinancingArrangementMember2021-12-310001285785mos:ReceivablePurchasingAgreementMember2021-12-310001285785mos:ReceivablePurchasingAgreementMember2021-01-012021-12-310001285785mos:ReceivablePurchasingAgreementMember2020-01-012020-12-310001285785us-gaap:ShortTermDebtMember2021-12-310001285785mos:SeniorNotesDue2022Memberus-gaap:SeniorNotesMember2021-12-310001285785mos:SeniorNotesDue2027Memberus-gaap:SeniorNotesMember2021-12-310001285785mos:SeniorNotesDue2023Memberus-gaap:SeniorNotesMember2021-12-310001285785mos:SeniorNotesDue2033Memberus-gaap:SeniorNotesMember2021-12-310001285785mos:SeniorNotesDue2043Memberus-gaap:SeniorNotesMember2021-12-310001285785mos:SeniorNotesDue2041Memberus-gaap:SeniorNotesMember2021-12-310001285785mos:SeniorNotesDue2021Memberus-gaap:SeniorNotesMember2021-12-310001285785us-gaap:NotesPayableOtherPayablesMembermos:DebenturesDue2028Member2021-12-310001285785mos:UnsecuredNotesMember2021-12-310001285785mos:UnsecuredNotesMember2020-12-310001285785mos:UnsecuredDebenturesMember2021-12-310001285785mos:UnsecuredDebenturesMember2020-12-310001285785us-gaap:CapitalLeaseObligationsMember2021-12-310001285785us-gaap:CapitalLeaseObligationsMember2020-12-310001285785mos:OtherTypesOfDebtMember2021-12-310001285785mos:OtherTypesOfDebtMember2020-12-310001285785mos:UnsecuredNotesMembersrt:MinimumMember2021-12-310001285785mos:UnsecuredNotesMembersrt:MaximumMember2021-12-310001285785mos:UnsecuredDebenturesMembersrt:MinimumMember2021-12-310001285785mos:UnsecuredDebenturesMembersrt:MaximumMember2021-12-310001285785srt:MinimumMemberus-gaap:CapitalLeaseObligationsMember2021-12-310001285785srt:MaximumMemberus-gaap:CapitalLeaseObligationsMember2021-12-310001285785mos:OtherTypesOfDebtMembersrt:MinimumMember2021-12-310001285785mos:OtherTypesOfDebtMembersrt:MaximumMember2021-12-310001285785mos:UnsecuredNotesMember2021-01-012021-12-310001285785mos:UnsecuredDebenturesMember2021-01-012021-12-310001285785us-gaap:CapitalLeaseObligationsMember2021-01-012021-12-310001285785mos:OtherTypesOfDebtMember2021-01-012021-12-3100012857852016-08-310001285785us-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel1Memberus-gaap:CashAndCashEquivalentsMember2021-12-310001285785us-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel2Memberus-gaap:CorporateDebtSecuritiesMember2021-12-310001285785us-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel2Memberus-gaap:MunicipalBondsMember2021-12-310001285785us-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel2Memberus-gaap:USTreasuryAndGovernmentMember2021-12-310001285785us-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel1Memberus-gaap:CashAndCashEquivalentsMember2020-12-310001285785us-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel2Memberus-gaap:CorporateDebtSecuritiesMember2020-12-310001285785us-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel2Memberus-gaap:MunicipalBondsMember2020-12-310001285785us-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel2Memberus-gaap:USTreasuryAndGovernmentMember2020-12-310001285785us-gaap:CorporateDebtSecuritiesMember2021-12-310001285785us-gaap:CorporateDebtSecuritiesMember2020-12-310001285785us-gaap:MunicipalBondsMember2021-12-310001285785us-gaap:MunicipalBondsMember2020-12-310001285785us-gaap:USTreasuryAndGovernmentMember2021-12-310001285785us-gaap:USTreasuryAndGovernmentMember2020-12-310001285785us-gaap:DebtSecuritiesMember2021-12-310001285785us-gaap:DomesticCountryMember2021-01-012021-12-310001285785us-gaap:ForeignCountryMember2021-01-012021-12-310001285785mos:EsterhazyMineClosureMember2021-01-012021-12-310001285785us-gaap:ForeignCountryMember2020-01-012020-12-310001285785mos:ColonsayMineIdleMember2019-01-012019-12-310001285785mos:PlantCityClosureMember2019-01-012019-12-310001285785mos:UnitedStatesTaxCutsandJobsActLawMember2019-01-012019-12-310001285785mos:ForeignandDomesticTaxAuthorityMember2019-01-012019-12-310001285785mos:AnticipatoryForeignTaxCreditCarryforwardMember2021-12-310001285785mos:AnticipatoryForeignTaxCreditCarryforwardMember2020-12-310001285785mos:NetOperatingLossCarryforwardMember2021-12-310001285785mos:ForeignTaxCreditCarryforwardMember2021-12-310001285785us-gaap:NonUsMember2021-12-310001285785mos:NetOperatingLossCarryforwardMemberus-gaap:ForeignCountryMember2021-12-310001285785us-gaap:ForeignCountryMember2021-01-012021-12-310001285785mos:NetOperatingLossCarryforwardMemberus-gaap:DomesticCountryMember2021-01-012021-12-310001285785mos:TaxYear2023OrEarlierMembermos:ForeignTaxCreditCarryforwardMember2021-12-310001285785mos:ForeignTaxCreditCarryforwardMembermos:TaxYear2026OrEarlierMember2021-12-310001285785mos:TaxYear2029OrEarlierMembermos:ForeignTaxCreditCarryforwardMember2021-12-310001285785mos:TaxYear2030OrEarlierMembermos:ForeignTaxCreditCarryforwardMember2021-12-310001285785mos:ValeFertilizantesS.A.Member2021-01-012021-12-310001285785country:US2021-12-310001285785mos:ValeFertilizantesS.A.Member2020-01-012020-12-310001285785country:US2020-12-310001285785country:PE2020-12-310001285785mos:ValeFertilizantesS.A.Member2019-01-012019-12-310001285785country:PE2019-12-310001285785us-gaap:ForeignCountryMember2019-01-012019-12-310001285785us-gaap:NonUsMember2021-01-012021-12-310001285785mos:USandnonUSDomain2021-01-012021-12-310001285785us-gaap:UnfavorableRegulatoryActionMember2021-12-310001285785us-gaap:UnfavorableRegulatoryActionMember2020-12-310001285785us-gaap:UnfavorableRegulatoryActionMembermos:A2015ConsentDecreesWithEPAMember2021-01-012021-12-310001285785us-gaap:UnfavorableRegulatoryActionMembermos:A2015ConsentDecreesWithEPAMember2021-12-310001285785mos:PlantCityandBonnieFacilitiesMember2021-12-310001285785mos:BonnieFacilityTrustMember2018-07-270001285785mos:PlantCityandBonnieFacilitiesMember2020-12-310001285785us-gaap:InterestRateSwapMember2021-12-310001285785us-gaap:InterestRateSwapMember2020-12-310001285785us-gaap:ForeignExchangeContractMember2021-12-310001285785us-gaap:ForeignExchangeContractMember2020-12-310001285785us-gaap:CommodityContractMember2021-12-31utr:MMBTU0001285785us-gaap:CommodityContractMember2020-12-310001285785us-gaap:ForeignExchangeContractMemberus-gaap:FairValueMeasurementsRecurringMember2021-01-012021-12-310001285785us-gaap:ForeignExchangeContractMemberus-gaap:FairValueMeasurementsRecurringMember2021-12-310001285785us-gaap:ForeignExchangeContractMemberus-gaap:FairValueMeasurementsRecurringMember2020-12-310001285785us-gaap:CommodityContractMemberus-gaap:FairValueMeasurementsRecurringMember2021-12-310001285785us-gaap:CommodityContractMemberus-gaap:FairValueMeasurementsRecurringMember2020-12-310001285785us-gaap:CarryingReportedAmountFairValueDisclosureMember2021-12-310001285785us-gaap:EstimateOfFairValueFairValueDisclosureMember2021-12-310001285785us-gaap:CarryingReportedAmountFairValueDisclosureMember2020-12-310001285785us-gaap:EstimateOfFairValueFairValueDisclosureMember2020-12-310001285785mos:BrazilianFinancialPartiesMember2021-12-310001285785us-gaap:ForeignPlanMember2021-01-012021-12-310001285785us-gaap:ForeignPlanMember2020-01-012020-12-310001285785us-gaap:PensionPlansDefinedBenefitMember2020-12-310001285785us-gaap:PensionPlansDefinedBenefitMember2019-12-310001285785us-gaap:PensionPlansDefinedBenefitMember2021-01-012021-12-310001285785us-gaap:PensionPlansDefinedBenefitMember2020-01-012020-12-310001285785us-gaap:PensionPlansDefinedBenefitMember2021-12-310001285785us-gaap:PensionPlansDefinedBenefitMember2019-01-012019-12-310001285785us-gaap:OtherPostretirementBenefitPlansDefinedBenefitMember2021-12-310001285785us-gaap:OtherPensionPlansPostretirementOrSupplementalPlansDefinedBenefitMember2021-12-310001285785us-gaap:PensionPlansDefinedBenefitMembersrt:MinimumMember2021-12-310001285785country:USus-gaap:FixedIncomeSecuritiesMember2021-12-310001285785mos:ForeignSalariedPlansMemberus-gaap:FixedIncomeSecuritiesMember2021-12-310001285785mos:ForeignSalariedPlansMembermos:ReturnSeekingInvestmentsMember2021-12-310001285785us-gaap:CashAndCashEquivalentsMember2021-12-310001285785us-gaap:CashAndCashEquivalentsMemberus-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel1Member2021-12-310001285785us-gaap:CashAndCashEquivalentsMemberus-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel2Member2021-12-310001285785us-gaap:CashAndCashEquivalentsMemberus-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel3Member2021-12-310001285785us-gaap:EquitySecuritiesMember2021-12-310001285785us-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel1Memberus-gaap:EquitySecuritiesMember2021-12-310001285785us-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel2Memberus-gaap:EquitySecuritiesMember2021-12-310001285785us-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel3Memberus-gaap:EquitySecuritiesMember2021-12-310001285785us-gaap:FixedIncomeSecuritiesMember2021-12-310001285785us-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel1Memberus-gaap:FixedIncomeSecuritiesMember2021-12-310001285785us-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel2Memberus-gaap:FixedIncomeSecuritiesMember2021-12-310001285785us-gaap:FixedIncomeSecuritiesMemberus-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel3Member2021-12-310001285785us-gaap:PrivateEquityFundsMember2021-12-310001285785us-gaap:PrivateEquityFundsMemberus-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel1Member2021-12-310001285785us-gaap:PrivateEquityFundsMemberus-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel2Member2021-12-310001285785us-gaap:PrivateEquityFundsMemberus-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel3Member2021-12-310001285785us-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel1Member2021-12-310001285785us-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel2Member2021-12-310001285785us-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel3Member2021-12-310001285785us-gaap:CashAndCashEquivalentsMember2020-12-310001285785us-gaap:CashAndCashEquivalentsMemberus-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel1Member2020-12-310001285785us-gaap:CashAndCashEquivalentsMemberus-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel2Member2020-12-310001285785us-gaap:CashAndCashEquivalentsMemberus-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel3Member2020-12-310001285785us-gaap:EquitySecuritiesMember2020-12-310001285785us-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel1Memberus-gaap:EquitySecuritiesMember2020-12-310001285785us-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel2Memberus-gaap:EquitySecuritiesMember2020-12-310001285785us-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel3Memberus-gaap:EquitySecuritiesMember2020-12-310001285785us-gaap:FixedIncomeSecuritiesMember2020-12-310001285785us-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel1Memberus-gaap:FixedIncomeSecuritiesMember2020-12-310001285785us-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel2Memberus-gaap:FixedIncomeSecuritiesMember2020-12-310001285785us-gaap:FixedIncomeSecuritiesMemberus-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel3Member2020-12-310001285785us-gaap:PrivateEquityFundsMember2020-12-310001285785us-gaap:PrivateEquityFundsMemberus-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel1Member2020-12-310001285785us-gaap:PrivateEquityFundsMemberus-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel2Member2020-12-310001285785us-gaap:PrivateEquityFundsMemberus-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel3Member2020-12-310001285785us-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel1Member2020-12-310001285785us-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel2Member2020-12-310001285785us-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel3Member2020-12-310001285785us-gaap:USTreasuryAndGovernmentMember2021-12-310001285785mos:CanadianEquitySecuritiesMember2021-12-310001285785mos:InternationalEquitySecuritiesMember2021-12-310001285785us-gaap:USTreasuryAndGovernmentMember2020-12-310001285785mos:CanadianEquitySecuritiesMember2020-12-310001285785mos:InternationalEquitySecuritiesMember2020-12-310001285785us-gaap:DomesticCorporateDebtSecuritiesMember2021-12-310001285785mos:USandCanadaGovernmentDebtSecuritiesMember2021-12-310001285785us-gaap:ForeignCorporateDebtSecuritiesMember2021-12-310001285785us-gaap:DomesticCorporateDebtSecuritiesMember2020-12-310001285785mos:USandCanadaGovernmentDebtSecuritiesMember2020-12-310001285785us-gaap:ForeignCorporateDebtSecuritiesMember2020-12-310001285785mos:NorthAmericanOtherPostretirementBenefitsPlanMember2021-12-310001285785mos:NorthAmericanOtherPostretirementBenefitsPlanMember2020-12-310001285785mos:NorthAmericanOtherPostretirementBenefitsPlanMembersrt:MinimumMember2021-12-310001285785mos:BrazilOtherPostretirementBenefitsPlanMember2021-12-310001285785mos:BrazilOtherPostretirementBenefitsPlanMember2020-12-310001285785mos:BrazilOtherPostretirementBenefitsPlanMember2019-12-310001285785mos:BrazilOtherPostretirementBenefitsPlanMember2021-01-012021-12-310001285785mos:BrazilOtherPostretirementBenefitsPlanMember2020-01-012020-12-310001285785us-gaap:AccumulatedTranslationAdjustmentMember2018-12-310001285785us-gaap:AccumulatedDefinedBenefitPlansAdjustmentMember2018-12-310001285785us-gaap:AociDerivativeQualifyingAsHedgeExcludedComponentParentMember2018-12-310001285785us-gaap:AccumulatedNetUnrealizedInvestmentGainLossMember2018-12-310001285785us-gaap:AccumulatedTranslationAdjustmentMember2019-01-012019-12-310001285785us-gaap:AccumulatedDefinedBenefitPlansAdjustmentMember2019-01-012019-12-310001285785us-gaap:AociDerivativeQualifyingAsHedgeExcludedComponentParentMember2019-01-012019-12-310001285785us-gaap:AccumulatedNetUnrealizedInvestmentGainLossMember2019-01-012019-12-310001285785us-gaap:AccumulatedTranslationAdjustmentMember2019-12-310001285785us-gaap:AccumulatedDefinedBenefitPlansAdjustmentMember2019-12-310001285785us-gaap:AociDerivativeQualifyingAsHedgeExcludedComponentParentMember2019-12-310001285785us-gaap:AccumulatedNetUnrealizedInvestmentGainLossMember2019-12-310001285785us-gaap:AccumulatedTranslationAdjustmentMember2020-01-012020-12-310001285785us-gaap:AccumulatedDefinedBenefitPlansAdjustmentMember2020-01-012020-12-310001285785us-gaap:AociDerivativeQualifyingAsHedgeExcludedComponentParentMember2020-01-012020-12-310001285785us-gaap:AccumulatedNetUnrealizedInvestmentGainLossMember2020-01-012020-12-310001285785us-gaap:AccumulatedTranslationAdjustmentMember2020-12-310001285785us-gaap:AccumulatedDefinedBenefitPlansAdjustmentMember2020-12-310001285785us-gaap:AociDerivativeQualifyingAsHedgeExcludedComponentParentMember2020-12-310001285785us-gaap:AccumulatedNetUnrealizedInvestmentGainLossMember2020-12-310001285785us-gaap:AccumulatedTranslationAdjustmentMember2021-01-012021-12-310001285785us-gaap:AccumulatedDefinedBenefitPlansAdjustmentMember2021-01-012021-12-310001285785us-gaap:AociDerivativeQualifyingAsHedgeExcludedComponentParentMember2021-01-012021-12-310001285785us-gaap:AccumulatedNetUnrealizedInvestmentGainLossMember2021-01-012021-12-310001285785us-gaap:AccumulatedTranslationAdjustmentMember2021-12-310001285785us-gaap:AccumulatedDefinedBenefitPlansAdjustmentMember2021-12-310001285785us-gaap:AociDerivativeQualifyingAsHedgeExcludedComponentParentMember2021-12-310001285785us-gaap:AccumulatedNetUnrealizedInvestmentGainLossMember2021-12-310001285785mos:ValeFertilizantesS.A.Member2021-01-012021-12-310001285785mos:A2014StockandIncentivePlanMember2021-12-310001285785mos:OmnibusStockAndIncentivePlan2004Member2021-12-310001285785us-gaap:EmployeeStockOptionMember2021-01-012021-12-310001285785us-gaap:EmployeeStockOptionMember2018-01-012018-12-310001285785us-gaap:EmployeeStockOptionMember2020-12-310001285785us-gaap:EmployeeStockOptionMember2021-12-310001285785us-gaap:EmployeeStockOptionMember2020-01-012020-12-310001285785us-gaap:EmployeeStockOptionMember2019-01-012019-12-310001285785us-gaap:RestrictedStockUnitsRSUMember2021-01-012021-12-310001285785us-gaap:RestrictedStockUnitsRSUMember2020-12-310001285785us-gaap:RestrictedStockUnitsRSUMember2021-12-310001285785mos:TSRPerformanceUnitsMember2021-01-012021-12-310001285785mos:TSRPerformanceUnitsMember2020-01-012020-12-310001285785mos:TSRPerformanceUnitsMember2019-01-012019-12-310001285785mos:PerformanceUnitsCashSettledMember2021-01-012021-12-310001285785us-gaap:PerformanceSharesMember2020-12-310001285785us-gaap:PerformanceSharesMember2021-01-012021-12-310001285785us-gaap:PerformanceSharesMember2021-12-310001285785mos:InventoriesAtPriceTiedToNaturalGasMember2021-01-012021-12-310001285785mos:WaterLossIncidentMembersrt:MinimumMember2016-10-240001285785srt:MaximumMembermos:BraziliansubsidiaryjudicialandadministrativeproceedingsMember2021-12-310001285785mos:BraziliansubsidiaryjudicialandadministrativeproceedingsMember2021-12-310001285785mos:BraziliansubsidiarylaborclaimsMembersrt:MaximumMember2021-12-310001285785mos:BraziliansubsidiarylaborclaimsMember2021-12-310001285785mos:BraziliansubsidiaryenvironmentalclaimsMembersrt:MaximumMember2021-12-310001285785srt:MaximumMembermos:BraziliansubsidiaryothercivilcontingentliabilitiesandotherclaimsMember2021-12-310001285785mos:BraziliansubsidiaryothercivilcontingentliabilitiesandotherclaimsMember2021-12-310001285785mos:UberabagypstackssettledlitigationMember2019-01-012019-12-310001285785srt:MaximumMembermos:BrazilianNonIncomeTaxProceedingsMember2021-12-310001285785us-gaap:IndemnificationGuaranteeMembersrt:MaximumMembermos:BrazilianNonIncomeTaxProceedingsMember2021-12-310001285785mos:PISAndCofinsCasesMembersrt:MaximumMembermos:BrazilianNonIncomeTaxProceedingsMember2021-12-310001285785us-gaap:InvesteeMember2021-12-310001285785us-gaap:InvesteeMember2021-01-012021-12-310001285785us-gaap:InvesteeMember2020-01-012020-12-310001285785us-gaap:InvesteeMember2019-01-012019-12-310001285785mos:EquityMethodInvesteeGulfSulphurServicesMemberus-gaap:BeneficialOwnerMember2017-12-310001285785mos:EquityMethodInvesteeGulfSulphurServicesMemberus-gaap:BeneficialOwnerMember2021-12-310001285785us-gaap:BeneficialOwnerMember2019-12-310001285785us-gaap:BeneficialOwnerMember2020-12-310001285785mos:PhosphatesSegmentMember2021-01-012021-12-310001285785mos:PhosphatesSegmentMember2020-01-012020-12-310001285785mos:PotashSegmentMember2019-01-012019-12-310001285785mos:MosaicFertilizantesMember2019-01-012019-12-310001285785mos:CorporateEliminationsAndOtherSegmentMember2019-01-012019-12-310001285785mos:PhosphatesSegmentMember2021-12-310001285785mos:PhosphatesSegmentMember2020-12-310001285785mos:PhosphatesSegmentMember2019-12-310001285785mos:ChinaandIndiadistributionoperationsMembermos:CorporateEliminationsAndOtherSegmentMember2021-01-012021-12-310001285785mos:ChinaandIndiadistributionoperationsMembermos:CorporateEliminationsAndOtherSegmentMember2020-01-012020-12-310001285785mos:ChinaandIndiadistributionoperationsMembermos:CorporateEliminationsAndOtherSegmentMember2019-01-012019-12-310001285785us-gaap:TransferredAtPointInTimeMembercountry:BR2021-01-012021-12-310001285785us-gaap:TransferredAtPointInTimeMembercountry:BR2020-01-012020-12-310001285785us-gaap:TransferredAtPointInTimeMembercountry:BR2019-01-012019-12-310001285785us-gaap:TransferredAtPointInTimeMembermos:CanpotexMember2021-01-012021-12-310001285785us-gaap:TransferredAtPointInTimeMembermos:CanpotexMember2020-01-012020-12-310001285785us-gaap:TransferredAtPointInTimeMembermos:CanpotexMember2019-01-012019-12-310001285785us-gaap:TransferredAtPointInTimeMembercountry:CA2021-01-012021-12-310001285785us-gaap:TransferredAtPointInTimeMembercountry:CA2020-01-012020-12-310001285785us-gaap:TransferredAtPointInTimeMembercountry:CA2019-01-012019-12-310001285785us-gaap:TransferredAtPointInTimeMembercountry:CN2021-01-012021-12-310001285785us-gaap:TransferredAtPointInTimeMembercountry:CN2020-01-012020-12-310001285785us-gaap:TransferredAtPointInTimeMembercountry:CN2019-01-012019-12-310001285785country:INus-gaap:TransferredAtPointInTimeMember2021-01-012021-12-310001285785country:INus-gaap:TransferredAtPointInTimeMember2020-01-012020-12-310001285785country:INus-gaap:TransferredAtPointInTimeMember2019-01-012019-12-310001285785us-gaap:TransferredAtPointInTimeMembercountry:CO2021-01-012021-12-310001285785us-gaap:TransferredAtPointInTimeMembercountry:CO2020-01-012020-12-310001285785us-gaap:TransferredAtPointInTimeMembercountry:CO2019-01-012019-12-310001285785country:PYus-gaap:TransferredAtPointInTimeMember2021-01-012021-12-310001285785country:PYus-gaap:TransferredAtPointInTimeMember2020-01-012020-12-310001285785country:PYus-gaap:TransferredAtPointInTimeMember2019-01-012019-12-310001285785us-gaap:TransferredAtPointInTimeMembercountry:JP2021-01-012021-12-310001285785us-gaap:TransferredAtPointInTimeMembercountry:JP2020-01-012020-12-310001285785us-gaap:TransferredAtPointInTimeMembercountry:JP2019-01-012019-12-310001285785us-gaap:TransferredAtPointInTimeMembercountry:AR2021-01-012021-12-310001285785us-gaap:TransferredAtPointInTimeMembercountry:AR2020-01-012020-12-310001285785us-gaap:TransferredAtPointInTimeMembercountry:AR2019-01-012019-12-310001285785us-gaap:TransferredAtPointInTimeMembercountry:MX2021-01-012021-12-310001285785us-gaap:TransferredAtPointInTimeMembercountry:MX2020-01-012020-12-310001285785us-gaap:TransferredAtPointInTimeMembercountry:MX2019-01-012019-12-310001285785country:AUus-gaap:TransferredAtPointInTimeMember2021-01-012021-12-310001285785country:AUus-gaap:TransferredAtPointInTimeMember2020-01-012020-12-310001285785country:AUus-gaap:TransferredAtPointInTimeMember2019-01-012019-12-310001285785us-gaap:TransferredAtPointInTimeMembercountry:PE2021-01-012021-12-310001285785us-gaap:TransferredAtPointInTimeMembercountry:PE2020-01-012020-12-310001285785us-gaap:TransferredAtPointInTimeMembercountry:PE2019-01-012019-12-310001285785us-gaap:TransferredAtPointInTimeMembercountry:DO2021-01-012021-12-310001285785us-gaap:TransferredAtPointInTimeMembercountry:DO2020-01-012020-12-310001285785us-gaap:TransferredAtPointInTimeMembercountry:DO2019-01-012019-12-310001285785us-gaap:TransferredAtPointInTimeMembercountry:HN2021-01-012021-12-310001285785us-gaap:TransferredAtPointInTimeMembercountry:HN2020-01-012020-12-310001285785us-gaap:TransferredAtPointInTimeMembercountry:HN2019-01-012019-12-310001285785us-gaap:TransferredAtPointInTimeMembercountry:TH2021-01-012021-12-310001285785us-gaap:TransferredAtPointInTimeMembercountry:TH2020-01-012020-12-310001285785us-gaap:TransferredAtPointInTimeMembercountry:TH2019-01-012019-12-310001285785us-gaap:TransferredAtPointInTimeMembermos:OtherForeignMember2021-01-012021-12-310001285785us-gaap:TransferredAtPointInTimeMembermos:OtherForeignMember2020-01-012020-12-310001285785us-gaap:TransferredAtPointInTimeMembermos:OtherForeignMember2019-01-012019-12-310001285785us-gaap:TransferredAtPointInTimeMembermos:TotalForeignMember2021-01-012021-12-310001285785us-gaap:TransferredAtPointInTimeMembermos:TotalForeignMember2020-01-012020-12-310001285785us-gaap:TransferredAtPointInTimeMembermos:TotalForeignMember2019-01-012019-12-310001285785us-gaap:TransferredAtPointInTimeMembercountry:US2021-01-012021-12-310001285785us-gaap:TransferredAtPointInTimeMembercountry:US2020-01-012020-12-310001285785us-gaap:TransferredAtPointInTimeMembercountry:US2019-01-012019-12-310001285785mos:TotalGeographyMember2021-01-012021-12-310001285785mos:TotalGeographyMember2020-01-012020-12-310001285785mos:TotalGeographyMember2019-01-012019-12-310001285785country:BR2021-01-012021-12-310001285785country:ID2021-01-012021-12-310001285785country:CN2021-01-012021-12-310001285785country:IN2021-01-012021-12-310001285785mos:OtherCountriesMember2021-01-012021-12-310001285785country:CA2021-12-310001285785country:CA2020-12-310001285785country:BR2021-12-310001285785country:BR2020-12-310001285785mos:OtherForeignMember2021-12-310001285785mos:OtherForeignMember2020-12-310001285785mos:TotalForeignMember2021-12-310001285785mos:TotalForeignMember2020-12-310001285785country:US2021-12-310001285785country:US2020-12-310001285785us-gaap:TransferredAtPointInTimeMembermos:ProductTypeOneMember2021-01-012021-12-310001285785us-gaap:TransferredAtPointInTimeMembermos:ProductTypeOneMember2020-01-012020-12-310001285785us-gaap:TransferredAtPointInTimeMembermos:ProductTypeOneMember2019-01-012019-12-310001285785us-gaap:TransferredAtPointInTimeMembermos:ProductTypeTwoMember2021-01-012021-12-310001285785us-gaap:TransferredAtPointInTimeMembermos:ProductTypeTwoMember2020-01-012020-12-310001285785us-gaap:TransferredAtPointInTimeMembermos:ProductTypeTwoMember2019-01-012019-12-310001285785us-gaap:TransferredAtPointInTimeMembermos:ProductTypeThreeMember2021-01-012021-12-310001285785us-gaap:TransferredAtPointInTimeMembermos:ProductTypeThreeMember2020-01-012020-12-310001285785us-gaap:TransferredAtPointInTimeMembermos:ProductTypeThreeMember2019-01-012019-12-310001285785us-gaap:TransferredAtPointInTimeMembermos:ProductTypeFourMember2021-01-012021-12-310001285785us-gaap:TransferredAtPointInTimeMembermos:ProductTypeFourMember2020-01-012020-12-310001285785us-gaap:TransferredAtPointInTimeMembermos:ProductTypeFourMember2019-01-012019-12-310001285785us-gaap:TransferredAtPointInTimeMembermos:ProductTypeFiveMember2021-01-012021-12-310001285785us-gaap:TransferredAtPointInTimeMembermos:ProductTypeFiveMember2020-01-012020-12-310001285785us-gaap:TransferredAtPointInTimeMembermos:ProductTypeFiveMember2019-01-012019-12-310001285785us-gaap:TransferredAtPointInTimeMembermos:OtherProductTypesMember2021-01-012021-12-310001285785us-gaap:TransferredAtPointInTimeMembermos:OtherProductTypesMember2020-01-012020-12-310001285785us-gaap:TransferredAtPointInTimeMembermos:OtherProductTypesMember2019-01-012019-12-310001285785us-gaap:PropertyPlantAndEquipmentMemberus-gaap:FacilityClosingMember2021-01-012021-12-310001285785us-gaap:FacilityClosingMemberus-gaap:AssetRetirementObligationCostsMember2021-01-012021-12-310001285785us-gaap:OtherCurrentAssetsMemberus-gaap:FacilityClosingMember2021-01-012021-12-310001285785mos:ColonsayMember2020-01-012020-12-310001285785us-gaap:PropertyPlantAndEquipmentMembermos:ColonsayMember2020-01-012020-12-310001285785us-gaap:OperatingExpenseMembermos:ColonsayMember2020-01-012020-12-310001285785us-gaap:OtherCurrentAssetsMembermos:ColonsayMember2020-01-012020-12-310001285785mos:PlantCityMember2019-01-012019-12-310001285785us-gaap:PropertyPlantAndEquipmentMembermos:PlantCityMember2019-01-012019-12-310001285785mos:PlantCityMemberus-gaap:AssetRetirementObligationCostsMember2019-01-012019-12-310001285785us-gaap:OtherCurrentAssetsMembermos:PlantCityMember2019-01-012019-12-310001285785us-gaap:SubsequentEventMember2022-01-012022-12-310001285785us-gaap:SubsequentEventMember2022-02-210001285785us-gaap:SubsequentEventMember2022-04-012022-12-31
Table of Content
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
______________________________
FORM 10-K
______________________________
    ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF
THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the year ended December 31, 2021
    TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF
THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the transition period from _____ to _____
Commission file number 001-32327
______________________________
The Mosaic Company
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
 ______________________________
Delaware20-1026454
(State or other jurisdiction of
incorporation or organization)
(I.R.S. Employer
Identification No.)
101 East Kennedy Blvd
Suite 2500
Tampa, Florida 33602
(800) 918-8270
(Address and zip code of principal executive offices and registrant’s telephone number, including area code)
______________________________
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
Title of each classTrading symbolName of each exchange on which registered
Common Stock, par value $0.01 per shareMOSNew York Stock Exchange
______________________________ 
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: NONE
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.    Yes      No  
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.    Yes      No  
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant: (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports); and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.    Yes      No  
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit such files).    Yes      No  
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, a smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company,” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one): Large accelerated filer   Accelerated filer    Non-accelerated filer    Smaller reporting company   Emerging growth company   
If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act.  
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed a report on and attestation to its management’s assessment of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting under Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (15 U.S.C. 7262(b)) by the registered public accounting firm that prepared or issued its audit report.
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).    Yes      No  
As of June 30, 2021, the aggregate market value of the registrant’s voting common stock held by stockholders, other than directors, executive officers, subsidiaries of the Registrant and any other person known by the Registrant as of the date hereof to beneficially own ten percent or more of any class of Registrant’s outstanding voting common stock, and consisting of shares of Common Stock, was approximately $12.1 billion based upon the closing price of a share of Common Stock on the New York Stock Exchange on that date.
Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the registrant’s classes of common stock: 368,309,275 shares of Common Stock as of February 18, 2022.
DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
1.Portions of the registrant’s definitive proxy statement to be delivered in conjunction with the 2022 Annual Meeting of Stockholders (Part III)


Table of Content
2021 FORM 10-K CONTENTS
Part I: Page
Item 1.
•         Overview
•         Business Segment Information
•         Competition
•         Factors Affecting Demand
•         Other Matters
•         Executive Officers
Item 1A.
Item 1B.
Item 2.
Item 3.
Item 4.
Part II:
Item 5.
Item 6.
Item 7.
Item 7A.
Item 8.
Item 9.
Item 9A.
Item 9B.
Part III:
Item 10.
Item 11.
Item 12.
Item 13.
Item 14.
Part IV.
Item 15.
Item 16.
S-1
F-1



Table of Content
PART I.
Item 1. Business.
OVERVIEW
The Mosaic Company is the world’s leading producer and marketer of concentrated phosphate and potash crop nutrients. Through our broad product offering, we are a single source supplier of phosphate- and potash-based crop nutrients and animal feed ingredients. We serve customers in approximately 40 countries. We are the second largest integrated phosphate producer in the world and one of the largest producers and marketers of phosphate-based animal feed ingredients in North America and Brazil. We are the leading fertilizer production and distribution company in Brazil. We mine phosphate rock in Florida, Brazil and Peru. We process rock into finished phosphate products at facilities in Florida, Louisiana and Brazil. We are one of the four largest potash producers in the world. We mine potash in Saskatchewan, New Mexico and Brazil. We have other production, blending or distribution operations in Brazil, China, India and Paraguay, as well as a strategic equity investment in a joint venture that operates a phosphate rock mine and chemical complexes in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Our distribution operations serve the top four nutrient-consuming countries in the world: China, India, the United States and Brazil.
The Mosaic Company is a Delaware corporation that was incorporated in March 2004 and serves as the parent company of the business that was formed through the October 2004 combination of IMC Global Inc. (“IMC”) and the fertilizer businesses of Cargill, Incorporated. We are publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol “MOS” and are headquartered in Tampa, Florida.
We conduct our business through wholly and majority-owned subsidiaries as well as businesses in which we own less than a majority or a non-controlling interest. We are organized into three reportable business segments: Phosphates, Potash and Mosaic Fertilizantes. Intersegment eliminations, unrealized mark-to-market gains/losses on derivatives, debt expenses, Streamsong Resort® results of operations, and the results of the China and India distribution businesses are included within Corporate, Eliminations and Other.
The following charts show the respective contributions to 2021 sales volumes, net sales and gross margin for each of our business segments in effect at December 31, 2021:
mos-20211231_g1.gif
We account for approximately 12% of estimated global annual phosphate production. We also account for approximately 12% of estimated global annual potash production.
Phosphates SegmentWe sell phosphate-based crop nutrients and animal feed ingredients throughout North America and internationally. We account for approximately 70% of estimated North American annual production of concentrated phosphate crop nutrients.
1

Table of Content
Potash SegmentWe sell potash throughout North America and internationally, principally as fertilizer, but also for use in industrial applications and, to a lesser degree, as animal feed ingredients. We account for approximately 33% of estimated North American annual potash production.
Mosaic Fertilizantes SegmentWe produce and sell phosphate and potash-based crop nutrients, and animal feed ingredients, in Brazil. In addition to five phosphate rock mines, four chemical plants and a potash mine in Brazil, this segment consists of sales offices, crop nutrient blending and bagging facilities, port terminals and warehouses in Brazil and Paraguay. The Mosaic Fertilizantes segment also serves as a distribution outlet for our Phosphates and Potash segments. We account for approximately 65% of estimated annual production of concentrated phosphate crop nutrients in Brazil and 100% of estimated annual potash production in Brazil.
As used in this report:
Mosaic” or “Company” means The Mosaic Company;
we,” “us,” and “our” refer to Mosaic and its direct and indirect subsidiaries, individually or in any combination;
Cargill” means Cargill, Incorporated and its direct and indirect subsidiaries, individually or in any combination;
Cargill Crop Nutrition” means the crop nutrient business we acquired from Cargill in the Combination;
Combination” means the October 22, 2004 combination of IMC and Cargill Crop Nutrition; and
statements as to our industry position reflect information from the most recent period available.
Business Developments during 2021
During the second quarter of 2021, due to increased brine inflows, we made the decision to accelerate the timing of the shutdown of our K1 and K2 mine shafts at our Esterhazy, Saskatchewan potash mine. Closing the K1 and K2 shafts are key pieces of the transition to the K3 shaft, but the timeline for the closure was accelerated by approximately nine months. We recognized pre-tax costs of $158.1 million related to the permanent closure of these facilities. In the third quarter of 2021, we resumed production at our previously idled Colonsay potash mine to offset a portion of the production lost by the early closure of the K1 and K2 shafts at Esterhazy. In December 2021, the K3 shaft became fully operational and is expected to reach full operating capacity in the first quarter of 2022. The closure of the K1 and K2 shafts will eliminate future brine management expenses at these sites.
In August 2021 we entered into a new, unsecured five-year credit facility of up to $2.5 billion, with a maturity date of August 19, 2026, which replaces our prior $2.2 billion line of credit. This increase in size provides additional security and flexibility and reflects the growth in our business.
In August 2021 we prepaid the outstanding balance of $450 million on our 3.75% senior notes, due November 15, 2021, without premium or penalty.
During the third quarter of 2021, our Board of Directors approved a new $1 billion share repurchase authorization (the “2021 Repurchase Program”), replacing our previous $1.5 billion authorization (the “2015 Repurchase Program”) that had $700 million remaining. This new, expanded authorization reflects our unchanged commitment to a balanced deployment of excess capital that includes returning capital to stockholders. During 2021, we repurchased 11,200,371 shares of Common Stock, including 8,544,144 shares that we purchased in an underwritten secondary offering by Vale S.A., at an average price of $36.69, for a total of approximately $410.9 million.
In November 2021, Vale S.A. sold its 34,176,574 shares of common stock of Mosaic in an underwritten secondary offering. Vale S.A. no longer holds any shares of Mosaic common stock.
In the fourth quarter of 2021, our Board of Directors approved a 50% increase in our annual dividend, to $0.45 per share, beginning in 2022.
In 2020, we filed petitions with the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) that requested the initiation of countervailing duty investigations into imports of phosphate fertilizers from Morocco and Russia. The purpose of the petitions was to remedy the distortions that we believe foreign subsidies have caused or are causing in the U.S. market for phosphate fertilizers, and thereby restore fair competition. During the first quarter of 2021, the DOC made final affirmative determinations that countervailable subsidies were being provided by those governments and the ITC made final affirmative determinations that the U.S.
2

Table of Content
phosphate fertilizer industry is materially injured by reason of subsidized phosphate fertilizer imports from Morocco and Russia. As a result of these determinations, the DOC issued countervailing duty orders on phosphate fertilizer imports from Russia and Morocco, which are scheduled to remain in place for at least five years. Currently, the cash deposit rates for such imports are approximately 20 percent for Moroccan producer OCP, 9 percent and 47 percent for Russian producers PhosAgro and Eurochem, respectively, and 17 percent for all other Russian producers. The final determinations in the DOC and ITC investigations are subject to possible challenges before U.S. federal courts and the World Trade Organization, and Mosaic has initiated actions at the U.S. Court of International Trade contesting certain aspects of the DOC’s final determinations that, we believe, failed to capture the full extent of Moroccan and Russian phosphate fertilizer subsidies. Moroccan and Russian producers have also initiated U.S. Court of International Trade actions, seeking lower cash deposit rates and revocation of the countervailing duty orders. Further, the cash deposit rates and the amount of countervailing duties owed by importers on such imports could change based on the results of the DOC’s annual administrative review proceedings.
In response to Covid-19, we continued to implement measures in 2021 that were intended to provide for the immediate health and safety of our employees, including working remotely and alternating work schedules, in order to minimize the number of employees at a single location. Businesses have been impacted by short-term labor shortages due to illness, transportation issues such as trucking delays and port congestion which are slowing delivery of inputs to facilities and products to end customers. At this time, we have experienced limited adverse financial or operational impacts related to Covid-19.
Subsequent to December 31, 2021, we expect to enter into an accelerated share repurchase (“ASR”) of $400 million, which would be initiated in February 2022. Following the completion of the current authorization, our Board of Directors has approved the establishment of a new $1 billion share repurchase authorization, which will go into effect following completion of this ASR. The Board of Directors has also approved a regular dividend increase to $0.60 per share annually from $0.45, beginning with the second quarter 2022 payment.
We have included additional information about these and other developments in our business during 2021 in our Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations (“Management’s Analysis”) and in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.
Throughout the discussion below, we measure units of production, sales and raw materials in metric tonnes, which are the equivalent of 2,205 pounds, or 1.102 tons (U.S. standard), unless we specifically state that we mean short or long ton(s), which are the equivalent of 2,000 pounds and 2,240 pounds, respectively. In addition, we measure natural gas, a raw material used in the production of our products, in MM BTU, which stands for one million British Thermal Units (“BTU”). One BTU is equivalent to 1.06 Joules.
This report includes market share and industry data and forecasts that we obtained from publicly available information and industry publications, surveys, market research, internal company surveys and consultant surveys. We believe these sources to be reliable, but there can be no assurance as to the accuracy and completeness of such information. We have not independently verified the data from third-party sources, nor have we ascertained the underlying economic assumptions relied upon therein. Similarly, internal company surveys, industry forecasts and market research, which we believe to be reliable based upon management’s knowledge of the industry, have not been verified by any independent sources.
Application of SEC’s New Mining Rules Under Regulation S-K 1300
On October 31, 2018, The U.S. Securities Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) adopted Subpart 1300 of Regulation S-K (“S-K 1300”) to modernize the property disclosure requirements for mining registrants. Information concerning our mining properties in this Form 10-K has been prepared in accordance with these requirements. These requirements differ significantly from the previously applicable disclosure requirements of SEC Industry Guide 7. Among other differences, S-K 1300 requires us to disclose our mineral resources, in addition to our mineral reserves, as of the end of our most recently completed fiscal year both in the aggregate and for each of our individually material mining properties. The calculation of mineral reserves under SEC Industry Guide 7 and under S-K 1300 are significantly different which may lead to differences in reserve reporting. We have four material properties: Belle Plaine, Esterhazy, Florida and Tapira. See Item 2. “Properties,” for further information regarding mineral reserves and resource and discussion of our material mining properties.
3

Table of Content
BUSINESS SEGMENT INFORMATION
The discussion below of our business segment operations should be read in conjunction with the following information that we have included in this report:
The risk factors discussed in this report in Part I, Item 1A, “Risk Factors”.
Our Management’s Analysis.
The financial statements and supplementary financial information in our Consolidated Financial Statements (“Consolidated Financial Statements”).
This information is incorporated by reference into this section from Part II, Item 8, “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data”.
Phosphates Segment
Our Phosphates business segment owns and operates mines and production facilities in Florida which produce concentrated phosphate crop nutrients and phosphate-based animal feed ingredients, and processing plants in Louisiana which produce concentrated phosphate crop nutrients. We have a 75% economic interest in the Miski Mayo Phosphate Mine in Peru Miski Mayo Mine), which is included in the results of our Phosphates segment. On June 18, 2019, we permanently closed our Plant City, Florida production facility. On September 24, 2019, Mosaic entered into a long-term lease agreement with Anuvia Plant Nutrition to lease certain assets at that location.
The following map shows the locations of each of our phosphate concentrates plants in the United States and each of our active, temporarily idled, and planned phosphate mine locations, including beneficiation plants, in Florida. The reserves associated with our Ona location have been allocated to other active mines based on our future mining plans:
mos-20211231_g2.jpg
4

Table of Content
U.S. Phosphate Crop Nutrients and Animal Feed Ingredients
Our U.S. phosphates operations have capacity to produce approximately 4.5 million tonnes of phosphoric acid (“P2O5”) per year, or about 7% of world annual capacity and about 60% of North American annual capacity. P2O5 is produced by reacting finely ground phosphate rock with sulfuric acid. P2O5 is the key building block for the production of high analysis or concentrated phosphate crop nutrients and animal feed products, and is the most comprehensive measure of phosphate capacity and production and a commonly used benchmark in our industry. Our U.S. P2O5 production totaled approximately 3.4 million tonnes during 2021. Our U.S. operations account for approximately 7% of estimated global annual production and 51% of estimated North American annual output.
Our phosphate crop nutrient products are marketed worldwide to crop nutrient manufacturers, distributors, retailers and farmers. Our principal phosphate crop nutrient products are:
Diammonium Phosphate (18-46-0) Diammonium Phosphate (“DAP”) is the most widely used high-analysis phosphate crop nutrient worldwide. DAP is produced by first combining phosphoric acid with anhydrous ammonia in a reaction vessel. This initial reaction creates a slurry that is then pumped into a granulation plant where it is reacted with additional ammonia to produce DAP. DAP is a solid granular product that is applied directly or blended with other solid plant nutrient products, such as urea and potash.
Monoammonium Phosphate (11-52-0) Monoammonium Phosphate (“MAP”) is the second most widely used high-analysis phosphate crop nutrient and the fastest growing phosphate product worldwide. MAP is also produced by first combining phosphoric acid with anhydrous ammonia in a reaction vessel. The resulting slurry is then pumped into the granulation plant where it is reacted with additional P2O5 to produce MAP. MAP is a solid granular product that is applied directly or blended with other solid plant nutrient products.
MicroEssentials® is a value-added ammoniated phosphate product that is enhanced through a patented process that creates very thin platelets of sulfur and other micronutrients, such as zinc, on the granulated product. The patented process incorporates both the sulfate and elemental forms of sulfur, providing season-long availability to crops.
Production of our animal feed ingredients products is located at our New Wales, Florida facility. We market our feed phosphate primarily under the leading brand names of Biofos® and Nexfos®.
Annual capacity by plant as of December 31, 2021 and production volumes by plant for 2021 are listed below:
(tonnes in millions)Phosphoric Acid
Processed Phosphate(a)/DAP/MAP/ MicroEssentials®/Feed Phosphate
 
Operational Capacity(b)
Operational Capacity(b)
Facility
Production(c)
Production(c)
Florida:
Bartow1.1 1.0 2.5 2.2 
New Wales1.7 1.2 4.0 2.6 
Riverview0.9 0.8 1.8 1.6 
3.7 3.0 8.3 6.4 
Louisiana:
Faustina(d)
— — 1.6 0.9 
Uncle Sam(d)
0.8 0.4 — — 
0.8 0.4 1.6 0.9 
Total4.5 3.4 9.9 7.3 
______________________________
(a)Our ability to produce processed phosphates has been less than our annual operational capacity stated in the table above, except to the extent we purchase P2O5. Factors affecting actual production are described in note (c) below.
(b)Operational capacity is our estimated long-term capacity based on an average amount of scheduled down time, including maintenance and scheduled turnaround time, and product mix, and no significant modifications to operating conditions, equipment or facilities.
(c)Actual production varies from annual operational capacity shown in the above table due to factors that include, among others, the level of demand for our products, maintenance and turnaround time, accidents, mechanical failure, product mix, and other operating conditions.
5

Table of Content
(d)Our Louisiana facilities experienced lower production as a result of downtime from sulfur supply constraints and damage from Hurricane Ida.
The P2O5 produced at Uncle Sam is shipped to Faustina, where it is used to produce DAP, MAP and MicroEssentials®. Our Faustina plant also manufactures ammonia that is mostly consumed in our concentrate plants.
We produced approximately 6.9 million tonnes of concentrated phosphate crop nutrients during 2021 and accounted for approximately 70% of estimated North American annual production.
Phosphate Rock
Phosphate rock is the key mineral used to produce phosphate crop nutrients and feed phosphate. Our Florida phosphate rock mines produced approximately 12.2 million tonnes in 2021 and accounted for approximately 51% of estimated North American annual production. We are the world’s second largest miner of phosphate rock (excluding China) and currently operate four mines in North America with a combined annual capacity of approximately 18.0 million tonnes. Additionally, we own 75% of the Miski Mayo Mine in Peru, which has an annual capacity of 4.0 million tonnes. Production of one tonne of DAP requires between 1.6 and 1.7 tonnes of phosphate rock.
All of our wholly owned phosphate mines and related mining operations in North America are located in central Florida. During 2021, we operated three active mines in Florida: Four Corners, South Fort Meade and Wingate. We plan to explore and develop the DeSoto property and the South Pasture property, which was previously idled, to offset future depletion at our Florida properties. We have a 75% economic interest in the Miski Mayo Mine in Peru, which allows us to supplement our other produced rock to meet our overall fertilizer production needs and is the primary source of rock for our Louisiana operations. We have the right to use or sell to third parties 75% of Miski Mayo’s annual production.
See Item 2. “Properties” for a discussion of our phosphate mining properties, including processing methods, facilities, production and summaries of our mineral resources and reserves, both in the aggregate and for our individual material phosphate mining properties.
Investment in Ma’aden Wa’ad Al Shamal Phosphate Company (“MWSPC”)
We own a 25% interest in MWSPC and, in connection with our equity share, we are entitled to market approximately 25% of MWSPC’s production. MWSPC consists of a mine and two chemical complexes (the “Project”) that produce phosphate fertilizers and other downstream phosphates products in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The greenfield project was built in the northern region of Saudi Arabia at Wa’ad Al Shamal Minerals Industrial City, and included further expansion of processing plants in Ras Al Khair Minerals Industrial City, which is located on the east coast of Saudi Arabia. Ammonia operations commenced in late 2016 and on December 1, 2018, MWSPC commenced commercial operations of the phosphate plant, thereby bringing the entire project to the commercial production phase. Phosphate production will gradually ramp-up until it reaches an expected 3.0 million tonnes in annual production capacity. Actual phosphate production was 2.4 million tonnes in 2021. The Project benefits from the availability of key raw nutrients from sources within Saudi Arabia.
Our cash investment in the Project was $770 million at December 31, 2021. Our obligation to contribute additional equity was eliminated as part of the Project debt refinancing in 2020.
Sulfur
We use molten sulfur at our phosphates concentrates plants to produce sulfuric acid, primarily for use in our production of P2O5. We purchased approximately 3.7 million long tons of sulfur during 2021. We purchase the majority of this sulfur from North American oil and natural gas refiners who are required to remove or recover sulfur during the refining process. Production of one tonne of DAP requires approximately 0.40 long tons of sulfur. We procure our sulfur from multiple sources and receive it by truck, rail, barge and vessel, either directly at our phosphate plants or have it sent for gathering to terminals that are located on the U.S. gulf coast. In addition, we use formed sulfur received through Tampa, Florida ports, which are delivered by truck to our New Wales facility and melted through our sulfur melter.
We own and operate a sulfur terminal in Riverview, Florida. We also lease terminal space in Tampa, Florida and Galveston and Beaumont, Texas. We have long-term time charters on two ocean-going tugs/barges and one ocean-going vessel that transports molten sulfur from the Texas terminals to Tampa. We then further transport by truck to our Florida phosphate plants. In addition, we own a 50% equity interest in Gulf Sulphur Services Ltd., LLLP (“Gulf Sulphur Services”), which is operated by our joint venture partner. Gulf Sulphur Services has a sulfur transportation and terminaling business in the Gulf
6

Table of Content
of Mexico, and handles these functions for a substantial portion of our Florida sulfur volume. Our sulfur logistic assets also include a large fleet of leased railcars that supplement our marine sulfur logistic system. Our Louisiana operations are served by truck from nearby refineries.
Although sulfur is readily available from many different suppliers and can be transported to our phosphate facilities by a variety of means, sulfur is an important raw material used in our business that has in the past been, and may in the future, be the subject of volatile pricing and availability. Alternative transportation and terminaling facilities might not have sufficient capacity to fully serve all of our facilities in the event of a disruption to current transportation or terminaling facilities. Changes in the price of sulfur or disruptions to sulfur transportation or terminaling facilities could have a material impact on our business. We have included a discussion of sulfur prices in our Management’s Analysis.
Ammonia
We use ammonia together with P2O5 to produce DAP, MAP and MicroEssentials®. We consumed approximately 1.1 million tonnes of ammonia during 2021. Production of one tonne of DAP requires approximately 0.23 tonnes of ammonia. We purchase approximately one-third of our ammonia from various suppliers in the spot market with the remaining two-thirds either purchased through our ammonia supply agreement (the “CF Ammonia Supply Agreement”) with an affiliate of CF Industries Inc. (“CF”) or produced internally at our Faustina, Louisiana location.
Our Florida ammonia needs are currently supplied under multi-year contracts with both domestic and offshore producers. Ammonia for our Bartow and Riverview plants is terminaled through owned ammonia facilities at the Port of Tampa and Port Sutton, Florida. Ammonia for our New Wales plant is terminaled through another ammonia facility owned and operated by a third party at Port Sutton, Florida pursuant to an agreement that provides for service through 2022, with automatic renewal for an additional two-year period unless either party terminates, as provided in the agreement. Ammonia is transported by pipeline from the terminals to our production facilities. We have service agreements with the operators of the pipelines for Bartow, New Wales, and Riverview, which provide service through June 30, 2022 with annual auto-renewal provisions unless either party objects.
Under the CF Ammonia Supply Agreement, Mosaic agreed to purchase approximately 523,000 to 725,000 metric tonnes of ammonia per year during a term that commenced in 2017 and may extend until December 31, 2032, at a price tied to the prevailing price of U.S. natural gas. The contract provides for early termination at certain dates. For 2021, our minimum purchase obligation was approximately 523,000 metric tonnes, and actual purchases were 580,000 metric tonnes. A specialized tug and barge unit transports ammonia for Mosaic between a load location at Donaldsonville, Louisiana and a discharge location at Tampa, Florida. Additional information about this chartered unit and its financing is provided in Note 23 of our Consolidated Financial Statements. We expect a majority of the ammonia purchased under the CF Ammonia Supply Agreement to be received by barge at the Port of Tampa and delivered to our Florida facilities as described in the preceding paragraph. While the market prices of natural gas and ammonia have changed since we executed the CF Ammonia Supply Agreement in 2013 and will continue to change, we expect that the agreement will provide us a competitive advantage over its term, including by providing a reliable long-term ammonia supply.
We produce ammonia at Faustina, Louisiana primarily for our own consumption. Our annual capacity is approximately 530,000 tonnes. From time to time, we sell surplus ammonia to unrelated parties and/or may transport surplus ammonia to the Port of Tampa. In addition, under certain circumstances we are permitted to receive ammonia at Faustina under the CF Ammonia Supply Agreement.
Although ammonia is readily available from many different suppliers and can be transported to our phosphates facilities by a variety of means, ammonia is an important raw material used in our business that has in the past been, and may in the future be, the subject of volatile pricing. In addition, alternative transportation and terminaling facilities might not have sufficient capacity to fully serve all of our facilities in the event of a disruption to existing transportation or terminaling facilities. Changes in the price of ammonia or disruptions to ammonia transportation or terminaling could have a material impact on our business. We have included a discussion of ammonia prices in our Management’s Analysis.
Natural Gas for Phosphates
Natural gas is the primary raw material used to manufacture ammonia. At our Faustina facility, ammonia is manufactured on site. The majority of natural gas is purchased through firm delivery contracts based on published index-based prices and is sourced from Texas and Louisiana via pipelines interconnected to the Henry Hub. We use over-the-counter swap and/or
7

Table of Content
option contracts to forward price portions of future natural gas purchases. We typically purchase approximately 11.3 million MM Btu of natural gas per year for use in ammonia production at Faustina.
Our ammonia requirements for our Florida operations are purchased rather than manufactured on site. Therefore, while we typically purchase approximately 2.5 million MM Btu of natural gas per year in Florida, it is only used as a thermal fuel for various phosphate production processes.
Florida Land Holdings
We are a significant landowner in the State of Florida, which has in the past been considered one of the fastest areas of population growth in the United States. We own land comprising over 317,000 acres held in fee simple title in central Florida, and have the right to mine additional properties which contain phosphate rock reserves. Some of our land holdings are needed to operate our Phosphates business, while a portion of our land assets, such as certain reclaimed properties, are no longer required for our ongoing operations. As a general matter, more of our reclaimed property becomes available for uses other than for phosphate operations each year. Our real property assets are generally comprised of concentrates plants, port facilities, phosphate mines and other property which we have acquired through our presence in Florida. Our long-term future land use strategy is to optimize the value of our land assets. For example, we developed Streamsong Resort® (the “Resort”), a destination resort and conference center, in an area of previously mined land as part of our long-term business strategy to maximize the value and utility of our extensive land holdings in Florida. In addition to the hotel and conference center, the Resort includes three golf courses, a clubhouse and ancillary facilities.
Potash Segment
We are one of the leading potash producers in the world. We mine and process potash in Canada and the United States and sell potash in North America and internationally. The term “potash” applies generally to the common salts of potassium. Muriate of potash (“MOP”) is the primary source of potassium for the crop nutrient industry. Red MOP has traces of iron oxide. The granular and standard grade red MOP products are well suited for direct fertilizer application and bulk blending. White MOP has a higher percent potassium oxide (“K2O”). White MOP, besides being well suited for the agricultural market, is used in many industrial applications. We also produce a double sulfate of potash magnesia product, which we market under our brand name K-Mag®, at our Carlsbad, New Mexico facility.
Our potash products are marketed worldwide to crop nutrient manufacturers, distributors and retailers and are also used in the manufacturing of mixed crop nutrients and, to a lesser extent, in animal feed ingredients. We also sell potash to customers for industrial use. In addition, our potash products are used for de-icing and as a water softener regenerant.
In the first half of 2021, we operated two potash mines in Canada, including one shaft mine with a total of three production shafts and one solution mine, as well as one potash shaft mine in the United States. During the second quarter of 2021, due to increased brine inflows, we made the decision to accelerate the timing of the shutdown of our K1 and K2 mine shafts at our Esterhazy, Saskatchewan mine by approximately nine months. In the third quarter, we resumed production at our previously idled Colonsay potash mine to offset a portion of the production lost by the early closure of the K1 and K2 shafts. In December, the K3 shaft became fully operational. Currently, work is underway to decommission the K1 and K2 underground mines. Due to this closure, we have eliminated future brine management costs at these locations. We own related mills or refineries at our mines.
We also own a greenfield potash project in Kronau, Saskatchewan, approximately 27 kilometers southeast of Regina, Saskatchewan. In addition, Mosaic leases approximately 291,500 acres of mineral rights from the government of Saskatchewan, and approximately 99,700 acres of freehold mineral rights in the Kronau/Regina area, which have not been developed.
We pay Canadian resource taxes consisting of the Potash Production Tax and resource surcharge. The Potash Production Tax is a Saskatchewan provincial tax on potash production and consists of a base payment and a profits tax. We also pay a percentage of the value of resource sales from our Saskatchewan mines. In addition to the Canadian resource taxes, royalties are payable to the mineral owners in respect of potash reserves or production of potash. We have included a further discussion of the Canadian resource taxes and royalties in our Management’s Analysis.


8

Table of Content
The map below shows the location of each of our potash properties:
mos-20211231_g3.jpg
Our North American potash annualized operational capacity totals 11.2 million tonnes of product per year and accounts for approximately 14% of world annual capacity and 32% of North American annual capacity. Production during 2021 totaled 8.2 million tonnes. We account for approximately 12% of estimated world annual production and 33% of estimated North American annual production.
9

Table of Content
The following table shows, for each of our potash mines, annual capacity as of December 31, 2021 and finished product output for 2021:
(tonnes in millions)  
FacilityAnnualized
Proven
Peaking
Capacity
(a)(c)(d)
Annual
Operational
Capacity
(a)(b)(d)(e)
Finished
Product(b)
Canada
Belle Plaine—MOP3.9 3.0 2.8 
Colonsay—MOP (f)
2.6 1.5 0.4 
Esterhazy—MOP(g)
6.3 6.0 4.4 
Canadian Total12.8 10.5 7.6 
United States
Carlsbad—K-Mag®(h)
0.9 0.7 0.6 
United States Total0.9 0.7 0.6 
Totals13.7 11.2 8.2 
______________________________
(a)Finished product.
(b)Actual production varies from annual operational capacity shown in the above table due to factors that include, among others, the level of demand for our products, maintenance and turnaround time, the quality of the reserves and the nature of the geologic formations we are mining at any particular time, accidents, mechanical failure, product mix, and other operating conditions.
(c)Represents full capacity assuming no turnaround or maintenance time.
(d)The annualized proven peaking capacity shown above is the capacity currently used to determine our share of Canpotex, Limited (“Canpotex”) sales. Canpotex members’ respective shares of Canpotex sales are based upon the members’ respective proven peaking capacities for producing potash. When a Canpotex member expands its production capacity, the new capacity is added to that member’s proven peaking capacity based on a proving run at the maximum production level. Alternatively, after January 2017, Canpotex members may elect to rely on an independent engineering firm and approved protocols to calculate their proven peaking capacity. The annual operational capacity reported in the table above can exceed the annualized proven peaking capacity until the proving run has been completed. Our entitlement percentage of Canpotex is 36.2%. In 2021 our realized percentage was 33% due to lower shipments as a result of the early closure of the K1 and K2 mine shafts at Esterhazy.
(e)Annual operational capacity is our estimated long-term potash capacity based on the quality of reserves and the nature of the geologic formations expected to be mined, milled and/or processed over the long term, average amount of scheduled down time, including maintenance and scheduled turnaround time, and product mix, and no significant modifications to operating conditions, equipment or facilities. Operational capacities will continue to be updated to the extent new production results impact ore grades assumptions.
(f)We have the ability to reach an annual operating capacity of 2.1 million tonnes over time by increasing our staffing levels and investment in mine development activities. In August 2019, we indefinitely idled our Colonsay, Saskatchewan mine. In the third quarter of 2021, we restarted operations at Colonsay to offset a portion of the production lost by the early closure of K1 and K2.
(g)In June, 2021, we permanently ceased operations at the K1 and K2 mine shafts. The annual operational capacity of Esterhazy has remained consistent following the K1 and K2 closures based on the accelerated ramp-up in capacity from the K3 mine shafts.
(h)K-Mag® is a specialty product that we produce at our Carlsbad facility.

See Item 2, “Properties” for a discussion of our potash mining properties, including processing methods, facilities, production and summaries of our mineral resources and reserves, both in the aggregate and for our individual material potash mining properties.
Natural Gas
Natural gas is used at our Belle Plaine solution mine as a fuel to produce steam and to dry potash products. The steam is used to generate electricity and provide thermal energy to the evaporation, crystallization and solution mining processes. The Belle Plaine solution mine typically accounts for approximately 80% of our Potash segment’s total natural gas requirements for potash production. At our shaft mines, natural gas is used as a fuel to heat fresh air supplied to the shaft mines and for drying potash products. Combined natural gas usage for both the solution and shaft mines totaled 17 million MM Btu during 2021. We purchase our natural gas requirements on firm delivery index price-based physical contracts and on short-term spot-priced physical contracts. Our Canadian operations purchase physical natural gas from Alberta and Saskatchewan using AECO price indices references and transport the gas to our plants via the TransGas pipeline system. The U.S. potash operation in New Mexico purchases physical gas in the southwest respective regional market using the El Paso San Juan Basin market pricing reference. We use financial derivative contracts to manage the pricing on portions of our natural gas
10

Table of Content
requirements.
Mosaic Fertilizantes Segment
Our Mosaic Fertilizantes segment owns and operates mines, chemical plants, crop nutrient blending and bagging facilities, port terminals and warehouses in Brazil and Paraguay, which produce and sell concentrated phosphates crop nutrients, phosphate-based animal feed ingredients and potash fertilizer. The following map shows the locations of our operations in Brazil and Paraguay:
mos-20211231_g4.jpg
We are the largest producer and one of the largest distributors of blended crop nutrients for agricultural use in Brazil. We produce and sell phosphate-and potash-based crop nutrients, and animal feed ingredients through our operations. Our operations in Brazil include five phosphate mines, four chemical plants and a potash mine. We own and operate ten blending plants in Brazil and one blending plant and port in Paraguay. In addition, we lease several other warehouses and blending units depending on sales and production levels. We also have a 62% ownership interest in Fospar, S.A. (“Fospar”). Fospar owns and operates an SSP (defined below) granulation plant, which produces approximately 0.5 million tonnes of SSP per year, and a deep-water port and throughput warehouse terminal facility in Paranagua, Brazil. The port facility at Paranagua handles approximately 3.6 million tonnes of imported crop nutrients. In 2021, Mosaic Fertilizantes sold approximately 10.1 million tonnes of crop nutrient products and accounted for approximately 20% of fertilizer shipments in Brazil.
We have the capability to annually produce approximately 4.4 million tonnes of phosphate-and potash-based crop nutrients and animal feed ingredients. Crop nutrient products produced are marketed to crop nutrient manufacturers, distributors, retailers and farmers.
In addition to producing crop nutrients, Mosaic Fertilizantes purchases phosphates, potash and nitrogen products which are either used to produce blended crop nutrients (“Blends”) or for resale. In 2021, Mosaic Fertilizantes purchased 2.1 million
11

Table of Content
tonnes of phosphate-based products, primarily MicroEssentials®, from our Phosphates segment, and 2.5 million tonnes of potash products from our Potash segment and Canpotex.
Phosphate Crop Nutrients and Animal Feed Ingredients
Our Brazilian phosphates operations have capacity to produce approximately 1.1 million tonnes of P2O5 per year, or about 69% of Brazilian annual capacity. Phosphoric acid is produced by reacting ground phosphate rock with sulfuric acid. P2O5 is the key building block for the production of high analysis or concentrated phosphate crop nutrients and animal feed products and is the most comprehensive measure of phosphate capacity and production and a commonly used benchmark in our industry. Our Brazilian P2O5 production totaled approximately 1.0 million tonnes in 2021 and accounted for approximately 90% of Brazilian annual output.
Our principal phosphate crop nutrient products are:
Monoammonium Phosphate (11-52-0) (MAP) MAP is a crop nutrient composed of two macronutrients, nitrogen and phosphoric acid. This slurry is added inside a rotary drum type granulator with ammonia to complete the neutralization reaction and produce MAP.
Triple superphosphate (TSP) TSP is a highly concentrated phosphate crop nutrient. TSP is produced from the phosphate rock reaction with phosphoric acid in a kuhlmann type reactor. The process for the production of TSP in Brazil is run of pile where the product undergoes a curing process of approximately seven days for later granulation.
Single superphosphate (SSP) SSP is a crop nutrient with a low concentration of phosphorus that is used in agriculture because of the sulfur content in its formulation. SSP is produced from mixing phosphate rock with sulfuric acid in a kuhlmann or malaxador type reactor. After the reaction, the product goes to the curing process and then feeds the granulation units.
Dicalcium phosphate (DCP) Dicalcium phosphate is produced by the reaction of desulphurized phosphoric acid with limestone. At Uberaba, it is produced from the reaction of concentrated phosphoric acid with limestone slurry. At Cajati the phosphoric acid is diluted with dry limestone. The reaction of the DCP occurs in a kuhlmann or spinden type reactor.
Our primary mines and chemical plants are located in the states of Minas Gerais, São Paulo, and Goias. Production of our animal feed ingredients products is located at our Uberaba, Minas Gerais, and Cajati, São Paulo facilities. We market our feed phosphate primarily under the brand name Foscálcio.
Annual capacity and production volume by plant as of December 31, 2021 are listed below:
(tonnes of ore in millions)Phosphoric acid
Processed Phosphate(a) (MAP/TSP/SSP/DCP/Feed)
Facility
Capacity(b)
Production(c)
Capacity(b)
Production(c)
Phosphate
Uberaba0.9 0.8 1.8 1.5 
Cajati0.2 0.1 0.5 0.4 
Araxá — — 1.0 1.0 
Catalão— — 0.4 0.4 
Total1.1 0.9 3.7 3.3 
______________________________
(a)Our ability to produce processed phosphates has been less than our annual operational capacity as stated in the table above, except to the extent we purchase phosphoric acid. Factors affecting actual production are described in note (c) below.
(b)The annual production capacity was calculated using the hourly capacity, days stopped for annual maintenance and OEE (historical utilization factor and capacity factor).
(c)Actual production varies from annual operational capacity shown in the table above due to factors that include, among others, the level of demand for our products, maintenance and turnaround time, accidents and mechanical failure.
The phosphoric acid produced at Cajati is used to produce DCP. The phosphoric acid produced at Uberaba is used to produce MAP, TSP and DCP.
12

Table of Content
We produced approximately 2.9 million tonnes of concentrated phosphate crop nutrients during 2021 which accounted for approximately 51% of estimated Brazilian annual production.
Phosphate Rock
Phosphate rock is the key mineral used to produce phosphate crop nutrients and animal feed product. Our phosphate rock production in Brazil totaled approximately 4.0 million tonnes in 2021, which accounted for approximately 73% of estimated Brazilian annual production. We are the largest producer of phosphate rock in Brazil and currently operate five properties with a combined annual capacity of approximately 4.6 million tonnes. Production of one tonne of MAP requires 1.6 to 1.7 tonnes of phosphate rock. Production of one tonne of SSP requires between 0.6 to 0.7 tonnes of phosphate rock. Production of one tonne of TSP requires 1.4 tonnes of phosphate rock.
During 2021, we operated five properties; Araxá, Patrocínio and Tapira, in the state of Minas Gerais; Catalão, in the state of Goiás; and Cajati, in the state of São Paulo.
See Item 2, “Properties” for a discussion of our Brazilian mining properties, including processing methods, facilities, production and summaries of our mineral resources and reserves, both in the aggregate and for our individually material Brazilian properties.
We are required to pay royalties to mineral owners and resource taxes to the Brazilian government for phosphate and potash production. The resource taxes, known as Compensação Financeira pela Exploração de Recursos Minerais or CFEM, are regulated by the National Mining Agency. In 2021, we paid royalties and resource taxes of approximately $9.3 million.
Sulfur
We use molten sulfur at our phosphates concentrates plants to produce sulfuric acid, one of the key components used in the production of phosphoric acid. We consumed approximately 1.2 million long tons of sulfur for our own production during 2021. We purchase approximately 26% of the volume under annual supply agreements from oil and natural gas refiners, who are required to remove or recover sulfur during the refining process. The remaining 74% is purchased in the spot market. Sulfur is imported through the Tiplam port and transported by rail to the Uberaba plant and by truck to the Araxá and Cajati locations.
Although sulfur is readily available from many different suppliers and can be transported to our phosphate facilities by a variety of means, sulfur is an important raw material used in our business that has in the past been, and could in the future be, subject to volatile pricing and availability. Alternative transportation and terminaling facilities might not have sufficient capacity to fully serve all of our facilities in the event of a disruption to current transportation or terminaling facilities. Changes in the price of sulfur or disruptions or sulfur transportation or terminaling facilities could have a material impact on our business.
Ammonia
We use ammonia, together with phosphoric acid, to produce MAP, and to a lesser extent for SSP production. We consumed approximately 133,507 tonnes of ammonia during 2021. Production of one tonne of MAP requires approximately 0.137 tonnes of ammonia. We purchase all of our ammonia under a long-term supply agreement with two suppliers. Ammonia is imported through the Tiplam port and transported by truck to Uberaba, Araxá and Catalão.
We own approximately 1% of the Tiplam terminal in Santos, São Paulo. Our ownership percentage, along with a contractual agreement, guarantee us unloading priority for ammonia and also provide us unloading capacity for rock, sulfur and crop nutrients.
Although ammonia is readily available from many different suppliers and can be transported to our phosphates facilities by a variety of means, ammonia is an important raw material used in our business that has in the past been, and in the future could be, subject to volatile pricing. Alternative transportation and terminaling facilities might not have sufficient capacity to fully serve all of our facilities in the event of a disruption to existing transportation or terminaling facilities. Changes in the price of ammonia or disruptions to ammonia transportation of terminaling could have a material impact on our business.
13

Table of Content
Brazilian Potash
We conduct potash operations through the leased Taquari-Vassouras shaft mine, which is the only potash mine in Brazil, located in Rosário do Catete in the Brazilian state of Sergipe. We also own a related refinery at the site. We produce and sell potash product domestically. MOP is the primary source of potassium for the crop nutrient industry in Brazil. Red MOP has traces of iron oxide. The granular and standard grade red MOP products are well-suited for direct fertilizer application and bulk blending. Our potash product is marketed in Brazil to crop nutrient manufacturers, distributors and retailers and is also used in the manufacturing of crop nutrients.
In 2021, we paid royalties of approximately $7 million related to the leasing of potash assets and mining rights for Taquari.
Land Holdings
Mosaic Fertilizantes owns properties and the surface rights of certain additional rural lands comprising over 35,000 hectares (86,500 acres) in the States of São Paulo, Minas Gerais, Goiás, Paraná, Mato Grosso, Santa Catarina, Bahia and Sergipe, and has the right to mine additional properties which contain phosphate rock or potash reserves. Most of our land holdings are needed to operate our phosphate and potash production and fertilizer distribution businesses. A portion of our land assets may no longer be required for our current operations and may be leased to third parties, for agricultural or other purposes, or may be set aside for mineral or environmental conservation. Our real property assets are generally comprised of concentrates plants, port facilities and phosphate and potash mines, crop nutrient blending and bagging facilities and other properties which we have acquired through our presence in Brazil.
India and China Distribution Businesses
Our China and India distribution businesses market phosphate-, potash- and nitrogen-based crop nutrients and provide other ancillary services to wholesalers, cooperatives, independent retailers, and farmers in the Asia-Pacific regions. These operations provide our Phosphates and Potash segments access to key markets outside of North and South America and serve as a marketing agent for our Phosphates segment. In 2021, the India and China operations purchased 294,729 tonnes of phosphate-based products from our Phosphates segment and MWSPC, and 1,105,257 tonnes of potash products from our Potash segment and Canpotex. They also purchase phosphates, potash and nitrogen products from unrelated third parties, which we either use to produce blended crop nutrients or for resale.
In China, we own two 300,000-tonne per year capacity blending plants. In 2021, we sold approximately 175,000 tonnes of Blends and distributed another 815,000 tonnes of phosphate and potash crop nutrients in China.
In India, we have distribution facilities to import and sell crop nutrients. In 2021, we distributed approximately 635,000 tonnes of phosphate and potash crop nutrient products in India.
SALES AND DISTRIBUTION ACTIVITIES
United States and Canada
We have a United States and Canada sales and marketing team that serves our business segments. We sell to wholesale distributors, retail chains, cooperatives, independent retailers and national accounts.
Customer service and the ability to effectively minimize the overall supply chain costs are key competitive factors in the crop nutrient and animal feed ingredients businesses. In addition to our production facilities, to service the needs of our customers, we own or have contractual throughput or other arrangements at strategically located distribution warehouses along or near the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers as well as in other key agricultural regions of the United States and Canada. From these facilities, we distribute Mosaic-produced phosphate and potash products for customers who in turn resell the product into the distribution channel or directly to farmers in the United States and Canada.
We own port facilities in Tampa, Florida, which have deep water berth capabilities providing access to the Gulf of Mexico. We also own warehouse distribution facilities in Savage, Minnesota; Rosemount, Minnesota; Pekin, Illinois; and Henderson, Kentucky. The Savage, Minnesota facility has been idled awaiting decisions on future use or sale.
In addition to the facilities that we own, our U.S. distribution operations also include leased distribution space or contractual throughput agreements in other key geographical areas including California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas and Wisconsin.
14

Table of Content
Our Canadian customers include independent dealers and national accounts. We also lease or own warehouse facilities in Saskatchewan, Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba in Canada.
International
Outside of the United States and Canada, we market our Phosphates segment’s products through our Mosaic Fertilizantes segment and our China and India distribution businesses, as well as a salesforce focused on geographies outside of North America. The countries that account for the largest amount of our phosphates sales outside the United States, by volume, are Brazil, Canada, Colombia and Mexico.

Our sales outside of the United States and Canada of potash products are made through Canpotex. Canpotex sales are allocated between its members based on peaking capacity. In 2021, our entitlement percentage of Canpotex is 36.2%.

Our potash exports from Carlsbad are sold through our own sales force. We also market our Potash segment’s products through our Mosaic Fertilizantes segment and our China and India distribution businesses, which acquire potash primarily through Canpotex. The countries that account for the largest amount of international potash sales, by volume, are Brazil, China, Indonesia, India and Malaysia.
To service the needs of our customers, our Mosaic Fertilizantes segment includes a network of strategically located sales offices, crop nutrient blending and bagging facilities, port terminals and warehouse distribution facilities that we own and operate. The blending and bagging facilities primarily produce Blends from phosphate, potash and nitrogen. The average product mix in our Blends (by volume) contains approximately 18% nitrogen, 50% phosphate, and 32% potash, although this mix differs based on seasonal and other factors. All of our production in Brazil is consumed within the country.
Our India and China distribution businesses also includes a network of strategically located sales offices, crop nutrient blending and bagging facilities, port terminals and warehouse distribution facilities. These businesses serve primarily as a sales outlet for our North American phosphates production, as well as additional phosphate production we market from our MWSPC joint venture, both for resale and as an input for Blends. Our Potash segment also has historically furnished the majority of the raw materials needs for the production of Blends, primarily via Canpotex, and is expected to continue to do so in the future.
Other Products
With a strong brand position in a multi-billion dollar animal feed ingredients global market, our Phosphates segment supplies animal feed ingredients for poultry and livestock to customers in North America, Latin America and Asia. Our potash sales to non-agricultural users are primarily to large industrial accounts and the animal feed industry. Additionally, in North America, we sell potash for de-icing and as a water softener regenerant. In Brazil, we also sell phosphogypsum.
COMPETITION
Because crop nutrients are global commodities available from numerous sources, crop nutrition companies compete primarily on the basis of delivered price. Other competitive factors include product quality, cost and availability of raw materials, customer service, plant efficiency and availability of product. As a result, markets for our products are highly competitive. We compete with a broad range of domestic and international producers, including farmer cooperatives, subsidiaries of larger companies, and independent crop nutrient companies. Foreign competitors may have access to cheaper raw materials, may not have to comply with as stringent regulatory requirements or are owned or subsidized by governments and, as a result, may have cost advantages over North American companies. We believe that our extensive North American and international production and distribution system provides us with a competitive advantage by allowing us to achieve economies of scale, transportation and storage efficiencies, and obtain market intelligence. Also, we believe our performance products, such as MicroEssentials®, provide us a competitive advantage with customers in North and South America.
Unlike many of our competitors, we have our own distribution system to sell phosphate- and potash-based crop nutrients and animal feed ingredients, whether produced by us or by other third parties, around the globe. In North America, we have one of the largest and most strategically located distribution systems for crop nutrients, including warehouse facilities in key agricultural regions. We also have an extensive network of distribution facilities internationally, including in the key growth regions of South America and Asia, with port terminals, warehouses, and blending plants in Brazil, Paraguay, China, and India. Our global presence allows us to efficiently serve customers in approximately 40 countries.
15

Table of Content
Phosphates Segment
Our Phosphates segment operates in a highly competitive global market. Among the competitors in the global phosphate industry are domestic and foreign companies, as well as foreign government-supported producers in Asia and North Africa. Phosphate producers compete primarily based on price, as well as product quality, service and innovation. Major integrated producers of feed phosphates are located in the United States, Europe and China. Many smaller producers are located in emerging markets around the world. Many of these smaller producers are not miners of phosphate rock or manufacturers of phosphoric acid and are required to purchase this material on the open market.
We believe that we are a low-cost integrated producer of phosphate-based crop nutrients, due in part to our scale, vertical integration and strategic network of production and distribution facilities. As the world’s second largest producer of concentrated phosphates, as well as the second largest miner of phosphate rock in the world and the largest in the United States, we maintain an advantage over some competitors as the scale of operations effectively reduces production costs per unit. We are also vertically integrated to captively supply one of our key inputs, phosphate rock, to our phosphate production facilities. We believe that our position as an integrated producer of phosphate rock provides us with a significant cost advantage over competitors that are non-integrated phosphate producers. In addition, our ownership in the Miski Mayo Mine allows us to supplement our overall phosphate rock needs. We also sell approximately 25% of Miski Mayo production to third parties. MWSPC enables us to not only further diversify our sources of phosphates but also improve our access to key agricultural countries in Asia and the Middle East.
We produce ammonia at our Faustina, Louisiana concentrates plant in quantities sufficient to meet approximately one third of our total ammonia needs in North America. We do not have ammonia production capacity within Florida to serve our Florida operations, but we have capacity to supply a portion of our requirements by transporting produced ammonia from Louisiana to Florida. We purchase additional ammonia from world markets and thus are subject to significant volatility in our purchase price of ammonia. The CF Ammonia Supply Agreement provides us with a long-term supply of a substantial volume of ammonia at prices based on the price of natural gas.
With our dedicated sulfur transportation barges and tugs, and our 50% ownership interest in Gulf Sulphur Services, we are also well-positioned to source an adequate, flexible and cost-effective supply of sulfur, our third key input, to our Florida and Louisiana phosphate production facilities. We believe that our investments in sulfur logistical and melting assets continue to afford us a competitive advantage compared to other producers in cost and access to sulfur.
With facilities in both central Florida and Louisiana, we are logistically well positioned to fulfill our material needs at very competitive prices. Those multiple production points also afford us the flexibility to optimally balance supply and demand.
Potash Segment
Potash is a commodity available from several geographical regions around the world and, consequently, the market is highly competitive. Through our participation in Canpotex, we compete outside of North America against various independent and state-owned potash producers. Canpotex has substantial expertise and logistical resources for the international distribution of potash, including strategically located export assets in Portland, Oregon, St. John, New Brunswick, and Vancouver, British Columbia. Our principal methods of competition with respect to the sale of potash include product pricing, and offering consistent, high-quality products and superior service. We believe that our potash cost structure is competitive in the industry and should improve as we continue to complete our potash expansion projects.
Mosaic Fertilizantes
The Mosaic Fertilizantes segment operates in a highly competitive market in Brazil. We compete with a broad range of domestic and international producers, including farmer cooperatives, subsidiaries of larger companies, and independent crop nutrient companies. We believe that having a vertically integrated business, internationally but also in Brazil, provides us with a competitive advantage by allowing us to achieve economies of scale, transportation and storage efficiencies, and obtain market intelligence.
Mosaic Fertilizantes has a wide variety of customers including farmers, blenders, and other local distributors. We compete with local businesses that offer a wide variety of products that are available from many sources. We believe the strategic location of our mines and chemical plants, in close proximity to our customers, and the benefit of our own distribution network, gives us an advantage over most of our competitors. The vertical integration of our wholly-owned production, along with our distribution network, as well as our focus on product innovation and customer solutions, position us with an
16

Table of Content
advantage over many of our competitors. We have a strong brand in Brazil. In addition to having access to our own production, our distribution activities have the capability to supply a wide variety of crop nutrients to our dealer/farmer customer base.
FACTORS AFFECTING DEMAND
Our results of operations historically have reflected the effects of several external factors which are beyond our control and have in the past produced significant downward and upward swings in operating results. Revenues are highly dependent upon conditions in the agriculture industry and can be affected by, among other factors: crop conditions; changes in agricultural production practices; worldwide economic conditions, including the increasing world population, household incomes, and demand for more protein-rich food, particularly in developing regions such as China, India and Latin America; changing demand for biofuels; variability in commodity pricing; governmental policies; the level of inventories in the crop nutrient distribution channels; customer expectations about farmer economics, future crop nutrient prices and availability, and transportation costs, among other matters; market trends in raw material costs; market prices for crop nutrients; and weather. Furthermore, our crop nutrients business is seasonal to the extent farmers and agricultural enterprises in the markets in which we compete purchase more crop nutrient products during the spring and fall. The international scope of our business, spanning the northern and southern hemispheres, reduces to some extent the seasonal impact on our business. The degree of seasonality of our business can change significantly from year to year due to conditions in the agricultural industry and other factors. The seasonal nature of our businesses requires significant working capital for inventory in advance of the planting seasons.
We sell products throughout the world. Unfavorable changes in trade protection laws, policies and measures, government policies and other regulatory requirements affecting trade; unexpected changes in tax and trade treaties; and strengthening or weakening of foreign economies as well as political relations with the United States may cause sales trends to customers in one or more foreign countries to differ from sales trends in the United States.
Our international operations are subject to risks from changes in foreign currencies, or government policy, which can affect local farmer economics.
OTHER MATTERS
Employees
We had 12,525 employees as of December 31, 2021, consisting of approximately 9,300 salaried and 3,200 hourly employees. There are also approximately 200 salaried and 500 hourly employees at the Miski Mayo Mine, of which we own 75% and its results are consolidated within our results of operations.
Labor Relations
As of December 31, 2021:
We had twenty collective bargaining agreements with unions covering certain hourly employees in the U.S. and Canada. Of these employees, approximately 49% are covered under collective bargaining agreements which expire in 2022. All are expected to collectively bargain for new contracts in 2022.
We had agreements with 34 unions covering all employees in Brazil. More than one agreement may govern our relations with each of these unions. In general, the agreements are renewable on an annual basis.
Failure to renew any of our union agreements could result in a strike or labor stoppage that could have a material adverse effect on our operations. However, we have not experienced a significant work stoppage in many years and historically have had good labor relations.
Information Available on our Website
Our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, and amendments thereto, filed with the SEC pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the rules and regulations thereunder are made available free of charge on our website (www.mosaicco.com) as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the SEC. These reports are also available on the SEC’s website (www.sec.gov). The information contained on our website and the SEC’s website is not being incorporated in
17

Table of Content
this report.
HUMAN CAPITAL

Our employees are the foundation of our Company. Our 12,525 colleagues embody Mosaic’s core values of innovation, collaboration, drive and responsibility, and are the key to enabling us to execute our mission to help the world grow the food it needs.
As of December 31, 2021, our regular employee base was made up of the following:

Country
Male
Female
Total
Brazil
5,621 1,008 6,629 
Canada
1,612 277 1,889 
China
105 51 156 
India
56 65 
Paraguay
41 13 54 
United States
3,146 585 3,731 
Saudi Arabia— 
Total
10,582 1,943 12,525 

Mosaic is committed to the well-being and development of our employees by creating and cultivating an innovative and collaborative workplace that welcomes, values and respects diversity of people, thoughts, and perspectives; a workplace free of discrimination and intolerant of bias. As part of Mosaic’s strategic priorities, we are committed to prioritizing our internal culture and external partnerships to meet our commitments to our employees and stakeholders and to be an employer of choice for generations to come.
Employee Health and Safety–safety is non-negotiable. We strive for zero harm to people and zero environmental incidents. Through the implementation of the Mosaic Management System, we have established a structured approach to effectively manage and control risk for the safety and well-being of our colleagues, the environment and our stockholders. The management system defines processes that help support a safe work environment and establishes a continuous improvement cycle to adjust for changing conditions and identified risks.

Global Worker Wellness–extending beyond safety, our wellness programs seek to improve the well-being of our employees – and their families – in the areas of physical and psychological health, and financial security. These programs include health screenings, insurance plans and mental health resources, as well as our Environmental, Health and Safety (EHS) Risk Reduction Program, various trainings and flexible schedules.
In 2021, we continued to build more flexibility into our pay and leave policies and medical plans to help our employees with any potential or confirmed exposure to Covid-19. We limited the number of employees to those who critically needed to be on site and allowed others to work remotely. We also put a significant amount of preventative measures in place globally to reduce the exposure risk to employees and contractors, including mask requirements, social distancing policies, travel limitations, virtual audits, ultraviolet (UV) light installation, filter upgrades, increased sanitization, ongoing incentives to encourage vaccination and much more.
Development–Mosaic believes in continually investing in people and their lifelong learning. Mosaic holds training events throughout the year across all of our locations, and hosts an online education platform, GrowingU, which all employees are encouraged to access. Mosaic offers companywide educational reimbursement programs to help employees in each of our operating companies acquire new skills and capabilities to better meet their job responsibilities and provide for future career opportunities within the Company. Mosaic supports membership in numerous professional associations and encourages participation in work-related external networking groups.
In 2021, Mosaic continued its pilot programs to help employees gain the knowledge and skills that we believe will be necessary for the next evolution of our business. Like any company, Mosaic experiences turnover and the need to replace talent related to retirement and succession. Mosaic seeks to minimize unwanted turnover through its talent review, succession management, performance management, and compensation processes. For certain roles critical to
18

Table of Content
our operations, such as engineering, operations, and employee health and safety professionals, we maintain specific talent programs, internal development strategies, and recruitment pipelines.
Community–Mosaic is an active contributor to the communities in which we operate. In addition to philanthropic grants and sponsorships of local programs, we also support and facilitate volunteerism by our employees. We also participate on local committees and associations focused on contributing to the vitality of the people and communities around us.
In 2021, we initiated the Mosaic Employee Giving Program that provides employees with greater flexibility in leveraging matching funds from The Mosaic Company Foundation and aligns to Mosaic’s strategic priorities and our 2025 Environmental, Social and Governance performance targets. Employees can take advantage of matching funds through financial contributions, volunteering, or both - up to $2,000 annually. The opportunity to offer volunteering incentives is an exciting addition we hope provides employees equal opportunity to participate in helping our communities prosper. We also participate on local committees and associations focused on contributing to the vitality of the people and the communities around us.

Diversity, Inclusion and Equal Opportunities–In 2021, Mosaic’s Diversity and Inclusion Task Force engaged in several initiatives to advance Mosaic’s commitments to our employees and stakeholders to do more to ensure a diverse and inclusive environment. Initiatives included conducting a global listening strategy to ascertain the current culture as well as conducting Conscious Inclusion training for all salaried and graded employees globally.
Pay equity is fundamental to our compensation philosophy and our commitment to diversity and inclusion. Mosaic annually evaluates pay equity and compensation practices to ensure fair and equitable treatment of employees based on our pay-for-performance framework. In 2020, Mosaic retained an independent consultant to assist with our pay equity analysis on the basis of both gender and ethnicity across our global operations. The results revealed fewer than .05% outliers without adequate business justifications. Mosaic addressed each of the instances during our 2021 compensation cycle. We expect to conduct external independent reviews every three years.

Looking ahead to 2022, Mosaic will continue to evolve and build upon current initiatives to ensure inclusion and diversity across our global operations, including driving diversity and inclusion education deeper into the organization, concentrating on attracting a more diverse pipeline of talent and introduction of Employee Inclusion Networks to facilitate increased awareness, engagement and inclusion within our employee populations. Additional information about our human capital, including our recently announced diversity and inclusion goals for 2030, will be available in the sustainability report posted on our website. The information contained on our website is not being incorporated in this report.
INFORMATION ABOUT OUR EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
Information regarding our executive officers as of February 23, 2022 is set forth below:
NameAgePosition
Bruce M. Bodine Jr.50 Senior Vice President - North America
Clint C. Freeland53 Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Mark J. Isaacson59 Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary
Christopher A. Lewis59 Senior Vice President - Human Resources
James “Joc” C. O’Rourke61 Chief Executive Officer, President and Director
Benjamin J. Pratt55 Senior Vice President - Government and Public Affairs
Walter F. Precourt III57 Senior Vice President - Strategy and Growth
Corrine D. Ricard58 Senior Vice President - Mosaic Fertilizantes
Karen A. Swager51 Senior Vice President - Supply Chain
Yijun (“Jenny”) Wang54 Senior Vice President - Global Strategic Marketing, Head of China and India
Bruce M. Bodine Jr. Mr. Bodine was named Senior Vice President - North America effective April 1, 2020. From January 1, 2019 until his appointment as Senior Vice President - North America, Mr. Bodine served as our Senior Vice President - Phosphates and, also provided executive oversight for the corporate procurement organization. Prior to that, he served as our Senior Vice President - Potash (from June 2016 to December 31, 2018); as our Vice President - Potash (from April to May 2016); as our Vice President - Supply Chain (from August 2015 to March 2016); as our Vice President - Operations Business
19

Table of Content
Development (from October 2014 to August 2015); as Vice President - Operations for our Esterhazy and Colonsay potash production facilities (from July 2013 to October 2014); as the General Manager, Esterhazy (from September 2012 to June 2013); and as the General Manager, Four Corners (from March 2010 to August 2012). Before that, Mr. Bodine held various plant and mine development management positions in the Phosphates segment beginning with Mosaic’s formation in 2004. Mr. Bodine serves as a director of MVM Resources International, B.V., the general partner of Compañia Minera Miski Mayo S.R.L., the joint venture that operates the mines in Peru.
Clint C. Freeland. Mr. Freeland was named Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer in June 2018. Prior to joining Mosaic, Mr. Freeland served as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Dynegy Inc. from July 2011 until Dynegy’s merger with Vistra Energy Corp. in April 2018. Mr. Freeland was responsible for Dynegy’s financial affairs, including finance and accounting, treasury, tax and banking and credit agency relationships. In November 2011, as part of a reorganization of its subsidiaries, certain of Dynegy’s affiliates filed voluntary petitions for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (the “Code”) and, in July 2012, Dynegy filed a voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Code. Dynegy emerged from Bankruptcy in October 2012. Prior to joining Dynegy, Mr. Freeland served as Senior Vice President, Strategy & Financial Structure of NRG Energy, Inc. from February 2009 to July 2011. Mr. Freeland served as NRG’s Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer from February 2008 to February 2009 and its Vice President and Treasurer from April 2006 to February 2008. Prior to joining NRG, Mr. Freeland held various key financial roles within the energy sector.
Mark J. Isaacson. Mr. Isaacson was named Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary in August 2015 and previously served as our Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary since August 2014. Mr. Isaacson joined Mosaic upon its formation in 2004 as its Chief Phosphates Counsel before being promoted to Vice President, Associate General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer in 2011 and to Vice President, Acting General Counsel and Corporate Secretary in June 2014. Prior to joining Mosaic, Mr. Isaacson worked for 15 years at Cargill, Inc., where he served as Senior Attorney for a number of its business units.
Christopher A. Lewis. Mr. Lewis was named Senior Vice President - Human Resources in June 2019. Prior to joining Mosaic, Mr. Lewis held the role of Vice President, Project Execution for Spectra Energy Corporation’s merger into Calgary, Alberta, Canada-based Enbridge, Inc. where he led construction of the companies’ energy assets throughout North America, as well as a synergy capture program post acquisition. Prior to that role, Lewis held roles at DCP Midstream, LLC, a natural gas company based in Denver, where he started as the head of Human Resources while the company was formed as a spin-off from Duke Energy in 2007. From 2010 to 2016, he was DCP’s Chief Corporate Officer, a multi-functional role that included leadership of the human resources function. Earlier in his career, Lewis held regional and global senior human resources positions at Thomson Multimedia (formerly RCA, GE consumer electronics) and DHL, Inc.
James “Joc” C. O’Rourke. Mr. O’Rourke was promoted to President and Chief Executive Officer effective in August 2015. Previously, he served as Executive Vice President - Operations and Chief Operating Officer since August 2012 and before that as Executive Vice President - Operations since January 2009. Prior to joining Mosaic, Mr. O’Rourke was President, Australia Pacific for Barrick Gold Corporation, the largest gold producer in Australia, since May 2006, where he was responsible for the Australia Pacific Business Unit, consisting of ten gold and copper mines in Australia and Papua New Guinea. Before that, Mr. O’Rourke was Executive General Manager in Australia and Managing Director of Placer Dome Asia Pacific Ltd., the second largest gold producer in Australia, from December 2004, where he was responsible for the Australia Business Unit, consisting of five gold and copper mines; and General Manager of Western Australia Operations for Iluka Resources Ltd., the world’s largest zircon and second largest titanium producer, from September 2003, where he was responsible for six mining and concentrating operations and two mineral separation/synthetic rutile refineries. Mr. O’Rourke had previously held various management, engineering and other roles in the mining industry in Canada and Australia since 1984. Mr. O’Rourke has served on our Board of Directors since May 2015 and is also a director of The Toro Company.
Benjamin J. Pratt. Ben Pratt was named Senior Vice President - Government and Public Affairs in April 2020. Previously, Mr. Pratt held the position of Vice President - Corporate Public Affairs, leading corporate communications and U.S. Federal Government relations, as well as Mosaic’s corporate social responsibility activities. In addition, Mr. Pratt serves as Owner’s Representative to Streamsong Resort. Prior to joining Mosaic in February 2012, Mr. Pratt was Senior Vice President, Corporate Communications at Ameriprise Financial, Inc., in Minneapolis. Earlier in his career, he worked in a variety of communications and investor relations capacities at The PNC Financial Services Group in Pittsburgh, and at Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns, both in New York.
20

Table of Content
Walter F. Precourt III. Mr. Precourt was named Senior Vice President - Strategy and Growth effective January 1, 2019. From June 2016 through March 2020 he also provided executive oversight for the EHS organization. He previously served as Senior Vice President - Phosphates and provided executive oversight for the corporate procurement organization from June 2016 until January 1, 2019, as our Senior Vice President - Potash Operations from May 2012 to June 2016, and before that he led our Environment, Health and Safety organization since joining Mosaic in 2009. Prior to joining Mosaic, Mr. Precourt was employed by cement and mineral component producer Holcim (U.S.) where he initially led its safety transformation and later became Vice President of Environment and Government Affairs. Mr. Precourt started his career at The Dow Chemical Company where he served in a variety of roles in Operations, Technology, Capital Project Management, and Environmental, Health and Safety. Mr. Precourt served as a director and was the past Chairman of the Board of the Saskatchewan Potash Producers Association and was a director of Fertilizer Canada.
Corrine D. Ricard. Ms. Ricard was appointed Senior Vice President - Mosaic Fertilizantes effective November 15, 2019. Prior to that she served as Senior Vice President - Commercial since February 2017, Senior Vice President - Human Resources from April 2012 to February 2017, and before that she held a number of other leadership positions at Mosaic, including Vice President - International Distribution, Vice President - Business Development and Vice President - Supply Chain. Prior to Mosaic’s formation, Ms. Ricard worked for Cargill in various roles, including risk management, supply chain and commodity trading.
Karen A. Swager. Ms. Swager was named Senior Vice President - Supply Chain effective April 1, 2020, and also provides executive oversite for the Procurement and corporate EHS teams. From January 1, 2019 until her appointment as Senior Vice President - Supply Chain, she served as Senior Vice President - Potash. Previously, Ms. Swager held leadership positions at Mosaic, including Vice President - Minerals, Vice President - Mining Operations and General Manager in our Phosphates business. She also led the mine planning and strategy group for the Phosphates business.
Yijun (Jenny) Wang. Ms. Wang was named Senior Vice President - Global Strategic Marketing, Head of China and India effective January 1, 2022. From October 15, 2020 until her appointment as Senior Vice President - Global Strategic Marketing, Head of China and India, Ms. Wang served as Vice President - Global Strategic Marketing. Prior to October 2020, Ms. Wang served as Vice President - Global Product Management and International Distribution and before May 2019, Ms. Wang served as Country Head for China. Ms. Wang has served on the Board of Directors at Canpotex.
Our executive officers are generally elected to serve until their respective successors are elected and qualified or until their earlier death, resignation or removal. No “family relationships,” as that term is defined in Item 401(d) of Regulation S-K, exist among any of the listed officers or between any such officer and any member of our board of directors.
Item 1A. Risk Factors.

Our business, financial condition or results of operations could be materially adversely affected by any of the risks and uncertainties described below.

Operational Risks
The Covid-19 pandemic may materially adversely affect our business operations and financial condition.
The Covid-19 pandemic continues to impact the global economy and could significantly disrupt our operations, key suppliers or third-party logistics providers, customers and ultimate end-users due to the spread of the virus, shelter in place orders, quarantines or other measures implemented to prevent the spread of the virus. In some instances, the pandemic has impacted our business. As part of government mandates, our Patrocinio operations in Brazil and Miski Mayo operations in Peru were temporarily suspended at the onset of the pandemic, but have since resumed operations. Businesses have been impacted by short-term labor shortages due to illness, transportation issues such as trucking delays and port congestion which are slowing delivery of inputs to facilities and products to end customers. At this time, the Company has only experienced limited adverse financial and operational Covid-19 related conditions.
An increase in severity to our employees, customers, vendors or supply chain or governmental mandates, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and/or results of operations. The extent to which the Covid-19 pandemic impacts our operations and financial results will depend on future developments that are highly uncertain, including new information concerning the severity of the virus and variants and the cost, time and actions taken to contain its impact.
21

Table of Content
Other cascading effects of the Covid-19 pandemic that are not currently foreseeable could materially increase our costs, negatively impact our revenue and/or adversely impact our results of operations and liquidity, possibly to a significant degree. We cannot predict the severity or duration of any such impacts. The Covid-19 pandemic could also have the effect of heightening many of the other risks described in this Item 1A of this 10-K Report.
Our operating results are highly dependent upon and fluctuate based upon business and economic conditions and governmental policies affecting the agricultural industry in which we or our customers operate. These factors are outside of our control and may significantly affect our profitability.
The most important of these factors are:
weather and field conditions (particularly during periods of traditionally high crop nutrients consumption);
quantities of crop nutrients imported and exported;
current and projected inventories and prices, which are heavily influenced by U.S. exports and world-wide markets; and
governmental policies, including farm and biofuel policies, which may directly or indirectly influence the number of acres planted, the level of inventories, the mix of crops planted or crop prices or otherwise negatively affect our operating results.
International market conditions, which are also outside of our control, may also significantly influence our operating results. The international market for crop nutrients is influenced by such factors as the relative value of the U.S. dollar and its impact upon the cost of importing crop nutrients, foreign agricultural policies, including subsidy policies, the existence of, or changes in, import or foreign currency exchange barriers in certain foreign markets, changes in the hard currency demands of certain countries and other regulatory policies of foreign governments, as well as the laws and policies of the United States affecting foreign trade and investment, including use of tariffs. In 2020, we filed petitions with the DOC and ITC that requested the initiation of countervailing duty investigations into imports of phosphate fertilizers from Morocco and Russia. The purpose of the petitions was to remedy the distortions that we believe foreign subsidies have caused or are causing in the U.S. market for phosphate fertilizers, and thereby restore fair competition. During the first quarter of 2021, the DOC made final affirmative determinations that countervailable subsidies were being provided by those governments and the ITC made final affirmative determinations that the U.S. phosphate fertilizer industry is materially injured by reason of subsidized phosphate fertilizer imports from Morocco and Russia. As a result of these determinations, the DOC issued countervailing duty orders on phosphate fertilizer imports from Russia and Morocco, which are scheduled to remain in place for at least five years. Currently, the cash deposit rates for such imports are approximately 20 percent for Moroccan producer OCP, 9 percent and 47 percent for Russian producers PhosAgro and Eurochem, respectively, and 17 percent for all other Russian producers. The final determinations in the DOC and ITC investigations are subject to possible challenges before U.S. federal courts and the World Trade Organization, and Mosaic has initiated actions at the U.S. Court of International Trade contesting certain aspects of the DOC’s final determinations that, we believe, failed to capture the full extent of Moroccan and Russian phosphate fertilizer subsidies. Moroccan and Russian producers have also initiated U.S. Court of International Trade actions, seeking lower cash deposit rates and revocation of the countervailing duty orders. Further, the cash deposit rates and the amount of countervailing duties owed by importers on such imports could change based on the results of the DOC’s annual administrative review proceedings. If the final determinations are challenged and subsequently reversed, the results could have an adverse effect on our business, and/or our financial condition or operating results.
Our crop nutrient business is seasonal and varies based on application rates, which may result in carrying significant amounts of inventory and seasonal variations in working capital, and our inability to predict future seasonal crop nutrient demand accurately may result in excess inventory or product shortages.
The use of crop nutrients is seasonal and varies based on application rates. Farmers tend to apply crop nutrients during two short application periods, the strongest one in the spring, before planting, and the other in the fall, after harvest. As a result, the strongest demand for our products typically occurs during the spring planting season, with a second period of strong demand following the fall harvest. In contrast, we and other crop nutrient producers generally produce our products throughout the year. As a result, we and/or our customers generally build inventories during the low demand periods of the year in order to ensure timely product availability during the peak sales seasons. The seasonality of crop nutrient demand results in our sales volumes and net sales typically being the highest during the North American spring season and our working capital requirements typically being the highest just prior to the start of the spring season. Our quarterly financial results can vary significantly from one year to the next due to weather-related shifts in planting schedules and purchasing patterns.
22

Table of Content
If seasonal demand exceeds our projections, we will not have enough product and our customers may acquire products from our competitors, which would negatively impact our profitability. If seasonal demand is less than we expect, we will be left with excess inventory and higher working capital and liquidity requirements. The degree of seasonality of our business can change significantly from year to year due to conditions in the agricultural industry and other factors.
Changes in transportation costs can affect our sales volumes and selling prices.
The cost of delivery is a significant factor in the total cost to customers and farmers of crop nutrients. As a result, changes in transportation costs, or in customer expectations about them, can affect our sales volumes and prices.
A disruption to our production, distribution or terminaling facilities could have a material adverse impact on our business. The risk of material disruption increases when demand for our products results in high operating rates at our facilities.
We conduct our operations through a limited number of key production, distribution and terminaling facilities. These facilities include our phosphate mines and concentrates plants; our potash mines; and the ports and other distribution facilities through which we, Canpotex and the other joint ventures in which we participate, conduct our respective businesses, as well as other commercial arrangements with unrelated third parties. Any disruption of operations at any one of these facilities has the possibility of significantly negatively affecting our production or our ability to distribute our products.
Examples of the types of events that could result in a disruption at one of these facilities include: adverse weather; strikes or other work stoppages; civil unrest; deliberate, malicious acts, including acts of terrorism and armed conflict; political or economic instability; cyberattacks; changes in permitting, financial assurance or certain environmental, health and safety laws or other changes in the regulatory environment in which we operate; legal and regulatory proceedings; our relationships with the other member of Canpotex and the other joint ventures in which we participate and their or our exit from participation in such joint ventures; other changes in our commercial arrangements with unrelated third parties; brine inflows at our Esterhazy, Saskatchewan mine or our other shaft mines; mechanical failure and accidents or other failures occurring in the course of operating activities, including at our gypstacks, clay settling areas and tailing dams; accidents occurring in the course of operating activities; lack of truck, rail, barge or ship transportation; and other factors.
Reduced oil refinery operating rates in the United States could have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition or operating results.
Reduced oil refinery operating rates in the U.S. and Canada could result in decreased availability of molten sulfur, which could increase costs of sulfur procurement or decrease availability of sulfur needed in our phosphate fertilizer production operations. We have not yet become subject to such results in the sulfur procurement markets, if it becomes necessary to procure sulfur at higher costs, and if we are unable to pass those costs on in our product prices, or if we are unable to procure sulfur at volumes necessary for our operations, such events could have a material adverse effect on our phosphate business, and/or our financial condition or operating results.
Important raw materials and energy used in our businesses in the past have been and may in the future be the subject of volatile pricing. Changes in the price of our raw materials have had, and could again have, a material adverse impact on our businesses.
Natural gas, ammonia and sulfur are key raw materials used in the manufacture of phosphate crop nutrient products. Natural gas is used as both a chemical feedstock and a fuel to produce anhydrous ammonia, which is a raw material used in the production of concentrated phosphate products. Natural gas is also a significant energy source used in the potash solution mining process. From time to time, our profitability has been and may in the future be adversely impacted by the price and availability of these raw materials and other energy costs. Because most of our products are commodities, there can be no assurance that we will be able to pass through increased costs to our customers. A significant increase in the price of natural gas, ammonia, sulfur or energy costs that is not recovered through an increase in the price of our related crop nutrients products could have a material adverse impact on our business. In addition, under our long-term CF Ammonia Supply Agreement, we have agreed to purchase approximately 545,000 to 725,000 tonnes of ammonia per year during a term that may extend until December 31, 2032, and at a price to be determined by a formula based on the prevailing price of U.S. natural gas. If the price of natural gas rises or the market price for ammonia falls outside of the range anticipated at execution of this agreement, we may not realize a cost benefit from the natural gas-based pricing over the term of the agreement, or the
23

Table of Content
cost of our ammonia under the agreement could become a competitive disadvantage. At times, we have paid considerably more for ammonia under the agreement than what we would have paid had we purchased it in the spot market.
We are subject to risks associated with our international sales and operations, which could negatively affect our sales to customers in foreign countries as well as our operations and assets in foreign countries. Some of these factors may also make it less attractive to distribute cash generated by our operations outside the United States to our stockholders, or to utilize cash generated by our operations in one country to fund our operations or repayments of indebtedness in another country or to support other corporate purposes.
For 2021, we derived approximately 68% of our net sales from customers located outside of the United States. As a result, we are subject to numerous risks and uncertainties relating to international sales and operations, including:
difficulties and costs associated with complying with a wide variety of complex laws, treaties and regulations;
unexpected changes in regulatory environments;
increased government ownership and regulation of the economy in the countries we serve;
political and economic instability, including the possibility for terrorism, armed conflict, civil unrest, inflation and adverse economic conditions resulting from governmental attempts to reduce inflation, such as imposition of higher interest rates and wage and price controls;
unpredictable tax audit practices of various governments;
nationalization of properties by foreign governments;
the imposition of tariffs, exchange controls, trade barriers or other restrictions, or government-imposed increases in the cost of resources and materials necessary for the conduct of our operations or the completion of strategic initiatives, including with respect to our joint ventures; and
currency exchange rate fluctuations between the U.S. dollar and foreign currencies, particularly the Brazilian real and the Canadian dollar.
The occurrence of any of the above in the countries in which we operate or elsewhere could jeopardize or affect our ability to transact business there and could adversely affect our revenues and operating results and the value of our assets located outside of the United States.
In addition, tax regulations and tax audit practices, currency exchange controls and other restrictions may also make it economically unattractive to:
distribute cash generated by our operations outside the United States to our stockholders; or
utilize cash generated by our operations in one country to fund our operations or repayments of indebtedness in another country or to support other corporate purposes.

Our assets outside of North America are located in countries with volatile conditions, which could subject us and our assets to significant risks.
We are a global business with substantial assets located outside of the United States and Canada. Our operations in Brazil, China, India and Paraguay are a fundamental part of our business. We have a majority interest in the joint venture entity operating the Miski Mayo Mine in Peru that supplies phosphate rock to us. We also have a minority joint venture investment in MWSPC, which operates a mine and chemical complexes that produce phosphate fertilizers and other downstream products in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Volatile economic, market and political conditions may have a negative impact on our operations, operating results and financial condition. In addition, unfavorable changes in trade protection laws, policies and measures, or governmental actions and policies and other regulatory requirements affecting trade and the pricing and sourcing of our raw materials, may also have a negative impact on our operations, operating results and financial condition.
Natural resource extraction is an important part of the economy in Peru, and, in the past, there have been protests against other natural resource operations in Peru. There remain numerous social conflicts that exist within the natural resource sector in Peru. As a result, there is potential for active protests against natural resource companies. If the Government of Peru’s proactive efforts to address the social and environmental issues surrounding natural resource activities are not successful, protests could extend to or impact the Miski Mayo Mine and adversely affect our interest in the Miski Mayo joint venture or the supply of phosphate rock to us from the mine.
24

Table of Content
Adverse weather conditions, including the impact of hurricanes, and excess heat, cold, snow, rainfall and drought, have in the past, and may in the future, adversely affect our operations, and result in increased costs, decreased sales or production and potential liabilities.
Adverse weather conditions, including the impact of hurricanes and excess heat, cold, snow, rainfall and drought, have in the past and may in the future adversely affect our operations, particularly our Phosphates business. In the past, hurricanes have resulted in physical damage to our facilities in Florida and Louisiana.
Additionally, water treatment costs due to high water balances, tend to increase significantly following excess rainfall from hurricanes or other adverse weather. Some of our Florida and Louisiana facilities have had, and others could have, high water levels that have required, or may require, treatment. High water balances in the past at phosphate facilities in Florida also led the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (“FDEP”) to adopt rules requiring phosphate production facilities to meet more stringent process water management objectives for phosphogypsum stack systems. In addition to the FDEP, the USEPA and the LDEQ also have similar requirements for water management objectives as outlined in our RCRC CDs.
If excess rainfall or hurricanes occur in coming years, our facilities may be required to take additional measures to manage process water to comply with existing or future requirements and these measures could potentially have a material effect on our business and financial condition.
Adverse weather may also cause a loss of production and may disrupt our supply chain or adversely affect delivery of our products to our customers. For example, oil refineries that supply sulfur to us may suspend operations as a result of a hurricane, and incoming shipments of ammonia can be delayed, disrupting production at our Florida or Louisiana facilities and delivery of our products. In the second half of 2021, we experienced production impacts related to Hurricane Ida.
Excess rainfall and drought have in the past, and may in the future, adversely affect us. For example, in 2019 we experienced the wettest year in North America in nearly 50 years which reduced fertilizer applications by farmers. Excess rainfall also resulted in higher river levels which adversely affected delivery of our products. Drought can reduce farmers’ crop yields and the uptake of phosphates and potash, reducing the need for application of additional phosphates and potash for the next planting season. Drought can also lower river levels, adversely affecting delivery of our products to our customers.
We do not own a controlling equity interest in our non-consolidated companies, some of which are foreign companies, and therefore our operating results and cash flow may be materially affected by how the governing boards and majority owners operate such businesses. There may also be limitations on monetary distributions from these companies that are outside of our control. Together, these factors may lower our equity earnings or cash flow from such businesses and negatively impact our results of operations.
In 2013, we entered into an agreement to form MWSPC, a joint venture in which we hold a 25% interest, to develop a mine and chemical complexes for an estimated $8.0 billion that produces phosphate fertilizers and other downstream products in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The success of MWSPC will depend on, among other matters, the completion of development and full commencement of operations of production facilities in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the future success of current plans for completion of the development and for the operation of MWSPC, including the availability and affordability of necessary resources and materials and access to appropriate infrastructure, and any future changes in those plans, as well as the general economic and political stability of the region.
We also hold minority ownership interests in other companies that are not controlled by us. We expect that the operations and results of MWSPC will be, and the operations or results of some of the other companies are, significant to us, and their operations can affect our earnings. Because we do not control these companies either at the board or stockholder levels and because local laws in foreign jurisdictions and contractual obligations may place restrictions on monetary distributions by these companies, we cannot ensure that these companies will operate efficiently, pay dividends, or generally follow the desires of our management by virtue of our board or stockholder representation. As a result, these companies may contribute less than anticipated to our earnings and cash flow, negatively impacting our results of operations and liquidity.
Strikes or other forms of work stoppage or slowdown could disrupt our business and lead to increased costs.
Our financial performance is dependent on a reliable and productive work force. A significant portion of our workforce, and that of the joint ventures in which we participate, is covered by collective bargaining agreements with unions. Unsuccessful contract negotiations or adverse labor relations could result in strikes or slowdowns. Any disruption may decrease our
25

Table of Content
production and sales or impose additional costs to resolve disputes. The risk of adverse labor relations may increase as our profitability increases because labor unions’ expectations and demands generally rise at those times.
Our underground potash shaft mines are subject to risks of water inflows.
Over the past century, several potash mines experiencing water inflow problems have flooded. Since December 1985, we have had inflows of salt saturated brine water into our Esterhazy, Saskatchewan K1 and K2 potash mines. Due to an acceleration of brine inflows, on June 4, 2021 the Company announced a closure of our K1 and K2 potash mine shafts eliminating the risk of brine inflows. Our potash mines at Colonsay, Saskatchewan, Carlsbad, New Mexico and our Esterhazy, Saskatchewan K3 mine (though not contiguous with the K1/K2 underground inflow region) are also subject to risks from the inflow of water as a result of our underground shaft mining operations. Though minor inflows are regularly managed, it is possible that significant water inflows could occur which may present risks to our employees and our operations, and which may require us to incur brine management costs, change our mining processes, or abandon our operating mines.
See the “Key Factors that can Affect Results of Operations and Financial Condition” and “Potash Net Sales and Gross Margin” sections of our Management’s Analysis in this Form 10-K report and the Esterhazy closure costs in Note 25 of this report, which sections are incorporated herein by reference, for a discussion of costs, risks and other information relating to the brine inflows.
Accidents or equipment failures occurring in the course of our operating activities could result in significant liabilities, interruptions or shutdowns of facilities or the need for significant safety or other expenditures.
We engage in mining and industrial activities that can result in serious accidents or experience equipment failures. If our procedures are not effective, or if an accident or equipment failure were to occur, we could be subject to liabilities arising out of property damage, personal injuries or death, our operations could be interrupted and we might have to shut down or abandon affected facilities. Accidents could cause us to expend significant amounts to remediate safety issues or to repair damaged facilities and could result in significant liabilities and/or impact on the financial performance of the Company, including material adverse effects on our results of operations, liquidity or financial condition. For example:
Some of our facilities are subject to potential damage from seismic activity.
The excavation of mines in some parts of the world can result in potential seismic events or can increase the likelihood or potential severity of a seismic event. Our Esterhazy mine and southern Louisiana facilities have experienced minor seismic events from time to time. A significant seismic event at one our facilities or mines could result in serious injuries or death, or damage to or flooding of operations, or damage to adjoining properties or facilities of unrelated third parties.
Our underground potash shaft mines are subject to risk from fire. In addition, fire at one of our underground shaft mines could halt our operations at the affected mine while we investigate the origin of the fire or for longer periods for remedial work or otherwise.
Our underground potash shaft mines at Esterhazy and Colonsay, Saskatchewan, Carlsbad, New Mexico and Taquari-Vassouras, Brazil are subject to risk from fire. In the event of a fire, if our emergency procedures are not successful, we could have significant injuries or deaths, or shutdowns of our facilities, or could cause us to expend significant amounts to remediate safety issues or repair damaged facilities.
We handle significant quantities of ammonia at several of our facilities. If our safety procedures are not effective, an accident involving our ammonia operations could result in serious injuries or death, or result in the shutdown of our facilities.
We produce ammonia at our Faustina, Louisiana phosphate concentrates plant, use ammonia in significant quantities at all of our Florida and Louisiana phosphates concentrates plants and store ammonia at some of our distribution facilities. In Florida, ammonia is received at terminals in Tampa and transported by pipelines and trucks to our facilities. We also use ammonia in our Brazil phosphate operations. Our ammonia is generally stored and transported at high pressures or cryogenically.

26

Table of Content
We also use or produce other hazardous or volatile chemicals at some of our facilities. If our safety procedures are not effective, an accident involving these other hazardous or volatile chemicals could result in serious injuries or death, or result in the shutdown of our facilities.
We use sulfuric acid in the production of concentrated phosphates in our Florida and Louisiana U.S. operations and our Brazil operations. We also use or produce other hazardous or volatile chemicals at some of our facilities. An accident involving any of these chemicals could result in serious injuries or death, or evacuation of areas near an accident. An accident could also result in property damage or shutdown of our facilities, or cause us to expend significant amounts to remediate safety issues or to repair damaged facilities.

Regulatory Risks

The environmental, health and safety regulations and permitting requirements to which we are subject may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
We are subject to numerous environmental, health and safety laws and regulations in the U.S., Canada, China, Brazil and other countries in which we operate. These laws and regulations govern a wide range of matters, including environmental controls, land reclamation, discharges to air and water, remediation of hazardous substance releases permitting requirements and in some cases, demonstration of financial assurance. They significantly affect our operating activities as well as the level of our operating costs and capital expenditures. In some jurisdictions, environmental laws change frequently and it may be difficult for us to determine if we are in compliance with all material environmental laws at any given time. If we are not in compliance, we may be subject to enforcement or third-party claims, and may require new investment in our business. In those circumstances, our financial condition and results of operations may be materially adversely affected.
The U.S. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) imposes liability, including for cleanup costs, without regard to fault or to the legality of a party’s conduct, on certain categories of persons, including current and former owners and operators of a site and parties who are considered to have contributed to the release of “hazardous substances” into the environment. Under CERCLA, or various U.S. state analogues, a party may, under certain circumstances, be required to bear more than its proportional share of cleanup costs at a site where it has liability if payments cannot be obtained from other responsible parties. As a crop nutrient company producing and managing chemicals, we periodically have incurred and may incur liabilities and cleanup costs, under CERCLA and other environmental laws, with regard to our current or former facilities, adjacent or nearby third-party facilities or offsite disposal locations.
Our operations, including our mines, are dependent on having the required permits and approvals from governmental authorities. Denial or delay by a government agency in issuing, modifying or renewing any of our permits and approvals or imposition of restrictive or cost prohibitive conditions on us with respect to these permits and approvals may impair our business and operations and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.
We have included additional discussion about permitting for our phosphate mines in Florida under “Environmental, Health, Safety and Security MattersOperating Requirements and ImpactsPermitting” in our Management’s Analysis.
We are, and may in the future be, involved in legal and regulatory proceedings that could be material to us.
We have in the past been, are currently and, in the future may be, subject to legal and regulatory proceedings that could be material to our business, results of operations, liquidity or financial condition. Joint ventures in which we participate could also become subject to these sorts of proceedings. These proceedings may be brought by the government or private parties and may arise out of a variety of matters, including:
Allegations that we have violated environmental, health and safety laws and regulations or that we are responsible for nuisance or other conditions on nearby properties. We are currently involved in proceedings alleging that, or to review whether, we have violated environmental laws in the United States and Brazil.
Allegations by private parties that our operations have resulted in personal injury, property damage or damage to business operations.
Antitrust, commercial, tax (including tax audits) and other disputes.

The legal and regulatory proceedings to which we are currently or may in the future be subject may, depending on the circumstances, result in monetary damage awards, fines, penalties, other liabilities, injunctions or other court or
27

Table of Content
administrative rulings that interrupt, impede or otherwise materially affect our business operations or criminal sanctions.
We have included additional information with respect to pending legal and regulatory proceedings in Note 22 of our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements and in this Form 10-K Report in Part I, Item 3, “Legal Proceedings”.
Environmental, health and safety and food and crop laws and regulations to which we are subject may become more stringent over time. This could increase the effects on us of these laws and regulations, and the increased effects could be materially adverse to our business, operations, liquidity and/or results of operations.
Heightened regulation on food and crop inputs (including crop nutrients) and environmental, health and safety issues in the United States, Canada, China, Brazil, Paraguay and other countries where we operate can be expected to result in requirements that apply to us and our operations that may be more stringent than those described elsewhere in this report. These requirements may include:
Increased levels of future investments and expenditures for environmental controls at ongoing operations, which will be charged against income from future operations; increased levels of the financial assurance requirements to which we are subject, and increased efforts or costs to obtain permits or denial of permits.
New or interpretations of existing statutes or regulations that impose new or more stringent standards, restrictions or liabilities related to elevated levels of naturally-occurring radiation that arise on formerly mined land; and other matters that could increase our expenses, capital requirements or liabilities or adversely affect our business, liquidity or financial condition.

In addition, to the extent restrictions imposed in countries where our competitors operate, such as China, India, former Soviet Union countries or Morocco, are less stringent than in the countries where we operate, our competitors could gain cost or other competitive advantages over us. These effects could be material.
We are subject to financial assurance requirements as part of our routine business operations. If we were unable to satisfy financial assurance requirements, we might not be able to obtain or maintain permits we need to operate our business as we have in the past. In addition, our compliance with these requirements could materially affect our business, results of operations or financial condition.
In many cases, as a condition to obtaining or maintaining permits and approvals or otherwise, we are required to comply with financial assurance requirements of governmental authorities. The purpose of these requirements is to provide comfort to the government that sufficient funds will be available for the ultimate closure, post-closure care or reclamation of our facilities.
In some cases, we are able to comply through the satisfaction of applicable state financial strength tests. But, if we are unable to do so, we must utilize alternative methods of complying with these requirements; if we do not, we would be prevented from continuing our operations and also could be subject to enforcement proceedings brought by relevant government agencies. Potential alternative methods of compliance include providing credit support in the form of cash escrows or trusts, surety bonds from surety or insurance companies, letters of credit from banks, or other forms of financial instruments or collateral to satisfy the financial assurance requirements. In addition, we could negotiate a consent agreement that establishes a different form of financial assurance. Use of alternative means of financial assurance imposes additional expense on us. Some of them, such as letters of credit, also use a portion of our available liquidity. Other alternative means of financial assurance, such as surety bonds, generally require us to obtain a discharge of the bonds or to post additional collateral (typically in the form of cash or letters of credit) at the request of the issuer of the bonds. Collateral that is required may be in forms that utilize a portion of our available liquidity, or in the form of assets such as real estate, which reduces our flexibility to manage or sell assets.
We have included additional discussion about financial assurance requirements under “Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements and ObligationsOther Commercial Commitments” in our Management’s Analysis.
Regulatory restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions and climate change regulations in the United States, Canada or elsewhere could adversely affect us, and these effects could be material.
Various governmental initiatives to limit greenhouse gas emissions are under way or under consideration around the world. These initiatives could restrict our operating activities, require us to make changes in our operating activities that would increase our operating costs, reduce our efficiency or limit our output, require us to make capital improvements to our
28

Table of Content
facilities, increase our energy, raw material and transportation costs or limit their availability, or otherwise adversely affect our results of operations, liquidity or capital resources, and these effects could be material to us.
Governmental greenhouse gas emission initiatives include, among others, the December 2015 agreement (the “Paris Agreement”) which was the outcome of the 21st session of the Conference of the Parties under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (“UNFCCC). The Paris Agreement, which was signed by nearly 200 nations, including the United States and Canada, entered into force in late 2016 and sets out a goal of limiting the average rise in temperatures for this century to below 2 degrees Celsius. Each signatory is expected to develop its own plan (referred to as a Nationally Determined Contribution, or “NDC”) for reaching that goal.

In May 2017, the United States President announced that the United States would withdraw from the Paris Agreement. On January 20, 2021 the United States rejoined the Paris Agreement, which was effective February 19, 2021. Previously, the U.S. had submitted an NDC aiming to achieve, by 2025, an economy-wide target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 26-28% below its 2005 level. The NDC also aims to use best efforts to reduce emissions by 28%. The U.S. target covers all greenhouse gases that were a part of the 2014 Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks. While the extent of the U.S.s involvement in the Paris Agreement and the status of this NDC is unclear, various legislative or regulatory initiatives relating to greenhouse gases have been adopted or considered by the U.S. Congress, the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA) or various states and those initiatives already adopted may be used to implement a U.S. NDC. Additionally, more stringent laws and regulations may be enacted to accomplish the goals set out in the NDC.
Brazil ratified the Paris Agreement on September 21, 2016, committing to an NDC that includes an economy-wide target of 1.3 GtCO2e by 2025 and 1.2 GtCO2e by 2030. In 2020, Brazil submitted a new NDC, which reaffirms the country’s commitment to reducing total net greenhouse gas emissions by 37% in 2025 and by 43% in 2030. The NDC further commits to achieving climate neutrality in 2060. Complete details surrounding Brazil’s plan for achieving the greenhouse gas emissions reductions and climate neutrality are uncertain. The government of Brazil may intervene with new or different policy instruments to meet the goals set out in the 2020 NDC.
Canada’s intended NDC aims to achieve, by 2030, an economy-wide target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 40-45% below 2005 levels. The Canadian federal government has also introduced legislation establishing a long-term target of “net-zero” greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. More stringent laws and regulations may be enacted to accomplish the goals set out in Canada’s NDC and Canada’s own long-term emissions reduction targets.
It is possible that future legislation or regulation addressing climate change, including in response to the Paris Agreement or any new international agreements, could adversely affect our operating activities, energy, raw material and transportation costs, results of operations, liquidity or capital resources, and these effects could be material or adversely impact our competitive advantage. In addition, to the extent climate change restrictions imposed in countries where our competitors operate, such as India, former Soviet Union countries or Morocco, are less stringent than in the United States, Canada or Brazil our competitors could gain cost or other competitive advantages over us.
Future climate change could adversely affect us.
The prospective impact of climate change on our operations and those of our customers and farmers remains uncertain. Scientists have hypothesized that the impacts of climate change could include changes in rainfall patterns, water shortages, changing sea levels, changing storm patterns and intensities, and changing temperature levels and that these changes could be severe. These impacts could vary by geographic location. Severe climate change could impact our costs and operating activities, the location and cost of global grain and oilseed production, and the supply and demand for grains and oilseeds. At the present time, we cannot predict the prospective impact of climate change on our results of operations, liquidity or capital resources, or whether any such effects could be material to us.
We use tailings, sediments and water dams to manage residual materials generated by our Brazilian mining operations. If our safety procedures are not effective, an accident involving these impoundments could result in serious injuries or death, damage to property or the environment, or result in the shutdown of our facilities, any of which could materially adversely affect our results of operations in Brazil.
Mining and processing of potash and phosphate generate residual materials that must be managed both during the operation of the facility and upon facility closure. Potash tailings, consisting primarily of salt and clay, are stored in surface disposal sites. Phosphate residuals from mining are deposited in large tailing dams in Brazil and in clay settling areas and
29

Table of Content
phosphogypsum stacks in the United States. They are regularly monitored to evaluate structural stability and for leaks. The failure of or a breach at any of our tailings dams and other impoundments at any of our operations could cause severe property and environmental damage and loss of life, could result in the shut down or idling of our facilities and could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.
Legislation at both Brazilian federal and state levels has introduced new rules regarding tailings dam safety, construction, licensing and operations. We cannot predict the full impact of these legislative or potentially related judicial actions, or future actions, or whether or how it would affect our Brazilian operations or customers.
Any accident involving our tailings or other dams, or any shut down or idling of our related mines, could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.
Competitive Risks
Our competitive position could be adversely affected if we are unable to participate in continuing industry consolidation.
Most of our products are readily available from a number of competitors, and price and other competition in the crop nutrient industry is intense. In addition, crop nutrient production facilities and distribution activities frequently benefit from economies of scale. As a result, particularly during pronounced cyclical troughs, the crop nutrient industry has a long history of consolidation. Mosaic itself is the result of a number of industry consolidations. We expect consolidation among crop nutrient producers could continue. Our competitive position could suffer to the extent we are not able to expand our own resources either through consolidations, acquisitions, joint ventures or partnerships. In the future, we may not be able to find suitable companies to combine with, assets to purchase or joint venture or partnership opportunities to pursue. Even if we are able to locate desirable opportunities, we may not be able to enter into transactions on economically acceptable terms. If we do not successfully participate in continuing industry consolidation, our ability to compete successfully could be adversely affected and result in the loss of customers or an uncompetitive cost structure, which could adversely affect our sales and profitability.
Our strategy for managing market and interest rate risk may not be effective.
Our businesses are affected by fluctuations in market prices for our products, the purchase price of natural gas, ammonia and sulfur consumed in operations, freight and shipping costs, foreign currency exchange rates and interest rates. We periodically enter into derivatives and forward purchase contracts to mitigate some of these risks. However, our strategy may not be successful in minimizing our exposure to these fluctuations. See “Market Risk” in our Management’s Analysis and Note 14 of our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements that is incorporated by reference in this report in Part II, Item 8.
A shortage or unavailability of railcars, tugs, barges and ships for carrying our products and the raw materials we use in our business could result in customer dissatisfaction, loss of production or sales and higher transportation or equipment costs.
We rely heavily upon truck, rail, tug, barge and ocean freight transportation to obtain the raw materials we need to distribute raw materials between our mines and concentrates facilities and to deliver our products to our customers. In addition, the cost of transportation is an important part of the final sale price of our products. Finding affordable and dependable transportation is important in obtaining our raw materials and to supply our customers. Higher costs for these transportation services or an interruption or slowdown due to factors including high demand, high fuel prices, labor disputes, layoffs or other factors affecting the availability of qualified transportation workers, adverse weather or other environmental events, or changes to rail, barge or ocean freight systems, could negatively affect our ability to produce our products or deliver them to our customers, which could affect our performance and results of operations.
Strong demand for grain and other products and a strong world economy increase the demand for and reduce the availability of transportation, both domestically and internationally. Shortages of railcars, barges and ocean transport for carrying product and increased transit time may result in customer dissatisfaction, loss of sales and higher equipment and transportation costs. In addition, during periods when the shipping industry has a shortage of ships, the substantial time needed to build new ships prevents rapid market response. Delays and missed shipments due to transportation shortages, including vessels, barges, railcars and trucks, could result in customer dissatisfaction or loss of sales potential, which could negatively affect our performance and results of operations.
30

Table of Content
Our success will continue to depend on our ability to attract and retain highly qualified and motivated employees.
We believe our continued success depends on the collective abilities and efforts of our employees. Like many businesses, a significant number of our employees, including some of our most highly skilled employees with specialized expertise in general corporate matters, potash and phosphates operations, will be approaching retirement age throughout the next decade and beyond. In addition, we compete for a talented workforce with other businesses, particularly within the mining and chemicals industries, in general, and the crop nutrients industry, in particular. Our expansion plans are highly dependent on our ability to attract, retain and train highly qualified and motivated employees who are essential to the success of our ongoing operations as well as to our expansion plans. If we were to be unsuccessful in attracting, retaining and training the employees we require, our ongoing operations and expansion plans could be materially and adversely affected.
Our most important products are global commodities, and we face intense global competition from other crop nutrient producers that can affect our prices and volumes.
Our most important products are concentrated phosphate crop nutrients, including diammonium phosphate, or DAP, monoammonium phosphate, or MAP, MicroEssentials® and muriate of potash, or MOP. We sell most of our DAP, MAP and MOP in the form of global commodities. Our sales of these products face intense global competition from other crop nutrient producers.
Changes in competitors’ production or shifts in their marketing focus have in the past significantly affected both the prices at which we sell our products and the volumes that we sell, and are likely to continue to do so in the future. Increases in the global supply of DAP, MAP and MOP or competitors’ increased sales into regions in which we have significant sales could adversely affect our prices and volumes.
Competitors and new entrants in the markets for both concentrated phosphate crop nutrients and potash have in recent years expanded capacity, or begun, or announced plans, to expand capacity or build new facilities. The extent to which current global or local economic and financial conditions, changes in global or local economic and financial conditions, or other factors may cause delays or cancellation of some of these ongoing or planned projects, or result in the acceleration of existing or new projects, is unclear. In addition, certain of our products sold to China may be subject to additional tariffs due to ongoing trade tensions between China and the United States. The level of exports by Chinese producers of concentrated phosphate crop nutrients depends to a significant extent on Chinese government actions to curb exports through, among other measures, prohibitive export taxes at times when the government believes it desirable to assure ample domestic supplies of concentrated phosphate crop nutrients to stimulate grain and oilseed production.
In addition, the other member of Canpotex is among our competitors who may, in the future, independently expand its potash production capacity at a time when each Canpotex member’s respective shares of Canpotex sales is based upon that member’s respective proven peaking capacity for producing potash. When a Canpotex member expands its production capacity, the new capacity is added to that member’s proven peaking capacity based on a proving run at the maximum production level. Alternatively, Canpotex members may elect to rely on an independent engineering firm and approved protocols to calculate their proven peaking capacity. Antitrust and competition laws prohibit the members of Canpotex from coordinating their production decisions, including the timing of their respective proving runs. Worldwide potash production levels could exceed then-current market demand, resulting in an oversupply of potash and lower potash prices.
All of the foregoing events are beyond our control. The effects of any of these events occurring could be materially adverse to our results of operations.
Some of our competitors and potential competitors have greater resources than we do, which may place us at a competitive disadvantage and adversely affect our sales and profitability. These competitors include state-owned and government-subsidized entities in other countries.
We compete with a number of producers throughout the world, including state-owned and government-subsidized entities. Some of these entities have greater total resources than we do, and may be less dependent on earnings from crop nutrients sales than we are. In addition, some of these entities have access to lower cost or government-subsidized natural gas supplies, mining rights and reserves, financing, transportation and tax incentives, placing us at a competitive disadvantage. Furthermore, certain governments as owners of some of our competitors may be willing to accept lower prices and profitability on their products in order to support domestic employment or other political or social goals. To the extent other
31

Table of Content
producers of crop nutrients enjoy competitive advantages or are willing to accept lower profit levels, the price of our products, our sales volumes and our profits may be adversely affected.
Industry Risks
Future product or technological innovation could affect our business.
Future product or technological innovations by third parties, such as the development of seeds that require less crop nutrients, the development of substitutes for our products or developments in the application of crop nutrients, if they occur, could have the potential to adversely affect the demand for our products and our results of operations, liquidity and capital resources.
The success of our strategic initiatives depends on our ability to effectively manage these initiatives, and to successfully integrate and grow acquired businesses.
We have significant ongoing strategic initiatives, including our plans to expand the annual production capacity of our potash business and MWSPC. These strategic initiatives involve capital and other expenditures and require effective project management and, in the case of potential strategic acquisitions, successful integration. To the extent the processes we (or, for our joint venture, we together with our joint venture partners) put in place to manage these initiatives or integrate and grow acquired businesses are not effective, our capital expenditure and other costs may exceed our expectations or the benefits we expect from these initiatives might not be fully realized, or both, thereby resulting in adverse effects on our operating results and financial condition.
Cyberattacks could disrupt our operations and have a material adverse impact on our business.
As a global company, we utilize and rely upon information technology systems in many aspects of our business, including internal and external communications and the management of our accounting, financial, production and supply chain functions. As we become more dependent on information technologies to conduct our operations, and as the number and sophistication of cyberattacks increase, the risks associated with cyber security increase. These risks apply to us, our employees, and to third parties on whose systems we rely for the conduct of our business. We have experienced cyberattacks but to our knowledge, we have not experienced any material breaches of our technology systems. Failure to effectively anticipate, prevent, detect and recover from the increasing number and sophistication of cyberattacks could result in theft, loss or misuse of, or damage or modification of our information, and cause disruptions or delays in our business, reputational damage and third-party claims, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or financial condition.
Our crop nutrients and other products are subject to price and demand volatility resulting from periodic imbalances of supply and demand, which may cause our results of operations to fluctuate.
Historically, the market for crop nutrients has been cyclical, and prices and demand for our products have fluctuated significantly. Periods of high demand, increasing profits and high capacity utilization tend to lead to new plant investment and increased production in the industry. This growth increases supply until the market is over-saturated, leading to declining prices and declining capacity utilization until the cycle repeats.
As a result, crop nutrient prices and volumes have been, and are expected to continue to be, volatile. This price and volume volatility may cause our results of operations to fluctuate and potentially deteriorate. The price at which we sell our crop nutrient products and our sales volumes could fall in the event of industry oversupply conditions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. In contrast, high prices may lead our customers and farmers to delay purchasing decisions in anticipation of future lower prices, thus impacting our sales volumes.
Due to reduced market demand, depressed agricultural economic conditions and other factors, we and our predecessors have at various times suspended or curtailed production at some of our facilities. The extent to which we utilize available capacity at our facilities will cause fluctuations in our results of operations, as we will incur costs for any temporary or indefinite shutdowns of our facilities. In addition, lower sales tend to lead to higher fixed costs as a percentage of sales.
Financial Risks
During periods when the prices for our products are falling because of falling raw material prices, we could be required to write-down the value of our inventories. Any such write-down could adversely affect our results of operations and the value of our assets.
32

Table of Content
We carry our inventories at the lower of cost or market. In periods when the market prices for our products are falling rapidly, including in response to falling market prices for raw materials, it is possible that we could be required to write-down the value of our inventories if market prices fall below our costs. Any such write-down could adversely affect our results of operations and the value of our assets. Any such effect could be material.
Our estimates of future selling prices reflect in part the purchase commitments we have from our customers. As a result, defaults on these existing purchase commitments because of the global or local economic and financial conditions or for other reasons could adversely affect our estimates of future selling prices and require additional inventory write-downs.
We may incur significant non-cash charges if our goodwill or long-lived assets become impaired in the future.
Under accounting principles generally accepted in the U.S. (GAAP), we review goodwill for impairment on an annual basis or more frequently if events or circumstances indicate that their carrying value may not be recoverable. Other long-lived assets, including property, plant and equipment, are reviewed if events or circumstances indicate that their carrying value may not be recoverable. The process of impairment testing involves a number of judgments and estimates made by management, including the fair values of assets and liabilities, future cash flows, our interpretation of current economic indicators and market conditions, overall economic conditions and our strategic operational plans with regard to our business units. If the judgments and estimates used in our analysis are not realized or change due to external factors, then actual results may not be consistent with these judgments and estimates, and our goodwill and intangible assets may become impaired in future periods. If our goodwill or long-lived assets are determined to be impaired in the future, we may be required to record non-cash charges to earnings during the period in which the impairment is determined, which could be significant and have an adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. We have, in the past, and may in the future, be required to write down the value of our goodwill or other long-lived assets, and such future write downs could be material. See Note 9, Goodwill and Note 25, Mine Closure Costs, in the accompanying consolidated financial statements for further information related to charges incurred in 2019.
Changes in tax laws or regulations or their interpretation, or exposure to additional tax liabilities, could materially adversely affect our operating results and financial condition.
We are subject to taxes, including income taxes, resource taxes and royalties, and non-income based taxes in the United States, Canada, China, Brazil and other countries where we operate. Changes in tax laws or regulations or their interpretation could result in higher taxes, which could materially adversely affect our operating results and financial condition.
In 2018, U.S. federal tax law changes took effect. This was a significant change to the U.S. system of taxation resulting in numerous areas open to interpretation given the newness and breadth of changes to the rules. As a result, risk exists related to developing interpretation and application of the rules that could result in higher taxes which could materially adversely affect our operating results and financial condition.
We are subject to periodic audits by various levels of tax authorities in all countries where we have meaningful operations. The due process, audit and appeal practices and procedures of such authorities may vary significantly by jurisdiction, may be unpredictable (and unreliable) in nature and may result in significant risk to us. For various reasons, some governments may issue significant reassessments on audit based positions not fully grounded in law or fact, even though, upon disputing the reassessments, a great many are overturned on administrative appeal and through the court system. Certain systems involve tax litigation as a common practice. In certain countries, there are requirements to pay a reassessment (even though the matter has not been finally decided by the tax administration or a court of law) while the taxpayer has a well-supported objection and appeals administratively or in court. This may result in tying up significant funds and/or creating adverse treasury and credit risks that may interrupt, impede or otherwise materially affect our business operations.
We extend trade credit to our customers and guarantee the financing that some of our customers use to purchase our products. Our results of operations may be adversely affected if these customers are unable to repay the trade credit from us or financing from their banks. Increases in prices for crop nutrient, other agricultural inputs and grain may increase this risk.
We extend trade credit to our customers in the United States and throughout the world, in some cases for extended periods of time. In Brazil, where there are fewer third-party financing sources available to farmers, we also have several programs under which we guarantee customers’ financing from financial institutions that they use to purchase our products. As our exposure to longer trade credit extends throughout the world and use of guarantees in Brazil increases, we are increasingly exposed to
33

Table of Content
the risk that some of our customers will not pay us or the amounts we have guaranteed. Additionally, we become increasingly exposed to risk due to weather and crop growing conditions, fluctuations in crop nutrient prices, commodity prices or foreign currencies, and other factors that influence the price, supply and demand for agricultural commodities. Significant defaults by our customers could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.
Due to the global nature of our operations, we are exposed to currency exchange rate changes, which may cause fluctuations in earnings and cash flows.
Our primary foreign currency exposures are the Canadian dollar and Brazilian real. The functional currency for our Brazilian subsidiaries is the Brazilian real. However, we finance our Brazilian inventory purchases with U.S. dollar-denominated liabilities. The functional currency of several of our Canadian entities is the Canadian dollar. For those entities, sales are primarily denominated in U.S. dollars, but the costs are paid principally in Canadian dollars. Canadian entities have significant U.S. dollar denominated intercompany loans and U.S. entities, with the U.S. dollar as functional currency, have Brazilian real denominated loans. During periods of local or global economic crises, local currencies may be devalued significantly against the U.S. dollar. During times of a strengthening dollar, our net earnings can be reduced due to transaction currency losses arising from these exposures of U.S. Dollar denominated liabilities held in the Brazilian and Canadian entities and Brazilian Real denominated assets held in US entities. To reduce economic risk and volatility on expected cash flows that are denominated in the Canadian dollar and Brazilian real, we use financial instruments that may include forward contracts, options or collars when unable to naturally offset the exposures.

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments.
None.
34

Table of Content
Item 2. Properties.
SUMMARY OVERVIEW OF MINING
As used in this Form 10-K Report, the terms “mineral resource,” “measured mineral resource,” “indicated mineral resource,” “inferred mineral resource,” “mineral reserve,” “proven mineral reserve” and “probable mineral reserve” are defined and used in accordance with S-K 1300. All mineral resources and mineral reserves have been prepared by qualified persons. Under S-K 1300, mineral resources may not be classified as “mineral reserves” unless the determination has been made by a qualified person that the mineral resources can be the basis of an economically viable project. Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not meet the threshold for mineral reserve modifying factors, such as estimated economic viability, that would allow for conversion to mineral reserves. There is no certainty that any part of the mineral resources estimated will be converted into mineral reserves.
Except for that portion of mineral resources classified as mineral reserves, mineral resources have not demonstrated economic value. Inferred mineral resources are estimates based on limited geological evidence and sampling and have too high of a degree of uncertainty to apply relevant technical and economic factors likely to influence the prospects of economic extraction in a manner useful for evaluation of economic viability. Estimates of inferred mineral resources may not be converted to a mineral reserve. It cannot be assumed that all or any part of an inferred mineral resource will be upgraded to a higher category. A significant amount of exploration must be completed to determine whether an inferred mineral resource may be upgraded to a higher category. Therefore, you are cautioned not to assume that all or any part of an inferred mineral resource exists, that it can be the basis of an economically viable project, or that it will be upgraded to a higher category.
Properties
The subsections below describe the property locations, overviews and mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates. Our material properties, as determined pursuant to S-K 1300, are Florida Phosphates, Esterhazy, Belle Plaine and Tapira. Further information about these properties can be found in the technical report summaries (“TRSs” or “TRS”) filed as exhibits to this Form 10-K Report.
Property Locations
Figure 2.1 and 2.2 show the locations of each resource and reserve property:
35

Table of Content
Figure 2.1: North America Resource and Reserve Location Map
mos-20211231_g5.jpg




















36

Table of Content
Figure 2.2: South America Resource and Reserve Location Map
mos-20211231_g6.jpg















37

Table of Content
Property Overview
Annual Production
Table 2.1 shows the production tonnage and grade for all phosphate properties for 2021, 2020 and 2019.
Table 2.1 Summary of Production - Phosphate Properties
(in millions of tonnes)December 31,
Mine Property
Annual Operational Capacity (tonnes)(a)(b)
202120202019
Production (tonnes)
%P2O5(c)
Production (tonnes)
%P2O5(c)
Production (tonnes)
%P2O5(c)
Phosphate (Grade: P2O5)(c)
Florida14.011.128.012.828.412.228.6
Total United States14.011.128.012.828.412.228.6
Miski Mayo (d)
4.04.229.83.329.64.029.6
Total Peru4.04.229.83.329.64.029.6
Araxá / Patrocinio1.30.834.90.935.00.435.0
Cajati0.60.334.10.433.80.334.6
Catalão1.01.134.91.134.50.934.2
Tapira2.11.835.11.935.31.335.4
Total Brazil5.04.034.94.334.72.935.0
Total Phosphate23.019.329.820.429.919.129.8
(a)Annual operational capacity is the expected average long-term annual capacity for finished goods considering constraints represented by the grade, quality and quantity of the reserves being mined as well as equipment performance and other operational factors.
(b)Actual production varies from annual operational capacity shown in the above table due to factors that include, among others, the level of demand for our products, the quality of the reserves, the nature of the geologic formations we are mining at any particular time, maintenance and turnaround time, accidents, mechanical failure, weather conditions, and other operating conditions.
(c)The percent of P2O5 represents a measure of the phosphate content in phosphate rock or a phosphate ore body. A higher percentage corresponds to a higher percentage of phosphate content in phosphate rock or a phosphate ore body.
(d)We have a 75% economic interest in the Miski Mayo Mine in Peru and consolidate their results, therefore, annual operational capacity and production tonnes are presented at 100% economic interest. These amounts are presented on a wet tonne basis based on average moisture levels of 3.5% to 4.5% as it exits the drying process and is prepared for shipping. Operational capacity and production on a dry tonne basis would be 3.8 million tonnes and 4.1 million tonnes, respectively.

38

Table of Content
Table 2.2 shows the production tonnage and grade for the potash properties for 2021, 2020 and 2019.
Table 2.2 Summary of Production - Potash Properties
(in millions of tonnes)December 31,
Facility
Annualized Proven Peaking Capacity (tonnes)(a)(b)
Annual Operational Capacity (tonnes) (b)(c)(d)
202120202019
Ore Mined (tonnes)
Grade % K2O(e)
Ore Mined (tonnes)
Grade % K2O(e)
Ore Mined (tonnes)
Grade % K2O(e)
Belle Plaine – MOP(f)
3.93.011.019.312.618.011.918.0
Esterhazy – MOP(g)
6.36.013.323.915.024.111.923.6
Colonsay – MOP(h)
2.61.51.026.60.00.01.926.5
Total Canada12.810.525.322.027.621.325.721.2
Carlsbad – K-Mag®(i)
0.90.73.16.33.45.73.06.0
Total United States0.90.73.16.33.45.73.06.0
Taquari – MOP0.70.51.815.11.816.61.816.1
Total Brazil0.70.51.815.11.816.61.816.1
Total Potash14.411.730.220.032.819.430.519.4

(a)Represents full capacity based on 350 operating days per annum.
(b)Capacity is based on finished goods capacity, not ore mined. The annualized proven peaking capacity shown above is the capacity currently used to determine our share of Canpotex sales. Canpotex members’ respective shares of Canpotex sales are based upon the members’ respective proven peaking capacities for producing potash. When a Canpotex member expands its production capacity, the new capacity is added to that member’s proven peaking capacity based on a proving run at the maximum production level. Alternatively, after January 2017, Canpotex members may elect to rely on an independent engineering firm and approved protocols to calculate their proven peaking capacity. The annual operational capacity reported in the table above can exceed the annualized proven peaking capacity until the proving run has been completed.
(c)Annual operational capacity is the expected average long-term annual capacity considering constraints represented by the grade, quality and quantity of the reserves being mined as well as equipment performance and other operational factors.
(d)Actual production varies from annual operational capacity shown in the above table due to factors that include, among others, the level of demand for our products, the quality of the reserves, the nature of the geologic formations we are mining at any particular time, maintenance and turnaround time, accidents, mechanical failure, weather conditions, and other operating conditions, as well as the effect of recent initiatives intended to improve operational excellence.
(e)Grade % K2O is a traditional reference to the percentage (by weight) of potassium oxide contained in the ore. A higher percentage corresponds to a higher percentage of potassium oxide in the ore.
(f)Equivalent to hoisted tonnes at a conventional mine. Ore mined for Belle Plaine is a calculated value (KCl concentrate mined by solution divided by the estimated global grade of the deposit). The calculation is based on actual KCl tonnes mined (January 1, 2021- October 31, 2021) and estimates of KCl tonnes mined (November 1, 2021 - December 31, 2021).
(g)The annual operational capacity at Esterhazy increased by 0.7 million tonnes in 2019 reflecting the ramp-up in capacity from the K3 shaft.
(h)We have the ability to reach an annual operating capacity of 2.1 million tonnes over time at Colonsay by increasing our staffing levels and investment in mine development activities.
(i)K-Mag® is a specialty product that we produce at our Carlsbad facility.

Overview

Overviews for Phosphates, Potash and Mosaic Fertilizantes are shown in Table 2.3, Table 2.4, and Table 2.5 below. All properties are operated by Mosaic. All properties listed below are production stage, except Araxá/Patrocinio. Araxá/Patrocinio is an operating mine that is an exploration stage mine because Mosaic is extracting minerals from this mine without having determined there are mineral reserves under S-K 1300. Information concerning our material properties is located in this Item 2 under the headings “Florida Phosphates,” “Esterhazy,” “Belle Plaine” and “Tapira”.

39

Table of Content
Table 2.3: Phosphates Overview
Florida Phosphates
See Florida Phosphates Individual Property Disclosure below.
Peru - Compañía Minera Miski Mayo S.R.L. (“Miski Mayo”)
LocationSechura Province in the Piura Region, Peru
Type and amount of ownership interests
75% owned by Compañía Minera Miski Mayo S.R.L., a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of Mosaic
Titles, mineral rights, leases or options and acreageMiski Mayo is the holder of 20 non-metallics mining concessions (76,000 hectares).
Key permit conditions
Permit conditions are dictated by operating licenses, which are maintained and renewed on a regular basis. As of December 31, 2021, all environmental licenses were either still valid or were being renewed pursuant to applications with the Peruvian Environmental Agency within the legal deadlines.

In general, environmental commitments are being met; however, there are environmental requirements and commitments related to the expansion of Miski Mayo Line 3 of the Second Amendment of the EIA (2015) that have to be verified and implemented.

Miski Mayo’s environmental controls are related to monitoring the quality of wastewater, surface water, groundwater and air, as well as waste management. Additional environmental controls are in place for air emissions, air quality and noise.

Tailings storage facilities and other impoundment’s stability are monitored through specified routine internal and third party inspections.
Mine types and mineralization styles
Miski Mayo is a surface mine. The phosphate deposits of Peru are located within the shallow north-trending Sechura Basin, in the Piura region, hosting successive inter-layered marine sediments of phosphate. We extract phosphate ore from the Miski Mayo Mine using excavators. The ore is then transported by truck for beneficiation in a plant that we own. The beneficiated concentrate is then shipped to North America for use in our own production or sold to third parties.
Processing plants and other facilitiesBeneficiation plant
Table 2.4: North America Potash Overview
Belle Plaine Potash Facility (“Belle Plaine Facility”)
See Belle Plaine Individual Property Disclosure below.
Esterhazy Potash Facility (“Esterhazy Facility”)
See Esterhazy Individual Property Disclosure below.
Colonsay Potash Facility (“Colonsay Facility”)
LocationSaskatchewan, Canada
Type and amount of ownership interests100% owned by Mosaic Potash Colonsay ULC, a wholly-owned, indirect subsidiary of Mosaic.
40

Titles, mineral rights, leases or options and acreage
We lease approximately 118,378 acres of mineral rights for the Colonsay Facility from the Province of Saskatchewan (the “Crown”) under Subsurface Mineral Lease KL 108. The lease term is for a period of 21 years, with renewals at our option for additional 21-year lease periods.

In addition, we own or lease approximately 14,451 acres of mineral rights within the Colonsay area. All mineral properties owned or leased by Mosaic are for the “subsurface mineral” commodity as defined in The Subsurface Mineral Tenure Regulations (Saskatchewan).

We own approximately 5,972 acres of surface rights in the Colonsay area. All infrastructure including the processing plant and tailings management areas ("TMAs" or "TMA") are located on our owned land.
Key permit conditionsA water rights license issued by the Saskatchewan Water Security Agency is in place and expires in 2032. The license is associated with the allocation of surface water rights for the site. An Approval to Operate Pollutant Control Facilities, issued by the Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment, is also in place and expires in July 2028. It is expected to be renewed at or before expiration.

There are no other significant encumbrances, including permitting requirements (existing or anticipated in the future) associated with the Colonsay Facility. Except for the royalties, we do not anticipate any future significant encumbrances based on current known regulations and existing permitting processes. There are no outstanding violations and fines.
Mine types and mineralization styles
The intracratonic Elk Point Basin is a major sedimentary geological feature in western Canada and the northwest U.S. It contains one of the world’s largest stratabound potash resources that represents almost 25% of the global potash production. The Prairie Evaporite hosts rich deposits of evaporite minerals including NaCl, KCl and locally, carnallite that occur in three potash deposits: the Esterhazy, Belle Plaine and Patience Lake members.

The Colonsay deposit includes two potash-bearing members within its local stratigraphy; the Patience Lake Member and the Belle Plaine Member. Mining at Colonsay is conducted within the upper portion of the Patience Lake Member using a room and pillar mining method.

The Colonsay Facility uses an underground room and pillar mining method to extract potash. After being transported along a network of conveyor systems to the shaft, it is hoisted to the surface for onsite processing.
Processing plants and other facilitiesMill facility, beneficiation plant
Carlsbad Potash Facility (“Carlsbad Facility”)
LocationNew Mexico, U.S.
Type and amount of ownership interests100% owned by Mosaic Potash Carlsbad Inc., a wholly-owned, indirect subsidiary of Mosaic.
Titles, mineral rights, leases or options and acreage
The property consists of 89% Federally owned and 11% State owned land, and 40 acres of privately owned mineral rights (Freehold Land) that Mosaic leases. We lease approximately 64,267 acres of mineral rights from the United States Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”). These lease terms are for a period of 20 years and are reviewed and renewed at their end of term.

Surface rights are subject to separate ownership and title from subsurface mineral rights.

We own 8,370 acres of surface rights. All infrastructure, including the processing plant, TMA, cluster sites, and pipeline rights of way, are located on Mosaic owned land.
41

Key permit conditions
Primary environmental resource areas identified include groundwater quality and shorebird habitat. Environmental monitoring for effluents, air and surface/groundwater is in place.

Currently, 11 permits or approvals are active for the property. We are in compliance with all such permits or approvals. One of the 11, groundwater discharge permit (DP-1399) issued by the New Mexico Environmental Department (“NMED”), is currently being renewed. The discharge permit governs operation of the TMA. A tailings management and inspection plan is in place and active. The permit includes closure and post-closure requirements and financial assurance requirements.

A mining and reclamation plan has been developed and approved by the BLM. This plan includes standards for operation and closure of the mine that comply with federal and state of New Mexico environmental regulations. Current and final mine closure plans and reclamation cost estimates are completed and the closure plans have been approved by NMED and the BLM.

There are no significant environmental permitting encumbrances (existing or anticipated in the future) associated with the Carlsbad Facility. We do not anticipate any future encumbrances based on current known regulations and existing permitting processes. There are no outstanding violations and fines.
Mine types and mineralization styles
The Carlsbad potash district is located within the northern New Mexico portion of the Delaware Basin. The Delaware Basin is the western subdivision of the greater Permian Basin, one of the deepest intracratonic basins in North America.

Potash mineralization at Carlsbad occurs in the Ochoan Epoch (Upper Permian Age) Salado Formation. The Salado Formation, up to a maximum of 2,200 ft. thick, is an evaporite sequence dominated by 650 to 1,300 ft. of halite and muddy halite. It hosts 12 ore zones, 11 in the middle or McNutt Member and the 12th in the Upper Member. The area underlain by the 12 ore zones is about 1,900 sq. miles. The 400-ft. thick McNutt Member is at a depth of 300 to 1,500 ft. below the surface.

The Carlsbad Facility utilizes an underground room-and-pillar mining method.
Pillars are cut in a manner that creates a panel; panel sizes can be changed based on grade, ground conditions and lease or oil and gas boundaries. The mine currently has five mine panels that consist of 9 to 11 rooms. Drum-style continuous miners are utilized for mining. As the continuous miner advances, ore is fed off a boom, located at the back of the miner into battery-powered ore haulage units. These units transport the ore through the open mine workings and dump it onto an extensive belt system that conveys the ore to the surface for milling.
Processing plants and other facilitiesLangbeinite (K-Mag) refinery and a granulation plant
Table 2.5: Brazil Fertilizantes Overview
Complexo Mineroquímic de Araxá (“Araxá”) / Complexo de Mineração de Patrocínio (“Patrocínio”)
LocationNear Araxá / Patrocínio, Minas Gerais, Brazil
Type and amount of ownership interests
100% owned by Mosaic Fertilizantes P&K S.A., a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of Mosaic.
Titles, mineral rights, leases or options and acreage
Mining rights in Brazil are governed by the Mining Code, Decree 227, dated February 27, 1967, and further regulation enacted by Agência Nacional de Mineração (the “ANM”). All subsoil situated within Brazilian territory is deemed state property, with the mining activities subject to specific permits granted by the ANM.
42

Key permit conditions
Mosaic currently holds a total of four mining permits within the Araxá area (2,769 hectares) and four mining permits and one exploration permit within the Patrocínio area (3,478 hectares). Permit conditions are dictated by operating licenses, which are maintained and renewed on a regular basis. As of December 31, 2021, all environmental licenses were valid or were being renewed pursuant to applications filed with the Brazilian Environmental Agency.

There are action plans in progress to comply with the environmental conditions of the permits that are not met yet within the applicable regulations. Araxá and Patrocínio’s environmental controls are related to monitoring the quality of wastewater, surface water, groundwater and air, as well as waste management. Additional environmental controls are in place for air emissions, air quality and noise.

Tailings storage facilities and other impoundment’s stability are monitored through a continuous monitoring program, as well as routine inspections.
Mine types and mineralization styles
The Araxá and Patrocínio phosphate deposit is part of a series of Late-Cretaceous, carbonatite-bearing alkaline ultramafic plutonic complexes belonging to the Alto Paranaiba Igneous Province.

The tropical weather regime prevailing in the region and the inward drainage patterns developed from the weather-resistant quartzite margins of the dome structures resulted in the development of an extremely thick soil cover in most of the complexes. The extreme weathering was responsible for the residual concentration of apatite.

The phosphate ore is extracted through surface mining by limited drilling and blasting, loaded into trucks and transported to the beneficiation plants. Patrocinio does not have its own beneficiation plant, so the ore is transported by rail to Araxá for processing.
Processing plants and other facilities
Two beneficiation plants at Araxá
Complexo Mineroquímico de Cajati (“Cajati”)
LocationNear Cajati, São Paulo, Brazil
Type and amount of ownership interests100% owned by Mosaic Fertilizantes P&K S.A., a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of Mosaic.
Titles, mineral rights, leases or options and acreageMining rights in Brazil are governed by the Mining Code, Decree 227, dated February 27, 1967, and further regulation enacted by the ANM. All subsoil situated within Brazilian territory is deemed state property, with the mining activities subject to specific permits granted by the ANM.

Key permit conditionsMosaic currently holds a total of eight mining permits within the Cajati area (5,183 hectares). Permit conditions are dictated by operating licenses, which are maintained and renewed on a regular basis. As of December 31, 2021, all environmental licenses were still valid or were being renewed pursuant to applications filed with the Brazilian Environmental Agency.

There are action plans in progress to comply with the environmental conditions of the permits that are not met yet within the environmental permits. CAJ’s environmental controls are related to monitoring the quality of wastewater, surface and groundwater and air, as well as waste management. Additional environmental controls are in place for air emissions, air quality and noise.

Tailings storage facilities and other impoundment’s stability are strictly monitored through a continuous monitoring program as well as routine inspections.
43

Mine types and mineralization styles
The primary alkaline intrusive complex of interest for CAJ is the Jacupiranga Ultramafic-Carbonatitic Mesozoic Complex. The economically exploitable portion of the Jacupiranga Alkaline Complex is focused on phosphate mineralization within the carbonatite domain of the complex.

The phosphate ore is extracted through surface mining by drilling and blasting, loaded into trucks and transported to the beneficiation plant on-site at Cajati.

Processing plants and other facilities
Beneficiation plant
Complexo Mineração de Catalão (“CMC”)
LocationNear Catalão, Minas Gerais (and Goias), Brazil
Type and amount of ownership interests
100% owned by Mosaic Fertilizantes P&K S.A., a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of Mosaic.
Titles, mineral rights, leases or options and acreage
Mining rights in Brazil are governed by the Mining Code, Decree 227, dated February 27, 1967, and further regulation enacted by the ANM. All subsoil situated within Brazilian territory is deemed state property, with the mining activities subject to specific permits granted by the ANM.


Key permit conditions
Mosaic currently holds a total of eight mining permits within the CMC area (2,131 hectares). Permit conditions are dictated by operating licenses, which are maintained and renewed on a regular basis. As of December 31, 2021, all environmental licenses were either valid or were being renewed pursuant to applications filed with the Brazilian Environmental Agency.

There are action plans in progress to comply with the environmental conditions that are not met yet within the environmental permits. CMC’s environmental controls are related to monitoring the quality of wastewater, surface and groundwater and air, as well as waste management. Additional environmental controls are in place for air emissions, air quality and noise.

Tailings storage facilities and other impoundment’s stability are monitored through a continuous monitoring program as well as routine inspections.
Mine types and mineralization stylesThe CMC phosphate deposit is part of a series of Late-Cretaceous, carbonatite-bearing alkaline ultramafic plutonic complexes belong to the Alto Paranaiba Igneous Province.

The tropical weather regime prevailing in the region and the inward drainage patterns developed from the weather-resistant quartzite margins of the dome structures resulted in the development of an extremely thick soil cover in most of the complexes. The extreme weathering process was responsible for the residual concentration of apatite.

The phosphate ore is extracted through surface mining by limited drilling and blasting, loaded into trucks and transported to the beneficiation plant onsite at CMC.
Processing plants and other facilitiesBeneficiation plant
Complexo Mineração de Tapira (“Tapira”)
See the Tapira Individual Property Disclosure below.
Complexo Mineroquímico de Taquari-Vassouras (“Taquari”)
LocationNear Rosario de Catete, Sergipe, Brazil
Type and amount of ownership interests100% owned by Mosaic Potássio Mineração Ltda, a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of Mosaic.
Titles, mineral rights, leases or options and acreage
Mining rights in Brazil are governed by the Mining Code, Decree 227, dated February 27, 1967, and further regulation enacted by the ANM. All subsoil situated within Brazilian territory is deemed state property, with the mining activities subject to specific permits granted by the ANM.
44

Key permit conditions
We currently hold one mining permit within the Taquari area (92,498 hectares). Permit conditions are dictated by operating licenses, which are maintained and renewed on a regular basis. As of December 31, 2021, all environmental licenses were either valid or being renewed pursuant to applications filed with the Brazilian Environmental Agency within the legal deadlines. Licenses are managed through national and state databases.

There are action plans in progress to comply with the environmental conditions that are not met yet within the environmental permits. Taquari’s environmental controls are related to monitoring the quality of wastewater, surface water, groundwater and air, as well as waste management. Additional environmental controls are in place for air emissions, air quality and noise.

The brine pipeline and other impoundment’s stability are monitored through a monitoring program as well as routine inspections.
Mine types and mineralization stylesThe deposit is in the Taquari-Vassouras sub-basin and is a bedded evaporite where sylvinite is mined in an underground room and pillar mine at depths of 500-700m below surface using continuous miners. The beneficiation process operation begins at the run-of-mine stockpile. The material is conveyed to the processing circuit where it is divided into seven major units: crushing, concentration, dissolution, drying, compaction, storage and shipping.
Processing plants and other facilitiesBeneficiation plant

45

Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve Estimates

Table 2.6 shows the Mineral Resource tonnage and grade for all properties as of December 31, 2021.

Table 2.6 Summary of Mineral Resources as of December 31, 2021(a)
(in millions of tonnes)
Commodity/Geography/Mine Property NameMeasured Mineral
Resources
Indicated Mineral ResourcesMeasured + Indicated Mineral ResourcesInferred Mineral
Resources
tonnesGradetonnesGradetonnesGradetonnesGrade
Phosphate (Grade: P2O5 )(b)
United States
Florida(c)
102.0 30.0 415.0 30.1 517.0 30.0 83.0 30.0 
Peru
Miski Mayo(d)
157.7 16.7 139.0 16.3 296.7 16.5 27.7 16.0 
Brazil
Araxá/Patrocínio(e)(f)
115.1 12.4 481.0 12.9 596.1 12.8 174.9 13.4 
Cajati(e)(g)
28.3 5.3 33.8 5.0 62.1 5.1 5.2 4.8 
Catalão(e)(h)
54.2 10.4 97.9 10.5 152.1 10.5 60.1 9.4 
Tapira(e)(i)
62.8 8.0 67.0 7.8 129.8 7.9 112.8 8.6 
Total Phosphate520.1 16.0 1,233.7 18.4 1,753.8 17.7 463.7 14.8 
Potash (Grade: K2O)(j)
Canada
Belle Plaine(k)
— — — — — — 4,647.0 19.0 
Esterhazy(l)
255.0 23.3 2,092.0 22.8 2,347.0 22.8 
Colonsay(l)
— — — — — — 977.0 29.0 
United States
Carlsbad(m)
— — — — — — 39.0 6.0 
Brazil
Taquari(n)
— — 6.8 23.6 6.8 23.6 58.1 22.9 
Total Potash255.0 23.3 2,098.8 22.8 2,353.8 22.8 5,721.1 20.7 

(a)Mineral resources are reported exclusive of mineral reserves, and except as otherwise noted, are stated in-situ. Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not meet the threshold for mineral reserve modifying factors, such as estimated economic viability, that would allow for conversion to mineral reserves. There is no certainty that any part of the mineral resources estimated will be converted into mineral reserves.
(b)The percentage of P2O5 represents a measure of the phosphate content in phosphate rock or a phosphate ore body. A higher percentage corresponds to a higher percentage of phosphate content in phosphate rock or a phosphate ore body. Brazilian grades, except for Cajati, are P2O5ap, which represents the P2O5 associated with apatite and was calculated by the evaluation of the CaO / P2O5 ratio. Where CaO / P2O5 ratio was greater than or equal to 1.34, P2O5ap was equal to the total of P2O5; where the CaO / P2O5 ratio was less than 1.35, P2O5ap was equal to the CaO / 1.35 ratio.
(c)Mineral resource tonnages and grade are reported as a beneficiation plant product (phosphate rock) tonnage and P2O5 grade. The cut-offs used to estimate mineral resources include; minimum beneficiation plant concentrate BPL (27.45%P2O5), minimum pebble BPL (18.30%P2O5, except 22.88%P2O5 for Desoto and Pioneer), maximum pebble magnesium oxide concentration and a maximum clay content cut-off for a logged matrix layer and the composite matrix volume. A Life of Mine (“LOM”) commodity price of US$102.72/tonne of phosphate rock was used to assess prospects for economic extraction but is not used for cut-off purposes.
(d)Mineral resources are presented on the basis of our 75% interest. Cut-off grade of > 8% P2O5 was applied for mineral resources. A breakeven pit shell was developed with costs, grade requirements and a sales price of US$97.6/tonne of phosphate concentrate (2020 price evaluation) to develop the mineral resource pit shell.
46

(e)Measured, indicated and inferred blocks were included in mineral resource estimates if they were inside mining concessions and exploration permits with a final report approved by the ANM, but exclusive of physical structures. For example, depending on the site, a physical structure may consist of a beneficiation plant, crusher or waste pile.
(f)Araxá Oxidized Cut-off grade: Mass Recovery (rend_t) > 0, P2O5 ≥ 4.78, Fe2O3 ≥ 1.34, SiO2 ≥ 0.05, BaO ≤ 18.83, CaO to P2O5 ratio 0.7 to 1.40. Araxá Micaceous Cut-off grade: Cut-off grade for Micaceous: Mass Recovery (rend_t) > 0, P2O5 ≥ 3.11, Al2O3 ≤ 13.15. For Araxá, a revenue factor of 1.0 with sales price of in Brazilian Real ($R) R$1,798.21 per tonne of phosphate concentrate (2019 price evaluation) was used to develop mineral resource pit shell. Patrocínio BEB-OXI Cut-off grade: P2O5 ≥ 3.5, Fe2O3 ≤ 53.0. Patrocínio CBN-OXI Cut-off grade:P2O5 ≥ 4.0, SiO2 ≥ 0.2. Patrocínio BEB-MIC Cut-off grade: P2O5 ≥ 3.4, Fe2O3 < 50.0, SiO2 < 57.5, MgO < 17.0, TiO2 < 27.0. Patrocinio FET Cut-off grade: P2O5 > 0.0. Patrocínio RSI Cut-off grade: P2O5 ≥ 3.0, CaO to P2O5 ratio < 2.6. For Patrocínio, a revenue factor of 1.0 with a sales price of R$1,635.29 per tonne of phosphate concentrate (2020 LOM price evaluation) was used to develop mineral resource pit shell.
(g)Cut-off grade of > 3% P2O5 and < 11% SiO2 was applied for mineral resources. A revenue factor of 1.0 with sales price of R$1,944.5 per tonne of phosphate concentrate (2020 LOM price evaluation) was used to develop mineral resource pit shell.
(h)Cut-off grade of P2O5ap ≥ 5.2% and 0.8 ≤ RCP ≤ 1.6 and MgO < 12% was applied to mineral resources. A revenue factor of 1.0 with a constant sales price of R$1,537.92 per tonne of phosphate concentrate (2020 LOM price evaluation) was used to develop mineral resource pit shell.
(i)Cut-off grade of P2O5ap ≥ 5.0% and 0.9 ≤ RCP ≤ 3.0 was applied to mineral resources. A revenue factor of 1.0 with a sales price of R$1,492.92 per tonne of phosphate concentrate (2020 LOM price evaluation) was used to develop the mineral resource pit shell.
(j)%K2O refers to the total %K2O of the samples.
(k)No cut-off grade is used to estimate mineral resources as the solution mining method used at the Belle Plaine Facility is not selective. At no point in the cavern development and mining process can a decision be made to mine or not mine the potash mineralization that is in contact with the mining solution. The mining solution dissolves the potash, regardless of its grade, to make a concentrate that is pumped to surface from the mining caverns for processing.
(l)No cut-off grade or value based on commodity price is used to estimate mineral resources as the mining method used at Colonsay or Esterhazy is not grade selective. The potash mineralization is mined on one level by continuous miners following the well-defined and continuous beds of mineralization with relatively consistent grades. The following KCl commodity prices were used to assess prospects for economic extraction for the mineral resources but are not used for cut-off purposes: 2022-$271/tonne, 2023-$231/tonne, 2024-$219/tonne, 2025-$185/tonne, 2026-$188/tonne, and for LOM plan $219/tonne. A US$/CAD$ exchange rate of 1.31 was used to assess prospects for economic extraction for the mineral resources but was not used for cut-off purposes.
(m)A 4% K2O cut-off grade with less than 2% kieserite is used to estimate mineral resources. This is consistent with the definition of mineable potash established by the U.S. Geological Survey. The following K2O commodity prices (US$) were used to assess economic viability for the mineral resources, but were not used for cut-off purposes: 2022- $318/tonne, 2023-$279/tonne, 2024-$261/tonne, 2025-$237/ton, 2026-$242/tonne, and for the 2021 LOM plan $267/tonne.
(n)Cut-off grade of > 20% KCl, a minimum Sylvinite thickness of 1.8m, and a minimum Sylvinite percentage per block of 50% was applied for mineral resources.
47

Table 2.7 shows the Mineral Reserve tonnage and grade for all properties as of December 31, 2021.

Table 2.7: Summary of Mineral Reserves as of December 31, 2021(a)
(in millions of tonnes)
Commodity/Geography/Mine Property NameProven Mineral ReservesProbable Mineral ReservesTotal Mineral Reserves
tonnesGradetonnesGradetonnesGrade
Phosphate (Grade: P2O5)(b)
United States
Florida(c)
59.028.269.027.1128.027.6
Peru
Miski Mayo(d)
109.816.254.115.1164.015.9
Brazil
Cajati(e)
40.55.232.05.072.55.1
Catalão(f)
67.210.817.410.584.610.8
Tapira(g)
193.79.4275.69.1469.39.2
Total Phosphate470.213.2448.112.4918.312.8
Potash (Grade: K2O)
Canada
Belle Plaine(h)
275.019.3394.019.3669.019.3
Esterhazy(i)
122.023.9437.020.9559.021.5
Colonsay(i)
104.025.3163.027.2267.026.5
United States
Carlsbad(j)
176.06.50.00.0176.06.5
Brazil
Taquari(k)
0.00.028.114.728.114.7
Total Potash677.017.71,022.1 21.11,699.1 19.7

(a)A mineral reserve is the economically mineable part of a measured or indicated mineral resource, which includes diluting materials and allowances for losses that may occur when the material is mined or extracted. Reserves are measured as Run of Mine (“ROM”) unless otherwise noted.
(b)Brazil grades, except for Cajati, are P2O5ap, which represents the P2O5 associated with apatite and was calculated by the evaluation of the CaO / P2O5 ratio. Where CaO / P2O5 ratio was greater than or equal to 1.34, P2O5ap was equal to the total of P2O5; where the CaO / P2O5 ratio was less than 1.35, P2O5ap was equal to the CaO / 1.35 ratio.
(c)Mineral reserve tonnages and grade are reported as a beneficiation plant product (phosphate rock) tonnage and P2O5 grade. A LOM commodity price of US$102.72/tonne of phosphate rock was used to assess prospects for economic extraction but is not used for cut-off purposes. Cut-off based on productivity factors per site have been applied to estimate mineral reserves. Recoverable Finished Product tonnes vs. Matrix Volume Mined ranges from 9.4-9.9%. Recoverable Finished Product tonnes vs. Total Volume Mined is 2.2%.
(d)Mineral reserves are presented on the basis of our 75% interest. The reference point for cut-off grade and pit optimization analysis is tonnes of concentrate at a price of US$97.60/tonne concentrate (2020 LOM price evaluation). We applied a cut-off grade of > 8% P2O5 mineral reserves. Additionally, we used a phosphate concentrate grade limitation of a minimum P2O5 concentrate grade of 29.5% in the LOM plan.
(e)The reference point for cut-off grade and pit optimization analysis is tonnes of concentrate at a price of R$1,944.47/tonne concentrate (2020 price evaluation). Cut-off grade of > 3% P2O5 and < 11% SiO2 was applied to mineral reserves. Mineral reserves were proven to be economic based on an internal transfer price of R$754/tonne of phosphate rock (2021 LOM price evaluation) that was derived in the discounted cash flow and compared to the gross margin available.
48

(f)The reference point for cut-off grade and pit optimization analysis is tonnes of concentrate at a price of R$1,537.92/tonne concentrate (2020 price evaluation). Cut-off grade of P2O5ap ≥ 5.2% and 0.8 ≤ RCP ≤ 1.6 and MgO < 12% was applied to mineral reserves. Mineral reserves were proven to be economic based on internal transfer price of R$357/tonne of phosphate rock (2021 LOM price evaluation) that was derived in the discounted cash flow and compared to the gross margin available.
(g)The reference point for cut-off grade and pit optimization analysis is tonnes of concentrate at a price of R$1,492.92/tonne concentrate (2020 price evaluation). Cut-off grade of P2O5ap ≥ 5.0% and 0.9 ≤ RCP ≤ 3.0 was applied to mineral reserves. Mineral reserves were proven to be economic based on internal transfer price of R$336/tonne of phosphate rock (2021 LOM price evaluation) that was derived in the discounted cash flow and compared to the gross margin available.
(h)No cut-off grade is used to estimate mineral reserves as the solution mining method used at the Belle Plaine Facility is not selective. At no point in the cavern development and mining process can a decision be made to mine or not mine the potash mineralization that is in contact with the mining solution. The mining solution dissolves the potash, regardless of its grade, to make a concentrate that is pumped to surface from the mining cavities for processing. Mine designs based on a solution mining method and design criteria are used to constrain mineral reserves within mineable shapes. The following KCl commodity prices were used to assess economic viability for the mineral reserves, but were not used for cut-off purposes: 2022-$271/tonne, 2023-$231/tonne, 2024-$219/tonne, 2025-$185/tonne, 2026-$188/tonne, and for the LOM $219/tonne. A US$/CAD$ exchange rate of 1.31 was used to assess economic viability for the mineral reserves but was not used for cut-off purposes.
(i)No cut-off grade or value based on commodity price is used to estimate mineral reserves as the mining method used at the Esterhazy or Colonsay Facilities is not grade selective. The potash mineralization is mined on one level by continuous miners following the well-defined and continuous beds of mineralization with relatively consistent grades. Underground mining standards and design criteria are used to constrain mineral reserves within mineable shapes. The following KCl commodity prices were used to assess economic viability for the mineral reserves, but were not used for cut-off purposes, 2022-$271/tonne, 2023-$231/tonne, 2024-$219/tonne, 2025-$185/tonne, 2026-$188/tonne and for the LOM plan $219/tonne. A US$/CAD$ exchange rate of 1.31 was used to assess economic viability for the mineral reserves but was not used for cut-off purposes.
(j)A 4% K2O cut-off grade with less than 2% kieserite is used to estimate mineral resources and mineral reserves. The following K2O commodity prices (US$) were used to assess economic viability for the mineral reserves, but were not used for cut-off purposes: 2022-$318/tonne, 2023-$279/tonne, 2024-$261/tonne, 2025-$237/ton, 2026-$242/tonne, and for the 2021 LOM plan $267/tonne.
(k)A tonnage reduction of 20% has been applied to the probable mineral reserves to account for geological uncertainty. A KCl grade downgrade of -10% was applied to the probable mineral reserves in order to adjust in-situ grades to ROM grades. A mean density of 2.10 g/cc was applied to all mineral reserve volumes to convert to tonnages. Cut-off grade of ≥ 20% KCl and a minimum Sylvinite thickness of 1.8m was applied for mineral reserves. The reference point for the discounted cash flow utilized K2O commodity prices (US$) of $418/tonne for 2022, $369/tonne for 2023, $353/tonne for 2024, $324/tonne for 2025, $330/tonne for 2026 and $359/tonne for the remaining LOM. Mineral reserves were proven to be economic based on a positive discounted cash flow.

FLORIDA PHOSPHATES
Our three phosphate production stage mining facilities (South Fort Meade, Four Corners and Wingate) and three exploration properties (DeSoto, Pioneer and South Pasture) in Florida consist of over 210,000 acres of property in Central Florida (Table 2.8 and Figure 2.3). We idled the mining and beneficiation activities at South Pasture. The facilities and properties are in DeSoto, Hardee, Hillsborough, Manatee and Polk counties. Even though we continue to add real property to one or more of these locations, most of the property currently being mined or planned for future mining have been in industry ownership for over 50 years. The mining facilities and exploration properties are owned by or have controlling interest granted to Mosaic Fertilizer LLC, South Ft. Meade Land Management or South Ft. Meade Land Partnership, L.P. (“SFMLP”), each a subsidiary of Mosaic.
We either own or have a controlling interest in the mineral rights to the current and future facilities. Mineral and surface rights are joined at the Four Corners, Wingate, Pioneer and South Pasture properties. Portions of the DeSoto property and South Fort Meade facility have the surface and mineral interests severed.
The net book value for our Florida phosphate mining facilities and exploration properties is $1.2 billion as of December 31, 2021.
Table 2.9 lists the land status and acreages for the facilities and properties.
49

Table 2.8: Property Locations
PropertyLocation
South Fort Meade Facility
Straddles the county line road beginning 1.3 miles east of the City of Bowling Green and continuing another five miles. Located at 27.667195 N, 81.761349 W.
Four Corners Facility
Located in southeast Hillsborough County, northeast Manatee County and southwest Polk County. Located at 27.646144 N, 82.087305 W.
Wingate Facility
Most of the property associated with this mine is west of Duette Road and north of State Road 64. There is a portion of this property that exists on the east side of Duette Road that begins approximately three miles north of State Road 64. Located at 27.504452 N, 82.132221 W.
DeSoto Property
This exploration property is bisected by State Road 70 and State Road 72 running east and west and the county line running north and south. A portion of the DeSoto property is owned fee simple and the mining interests on the remaining portion is secured by mineral rights. Located at 27.263018 N, 82.035208 W.
Pioneer Property
This exploration property is bisected by County Road 663 running north and south. Several local roads (Murphy, Bridges, Bennett and Post Plant) criss-cross this parcel. Located at 27.439391 N, 81.940020 W.
South Pasture Property
The property is situated along a 10 mile stretch of State Road 64 and a seven mile stretch along Country Road 663. All parcels are bisected by County Road 663, State Road 62, State Road 64 and several local roads. The mining and beneficiation activities at this location have been idled. Located at 27.585787 N, 81.942888 W.

50

Figure 2.3: Location Plan
mos-20211231_g7.jpg
The table below includes only land holdings associated with our mining properties.
Table 2.9: Property Status and Acreages
Status (Acres)
Florida Phosphate Property Status and Acreages

Fee SimpleMining Agreement
Mineral Rights (b)
Total
South Fort Meade Facility13,326 25,528 
(a)
112 38,966 
Four Corners Facility54,671 54,671 
Wingate Facility8,761 8,761 
DeSoto Property24,113 18,943 43,064 
Pioneer Property26,017 26,017 
South Pasture Property38,723 38,723 
Total165,611 25,536 19,055 210,202 
(a)    The mining agreement relates to the SFMLP which is 100% controlled by Mosaic or its subsidiaries.
(b)    All acres include surface rights with the exception of the DeSoto mineral rights.
Governmental permits and approvals for mining are obtained from federal, state and county authorities, including the Environmental Resource Permit (“ERP”) issued by Florida Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) and permits
51

required by Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act. In connection with these permits, we are required to develop a reclamation plan with respect to these areas. The ERP is associated with a Florida DEP-approved reclamation plan that requires “acre for acre and type for type” reclamation to reclaim mined areas. Mitigation may also be required by ERP conditions which may also require conservation easements to provide permanent protection.

The integrated water use permit (“IWUP”) issued by the Southwest Florida Water Management District (“SWFWMD”) in 2012 authorizes the withdrawal of groundwater from underground aquifers through permitted wells to provide potable and production-water supplies in support of mining and other operations. The IWUP addresses all of our active mining operations. A separate water use permit (“WUP”) was issued by SWFWMD for the South Pasture property in 2017. The IWUP and the South Pasture WUP also regulate mine dewatering to avoid adverse impacts to wetlands and offsite properties. Both the IWUP and the WUP are 20 year permits expiring in 2032 and 2037, respectively.

Pre-mining development follows the issuance of regulatory permits. This involves ditch and berm construction for stormwater control, groundwater draw down mitigation where applicable, land clearing, installation of infrastructure and pre-mining dewatering (only for dragline mining).

There are no significant environmental permitting encumbrances, existing or anticipated, associated with the mining facilities and exploration properties. We do not anticipate any future encumbrances based on current known regulations and existing permitting processes. There are no material outstanding violations and fines.

Existing Infrastructure
The three mining facilities are in rural Central Florida located southeast of Tampa in Hardee, Hillsborough, Manatee and Polk counties. The sites are located in agricultural zones with associated population centers and easy access to multiple transportation hubs in Central Florida. The three exploration properties are located south of the mining facilities. Each will utilize the same water, electrical, railway, and road networks as the active mines.

The mining facilities at South Fort Meade, Four Corners, Wingate and South Pasture commenced operations between 1981 and 1995, as noted below under “History and Exploration”. The phosphate mines have the infrastructure to meet our current production plans and long-range production goals. The current infrastructure includes major roads and highway access, railway support from CSX Transportation and electricity supplied by Duke Energy, TECO, PRECO, Florida Power and Mosaic cogeneration in associated distribution areas. Water supply is from Mosaic-owned deep wells and recycle sources. Current clay and tailings management areas footprints are expected to meet present demands, with additional capacity planned to meet the maximum volume and deposition rates from the LOM plan, which covers the period between 2022 and 2035. An integrated operations center remotely controls certain functions at our Florida Phosphate mines.

Additional infrastructure may be added to increase production reliability or flexibility. The assets currently in place are maintained through a workflow process that focuses on proactive inspections and preventative maintenance, while trying to minimize reactive maintenance. Except for South Pasture, which is currently idled, minimal infrastructure is currently in place at the other exploration properties.
We expect the sites to continue to operate effectively during the LOM while continuing to maintain the built infrastructure and renewing the long-term agreements in place for the site’s water, electricity, and logistics needs.
We focus on reliability-centered maintenance with the goal of extending the life of the majority of assets to align with the LOM plan. We expect that some infrastructure will need to be replaced as it reaches end of life and has been factored into the relevant capital cost requirements.
Phosphate mining in Central Florida is a mature industry. A network of suppliers, machine shops, fabricators, and specialty contractors exist to support mining, and post-mining, land reclamation activities. Many large component vendors have branch offices in either Lakeland or Tampa, Florida. Engineering, design, and technical services are readily available in Bartow, Lakeland, and Tampa, Florida.


52

Mining Method
Our mining operations in Central Florida extract phosphate using surface mining techniques. The active mines utilize either electric walking draglines or dredges to remove overburden and mine phosphate ore (matrix). Matrix is hydraulically transported via centrifugal pumping systems to the beneficiation plant.
Pre-mining development follows the issuance of regulatory permits. This involves ditch and berm construction for stormwater control, groundwater draw down mitigation where applicable, land clearing, installation of infrastructure and pre-mining dewatering (only for dragline mining).
Development of the mine plan is based on several factors, including geological data, equipment, property boundaries, geotechnical considerations, clay impoundment, reclamation schedule, production (volume and quality) demands, permits (local, state and federal) and third-party agreements, such as agreements with local community groups, neighboring properties or NGO’s which do not materially impair the mine plan. Production is monitored through dragline/dredge monitoring systems, mass-flow instrumentation on slurry pumping systems and pit surveys. In addition to draglines and dredges, heavy mobile equipment is used to support mining activities. While each mine is staffed with Mosaic personnel to handle production and maintenance, contractors are used on an as-needed basis.
Processing Recovery Method
Phosphate matrix mined at the three mining facilities is processed through on-site beneficiation plants. The principal production components of the beneficiation plants consist of a washer, sizing system and flotation plant.
Matrix at each mine is slurried for transport to the beneficiation plant. After receiving matrix, washers separate minerals into four separate material groups. These are debris, pebbles, clay, and under-sized flotation feed. The pebble is one of the final products and the under-sized flotation feed material contains recoverable phosphate rock. The washers separate >1.0 mm phosphate product and the <1.0 mm slurry of liberated clay, sand and phosphate particles. The clay is removed with hydrocyclones and pumped to clay settling areas while the >0.1 mm sand and phosphate move on to the sizing section.
The >0.1 mm sand and phosphate is separated into different size fractions using hydrosizers. An upward flow of water is injected into the hydrosizer that forces the fine particles to rise and overflow the sizer, while the coarse particles gently fall and flow out the sizer’s underflow. The segregated fine and coarse particles are then sent to the flotation plant so the phosphate can be separated from the sand.
The two-step flotation process, rougher flotation and cleaning flotation, is next utilized to separate phosphate from the sand. In the rougher flotation process, the phosphate mineral is recovered using flotation machines by adding fatty acid, oil, soda ash, and sodium silicate. To increase the recovered rougher phosphate grade, a second cleaning flotation process is used to remove the residual sand using amine.
History and Exploration
Table 2.10 lists the important historical dates and events relevant to the mining facilities and exploration properties:
53

Table 2.10: History
DateEvent/Activity
1881Pebble phosphate discovered along the Peace River south of Fort Meade by Captain J. Francis LeBaron, chief engineer of a detachment of the Engineering Corps, United States Army.
1888Phosphate rock first commercially mined along the Peace River.
1977Farmland Industries purchased the Pioneer (eastern portion a.k.a. Hickory Creek) property.
1981Beker Phosphate Company opened Wingate.
1983Four Corners construction was completed. The operation was an equal partnership between IMC and W.R. Grace Corporation.
1985Wingate was closed after Beker Phosphate Company filed for bankruptcy.
1985Four Corners started production.
1986IMC purchased Brewster Phosphates and closed the Lonesome Mine which would later be consolidated into Four Corners.
1986Four Corners is idled due to market conditions.
1986The DeSoto (also know as Pine Level) property is sold by AMAX Chemical Company to Consolidated Minerals, Incorporated.
1988IMC gained 100% control of Four Corners.
1989IMC restarted Four Corners.
1990Wingate is acquired by Nu-Gulf.
1992Wingate is reopened after a joint venture by Nu-Gulf and Royster Industries but closed later that year.
1993IMC-Agrico is created by a joint venture between IMC and Agrico Chemical Company (a subsidiary of Freeport McMoRan).
1995CF Industries opened and started production at South Pasture.
1995Mobil Chemical Corporation opened and started production at South Fort Meade.
1996Cargill Fertilizer (later Cargill Crop Nutrition) acquired South Fort Meade.
1996DeSoto (a.k.a. Pine Level) and Ona (includes western portion of the Pioneer property) properties are sold by CMI to IMC-Agrico.
1997IMC acquired Freeport McMoRan’s share of IMC-Agrico.
1998Wingate is reopened.
1999Wingate is closed.
2002Cargill Crop Nutrition acquired the Pioneer property (eastern portion a.k.a. Hickory Creek) from Farmland-Hydro.
2004Cargill Crop Nutrition acquired and reopened the Wingate Facility.
2004Mosaic created out of a merger between IMC and Cargill Crop Nutrition.
2005Wingate is shutdown.
2006The Fort Green site is closed permanently, and the property is consolidated into Four Corners and Wingate.
2008Wingate is reopened.
2014
Mosaic acquired CF Industries’ phosphate business in Florida, which included the South Pasture property.
2018South Pasture Facility is idled.
2018Ona (western portion) property is consolidated into Four Corners.
2020South Fort Meade acquired the Eastern Reserves.


54

Geology and Mineralization
The phosphate deposits of Florida are sedimentary in origin and part of a phosphate-bearing province that extends from southern Florida north along the Atlantic coast into southern Virginia. Sedimentary phosphate deposits consist of rock in which the phosphate mineral(s) occur in grains, pellets, nodules, and as phosphate replacement of calcium in the remains of animal skeletal material and excrement.
Florida has phosphate rock distributed along the entire peninsula with varying lateral extents and abundance. There are five phosphate districts recognized in Florida identified as Northern, Northeast, Hardrock, Southeast and Central. The phosphates of Florida occur in sedimentary rocks and are of secondary origin, having been redeposited either by mechanical or chemical action. During deposition, most of the carbonate platform was drowned, and deposition was widespread. The intensity of reworking by marine processes allows some deposits to remain relatively near their origins and contribute to massive deposits while others were transported and winnowed into deposits of nodules, grains and pellets.
All our phosphate deposits are located in the Central Florida Phosphate District. The general description of the phosphatic deposits in Central Florida consist of two geological facies. The phosphate bearing units are within the Bone Valley Member of the Peace River Formation and the undifferentiated Member of the Peace River Formation within the South Florida Extension region of the Central District. The deposit characteristics transition from north east to the south west. The major phosphate bearing units in the north east consist of a productive Bone Valley Member with limited production in the Undifferentiated Member. The phosphate bearing units in the south west exhibit limited production in the Bone Valley Member and a productive Undifferentiated Member of the Peace River Formation.
The phosphate stratigraphy consists of 5 to 50 feet thick, white to brown poorly graded quartz sand with varying abundance of reworked phosphate grains as waste overburden. The economic zone is 13 to 50 feet thick, with a grade ranging from 27 to 35% P2O5. It consists of tan-gray to gray quartz sands, dark gray to dark gray-blue-green clays and silts with phosphate nodules and pellets present with phosphate grains and clasts predominate. There can be interbedded waste zones of 0 to 15 feet thick comprised of beds of cream to green barren sandy clay, clays or dense dolomitic clays. The basal units are dark gray to black clays to phosphatic limestone rubble to beds of phosphatic limestone.

Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve Assumptions and Modifying Factors
The key mineral resource and mineral reserve assumptions and modifying factors are listed in Table 2.11.














55

Table 2.11: Key Assumptions and Modifying Factors:
ParameterValueTRS Section
Supporting InformationRegional geologic studies, 55,585 drill holes and greater than 40 years of mining history.Section 7
Average total thickness of the phosphate mineralization13 to 50 ft.Section 6
Minimum Concentrate %P2O5
0.2745Section 11
Minimum Pebble %P2O5
18.30 to 22.88%Section 11
Maximum pebble magnesium oxide ("MgO") cut-off volume
0.025Section 11
Maximum Clay Content40 to 50%Section 11
Maximum Dragline Mining depth85 ft.Section 11
Maximum dredge mining depth109 ft.Section 11
Production Days per Year365 daysSection 11
Mining MethodDredge and dragline miningSection 13
Production RateApproximately 9 to 13 million tonnes per year (2022-2030).Section 13
Mineral Resource Cut-offs
Minimum beneficiation plant concentrate BPL (27.45%P2O5), minimum pebble BPL (18.30%P2O5, except 22.88%P2O5 for DeSoto and Pioneer), maximum pebble magnesium oxide concentration and a maximum clay content cut-off for a logged matrix layer and the composite matrix volume.



Section 11
Mineral Reserve Cut-offCut-off based on productivity factors per site have been applied to estimate mineral reserves.Section 12
Mining Dilution12.4 to 18.9% minimum pebble volume dilution and 10.30 to 10.95% minimum concentrate volume dilution.Section 11
Mineral Resource Impurity Recovery100%Section 11
Mineral Reserve Pebble Impurity Recovery
87 to 100% Fe2O3, 97 to 119% aluminum oxide (“Al2O3”), 100% CaO, 90 to 166% MgO
Section 12
Mineral Reserve Concentrate Impurity Recovery
86 to 100% Fe2O3, 91 to 109% Al2O3, 100% CaO, 75 to 105% MgO
Section 12
Processing MethodBeneficiation plants at the facilities consisting of washer, sizing and flotation processes.Section 14
Mineral Resource Beneficiation Plant Recovery100%Section 11
Mineral Reserves Beneficiation Plant Recovery
Pebble: 99.2 to 102.4%, Concentrate: 64.3 to 92.8%
Section 12
Deleterious Elements and Impact
Major elements include MgO, pyrite (FeS2) and Al2O3 affecting flotation and filtering processes.
Section 10, 11,12
Environmental Requirements, Permits etc.No significant environmental permitting encumbrances.Section 17
Geotechnical Factors (if any)No concerns.Section 13
Hydrological or hydrogeological factors (if any)Water inflow onto mining areas can impact recovery and dilution.Section 13
Commodity Price$102.72/tonne of phosphate rock.Section 16


56

Mineral Resource Estimates
Mosaic’s phosphate mineral resources are reported as a beneficiation plant product (phosphate rock) tonnage and P2O5 grade, including a total primary impurities ratio (“MER”).
The geological information used to estimate the phosphate mineral resources for the mining facilities and exploration properties is based on drilling and sampling. The mineral resource estimates are completed using a proprietary software that applies specific grade, physical and impurity limits to the raw drill data of the property. These factors are used to select material that contains sufficient grade, limited impurities and is physically extractable to be included in the mineral resource estimate. The confidence and classification of the mineral resources is estimated based on the drill density of the evaluated area.
Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves have not demonstrated economic viability utilizing the criteria and assumptions required.
The methodology for estimating mineral resources consists of interpreting the available geological data to create composites of lithological units that meet the specified criteria. These composites are then mapped to determine the mineral resource boundary. The boundary is then trimmed to account for permit and mine boundary limitations. The composite data is also used to create a geologic model composed of volume, density, grade, and impurity grids created using inverse distance weighted as the interpolation method. Elevation grids are created using triangulation based on LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) or survey data assigned to each drill hole. A utility macro is used to adjust elevations to account for holes with no matrix that meets the mine requirements. The data from each grid is then volumetrically combined using product volumes for the specific mineral resource shape and mineral resource classification creating a block of uniform constituents. Estimation of mineralization tonnage, grade and impurities is done by applying the volume weight percent of pebble, feed, and clay for the given mineral resource shape.
Additional details regarding the estimation methodology are listed in Section 11 of the 2021 Florida Phosphate Mining TRS filed as an Exhibit to the 10-K Report.
Table 2.12 lists the total mineral resource estimates. Mineral resources are reported exclusive of the mineral reserves.

Table 2.12: Mineral Resources at the End of the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2021 Based on a LOM Plan Phosphate Rock Price of $102.72 per tonne(a)(b)(c)(d)(f)
(tonnes in millions)
Category
Tonnes(e)
Grade %P2O5(e)
Cut-off GradeMetallurgical Recovery %
Measured102.030.0n/a100 %
Indicated415.030.1n/a100 %
Measured + Indicated517.030.1n/a100 %
Inferred83.030.0n/a100 %
(a)Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not meet the threshold for mineral reserve modifying factors, such as estimated economic viability, that would allow for conversion to mineral reserves. There is no certainty that any part of the mineral resources estimated will be converted into mineral reserves.
(b)Mineral resources are reported as mineralization (matrix) tonnage, grade and impurities after beneficiation.
(c)Mineral resources assume dragline mining at all sites except Wingate mine where dredging is assumed.
(d)Mineral resources amenable to a dragline mining method are contained within a conceptual mine pit design using the same technical parameters as used for mineral reserves.
(e)The cut-offs used to estimate mineral resources include: minimum beneficiation plant concentrate BPL (27.45%P2O5), minimum pebble BPL (18.30%P2O5, except 22.88%P2O5 for Desoto and Pioneer), maximum pebble magnesium oxide concentration and a maximum clay content cut-off for a logged matrix layer, and the composite matrix volume.
(f)A LOM commodity price of $102.72/tonne of phosphate rock was used to assess prospects for economic extraction but is not used for cut-off purposes.

57

No mineral resources were reported in 2020, as the Company reported under Industry Guide 7, which did not recognize mineral resources. As a result of the change in reporting to Regulation S-K 1300, the mineral resources are being reported for the first time.
Mineral Reserve Estimates
Mosaic’s estimated mineral reserves are located at the South Fort Meade, Four Corners and Wingate mine facilities and are reported as a beneficiation plant product (phosphate rock) tonnage and P2O5 grade including a total MER. Mineral reserves have demonstrated economic viability utilizing the criteria and assumptions required at each phosphate facility and meet all the mining criteria required including, but not limited to mining, processing, metallurgical, infrastructure, economic, marketing, legal, environmental, social, and governmental factors.
The methodology for estimating mineral reserves consists of interpreting the available geological data to create composites of lithological units that meet the specified reserve criteria. A utility macro is used to apply reserve plant volume recoveries, adjust insoluble limits to the geologic model and to adjust elevations grids to account for holes with no matrix that meets the mine requirements. Dragline or dredge pit design work and scheduling are applied to the geologic model by the mine planner. Tonnes, grades and product quality are estimated by applying the mining shapes to the geological model. The data from each grid is then volumetrically combined using product volumes for the specific mine pit shape creating a block of uniform constituents. The recoverable tonnes of pebble and feed for the entire mine pit are calculated based on the area of the mine pit. The beneficiation plant grade recoveries are then applied to the recoverable feed tonnes to estimate the mineral reserves and recoverable concentrate tonnes.
Additional details regarding the estimation methodology are listed in Section 12 of the 2021 Florida Phosphate Mining TRS filed as an Exhibit to this 10-K Report.
The mineral reserve estimates are listed in Table 2.13.

Table 2.13: Mineral Reserves at the End of the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2021 Based on a LOM Plan Phosphate Rock Price of $102.72 per tonne(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)
(tonnes in millions)
CategoryTonnes
Grade
%P2O5
Metallurgical Recovery %
Proven5928.2Pebble: 99.2 to 102.4%, Concentrate: 64.3 to 81.9%
Probable6927.1Pebble: 99.2 to 102.4%, Concentrate: 64.3 to 81.9%
Proven + Probable12827.6Pebble: 99.2 to 102.4%, Concentrate: 64.3 to 81.9%
(a)South Fort Meade and Four Corners mineral reserves are mined by a dragline mining method. The Wingate mineral reserves are mined by dredge mining.
(b)Cut-off based on productivity factors per site have been applied to estimate mineral reserves. Recoverable finished product tonnes vs. matrix volume mined ranges from 9.4-9.9%. Recoverable finished product tonnes vs. total volume mined is 2.2%
(c)Mine designs are used to constrain measured and indicated mineral resources within mineable pit shapes.
(d)Only after a positive economic test and inclusion in the LOM plan are the mineral reserve estimates considered and disclosed as mineral reserves.
(e)A commodity price of $102.72/tonne of phosphate rock was used to assess the economic viability of the mineral reserves in the LOM.
Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves Comparison
As of December 31, 2021, we had mineral reserves of 127 million tonnes compared to 515 million in the prior year, resulting in a decrease of 75%. Changes in mineral reserve tonnage from the prior year are the result of mining depletion, small changes to beneficiation plant factors, the change from Industry Guide 7 to S-K 1300, and the reclassification of South Pasture reserves to resources due to the idling of the South Pasture property.

58

BELLE PLAINE
The Belle Plaine Facility is in the rural municipality of Pense (No. 160) in the province of Saskatchewan, Canada. It is located north of the TransCanada Highway (Hwy. 1) approximately 32 miles west of Regina (Figure 2.4). It is the oldest and largest potash solution mine in the world. Coordinates for the Belle Plaine facility are +50° 25’ 39.57, -105° 11’ 53.87” +50° 25’ 39.57,” -105° 11’ 53.87”.
We lease 53,133 acres of mineral rights from the Crown under Subsurface Mineral Lease KL 106-R. Table 2.14 lists additional information regarding the lease. Table 2.15 outlines the lease acreage designated by township and section. The lease term is for a period of 21 years from July 2012, with renewals at the Company’s option for additional 21-year periods.
In addition, we own 19,284 acres of mineral rights within the Belle Plaine area as shown in Table 2.16 below. All mineral titles owned or leased by us include “subsurface minerals,” which under The Subsurface Mineral Tenure Regulations, 2015 (Saskatchewan) means “all-natural mineral salts of boron, calcium, lithium, magnesium, potassium, sodium, bromine, chlorine, fluorine, iodine, nitrogen, phosphorus and sulfur, and their compounds, occurring more than 197.0 feet (60.0 m) below the surface of the land”. Other commodities (e.g., petroleum and natural gas, coal, etc.) may be included within mineral rights we lease or own but are not specifically sought after when acquired.
Within the total acreage leased from the Crown or owned by us are parcels of land where we own or lease less than a 100% share of the mineral rights. In order to mine these properties, we would need to acquire 100% control either by lease or ownership. Acreages currently not mineable for this reason are listed in Table 2.17 below.
There are no significant environmental permitting encumbrances, existing or anticipated in the future, associated with the Belle Plaine Facility. We do not anticipate any future encumbrances based on current known regulations and existing permitting processes. There are no outstanding fines or material violations.

The net book value for Belle Plaine is $0.9 billion as of December 2021.
59

Figure 2.4: Location Plan
mos-20211231_g8.jpg
Table 2.14: Mineral Lease
Crown Lease NumberTypeArea (Ha)EExpiration Date
KL 106-RSubsurface Mineral Lease21,501 July 1, 2033








60

Table 2.15: Sections and Acreages Owned by the Crown
Township/RangeSections of Mineral Rights Owned by Crown*Area of Mineral Rights Owned by Crown (acres)
18/212/10012
19/214-13/163,087
17/224-14/163,118
18/229-10/166,166
19/229-6/165,991
17/239-11/166,201
18/2314-13/169,475
17/247-1/164,500
18/2418-7/1611,813
18/254-5/162,768
Total83-2/10053,131
*Full sections range from 640 acres to 644 acres; total acreage shown above is based on 640 acres per section where actual survey acreage is not available.

Table 2.16: Sections and Acreages of Mosaic Owned Mineral Rights

Township/RangeSections of Mineral Rights Owned by Mosaic*Area of Mineral Rights Owned by Mosaic (acres)Area of Full Quarter Sections Owned by Mosaic (acres)
17/2310-14/166,9625,910
18/236-11/164,2753,817
17/247-7/164,7623,526
18/245-2/163,2862,871
Total30-2/1619,28516,124
*Full sections range from 640 acres to 644 acres; total acreage shown above is based on 640 acres per section where actual survey acreage is not available.

Table 2.17: Partial Mineral Rights Area
Township/RangeSections of Crown Mineral Rights Leased by Mosaic, Currently Not Mineable*Crown Mineral Rights Leased by Mosaic, Currently Not Mineable (acres)
18/221-2/100652
19/221-7/100682
18/2338/100241
18/2448/100307
Total2-94/1001,882
*Full sections range from 640 acres to 644 acres; total acreage shown above is based on 640 acres per section where actual survey acreage is not available.

Existing Infrastructure
The Belle Plaine Facility has been operating since 1964 and consists of a mining area and a processing plant and has an expected mine life based on mineral reserves of 63 years. The processing plant consists of a refinery and cooling pond. The Belle Plaine Facility has the infrastructure in place to meet the current production goals and LOM plan. The current infrastructure includes major road and highway access; railway support from Canadian National Railway (“CNR”) and
61

Canadian Pacific Railway (“CPR”); SaskPower-supplied electricity; TransGas-supplied natural gas; and potable and non-potable water supplied from a local fresh water source. We expect the current TMA footprint to support the volume and deposition rates indicated in the 2021 LOM plan.
The main source of water (non-potable) required for production is provided by SaskWater from the Buffalo Pound Lake, located northwest of the mine. It also supplies potable water for the cities of Regina, Moose Jaw and surrounding regions. Water levels are controlled by the SaskWater Security Agency and managed through the Lake Diefenbaker Dam.
SaskPower provides a portion of the power required to run the Belle Plaine Facility. This power comes in off the main SaskPower grid which could be fed from any number of SaskPower plants, along the highline running north and south along Kalium Road. A total of 138 kV comes into the Belle Plaine Facility substation where it is then stepped down to 13.8 kV using two transformers (28 MVA and 33.3 MVA). The Belle Plaine Facility owns and manages a substation where there is also a 138 kV grounding transformer and a 138 kVA gas insulated breaker lineup. The Belle Plaine Facility generates power from the powerhouse from two turbine generators.
TransGas supplies natural gas to the Belle Plaine Facility. The gas flows from the main lines into a local regulator station situated just north of the administration building and powerhouse. This station takes the high-pressure feed from the main lines and cuts it down through on-site filtration and also does some pre-heating to provide low pressure gas directly to the facility.
There are a variety of local or site roads on or to the Belle Plaine Facility. These are typically gravel roads. Roads around the processing plant are paved.
CNR and CPR are available to the Belle Plaine Facility to move final product to port. There is an operating agreement between Mosaic, CPR and CNR which governs the joint operation and interaction of all parties for freight services at the Belle Plaine Facility.
The Belle Plaine Facility is located between the cities of Moose Jaw and Regina, Saskatchewan. Moose Jaw has a population of approximately 34,000 people and is located 17 miles west of the Belle Plaine Facility. Regina, located 27 miles east of the Belle Plaine Facility, has a population of approximately 214,000 people.
Our workforce primarily lives in Regina and Moose Jaw and are typically trained through a variety of trades programs offered at the Saskatchewan Polytechnic campuses, the University of Regina or the University of Saskatchewan.
The province of Saskatchewan offers a large variety of suppliers for the potash mine operators. The potash industry in Saskatchewan is very mature which makes it easier to attract vendors to support the needs of the various mine sites throughout the province.
Saskatoon and Regina, Saskatchewan both have large industrial sectors with a variety of machine shops and industrial support services. Some specialty services are provided from the Alberta oil and gas industry.
Supplies are sourced locally, regionally and internationally based on availability or commercial considerations. Lead times and on-hand inventory are balanced to meet the needs of the site.
Mining Method
The Belle Plaine Facility utilizes an underground, solution mining process where paired wells are directionally drilled, cased, and cemented to the base of the potash beds. Solution mining techniques are used to target mining of the potash (“KCl”) bedding while minimizing mining of the halite salts (“NaCl”). Current mining practices allow for all three potash beds in the formation to be mined. During the mining process, the two wells are mined to connect with each other underground, allowing one well to become the feed well and the other well to become the return well. Water, or a weaker brine, is injected into the cavern to return a salt saturated and potash rich brine. This fluid is pumped through pipelines from the mining area and sent to the refinery complex as raw feed for further processing. The total life cycle of each cavern is approximately 25 years. Once the potash recovery is exhausted, each cavern is plugged and decommissioned in accordance with local government regulations.

The mining area capability is scheduled to ramp up to support a finished tonnage projection of 3.0 million tonnes per year and will do so until drilling is completed in the year 2066 at which point there is a ramp down in production until 2084.
62


The 2021 Belle Plaine LOM plan based on mineral reserves has an expected total mine life of 63 years, ending in 2084 and yielding an estimated total of 166.85 million tonnes of final product KCl.

Processing Recovery Method
The Belle Plaine Facility processing plant receives KCl-NaCl rich brine, known as raw feed, from the mine and achieves KCl recovery through the refinery and cooling pond areas. We use well established solubility curves of H2O-NaCl-KCl systems to monitor the selective dropout of products in the process.
The refinery subjects the raw feed brine from the mining area to changing temperatures and pressures that selectively precipitates the NaCl and then the KCl out of solution in different stages of the process. Selective drop out of NaCl is achieved through two parallel lines of evaporators that heat the brine with steam, that is generated on-site through natural gas fired boilers. The heating of the raw feed brine results in water liberation, causing NaCl to concentrate in the brine and then precipitate out of solution. After the brine is conditioned in the evaporator circuit, it is pumped to the thickener area for clarification and then pumped into a crystallizer circuit for KCl recovery. The crystallizer circuit subjects the process brine to a vacuum that allows further boiling, creating a cooling effect on the brine. As the brine cools, the KCl is forced to precipitate out of solution. The solid KCl is withdrawn from the crystallizer vessel as a slurry and pumped to the dewatering and drying area. The brine that overflows the crystallizer circuit, which still contains some dissolved KCl and NaCl, is fed to the cooling pond area for further KCl recovery.
The cooling pond area consists of multiple ponds that are fed with brine from the refinery and with raw feed brine from the mining area. The ponds facilitate atmospheric cooling, which allows KCl to preferentially precipitate out of the brine and then settle to the bottom of the ponds. The cooling pond area contains several KCl dredges that are comprised of a cutter wheel that fluidizes the deposited KCl from the bottom of a cooling pond and a slurry pump that moves the KCl slurry toward the dewatering and drying areas.
The dewatering and drying area removes the bulk of the brine in the slurry through process equipment and then conveys the KCl product into natural gas fired industrial dryers. The dried KCl product is then fed into the sizing area or compaction area for compacting, crushing, and screening processes to achieve product size specifications. Finished product is then conveyed to the on-site storage area, where it is held until being reclaimed, rescreened and shipped off site, primarily through rail.
We expect site production to increase by 2025 to 3.0 million tonnes per year until the year 2066, at which time we expect to stop drilling new cavities and ramp down production to 2084. The site’s ability to produce at a sustained 3.0 million tonnes per year in future years is backed by a Canpotex proving run in 2016/2017, in which the Belle Plaine Facility achieved a production nameplate of 3.9 million tonnes per year. We expect total site processing recovery to average 79% throughout the remaining life of the mine and is dependent on sustained drilling activities. Future projections are modeled with mass and energy balance software to predict the future production and recovery capabilities.
History and Exploration
The Belle Plaine Facility started production in 1964, after a period of significant research into solution mining, potash recovery and processing plant construction. Table 2.18 summarizes the important historical dates and events for the Belle Plaine Facility.

Table 2.18: History
DateEvent/Activity
1928Discovery of evaporites in the sedimentary sequence in Saskatchewan.
1956 to 1966
Pittsburgh Plate Glass completed significant research and development over a decade and published several research papers concerning solution mining and potash recovery.
1960A pilot solution mining project located at the current site was constructed, convincing Pittsburgh Plate Glass to develop the first commercial potash solution mining operation in the world based on the pilot plant results. The first exploration well drilled at the Belle Plaine property was Standard Chemical Stony Beach #1 in August 1960. Fourteen additional exploration wells were drilled from August 1960 to June 1968.
63

1963Kalium Chemicals, Ltd, a joint subsidiary of Pittsburgh Plate Glass and Armour and Co. started construction of the original processing plant for a capacity of 0.544 million tonnes annually. The main plant construction consisted of the North and South evaporators (all 8), crystallizers #1 to #4, #1 and #2 compactor systems, #1 to #5 beehive warehouses, loadout building and the office and maintenance buildings.
1964Mine and processing plant construction completed and production commences. The first rail car of potash was produced and shipped in August.
1968Capacity expansion to 0.9 million tonnes per year. Main assets added included three more crystallizers (#5, #6 and #7), a third cooling tower, a sixth beehive warehouse and a barn style warehouse #7, a fluid bed dryer and filter table and a third boiler.
1980 to 1984Two capacity expansions, first to 1.1 million tonnes and the second to 1.5 million tonnes per year. The major assets added included bucket elevators for each product, the fine fluid bed dryer, #4 compactor, reheat system barometric, additional galleries and conveyors to the warehouse (1A), cooling ponds, scrubbers and the Cold Leach Area.
1989Belle Plaine Facility sold to Sullivan & Proops (Vigoro).
1990sCapacity expansion to 2.0 million tonnes per year. Assets added included the K-Life System, #4 Turbo Generator, dual conveyors, conversion of the compaction system and additional compactors installed.
1995IMC purchased Belle Plaine.
1998The first 2D seismic survey at the Belle Plaine mine site was completed. A total of 160 line km was completed covering an area of approximately 14 sq. km.
2000The first 3D seismic survey at the Belle Plaine Facility was completed, providing critical geological information about the geology of the potash members. This has become a critical tool used to provide confidence in the interpretation of the potash mineralization.
2001The 2001 Belle Plaine Facility 3D seismic survey was completed. The survey covered approximately 13 sq. km. and was adjacent to and merged with the 2000 survey. This survey program utilized 56 km of source lines and 72 km of receiver lines.
2004
Mosaic created out of a merger between IMC and Cargill Crop Nutrition.
2005The 2005 Belle Plaine Facility 3D seismic survey was completed. The survey covered approximately 11 sq. km and was adjacent to and merged with previous 3D surveys. This survey program utilized 47 km of source lines and 55 km of receiver lines.
2008The 2008 3D seismic survey covered approximately 72 sq. km and was adjacent to and merged with previous 3D surveys. This survey program utilized 385 km. of source lines and 378 km of receiver lines.
2008 to 2012Capacity was expanded to 2.86 million tonnes per year. Assets added the injection wells 3 and 4, reclaim brine system, #4 boiler, process water building, cold leach motor control center room, #5 compaction system, #8 warehouse building, #2 reclaim, reclaim losses system, pond return slurry tank and centrifuge upgrades, rotary dryer #3, #2 loadout system, 60 km of new mine field pipelines, a drilling rig, new substation and replacement of the #4 crystallizer.
2010The Pense 3D seismic survey was completed that covered approximately 40 sq. km and was adjacent to and merged with the previous 3D surveys. This survey program consisted of 219 km of source lines and 208 km of receiver lines.
2014Plant upgrades included the adding and commissioning of Compaction #6.
2016/2017The site’s ability to produce at a sustained 3.0 million tonnes per year in future years was validated through a “proving run” completed in 2016 when the Belle Plaine Facility achieved a proven peak capacity of 3.9 million tonnes per year.
64

2019Plant upgrades were completed, consisting of adding the east thickener and advanced dewatering techniques.
2020Two production wells were cored in 2020 to support the grade interpretation and calibration of the gamma geophysical logging system. The recent calibration check has been evaluated by a third party potash consultant to ensure applicability of the method regarding sample quality grade estimation.

Geology and Mineralization
The intracratonic Elk Point Basin is a major sedimentary geological feature in western Canada and the northwest U.S. It contains one of the world’s largest stratabound potash resources. The nature of this type of deposition is largely continuous with predictable depths and thickness. It is mined at several locations, including Belle Plaine.
Potash at the Belle Plaine Facility occurs conformably within Middle Devonian-age sedimentary rocks ranging in thicknesses from approximately 100 to 131 feet at a depth of approximately 5,345 to 5,740 feet.
The Prairie Evaporite Formation, host to the potash mineralization, is divided into a basal lower salt and an overlying unnamed unit containing three potash-bearing units and one unit containing thin marker beds. In ascending order, the potash horizons in the upper unit are the Esterhazy Member, White Bear Marker Beds, Belle Plaine Member, and Patience Lake Member. Mineralogically, these members consist of sylvite and halite with minor amounts of carnallite (KCl, MgCl2, 6H2O).
The Esterhazy, Belle Plaine, and Patience Lake Members underly the Belle Plaine property. Also present are the White Bear Formation marker beds which occur between the Belle Plaine and Esterhazy Members but are of insufficient thickness to be minable.
The following is a summary of the key stratigraphic units for the Belle Plaine Facility area:
Patience Lake Member: The uppermost member of the Prairie Evaporite Formation with potash production potential. Between the top of the Prairie Evaporite and the top of the Patience Lake Member is a 0 to 45 feet thick unit of halite with clay bands called the Salt Back. The sylvite-rich horizons within the Patience Lake Member are mined using conventional underground mining techniques along a trend from Vanscoy to Lanigan in the Saskatoon area and by solution mining techniques at Belle Plaine.
Belle Plaine Member: The Belle Plaine Member underlies the Patience Lake Member and is separated from it by a zone of low grade sylvinite. The Belle Plaine Member is mined using solution mining techniques at the Belle Plaine Facility.
White Bear Formation: The White Bear Formation consists of marker beds that are a distinctive unit of thin interbedded clay, halite, and sylvinite horizons that are not minable due to their insufficient thicknesses of only 4.0 to 5.0 feet (1.2 to 1.5 m).
Esterhazy Member: The Esterhazy Member is separated from the Belle Plaine Member by the White Bear Formation marker beds, a sequence of clay seams, low-grade sylvinite, and halite. The Esterhazy Member is mined using conventional underground techniques at the Esterhazy Facility in southeastern Saskatchewan, and by solution mining techniques at the Belle Plaine Facility. The potash mined at the Belle Plaine Facility is a mixture of halite and sylvite and in some parts of the mining area, small amounts of carnallite. There are a number of insoluble clay-rich zones that are not recovered in the solution mining process. The potash deposit at Belle Plaine is uniform and laterally continuous. Solution mining methods can more easily accommodate any local variations in geological condition due to the non-selective concentrate mining process.
When considering the sequence of mining at the Belle Plaine Facility, the following terminology is applied to the beds. This describes the geology in a way that best summarizes the grades that are available for solution mining.
The Upper Mining Zone consists of beds 38 to 31 of the Patience Lake Member and beds 23 to 21 of the Belle Plaine Member. The Upper Mining Zone is about 90 feet thick.
65

The Salt Stringer is a thin bed of salt located between Beds 31 and 23 in the Upper Mining Zone. The Salt Stringer is approximately 10 feet thick.
The Interzonal Salt is a thick bed of salt located between the Lower and Upper Mining Zones.
The Marker Bed is a small, very rich potash bed located midway through the Interzonal Salt.
The Lower Mining Zone consists of beds 13, 12 and 11 of the Esterhazy Member. The Lower Mining Zone is approximately 20 feet thick.
Potash mineralization contains sylvinite: a mixture of the iron oxide-stained halite, sylvite and locally carnallite. When present interstitially or as massive pods, carnallite can deteriorate rapidly or be preferentially dissolved. The color of the potash can vary from light orange to deep red rimmed crystals. The mineralization can be locally bedded or massive. The halite and sylvite crystals can range from small to more typically coarse to large which can be attributed to the conditions during deposition as there has been no alteration.
Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve Assumption and Modifying Factors
The key mineral resource and mineral reserve assumptions and modifying factors are listed in Table 2.19.
Table 2.19: Key Assumptions and Modifying Factors
ParameterValueTRS Section
Supporting InformationRegional geologic studies, 719 production wells, seismic surveys and 57 years of mining history from approximately 350 caverns.Section 7, 11
Average composited total thickness of the potash mineralization amenable to solution mining102.2 ft.Section 11
Tonnage Factor17.2 cu ft./tonne (2,054 kilograms per cubic meter).Section 11
Average KCl grade from all drilling
30.6% (19.3% K2O)
Section 11
Operating Days per Year365 daysSection 13
Mining MethodSolution mining from surface installations.Section 13
Production Rate3.0 million tonnes per year.Section 13
Cut-off No cut-off grade is applied.Section 11, 12
Mining Recovery 22%Section 13
External DilutionNoneSection 12
Processing MethodKCl recovered from brine solution.Section 14
Processing Recovery79 to 96%Section 14
Deleterious Elements and Impact
Trace NaCl and MgCl2
Section 10
Environmental Requirements – Permits, etc.No significant environmental permitting encumbrances.Section 17
Geotechnical Factors (if any)No concerns.Section 13
Hydrological or Hydrogeological Factors (if any)No concerns.Section 13
Commodity PricesKCl commodity prices: 2022-$271/tonne, 2023-$231/tonne, 2024-$219/tonne, 2025-$185/tonne, 2026-$188/tonne and for LOM $219/tonne.Section 16
Exchange Rate (US$/C$)1.31Section 6
66

Mineral Resource Estimates
The Belle Plaine Facility mineral resources are reported as in-situ mineralization and are exclusive of mineral reserves. The mineral resources occur in the Esterhazy, Belle Plaine, and Patience Lake Members. Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves have not demonstrated economic viability utilizing the criteria and assumptions required at the Belle Plaine Facility.
The methodology for estimating mineral resources consists of interpreting the available geological data in plain view using AutoCAD 2020 software. The plan is updated to include the current mineral rights status, seismic survey interpretations, the limits of the current mining footprint, known areas (geological anomalies, town sites and other surface infrastructure) that make the mineral resource inaccessible and the planned cluster sites.
Additional details regarding the estimation methodology are listed in Section 11 of the 2021 Belle Plaine Facility TSR filed as an Exhibit to this 10-K Report.
The mineral resource estimates for the Belle Plaine Facility are listed in Table 2.20.
Table 2.20: Mineral Resources as of December 31, 2021 Based on a LOM Plan KCl Price of $219 per tonne(a)(b)(c)(d)
(tonnes in millions)
CategoryTonnes
Grade
%K2O
Grade
%KCl
Cut-off
Grade(e)
Metallurgical
Recovery
Inferred4,647 1931n/a79 to 90%
(a)Mineral resources are reported exclusive of those mineral resources that have been converted to mineral reserves.
(b)Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not meet the threshold for mineral reserve modifying factors, such as estimated economic viability, that would allow for conversion to mineral reserves. There is no certainty that any part of the mineral resources estimated will be converted into mineral reserves.
(c)Mineral resources assume solution mining.
(d)Mineral resources amenable to a solution mining method are contained within a conceptual cluster and cavern design using the same technical parameters as used for mineral reserves.
(e)No cut-off grade is used to estimate mineral resources as the solution mining method used at the Belle Plaine Facility is not selective. At no point in the cavern development and mining process can a decision be made to mine or not mine the potash mineralization that is in contact with the mining solution. There is no control on what potash grade the mining solution dissolves to make a concentrate that is pumped to surface from the mining caverns for processing.
No mineral resources were reported in 2020, as the Company reported under Industry Guide 7, which did not recognize mineral resources. As a result of the change in reporting to S-K 1300, mineral resources are being reported for the first time.
Mineral Reserve Estimates
The Belle Plaine Facility mineral reserve estimates are reported as in-situ mineralization accounting for all applicable modifying factors. Mineral reserves meet all the mining criteria required at the Belle Plaine Facility including, but not limited to mining, processing, metallurgical, infrastructure, economic, marketing, legal, environmental, social, and governmental factors.
The methodology for estimating mineral reserves consists of solution mining design work and scheduling and the application of mining recovery and unplanned dilution. Additional details regarding the estimation methodology are listed in Section 12 of the 2021 Belle Plaine Facility TRS filed as an Exhibit to this 10-K Report.
The mineral reserve estimates for the Belle Plaine Facility are listed in Table 2.21.
67

Table 2.21: Mineral Reserves at the End of the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2021 Based on LOM Plan KCl Price of $219 per tonne(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)
(tonnes in millions)
CategoryKCl TonnesGrade
%KCl
Grade
%K2O
Metallurgical
Recovery %
Proven275 30.619.381.2%
Probable394 30.619.381.2%
Proven + Probable669 30.619.381.2%
(a)Mineral reserves are based on measured and indicated mineral resources only.
(b)All mineral reserves are mined by a solution mining method. Mine designs based on a solution mining method and design criteria are used to constrain measured and indicated mineral resources within mineable shapes.
(c)No cut-off grade is used to estimate mineral reserves. The solution mining method used at the Belle Plaine Facility is not selective. At no point in the cavern development and mining process can a decision be made to mine or not mine the potash mineralization that is in contact with the mining solution. There is no control on what potash grade the mining solution dissolves to make a concentrate that is pumped to surface from the mining cavities for processing.
(d)Only after a positive economic test and inclusion in the LOM plan is the mineral reserve estimate included as a mineral reserve.
(e)The following KCl commodity prices were used to assess economic viability for the mineral reserves, but were not used for cut-off purposes: 2022-$271/tonne, 2023-$231/tonne, 2024-$219/tonne, 2025-$185/tonne, 2026-$188/tonne, and for the LOM $219/tonne.
(f)A US$/CAD$ exchange rate of 1.31 was used to assess economic viability for the mineral reserves but was not used for cut-off purposes.

Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves Comparison
As of December 31, 2021, our estimated mineral reserves were 668 million tonnes compared to 828 million as of the prior year-end, resulting in a change of 19%. Year-over-year changes are due to mining depletion, re-evaluation of the mining thickness and global grade, a change in the mining recovery and the change from Industry Guide 7 to S-K 1300.

ESTERHAZY

The Esterhazy Facility is approximately 10 miles to the east of the town of Esterhazy, 56 miles southeast of the city of Yorkton and 137 miles east of the city of Regina (Figure 2.5). The K1 mill site is located nine miles northeast of Esterhazy. The K2 mill site is located 12 miles east of Esterhazy. The K3 mine site is located four miles east of Esterhazy and the K4 mineral resources are located 18 miles northeast of Esterhazy. The geographic coordinates for K1 are latitude 50.726463 N and longitude -101.933506 W. The K2 coordinates are latitude 50.6574 N and longitude -101.8422 W and the K3 coordinates are latitude 50.64623 N and longitude -101.99346 W.
Mosaic, through Mosaic Potash Esterhazy Limited Partnership, a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of Mosaic, leases 197,920 acres of mineral rights from the Crown under Subsurface Mineral Leases KL 105, KL 126, and KLSA 003. Table 2.22 lists additional information regarding the three Crown leases. Table 2.23 outlines the total acreage of the Crown leases designated by township and range. The lease terms are 21 years, with renewals at our option for successive 21-year periods.
We also own or lease 206,228 acres of freehold mineral rights within the Esterhazy area as shown in Table 2.24 below. All mineral titles owned or leased by Mosaic include the “subsurface mineral” which under The Subsurface Mineral Tenure Regulations (Saskatchewan) means all natural mineral salts of boron, calcium, lithium, magnesium, potassium, sodium, bromine, chlorine, fluorine, iodine, nitrogen, phosphorus and sulfur, and their compounds, occurring more than 60m below the surface of the land. Other commodities (e.g., petroleum and natural gas, coal, etc.) that are not specifically sought after when acquired may be on mineral titles that Mosaic leases or owns.
Within the total acreage leased from the Crown or owned/leased by us are parcels of land where we own or lease less than a 100% share of the mineral rights. To mine these properties, we would need to acquire 100% control either by lease or ownership. Acres currently not mineable for this reason are listed in Table 2.25 below.
There are no significant environmental permitting encumbrances (existing or anticipated in the future) associated with the Esterhazy Facility. Except for royalties, we do not anticipate any future encumbrances based on current known regulations and existing permitting processes. There are no outstanding fines or material violations.
68

The net book value for Esterhazy is $3.4 billion as of December 2021.
Figure 2.5: Location Plan
mos-20211231_g9.jpg
69

Table 2.22: Mineral Lease
Crown Lease NumberTypeArea (Hectares)Expiration Date
KL 105Subsurface Mineral Lease26,125 November 2, 2023
KL 126Subsurface Mineral Lease28,473 October 25, 2026
KLSA 003Subsurface Mineral Lease25,498 November 18, 2030

Table 2.23: Sections and Acreages Owned by the Crown
Township/RangeSections of Mineral Rights Owned by Crown*Area of Mineral Rights Owned by Crown (acres)
19/3019-2/1612,221
20/3018-1/1611,542
21/3018-6/1611,753
22/302-1/161,331
19/3118-1/1611,561
20/3119-3/1612,265
21/3113-7/168,613
22/3115-15/1610,238
18/325-7/163,471
19/3218-15/1612,116
20/3214-11/169,388
21/3217-2/1610,970
22/324-6/162,799
18/335-12/163,662
19/3310-11/166,850
20/3311-7/167,326
21/338-5/165,313
22/331-6/16878
18/115-9/169,969
19/115-14/1610,158
20/116-7/1610,533
21/114-6/169,207
22/14-3/162,668
19A/12-12/161,762
18/26-1/163,865
19/24-13/163,083
19A/21-12/161,130
Total309-4/16194,672
*Full sections range from 640 acres to 644 acres; total acreage shown above is based on 640 acres per section where actual survey acreage is not available.



70

Table 2.24: Sections and Acreages of Mosaic-Owned Mineral Rights
Township/RangeSections of Mineral Rights Owned/ Leased by Mosaic*Area of Mineral Rights Owned/Leased by Mosaic (acres)
19/3017-14/1611,420
20/3019-7/1612,430
21/3018-8/1611,822
19/3116-13/1610,760
20/3117-13/1611,389
21/3123-6/1614,954
22/314-7/162,846
18/324-15/163,168
19/3218-8/1611,843
20/3222-12/1614,553
21/3219-12/1612,624
22/324-8/162,868
18/335-14/163,764
19/3310-6/166,631
20/339-8/166,087
21/3312-10/168,075
22/332-3/161,390
18/12-8/161,583
19/118-14/1612,084
19A/14-15/163,177
20/120-8/1613,134
21/121-7/1613,707
22/19-15/166,343
18/22-9/161,631
19/210-4/166,579
19A/22-2/161,365
Total30-2/16206,227
*Full sections range from 640 acres to 644 acres; total acreage shown above is based on 640 acres per section where actual survey acreage is not available.














71

Table 2.25: Partial Mineral Rights Area
Township/RangeCrown Mineral Rights Leased by Mosaic, Currently Not Mineable (acres)*Mineral Rights Owned/Leased by Mosaic, Currently Not Mineable (acres)*
21/30321
20/3180
21/3180
22/3180514
21/32321
21/3374
18/1150
19/11209138
19A/1322
20/1221
21/180159
18/2160
19/2161
19A/261
Total3246885
*Less than 100% share of a mineral rights parcel.

Existing Infrastructure
The Esterhazy Facility consists of an underground mine and two processing plants that started production in 1962. The mine has an additional expected life, based on mineral reserves of 33 years, to 2054. The Esterhazy Facility has the infrastructure in place to meet the current production goals and LOM plan. The current infrastructure includes: major road and highway access; railway support from CNR and CPR; SaskPower supplied electricity; TransGas and SaskEnergy supplied natural gas; and potable and non-potable water supplied from local fresh water sources. The long-term TMA development plan is being revised to support production at the levels indicated in the 2021 LOM plan.
Process and potable water for the K1 mill is provided by three approximately 200 ft. deep wells drilled into the upper Dundurn aquifer. The K2 mill water supply comes from the Cutarm Creek dam reservoir that is owned and operated by Mosaic. Located 1.5 miles northeast of the K2 site, the dam forms a reservoir approximately 5.25 miles long and 650 feet wide. K3 mine water is supplied from K2 via a 7.4 mile long pipeline.
The power to operate the Esterhazy Potash Facility is supplied by the provincial utility, SaskPower. The K1 mill is serviced by a 72 kV line with approximately 36 MVA capacity. The K2 mill has two services at 72 kV and 138 kV respectively, with a combined capacity of 125 MVA. The K3 mine is serviced by a 230 kV line from SaskPower with 140 MVA capacity. Two transformers step down the voltage, each rated at 70 MVA.

TransGas is the primarily supplier of an uninterrupted supply of natural gas to the Esterhazy Potash Facility. Esterhazy has regulator stations for the natural gas at each of the sites, with a low-pressure distribution piping network.
The K1 and K2 sites are serviced by the CNR main line, and by spur lines to the CPR. The surrounding area is developed for agriculture with a road network, villages and towns.
Regina International Airport is 140 miles by highway west of the Esterhazy Facility, while Yorkton municipal airport is 55 miles to the northwest. The Town of Esterhazy maintains a paved 3,000 feet long airstrip, located 8 miles southwest of the K1 mill.
72

The Esterhazy Facility’s workforce lives throughout the area, generally within 62 miles of the mine sites. This includes the Russell and Binscarth areas of western Manitoba. Education and healthcare facilities are in Esterhazy, Russell, Melville, and Yorkton.
The province of Saskatchewan offers a large variety of suppliers for the potash mine operators. The potash industry in Saskatchewan is very mature, making it easier to attract vendors to support the needs of the various mine sites throughout the province.
Saskatoon and Regina have large industrial sectors with a variety of machine shops and industrial support services. Some specialty services are provided from the Alberta oil and gas industry.
Supplies are sourced locally, regionally and internationally based on availability or commercial considerations. Lead times and on-hand inventory are balanced to meet the needs of the site.
Mining Method
At the Esterhazy Facility, potash is extracted by underground mining using the room-and-pillar method. Current mine design allows for the planned extraction of 27.6% of the in-situ ore. Pillars are left in place between mining rooms to support overlying strata and prevent failure of the upper rock formations or an inflow of brine from any water-bearing zones above.
The 2021 LOM plan for the Esterhazy Facility includes the K3 mineral reserves. The K4 mineral resources are currently scheduled after depletion of the K3 mineral resources. Production is based on an average production rate of 17.527 million tonnes per year based on 365 production days per year.
We expect the K3 mineral reserves production to ramp up to full production by 2024. We expect the mine to ramp down starting in 2051, with mining anticipated to be completed in 2054.
Our current schedule to begin mining The K4 mineral resources is to start mining in 2050. We expect the mine to ramp up to full production in 2055 and ending in 2090.
Processing Recovery Method
The Esterhazy Facility’s processing plant consists of two separate mill facilities, designated as K1 and K2. Each mill processes the raw ore feed stock received from the underground mining operations through crushing, separation, screening and compaction unit operations to produce on-grade, saleable product. The plants utilize online grade analyzers to monitor the process as well as routine samples that are analyzed by the onsite lab. The milling can be broken down into two main functions: the wet end separates potash and salt, while the dry end sizes potash for sale.
The wet end of the mill begins with raw ore sizing and crushing to prepare it for the separation processes. In heavy media, the larger size fraction is separated into potash and salt through dense media separation that is driven by differences of buoyancy in salt and potash. Flotation receives the smaller size fraction and has specific reagents added that allow the potash crystals to float while the salt is rejected as tailings material. At K2 there is also a crystallizer circuit that produces potash using solubility, temperature, and pressure differences. Dewatering and drying is the final stage in the wet end, where potash is sent through centrifuges and industrial driers to remove all moisture.
Once the product is dried, it is sent to a screen to separate right-sized material from the over and undersized material for all the different product grades. Oversized material is sent through a crushing circuit to break it down to right-sized material. The undersized material is upgraded through compaction to a larger product.
We plan to ramp up milling rates once the K3 mine is up to full capacity. We then expect to stabilize at a total milling rate to the end of mine life. The differences in final product tonnes will be based on supplied raw ore grade as it varies throughout the mine workings. We believe that the site’s ability to produce at the increasing rates being forecasted in the LOM plan is supported by a proving run in 2013, when the Esterhazy Facility achieved a production nameplate of 6.3 million tonnes overall.


73

History and Exploration
The Esterhazy Facility K1 started production in 1962 and K2 started production in 1967. Table 2.26 lists the important historical dates and events for Esterhazy.
Table 2.26: History
DateEvent/Activity
1928Discovery of evaporites in the sedimentary sequence in Saskatchewan.
1955International Minerals and Chemicals (IMC, Canada) Ltd. acquired >500,000 acre lease in Esterhazy area and started drilling.
1957 to 1962IMC Corporation begins shaft sinking at K1. K1 mine production officially started in September 1962 at a capacity of 0.9 million tonnes per year.
1965K2 TMA Phase I expansion.
1966The K1 mine capacity was expanded to 1.5 million tonnes per year.
1967The K2 shaft sinking was completed to a capacity of 2.4 million tonnes per year. The first potash production from K2 was in April/May.
1968The K2 TMA Phase II expansion was completed.
1974K2 mill expansion, heavy media circuit.
1981The K2 TMA Phase III expansion was completed.
1985Inflow 10B was detected December 29, 1985 in the D400 entry at a point 3.5 miles (5.6 km) southwest of the K2 shaft. Initial inflow was estimated to be 1,000 gpm. Information obtained using seismic surveys allowed for targeted drilling and placement of calcium chloride and various grouts to reduce the inflow to manageable levels. The pumping capacity was increased through a series of stages to bring online a total of 22 pumps, to a maximum capacity of 4,000 gpm. As a result of these efforts, K1 and K2 sites continued normal mining operations.
1987Mineral Resource Location Study – Vibroseis Study was completed.
198912 exploration drill holes to delineate the K1 and K2 mining area were completed.
1991 to 1998Seismic surveys in the Gerald, Gerald West and Cutarm areas.
1997IMC Kalium merged with IMC Global and Freeport-McMorRan.
1999Company renamed IMC Potash.
2000-03Seismic surveys: 2D and 3D (K1 and K2).
2004Mosaic created out of a merger between IMC and Cargill Crop Nutrition.
20053D seismic surveys completed at K1 (19.5 sq. km) and K2 (10.3 sq. km).
2006-09Various seismic surveys completed. Hoist expansion at K2. Processing plant capacity increased to 4.8 million tonnes per year. K2 TMA expansion completed. Exploration drilling of 10 holes including two shaft pilot holes completed as part of the K3 expansion project.
2010Completion of the crushing expansion at K1.
20113D seismic surveys at K1 North (51.4 sq. km) and Perrin Lake (37.3 sq. km).
2012K3 South shaft pre-sink was completed. Esterhazy exits Tolling Agreement with PCS. A number of 3D seismic surveys were completed including Saskman, K1 NW, K1 SWD Field. Seven brine injection wells were drilled at Farfield.
2013
K3 South Shaft sunk to the potash level. 3D seismic survey at Panel 11Q (9.2 sq. km) completed. Completion of mill expansion at K2 for an additional 0.7 million tonnes per year. A Canpotex proving run was successfully completed increasing the site nameplate processing plant capacity from 4.8 million tonnes per year to 6.3 million tonnes per year.
20143D seismic survey at Panel 11Q 3C (9.3 sq. km) completed.
20153D seismic surveys at Gerald (12.1 sq. km) and K3 (232.4 sq. km) completed.
2016Nine exploration drill holes completed.
74

2017The K3 North shaft sinking was completed and the first K3 ore from the South shaft was skipped to surface and trucked to the K1 mill.
2018The K3 to K2 overland conveyor construction was completed. The K3 North shaft steel and Keope hoist rope up were completed. The K3 North shaft first ore skipped in December 18 and trucked to the K2 mill.

The first K3 ore was conveyed on the overland conveyor to the K2 mill in December.
2019Commissioned the K3 Koepe production and Blair service hoists. Four drum miners cutting K3 shaft pillar development started. Two four rotor miner assemblies completed. The K3 South shaft sinking was completed in November.
2020Completion of the South shaft bottom steel, added a third four rotor miner, installed the Mainline conveyor, added a fourth rotor miner cutting and completed the K3 South Headframe concrete slip. K3 shaft pillar development completed in December. The K3 fifth four rotor miner started cutting in October. The first ore from K3 conveyed to K1.
2021The sixth K3 four rotor miner started cutting in January and the seventh four rotor miner started cutting in May. The K1 and K2 mines were closed 9 months ahead of schedule in response to brine inflow conditions.
Geology and Mineralization
The intracratonic Elk Point Basin is a major sedimentary geological feature in western Canada and the northwest U.S. It contains one of the world’s largest stratabound potash resources. The nature of this type of deposition is largely continuous with predictable depths and thickness. It is mined at several locations, including the Esterhazy Facility.
Potash at the Esterhazy Facility area occurs conformably within Middle Devonian-age sedimentary rocks and is found in total thicknesses ranging from approximately 100 to 131 feet (30 to 40 m) at a depth of approximately 5,345 to 5,740 feet (1,630 to 1,750 m).
The Prairie Evaporite Formation, host to the potash mineralization, is divided into a basal “lower salt” and an overlying unnamed unit containing three potash-bearing units and one unit containing thin marker beds. In ascending order, the potash horizons in the upper unit are the Esterhazy Member, White Bear Marker Beds, Belle Plaine Member, and Patience Lake Member. Mineralogically, these members consist of sylvite and halite, with minor amounts of carnallite (KCl, MgCl2, 6H2O).
In the Esterhazy area, the Esterhazy, White Bear and Belle Plaine Members are present, and the Patience Lake Member is absent. The following is a summary of the key stratigraphic units for the Esterhazy Potash Facility area:
Belle Plaine Member: The Belle Plaine Member underlies Second Red Bed and makes up part of the salt back that is critical to isolating the mining horizon from the formations above. The Belle Plaine Member is mined using solution mining techniques at the Belle Plaine Facility and is not mined at the Esterhazy Facility.
White Bear Member: The White Bear Member consists of marker beds that are a distinctive unit of thin interbedded clay, halite, and sylvinite horizons that are not minable due to their insufficient thickness of only 4.0 to 5.0 feet.
Esterhazy Member: The Esterhazy Member is separated from the Belle Plaine Member by the White Bear Member marker beds, a sequence of clay seams, low-grade sylvinite, and halite. The Esterhazy Member is mined using conventional underground techniques at the Esterhazy Facility in southeastern Saskatchewan, and by solution mining techniques at the Belle Plaine Facility.
The typical sylvinite intervals within the Prairie Evaporite Formation consist of a mass of interlocked sylvite crystals that range from pink to translucent and may be rimmed by greenish-grey clay or bright red iron insoluble material, with minor halite randomly disseminated throughout the mineralized zones. Local large one inch (2.5 cm) cubic translucent to cloudy halite crystals may be present within the sylvite groundmass, and overall, the sylvinite ranges from a dusky brownish red color (lower grade, 23% to 27% K2O with an increase in the amount of insoluble material) to a bright, almost translucent pinkish orange color (high grade, 30%+ K2O). Carnallite is also present locally in the Prairie Evaporite Formation as a mineral fraction of the depositional sequence. The intervening barren salt beds consist of brownish red, vitreous to translucent halite with minor sylvite and carnallite and increased insoluble materials content.


75

Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve Assumptions and Modifying Factors
The key mineral resource and mineral reserve assumptions and modifying factors are listed in Table 2.27.

Table 2.27: Key Assumptions and Modifying Factors

ParameterValueTRS Section
Supporting InformationRegional geologic studies, 59 exploration holes, seismic surveys, in-mine channel samples and 50 years of mining history at K1 and K2.Section 7
Average total thickness of the potash mineralization8.55 ft., based on the ratio of 8.5 ft. production panel mining height and 9.0 ft. development mining height.Section 11
Density129.878 lbs./cu ft. (2,080.446 kg/cu m)Section 11
In-mine channel samples grade
27.1% K2O
Section 11
Operating Days per Year365 daysSection 13
Mining MethodUnderground room and pillar mining.Section 13
Production Rate17.527 million tonnes per year.Section 13
Cut-off No cutoff grade is applied.Section 11
Mining Recovery 27.6%Section 12, 13
External DilutionNoneSection 12, 13
Processing MethodTwo mill facilities that crush, float, screen and compact KCl.Section 14
Processing Recovery85 to 88% (86.1% average)Section 14
Deleterious Elements and ImpactIncreased amounts of NaCl can significantly impact production volumes.Section 10
Environmental Requirements, Permits, etc.No significant environmental permitting encumbrances.Section 17
Geotechnical Factors (if any)No concerns/issues.Section 13
Hydrological or Hydrogeological Factors (if any)Undersaturated brines from adjacent aquifers.Section 13
Commodity PricesKCl commodity prices (US$): 2022-$271/tonne, 2023-$231/tonne, 2024-$219/tonne, 2025-$185/tonne, 2026-$188/tonne, and for the LOM $219/tonne.Section 16
Exchange Rate (US$/CAD$)1.31Section 16

Mineral Resource Estimates
The Esterhazy Facility’s mineral resources are reported as in-situ mineralization and are exclusive of mineral reserves. The mineral resources occur in the Esterhazy, White Bear and Belle Plaine Members. We assume that the mineralization is laterally continuous and consistent, based on publicly available regional geological information and our knowledge of the local geology and area.
Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves have not demonstrated economic viability utilizing the criteria and assumptions required at the Esterhazy Facility.
76

The methodology for estimating mineral resources consists of interpreting the available geological data in plain view using AutoCAD 2020 software. The plan is updated to include the current mineral rights status, seismic survey interpretations, the limits of the current mining footprint, known areas (geological anomalies, town sites and other surface infrastructure) that make the mineral resource inaccessible and therefore excluded from the mineral resource estimation process, property boundary pillars, pillars around exploration holes and infrastructure, “no mining” areas in the uncontrolled mineral rights locations and a pillar between the K1 and K2 mining area and the adjacent K4 mineral resource areas.
Additional details regarding the estimation methodology are listed in Section 11 of the 2021 Esterhazy Facility TRS filed as an Exhibit to this 10-K Report.
The mineral resource estimates for the Esterhazy Facility are listed in Table 2.28.

Table 2.28: Mineral Resources at the End of the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2021 Based on a LOM Plan KCl Price of $219 per tonne(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(g)(h)
(tonnes in millions)
CategoryTonnes
Grade
%K2O(f)
Metallurgical
Recovery
Measured255.0 23.386.1
Indicated2,092.0 22.886.1
Measured + Indicated2,347.0 22.886.1
(a)Mineral resources are reported exclusive of those mineral resources that have been converted to mineral reserves. Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
(b)Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not meet the threshold for mineral reserve modifying factors, such as estimated economic viability, that would allow for conversion to mineral reserves. There is no certainty that any part of the mineral resources estimated will be converted into mineral reserves.
(c)Mineral resources assume an underground room and pillar mining method.
(d)Mineral resources amenable to underground mining methods are accessed via shaft and scheduled for extraction based on a conceptual room and pillar design using the same technical parameters as for mineral reserves.
(e)No cut-off grade or value based on commodity price is used to estimate mineral resources. This is because the mining method used at Esterhazy is not grade selective. The potash mineralization is mined on one level by continuous miners following the well-defined and continuous beds of mineralization with relatively consistent grades (Section 11.2 of TRS).
(f)%K2O refers to the total %K2O of the samples.
(g)We used the following KCl commodity prices to assess prospects for economic extraction for the mineral resources but are not used for cut-off purposes: 2022-$271/tonne, 2023-$231/tonne, 2024-$219/tonne, 2025-$185/tonne, 2026-$188/tonne, and for the LOM plan $219/tonne.
(h)We used a US$/CAD$ exchange rate of 1.31 to assess prospects for economic extraction for the mineral resources but was not used for cut-off purposes.

No mineral resources were reported in 2020, as the Company was reporting under Industry Guide 7, which did not recognize mineral resources. As a result of the change in reporting to S-K 1300, mineral resources are being reported for the first time.
Mineral Reserve Estimates
The Esterhazy Facility’s mineral reserves are reported as in-situ mineralization, accounting for all applicable modifying factors. Mineral reserves meet all the mining criteria required at Esterhazy including, but not limited to mining, processing, metallurgical, infrastructure, economic, marketing, legal, environmental, social and governmental factors.
The methodology for estimating mineral reserves consists of post pillar mine design work and scheduling and the application of mining recovery and unplanned dilution. Additional details regarding the estimation methodology are listed in Section 12 of the 2021 Esterhazy Facility TRS.
The mineral reserve estimates for the Esterhazy Facility are listed in Table 2.29.

77

Table 2.29: Mineral Reserves at the End of the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2021 Based on a LOM Plan KCl Price of $219 per tonne(a)(b)(d)(e)
(tonnes in millions)
CategoryTonnes
Grade
%K2O(c)
Metallurgical
Recovery %
Proven122.0 23.986.1
Probable437.0 20.886.1
Proven + Probable559.0 21.586.1
(a)The mineral reserves are based on measured and indicated resources only and are reported as in-situ mineralization.
(b)We used underground mining standards and design criteria to constrain measured and indicated mineral resources within mineable shapes. Only after a positive economic test and inclusion in the LOM plan is the mineral reserve estimate included as mineral reserves.
(c)%K2O refers to the total %K2O of the samples.
(d)We used the following KCl commodity prices to assess economic viability for the mineral reserves, but were not used for cut-off purposes: 2022-$271/tonne, 2023-$231/tonne, 2024-$219/tonne, 2025-$185/tonne, 2026-$188/tonne, and for the LOM plan $219/tonne.
(e)We used a US$/CAD$ exchange rate of 1.31 to assess economic viability for the mineral reserves but was not used for cut-off purposes.

Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves Comparison
Our mineral reserves decreased by 36% to 557 million tonnes at December 31, 2021 compared to 875 million tonnes at December 31, 2020. Year-over-year changes are due to mining depletion, the closure of the K1/K2 mining operation in June 2021, a change in the density, mining recovery and average mining height, and the change from Industry Guide 7 to S-K 1300 reporting.

TAPIRA

Tapira is located in the western portion of the state of Minas Gerais, in the southeast of Brazil, to the north of the town of Tapira, and approximately 35 km south-southeast of the city of Araxá (Figure 2.6). The mine is 420 km by road to the Minas Gerais state capital of Belo Horizonte, via the BR-262 highway to Araxá and then the BR 146 highway to Tapira. The property extends from approximately UTM 7,805,000 N to 7,799,500 N, and from 304,000 E to 310,000 E (Corrego Alegre 1961, UTM Zone 23 South), and is centered approximately at 19º52’S/46º51’W. The Tapira complex consists of a mine and a phosphate beneficiation plant. The plant produces phosphate conventional and ultrafine concentrate, which is sent by pipeline (conventional) and truck (ultrafine) to local Mosaic chemical plants for finished product production.





78

Figure 2.6: Project Location Plan
mos-20211231_g10.jpg

Infrastructure
Tapira is located in a highly developed region known as Alto Parnaíba. This region is known for its excellent, modern infrastructure with high standards of living compared with other regions in Brazil. The local infrastructure available to Tapira is excellent, as it is situated within a well-established mining area, 35 km from the well-developed city of Araxá and within 25 km of two other mining operations.
The supply of electricity occurs via a 138 kiloVolt (“kV”) transmission line that is operated by CEMIG and Vale Energia Concessionaires. Tapira has a total receipt of 40 megawatts and an annual power usage around 305 GW. The main substation receives 138 kV in three oil-type transformers which is transferred to secondary substations. From the secondary substations, power is distributed to the end-use areas at 110 volts (“V”), 220 V, 280 V, 440 V, or 4,160 V.
Water intake comes from the Ribeirão do Inferno and artesian wells, as well as recovered water from the tailings dams. Additionally, there are four artesian wells at Tapira. The industrial reuse system used to recover water from the dams includes 10 pumps (four operating and six on stand-by) and 36” pipes covering varying distances to the different dam areas. The distance from BR1 dam is approximately nine km with a rated capacity of 4,400 cubic meters per hour (m3/hr). The distance from BL1 dam is approximately three km with a rated capacity of 10,400 m3/hr. The distance from BR dam is approximately four km with a rated capacity of 4,900 m3/hr.
There is currently no rail or airport access at Tapira. The closest rail and airport access is in the city of Araxá.
Infrastructure includes a phosphate beneficiation plant with associated support infrastructure, including tailings storage facilities, maintenance facilities, warehouses, and various administrative and other support facilities. The mine infrastructure
79

includes overburden storage and other material storage facilities, surface water management features, and maintenance, warehouse and other typical support infrastructure.
Tapira includes an impoundment stability monitoring system that covers all the operating impoundments at Tapira.
Network connectivity is in place at the mine buildings and a telephone system provides coverage throughout the mine unit. A radio system provides the ability to dispatch and control the mining equipment and transport trucks as well as communicate with the control room in the beneficiation plant.

Mineral and Surface Rights
Mining rights in Brazil are governed by the Mining Code, Decree 227, dated February 27, 1967, and further regulation enacted by the ANM. This governmental agency, which controls the mining activities throughout Brazil, was recently created as a replacement of the former National Department of Mineral Production (“DNPM”). All sub-soil situated within Brazilian territory is deemed state property, with the mining activities subject to specific permits granted by the ANM.
We currently hold a total of eight mining permits within the Tapira area (3,842 hectares). The Tapira mineral assets are part of a Consortium named Consórcio Vale Fosfértil Tapira created by Decree number 98.962 (February 16, 1990), process number 930.785/1988 (4,355.76 hectares) granted to Vale S.A. (previously Vale do Rio Doce S.A.) and Vale Fertilizantes Fosfatados S.A. – Fosfértil.
The Tapira Mining Consortium and all mining permits except for one permit, 803.387/1974 which is currently pending, have transferred from Vale S.A to Mosaic Fertilizantes P&K Ltda. Tapira operates via the Tapira Mining Consortium, therefore, the transfer process of mining right ANM 803.387/1974 does not affect the continuity of the mining operations.
Tapira has an overall surface rights area of 8,008 hectares distributed in 18 different property registrations. The surface area within the ultimate pit is currently mostly controlled by Mosaic. There is a small area near a local village that is not within the current property rights. The relocation of the village and State Highway MG-146 will be necessary to fully realize the LOM tonnages. The area surrounding the village and State Highway MG-146 is currently included in the currently controlled mining permits, and is therefore not seen as a significant encumbrance to Tapira.
The capacity requirements are not currently in place for all tailings disposal for total LOM capacity requirements. However, Tapira has an ongoing permitting and development plan to support the mining operations that will continue through the LOM requirements.
Present Condition of the Property
The Tapira mine has been in operation since 1978 and is a production stage property.
All required fixed and permanent infrastructure of power, pipelines and primary roadways, and project access are established. Drainage, water controls, and mine access roads and ramps are established for current operations and will be expanded and continued as the pit progresses through its planned life of operations.
The ore at Tapira is recovered using open-pit conventional truck and shovel mining methods, due to the proximity of the ore to the surface and the physical characteristics of the deposit. The ore is transported via truck to a homogenization pile where it is later fed to the beneficiation plant via conveyors. The beneficiation plant produces phosphate conventional and ultrafine concentrate which is sent by pipeline (conventional) and truck (ultrafine) to local Mosaic chemical plants for finished product production.
The mining equipment at Tapira is leased and therefore not owned by us. The beneficiation plant has been in operation since Tapira started 43 years ago. The tailings dams, water dams and sedimentation ponds have been active at Tapira since mining started 43 years ago as well. Currently the BR1 dam is being raised to its final design height to accommodate the LOM plan.
The net book value for Tapira is $297 million as of December 31, 2021.
Exploration activities are ongoing for in-fill drilling for phosphate production to complete the current LOM. Additional areas of exploration and research include better understanding the non-weathered material and titanium mineralization for future mining prospects.
80

History of Previous Operations
Tapira has been in operation since 1978 and has produced more than 70 million tonnes (Mt) of phosphate concentrate. Since 1978, Titanium Dioxide (TiO2) bearing material, mainly in the form of anatase, has been stockpiled, with more than 200,000 tonnes awaiting the implementation of an economical beneficiation method.
The geological structure of the alkaline complex of Tapira was first recognized in 1953, through magnetometric and radiometric investigations carried out by the Brazil-Germany Project. There was an agreement between the two countries to carry out regional geophysical aero-survey programs, performed by the Geological Survey of Brazil in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s.
In 1968, three major private groups – Pedro Maciel, Companhia Meridional de Mineração, and Companhia Brasileira de Metalurgia e Mineração – had exploration research requests granted by DNPM. In early1971, Vale (previously known as Companhia Vale do Rio Doce) joined Pedro Maciel to create the company Titan International S.A., which changed its name to Rio Doce Titânio in later years. Vale acquired the rights of Pedro Maciel at the end of 1971, with the mining rights incorporated into the company Mineração Rio Paranaíba. At the time, a series of intensive and detailed systematic works were undertaken, and important occurrences of phosphate, titanium, niobium, rare earths, and vermiculite were identified.
Extensive exploration works were undertaken between 1971 and 1973, with particular focus on the occurrences of titanium. From 1973 to 1977, the exploration priorities changed to occurrences of phosphate, with the aim of replacing the massive imports of fertilizers in the agricultural sector that was then undergoing a period of expansion in Brazil. In 1977, the Fosfértil (Fertilizantes Fosfatados S.A.) company was created under the administration of Petrofértil (a subsidiary of Petrobras, the Brazilian state oil company). In 1992, Fosfértil was privatized, and a pool of investors held the company shares.
In 2010, Vale S.A. acquired complete control of Fósfertil and after created a new company, Vale Fertilizantes S.A. which included other fertilizer assets. At the start of 2018, Mosaic Fertilizantes P&K S.A. acquired the assets of Vale Fertilizantes, including the Tapira mineral deposit.
Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves
The regional and local geology, mineral resources, and mineral reserves are detailed in the sub-sections below.
Regional and Local Geology
The Tapira phosphate deposit is part of a series of Late-Cretaceous, carbonatite-bearing alkaline ultramafic plutonic complexes belong to the Alto Paranaiba Igneous Province. The Tapira igneous rocks intrude the phyllites, schists, and quartzites of the Late-Proterozoic Brasília mobile belt. The Tapira igneous complex is roughly elliptical, 35 square kilometers (km2) in area and consists predominantly of alkaline pyroxenite rocks with subordinate carbonatite, serpentinite (dunite), glimmerite, syenite, and ultramafic potassic dikes.
The tropical weathering regime prevailing in the region and the inward drainage patterns developed from the weathering-resistant quartzite margins of the dome structures resulted in the development of an extremely thick soil cover in most of the complexes. The extreme weathering process was responsible for the residual concentration of apatite. The main geological types identified in the deposit are a combination of the igneous protoliths (bebedourites, phoscorites, and carbonatites) and the products of the weathering process.
Mineral Resources
The mineral resources at Tapira were estimated based on the long-standing exploration drilling and sampling completed at Tapira since 1967. The drilling results were loaded into the geological database, verified, and vetted for errors, and then used in the geological model to create the lithology and weathering surfaces. The geological model was used in creating the block model, where geological domains based on the lithology and weathering surfaces were utilized to interpret grade, density, and mass recovery in a geologically appropriate manner. Exploratory Data Analysis and geostatistical analysis were completed on the raw and composite data sets to help define interpolation parameters and mineral resource classifications. The mineral resources were restricted based on an optimized pit limit that took into account cut-off grade, price, mining costs, infrastructure limitations, and mineral licenses. The mineral resources are exclusive of mineral reserves and include approximately 129.8 million tonnes of measured and indicated mineral resources with a P2O5ap grade of 7.9%. There are an additional 112.8 million tonnes of inferred mineral resources with a P2O5ap grade of 8.6% (Table 2.30).
81

Table 2.30: Mineral Resources at the End of the Fiscal Year Ended 2021 Based on R$ 1,492.92/tonne of Phosphate Concentrate
(tonnes in millions)
CategoryTonnes
Grade (%P2O5ap)
Metallurgical Recovery (%P2O5ap)
Measured62.88.052.7
Indicated67.07.853.2
Measured + Indicated129.87.953.0
Inferred112.88.652.4
    
Notes to table:
(a)Additional details are described in the TRS filed as an Exhibit to this 10-K Report.
(b)Mineral resources are reported exclusive of mineral reserves. Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not meet the threshold for mineral reserve modifying factors, such as estimated economic viability, that would allow for conversion to mineral reserves. There is no certainty that any part of the mineral resources estimated will be converted into mineral reserves.
(c)Grades are P2O5ap, which represents the P2O5 associated with apatite and was calculated by the evaluation of the CaO / P2O5 ratio. Where CaO / P2O5 ratio was greater than or equal to 1.34, P2O5ap was equal to the total of P2O5; where the CaO / P2O5 ratio was less than 1.35, P2O5ap was equal to the CaO / 1.35 ratio.
(d)Mineral resource tonnages and grade are stated in-situ and exclusive of mineral reserves. Cut-off grade of P2O5ap ≥ 5.0% and 0.9 ≤ Ratio of CaO to P2O5 (RCP) ≤ 3.0 was applied to mineral resources. Measured, indicated and inferred blocks were included in mineral resource estimates if they were inside mining concessions and exploration permits with a final report approved by ANM, but exclusive of physical structures such as the crusher and waste piles. A revenue factor of 1.0 with sales price of R$1,492.92 per tonne of phosphate concentrate (2020 price evaluation) was used to develop the mineral resource pit shell.

Mineral Reserves
A mineral reserve estimate has been prepared for Tapira. Mineral reserves are limited by the Tapira property boundary, and the ultimate pit designed for the LOM plan, which was limited with an economic optimized pit analysis.
The mineral reserve estimate includes mining modifying adjustments for mining ore recovery, mining dilution, and ore concentration recovery factors. The mineral reserve estimate is limited to a cut-off grade of 5.0% P2O5ap, as well as certain geometallurgical beneficiation criteria, including:
a.Diluted ratio of CaO to P2O5 (RCP) between 0.9 and 3.0
b.Within one of the four mineralized domains characterized by lithology and alteration
The beneficiation plant generates conventional (coarse) and ultrafine concentrates from the Tapira ore. The beneficiation process includes milling of the ore, magnetite separation, hydro-sizing and fines separation and flotation. The mass recovery of coarse concentrate is forecast based on the results of laboratory flotation tests performed on drill core samples. The mass recovery of coarse concentrate is predicted based on a mass recovery regression equation as a function of the ROM Fe2O3, CaO and P2O5 chemical compositions.
The metallurgical recovery is calculated from the mass recovery, the concentrate % P2O5, and the ROM % P2O5 according to the following equation:
Metallurgical recovery = 100 x Mass recovery x Concentrate % P2O5 / ROM % P2O5
The annual production estimates were used to determine annual estimates of capital and operating costs. All cost estimates were in real 2021 R$ terms. Total capital costs included R$3.8 billion of sustaining capital and opportunity costs. Annual operating costs were based predominantly on historical consumption factors and unit costs. They included costs for ongoing, final reclamation, and closure. Annual total cost of rock production varied from R$458 per tonne to R$604 per tonne, with an average total cost of production for a tonne of phosphate rock concentrate at R$530.
For the purpose of reporting for our total financial statistics, the discounted cash flow was converted from Reais to U.S. Dollars at an exchange rate of R$4.69 = US$1.00.
82

Because Tapira is a captive operation supplying rock to other Mosaic-owned chemical plants, there is no transparent mined phosphate rock commodities price market in Brazil. Mineral reserves for Tapira were estimated based on an internal transfer price. This internal transfer price was set as a constant number of US$71.64 per tonne (R$336.00 per tonne).

Table 2.31 Mineral Reserves at the End of the Fiscal Year Ended 2021 Based on R$1,492,92/tonne of Phosphate Concentrate
(tonnes in millions)
CategoryTonnes (Dry)
Grade (%P2O5ap)(Dry)
Metallurgical Recovery (%P2O5ap)
Proven193.79.457.4
Probable275.69.162.6
Proven + Probable469.39.260.4
(a)Additional details are described in the TRS filed as an Exhibit to this 10-K Report.
(b)Mineral reserves are within measured and indicated mineral resource limits.
(c)Only after a positive economic test and inclusion in the LOM plan is the mineral reserve estimate included as a mineral reserve.
(d)Grades are P2O5ap, which represents the P2O5 associated with apatite and was calculated by the evaluation of the CaO / P2O5 ratio. Where CaO / P2O5 ratio was greater than or equal to 1.34, P2O5ap was equal to the total of P2O5; where the CaO / P2O5 ratio was less than 1.35, P2O5ap was equal to the CaO / 1.35 ratio.
(e)Mineral reserve tonnages and grade are stated as ROM tonnages. The mineral reserves are constrained by a pit design that honors site specific geotechnical designs by pit sector. The mine plan considers constraints required for surface and groundwater management, appropriate extraction methodology, labor and equipment requirements, beneficiation plant mass and metallurgical recoveries, and are dependent upon all permits and environmental licenses in place and continued approved status. The reference point for cut-off grade and pit optimization analysis is tonnes of concentrate at a price of R$1,492.92/tonne concentrate (2020 price evaluation). Cut-off grade of P2O5ap ≥ 5.0% and 0.9 ≤ RCP ≤ 3.0 was applied to mineral reserves. Mineral reserves were proven to be economic based on internal transfer price that was derived in the discounted cash flow and compared to the gross margin available.

Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves Comparison

No mineral resources were reported in 2020, as the Company was reporting under Industry Guide 7 which did not recognize mineral resources. As a result of the change in reporting to S-K 1300, the mineral resources are being reported for the first time.
As of December 31, 2021 we had mineral reserves of 469.3 million tonnes compared to 610.5 million in the prior year, resulting in a decrease of 23%. Changes in mineral reserve tonnage from the prior year are the result of mining depletion, small changes to beneficiation plant factors and the change from Industry Guide 7 to S-K 1300.
REGULATION S-K 1300 INTERNAL CONTROLS DISCLOSURE
Qualified persons, including third parties and Mosaic employees, are responsible for estimating mineral resources and reserves. Mosaic has a Global Review Team, consisting of a broad spectrum of internal personnel outside the operating organization whose primary responsibilities include review of the mineral resources and reserves estimation reporting for compliance with SEC rules and regulations. The Global Review Team includes members from Mosaic’s accounting, finance, business units and legal departments. Reports prepared by qualified persons and third parties are reviewed at various levels of the Global Review Team before they are ultimately reviewed and approved by our senior leadership team. In future years, Mosaic expects to modify and streamline our S-K 1300 processes and internal controls.
Item 3. Legal Proceedings.
We have included information about legal and environmental proceedings in Note 22 of our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements. That information is incorporated herein by reference.
We are also subject to the following legal and environmental proceedings in addition to those described in Note 22 of our Consolidated Financial Statements included in this report:
Countervailing Duty Petitions. In 2020, we filed petitions with the U.S. Department of Commerce (“DOC”) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) that requested the initiation of countervailing duty investigations into imports of
83

Table of Content
phosphate fertilizers from Morocco and Russia. The purpose of the petitions was to remedy the distortions that we believe foreign subsidies have caused or are causing in the U.S. market for phosphate fertilizers, and thereby restore fair competition. On February 16, 2021, the DOC made final affirmative determinations that countervailable subsidies were being provided by those governments. On March 11, 2021, the ITC made final affirmative determinations that the U.S. phosphate fertilizer industry is materially injured by reason of subsidized phosphate fertilizer imports from Morocco and Russia. As a result of these determinations, the DOC issued countervailing duty orders on phosphate fertilizer imports from Russia and Morocco, which are scheduled to remain in place for at least five years. Currently, the cash deposit rates for such imports are approximately 20 percent for Moroccan producer OCP, 9 percent and 47 percent for Russian producers PhosAgro and Eurochem, respectively, and 17 percent for all other/Russian producers. The final determinations in the DOC and ITC investigations are subject to challenge before U.S. federal courts and the World Trade Organization. Mosaic has initiated actions at the U.S. Court of International Trade contesting certain aspects of the DOC’s final determinations that, we believe, failed to capture the full extent of Moroccan and Russian phosphate fertilizer subsidies. Moroccan and Russian producers have also initiated U.S. Court of International Trade actions, seeking lower cash deposit rates and revocation of the countervailing duty orders. Further, the cash deposit rates and the amount of countervailing duties owed by importers on such imports could change based on the results of the litigation as well as DOC’s annual administrative review proceedings.
The South Pasture Extension Mine Litigation. On January 8, 2020, the Hardee County Mining Coordinator issued a Notice of Violation (“NOV”) for the failure by Mosaic to proceed with reclamation of two designated reclamation units within the South Pasture Mine footprint. These two reclamation units comprise 166 acres of mined lands. The NOV cites noncompliance with the County Land Development Regulations and with the conditions of Development of Regional Impact (“DRI”) Development Order 12-21 that was issued in 2012 to authorize continued mining at the South Pasture Mine, continued operation of the South Pasture beneficiation plant, and mining at the South Pasture Mine Extension. Through the NOV, the county requested that Mosaic submit a revised reclamation plan and schedule to demonstrate when initial reclamation activities would be completed for the two reclamation units identified in the NOV.
The delay in meeting the required reclamation schedule at the two reclamation units is tied to the idling and eventual shutdown of the Plant City fertilizer plant and the idling of the South Pasture Mine beneficiation plant. The Plant City facility was first idled in late 2017. In June 2019, Mosaic announced that the Plant City facility would be closed permanently.
Given the relationship between the Plant City fertilizer plant and the South Pasture beneficiation plant, and facing adverse market conditions, Mosaic idled the South Pasture beneficiation plant in September 2018. Idling of the South Pasture Mine beneficiation plant in September 2018 resulted in no tailings sand being produced by the processing of phosphate matrix. As a result, there was no tailings sand available for use in sand backfilling reclamation at the South Pasture Mine, and specifically, the two reclamation units identified in the county’s January 8th NOV.
On March 10, 2020, Mosaic filed an “Application for Waiver and Reclamation Schedule Extension” to secure Board of County Commissioners (“BOCC”) approval of extended reclamation deadlines for the South Pasture Mine. To obtain waiver relief from the BOCC, a quasi-judicial hearing would be required.
Extensive negotiations between Mosaic and county legal and technical staff resulted in an agreement that involved two separate but related actions: (1) secure a waiver and reclamation schedule extension through formal action by the BOCC at a quasi-judicial public hearing; and (2) enter into a settlement agreement that would require payment of a civil penalty by Mosaic for the non-compliance in meeting the required reclamation deadlines of the South Pasture Mine Development Order and the County Mining Ordinance. The settlement agreement would also be presented and acted upon at a formal public hearing before the BOCC.
On May 7, 2020, a quasi-public judicial hearing was held before the Hardee County BOCC. At that hearing, the BOCC voted unanimously to issue a waiver of the applicable reclamation deadlines of the South Pasture Development Order and the county ordinance for three specific reclamation areas of the South Pasture Mine. The waiver also included a negotiated alternative reclamation schedule that extends the deadline for completion of reclamation until the end of 2023. At that same hearing, the BOCC approved a settlement agreement that resolved all outstanding non-compliance associated with reclamation obligations at the South Pasture Mine and required Mosaic to pay an agreed settlement amount of $249,000.
Mosaic has satisfied the payment obligation of the settlement agreement and continues to implement the alternative reclamation schedule, as required. Monitoring programs have been put in place to ensure continued compliance with the waiver and settlement agreement.
Cruz Litigation. On August 27, 2020, a putative class action complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in Hillsborough County, Florida against our wholly owned subsidiary, Mosaic Global Operations Inc., and
84

Table of Content
two unrelated co-defendants. The complaint alleges claims related to elevated levels of radiation at two manufactured housing communities located on reclaimed mining land in Mulberry, Polk County, Florida, allegedly due to phosphate mining and reclamation activities occurring decades ago. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages, including punitive damages, injunctive relief requiring remediation of their properties, and a medical monitoring program funded by the defendants. On October 14, 2021, the court substantially granted a motion to dismiss we filed late in 2020, with leave for the plaintiffs to amend their complaint.
On November 3, 2021, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and in response, Mosaic filed a motion to dismiss that complaint with prejudice on November 15, 2021. On December 23, 2021, plaintiffs opposed that motion and Mosaic replied to that opposition on January 26, 2022.
We intend to vigorously defend this matter.

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures.
Information concerning mine safety violations or other regulatory matters required by Section 1503(a) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and Item 104 of Regulation S-K is included in Exhibit 95 to this report.
85

Table of Content
PART II.
Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities.
We have included information about the market price of, dividends on and the number of holders of our common stock under “Quarterly Results (Unaudited)” in the financial information that is incorporated by reference in this report in Part II, Item 8, “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data”.
The principal stock exchange on which our common stock is traded is The New York Stock Exchange under the symbol “MOS”.
The following provides information related to equity compensation plans:
Plan category
Number of shares to be
issued upon exercise of
outstanding options,
warrants and rights (a)
Weighted-average
exercise price of
outstanding options,
warrants and rights (b)
Number of shares remaining
available for future issuance
under equity compensation plans
(excluding shares reflected
in first column)
Equity compensation plans approved by stockholders7,403,892 $38.47 9,958,309 
Equity compensation plans not approved by stockholders— — — 
Total7,403,892 $38.47 9,958,309 
______________________________
(a)Includes grants of stock options, time-based restricted stock units and total shareholder return (“TSR”) performance units. For purposes of the table above, the number of shares to be issued under a performance unit award reflects the maximum number of shares of our common stock that may be issued pursuant to such performance award. The actual number of shares to be issued under a TSR performance unit award will depend on the change in the market price of our common stock over a three-year vesting period, with no shares issued if the market price of a share of our common stock at the vesting date plus dividends thereon is less than 50% of its market price on the date of grant and the maximum number issued only if the market price of a share of our common stock at the vesting date plus dividends thereon is at least twice its market price on the date of grant.
(b)Includes weighted average exercise price of stock options only.
Pursuant to our equity compensation plans, we have granted and may in the future grant employee stock options to purchase shares of common stock of Mosaic for which the purchase price may be paid by means of delivery to us by the optionee of shares of common stock of Mosaic that are already owned by the optionee (at a value equal to market value on the date of the option exercise). During the period covered by this report, no options to purchase shares of common stock of Mosaic were exercised for which the purchase price was so paid.
On August 23, 2021, our Board of Directors authorized the 2021 Repurchase Program, which replaces the previous authorization that had $700 million of the original $1.5 billion remaining. The 2021 Repurchase Program allows us to repurchase up to $1.0 billion of our Common Stock through open market purchases, accelerated share repurchase arrangements, privately negotiated transactions or otherwise. The 2021 Repurchase Program has no set expiration date.









86

Table of Content
The following table sets forth information with respect to shares of our Common Stock that we purchased under the 2021 Repurchase Program during the quarter ended December 31, 2021:
PeriodTotal number of shares purchasedAverage price paid per shareTotal number of shares purchased as part of a publicly announced program
Maximum approximate dollar value of shares that may yet be purchased under the program(a)
Common Stock
October 1, 2021- October 31, 2021326,582 $40.30 326,582 $965,837,597 
November 1, 2021- November 30, 20218,629,670 
(b)
36.82 8,629,670 648,071,790 
December 1, 2021- December 31, 20211,614,297 36.55 1,614,297 589,073,883 
Total10,570,549 $36.89 10,570,549 $589,073,883 
(a)    At the end of the month shown.
(b)    Includes 8,544,144 shares purchased in an underwritten secondary offering by Vale S.A.
Item 6. Reserved.
Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.
The Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations listed in the Financial Table of Contents included in this report is incorporated herein by reference.
Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk.
We have included a discussion about market risks under “Market Risk” in the Management’s Analysis that is included in this report in Part II, Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations”. This information is incorporated herein by reference.
Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.
Our Consolidated Financial Statements, the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements, the report of our Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm, and the information under “Quarterly Results” listed in the Financial Table of Contents included in this report are incorporated herein by reference. All other schedules for which provision is made in the applicable accounting regulation of the SEC are not required under the related instructions or are inapplicable, and therefore, have been omitted.
Item 9. Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosures.
None.
Item 9A. Controls and Procedures.
(a)Disclosure Controls and Procedures
We maintain disclosure controls and procedures designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed in our filings under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) is (i) recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the SEC’s rules and forms, and (ii) accumulated and communicated to management, including our principal executive officer and our principal financial officer, to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosures. Our management, with the participation of our principal executive officer and our principal financial officer, has evaluated the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this annual report on Form 10-K. Our principal executive officer and our principal financial officer have concluded, based on such evaluations, that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective for the purpose for which they were designed as of the end of such period.
87

Table of Content
(b)Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
We have included management’s report on internal control over financial reporting under “Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting” listed in the Financial Table of Contents included in this report.
We have included our registered public accounting firm’s attestation report on our internal controls over financial reporting under “Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” listed in the Financial Table of Contents included in this report.
This information is incorporated herein by reference.
(c)Changes in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
Our management, with the participation of our principal executive officer and our principal financial officer, has evaluated any change in internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the quarter ended December 31, 2021 in accordance with the requirements of Rule 13a-15(d) promulgated by the SEC under the Exchange Act. There were no changes in internal control over financial reporting identified in connection with management’s evaluation that occurred during the quarter ended December 31, 2021 that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.
Item 9B. Other Information.
None.
88

Table of Content
PART III.
Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance.
“The information required by this item is included in the Company’s 2022 Proxy Statement to be filed with the SEC within 120 days after December 31, 2021 in connection with the solicitation of proxies for the Company’s 2022 annual meeting of stockholders, and is incorporated here by reference.

The information contained under the headings “Proposal No. 1Election of Directors,” “Corporate GovernanceCommittees of the Board of Directors,” and “ Beneficial Ownership of Securities” included in our definitive proxy statement for our 2022 annual meeting of stockholders and the information contained under “Information About our Executive Officers” in Part I, Item 1, “Business,” in this report is incorporated herein by reference. Add Section 16 heading as we will be reporting late Form 4.
We have a Code of Business Conduct and Ethics within the meaning of Item 406 of Regulation S-K adopted by the SEC under the Exchange Act that applies to our principal executive officer, principal financial officer and principal accounting officer. Our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics is available on Mosaic’s website (www.mosaicco.com) and we intend to satisfy the disclosure requirement under Item 5.05 of Form 8-K regarding any amendment to, or waiver from, a provision of our code of ethics by posting such information on our website. The information contained on Mosaic’s website is not being incorporated herein.
Item 11. Executive Compensation.
The information under the headings “Director Compensation” and “Executive Compensation” included in our definitive proxy statement for our 2022 annual meeting of stockholders is incorporated herein by reference.
Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters.
The information under the headings “Beneficial Ownership of Securities” and “Certain Relationships and Related Transactions” included in our definitive proxy statement for our 2022 annual meeting of stockholders is incorporated herein by reference. The table containing information related to equity compensation plans set forth in Part II, Item 5 “Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities” of this report is also incorporated herein by reference.
Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence.
The information under the headings “Corporate GovernanceBoard Independence,” “Corporate GovernanceCommittees of the Board of Directors,” “Corporate GovernanceOther Policies Relating to the Board of DirectorsPolicy and Procedures Regarding Transactions with Related Persons,” and “Certain Relationships and Related Transactions” included in our definitive proxy statement for our 2022 annual meeting of stockholders is incorporated herein by reference.
Item 14. Principal Accounting Fees and Services.
Our independent registered public accounting firm is KPMG LLP, Dallas, TX, Auditor Firm ID: 185.
The information included under “Audit Committee Report and Payment of Fees to Independent Registered Public Accounting FirmFees Paid to Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” and “Audit Committee Report and Payment of Fees to Independent Registered Public Accounting FirmPre-approval of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm Services” included in our definitive proxy statement for our 2022 annual meeting of stockholders is incorporated herein by reference.

89

Table of Content
PART IV.
Item 15. Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules.
(a)(1)Consolidated Financial Statements filed as part of this report are listed in the Financial Table of Contents included in this report and incorporated by reference in this report in Part II, Item 8, “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data”.
(2)All schedules for which provision is made in the applicable accounting regulations of the SEC are listed in this report in Part II, Item 8, “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data”.
(3)Reference is made to the Exhibit Index in (b) below.
(b)Exhibits
Exhibit No.DescriptionIncorporated Herein by
Reference to
Filed with
Electronic
Submission
2.i.

Exhibit 2.1 to Mosaic’s Current Report on Form 8-K dated October 22, 2004, and filed on October 28, 2004(2)
3.i.
Exhibit 3.i to Mosaic’s Current Report on Form 8-K dated May 19, 2016 and filed on May 23, 2016(2)
3.ii.
Exhibit 3.1 to Mosaic’s Current Report on Form 8-K dated March 5, 2020 and filed on March 6, 2020(2)
4.i
Exhibit 4.i to Mosaic’s Current Report on Form 8-K dated August 23, 2021 and filed on August 23, 2021(2)
4.ii.
Registrant hereby agrees to furnish to the Commission, upon request, all other instruments defining the rights of holders of each issue of long-term debt of the Registrant and its consolidated subsidiaries
Exhibit 4.1 to Mosaic’s Current Report on Form 8-K dated October 24, 2011 and filed on October 24, 2011(2)
4.iii
Exhibit 4.iii to Mosaic’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019

10.ii.aExhibit 10.1 to Mosaic’s Current Report on Form 8-K dated October 24, 2017 and filed on October 30, 2017
90

Table of Content
10.ii.bExhibit 10.2 to Mosaic’s Current Report on Form 8-K dated October 24, 2017 and filed on October 30, 2017
10.iii.a.(3)
Appendix A to Mosaic’s Proxy Statement dated August 25, 2009(2)
10.iii.a.1(3)
Exhibit 10.iii.u. to Mosaic’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the Fiscal Year ended May 31, 2011(2)
10.iii.a.2(3)
Exhibit 10.iii.b. to Mosaic’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the Quarterly Period ended August 31, 2011(2)
10.iii.b(3)
X
10.iii.c.1(3)
Exhibit 10.iii.b. to Mosaic’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the Quarterly Period ended November 30, 2008(2)
10.iii.c.2(3)
Exhibit 10.iii.r. to Mosaic’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the Fiscal Year ended May 31, 2011(2)
10.iii.c.3(3)
Exhibit 10.1 to Mosaic’s Current Report on Form 8-K dated March 5, 2015 and filed on March 11, 2015(2)
10.iii.c.4(3)
Exhibit 10.iii.c.4 to Mosaic’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the Quarterly Period ended March 31, 2017(2)
10.iii.c.5(3)
Exhibit 10.iii.c.5 to Mosaic’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the Fiscal Year ended December 31, 2018
10.iii.c.6(3)
Exhibit 10.iii.c.6 to Mosaic’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the Fiscal Year ended December 31, 2020
10.iii.d.1(3)
Exhibit 10.iii.d to Mosaic’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the Quarterly Period ended March 31, 2020
91

Table of Content
10.iii.d.2(3)
X
10.iii.d.3(3)
Exhibit 10.1 to Mosaic’s Current Report on Form 8-K dated May 17, 2017 and filed on May 19, 2017(2)
10.iii.d.4(3)
Described in Item 5.02 in Mosaic’s Current Report on Form 8-K dated May 24, 2019 and filed on May 24, 2017
10.iii.d.5(3)
Exhibit 10.1 to Mosaic’s Current Report on Form 8-K dated October 31, 2019 and filed on November 4, 2019
10.iii.e.1(3)
Exhibit 10.iii.b. to Mosaic’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the Quarterly Period ended August 31, 2012(2)
10.iii.e.2(3)
Exhibit 10.iii.x. to Mosaic’s Annual Report on Form 10-K of Mosaic for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2013(2)
10.iii.f.(3)
Exhibit 10.iii. to Mosaic’s Current Report on Form 8-K dated October 8, 2008, and filed on October 14, 2008(2)
10.iii.g.(3)
Exhibit 10.iii.g. to Mosaic’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the Quarterly Period ended June 30, 2021
10.iii.h.(3)
The material under “Compensation Discussion and Analysis—Other Executive Compensation Arrangements, Policies and Practices—Perquisites” in Mosaic’s Proxy Statement dated April 8, 2020
10.iii.i.(3)
Appendix B to Mosaic’s Proxy Statement dated April 2, 2014(2)
10.iii.j.(3)
Exhibit 10.iii.j to Mosaic’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019
92

10.iii.k.1(3)
Exhibit 10.iii.a. to Mosaic’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the Quarterly Period ended March 31, 2015(2)
10.iii.k.2(3)
Exhibit 10.iii.a. to Mosaic’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the Quarterly Period ended March 31, 2016(2)
10.iii.k.3(3)
Exhibit 10.iii.e. to Mosaic’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the Quarterly Period ended March 31, 2016(2)
10.iii.k.4(3)
Exhibit 10.iii.kk to Mosaic’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the Quarterly Period Ended June 30, 2016(2)
10.iii.k.5(3)
Exhibit 10.iii.k.1 to Mosaic’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the Quarterly Period ended March 31, 2017(2)
10.iii.k.6(3)
Exhibit 10.iii.k.2 to Mosaic’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the Quarterly Period ended March 31, 2017(2)
10.iii.k.7(3)
Exhibit 10.2 to Mosaic’s Current Report on Form 8-K dated October 31, 2019 and filed on November 4, 2019
10.iii.k.8(3)
Exhibit 10.iii.k.11 to Mosaic’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019
10.iii.k.9(3)
Exhibit 10.iii.a to Mosaic’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-K for the Quarterly Period ended March 31, 2020
10.iii.k.10(3)
Exhibit 10.iii.b to Mosaic’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-K for the Quarterly Period ended March 31, 2020
10.iii.k.11(3)
Exhibit 10.iii.c to Mosaic’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-K for the Quarterly Period ended March 31, 2020
10.v.a

Exhibit 10.1. to Mosaic’s Current Report on Form 8-K dated September 30, 2015 and filed on October 6, 2015(2)
93

Table of Content
10.v.bExhibit 10.v.i to Mosaic’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the Quarterly Period Ended June 30, 2016(2)
10.v.c

Exhibit 10.2. to Mosaic’s Current Report on Form 8-K dated September 30, 2015 and filed on October 6, 2015(2)
10.v.d

Exhibit 10.v.ii to Mosaic’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the Quarterly Period Ended June 30, 2016(2)
21X
23.1X
23.2X
23.3X
23.4X
23.5X
24X
31.1X
31.2X
32.1X
32.2X
95X
96.1X
96.2X
96.3X
96.4X
101Interactive Data FilesX
94

Table of Content
(c)Summarized financial information of 50% or less owned persons is included in Note 8 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements. Financial statements and schedules are omitted as none of such persons are significant under the tests specified in Regulation S-X under Article 3.09 of general instructions to the financial statements.
*********************************************
(1)Mosaic agrees to furnish supplementally to the Commission a copy of any omitted schedules and exhibits to the extent required by rules of the Commission upon request.
(2)SEC File No. 001-32327
(3)Denotes management contract or compensatory plan.
(4)Confidential information has been omitted from this Exhibit and filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to a confidential treatment request under Rule 24b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

95

Table of Content
Item 16. Form 10-K Summary.
None.

96

Table of Content
*********************************************
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

THE MOSAIC COMPANY
(Registrant)
/s/ James “Joc” C. O’Rourke
James “Joc” C. O’Rourke
Chief Executive Officer and President
Date: February 23, 2022
S-1

Table of Content
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated:

NameTitleDate
/s/ James “Joc” C. O’RourkeChief Executive Officer and President and Director (principal executive officer)February 23, 2022
James “Joc” C. O’Rourke
/s/ Clint C. FreelandSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (principal financial officer and principal accounting officer)February 23, 2022
Clint C. Freeland
*Chairman of the Board of DirectorsFebruary 23, 2022
Gregory L. Ebel
*DirectorFebruary 23, 2022
Cheryl K. Beebe
*DirectorFebruary 23, 2022
Oscar P. Bernardes
*DirectorFebruary 23, 2022
Timothy S. Gitzel
*DirectorFebruary 23, 2022
Denise C. Johnson
*DirectorFebruary 23, 2022
Emery N. Koenig
*DirectorFebruary 23, 2022
Luciano Siani Pires
*DirectorFebruary 23, 2022
David T. Seaton
*DirectorFebruary 23, 2022
Steven M. Seibert
*DirectorFebruary 23, 2022
Gretchen H. Watkins
*DirectorFebruary 23, 2022
Kelvin R. Westbrook

*By:  
/s/ Mark J. Isaacson
Mark J. Isaacson
Attorney-in-Fact

S-2

Table of Content
Financial Table of Contents 
 Page
F-2
F-2
F-2
F-4
F-5
F-9
F-11
F-12
F-13
F-14
F-14
F-14
F-14
F-14
F-14
F-15
F-15
F-15
F-15
F-17
F-20
F-22
F-24
F-30
F-30
F-30
F-30
F-34
F-37
F-38
F-39
F-40
F-42
F-43
F-88

F-1

Table of Content
Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
Introduction
The Mosaic Company (before or after the Cargill Transaction, as defined below, “Mosaic,” and with its consolidated subsidiaries, “we,” “us,” “our” or the “Company”) is the parent company of the business that was formed through the business combination (“Combination”) of IMC Global Inc. and the Cargill Crop Nutrition fertilizer businesses of Cargill, Incorporated and its subsidiaries (collectively, “Cargill”) on October 22, 2004. In May 2011, Cargill divested its approximately 64% equity interest in us in a split-off to its stockholders and a debt exchange with certain Cargill debt holders.
We produce and market concentrated phosphate and potash crop nutrients. We conduct our business through wholly and majority owned subsidiaries as well as businesses in which we own less than a majority or a non-controlling interest, including consolidated variable interest entities and investments accounted for by the equity method.
We are organized into the following business segments:
Our Phosphates business segment owns and operates mines and production facilities in Florida, which produce concentrated phosphate crop nutrients and phosphate-based animal feed ingredients, and processing plants in Louisiana, which produce concentrated phosphate crop nutrients for sale domestically and internationally. We have a 75% economic interest in the Miski Mayo Phosphate Mine (“Miski Mayo Mine”) in Peru. These results are consolidated in the Phosphates segment. The Phosphates segment also includes our 25% interest in the Ma’aden Wa’ad Al Shamal Phosphate Company (“MWSPC”), a joint venture to develop, own and operate integrated phosphate production facilities in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. We market approximately 25% of the MWSPC phosphate production. We recognize our equity in the net earnings or losses relating to MWSPC on a one-quarter reporting lag in our Consolidated Statements of Earnings (Loss).
Our Potash business segment owns and operates potash mines and production facilities in Canada and the U.S. which produce potash-based crop nutrients, animal feed ingredients and industrial products. Potash sales include domestic and international sales. We are a member of Canpotex, Limited (“Canpotex”), an export association of Canadian potash producers through which we sell our Canadian potash outside the U.S. and Canada.
Our Mosaic Fertilizantes business segment includes five phosphate rock mines, four phosphate chemical plants and a potash mine in Brazil. The segment also includes our distribution business in South America, which consists of sales offices, crop nutrient blending and bagging facilities, port terminals and warehouses in Brazil and Paraguay. We also have a majority interest in Fospar S.A., which owns and operates a single superphosphate granulation plant and a deep-water port and throughput warehouse terminal facility in Brazil.
Intersegment eliminations, unrealized mark-to-market gains/losses on derivatives, debt expenses, Streamsong Resort® results of operations, and the results of the China and India distribution businesses are included within Corporate, Eliminations and Other. See Note 24 of the Consolidated Financial Statements in this report for segment results.
Key Factors that can Affect Results of Operations and Financial Condition
Our primary products, phosphate and potash crop nutrients, are, to a large extent, global commodities that are also available from a number of domestic and international competitors, and are sold by negotiated contracts or by reference to published market prices. The markets for our products are highly competitive, and the most important competitive factor for our products is delivered price. Business and economic conditions and governmental policies affecting the agricultural industry and customer sentiment are the most significant factors affecting worldwide demand for crop nutrients. The profitability of our businesses is heavily influenced by worldwide supply and demand for our products, which affects our sales prices and volumes. Our costs per tonne to produce our products are also heavily influenced by fixed costs associated with owning and operating our major facilities, significant raw material costs in our Phosphates and Mosaic Fertilizantes businesses, and fluctuations in currency exchange rates.
Our products are generally sold based on the market prices prevailing at the time the sales contract is signed or through contracts which are priced at the time of shipment. Additionally, in certain circumstances the final price of our products is determined after shipment based on the current market at the time the price is agreed to with the customer. Forward sales programs at fixed prices increase the lag between prevailing market prices and our average realized selling prices. The mix
F-2

Table of Content
and parameters of these sales programs vary over time based on our marketing strategy, which considers factors that include, among others, optimizing our production and operating efficiency within warehouse limitations, as well as customer requirements. The use of forward sales programs and the level of customer prepayments may vary from period to period due to changing supply and demand environments, seasonality, and market sentiments.
World prices for the key raw material inputs for concentrated phosphate products, including ammonia, sulfur and phosphate rock, have an effect on industry-wide phosphate prices and production costs. The primary feedstock for producing ammonia is natural gas, and costs for ammonia are generally highly dependent on the supply and demand balance for ammonia. In North America, we purchase approximately one-third of our ammonia from various suppliers in the spot market, with the remaining two-thirds either purchased through a long-term ammonia supply agreement (the “CF Ammonia Supply Agreement”) with an affiliate of CF Industries, Inc. (“CF”) or produced internally at our Faustina, Louisiana location. The CF Ammonia Supply Agreement provides for U.S. natural gas-based pricing that is intended to lessen pricing volatility. We entered into the agreement in late 2013, and we began purchasing under it in the second half of 2017. If the price of natural gas rises or the market price for ammonia falls outside of the range anticipated at execution of the agreement, we may not realize a cost benefit from the natural gas-based pricing over the term of the agreement, or the cost of our ammonia under the agreement could be a competitive disadvantage. During 2021, the contract has provided an advantage over pricing in the spot market. At times, we have paid more or less for ammonia under the agreement than in the spot market. We expect the agreement will provide us a competitive advantage over its term, including by providing a reliable long-term ammonia supply. In Brazil, we purchase all of our ammonia from a single supplier.
Sulfur is a global commodity that is primarily produced as a by-product of oil refining. The market price is based primarily on the supply and demand balance for sulfur. There is currently tightness in the sulfur market which we are monitoring. At this time, we do not expect this to have a material impact on our business. We believe our current and future investments in sulfur transformation and transportation assets will enhance our competitive advantage. We produce and procure most of our phosphate rock requirements through either wholly or partly owned mines. In addition to producing phosphate rock, Mosaic Fertilizantes purchases phosphates, potash and nitrogen products which are either used to produce blended crop nutrients (“Blends”) or for resale.
Our per tonne selling prices for potash are affected by shifts in the product mix, geography and customer mix. Our Potash business is significantly affected by Canadian resource taxes and royalties that we pay to the Province of Saskatchewan in order for us to mine and sell our potash products. In addition, cost of goods sold is affected by a number of factors, including: fluctuations in the Canadian dollar; the level of periodic inflationary pressures on resources in western Canada, where we produce most of our potash; and natural gas costs for operating our potash solution mine at Belle Plaine, Saskatchewan. In the past, we have also incurred operating costs to manage salt saturated brine inflows at our Esterhazy, Saskatchewan K1 and K2 mine shafts which we closed in June 2021 due to an acceleration of brine inflows. Mining has now transitioned to the K3 mine shaft which is expected to be in full production in the first quarter of 2022.
Our results of operations are also affected by changes in currency exchange rates due to our international footprint. The most significant currency impacts are generally from the Canadian dollar and the Brazilian real.
A discussion of these and other factors that affected our results of operations and financial condition for the periods covered by this Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations is set forth in further detail below. This Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations should also be read in conjunction with the narrative description of our business in Item 1, and the risk factors described in Item 1A, of Part I of this annual report on Form 10-K, and our Consolidated Financial Statements, accompanying notes and other information listed in the accompanying Financial Table of Contents.
This section of this Form 10-K discusses 2021 and 2020 items and year-to-year comparisons between 2021 and 2020. Discussions of 2019 items and year-to-year comparisons between 2020 and 2019 that are not included in this Form 10-K can be found in “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” in Part II, Item 7 of the Company’s annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2020 and are incorporated by reference herein.
Throughout the discussion below, we measure units of production, sales and raw materials in metric tonnes which are the equivalent of 2,205 pounds, unless we specifically state that we mean short or long ton(s), which are the equivalent of 2,000 pounds and 2,240 pounds, respectively. In addition, we measure natural gas, a raw material used in the production of our products, in MM Btu, which stands for one million British Thermal Units (“BTU”). One BTU is equivalent to 1.06 Joules.
In the following table, there are certain percentages that are not considered to be meaningful and are represented by “NM”.
F-3

Table of Content
Results of Operations
The following table shows the results of operations for the years ended December 31, 2021, 2020, and 2019:
 Years Ended December 31,2021-20202020-2019
(in millions, except per share data)202120202019ChangePercentChangePercent
Net sales$12,357.4 $8,681.7 $8,906.3 $3,675.7 42 %$(224.6)(3)%
Cost of goods sold9,157.1 7,616.8 8,009.0 1,540.3 20 %(392.2)(5)%
Gross margin3,200.3 1,064.9 897.3 2,135.4 NM167.6 19 %
Gross margin percentage25.9 %12.3 %10.1 %13.6 %2.2 %
Selling, general and administrative expenses430.5 371.5 354.1 59.0 16 %17.4 %
Impairment, restructuring and other expenses158.1 — 1,462.1 158.1 NM(1,462.1)(100)%
Other operating expenses143.2 280.5 176.0 (137.3)(49)%104.5 59 %
Operating earnings (loss) 2,468.5 412.9 (1,094.9)2,055.6 NM1,507.8 (138)
Interest expense, net(169.1)(180.6)(182.9)11.5 (6)%2.3 (1)%
Foreign currency transaction (loss) gain (78.5)(64.3)20.2 (14.2)22 %(84.5)NM
Other income 3.9 12.9 1.5 (9.0)(70)%11.4 NM
Earnings (loss) from consolidated companies before income taxes2,224.8 180.9 (1,256.1)2,043.9 NM1,437.0 (114)
Provision for (benefit from) income taxes597.7 (578.5)(224.7)1,176.2 NM(353.8)157 
Earnings (loss) from consolidated companies1,627.1 759.4 (1,031.4)867.7 114 %1,790.8 (174)
Equity in net earnings (loss) of nonconsolidated companies7.8 (93.8)(59.4)101.6 (108)%(34.4)58 
Net earnings (loss) including noncontrolling interests1,634.9 665.6 (1,090.8)969.3 146 %1,756.4 (161)
Less: Net earnings (loss) attributable to noncontrolling interests4.3 (0.5)(23.4)4.8 NM22.9 (98)
Net earnings (loss) attributable to Mosaic$1,630.6 $666.1 $(1,067.4)$964.5 145 %$1,733.5 (162)
Diluted net earnings (loss) per share attributable to Mosaic$4.27 $1.75 $(2.78)$2.52 144 %$4.53 (163)
Diluted weighted average number of shares outstanding381.6 381.3 383.8 
F-4

Table of Content
Overview of the Years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020
Net earnings attributable to Mosaic for the year ended December 31, 2021 was $1.6 billion, or $4.27 per diluted share, compared to $0.7 billion, or $1.75 per diluted share for 2020.
In 2021, net earnings were negatively impacted by $291 million, net of tax, or $(0.76) per diluted share, related to notable items as follows (noted on a pre-tax basis, with the exception of discrete income tax):
Expense related to the closure of our K1 and K2 mine shafts at our Esterhazy, Saskatchewan potash mine of $158 million, or $(0.30) per diluted share
Foreign currency transaction loss of $79 million, or ($0.16) per diluted share
Discrete income tax provision of $43 million, or $(0.11) per diluted share
Other operating expenses of $50 million, or $(0.10) per diluted share, related to maintaining closed and indefinitely idled facilities
Depreciation expense of $37 million, or $(0.08) per diluted share, related to the acceleration of the closure of our K1 and K2 mine shafts at our Esterhazy, Saskatchewan mine
Expense related to the impact of Hurricane Ida on our Louisiana operations of $27 million, or $(0.05) per diluted share
Asset retirement obligation costs of $25 million, or $(0.05) per diluted share, related to revisions in the estimated costs of our asset retirement obligations
Unrealized loss on derivatives of $14 million, or $(0.02) per diluted share
Other operating income of $20 million, or $0.04 per diluted share, related to the sale of our warehouse in Houston, Texas
Functional currency impact in cost of goods sold of $20 million, or $0.04 per diluted share
Other operating income of $13 million, or $0.02 per share, related to a decrease in reserves for legal contingencies that were part of our acquisition (the “Acquisition”) of Vale Fertilizantes S.A. (now known as Mosaic Fetilizantes P&K S.A. or the “Acquired Business”)
Other non-operating income of $2 million, or $0.01 per diluted share, related to a realized gain on RCRA trust securities
Net earnings for 2020 included the following notable items that positively impacted net earnings by $341 million, net of tax, or $0.88 per diluted share:
Discrete income tax benefit of $609 million, or $1.60 per diluted share, which included the reversal of a tax valuation reserve established with the Acquisition
Asset retirement obligation costs of $134 million, or $(0.21) per diluted share, related to revisions in the estimated costs of our asset retirement obligations
Depreciation expense of $79 million, or $(0.12) per diluted share, related to the acceleration of the closure of our K1 and K2 mine shafts at our Esterhazy, Saskatchewan mine as we ramped up K3
Other operating expenses of $69 million, or $(0.14) per diluted share, related to maintaining closed and indefinitely idled facilities
Foreign currency transaction loss of $64 million, or $(0.10) per diluted share
A change in the effective annual tax rate, creating a negative impact of $41 million, or $(0.11) per diluted share
Other operating expenses of $35 million, or $(0.05) per diluted share, related to an increase in an environmental remediation reserve at our New Wales, FL facility
Other operating expenses of $20 million, or $(0.03) per share, related to an increase in reserves for legal contingencies of the Acquired Business, integration costs of our North American business operations and a write-down of assets in our Mosaic Fertilizantes segment
Idle plant costs of $13 million, or $(0.02) per diluted share, related to the government-mandated shutdown on March 16, 2020, of the Miski Mayo Mine due to the Covid-19 outbreak, which reopened on May 13, 2020
Unrealized gain on derivatives of $22 million, or $0.03 per diluted share
F-5

Table of Content
Other non-operating income of $14 million, or $0.02 per diluted share, related to a realized gain on RCRA trust securities
Other operating income of $7 million, or $0.01 per diluted share, related to a legal settlement
Additional significant factors that affected our results of operations and financial condition in 2021 and 2020 are listed below. These factors are discussed in more detail in the following sections of this Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.
Year ended December 31, 2021
Phosphates operating results for the year ended December 31, 2021 were favorably impacted by higher phosphate average selling prices compared to the prior year period. After reaching a low in the first quarter of 2020, sales prices continued to rise in 2021, driven by tightness in global supply and demand, strong farmer economics and improved grain prices, and continue to remain strong into the first quarter of 2022. Operating results in 2021 were unfavorably impacted by lower finished product sales volumes, and higher raw material costs, primarily sulfur and ammonia. The purchase prices of these raw materials are driven by global supply and demand. In addition, during the first half of 2021, availability of molten sulfur was impacted by refinery closures in 2020 and 2021, due to lower fuel demand and extreme cold weather in the first quarter of 2021 in the southern U.S., where several refineries are located. The low sulfur availability constrained our production in the first half of 2021. Operating results in 2021 were also unfavorably impacted by higher idle plant and maintenance turnaround costs compared to the prior year, mainly driven by the impacts of Hurricane Ida on our Louisiana operations.
Potash operating results were favorably impacted in our Potash segment in 2021 by higher average sales prices compared to the prior year. Prices began to strengthen in North America and Brazil in the fourth quarter of 2020, due to increased demand, tight supply and improved farmer economics. Prices continued to increase through the end of 2021 and into the first quarter of 2022. The global potash market is expected to remain tight throughout 2022 given recent sanctions against Belarus which could impact global supply. Operating results in 2021 were unfavorably impacted by lower sales volumes caused by decreased production volumes associated with the closure of our K1 and K2 mine shafts at our Esterhazy, Saskatchewan potash mine. We reopened our previously idled Colonsay, Saskatchewan potash mine during the third quarter of 2021, and ramped up production at our K3 mine shaft which partially replaced this lost production.
Mosaic Fertilizantes operating results in 2021 were favorably impacted by increased sales prices compared to the prior year, due to tight global supply and demand. The favorable results were partially offset by lower sales volumes due to lower product availability and production challenges, low inventory levels and increased raw materials costs, as global prices of sulfur and ammonia were higher in 2021 compared to the prior year.
Other highlights in 2021:
During the second quarter of 2021, due to increased brine inflows, we made the decision to accelerate the timing of the shutdown of our K1 and K2 mine shafts at our Esterhazy, Saskatchewan potash mine. Closing the K1 and K2 shafts are key pieces of the transition to the K3 shaft, but the timeline for the closure was accelerated by approximately nine months. We recognized pre-tax costs of $158.1 million related to the permanent closure of these facilities. In the third quarter of 2021, we resumed production at our previously idled Colonsay potash mine to offset a portion of the production lost by the early closure of the K1 and K2 shafts at Esterhazy. In December 2021, the K3 shaft became fully operational and is expected to reach full operating capacity in the first quarter of 2022. The closure of the K1 and K2 shafts will eliminate future brine management expenses at these sites.
In August 2021 we entered into a new, unsecured five-year credit facility of up to $2.5 billion, with a maturity date of August 19, 2026, which replaces our prior $2.2 billion line of credit. This increase in size provides additional security and flexibility and reflects the growth in our business.
In August 2021 we prepaid the outstanding balance of $450 million on our 3.75% senior notes, due November 15, 2021, without premium or penalty.
F-6

Table of Content
During the third quarter of 2021, our Board of Directors approved a new $1 billion share repurchase authorization (the “2021 Repurchase Program”), replacing our previous $1.5 billion authorization (the “2015 Repurchase Program”) that had $700 million remaining. This new, expanded authorization reflects our unchanged commitment to a balanced deployment of excess capital that includes returning capital to stockholders. During 2021, we repurchased 11,200,371 shares of Common Stock, including 8,544,144 shares that we purchased in an underwritten secondary offering by Vale S.A., at an average price of $36.69, for a total of approximately $410.9 million.
In November 2021, Vale S.A. sold its 34,176,574 shares of common stock of Mosaic in an underwritten secondary offering. Vale S.A. no longer holds any shares of Mosaic common stock.
In the fourth quarter of 2021, our Board of Directors approved a 50% increase in our annual dividend, to $0.45 per share, beginning in 2022.
In 2020, we filed petitions with the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) that requested the initiation of countervailing duty investigations into imports of phosphate fertilizers from Morocco and Russia. The purpose of the petitions was to remedy the distortions that we believe foreign subsidies have caused or are causing in the U.S. market for phosphate fertilizers, and thereby restore fair competition. During the first quarter of 2021, the DOC made final affirmative determinations that countervailable subsidies were being provided by those governments and the ITC made final affirmative determinations that the U.S. phosphate fertilizer industry is materially injured by reason of subsidized phosphate fertilizer imports from Morocco and Russia. As a result of these determinations, the DOC issued countervailing duty orders on phosphate fertilizer imports from Russia and Morocco, which are scheduled to remain in place for at least five years. Currently, the cash deposit rates for such imports are approximately 20 percent for Moroccan producer OCP, 9 percent and 47 percent for Russian producers PhosAgro and Eurochem, respectively, and 17 percent for all other Russian producers. The final determinations in the DOC and ITC investigations are subject to possible challenges before U.S. federal courts and the World Trade Organization, and Mosaic has initiated actions at the U.S. Court of International Trade contesting certain aspects of the DOC’s final determinations that, we believe, failed to capture the full extent of Moroccan and Russian phosphate fertilizer subsidies. Moroccan and Russian producers have also initiated U.S. Court of International Trade actions, seeking lower cash deposit rates and revocation of the countervailing duty orders. Further, the cash deposit rates and the amount of countervailing duties owed by importers on such imports could change based on the results of the DOC’s annual administrative review proceedings.
In response to Covid-19, we continued to implement measures in 2021 that were intended to provide for the immediate health and safety of our employees, including working remotely and alternating work schedules, in order to minimize the number of employees at a single location. Businesses have been impacted by short-term labor shortages due to illness, transportation issues such as trucking delays and port congestion which are slowing delivery of inputs to facilities and products to end customers. At this time, we have experienced limited adverse financial or operational impacts related to Covid-19.
Subsequent to December 31, 2021, we expect to enter into an accelerated share repurchase (“ASR”) of $400 million, which would be initiated in February 2022. This ASR will exhaust most of the remaining share repurchase authorization established in the 2021 Repurchase Program. Following the completion of the current authorization, our Board of Directors has approved the establishment of a new $1 billion share repurchase authorization, which will go into effect following completion of this ASR. The Board of Directors has also approved a regular dividend increase to $0.60 per share annually from $0.45, beginning with the second quarter 2022 payment.
Year ended December 31, 2020:
Phosphates operating results for the year ended December 31, 2020 were favorably impacted by an increase in sales volumes compared to 2019. Increased sales volumes were driven by strong spring and fall application seasons, as well as decreased competitor shipments into North America. Competitor shipments were impacted by anticipation of potential import duties against producers in Morocco and Russia resulting from the countervailing duty investigations, instituted by us in the U.S., into imports of phosphate fertilizers. The benefit of increased sales volumes was partially offset by a decrease in phosphates average selling prices in 2020 compared to 2019. Although selling prices were higher than the low levels seen at the end of 2019, the average selling price was still below that of the 2019 average. Prices rose throughout 2020 due to tightness in global supply and demand. The increase in demand was partially mitigated by suppliers, including Mosaic, increasing
F-7

Table of Content
production in the second half of 2020 and carrying into the first quarter of 2021. Operating earnings in 2020 also benefited from lower raw material costs, primarily sulfur and ammonia, which are driven by global supply and demand.
Potash operating results were unfavorably impacted by decreases in the average selling price in 2020 compared to 2019, partially offset by higher sales volumes. Selling prices began declining in the first half of 2019 due to adverse weather conditions in North America. They continued to decline in the first half of 2020, due to lower export prices, as China and India contract prices set a floor for the market, and to new suppliers entering the marketplace. Prices began to strengthen in North America and Brazil in the fourth quarter of 2020, due to increased demand and tight supply; however, prices were still below levels seen in 2019. Operating results were favorably impacted by higher potash sales volumes in 2020 compared to 2019. In 2019, sales volumes were impacted by low demand due to adequate inventories, delayed contract settlements, and adverse weather conditions throughout North America.
Mosaic Fertilizantes operating results in 2020 were favorably impacted by increased sales volumes. Sales volumes increased compared to 2019, due to strong market demand and efforts to grow our market share in 2020. Operating results were also favorably impacted by lower raw material costs in 2020 compared to the prior year, driven by global supply and demand and the impact of foreign currency changes. In 2020 results were also favorably impacted by lower production costs as 2019 was impacted by new tailings dam legislation, which resulted in higher idle and turnaround costs. Lower average selling prices, driven by international pricing trends, unfavorably impacted operating earnings in 2020 compared to 2019.
F-8

Table of Content
Phosphates Net Sales and Gross Margin
The following table summarizes the Phosphates segment’s net sales, gross margin, sales volume, selling prices and raw material prices:
Years Ended December 31,2021-20202020-2019
(in millions, except price per tonne or unit)
202120202019ChangePercentChangePercent
Net sales:
North America
$3,251.4 $1,953.1 $1,816.6 $1,298.3 66 %$136.5 %
International
1,671.5 1,163.3 1,424.7 508.2 44 %(261.4)(18)%
Total
4,922.9 3,116.4 3,241.3 1,806.5 58 %(124.9)(4)%
Cost of goods sold3,617.5 2,990.9 3,323.6 626.6 21 %(332.7)(10)%
Gross margin$1,305.4 $125.5 $(82.3)$1,179.9 NM$207.8 NM
Gross margin as a percentage of net sales26.5 %4.0 %(2.5)%
Sales volumes(a) (in thousands of metric tonnes)
DAP/MAP
3,904 4,936 5,003 (1,032)(21)%(67)(1)%
Performance and Other(b)
3,789 3,598 3,177 191 %421 13 %
       Total finished product tonnes7,693 8,534 8,180 (841)(10)%354 %
Rock(c)
1,772 739 1,934 1,033 140 %(1,195)(62)%
Total Phosphates Segment Tonnes(a)
9,465 9,273 10,114 192 %(841)(8)%
Realized prices ($/tonne)
Average finished product selling price (destination)(d)
$618 $360 $379 $258 72 %$(19)(5)%
DAP selling price (fob mine)$564 $310 $325 $254 82 %$(15)(5)%
Average cost per unit consumed in cost of goods sold:
Ammonia (metric tonne)
$396 $287 $324 $109 38 %$(37)(11)%
Sulfur (long ton)
$181 $83 $128 $98 118 %$(45)(35)%
Blended rock (metric tonne)
$60 $61 $62 $(1)(2)%$(1)(2)%
Production volume (in thousands of metric tonnes) - North America7,331 8,160 8,077 (829)(10)%83 %

(a)     Includes intersegment sales volumes.
(b)    Includes sales volumes of MicroEssentials® and animal feed ingredients.
(c)    Sales volumes of rock are presented on a wet tonne basis based on average moisture levels of 3.5% to 4.5% as it exits the drying process and is prepared for shipping.
(d)     Excludes sales revenue and tonnes associated with rock sales.
Year Ended December 31, 2021 compared to Year Ended December 31, 2020
The Phosphates segment’s net sales were $4.9 billion for the year ended December 31, 2021, compared to $3.1 billion for the same period a year ago. The increase in net sales was primarily due to higher average finished goods selling prices, which resulted in an increase in net sales of approximately $1.82 billion. Net sales was also positively impacted by increased sulfur and ammonia sales, which resulted in an increase in net sales of approximately $100 million. Higher prices and sales volumes at the Miski Mayo Mine contributed approximately $70 million to the current year increase. These increases were partially offset by lower sales volumes, which decreased net sales by approximately $200 million.
Our average finished product selling price increased 72%, to $618 per tonne for the year ended December 31, 2021, compared to $360 per tonne for the same period a year ago, due to the factors discussed in the Overview.
The Phosphates segment’s sales volumes of finished products decreased to 7.7 million tonnes for the year ended December 31, 2021, compared to 8.5 million tonnes in 2020, due to low inventory levels impacted by availability of molten sulfur in the first half of 2021 and production impacts related to Hurricane Ida in the second half of 2021. The increase in the sales volumes of rock, shown in the table above, was due to the Miski Mayo Mine being temporarily idled for a portion of the prior year due to a government mandated shutdown related to Covid-19.
F-9

Table of Content
Gross margin for the Phosphates segment increased to $1.3 billion in the current year compared with $0.1 billion for the prior year. The increase was primarily driven by higher sales prices, which impacted gross margin by approximately $1.8 billion. This was partially offset by higher raw material prices (primarily sulfur and ammonia) of approximately $440 million compared to the prior-year period. Gross margin was also unfavorably impacted in the current year by higher idle plant and maintenance turnaround costs of approximately $90 million and higher conversion costs of approximately $40 million. Lower sales volumes unfavorably impacted gross margin by approximately $70 million.
Our average consumed price for ammonia in our North American operations increased to $396 per tonne in 2021 from $287 a year ago. The average consumed price for sulfur for our North American operations increased to $181 per long ton for the year ended December 31, 2021 from $83 in the prior-year period. The purchase price of these raw materials is driven by global supply and demand. The consumed ammonia and sulfur prices also include transportation, transformation, and storage costs. The average consumed cost of purchased and produced rock decreased slightly to $60 per tonne in the current year, from $61 a year ago.
For the year ended December 31, 2021, our North American phosphate rock production decreased to 11.1 million tonnes from 12.8 million tonnes for the prior year, due to geology of rock and operational challenges as we transition into new mining areas.
The Phosphates segment’s production of crop nutrient dry concentrates and animal feed ingredients decreased to 7.3 million tonnes for the year ended December 31, 2021, compared to 8.2 million in 2020. Current year production was negatively impacted by sulfur availability issues, downtime at our New Wales, Florida site due to equipment damage, and downtime at our Louisiana location related to Hurricane Ida. For the year ended December 31, 2021, our operating rate for processed phosphate production decreased to 74%, compared to 82% in the same period of the prior year.


F-10

Table of Content
Potash Net Sales and Gross Margin
The following table summarizes the Potash segment’s net sales, gross margin, sales volume and selling price:
Years Ended December 31,2021-20202020-2019
(in millions, except price per tonne or unit)
202120202019ChangePercentChangePercent
Net sales:
North America
$1,456.8 $1,147.2 $1,096.4 $309.6 27 %$50.8 %
International
1,170.0 872.1 1,017.4 297.9 34 %(145.3)(14)%
Total2,626.8 2,019.3 2,113.8 607.5 30 %(94.5)(4)%
Cost of goods sold1,569.3 1,551.0 1,497.0 18.3 %54.0 %
Gross margin$1,057.5 $468.3 $616.8 $589.2 126 %$(148.5)(24)%
Gross margin as a percentage of net sales40.3 %23.2 %29.2 %
Sales volume(a) (in thousands of metric tonnes)
MOP
7,277 8,456 7,059 (1,179)(14)%1,397 20 %
Performance and Other(b)
909 941 784 (32)(3)%157 20 %
Total Potash Segment Tonnes8,186 9,397 7,843 (1,211)(13)%1,554 20 %
Realized prices ($/tonne)
Average finished product selling price (destination)$321 $215 $270 $106 49 %$(55)(20)%
MOP selling price (fob mine)$285 $181 $237 $104 57 %$(56)(24)%
Production volume (in thousands of metric tonnes)8,204 8,433 7,868 (229)(3)%565 %

(a)     Includes intersegment sales volumes.
(b)    Includes sales volumes of K-Mag®, Aspire and animal feed ingredients.
Year Ended December 31, 2021 compared to Year Ended December 31, 2020
The Potash segment’s net sales increased to $2.6 billion for the year ended December 31, 2021, compared to $2.0 billion in the prior year. The increase in net sales was driven by a favorable impact from higher sales prices of approximately $840 million, partially offset by unfavorable sales volumes of approximately $230 million.
Our average finished product selling price was $321 per tonne for the year ended December 31, 2021, an increase of $106 per tonne compared with the prior year period, due to the factors discussed in the Overview.
The Potash segment’s sales volumes decreased to 8.2 million tonnes for the year ended December 31, 2021, compared to 9.4 million tonnes in the same period a year ago, due to the factor discussed in the Overview.
Gross margin for the Potash segment increased to $1.1 billion in the current year, from $0.5 billion in the prior year period. Gross margin was positively impacted by $840 million related to the increase in selling prices, partially offset by approximately $80 million due to lower sales volumes. The increase in gross margin was also partially offset by increased Canadian resource taxes of approximately $100 million, unfavorable foreign currency impacts of approximately $50 million. and higher idle costs of approximately $30 million. Canadian resource taxes and other costs affecting gross margin are discussed in more detail below.
We had expense of $259.5 million from Canadian resource taxes for the year ended December 31, 2021, compared to $146.1 million in the prior year. Royalty expense increased to $42.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2021, from $30.0 million in the prior year. The fluctuations in Canadian resource taxes and royalties are due to higher average selling prices and margins in the current year, compared to the prior year.
On June 4, 2021, due to increased brine inflows, we made the decision to immediately close the K1 and K2 shafts at our Esterhazy mine, which eliminated future brine inflow management expenses. Therefore, brine inflow management expense, including depreciation, decreased to $46.0 million in the current year, from $108.0 million in the prior year. We remain on
F-11

Table of Content
track in our development of the K3 shaft at our Esterhazy mine, which became fully operational in December 2021 and is expected to reach full operational capacity in the first quarter of 2022.
For the year ended December 31, 2021, potash production decreased to 8.2 million tonnes, compared to 8.4 million tonnes in the prior year period, resulting in an operating rate of 75% for 2021, compared to 87% for 2020. Decreased production in 2021 is primarily due to the shutdown of our K1 and K2 shafts at our Esterhazy mine, partially offset by the restart of our Colonsay mine during the third quarter of 2021.
Mosaic Fertilizantes Net Sales and Gross Margin
The following table summarizes the Mosaic Fertilizantes segment’s net sales, gross margin, sales volume and selling price.
Years Ended December 31,2021-20202020-2019
(in millions, except price per tonne or unit)
202120202019ChangePercentChangePercent
Net Sales$5,088.5 $3,481.6 $3,782.8 $1,606.9 46 %$(301.2)(8)%
Cost of goods sold4,245.8 3,062.0 3,492.7 1,183.8 39 %(430.7)(12)%
Gross margin$842.7 $419.6 $290.1 $423.1 101 %$129.5 45 %
Gross margin as a percent of net sales16.6 %12.1 %7.7 %
Sales volume (in thousands of metric tonnes)
Phosphate produced in Brazil
2,543 3,813 2,605 (1,270)(33)%1,208 46 %
Potash produced in Brazil
240 305 327 (65)(21)%(22)(7)%
Purchased nutrients
7,319 6,446 6,312 873 14 %134 %
Total Mosaic Fertilizantes Segment Tonnes10,102 10,564 9,244 (462)(4)%1,320 14 %
Realized prices ($/tonne)
Average finished product selling price (destination)
$504 $330 $409 $174 53 %$(79)(19)%
Brazil MAP price (delivered price to third party)$597 $333 $402 $264 79 %$(69)(17)%
Purchases (’000 tonnes)
DAP/MAP from Mosaic
311 597 839 (286)(48)%(242)(29)%
MicroEssentials® from Mosaic
1,226 1,108 935 118 11 %173 19 %
Potash from Mosaic/Canpotex
2,510 2,081 2,071 429 21 %10 — %
Average cost per unit consumed in cost of goods sold:
Ammonia (metric tonne)$580 $336 $369 $244 73 %$(33)(9)%
Sulfur (long ton)$194 $108 $181 $86 80 %$(73)(40)%
Blended rock (metric tonne)$80 $69 $104 $11 16 %$(35)(34)%
Production volume (in thousands of metric tonnes)3,725 3,918 3,327 (193)(5)%591 18 %
Year Ended December 31, 2021 compared to Year Ended December 31, 2020
The Mosaic Fertilizantes segment’s net sales were $5.1 billion for the year ended December 31, 2021, compared to $3.5 billion for 2020. The increase in net sales was due to higher sales prices, which favorably impacted net sales by approximately $1.43 billion. Net sales also increased due to higher prices and volumes of other products, primarily gypsum, magnetite and sulfuric acid, which favorably impacted net sales by approximately $290 million. This was partially offset by a decrease in sales volumes which impacted net sales by approximately $110 million.
The overall average finished product selling price increased $174 per tonne to $504 per tonne for 2021 due to the increase in global prices referenced in the Overview.
The Mosaic Fertilizantes segment’s sales volume decreased to 10.1 million tonnes for the year ended December 31, 2021, compared to 10.6 million tonnes for the prior year period, due to the factors discussed in the Overview.
F-12

Table of Content
Gross margin for the Mosaic Fertilizantes segment increased to $842.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2021, from $419.6 million in the prior year. The increase was driven by higher sales prices, which favorably impacted gross margin by approximately $1.47 billion. Gross margin was also favorably impacted by $110 million related to other product sales and by favorable foreign currency and hedging impacts of approximately $50 million. This was partially offset by approximately $1.16 billion of higher raw material and production costs, negatively impacted by inflation pressures, and the impact of lower sales volumes of approximately $30 million compared to the prior year. Gross margin was unfavorably impacted by approximately $20 million due to higher idle and maintenance turnaround costs in the current year as we experienced unplanned maintenance stoppages.
The average consumed price for ammonia for our Brazilian operations was $580 per tonne for the year ended December 31, 2021, compared to $336 per ton in the prior year. The average consumed sulfur price for our Brazilian operations was $194 per long ton for the year ended December 31, 2021, compared to $108 in the prior year. The purchase price of these raw materials is driven by global supply and demand, and also includes transportation, transformation, and storage costs.
The Mosaic Fertilizantes segment’s production of crop nutrient dry concentrates and animal feed ingredients decreased 5% to 3.7 million tonnes for the year ended December 31, 2021, compared to 3.9 million tonnes in the prior year. The lower production in the current year was due to unplanned maintenance down time and lower quality ore compared to the prior year period. For the year ended December 31, 2021, our phosphate operating rate was 86%, compared to 89% in the prior year.

Our Brazilian phosphate rock production decreased to 4.0 million tonnes for the year ended December 31, 2021, from 4.3 million tonnes in the prior year.
Corporate, Eliminations and Other
In addition to our three operating segments, we assign certain costs to Corporate, Eliminations and Other, which is presented separately in Note 24 of our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements. The Corporate, Eliminations and Other category includes intersegment eliminations, including profit on intersegment sales, unrealized mark-to-market gains and losses on derivatives, debt expenses, Streamsong Resort® results of operations, and the results of the China and India distribution businesses.
Gross margin for Corporate, Eliminations and Other was a loss of $5.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2021, compared to a gain of $51.5 million in the same period a year ago. The change was driven by an unfavorable impact of $131.0 million related to the elimination of intersegment sales in the current year period, compared to an unfavorable impact of $3.4 million in the prior year period. Contributing to the change was a net unrealized loss of $13.6 million in the current year period, primarily on foreign currency derivatives, compared to a net unrealized gain of $22.0 million in the prior year period. Distribution operations in India and China had revenues and gross margin of $730.1 million and $141.6 million, respectively, for the year ended December 31, 2021, compared to revenues and gross margin of $639.4 million and $58.7 million, respectively, for the year ended December 31, 2020. The increase was primarily due to increased sales prices in the current year compared to the prior year period. This was partially offset by lower sales volumes in the current year, and higher product cost due to tighter global supply and demand. Sales volumes of finished products were 1.6 million tonnes and 2.0 million tonnes for the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively.
F-13

Table of Content
Other Income Statement Items
 Years Ended December 31,2021-20202020-2019
(in millions)202120202019ChangePercentChangePercent
Selling, general and administrative expenses$430.5 $371.5 $354.1 $59.0 16 %$17.4 %
Impairment, restructuring and other expenses158.1 — 1,462.1 158.1 NM(1,462.1)(100)%
Other operating expenses143.2 280.5 176.0 (137.3)(49)%104.5 59 %
Interest (expense)(194.3)(214.1)(216.0)19.8 (9)%1.9 (1)%
Interest income25.2 33.5 33.1 (8.3)(25)%0.4 %
Interest expense, net(169.1)(180.6)(182.9)11.5 (6)%2.3 (1)%
Foreign currency transaction (loss) gain (78.5)(64.3)20.2 (14.2)22 %(84.5)NM
Other income 3.9 12.9 1.5 (9.0)(70)%11.4 NM
Provision for (benefit from) income taxes597.7 (578.5)(224.7)1,176.2 NM(353.8)157 
Equity in net earnings (loss) of nonconsolidated companies7.8 (93.8)(59.4)101.6 (108)%(34.4)58 
Selling, General and Administrative Expenses
Selling, general and administrative expenses were $430.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2021, compared to $371.5 million for the same period a year ago. The increase was due to approximately $50 million of higher incentive compensation expense in the current year and approximately $5 million of higher consulting and professional service expenses related to executing on our strategic priorities.
Impairment, Restructuring and Other Expenses
Impairment, restructuring and other expenses include costs associated with asset impairments, employee severance and pension expense, and other exit costs to close or indefinitely idle facilities. Due to increased brine inflows, on June 4, 2021, we made the decision to accelerate the timing of the shutdown of our K1 and K2 mine shafts at our Esterhazy, Saskatchewan potash mine. We recognized pre-tax costs of $158.1 million related to the permanent closure of these facilities in 2021. These costs consisted of $110.0 million related to the write-off of fixed assets, $37.1 million related to asset retirement obligation ("AROs"), and $11.0 million related to inventory and other reserves.
Other Operating Expenses
Other operating expenses were $143.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2021, compared to $280.5 million for the prior year period. Other operating expenses typically relate to five major categories: (1) AROs, (2) environmental and legal reserves, (3) idle facility costs, (4) insurance reimbursements and (5) gain/loss on sale or disposal of fixed assets. The current year includes approximately $25 million of ARO expenses and adjustments, approximately $65 million related to environmental and legal expenses and approximately $50 million related to closed and indefinitely idled facility costs. The current year includes income of approximately $20 million related to a gain on selling a warehouse and approximately $13 million related to the recovery of a reserve for the Acquired Business.
Interest Expense, Net
Net interest expense decreased to $169.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2021, compared to $180.6 million in 2020, due to lower debt levels and lower interest rates in the current year.
Foreign Currency Transaction (Loss) Gain
In 2021, we recorded a foreign currency transaction loss of $78.5 million, compared to a loss of $64.3 million in 2020. The loss was primarily the result of the effect of the strengthening of the U.S. dollar relative to the Brazilian real on significant U.S. dollar-denominated payables held by our Brazilian subsidiaries.
F-14

Table of Content
Other Income
For the year ended December 31, 2021, we had other income of $3.9 million compared to expense of $12.9 million in the prior year. Current year income is primarily related to a realized gain of $2 million on investments held in two financial assurance trust funds created in 2016 to provide additional financial assurance for the estimated costs of closure and long-term care of our Florida and Louisiana phosphogypsum management systems (the “RCRA Trusts”).
Equity in Net Earnings (Loss) of Nonconsolidated Companies
For the year ended December 31, 2021, we had a gain from equity of nonconsolidated companies of $7.8 million, net of tax, compared to a loss of $93.8 million, net of tax, for the prior year. The current year gain was primarily related to the operations of MWSPC, which was favorably impacted by higher phosphate selling prices, and the continued ramp-up of its operations.
Provision for (Benefit from) Income Taxes
Effective
Tax Rate
Provision for
Income Taxes
Year Ended December 31, 202126.9 %$597.7 
Year Ended December 31, 2020(319.8)%(578.5)
Year Ended December 31, 201917.9 %(224.7)
For all years, our income tax is impacted by the mix of earnings across jurisdictions in which we operate, by a benefit associated with depletion and by the impact of certain entities being taxed in both their foreign jurisdiction and the U.S., including foreign tax credits for various taxes incurred.
For the year ended December 31, 2021, tax expense specific to the period included a net expense of $0.6 million. The net expense relates to the following: $23.9 related to true-up of estimates primarily related to our U.S. tax return and $20.3 million related to an increase in non-U.S. reserves. The tax expenses are partially offset by net tax benefits related to $43.7 million of Esterhazy mine closure costs and $1.1 million related to a benefit for withholding taxes related to undistributed earnings and other miscellaneous tax expenses.
Critical Accounting Estimates
We prepare our Consolidated Financial Statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America which requires us to make various judgments, estimates and assumptions that could have a significant impact on our reported results and disclosures. We base these estimates on historical experience and other assumptions we believe to be reasonable at the time we prepare our financial statements. Changes in these estimates could have a material effect on our Consolidated Financial Statements.
Our significant accounting policies can be found in Note 2 of our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements. We believe the following accounting policies include a higher degree of judgment and complexity in their application and are most critical to aid in fully understanding and evaluating our reported financial condition and results of operations.
Recoverability of Goodwill
Goodwill is the excess of the purchase price consideration over the estimated fair value of net assets of acquired businesses. The carrying value of goodwill in our reporting units is tested annually as of October 31 for possible impairment. We typically use an income approach valuation model, representing present value of future cash flows, to determine the fair value of a reporting unit. Growth rates for sales and profits are determined using inputs from our annual strategic and long range planning process. The rates used to discount projected future cash flows reflect a weighted average cost of capital based on the Company’s industry, capital structure and risk premiums, including those reflected in the current market capitalization. When preparing these estimates, management considers each reporting unit’s historical results, current operating trends, and specific plans in place. These estimates are impacted by various factors, including inflation, the general health of the economy and market competition. In addition, events and circumstances that might be indicators of possible impairment are assessed during other interim periods. As of October 31, 2021, the date of our annual impairment testing, the Company concluded that the fair values of the reporting units which included goodwill were in substantial excess of their respective carrying values and the goodwill for those units was not impaired.
F-15

Table of Content
See Note 9 of our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information regarding the goodwill impairment analysis, including the methodologies and assumptions used in estimating the fair values of our reporting units. As of December 31, 2021, we had $1.2 billion of goodwill.
Environmental Liabilities and Asset Retirement Obligations
We record accrued liabilities for various environmental and reclamation matters including the demolition of former operating facilities, and AROs.
Contingent environmental liabilities are described in Note 22 of our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements. Accruals for environmental matters are based primarily on third-party estimates for the cost of remediation at previously operated sites and estimates of legal costs for ongoing environmental litigation. We regularly assess the likelihood of material adverse judgments or outcomes, the effects of potential indemnification, as well as potential ranges or probability of losses. We determine the amount of accruals required, if any, for contingencies after carefully analyzing each individual matter. Estimating the ultimate settlement of environmental matters requires us to develop complex and interrelated assumptions based on experience with similar matters, our history, precedents, evidence, and facts specific to each matter. Actual costs incurred in future periods may vary from the estimates, given the inherent uncertainties in evaluating environmental exposures. As of December 31, 2021, and 2020, we had accrued $57.3 million and $61.4 million, respectively, for environmental matters.
As indicated in Note 13 of our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements, we recognize AROs in the period in which we have an existing legal obligation, and the amount of the liability can be reasonably estimated. We utilize internal engineering experts as well as third-party consultants to assist in determining the costs of retiring certain of our long-term operating assets. Assumptions and estimates reflect our historical experience and our best judgments regarding future expenditures. The assumed costs are inflated based on an estimated inflation factor and discounted based on a credit-adjusted risk-free rate. For active facilities, fluctuations in the estimated costs (including those resulting from a change in environmental regulations), inflation rates and discount rates can have a significant impact on the corresponding assets and liabilities recorded in the Consolidated Balance Sheets. However, changes in the assumptions for our active facilities would not have a significant impact on the Consolidated Statements of Earnings in the year they are identified. For closed facilities, fluctuations in the estimated costs, inflation, and discount rates have an impact on the Consolidated Statements of Earnings in the year they are identified as there is no asset related to these items. Phosphate land reclamation activities in North America generally occur concurrently with mining operations; as such, we accrue and expense reclamation costs as we mine. As of December 31, 2021, and 2020, $1.7 billion and $1.4 billion, respectively, was accrued for AROs (current and noncurrent amounts) in North and South America. In August 2016, Mosaic deposited $630 million into two trust funds as financial assurance to support certain estimated future asset retirement obligations. See Note 13 of our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information regarding the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) RCRA Initiative.
Income Taxes
We make estimates for income taxes in three major areas: uncertain tax positions, valuation allowances, and U.S. deferred income taxes on our non-U.S. subsidiaries’ undistributed earnings.
A valuation allowance is provided for deferred tax assets for which it is more likely than not that the related tax benefits will not be realized. Significant judgment is required in evaluating the need for and magnitude of appropriate valuation allowances. The realization of the Company’s deferred tax assets, specifically, the evaluation of net operating loss carryforwards and foreign tax credit carryforwards, is dependent on generating certain types of future taxable income, using both historical and projected future operating results, the source of future income, the reversal of existing taxable temporary differences, taxable income in prior carry-back years (if permitted) and the availability of tax planning strategies. As of December 31, 2021, and 2020, we had a valuation allowance of $774.7 million and $683.0 million, respectively. Changes in tax laws, assumptions with respect to future taxable income, tax planning strategies, resolution of matters under tax audit and foreign currency exchange rates could result in adjustment to these allowances.
Due to Mosaic’s global operations, we assess uncertainties and judgments in the application of complex tax regulations in a multitude of jurisdictions. Future changes in judgment related to the expected ultimate resolution of uncertain tax positions will affect earnings in the quarter of such change. While it is often difficult to predict the final outcome or the timing of resolution of any particular uncertain tax position, our liabilities for income taxes reflect what we believe to be the more likely than not outcome. We adjust these liabilities, as well as the related interest, in light of changing facts and circumstances, including negotiations with taxing authorities in various jurisdictions, outcomes of tax litigation, and resolution of disputes arising from tax audits in the normal course of business. Settlement of any particular position may
F-16

Table of Content
require the use of cash. The Company is currently in negotiations with non-U.S. tax authorities where settlements could result in different tax outcomes than what is currently accounted for. Based upon an analysis of tax positions taken on prior year returns and expected positions to be taken on the current year return, management has identified gross uncertain income tax positions of $124.6 million as of December 31, 2021.
Any dividends from controlled foreign corporations are tax-free from a U.S. income tax perspective. Additionally, there will not be any foreign tax credits associated with foreign dividends. Therefore, there are no material federal U.S. implications of future repatriations on non-U.S. subsidiaries’ undistributed earnings. However, since there are no U.S. foreign tax credits associated with foreign dividends, any foreign withholding tax associated with a future repatriation will need to be accrued if the earnings are not permanently reinvested.
We have included a further discussion of income taxes in Note 12 of our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.
Liquidity and Capital Resources
We define liquidity as the ability to generate or access adequate amounts of cash to meet current cash needs. We assess our liquidity in terms of our ability to fund working capital requirements, fund sustaining and opportunity capital projects, pursue strategic opportunities and make capital management decisions, which include making payments on and issuing indebtedness and making distributions to our stockholders, either in the form of share repurchases or dividends. Our liquidity is subject to general economic, financial, competitive and other factors that are beyond our control.
We have a target liquidity buffer of up to $3.0 billion, including cash and available credit facilities. We expect our liquidity to fluctuate from time to time, especially in the first quarter of each year, to manage through the seasonality of our business. We also target debt leverage ratios that are consistent with investment grade credit metrics. Our capital allocation priorities include maintaining our target investment grade metrics and financial strength, sustaining our assets, including ensuring the safety and reliability of our assets, investing to grow our business, either through organic growth or taking advantage of strategic opportunities, and returning excess cash to stockholders, including paying our dividend. During 2021, we returned capital to our stockholders through share repurchases of $0.4 billion and paid dividends of $0.1 billion. Our Board of Directors also approved a 50% increase to our annual dividend to $0.45 per share, beginning in the first quarter of 2022. Subsequent to year-end our Board of Directors approved the following:
A regular dividend increase to $0.60 per share annually from $0.45, beginning with the second quarter 2022 payment.
An ASR of $400 million, which is expected to be initiated in February 2022.
Establishment of a new $1 billion share repurchase authorization, which will go into effect following completion of the ASR.
As of December 31, 2021, we had cash and cash equivalents of $0.8 billion, marketable securities held in trusts to fund future obligations of $0.7 billion, long-term debt including current maturities of $4.0 billion, short-term debt of $0.3 billion and stockholders’ equity of $10.7 billion. In addition, we had $0.7 billion of commercial arrangements for certain customer purchases in Brazil through structured payable arrangements, as discussed in Note 10 of our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.
All of our cash and cash equivalents are diversified in highly rated investment vehicles. Our cash and cash equivalents are held either in the U.S. or held by non-U.S. subsidiaries and are not subject to significant foreign currency exposures, as the majority are held in investments denominated in U.S. dollars as of December 31, 2021. These funds may create foreign currency transaction gains or losses, however, depending on the functional currency of the entity holding the cash. In addition, there are no significant restrictions that would preclude us from bringing funds held by non-U.S. subsidiaries back to the U.S., aside from withholding taxes.
Sources and Uses of Cash
As of December 31, 2021, we had cash and cash equivalents and restricted cash of $0.8 billion. Funds generated by operating activities, available cash and cash equivalents and our revolving credit facility continue to be our most significant sources of liquidity. We believe funds generated from the expected results of operations and available cash, cash equivalents and borrowings either under our revolving credit facility or through long-term borrowings will be sufficient to finance our operations, including our expansion plans, existing strategic initiatives and expected dividend payments for the next 12
F-17

Table of Content
months. We expect our capital expenditures to be approximately $1.1 billion in 2022. There can be no assurance, however, that we will continue to generate cash flows at or above current levels. At December 31, 2021, we had $2.49 billion available under our $2.5 billion revolving credit facility. See Note 10 of our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information relating to our financing arrangements, which is hereby incorporated by reference.
We have certain contractual obligations that require us to make cash payments on a scheduled basis. These include, among other things, long-term debt payments, interest payments, operating leases, unconditional purchase obligations and funding requirements of pension and postretirement obligations. Our long-term debt has maturities ranging from one year to 22 years. Unconditional purchase obligations are our largest contractual cash obligations. These include obligations for contracts to purchase raw materials such as sulfur, ammonia, phosphate rock and natural gas, obligations to purchase raw materials for our international distribution activities, and maintenance and services. Other large cash obligations are our AROs and other environmental obligations primarily related to our Phosphates and Mosaic Fertilizantes segments. We expect to fund our AROs, purchase obligations, long-term debt and capital expenditures with a combination of operating cash flows, cash and cash equivalents and borrowings.
The following is a summary of our material contractual cash obligations as of December 31, 2021:
  Payments by Calendar Year
(in millions)TotalLess than 1
year
1 - 3
years
3 - 5
years
More than 5
years
Long-term debt(a)
$3,978.8 $596.6 $1,099.3 $31.4 $2,251.5 
Estimated interest payments on long-term debt(b)
1,701.5 177.9 273.7 234.4 1,015.5 
Operating leases139.5 63.3 48.3 10.2 17.7 
Purchase commitments(c)
9,100.7 5,687.1 1,586.3 653.3 1,174.0 
Pension and postretirement liabilities(d)
449.7 10.3 100.1 99.2 240.1 
Total contractual cash obligations$15,370.2 $6,535.2 $3,107.7 $1,028.5 $4,698.8 
______________________________
(a)Long-term debt primarily consists of unsecured notes, finance leases, unsecured debentures and secured notes.
(b)Based on interest rates and debt balances as of December 31, 2021.
(c)Based on prevailing market prices as of December 31, 2021. The majority of value of items more than 5 years is related to our CF Ammonia Supply Agreement. For additional information related to our purchase commitments, see Note 21 of our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.
(d)The 2022 pension plan payments are based on minimum funding requirements. For years thereafter, pension plan payments are based on expected benefits paid. The postretirement plan payments are based on projected benefit payments. The above amounts include our North America and Brazil plans.
See Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements and Obligations below for more information on other environmental obligations.
In addition to various operational and environmental regulations primarily related to our Phosphates segment, we incur liabilities for reclamation activities under which we are subject to financial assurance requirements. In various jurisdictions in which we operate, particularly Florida and Louisiana, we are required to pass a financial strength test or provide credit support, typically in the form of cash deposits, surety bonds or letters of credit. See Other Commercial Commitments under Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements and Obligations and Note 21 of our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information about these requirements.
Summary of Cash Flows
The following table represents a comparison of the net cash provided by operating activities, net cash used in investing activities and net cash used in financing activities for calendar years 2021, 2020 and 2019:
Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)2021-20202020-2019
Cash Flow202120202019ChangePercentChangePercent
Net cash provided by operating activities$2,187.0 $1,582.6 $1,095.4 $604.4 38 %$487.2 44 %
Net cash used in investing activities(1,322.3)(1,189.5)(1,360.9)(132.8)(11)%171.4 13 %
Net cash used in financing activities(682.1)(283.8)(82.2)(398.3)(140)%(201.6)(245)%
Operating Activities
Net cash flow from operating activities has provided us with a significant source of liquidity. For the year ended December 31, 2021, net cash provided by operating activities was $2.2 billion, compared to $1.6 billion in the prior year. Our results of operations, after non-cash adjustments to net earnings, contributed $2.8 billion to cash flows from operating activities during 2021, compared to $1.1 billion during 2020. During 2021, we had an unfavorable working capital change of $629.7 million, compared to a favorable change of $526.9 million during 2020.
The change in working capital for the year ended December 31, 2021 was primarily driven by unfavorable impacts from changes in accounts receivable of $683.6 million and inventories of $1.1 billion partially offset by favorable changes in accounts payable and accrued liabilities of $995.1 million. The unfavorable change in accounts receivable was primarily related to higher sales prices at the end of the current year compared to the prior year. The change in inventories was driven primarily by an increase in raw material prices and finished goods cost in Brazil and an increase in inventory volumes in our Potash and Mosaic Fertilizantes segments. These changes were partially offset by an increase accounts payable and accrued liabilities driven by an increase in material purchases in our international locations, the price of raw material purchases, an increase in customer prepayments in Brazil and an increase in taxes payable.
Investing Activities
Net cash used in investing activities for the year ended December 31, 2021 was $1.3 billion, compared to $1.2 billion in the same period a year ago, primarily driven by capital expenditures of $1.3 billion in 2021.
Financing Activities
Net cash used in financing activities was $682.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2021 compared to $283.8 million in the prior year. In 2021, we received net proceeds from short-term borrowings of $302.7 million, net proceeds from structured accounts payable of $94.3 million. We also had net collections on behalf of the bank under our Receivable Purchasing Agreement of $81.1 million, which had not yet been remitted to them as of December 31, 2021. Payments on our long-term debt, net of borrowings, were $608.3 million. In 2021 we made repurchases of our common stock of $410.9 million and paid dividends of $135.0 million.
Debt Instruments, Guarantees and Related Covenants
See Note 10 of our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information relating to our financing arrangements, which is hereby incorporated by reference.
Financial Assurance Requirements
In addition to various operational and environmental regulations primarily related to our Phosphates segment, we incur liabilities for reclamation activities under which we are subject to financial assurance requirements. In various jurisdictions in which we operate, particularly Florida and Louisiana, we are required to pass a financial strength test or provide credit support, typically in the form of cash deposits, surety bonds or letters of credit. See Other Commercial Commitments under Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements and Obligations and Note 22 of our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information about these requirements, which is hereby incorporated by reference.
F-18

Table of Content
Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements and Obligations
Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements
In accordance with the definition under rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), the following qualify as off-balance sheet arrangements:
certain obligations under guarantee contracts that have “any of the characteristics identified in Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) paragraph ASC 460-10-15-4 (Guarantees Topic)”;
a retained or contingent interest in assets transferred to an unconsolidated entity or similar arrangement that serves as credit, liquidity or market risk support to that entity for such assets;
any obligation, including a contingent obligation, under a contract that would be accounted for as derivative instruments except that it is both indexed to the registrant’s own stock and classified as equity; and
any obligation, arising out of a variable interest in an unconsolidated entity that is held by, and material to, the registrant, where such entity provides financing, liquidity, market risk or credit risk support to the registrant, or engages in leasing, hedging or research and development services with the registrant.
Information regarding guarantees that meet the above requirements is included in Note 16 of our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements and is hereby incorporated by reference. We do not have any contingent interest in assets transferred, derivative instruments, or variable interest entities that qualify as off-balance sheet arrangements under SEC rules.
Other Commercial Commitments
The following is a summary of our other commercial commitments as of December 31, 2021:
  Commitment Expiration by Calendar Year
(in millions)TotalLess than 1
year
1 - 3
years
3 - 5
years
More than 5
years
Letters of credit$65.6 $65.6 $— $— $— 
Surety bonds645.7 645.4 — 0.3 — 
Total$711.3 $711.0 $— $0.3 $— 
The surety bonds and letters of credit generally expire within one year or less but a substantial portion of these instruments provide financial assurance for continuing obligations and, therefore, in most cases, must be renewed on an annual basis. We issue letters of credit through our revolving credit facility and bilateral agreements. As of December 31, 2021, we had $10.9 million of outstanding letters of credit through our credit facility and $54.7 million outstanding through bilateral agreements. We primarily incur liabilities for reclamation activities in our Florida operations and for phosphogypsum management system (“Gypstack” or “Gypstacks”) closure in our Florida and Louisiana operations where, for permitting purposes, we must either pass a test of financial strength or provide credit support, typically in the form of cash deposits, surety bonds or letters of credit. As of December 31, 2021, we had $356.1 million in surety bonds and a $50 million letter of credit included in the total amount above. These bonds and letters of credit are outstanding for reclamation obligations, primarily related to mining in Florida. Also, as of December 31, 2021, we had delivered a $249.7 million surety bond to EPA as a substitute for the financial assurance provided through the Plant City Trust. The surety bonds generally require us to obtain a discharge of the bonds or to post additional collateral (typically in the form of cash or letters of credit) at the request of the issuer of the bonds.
We are subject to financial assurance requirements related to the closure and post-closure care of our Gypstacks in Florida and Louisiana. These requirements include Florida and Louisiana state financial assurance regulations, and financial assurance requirements under the terms of consent decrees that we have entered into with respect to our facilities in Florida and Louisiana. These include a consent decree (the “Plant City Consent Decree”) with EPA and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (“FDEP”) relating to the Plant City, Florida facility we acquired as part of the CF Phosphate Assets Acquisition (the “Plant City Facility”) and two separate consent decrees (collectively, the “2015 Consent Decrees”) with federal and state regulators that include financial assurance requirements for the closure and post-closure care of substantially all of our Gypstacks in Florida and Louisiana, other than those acquired as part of the CF Phosphate Assets Acquisition, which are discussed separately below.
See Note 13 of our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information relating to our financial assurance obligations, including the Plant City Consent Decree and the 2015 Consent Decrees, which information is incorporated by reference.
F-19

Table of Content
Currently, state financial assurance requirements in Florida and Louisiana for the closure and post-closure care of Gypstacks are, in general terms, based upon the same assumptions and associated estimated values as the AROs recognized for financial reporting purposes. For financial reporting purposes, we recognize the AROs based on the estimated future closure and post-closure costs of Gypstacks, the undiscounted value of which is approximately $2.4 billion. The value of the AROs for closure and post-closure care of Mosaic’s Gypstacks, discounted to the present value, based on a credit-adjusted, risk-free rate, is reflected on our Consolidated Balance Sheets in the amount of approximately $883.2 million as of December 31, 2021. Compliance with the financial assurance requirements in Florida and Louisiana is generally based on the undiscounted Gypstack closure estimates.
We satisfy substantially all of our Florida, Louisiana and federal financial assurance requirements through compliance with the financial assurance requirements under the 2015 Consent Decrees, by providing third-party credit support in the form of surety bonds (including under the Plant City Consent Decree), and a financial test mechanism supported by a corporate guarantee (Bonnie Financial Test”) related to a closed Florida phosphate concentrates facility in Bartow, Florida (the “Bonnie Facility”) as discussed below. We comply with our remaining state financial assurance requirements because our financial strength permits us to meet applicable financial strength tests. However, at various times we have not met the applicable financial strength tests and there can be no assurance that we will be able to meet the applicable financial strength tests in the future. In the event we do not meet either financial strength test, we could be required to seek an alternate financial strength test acceptable to state regulatory authorities or provide credit support, which may include surety bonds, letters of credit and cash escrows or trust funds. Cash escrows or trust funds would be classified as restricted cash on our Consolidated Balance Sheets. Assuming we maintain our current levels of liquidity and capital resources, we do not expect that these Florida and Louisiana requirements will have a material effect on our results of operations, liquidity or capital resources.
As part of the CF Phosphate Assets Acquisition, we assumed certain AROs related to the estimated costs (Gypstack Closure Costs) at both the Plant City Facility and the Bonnie Facility. Associated with these assets are two related financial assurance arrangements for which we became responsible and that provided sources of funds for the estimated Gypstack Closure Costs for these facilities, pursuant to federal or state law, which the government can draw against in the event we cannot perform such closure activities. One was initially a trust (the Plant City Trust) established to meet the requirements under a consent decree with EPA and the FDEP with respect to U.S. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”) compliance at Plant City that also satisfied Florida financial assurance requirements at that site. Beginning in September 2016, as a substitute for the financial assurance provided through the Plant City Trust, we have provided financial assurance for Plant City in the form of a surety bond delivered to EPA (the Plant City Bond). The amount of the Plant City Bond is $249.7 million, at December 31, 2021, which reflects our closure cost estimates at that date. The other was also a trust fund (the Bonnie Facility Trust) established to meet the requirements under Florida financial assurance regulations that apply to the Bonnie Facility. On July 27, 2018, we received $21.0 million from the Bonnie Facility Trust by substituting the trust fund for the Bonnie Financial Test supported by a corporate guarantee as allowed by state regulations. Both financial assurance funding obligations require estimates of future expenditures that could be impacted by refinements in scope, technological developments, new information, cost inflation, changes in regulations, discount rates and the timing of activities. Under our current approach to satisfying applicable requirements, additional financial assurance would be required in the future if increases in cost estimates exceed the face amount of the Plant City Bond or the amount supported by the Bonnie Financial Test.
Other Long-Term Obligations
The following is a summary of our other long-term obligations, including Gypstacks and land reclamation, as of December 31, 2021:
  Payments by Calendar Year
(in millions)TotalLess than 1
year
1 - 3
years
3 - 5
years
More than 5
years
ARO(a)
$3,801.8 $234.4 $279.4 $204.7 $3,083.3 
______________________________
(a)Represents the undiscounted estimated cash outflows required to settle the AROs. The corresponding present value of these future expenditures is $1.7 billion as of December 31, 2021 and is reflected in our accrued liabilities and other noncurrent liabilities in our Consolidated Balance Sheets.
F-20

Table of Content
Most of our export sales of potash crop nutrients are marketed through a North American export association, Canpotex, which funds its operations in part through third-party financing facilities. As a member, Mosaic or our subsidiaries are, subject to certain conditions and exceptions, contractually obligated to reimburse Canpotex for their pro rata share of any operating expenses or other liabilities incurred. The reimbursements are made through reductions to members’ cash receipts from Canpotex.
Commitments are set forth in Note 21 of our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements and are hereby incorporated by reference.
Income Tax Obligations
Gross uncertain tax positions as of December 31, 2021 of $124.6 million are not included in the other long-term obligations table presented above because the timing of the settlement of unrecognized tax benefits cannot be reasonably determined. For further discussion, refer to Note 12 of our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.
Market Risk
We are exposed to the impact of fluctuations in the relative value of currencies, fluctuations in interest rates, fluctuations in the purchase prices of natural gas, nitrogen, ammonia and sulfur consumed in operations, and changes in freight costs, as well as changes in the market value of our financial instruments. We periodically enter into derivatives in order to mitigate our interest rate risks, foreign currency risks and the effects of changing commodity prices and freight prices, but not for speculative purposes. Unrealized mark-to-market gains and losses on derivatives are recorded in Corporate, Eliminations and Other. Once realized, they are recorded in the related business segment.
Foreign Currency Exchange Rates
Due to the global nature of our operations, we are exposed to currency exchange rate changes, which may cause fluctuations in earnings and cash flows. Our primary foreign currency exposures are the Canadian dollar and Brazilian real. To reduce economic risk and volatility on expected cash flows that are denominated in the Canadian dollar and Brazilian real, we use financial instruments that may include forward contracts, zero-cost collars and/or futures.
The functional currency of several of our Canadian entities is the Canadian dollar. For those entities, sales are primarily denominated in U.S. dollars, but the costs are paid principally in Canadian dollars. We generally enter into derivative instruments for a portion of the currency risk exposure on anticipated cash inflows and outflows, including contractual outflows for our Potash segment expansion and other capital expenditures denominated in Canadian dollars. Mosaic hedges cash flows on a declining basis, up to 18 months for the Canadian dollar. We may also enter into hedges up to 36 months for expected Canadian dollar capital expenditures related to our Esterhazy K3 expansion program. A stronger Canadian dollar generally reduces these entities’ operating earnings. A weaker Canadian dollar has the opposite effect. Depending on the underlying exposure, such derivatives can create additional earnings volatility because we do not apply hedge accounting. Gains or losses on these derivative contracts, both for open contracts at quarter-end (unrealized) and settled contracts (realized), are recorded in either cost of goods sold or foreign currency transaction gain (loss).
The functional currency for our Brazilian subsidiaries is the Brazilian real. We finance our Brazilian inventory purchases with U.S. dollar-denominated liabilities. We hedge cash flows on a declining basis, up to 12 months for the Brazilian real. A stronger Brazilian real relative to the U.S. dollar has the impact of reducing these liabilities on a functional currency basis. When this occurs, an associated foreign currency transaction gain is recorded as non-operating income. A weaker Brazilian real generally has the opposite effect. We also enter into derivative instruments for a portion of our currency risk exposure on anticipated Brazilian real cash flows and record an associated gain or loss in either cost of goods sold or foreign currency transaction gain (loss) line in the Consolidated Statements of Earnings. A stronger Brazilian real generally reduces our Brazilian subsidiaries operating earnings. A weaker Brazilian real has the opposite effect.
As discussed above, we have Canadian dollar, Brazilian real, and other foreign currency exchange contracts. As of December 31, 2021, and 2020, the fair value of our major foreign currency exchange contracts was ($18.6) million and $10.0 million, respectively. We recorded an unrealized loss of $26.7 million in cost of goods sold and recorded an unrealized loss of $1.4 million in foreign currency transaction gain (loss) in the Consolidated Statements of Earnings for 2021.
F-21

Table of Content
The table below provides information about Mosaic’s significant foreign exchange derivatives.
 As of December 31, 2021As of December 31, 2020
Expected
Maturity Date
    Years ending    
December 31,
Fair
Value
Expected
Maturity Date
    Years ending    
December 31,
Fair
Value
(in millions)202220232024202120222023
Foreign Currency Exchange Forwards
Canadian Dollar$3.8 $31.9 
Notional (million US$) - short Canadian dollars$421.2 $78.3 $28.2 $170.0 $48.4 $6.0 
Weighted Average Rate - Canadian dollar to U.S. dollar1.2731 1.2665 1.2874 1.3089 1.3285 1.3304 
Notional (million US$) - long Canadian dollars$1,030.7 $192.0 $35.2 $670.5 $196.5 $59.4 
Weighted Average Rate - Canadian dollar to U.S. dollar1.2708 1.2893 1.2346 1.3291 1.3153 1.3299 
Foreign Currency Exchange Collars
Canadian Dollar$0.4 $0.4 
Notional (million US$) - long Canadian dollars$15.5 $— $— $— $30.3 $— 
Weighted Average Participation Rate - Canadian dollar to U.S. dollar1.3433 — — — 1.3432 — 
Weighted Average Protection Rate - Canadian dollar to U.S. dollar1.2875 — — — 1.2874 — 
Foreign Currency Exchange Non-Deliverable Forwards
Brazilian Real$(20.8)$(19.4)
Notional (million US$) - short Brazilian real$531.5 $— $— $582.4 $— $— 
Weighted Average Rate - Brazilian real to U.S. dollar5.7121 — — 5.2160 — — 
Notional (million US$) - long Brazilian real$679.2 $— $— $924.6 $— $— 
Weighted Average Rate - Brazilian real to U.S. dollar5.6748 — — 5.3068 — — 
Indian Rupee$(1.5)$(2.1)
Notional (million US$) - short Indian rupee$125.0 $— $— $146.0 $— $— 
Weighted Average Rate - Indian rupee to U.S. dollar75.7627 — — 74.5083 — — 
China Renminbi$(0.5)$(0.8)
Notional (million US$) - short China renminbi$68.0 $— $— $78.0 $— $— 
Weighted Average Rate - China renminbi to U.S. dollar6.4750 — — 6.6211 — — 
Total Fair Value$(18.6)$10.0 

F-22

Table of Content
Commodities
We use forward purchase contracts, swaps and occasionally three-way collars to reduce the risk related to significant price changes in our inputs and product prices. In addition, the natural gas-based pricing under the CF Ammonia Supply Agreement is intended to lessen ammonia pricing volatility.
All gains and losses on commodities contracts are recorded in cost of goods sold in the Consolidated Statements of Earnings.
As of December 31, 2021, and 2020, the fair value of our major commodities contracts was $18.8 million and $5.3 million, respectively. We recorded an unrealized gain of $13.1 million in cost of goods sold on the Consolidated Statements of Earnings for 2021.
Our primary commodities exposure relates to price changes in natural gas.
The table below provides information about Mosaic’s natural gas derivatives which are used to manage the risk related to significant price changes in natural gas.
 As of December 31, 2021As of December 31, 2020
Expected Maturity Date
    Years ending    
December 31,
Fair ValueExpected Maturity Date
    Years ending    
December 31,
Fair Value
(in millions)20222023202420252021202220232024
Natural Gas Swaps$18.8 $5.3 
Notional (million MMBtu) - long9.4 9.4 4.8 — 17.7 8.5 1.2 — 
Weighted Average Rate (US$/MM Btu)$2.21 $2.34 $2.72 $— $1.93 $2.16 $2.88 $— 
Total Fair Value$18.8 $5.3 
Interest Rates
From time to time, we enter into interest rate swap agreements to hedge our exposure to changes in future interest rates related to anticipated debt issuances. At December 31, 2021, we had no interest rate swap agreements in effect.
Summary
Overall, there have been no material changes in our primary market risk exposures since the prior year. In 2022, we do not expect any material changes in our primary risk exposures. Additional information about market risk associated with our investments held in the RCRA Trusts is provided in Note 11 of our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements. For additional information related to derivatives, see Notes 14 and 15 of our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.
Environmental, Health, Safety and Security Matters
We are subject to complex and evolving international, federal, state, provincial and local environmental, health, safety and security (“EHS”) laws that govern the production, distribution and use of crop nutrients and animal feed ingredients. These EHS laws regulate or propose to regulate: (i) conduct of mining, production and supply chain operations, including employee safety and facility security procedures; (ii) management or remediation of potential impacts to air, soil and water quality from our operations; (iii) disposal of waste materials; (iv) beneficial use of co-products and residuals; (v) reclamation of lands after mining; (vi) management and handling of raw materials; (vii) product content; and (viii) use of products by both us and our customers.
We have a comprehensive EHS management program that seeks to achieve sustainable, predictable and verifiable EHS performance. Key elements of our EHS program include: (i) identifying and managing EHS risk; (ii) complying with legal requirements; (iii) improving our EHS procedures and protocols; (iv) educating employees regarding EHS obligations; (v) retaining and developing professional qualified EHS staff; (vi) evaluating facility conditions; (vii) evaluating and enhancing safe workplace behaviors; (viii) performing audits; (ix) formulating EHS action plans; and (x) assuring accountability of all managers and other employees for EHS performance. Our business units are responsible for implementing day-to-day elements of our EHS program, assisted by an integrated staff of EHS professionals. We conduct
F-23

Table of Content
audits to verify that each facility has identified risks, achieved regulatory compliance, improved EHS performance, and incorporated EHS management systems into day-to-day business functions.
New or proposed regulatory programs can present significant challenges in ascertaining future compliance obligations, implementing compliance plans, and estimating future costs until implementing regulations have been finalized and definitive regulatory interpretations have been adopted. New or proposed regulatory requirements may require modifications to our facilities or to operating procedures and these modifications may involve significant capital costs or increases in operating costs.
We have expended, and anticipate that we will continue to expend, substantial financial and managerial resources to comply with EHS standards and to continue to improve our environmental stewardship. In 2022, excluding capital expenditures arising out of the consent decrees referred to under “EPA RCRA Initiative” in Note 13 of our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements, we expect environmental capital expenditures to total approximately $300 million, primarily related to: (i) modification or construction of waste management infrastructure and water treatment systems; (ii) construction and modification projects associated with Gypstacks and clay settling ponds at our Phosphates facilities and tailings management areas for our Potash mining and processing facilities; (iii) upgrading or new construction of air pollution control equipment at some of the concentrates plants; and (iv) capital projects associated with remediation of contamination at current or former operations. Additional expenditures for land reclamation, Gypstack closure and water treatment activities are expected to total approximately $170 million in 2022. In 2023, we estimate environmental capital expenditures will be approximately $300 million and expenditures for land reclamation activities, Gypstack closure and water treatment activities are expected to be approximately $150 million. We spent approximately $410 million and $350 million for the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively, for environmental capital expenditures, land reclamation activities, Gypstack closure and water treatment activities. No assurance can be given that greater-than-anticipated EHS capital expenditures or land reclamation, Gypstack closure or water treatment expenditures will not be required in 2022 or in the future.
Operating Requirements and Impacts
Permitting. We hold numerous environmental, mining and other permits and approvals authorizing operations at our facilities. Our ability to continue operations at a facility could be materially affected by a government agency decision to deny or delay issuing a new or renewed permit or approval, to revoke or substantially modify an existing permit or approval or to substantially change conditions applicable to a permit modification, or by legal actions that successfully challenge our permits.
Expanding our operations or extending operations into new areas is also predicated upon securing the necessary environmental or other permits or approvals. We have been engaged in, and over the next several years will be continuing, efforts to obtain permits in support of our anticipated Florida operations at certain of our properties. For years, we have successfully permitted properties and anticipate that we will be able to permit these properties as well.
A denial of our permits, the issuance of permits with cost-prohibitive conditions, substantial delays in issuing key permits, legal actions that prevent us from relying on permits or revocation of permits can prevent or delay our mining at the affected properties and thereby materially affect our business, results of operations, liquidity or financial condition.
In addition, in the U.S., local community involvement has become an increasingly important factor in the permitting process for companies like ours, and various counties and other parties, particularly in Florida, have in the past filed and continue to file lawsuits or administrative appeals challenging the issuance of some of the permits we require. These actions can significantly delay permit issuance. Additional information regarding certain potential or pending permit challenges is provided in Note 22 to our Consolidated Financial Statements and is incorporated herein by reference.
Federal Initiatives to Define “Waters of the United States” (“WOTUS”). The 1972 amendments to the Clean Water Act (“CWA”) established federal jurisdiction over “navigable waters,” defined in the Act as the “waters of the United States” (CWA Section 502(7)). WOTUS is a threshold term in the CWA and establishes the scope of federal jurisdiction under the CWA Act. As it relates to Mosaic’s operations and facilities, the scope of WOTUS dictates legal requirements for our National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System wastewater discharge permits and impacts to surface waters and wetlands associated with our phosphate mining operations. A broad definition of WOTUS, and thus the scope of federal jurisdiction, increases the time required to identify and delineate the boundaries of which wetlands and waterways are subject to federal requirements, and the mitigation required to compensate for any losses or impacts to jurisdictional WOTUS.
F-24

Table of Content
The current regulatory definition of WOTUS was promulgated jointly on April 21, 2020 (85 Fed.Reg. 22250), by the U.S. EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”) as a regulation referred to as the “Navigable Waters Protection Rule” (the “NWPR”). The NWPR was intended to provide clarity, predictability and consistency so that the regulated community can better understand where the CWA applies and where it does not. The new NWPR revised the definition of WOTUS under the CWA to include: (i) territorial seas and traditional navigable waters; (ii) perennial and intermittent tributaries to those waters; (iii) certain lakes, ponds, and impoundments; and (iv) wetlands adjacent to jurisdictional waters. The final NWPR was challenged in a number of U.S. district courts.
On June 9, 2021, the EPA announced its plans to repeal and replace the NWPR based on its determination that the rule “… is leading to significant environmental degradation”. On August 30, 2021, the U.S. District Court for Arizona vacated the NWPR and remanded the rule back to EPA and the Corps. On that same date, EPA announced that due to court's vacating of the NWPR, EPA and the Corps will halt implementation of the NWPR and are interpreting WOTUS consistent with U.S. Supreme Court precedent.
EPA and the Corps are moving forward with formal rulemaking to implement a new definition of WOTUS. On December 7, 2021, EPA and the Corps announced a proposed rule to re-establish the pre-2015 definition of WOTUS which had been in place for decades, updated to reflect consideration of U.S. Supreme Court decisions.
Water Quality Regulations for Nutrient Discharges. New nutrient regulatory initiatives could have a material effect on either us or our customers. For example, the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Task Force, established by executive order of the U.S. President and comprised of five gulf states and eleven federal agencies, has delivered a final strategy for long-term ecosystem restoration for the Gulf Coast. The strategy calls for, among other matters, reduction of the flow of excess nutrients into the Gulf of Mexico through state nutrient reduction frameworks, new nutrient reduction approaches and reduction of agricultural and urban sources of excess nutrients. Implementation of the strategy will require legislative or regulatory action at the state level. We cannot predict what the requirements of any such legislative or regulatory action could be or whether or how it would affect us or our customers.
Reclamation Obligations. During phosphate mining, we remove overburden in order to retrieve phosphate rock reserves. Once we have finished mining in an area, we use the overburden and sand tailings produced by the beneficiation process to reclaim the area in accordance with approved reclamation plans and applicable laws. We have incurred and will continue to incur significant costs to fulfill our reclamation obligations.
Management of Residual Materials and Closure of Management Areas. Mining and processing of potash and phosphate generate residual materials that must be managed both during the operation of the facility and upon and after facility closure. Potash tailings, consisting primarily of salt and clay, are stored in surface disposal sites. Phosphate clay residuals from mining are deposited in clay settling ponds. Processing of phosphate rock with sulfuric acid generates phosphogypsum that currently is stored in Gypstacks.
During the life of the tailings management areas, clay settling ponds and Gypstacks, we have incurred and will continue to incur significant costs to manage our potash and phosphate residual materials in accordance with environmental laws and regulations and with permit requirements. Additional legal and permit requirements will take effect when these facilities are closed. Our asset retirement obligations are further discussed in Note 13 of our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.
New Wales Water Loss Incident. In August 2016, a sinkhole developed under one of the two cells of the Phase II Gypstack at our New Wales facility in Polk County, Florida, resulting in process water from the stack draining into the sinkhole. The incident was reported to the FDEP and EPA and in connection with the incident, our subsidiary, Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC (“Mosaic Fertilizer”), entered into a consent order (the “Order”) with the FDEP in October 2016 under which Mosaic Fertilizer agreed to, among other things, implement an approved remediation plan to close the sinkhole; perform additional water monitoring and if necessary, assessment and rehabilitation activities in the event of identified off-site impacts; provide financial assurance; and evaluate the risk of potential future sinkhole formation at our active Florida Gypstack operations. The incident and the Order are further discussed in Note 22 of our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.
Financial Assurance. Separate from our accounting treatment for reclamation and closure liabilities, some jurisdictions in which we operate have required us either to pass a test of financial strength or provide credit support, typically cash deposits, surety bonds, financial guarantees or letters of credit, to address phosphate mining reclamation liabilities and closure liabilities for clay settling areas and Gypstacks. See “Other Commercial Commitments” under “Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements and Obligations” above for additional information about these requirements. We also have obligations under
F-25

Table of Content
certain consent decrees and a separate financial assurance arrangement relating to our facilities in Florida and Louisiana. Two consent decrees that became effective in 2016 resolved claims under RCRA and state hazardous waste laws relating to our management of certain waste materials onsite at certain fertilizer manufacturing facilities in Florida and Louisiana. Under these consent decrees, in 2016 we deposited $630 million in cash into two trust funds to provide additional financial assurance for the estimated costs of closure and post-closure care of our phosphogypsum management systems. In addition, in 2017, we issued a letter of credit in the amount of $50 million to further support our financial assurance obligation under the Florida 2015 Consent Decree. While our actual Gypstack Closure Costs are generally expected to be paid by us in the normal course of our Phosphates business over a period that may not end until three decades or more after a Gypstack has been closed, the funds on deposit in the RCRA Trusts can be drawn by the applicable governmental authority in the event we cannot perform our closure and long-term care obligations. If and when our estimated Gypstack Closure Costs with respect to the facilities associated with a RCRA Trust are sufficiently lower than the amount on deposit in that RCRA Trust, we have the right to request that the excess funds be released to us. The same is true for the RCRA Trust balance remaining after the completion of our obligations, which will be performed over a period that may not end until three decades or more after a Gypstack has been closed. See the discussion under “EPA RCRA Initiative” in Note 13 of our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information about these matters.
We have established a trust fund valued at $25 million (Canadian dollars) in satisfaction of financial assurance requirements for closure of our Saskatchewan Potash facilities. As of the end of 2021, Mosaic has completed all required cash contributions to the trust fund. Trust fund performance is subject to review by the Province of Saskatchewan every five years during its existence.

In 2020, we executed and thereafter have maintained surety bonds in the amount of approximately $82 million to establish financial assurance for closure of our Carlsbad, New Mexico potash facility with the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management and the New Mexico Environment Department.

Examination of Working Places in Metal and Nonmetal Mines. The U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration has reinstated the regulatory provisions for examinations of working places in metal and nonmetal mines that were originally published on January 23, 2017. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued an order on June 11, 2019, and a mandate on August 23, 2019, requiring this action. The reinstated final rule was effective on September 30, 2019, with implementation and compliance required by January 2020. In order to comply with these changes, we have adjusted our daily mine workplace examination procedures and added additional requirements for the documentation of adverse conditions when they are identified during the daily examinations.
Climate Change
We are committed to finding ways to meet the challenges of crop nutrient and animal feed ingredient production and distribution in the context of the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. While focused on helping the world grow the food it needs, we have proven our commitment to using our resources more efficiently and have implemented innovative energy recovery technologies that result in our generation of much of the energy we need, particularly in our U.S. Phosphates operations, from high efficiency heat recovery systems that result in lower greenhouse gas emissions. In 2021, we announced our goal to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions in Florida, U.S. by 2030 and companywide by 2040.
Climate Change Regulation. Various governmental initiatives to limit greenhouse gas emissions are under way or under consideration around the world. These initiatives could restrict our operating activities, require us to make changes in our operating activities that would increase our operating costs, reduce our efficiency or limit our output, require us to make capital improvements to our facilities, increase our energy, raw material and transportation costs or limit their availability, or otherwise adversely affect our results of operations, liquidity or capital resources, and these effects could be material to us.
The direct greenhouse gas emissions from our operations result primarily from:
Combustion of natural gas to produce steam and dry potash products at our Belle Plaine, Saskatchewan potash solution mine. To a lesser extent, at our potash shaft mines, natural gas is used as a fuel to heat fresh air supplied to the shaft mines and for drying potash products.
The use of natural gas as a feedstock in the production of ammonia at our Faustina, Louisiana facility.
Process reactions from naturally occurring carbonates in phosphate rock.
Operation of transport trucks, mining and construction equipment, and other machinery powered by internal combustion engines utilizing fossil fuels.
F-26

Table of Content
In addition, the production of energy and raw materials that we purchase from unrelated parties for use in our business and energy used in the transportation of our products and raw materials are sources of greenhouse gas emissions.
Governmental greenhouse gas emission initiatives include, among others, the December 2015 agreement (the “Paris Agreement”) which was the outcome of the 21st session of the Conference of the Parties under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The Paris Agreement, which was signed by nearly 200 nations including the U.S. and Canada, entered into force in late 2016 and sets out a goal of limiting the average rise in temperatures for this century to below 2 degrees Celsius. Each signatory is expected to develop its own plan (referred to as a Nationally Determined Contribution, or “NDC”) for reaching that goal.
On January 20, 2021 the U.S.rejoined the Paris Agreement, which was effective February 19, 2021. In 2015, prior to this announcement, the U.S. had submitted an NDC aiming to achieve, by 2025, an economy-wide target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 26-28% below its 2005 level. The NDC also aims to use best efforts to reduce emissions by 28%. The U.S. target covers all greenhouse gases that were a part of the 2014 Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks. While the future of the U.S.’s involvement in the Paris Agreement and the status of this NDC are unclear, various legislative or regulatory initiatives relating to greenhouse gases have been adopted or considered by the U.S. Congress, EPA or various states and those initiatives already adopted may be used to implement a U.S. NDC. Additionally, more stringent laws and regulations may be enacted to accomplish the goals set out in the NDC.
Brazil ratified the Paris Agreement on September 21, 2016, committing to an NDC that includes an economy-wide target of 1.3 GtCO2e by 2025 and 1.2 GtCO2e by 2030. In 2020, Brazil submitted a new NDC, which reaffirms the country’s commitment to reducing total net greenhouse gas emissions by 37% in 2025 and by 43% in 2030. The NDC further commits to achieving climate neutrality in 2060. Since 2009, Brazil has a National Policy on Climate Change. This Policy is implemented by two instruments: the National Plan on Climate Change and the National Climate Change Fund. Additionally, Brazil has sector-specific policies, such as the National Plan for Low Carbon Emission in Agriculture. As part of its commitments in the Paris Agreement, Brazil enforced a Biofuels National Policy ("RenovaBio") program in 2020, which sets a carbon credit mechanism based on emission reductions from the use of biofuels. RenovaBio aims to increase biofuels rate in the country’s energy matrix and reached 97% of its target on the first year. Under RenovaBio, fossil fuel distributor are required to compensate for the carbon emissions through the acquisition of CBIOS (decarbonization certificates), issued by biofuel producers (e.g., ethanol plants). Since 2020, the Brazilian Congress became active in proposing other climate-related legislation and could approve new instruments to combat climate change in this current legislature. We will continue to monitor developments relating to the anticipated legislation, as well as the potential future effect on our operating activities, energy, raw material and transportation costs, results of operations, liquidity or capital resources.
Canada’s intended NDC aims to achieve, by 2030, an economy-wide target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 40-45% below 2005 levels. In late 2016, the Canadian federal government announced plans for a comprehensive tax on carbon emissions, under which provinces opting out of the tax would have the option of adopting a cap-and-trade system. In the plans, the federal government also committed to implementing a federal carbon pricing backstop system that will apply in any province or territory that does not have a carbon pricing system in place by 2018. As of January 1, 2022, a carbon tax of $50 per tonne now applies in Canada for any emitter not covered under the federal backstop program or approved provincial program. In December 2017, Saskatchewan announced a comprehensive plan to address climate change that does not include an economy-wide price on carbon but does include a system of tariffs and credits for large emitters. The plan was reviewed and approved, in part, by the federal government in October 2018. Our Saskatchewan Potash facilities are subject to the Saskatchewan climate change plan regarding emissions at our facilities; however, indirect costs from the carbon tax associated with electricity, natural gas consumption, and transportation are currently passed through to Mosaic. As implementation of the Paris Agreement proceeds, more stringent laws and regulations may be enacted to accomplish the goals set out in Canada’s NDC. We will also continue to monitor developments relating to the anticipated legislation, as well as the potential future effect on our operating activities, energy, raw material and transportation costs, results of operations, liquidity or capital resources.
It is possible that future legislation or regulation addressing climate change, including in response to the Paris Agreement or any new international agreements, could adversely affect our operating activities, energy, raw material and transportation costs, results of operations, liquidity or capital resources, and these effects could be material or adversely impact our competitive advantage. In addition, to the extent climate change restrictions imposed in countries where our competitors operate, such as China, India, former Soviet Union countries or Morocco, are less stringent than in the U.S., Brazil or Canada, our competitors could gain cost or other competitive advantages over us.
F-27

Table of Content
Operating Impacts Due to Climate Change. The prospective impact of climate change on our operations and those of our customers and farmers remains uncertain. Scientists have hypothesized that the impacts of climate change could include changes in rainfall patterns, water shortages, changing sea levels, changing storm patterns and intensities, and changing temperature levels and that these changes could be severe. These impacts could vary by geographic location. Severe climate change could impact our costs and operating activities, the location and cost of global grain and oilseed production, and the supply and demand for grains and oilseeds. At the present time, we cannot predict the prospective impact of climate change on our results of operations, liquidity or capital resources, or whether any such effects could be material to us.
Remedial Activities
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) (aka Superfund) and state analogues impose liability, without regard to fault or to the legality of a party’s conduct, on certain categories of persons, including those who have disposed of “hazardous substances” at a location. Under Superfund, or its various state analogues, one party may be responsible for the entire site, regardless of fault or the locality of its disposal activity. We have contingent environmental remedial liabilities that arise principally from three sources which are further discussed below: (i) facilities currently or formerly owned by our subsidiaries or their predecessors; (ii) facilities adjacent to currently or formerly owned facilities; and (iii) third-party Superfund or state equivalent sites where we are alleged to have disposed of hazardous materials. Taking into consideration established accruals for environmental remedial matters of approximately $57.3 million as of December 31, 2021, expenditures for these known conditions currently are not expected, individually or in the aggregate, to have a material effect on our business or financial condition. However, material expenditures could be required in the future to remediate the contamination at known sites or at other current or former sites.
Remediation at Our Facilities. Many of our formerly owned or current facilities have been in operation for a number of years. The historical use and handling of regulated chemical substances, crop and animal nutrients and additives as well as by-product or process tailings at these facilities by us and predecessor operators have resulted in soil, surface water and groundwater impacts.
At many of these facilities, spills or other releases of regulated substances have occurred previously and potentially could occur in the future, possibly requiring us to undertake or fund cleanup efforts under Superfund or otherwise. In some instances, we have agreed, pursuant to consent orders or agreements with the appropriate governmental agencies, to undertake certain investigations, which currently are in progress, to determine whether remedial action may be required to address site impacts. At other locations, we have entered into consent orders or agreements with appropriate governmental agencies to perform required remedial activities that will address identified site conditions. Taking into account established accruals, future expenditures for these known conditions currently are not expected, individually or in the aggregate, to have a material adverse effect on our business or financial condition. However, material expenditures by us could be required in the future to remediate the environmental impacts at these or at other current or former sites.
Remediation at Third-Party Facilities. Various third parties have alleged that our historical operations have impacted neighboring off-site areas or nearby third-party facilities. In some instances, we have agreed, pursuant to orders from or agreements with appropriate governmental agencies or agreements with private parties, to undertake or fund investigations, some of which currently are in progress, to determine whether remedial action, under Superfund or otherwise, may be required to address off-site impacts. Our remedial liability at these sites, either alone or in the aggregate, taking into account established accruals, currently is not expected to have a material adverse effect on our business or financial condition. As more information is obtained regarding these sites, this expectation could change.
Liability for Off-Site Disposal Locations. Currently, we are involved or concluding involvement for off-site disposal at several Superfund or equivalent state sites. Moreover, we previously have entered into settlements to resolve liability with regard to Superfund or equivalent state sites. In some cases, such settlements have included “reopeners,” which could result in additional liability at such sites in the event of newly discovered contamination or other circumstances. Our remedial liability at such disposal sites, either alone or in the aggregate, currently is not expected to have a material adverse effect on our business or financial condition. As more information is obtained regarding these sites and the potentially responsible parties involved, this expectation could change.
Product Requirements and Impacts
International, federal, state and provincial standards require us to register many of our products before these products can be sold. The standards also impose labeling requirements on these products and require us to manufacture the products to
F-28

Table of Content
formulations set forth on the labels. We believe that, when handled and used as intended, based on the available data, crop nutrient materials do not pose harm to human health or the environment and that any additional standards or regulatory requirements relating to product requirements and impacts will not have a material adverse effect on our business or financial condition.
Additional Information
For additional information about phosphate mine permitting in Florida, our environmental liabilities, the environmental proceedings in which we are involved, our asset retirement obligations related to environmental matters, and our related accounting policies, see Environmental Liabilities and AROs under Critical Accounting Estimates above and Notes 2, 13, and 22 of our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.
Sustainability
We are committed to making informed choices that improve our corporate governance, financial strength, operational efficiency, environmental stewardship, community engagement and resource management. Through these efforts, we intend to sustain our business and experience lasting success.
We have included, or incorporate by reference, throughout this annual report on Form 10-K discussions of various matters relating to our sustainability, in its broadest sense, that we believe may be material to our investors. These matters include, but are not limited to, discussions about: corporate governance, including the leadership and respective roles of our Board of Directors and its committees, and management; recent and prospective developments in our business; product development; risk, enterprise risk management and risk oversight; the regulatory and permitting environment for our business and ongoing regulatory and permitting initiatives; executive compensation practices; employee and contractor safety; human capital matters and other EHS matters, including climate change, water management, energy and other operational efficiency initiatives, reclamation and asset retirement obligations. Other matters relating to sustainability are included in our sustainability reports that are available on our website at www.mosaicco.com/ourresponsibility. Our sustainability reports are not incorporated by reference in this annual report on Form 10-K.
Contingencies
Information regarding contingencies in Note 22 of our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements is incorporated herein by reference.
Related Parties
Information regarding related party transactions is set forth in Note 23 of our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements and is incorporated herein by reference.
Recently Issued Accounting Guidance
None.
Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward Looking Information
All statements, other than statements of historical fact, appearing in this report constitute “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward looking statements include, among other things, statements about our expectations, beliefs, intentions or strategies for the future, including statements about proposed or pending future transactions or strategic plans, statements concerning our future operations, financial condition and prospects, statements regarding our expectations for capital expenditures, statements concerning our level of indebtedness and other information, and any statements of assumptions regarding any of the foregoing. In particular, forward-looking statements may include words such as “anticipate,” “believe,” “could,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “may,” “potential,” “predict,” “project” or “should”. These statements involve certain risks and uncertainties that may cause actual results to differ materially from expectations as of the date of this filing.
F-29

Table of Content
Factors that could cause reported results to differ materially from those expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, the following:
the impact of the novel coronavirus Covid-19 pandemic on the global economy and our business, suppliers, customers, employees and the communities in which we operate, as further described in Part I, Item 1A of this 10-K Report;
business and economic conditions and governmental policies affecting the agricultural industry where we or our customers operate, including price and demand volatility resulting from periodic imbalances of supply and demand;
the potential drop in oil demand, which could lead to a significant decline in production, and its impact on the availability and price of sulfur, a key raw material input for our Phosphates, segment operations;
because of political and economic instability, civil unrest or changes in government policies in Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Peru or other countries in which we do business, our operations could be disrupted as higher costs of doing business could result, including those associated with implementation of new freight tables and new mining legislation;
changes in farmers’ application rates for crop nutrients;
changes in the operation of world phosphate or potash markets, including consolidation in the crop nutrient industry, particularly if we do not participate in the consolidation;
the expansion or contraction of production capacity or selling efforts by competitors or new entrants in the industries in which we operate, including the effects of actions by members of Canpotex to prove the production capacity of potash expansion projects, through proving runs or otherwise;
the effect of future product innovations or development of new technologies on demand for our products;
seasonality in our business that results in the need to carry significant amounts of inventory and seasonal peaks in working capital requirements, which may result in excess inventory or product shortages;
changes in the costs, or constraints on supplies, of raw materials or energy used in manufacturing our products, or in the costs or availability of transportation for our products;
declines in our selling prices or significant increases in costs that can require us to write down our inventories to the lower of cost or market, or require us to impair goodwill or other long-lived assets, or establish a valuation allowance against deferred tax assets;
the lag in realizing the benefit of falling market prices for the raw materials we use to produce our products that can occur while we consume raw materials that we purchased or committed to purchase in the past at higher prices;
disruptions of our operations at any of our key production, distribution, transportation or terminaling facilities, including those of Canpotex or any joint venture in which we participate;
shortages or other unavailability of railcars, tugs, barges and ships for carrying our products and raw materials;
the effects of and change in trade, monetary, environmental, tax and fiscal policies, laws and regulations;
foreign exchange rates and fluctuations in those rates;
tax regulations, currency exchange controls and other restrictions that may affect our ability to optimize the use of our liquidity;
risks associated with our international operations, including any potential and actual adverse effects related to the Miski Mayo Mine;
adverse weather conditions affecting our operations, including the impact of potential hurricanes, excessive heat, cold, snow, rainfall or drought;
difficulties or delays in receiving, challenges to, increased costs of obtaining or satisfying conditions of, or revocation or withdrawal of required governmental and regulatory approvals, including permitting activities;
changes in the environmental and other governmental regulation that applies to our operations, including federal legislation or regulatory action expanding the types and extent of water resources regulated under federal law and the possibility of further federal or state legislation or regulatory action affecting or related to greenhouse gas emissions, including carbon taxes or other measures that may be implemented in Canada or other jurisdictions in
F-30

Table of Content
which we operate, or of restrictions or liabilities related to elevated levels of naturally-occurring radiation that arise from disturbing the ground in the course of mining activities or possible efforts to reduce the flow of nutrients into the Gulf of Mexico, the Mississippi River basin or elsewhere;
the potential costs and effects of implementation of federal or state water quality standards for the discharge of nitrogen and/or phosphorus into Florida waterways;
the financial resources of our competitors, including state-owned and government-subsidized entities in other countries;
the possibility of defaults by our customers on trade credit that we extend to them or on indebtedness that they incur to purchase our products and that we guarantee;
any significant reduction in customers’ liquidity or access to credit that they need to purchase our products;
the effectiveness of the processes we put in place to manage our significant strategic priorities, including the expansion of our Potash business and our investment in MWSPC, and to successfully integrate and grow acquired businesses;
actual costs of various items differing from management’s current estimates, including, among others, asset retirement, environmental remediation, reclamation or other environmental obligations and Canadian resource taxes and royalties, or the costs of MWSPC or its existing or future funding;
the costs and effects of legal and administrative proceedings and regulatory matters affecting us, including environmental, tax or administrative proceedings, complaints that our operations are adversely impacting nearby farms, businesses, other property uses or properties, settlements thereof and actions taken by courts with respect to approvals of settlements, costs related to defending and resolving global audit, appeal or court activity, and other, and other further developments in legal proceedings and regulatory matters;
the success of our efforts to attract and retain highly qualified and motivated employees;
strikes, labor stoppages or slowdowns by our work force or increased costs resulting from unsuccessful labor contract negotiations, and the potential costs and effects of compliance with new regulations affecting our workforce, which increasingly focus on wages and hours, healthcare, retirement and other employee benefits;
brine inflows at our potash mines;
accidents or other incidents involving our properties or operations, including potential fires, explosions, seismic events, sinkholes, unsuccessful tailings management, ineffective mine safety procedures, or releases of hazardous or volatile chemicals;
terrorism, armed conflict or other malicious intentional acts, including cybersecurity risks such as attempts to gain unauthorized access to, or disable, our information technology systems, or our costs of addressing malicious intentional acts;
actions by the holders of controlling equity interests in businesses in which we hold a noncontrolling interest;
changes in our relationships with other members of Canpotex or any joint venture in which we participate or their or our exit from participation in Canpotex or any such export association or joint venture, and other changes in our commercial arrangements with unrelated third parties;
difficulties in realizing benefits under our long-term natural gas based pricing ammonia supply agreement with CF Industries, Inc., including the risks that the cost savings initially anticipated from the agreement may not be fully realized over the term of the agreement or that the price of natural gas or the market price for ammonia during the agreement’s term are at levels at which the agreement’s natural gas based pricing is disadvantageous to us, compared with purchases in the spot market; and
other risk factors reported from time to time in our SEC reports.
Material uncertainties and other factors known to us are discussed in Item 1A, “Risk Factors,” of our annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021 and incorporated by reference herein as if fully stated herein.
F-31

Table of Content
We base our forward-looking statements on information currently available to us, and we undertake no obligation to update or revise any of these statements, whether as a result of changes in underlying factors, new information, future events or other developments.
F-32

Table of Content
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
To the Shareholders and Board of Directors
The Mosaic Company:
Opinion on the Consolidated Financial Statements
We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of The Mosaic Company and subsidiaries (the Company) as of December 31, 2021 and 2020, the related consolidated statements of earnings (loss), comprehensive income (loss), equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2021, and the related notes (collectively, the consolidated financial statements). In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Company as of December 31, 2021 and 2020, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2021, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.
We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) (PCAOB), the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2021, based on criteria established in Internal Control – Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission, and our report dated February 22, 2022 expressed an unqualified opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.

Basis for Opinion
These consolidated financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these consolidated financial statements based on our audits. We are a public accounting firm registered with the PCAOB and are required to be independent with respect to the Company in accordance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the consolidated financial statements are free of material misstatement, whether due to error or fraud. Our audits included performing procedures to assess the risks of material misstatement of the consolidated financial statements, whether due to error or fraud, and performing procedures that respond to those risks. Such procedures included examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the consolidated financial statements. Our audits also included evaluating the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the consolidated financial statements. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

Critical Audit Matters
The critical audit matters communicated below are matters arising from the current period audit of the consolidated financial statements that were communicated or required to be communicated to the audit committee and that: (1) relate to accounts or disclosures that are material to the consolidated financial statements and (2) involved our especially challenging, subjective, or complex judgments. The communication of critical audit matters does not alter in any way our opinion on the consolidated financial statements, taken as a whole, and we are not, by communicating the critical audit matters below, providing separate opinions on the critical audit matters or on the accounts or disclosures to which they relate.

Evaluation of asset retirement obligations for water treatment costs
As discussed in Note 13 to the consolidated financial statements, the Company has recorded asset retirement obligations (AROs) of $1,749.3 million as of December 31, 2021. The ARO includes the planned treatment of contaminated water (“water treatment costs”) and other asset retirement activities at the Company’s Florida and Louisiana facilities.
We identified the evaluation of asset retirement obligations for water treatment costs as a critical audit matter. Specialized skills and knowledge were required to evaluate the Company’s selection of planned water treatment activities to satisfy their legal obligation. In addition, there was a high degree of subjective auditor judgment due to the sensitivity of the AROs to minor changes to significant assumptions, such as the volume of contaminated water and the forecasted level of contamination used to estimate the water treatment costs per thousand gallons (“unit costs”).

F-33

Table of Content
The following are the primary procedures performed to address this critical audit matter. We evaluated the design and tested the operating effectiveness of certain internal controls related to the Company’s ARO process. This included controls related to the knowledge, skill, and ability of third-party specialists and their relationship to the Company, determination of necessary activities required to treat contaminated water, and the development of the significant assumptions utilized in the process. We compared water treatment unit cost estimates to actual spending and water quality measurements. We evaluated the Company’s ability to accurately estimate water treatment costs by comparing the Company’s prior year estimates to the actual water treatment costs incurred. We performed sensitivity analyses over the volume of contaminated water and the unit costs assumptions to assess their impact on the water treatment costs estimate. Due to the specialized skills and knowledge used by the Company to select water treatment activities, we involved an environmental engineering professional with specialized skills and knowledge. This professional assisted in assessing the professional qualifications of the Company’s environmental engineers and engineering firm, including the knowledge, skill, and ability of the engineers, and the relationship of the engineers and engineering firm to the Company. In addition, the environmental engineering professional evaluated the Company’s planned asset retirement activities by analyzing the Company’s specialist’s reports. This professional evaluated significant engineering assumptions listed above and compared the planned activities per the specialist’s reports to other information obtained during the audit, such as:
- permits obtained which specify the Company’s legal obligations
- reports to state regulators on the level of contamination in water balances.
We evaluated the Company’s changes in assumptions for the volume of contaminated water and the forecasted level of contamination by comparing them to actual results from the prior year, as well as assessing operational changes that could impact estimated water volumes, contamination levels, or necessary treatment activities.

Evaluation of the realizability of certain deferred tax assets
As discussed in Note 12 of the consolidated financial statements, the Company recognizes deferred income tax assets and liabilities attributable to temporary differences between the financial statement carrying amounts of existing assets and liabilities and their respective tax bases in each jurisdiction. A valuation allowance is recorded in each jurisdiction in which a deferred income tax asset is recorded when it is more likely than not that the deferred income tax asset will not be realized. As of December 31, 2021, the Company had gross deferred tax assets of $1,747.3 million and a related valuation allowance of $774.7 million.
We identified the evaluation of the realizability of certain deferred tax assets as a critical audit matter. Specifically, the evaluation of foreign tax credit carryforwards, required subjective auditor judgment to assess certain forecasted revenue and cost assumptions used to estimate forecasted future taxable income over the periods in which those temporary differences become deductible. Changes to these assumptions could have an effect on the Company’s evaluation of the realizability of the deferred tax assets. In addition, there is complexity in the application of the relevant tax regulations to the Company’s forecasted future taxable income.
The following are the primary procedures we performed to address this critical audit matter. We evaluated the design and tested the operating effectiveness of certain internal controls related to the Company’s deferred tax asset valuation process. This included controls related to the Company’s development of assumptions listed above and application of the relevant tax regulations in estimating forecasted future taxable income. We analyzed certain forecasted revenue and cost assumptions by comparing to external forecasts from industry publications and performed sensitivity analyses to assess the impact of changes in those assumptions on the Company’s determination of the ability to utilize certain deferred tax assets. To assess the Company’s ability to forecast, we compared the Company’s historical revenue and cost forecasts to actual results. We involved federal and international tax professionals with specialized skills and knowledge, who assisted in assessing the Company’s application of the relevant tax regulations and evaluating the realizability of certain deferred tax assets.

/s/ KPMG LLP

We have served as the Company’s auditor since 2004.
Tampa, Florida
February 23, 2022
F-34

Table of Content
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders and Board of Directors
The Mosaic Company:

Opinion on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting

We have audited The Mosaic Company and subsidiaries' (the Company) internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2021, based on criteria established in Internal Control – Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. In our opinion, the Company maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2021, based on criteria established in Internal Control – Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission.
We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) (PCAOB), the consolidated balance sheets of the Company as of December 31, 2021 and 2020, the related consolidated statements of earnings (loss), comprehensive income (loss), equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2021, and the related notes (collectively, the consolidated financial statements), and our report dated February 22, 2022 expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements.

Basis for Opinion

The Company’s management is responsible for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, included in the accompanying Management's Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Company’s internal control over financial reporting based on our audit. We are a public accounting firm registered with the PCAOB and are required to be independent with respect to the Company in accordance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB.

We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects. Our audit of internal control over financial reporting included obtaining an understanding of internal control over financial reporting, assessing the risk that a material weakness exists, and testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control based on the assessed risk. Our audit also included performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

Definition and Limitations of Internal Control Over Financial Reporting

A company’s internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. A company’s internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that (1) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the company; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the company; and (3) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the company’s assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.

Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.

/s/ KPMG LLP
Tampa, Florida
February 23, 2022
F-35

Table of Content
Consolidated Statements of Earnings (Loss)
In millions, except per share amounts
 Years Ended December 31,
 202120202019
Net sales$12,357.4 $8,681.7 $8,906.3 
Cost of goods sold9,157.1 7,616.8 8,009.0 
Gross margin3,200.3 1,064.9 897.3 
Selling, general and administrative expenses430.5 371.5 354.1 
Impairment, restructuring and other expenses158.1 — 1,462.1 
Other operating expenses143.2 280.5 176.0 
Operating earnings (loss) 2,468.5 412.9 (1,094.9)
Interest expense, net(169.1)(180.6)(182.9)
Foreign currency transaction (loss) gain (78.5)(64.3)20.2 
Other income 3.9 12.9 1.5 
Earnings (loss) from consolidated companies before income taxes2,224.8 180.9 (1,256.1)
Provision for (benefit from) income taxes597.7 (578.5)(224.7)
Earnings (loss) from consolidated companies1,627.1 759.4 (1,031.4)
Equity in net earnings (loss) of nonconsolidated companies7.8 (93.8)(59.4)
Net earnings (loss) including noncontrolling interests1,634.9 665.6 (1,090.8)
Less: Net earnings (loss) attributable to noncontrolling interests4.3 (0.5)(23.4)
Net earnings (loss) attributable to Mosaic$1,630.6 $666.1 $(1,067.4)
Basic net earnings (loss) per share attributable to Mosaic$4.31 $1.76 $(2.78)
Basic weighted average number of shares outstanding378.1 379.0 383.8 
Diluted net earnings (loss) per share attributable to Mosaic$4.27 $1.75 $(2.78)
Diluted weighted average number of shares outstanding381.6 381.3 383.8 

See Accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
F-36

Table of Content

Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income (Loss)
In millions
 Years Ended December 31,
 202120202019
Net earnings (loss) including noncontrolling interest$1,634.9 $665.6 $(1,090.8)
Other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax
Foreign currency translation (loss) gain(108.2)(249.5)69.4 
Net actuarial gain (loss) and prior service cost36.9 19.9 (24.3)
Realized gain on interest rate swap1.5 1.6 1.7 
Net (loss) gain on marketable securities held in trust fund(17.6)12.8 10.9 
Other comprehensive (loss) income (87.4)(215.2)57.7 
Comprehensive income (loss)1,547.5 450.4 (1,033.1)
Less: Comprehensive income (loss) attributable to noncontrolling interest2.5 (7.7)(24.6)
Comprehensive income (loss) attributable to Mosaic$1,545.0 $458.1 $(1,008.5)

See Accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
F-37

Table of Content

Consolidated Balance Sheets
In millions, except per share amounts
 December 31,
 20212020
Assets
Current assets:
Cash and cash equivalents$769.5 $574.0 
Receivables, net1,531.9 881.1 
Inventories2,741.4 1,739.2 
Other current assets282.5 326.9 
Total current assets5,325.3 3,521.2 
Property, plant and equipment, net12,475.3 11,854.3 
Investments in nonconsolidated companies691.8 673.1 
Goodwill1,172.2 1,173.0 
Deferred income taxes997.1 1,179.4 
Other assets1,374.7 1,388.8 
Total assets$22,036.4 $19,789.8 
Liabilities and Equity
Current liabilities:
Short-term debt$302.8 $0.1 
Current maturities of long-term debt596.6 504.2 
Structured accounts payable arrangements743.7 640.0 
Accounts payable1,260.7 769.1 
Accrued liabilities1,883.6 1,233.1 
Total current liabilities4,787.4 3,146.5 
Long-term debt, less current maturities3,382.2 4,073.8 
Deferred income taxes1,016.2 1,060.8 
Other noncurrent liabilities2,102.1 1,753.5 
Equity:
Preferred stock, $0.01 par value, 15,000,000 shares authorized, none issued and outstanding as of December 31, 2021 and 2020— — 
Common stock, $0.01 par value, 1,000,000,000 shares authorized, 390,815,099 shares issued and 368,732,231 shares outstanding as of December 31, 2021, 389,974,041 shares issued and 379,091,544 shares outstanding as of December 31, 20203.7 3.8 
Capital in excess of par value478.0 872.8 
Retained earnings12,014.2 10,511.0 
Accumulated other comprehensive loss(1,891.8)(1,806.2)
Total Mosaic stockholders’ equity10,604.1 9,581.4 
Non-controlling interests144.4 173.8 
Total equity10,748.5 9,755.2 
Total liabilities and equity$22,036.4 $19,789.8 

See Accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
F-38

Table of Content

Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows
In millions, except per share amounts
 Years Ended December 31,
 202120202019
Cash Flows from Operating Activities
Net earnings (loss) including noncontrolling interests$1,634.9 $665.6 $(1,090.8)
Adjustments to reconcile net earnings including noncontrolling interests to net cash provided by operating activities:
Depreciation, depletion and amortization812.9 847.6 882.7 
Amortization of acquired inventory— — (5.5)
Deferred and other income taxes98.8 (684.0)(261.3)
Equity in net (earnings) loss of nonconsolidated companies, net of dividends(2.1)97.1 64.6 
Accretion expense for asset retirement obligations71.9 68.0 62.4 
Accretion expense for leases13.4 24.2 18.6 
Share-based compensation expense29.5 17.8 27.9 
Impairment of goodwill— — 588.6 
Unrealized (gain) loss on derivatives7.2 (26.6)(59.2)
Foreign currency adjustments(2.6)14.1 50.1 
Net proceeds from settlement of interest rate swaps— 34.7 — 
Mine closure costs158.1 — 871.0 
(Gain) loss on disposal of fixed assets(5.3)16.3 18.7 
Other— (19.1)(3.2)
Changes in assets and liabilities:
Receivables, net(683.6)(153.6)34.6 
Inventories, net(1,067.9)191.4 128.1 
Other current assets and noncurrent assets(18.0)66.1 (36.0)
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities995.1 333.3 (175.2)
Other noncurrent liabilities144.7 89.7 (20.7)
Net cash provided by operating activities2,187.0 1,582.6 1,095.4 
Cash Flows from Investing Activities
Capital expenditures(1,288.6)(1,170.6)(1,272.2)
Purchases of available-for-sale securities - restricted(433.6)(618.7)(557.6)
Proceeds from sale of available-for-sale securities - restricted410.1 607.2 533.2 
Proceeds from sale of assets28.1 — 4.0 
Acquisition, net of cash acquired(24.1)— (55.1)
Purchases of held-to-maturity securities(3.2)(6.1)(15.4)
Proceeds from sale of held-to-maturity securities0.8 1.7 2.3 
Other(11.8)(3.0)(0.1)
Net cash used in investing activities(1,322.3)(1,189.5)(1,360.9)
Cash Flows from Financing Activities
Payments of short-term debt(726.6)(1,542.5)(554.2)
Proceeds from issuance of short-term debt1,029.3 1,521.1 591.0 
Payments of structured accounts payable arrangements(1,028.4)(1,156.2)(977.1)
Proceeds from structured accounts payable arrangements1,122.7 1,037.4 1,124.2 
Collections of transferred receivables445.0 — — 
Payments of transferred receivables(363.9)— — 
Payments of long-term debt(608.3)(66.9)(48.3)
Proceeds from issuance of long-term debt— 4.7 — 
Repurchases of stock(410.9)— (149.9)
Cash dividends paid(103.7)(75.8)(67.2)
Dividends paid to non-controlling interest(31.3)(0.6)(0.7)
Other(6.0)(5.0)— 
Net cash used in financing activities(682.1)(283.8)(82.2)
Effect of exchange rate changes on cash9.3 (47.2)9.0 
Net change in cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash191.9 62.1 (338.7)
Cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash—beginning of year594.4 532.3 871.0 
Cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash—end of year$786.3 $594.4 $532.3 
See Accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
F-39

Table of Content

THE MOSAIC COMPANY
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS (Continued)
(In millions)

Years Ended December 31,
202120202019
Reconciliation of cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash reported within the consolidated balance sheets to the consolidated statements of cash flows:
Cash and cash equivalents$769.5 $574.0 $519.1 
Restricted cash in other current assets8.3 8.1 7.8 
Restricted cash in other assets8.5 12.3 5.4 
Total cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash shown in the statement of cash flows$786.3 $594.4 $532.3 
See Accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

F-40

Table of Content
Consolidated Statements of Equity
In millions, except per share data
  Dollars
 SharesMosaic Shareholders
  
Common
Stock
Common
Stock
Capital in
Excess
of Par Value
Retained
Earnings
Accumulated
Other
Comprehensive
Loss
Non-
Controlling
Interests
Total
Equity
Balance as of December 31, 2018385.5 $3.8 $985.9 $11,064.7 $(1,657.1)$207.4 $10,604.7 
Adoption of ASC Topic 842— — — 0.6 — — 0.6 
Total comprehensive income (loss)— — — (1,067.4)58.9 (24.6)(1,033.1)
Vesting of restricted stock units0.4 — (5.6)— — — (5.6)
Stock based compensation— — 27.9 — — — 27.9 
Repurchases of stock(7.1)— (149.8)— — — (149.8)
Dividends ($0.20 per share)— — — (76.4)— — (76.4)
Dividends for noncontrolling interests— — — — — (0.7)(0.7)
Balance as of December 31, 2019378.8 3.8 858.4 9,921.5 (1,598.2)182.1 9,367.6 
Total comprehensive income (loss)— — — 666.1 (208.0)(7.7)450.4 
Vesting of restricted stock units0.3 — — (2.7)— — — (2.7)
Stock based compensation— — 17.1 — — — 17.1 
Dividends ($0.20 per share)— — — (76.6)— — (76.6)
Dividends for noncontrolling interests— — — — — (0.6)(0.6)
Balance as of December 31, 2020379.1 3.8 872.8 10,511.0 (1,806.2)173.8 9,755.2 
Total comprehensive income (loss)— — — 1,630.6 (85.6)2.5 1,547.5 
Vesting of restricted stock units0.8 — (11.3)— — — (11.3)
Stock based compensation— — 26.4 — — — 26.4 
Stock option exercises— — 3.2 — — — 3.2 
Repurchases of stock(11.2)(0.1)(410.8)— — — (410.9)
Dividends ($0.30 per share)— — — (127.4)— — (127.4)
Dividends for noncontrolling interests— — — — — (31.3)(31.3)
Purchase of noncontrolling interests— — (2.3)— — (0.6)(2.9)
Balance as of December 31, 2021368.7 $3.7 $478.0 $12,014.2 $(1,891.8)$144.4 $10,748.5 
See Accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

F-41

Table of Content
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
Tables in millions, except per share amounts
1. ORGANIZATION AND NATURE OF BUSINESS
The Mosaic Company (“Mosaic,” and, with its consolidated subsidiaries, “we,” “us,” “our,” or the “Company”) produces and markets concentrated phosphate and potash crop nutrients. We conduct our business through wholly and majority owned subsidiaries and businesses in which we own less than a majority or a noncontrolling interest, including consolidated variable interest entities and investments accounted for by the equity method.
We are organized into the following business segments:
Our Phosphates business segment owns and operates mines and production facilities in Florida which produce concentrated phosphate crop nutrients and phosphate-based animal feed ingredients, and processing plants in Louisiana which produce concentrated phosphate crop nutrients. We have a 75% economic interest in the Miski Mayo Phosphate Mine in Peru. These results are consolidated in the Phosphates segment. The Phosphates segment also includes our 25% interest in the Ma’aden Wa’ad Al Shamal Phosphate Company (the “MWSPC”), a joint venture to develop, own and operate integrated phosphate production facilities in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. We market approximately 25% of the MWSPC phosphate production. We recognize our equity in the net earnings or losses relating to MWSPC on a one-quarter lag in our Consolidated Statements of Earnings.
Our Potash business segment owns and operates potash mines and production facilities in Canada and the U.S. which produce potash-based crop nutrients, animal feed ingredients and industrial products. Potash sales include domestic and international sales. We are a member of Canpotex, Limited (“Canpotex”), an export association of Canadian potash producers through which we sell our Canadian potash outside the U.S. and Canada.
Our Mosaic Fertilizantes business segment includes five Brazilian phosphate rock mines, four phosphate chemical plants and a potash mine in Brazil. The segment also includes our distribution business in South America, which consists of sales offices, crop nutrient blending and bagging facilities, port terminals and warehouses in Brazil and Paraguay. We also have a majority interest in Fospar S.A., which owns and operates a single superphosphate granulation plant and a deep-water crop nutrition port and throughput warehouse terminal facility in Brazil.
Intersegment eliminations, unrealized mark-to-market gains/losses on derivatives, debt expenses, Streamsong Resort® results of operations, and the results of the China and India distribution businesses are included within Corporate, Eliminations and Other.
2. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
Statement Presentation and Basis of Consolidation
The accompanying Consolidated Financial Statements have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“U.S. GAAP”). Throughout the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements, amounts in tables are in millions of dollars except for per share data and as otherwise designated.
The accompanying Consolidated Financial Statements include the accounts of Mosaic and its majority owned subsidiaries. Certain investments in companies in which we do not have control but have the ability to exercise significant influence are accounted for by the equity method.
Accounting Estimates
Preparation of the Consolidated Financial Statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of net sales and expenses during the reporting periods. The most significant estimates made by management relate to the estimates of fair value of acquired assets and liabilities, the recoverability of non-current assets including goodwill, the useful lives and net realizable values of long-lived assets, environmental and reclamation liabilities, including asset retirement obligations (“ARO”), and income tax-related accounts, including the valuation allowance against deferred income tax assets. Actual results could differ from these estimates.
F-42

Table of Content
Revenue Recognition
We generate revenues primarily by producing and marketing phosphate and potash crop nutrients. Revenue is recognized when control of the product is transferred to the customer, which is generally upon transfer of title to the customer based on the contractual terms of each arrangement. Title is typically transferred to the customer upon shipment of the product. In certain circumstances, which are referred to as final price deferred arrangements, we ship product prior to the establishment of a valid sales contract. In such cases, we retain control of the product and do not recognize revenue until a sales contract has been agreed to with the customer.
Revenue is measured as the amount of consideration we expect to receive in exchange for the transfer of our goods. Our products are generally sold based on market prices prevailing at the time the sales contract is signed or through contracts which are priced at the time of shipment, except for the final priced deferred arrangements discussed above. Sales incentives are recorded as a reduction of revenue at the time of initial sale. We estimate the variable consideration related to our sales incentive programs based on the sales terms with customers and historical experience. Shipping and handling costs are included as a component of cost of goods sold.
We generally expense sales commissions when incurred because the amortization period would have been one year or less. These costs are recorded within sales and marketing expenses.
We have elected to recognize the cost for freight and shipping as an expense in cost of sales, when control over the product has passed to the customer.
For information regarding sales by product type and by geographic area, see Note 24 of our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.
Non-Income Taxes
We pay Canadian resource taxes consisting of the Potash Production Tax and resource surcharge. The Potash Production Tax is a Saskatchewan provincial tax on potash production and consists of a base payment and a profits tax. In addition to the Canadian resource taxes, royalties are payable to the mineral owners with respect to potash reserves or production of potash. These resource taxes and royalties are recorded in our cost of goods sold. Our Canadian resource tax and royalty expenses were $301.5 million, $176.1 million and $211.9 million during 2021, 2020 and 2019, respectively.
We have approximately $112.5 million of assets recorded as of December 31, 2021 related to PIS and Cofins, which is a Brazilian federal value-added tax, mostly earned in 2008 through 2021 that we believe will be realized through offsetting income tax payments or other federal taxes or receiving cash refunds. Should the Brazilian government determine that these are not valid credits upon audit, this could impact our results in such period. We have recorded the PIS and Cofins credits at amounts which we believe are probable of collection. Information regarding PIS and Cofins taxes already audited is included in Note 22 of our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.
Foreign Currency Translation
The Company’s reporting currency is the U.S. dollar; however, for operations located in Canada and Brazil, the functional currency is the local currency. Assets and liabilities of these foreign operations are translated to U.S. dollars at exchange rates in effect at the balance sheet date, while income statement accounts and cash flows are translated to U.S. dollars at the average exchange rates for the period. For these operations, translation gains and losses are recorded as a component of accumulated other comprehensive income in equity until the foreign entity is sold or liquidated. Transaction gains and losses result from transactions that are denominated in a currency other than the functional currency of the operation, primarily accounts receivable and intercompany loans in our Canadian entities denominated in U.S. dollars, intercompany loans receivable in our U.S. entities denominated in Brazilian real, and accounts payable in Brazil denominated in U.S. dollars. These foreign currency transaction gains and losses are presented separately in the Consolidated Statement of Earnings.
Cash and Cash Equivalents
Cash and cash equivalents include short-term, highly liquid investments with original maturities of 90 days or less and other highly liquid investments that are payable on demand such as money market accounts, certain certificates of deposit and repurchase agreements. The carrying amount of such cash equivalents approximates their fair value due to the short-term and highly liquid nature of these instruments.
F-43

Table of Content
Concentration of Credit Risk
In the U.S., we sell our products to manufacturers, distributors and retailers, primarily in the Midwest and Southeast. Internationally, our potash products are sold primarily through Canpotex, an export association. A concentration of credit risk arises from our sales and accounts receivable associated with the international sales of potash product through Canpotex. We consider our concentration risk related to the Canpotex receivable to be mitigated by their credit policy, which requires the underlying receivables to be substantially insured or secured by letters of credit. As of December 31, 2021, and 2020, there were $382.5 million and $89.4 million, respectively, of trade accounts receivable due from Canpotex. During 2021, 2020 and 2019, sales to Canpotex were $1.1 billion, $795.2 million and $952.5 million, respectively.
Inventories
Inventories of raw materials, work-in-process products, finished goods and operating materials and supplies are stated at the lower of cost or net realizable value. Costs for substantially all inventories are determined using the weighted average cost basis. To determine the cost of inventory, we allocate fixed expense to the costs of production based on the normal capacity, which refers to a range of production levels and is considered the production expected to be achieved over a number of periods or seasons under normal circumstances, taking into account the loss of capacity resulting from planned maintenance. Fixed overhead costs allocated to each unit of production should not increase due to abnormally low production. Those excess costs are recognized as a current period expense. When a production facility is completely shut down temporarily, it is considered “idle”, and all related expenses are charged to cost of goods sold.
Net realizable value of our inventory is defined as forecasted selling prices less reasonably predictable selling costs. Significant management judgment is involved in estimating forecasted selling prices including various demand and supply variables. Examples of demand variables include grain and oilseed prices, stock-to-use ratios and changes in inventories in the crop nutrients distribution channels. Examples of supply variables include forecasted prices of raw materials, such as phosphate rock, sulfur, ammonia and natural gas, estimated operating rates and industry crop nutrient inventory levels. Results could differ materially if actual selling prices differ materially from forecasted selling prices. Charges for lower of cost or market are recognized in our Consolidated Statements of Earnings in the period when there is evidence of a decline of market value below cost.
Property, Plant and Equipment and Recoverability of Long-Lived Assets
Property, plant and equipment are stated at cost. Costs of significant assets include capitalized interest incurred during the construction and development period. Repairs and maintenance, including planned major maintenance and plant turnaround costs, are expensed when incurred.
Depletion expenses for mining operations, including mineral reserves, are generally determined using the units-of-production method based on estimates of recoverable reserves. Depreciation is computed principally using the straight-line method and units-of-production method over the following useful lives: machinery and equipment three to 25 years, and buildings and leasehold improvements three to 40 years.
We estimate initial useful lives based on experience and current technology. These estimates may be extended through sustaining capital programs. Factors affecting the fair value of our assets or periods of expected use may also affect the estimated useful lives of our assets and these factors can change. Therefore, we periodically review the estimated remaining lives of our facilities and other significant assets and adjust our depreciation rates prospectively where appropriate.
Long-lived assets, including fixed assets and right-of-use assets, are reviewed for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount may not be recoverable. An impairment assessment involves management judgment and estimates of factors such as industry and market conditions, the economic life of the asset, sales volume and prices, inflation, raw materials costs, cost of capital, tax rates and capital spending. The carrying amount of a long-lived asset group is not recoverable if it exceeds the sum of the undiscounted cash flows expected to result from the use and eventual disposition of the asset group. If it is determined that an impairment loss has occurred, the loss is measured as the amount by which the carrying amount of the long-lived asset group exceeds its fair value.
Leases
Right of use (“ROU”) assets represent our right to use an underlying asset for the lease term. Lease liabilities represent our obligation to make lease payments arising from the lease. Operating lease ROU assets and liabilities are recognized at the
F-44

Table of Content
commencement date of the lease, based on the present value of lease payments over the lease term. As most of our leases do not provide an implicit rate, we use our incremental borrowing rate based on the information available at the commencement date in determining the present value of lease payments. The Company’s incremental borrowing rate for a lease is the rate of interest it would have to pay on a collateralized basis to borrow an amount equal to the lease payments under similar terms. For both operating and finance leases, the initial ROU asset equals the lease liability, plus initial direct costs, less lease incentives received. Our lease agreements may include options to extend or terminate the lease, which are included in the lease term at the commencement date when it is reasonably certain that we will exercise that option. In general, we do not consider optional periods included in our lease agreements as reasonably certain of exercise at inception.
At inception, we determine whether an arrangement is a lease and the appropriate lease classification. Operating leases with terms greater than twelve months are included as operating lease ROU assets within other assets and the associated lease liabilities within accrued liabilities and other noncurrent liabilities on our consolidated balance sheets. Finance leases with terms greater than twelve months are included as finance ROU assets within property and equipment and the associated finance lease liabilities within current maturities of long-term debt and long-term debt on our consolidated balance sheets.
Leases with terms of less than twelve months, referred to as short-term leases, do not create a ROU asset or lease liability on the balance sheet.
We have lease agreements with lease and non-lease components, which are generally accounted for separately. For full-service railcar leases, we account for the lease and non-lease components as a single lease component. Additionally, for certain equipment leases, we apply assumptions using a portfolio approach, given the generally consistent terms of the agreements. Lease payments based on usage (for example, per-mile or per-hour charges), referred to as variable lease costs, are recorded separately from the determination of the ROU asset and lease liability.
Contingencies
Accruals for environmental remediation efforts are recorded when costs are probable and can be reasonably estimated. In determining these accruals, we use the most current information available, including similar past experiences, available technology, consultant evaluations, regulations in effect, the timing of remediation and cost-sharing arrangements. Adjustments to accruals, recorded as needed in our Consolidated Statement of Earnings each quarter, are made to reflect changes in and current status of these factors.
We are involved from time to time in claims and legal actions incidental to our operations, both as plaintiff and defendant. We have established what we currently believe to be adequate accruals for pending legal matters. These accruals are established as part of an ongoing worldwide assessment of claims and legal actions that takes into consideration such items as advice of legal counsel, individual developments in court proceedings, changes in the law, changes in business focus, changes in the litigation environment, changes in opponent strategy and tactics, new developments as a result of ongoing discovery and our experience in defending and settling similar claims. The litigation accruals at any time reflect updated assessments of the then-existing claims and legal actions. The final outcome or potential settlement of litigation matters could differ materially from the accruals which we have established. Legal costs are expensed as incurred.
Pension and Other Postretirement Benefits
Mosaic offers a number of benefit plans that provide pension and other benefits to qualified employees. These plans include defined benefit pension plans, supplemental pension plans, defined contribution plans and other postretirement benefit plans.
We accrue the funded status of our plans, which is representative of our obligations under employee benefit plans and the related costs, net of plan assets measured at fair value. The cost of pensions and other retirement benefits earned by employees is generally determined with the assistance of an actuary using the projected benefit method prorated on service and management’s best estimate of expected plan investment performance, salary escalation, retirement ages of employees and expected healthcare costs.
Additional Accounting Policies
To facilitate a better understanding of our consolidated financial statements we have disclosed the following significant accounting policies (with the exception of those identified above) throughout the following notes, with the related financial
F-45

Table of Content
disclosures by major caption:
NoteTopicPage
8
F-53
9
F-55
10
F-56
11
F-58
12
F-60
13
F-65
14
F-66
15
F-67
F-46

Table of Content
3. LEASES
Leasing Activity
We have operating and finance leases for heavy mobile equipment, railcars, fleet vehicles, field and plant equipment, river and cross-gulf vessels, corporate offices, land, and computer equipment. Our leases have remaining lease terms of 1 year to 29 years, some of which include options to extend the lease for up to 10 years and some of which include options to terminate the lease within 1 year.
Supplemental balance sheet information related to leases as of December 31, 2021 and December 31, 2020 is as follows:
December 31,
Type of Lease Asset or Liability20212020Balance Sheet Classification
(in millions)
Operating Leases
Right-of-use assets$120.2 $173.1 Other assets
Lease liabilities:
Short-term59.7 64.0 Accrued liabilities
Long-term64.3 109.6 Other noncurrent liabilities
Total$124.0 $173.6 
Finance Leases
Right-of-use assets:
Gross assets$459.1 $457.9 
Less: accumulated depreciation122.8 89.3 
Net assets$336.3 $368.6 Property, plant and equipment, net
Lease liabilities:
Short-term$41.2 $49.9 Current maturities of long-term debt
Long-term171.8 294.6 Long-term debt, less current maturities
Total$213.0 $344.5 
Lease expense is generally included within cost of goods sold and selling, general and administrative expenses, except for interest on lease liabilities, which is recorded within net interest. The components of lease expense were as follows:
December 31,
(in millions)202120202019
Operating lease cost$78.8 $81.7 $98.4 
Finance lease cost:
Amortization of right-of-use assets40.6 37.7 28.3 
Interest on lease liabilities6.3 13.3 15.2 
Short-term lease cost3.1 3.1 10.5 
Variable lease cost19.2 21.8 21.5 
Total lease cost$148.0 $157.6 $173.9 
Rental expense for 2021, 2020 and 2019 was $211.8 million, $226.9 million and $249.1 million, respectively.
F-47

Table of Content
Supplemental cash flow information related to leases was as follows:
December 31,
(In millions)202120202019
Cash paid for amounts included in the measurement of lease liabilities:
Operating cash flows from operating leases$78.8 $96.6 $107.9 
Operating cash flows from finance leases6.3 8.4 10.7 
Financing cash flows from finance leases142.5 46.9 41.3 
 
Right-of-use assets obtained in exchange for lease obligations:
Operating leases$18.4 $22.4 $56.0 
Finance leases8.9 36.4 88.2 
Other information related to leases was as follows:
December 31, 2021
Weighted Average Remaining Lease Term
Operating leases4.3 years
Finance leases3.1 years
Weighted Average Discount Rate
Operating leases4.8 %
Finance leases2.4 %
Future lease payments under non-cancellable leases recorded as of December 31, 2021, were as follows:
Operating LeasesFinance Leases
(in millions)
2022$63.3 $45.4 
202329.7 70.9 
202418.6 86.9 
20257.1 4.8 
20263.1 4.0 
Thereafter17.7 10.8 
Total future lease payments$139.5 $222.8 
Less imputed interest(15.5)(9.8)
Total$124.0 $213.0 

F-48

Table of Content
4. OTHER FINANCIAL STATEMENT DATA
The following provides additional information concerning selected balance sheet accounts:
 December 31,
(in millions)20212020
Receivables
Trade - External$954.6 $632.8 
Trade - Affiliate390.1 99.7 
Non-trade187.7 149.0 
1,532.4 881.5 
Less allowance for doubtful accounts0.5 0.4 
$1,531.9 $881.1 
Inventories
Raw materials$296.6 $92.1 
Work in process741.1 634.5 
Finished goods1,534.3 868.2 
Final price deferred (a)
31.4 23.0 
Operating materials and supplies138.0 121.4 
$2,741.4 $1,739.2 
Other current assets
Income and other taxes receivable$126.1 $181.4 
Prepaid expenses107.3 80.4 
Other49.1 65.1 
$282.5 $326.9 
Other assets
Restricted cash$8.5 $12.3 
MRO inventory144.7 137.7 
Marketable securities held in trust - restricted731.5 734.3 
Operating lease right-of-use assets120.2 173.1 
Indemnification asset21.0 23.0 
Long-term receivable41.5 52.6 
Other307.3 255.8 
$1,374.7 $1,388.8 
F-49

Table of Content
 December 31,
(in millions)20212020
Accrued liabilities
Accrued dividends$43.6 $20.4 
Payroll and employee benefits235.9 195.5 
Asset retirement obligations222.4 190.2 
Customer prepayments (b)
437.7 287.6 
Accrued income and other taxes184.3 83.1 
Operating lease obligation59.7 64.0 
Servicing liability81.1 — 
Other618.9 392.3 
$1,883.6 $1,233.1 
Other noncurrent liabilities
Asset retirement obligations$1,526.9 $1,203.7 
Operating lease obligation 64.3 109.6 
Accrued pension and postretirement benefits114.4 158.5 
Unrecognized tax benefits156.6 46.4 
Other239.9 235.3 
$2,102.1 $1,753.5 
______________________________
(a)Final price deferred is product that has shipped to customers, but we retain control and do not recognize revenue until a sales contract has been agreed to with the customer.
(b)The timing of recognition of revenue related to our performance obligations may be different than the timing of collection of cash related to those performance obligations. Specifically, we collect prepayments from certain customers in Brazil. In addition, cash collection from Canpotex may occur prior to delivery of product to the end customer. We generally satisfy our contractual liabilities within one quarter of incurring the liability.
Interest expense, net was comprised of the following in 2021, 2020 and 2019:
 Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)202120202019
Interest income$25.2 $33.5 $33.1 
Less interest expense194.3 214.1 216.0 
Interest expense, net$(169.1)$(180.6)$(182.9)
F-50

Table of Content
5. PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT
Property, plant and equipment consist of the following:
 December 31,
(in millions)20212020
Land$341.6 $325.7 
Mineral properties and rights5,791.3 5,035.2 
Buildings and leasehold improvements3,452.5 3,306.2 
Machinery and equipment9,893.6 9,846.9 
Construction in-progress1,234.4 1,447.1 
20,713.4 19,961.1 
Less: accumulated depreciation and depletion8,238.1 8,106.8 
$12,475.3 $11,854.3 
Depreciation and depletion expense was $811.8 million, $846.4 million and $877.6 million for 2021, 2020 and 2019, respectively. Capitalized interest on major construction projects was $30.1 million, $33.3 million and $28.5 million for 2021, 2020 and 2019, respectively.
6. EARNINGS PER SHARE
The numerator for basic and diluted earnings per share (“EPS”) is net earnings attributable to Mosaic. The denominator for basic EPS is the weighted average number of shares outstanding during the period. The denominator for diluted EPS also includes the weighted average number of additional common shares that would have been outstanding if the dilutive potential common shares had been issued, unless the shares are anti-dilutive.
The following is a reconciliation of the numerator and denominator for the basic and diluted EPS computations:
 Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)202120202019
Net earnings (loss) attributable to Mosaic$1,630.6 $666.1 $(1,067.4)
Basic weighted average number of shares outstanding attributable to common stockholders378.1 379.0 383.8 
Dilutive impact of share-based awards3.5 2.3 — 
Diluted weighted average number of shares outstanding381.6 381.3 383.8 
Basic net earnings (loss) per share$4.31 $1.76 $(2.78)
Diluted net earnings (loss) per share$4.27 $1.75 $(2.78)
A total of 0.5 million shares for 2021, 2.3 million shares for 2020 and 2.5 million shares for 2019 of common stock subject to issuance related to share-based awards have been excluded from the calculation of diluted EPS because the effect would have been anti-dilutive.
F-51

Table of Content
7. CASH FLOW INFORMATION
Supplemental disclosures of cash paid for interest and income taxes and non-cash investing and financing information is as follows:
Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)202120202019
Cash paid during the period for:
Interest$220.0 $232.8 $231.3 
Less amount capitalized30.1 33.3 28.5 
Cash interest, net$189.9 $199.5 $202.8 
Income taxes$208.6 $6.2 $46.5 
Acquiring or constructing property, plant and equipment by incurring a liability does not result in a cash outflow for us until the liability is paid. In the period the liability is incurred, the change in operating accounts payable on the Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows is adjusted by such amount. In the period the liability is paid, the amount is reflected as a cash outflow from investing activities. The applicable net change in operating accounts payable that was classified to investing activities on the Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows was $18.6 million, $(29.8) million and $63.2 million for 2021, 2020 and 2019, respectively.
We accrued $43.6 million related to the dividends declared in 2021 that will be paid in 2022. At December 31, 2020 and 2019, we had accrued dividends of $20.4 million and $20.0 million which were paid in 2021 and 2020, respectively.
We had non-cash investing and financing transactions related to right-of-use assets obtained in exchange for lease obligations assets under finance leases in 2021 of $8.9 million. Non-cash investing and financing transactions related to assets acquired under capital leases were $36.4 million and $88.2 million for 2020 and 2019, respectively.
Depreciation, depletion and amortization includes $811.8 million, $846.4 million and $877.6 million related to depreciation and depletion of property, plant and equipment, and $1.1 million, $1.2 million and $5.1 million related to amortization of intangible assets for 2021, 2020 and 2019, respectively.
8. INVESTMENTS IN NON-CONSOLIDATED COMPANIES
We have investments in various international and domestic entities and ventures. The equity method of accounting is applied to such investments when the ownership structure prevents us from exercising a controlling influence over operating and financial policies of the businesses but still allow us to have significant influence. Under this method, our equity in the net earnings or losses of the investments is reflected as equity in net earnings of non-consolidated companies on our Consolidated Statements of Earnings. The effects of material intercompany transactions with these equity method investments are eliminated, including the gross profit on sales to and purchases from our equity-method investments which is deferred until the time of sale to the final third-party customer. The cash flow presentation of dividends received from equity method investees is determined by evaluation of the facts, circumstances and nature of the distribution.
A summary of our equity-method investments, which were in operation as of December 31, 2021, is as follows:
EntityEconomic Interest
Gulf Sulphur Services LTD., LLLP50.0 %
River Bend Ag, LLC50.0 %
IFC S.A.45.0 %
MWSPC25.0 %
Canpotex*36.2 %
*In 2021 our realized percentage was 33% as a result of lower shipments due to the early closure of the K1 and K2 mine shafts at Esterhazy.
F-52

Table of Content
The summarized financial information shown below includes all non-consolidated companies carried on the equity method.
Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)202120202019
Net sales$4,758.2 $3,463.2 $4,058.5 
Net earnings (loss)70.1 (405.3)(215.0)
Mosaic’s share of equity in net earnings (loss)7.8 (93.8)(59.4)
Total assets10,685.6 8,944.4 9,682.5 
Total liabilities8,864.7 7,184.9 7,512.7 
Mosaic’s share of equity in net assets466.9 452.5 554.7 
The difference between our share of equity in net assets as shown in the above table and the investment in non-consolidated companies as shown on the Consolidated Balance Sheets is mainly due to the July 1, 2016, equity contribution of $120 million we made to MWSPC, representing the remaining liability for our portion of mineral rights value transferred to MWSPC from Saudi Arabian Mining Company (“Maaden”). As of December 31, 2021, MWSPC represented 70% of the total assets and 65% of the total liabilities in the table above. MWSPC commenced ammonia operations in late 2016 and, on December 1, 2018, commenced commercial operations of its DAP plant, thereby bringing the entire project to the commercial production phase. In 2021, 2020 and 2019 our share of equity in net earnings (loss) was $5.0 million, $(97.3) million, and $(62.1) million, respectively.
MWSPC owns and operates a mine and two chemical complexes that produce phosphate fertilizers and other downstream phosphates products in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The cost to develop and construct the integrated phosphate production facilities (the “Project”) was approximately $8.0 billion, which has been funded primarily through investments by us, Ma’aden and SABIC (together, the “Project Investors”), and through borrowing arrangements and other external project financing facilities (“Funding Facilities”). The production facilities are expected to have a capacity of approximately 3.0 million tonnes of finished product per year when fully operational. We market approximately 25% of the phosphate production of the joint venture.

On June 30, 2014, MWSPC entered into Funding Facilities with a consortium of 20 financial institutions for a total amount of approximately $5.0 billion. Also on June 30, 2014, in support of the Funding Facilities, we, together with Ma’aden and SABIC, agreed to provide our respective proportionate shares of the funding necessary for MWSPC by:
a.Contributing equity or making shareholder subordinated loans of up to $2.4 billion to fund project costs to complete and commission the Project (the “Equity Commitments”).
b.Through the earlier of Project completion or June 30, 2020, contributing equity, making shareholder subordinated loans or providing bank subordinated loans, to fund cost overruns on the Project (the “Additional Cost Overrun Commitment”).
c.Through the earlier of Project completion or June 30, 2020, contributing equity, making shareholder loans or providing bank subordinated loans to fund scheduled debt service (excluding accelerated amounts) payable under the Funding Facilities and certain other amounts (such commitment, the “DSU Commitment” and such scheduled debt service and other amounts, “Scheduled Debt Service”).
d.From the earlier of the Project completion date or June 30, 2020, to the extent there is a shortfall in the amounts available to pay Scheduled Debt Service, depositing for the payment of Scheduled Debt Service an amount up to the respective amount of certain shareholder tax amounts, and severance fees under MWSPC’s mining license, paid within the prior 36 months by MWSPC on behalf of the Project Investors, if any.

In January 2016, MWSPC received approval from the Saudi Industrial Development Fund (“SIDF”) for loans in the total amount of approximately $1.1 billion for the Project, subject to the finalization of definitive agreements. In 2017, MWSPC entered into definitive agreements with SIDF to draw up to $560 million from the total SIDF-approved amount (the “SIDF Loans”). In September of 2018, we received communication that SIDF agreed to waive Mosaic’s parent guarantee. MWSPC received approval to access the remaining SIDF facility of $506 million which was subsequently drawn in December 2018.

On June 20, 2020, MWSPC refinanced its commercial loans while retaining the SIDF loans. The refinancing extended debt repayment to 2037 and deferred principal payments until June 30, 2022. The refinancing removes recourse to Mosaic by all lenders to MWSPC (DSU Commitment and Scheduled Debt Service). Mosaic’s contractual commitment to make future cash contributions to MWSPC was also eliminated.
F-53

Table of Content

As of December 31, 2021, our cash investment was $770 million. We did not make any contributions in 2021 and do not expect future contributions will be needed.
Canpotex is a Saskatchewan export association used by two Canadian potash producers to market, sell and distribute Canadian potash products outside of Canada and the U.S. to unrelated third party customers at market prices. It operates as a break-even entity. We have concluded that the sales to Canpotex are not at arm’s-length, due to the unique pricing and payment structure and financial obligations of the shareholders. Therefore, the full profit on sales to Canpotex are eliminated until Canpotex no longer has control of the related inventory and has sold it to an unrelated third party customer. We eliminate the intra-entity profit with Canpotex at the end of each reporting period and present that profit elimination by reversing revenue and cost of goods sold for the inventory still remaining at Canpotex. Any equity earnings or loss, which have historically been insignificant, are recorded in the equity in net earnings or loss line within the Consolidated Statement of Earnings.
9. GOODWILL
Goodwill is carried at cost, not amortized, and represents the excess of the purchase price and related costs over the fair value assigned to the net identifiable assets of a business acquired. We test goodwill for impairment on a quantitative basis at the reporting unit level on an annual basis or upon the occurrence of events that may indicate possible impairment. Impairment is measured as the excess carrying value over the fair value of goodwill.
The changes in the carrying amount of goodwill, by reporting unit, as of December 31, 2021 and 2020, are as follows:
(in millions)PotashMosaic FertilizantesCorporate, Eliminations and OtherTotal
Balance as of December 31, 2019$1,039.8 $105.0 $12.1 $1,156.9 
Foreign currency translation23.4 (7.3)— 16.1 
Balance as of December 31, 2020$1,063.2 $97.7 $12.1 $1,173.0 
Foreign currency translation1.0 (1.8)— (0.8)
Balance as of December 31, 2021$1,064.2 $95.9 $12.1 $1,172.2 
As of October 31, 2021, we performed our annual quantitative assessment. In performing our assessment, we estimated the fair value of each of our reporting units using the income approach, also known as the discounted cash flow (“DCF”) method. The income approach utilized the present value of cash flows to estimate fair value. The future cash flows for our reporting units were projected based on our estimates, at that time, for revenue, operating income and other factors (such as working capital and capital expenditures for each reporting unit). To determine if the fair value of each of our reporting units with goodwill exceeded its carrying value, we assumed sales volume growth rates based on our long-term expectations, our internal selling prices and projected raw material prices for years one through five, which were anchored in projections from CRU International Limited (“CRU”), an independent third party data source. Selling prices and raw material prices for years six and beyond were based on anticipated market growth and long-term CRU outlooks. The discount rates used in our DCF method were based on a weighted-average cost of capital (“WACC”), determined from relevant market comparisons. A terminal value growth rate of 2% was applied to all years thereafter for the projected period and reflected our estimate of stable growth. We then calculated a present value of the respective cash flows for each reporting unit to arrive at an estimate of fair value under the income approach. Finally, we compared our estimates of fair values for our reporting units, to our October 31, 2021 total public market capitalization, based on our common stock price at that date.
In making this assessment, we considered, among other things, expectations of projected net sales and cash flows, assumptions impacting the WACC, changes in our stock price and changes in the carrying values of our reporting units with goodwill. We also considered overall business conditions.
The Potash, Mosaic Fertilizantes and Corporate, Eliminations and Other reporting units were evaluated and not considered at risk of goodwill impairment at October 31, 2021.
As of December 31, 2021, $3.0 million of goodwill was tax deductible.
F-54

Table of Content
For the year ending December 31, 2019, we recognized a goodwill impairment charge of $588.6 million in our Phosphates reporting unit as we concluded that the carrying value of this reporting unit was in excess of its fair value due to a reduction in our long-range forecast, primarily related to changes in projected selling prices and raw material prices.
10. FINANCING ARRANGEMENTS
Mosaic Credit Facility
On August 19, 2021, we entered into a new committed unsecured five-year credit facility of up to $2.5 billion (the “Mosaic Credit Facility”), comprised of a $2.5 billion revolving facility, with a maturity date of August 19, 2026, which is intended to serve as our primary senior unsecured bank credit facility. The Mosaic Credit Facility increased and extended our prior unsecured revolving credit facility of up to $2.2 billion (the “Prior Credit Facility”), maturing on November 18, 2022.
The Mosaic Credit Facility has cross-default provisions that, in general, provide that a failure to pay principal or interest under, or any other amount payable under, any indebtedness with outstanding principal amount of $100 million or more, or breach or default under such indebtedness that permits the holders thereof to accelerate the maturity thereof, will result in a cross-default.
The Mosaic Credit Facility requires Mosaic to maintain certain financial ratios, including a ratio of Consolidated Indebtedness, which has been redefined to exclude unrestricted cash and cash equivalents, to Consolidated Capitalization Ratio (as defined) of no greater than 0.65 to 1.0 as well as a minimum Interest Coverage Ratio (as defined) of not less than 3.0 to 1.0. We were in compliance with these ratios as of December 31, 2021.
The Mosaic Credit Facility also contains other events of default and covenants that limit various matters. These provisions include limitations on indebtedness, liens, investments and acquisitions (other than capital expenditures), certain mergers, certain sales of assets and other matters customary for credit facilities of this nature.
As of December 31, 2021, we had outstanding letters of credit that utilized a portion of the amount available for revolving loans under the Mosaic Credit Facility of $10.9 million. At December 31, 2020, we had outstanding letters of credit of $12.4 million. The net available borrowings for revolving loans under the Mosaic Credit Facility were approximately $2.49 billion as of December 31, 2021. Unused commitment fees accrued at an average annual rate of 0.15% under the new Mosaic Credit Facility during 2021, decreasing from the average annual rate of 0.40% under the Prior Credit Facility. Unused commitment fees generated expenses of $7.0 million during 2021. As of December 2020 and 2019, unused commitment fees accrued at an average rate of 0.40% and 0.20%, generating expenses of $6.0 million and $4.0 million.
Short-Term Debt
Short-term debt consists of the revolving credit facility under the Mosaic Credit Facility, under which there were no borrowings as of December 31, 2021, working capital financing arrangements and various other short-term borrowings related to our international operations in India, China and Brazil. These other short-term borrowings outstanding were $302.8 million and $0.1 million as of December 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively.
On January 7, 2020, we entered into an inventory financing arrangement to sell up to $400 million of certain inventory for cash and subsequently to repurchase the inventory at an agreed upon price and time in the future, not to exceed 180 days. Under the terms of the agreement, we may borrow up to 90% of the value of the inventory. It is later repurchased by Mosaic at the original sale price plus interest and any transaction costs. As of December 31, 2021, we had sold $302.7 million of inventory under this arrangement. Subsequent to year-end in February 2022, the borrowing capacity under this agreement was increased to $625.0 million.
We have a Receivable Purchasing Agreement (“RPA”), with a bank whereby, from time-to-time, we sell certain receivables. The purchase price of the receivable sold under the RPA is the face value of the receivable less an agreed upon discount. In January 2021, we entered into a First Amendment to the RPA. This amendment made certain adjustments so that the receivables sold under the RPA are accounted for as a true sale. Upon sale, these receivables are removed from the Consolidated Balance Sheets. Cash received is presented as cash provided by operating activities in the Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows. Prior to the amendment, we recorded the purchase price as short-term debt, and recognized interest expense by accreting the liability through the due date of the underlying receivables. Subsequent to year-end in February 2022, the RPA was amended to increase the borrowing capacity under the agreement from $250 million to $400 million.
F-55

Table of Content
The Company sold approximately $589.7 million and $302.0 million as of December 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively, of accounts receivable under this arrangement. Discounts on sold receivables were not material for any period presented. Following the sale to the bank, we continue to service the collection of the receivable on behalf of the bank without further consideration. As of December 31, 2021, $81.1 million had been collected but not yet remitted to the bank. This amount is classified in accrued liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. Cash collected and remitted are included in financing activities in the Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows.
We had additional outstanding bilateral letters of credit of $54.7 million as of December 31, 2021, which includes $50.0 million as required by the 2015 Consent Decrees as described further in Note 13 of our Consolidated Financial Statements.
Long-Term Debt, including Current Maturities
On November 13, 2017, we issued new senior notes consisting of $550 million aggregate principal amount of 3.250% senior notes due 2022 and $700 million aggregate principal amount of 4.050% senior notes due 2027 (collectively, the “Senior Notes of 2017”).
We have additional senior notes outstanding, consisting of $900 million aggregate principal amount of 4.25% senior notes due 2023, $500 million aggregate principal amount of 5.45% senior notes due 2033 and $600 million aggregate principal amount of 5.625% senior notes due 2043 (collectively, the “Senior Notes of 2013”); and $300 million aggregate principal amount of 4.875% senior notes due 2041 (collectively, the “Senior Notes of 2011”). In 2021, we prepaid the outstanding balance of $450 million on our 3.75% senior notes, due November 15, 2021, without premium or penalty.
The Senior Notes of 2011, the Senior Notes of 2013 and the Senior Notes of 2017 are Mosaic’s senior unsecured obligations and rank equally in right of payment with Mosaic’s existing and future senior unsecured indebtedness. The indenture governing these notes contains restrictive covenants limiting debt secured by liens, sale and leaseback transactions and mergers, consolidations and sales of substantially all assets, as well as other events of default.
A debenture issued by Mosaic Global Holdings, Inc., one of our consolidated subsidiaries, due in 2028 (the “2028 Debenture”), is outstanding as of December 31, 2021, with a balance of $147.1 million. The indenture governing the 2028 Debenture also contain restrictive covenants limiting debt secured by liens, sale and leaseback transactions and mergers, consolidations and sales of substantially all assets, as well as events of default. The obligations under the 2028 Debenture are guaranteed by the Company and several of its subsidiaries.
Long-term debt primarily consists of unsecured notes, term loans, finance leases, unsecured debentures and secured notes. Long-term debt as of December 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively, consisted of the following:
(in millions)December 31, 2021
Stated Interest Rate
December 31, 2021
Effective Interest Rate
Maturity DateDecember 31, 2021
Stated Value
Combination Fair
Market
Value Adjustment
Discount on Notes IssuanceDecember 31, 2021
Carrying Value
December 31, 2020
Stated Value
Combination Fair
Market
Value Adjustment
Discount on Notes IssuanceDecember 31, 2020
Carrying Value
Unsecured notes
3.25% -
5.63%
5.18%2022-
2043
$3,550.0 $— $(6.6)$3,543.4 $4,000.0 $— $(5.3)$3,994.7 
Unsecured debentures7.30%7.19%2028147.1 0.7 — 147.8 147.1 0.9 — 148.0 
Finance leases0.60% -
19.72%
2.39%2022-
2030
213.0 — — 213.0 344.5 — — 344.5 
Other(a)
6.53% -
8.00%
4.08%2022-
2026
64.9 9.7 — 74.6 78.8 12.0 — 90.8 
Total long-term debt
3,975.0 10.4 (6.6)3,978.8 4,570.4 12.9 (5.3)4,578.0 
Less current portion
594.8 2.3 (0.5)596.6 502.9 2.3 (1.0)504.2 
Total long-term debt, less current maturities
$3,380.2 $8.1 $(6.1)$3,382.2 $4,067.5 $10.6 $(4.3)$4,073.8 
______________________________
(a)Includes deferred financing fees related to our long term debt.
F-56

Table of Content
Scheduled maturities of long-term debt are as follows for the periods ending December 31:
(in millions) 
2022$596.6 
2023996.2 
2024103.1 
202515.7 
202615.7 
Thereafter2,251.5 
Total$3,978.8 
Structured Accounts Payable Arrangements
In Brazil, we finance some of our potash-based fertilizer, sulfur, ammonia and other raw material product purchases through third-party contractual arrangements. These arrangements provide that the third-party intermediary advance the amount of the scheduled payment to the vendor, less an appropriate discount, at a scheduled payment date and Mosaic makes payment to the third-party intermediary at a later date, stipulated in accordance with the commercial terms negotiated. At December 31, 2021 and 2020, these structured accounts payable arrangements were $743.7 million and $640.0 million, respectively.
11. MARKETABLE SECURITIES HELD IN TRUSTS

In August 2016, Mosaic deposited $630 million into two trust funds (together, the “RCRA Trusts”) created to provide additional financial assurance in the form of cash for the estimated costs (“Gypstack Closure Costs”) of closure and long-term care of our Florida and Louisiana phosphogypsum management systems (“Gypstacks”), as described further in Note 13 of our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements. Our actual Gypstack Closure Costs are generally expected to be paid by us in the normal course of our Phosphates business; however, funds held in each of the RCRA Trusts can be drawn by the applicable governmental authority in the event we cannot perform our closure and long-term care obligations. When our estimated Gypstack Closure Costs with respect to the facilities associated with a RCRA Trust are sufficiently lower than the amount on deposit in that RCRA Trust, we have the right to request that the excess funds be released to us. The same is true for the RCRA Trust balance remaining after the completion of our obligations, which will be performed over a period that may not end until three decades or more after a Gypstack has been closed. The investments held by the RCRA Trusts are managed by independent investment managers with discretion to buy, sell, and invest pursuant to the objectives and standards set forth in the related trust agreements. Amounts reserved to be held or held in the RCRA Trusts (including losses or reinvested earnings) are included in other assets on our Consolidated Balance Sheets.

The RCRA Trusts hold investments, which are restricted from our general use, in marketable debt securities classified as available-for-sale and are carried at fair value. As a result, unrealized gains and losses are included in other comprehensive income until realized, unless it is determined that the entire unamortized cost basis of the investment is not expected to be recovered. A credit loss would then be recognized in operations for the amount of the expected credit loss. As of December 31, 2021, we expect to recover our amortized cost on all available-for-sale securities and have not established an allowance for credit loss..
We review the fair value hierarchy classification on a quarterly basis. Changes in the ability to observe valuation inputs may result in a reclassification of levels for certain securities within the fair value hierarchy. We determine the fair market values of our available-for-sale securities and certain other assets based on the fair value hierarchy described below:
Level 1: Values based on unadjusted quoted prices in active markets that are accessible at the measurement date for identical assets or liabilities.
Level 2: Values based on quoted prices for similar instruments in active markets, quoted prices for identical or similar instruments in markets that are not active, or model-based valuation techniques for which all significant assumptions are observable in the market.
Level 3: Values generated from model-based techniques that use significant assumptions not observable in the market. These unobservable assumptions reflect our own estimates of assumptions that market participants would use in pricing
F-57

Table of Content
the asset or liability. Valuation techniques include use of option pricing models, discounted cash flow models and similar techniques.
The estimated fair value of the investments in the RCRA Trusts as of December 31, 2021 and December 31, 2020 are as follows:
December 31, 2021
(in millions)Amortized
Cost
Gross
Unrealized
Gains
Gross
Unrealized
Losses
Fair
Value
Level 1
    Cash and cash equivalents $8.1 $— $— $8.1 
Level 2
    Corporate debt securities198.8 5.6 (0.9)203.5 
    Municipal bonds198.1 6.5 (0.5)204.1 
    U.S. government bonds305.3 — (6.1)299.2 
Total$710.3 $12.1 $(7.5)$714.9 
December 31, 2020
(in millions)Amortized
Cost
Gross
Unrealized
Gains
Gross
Unrealized
Losses
Fair
Value
Level 1
    Cash and cash equivalents $11.8 $— $— $11.8 
Level 2
    Corporate debt securities193.3 14.0 — 207.3 
    Municipal bonds190.5 8.8 (0.3)199.0 
    U.S. government bonds300.7 4.7 (0.1)305.3 
Total$696.3 $27.5 $(0.4)$723.4 
The following tables show gross unrealized losses and fair values of the RCRA Trusts’ available-for-sale securities that have been in a continuous unrealized loss position for which an allowance for credit losses has not been recorded as of December 31, 2021 and December 31, 2020.
December 31, 2021December 31, 2020
Securities that have been in a continuous loss position for less than 12 months (in millions):
Fair
Value
Gross
Unrealized
Losses
Fair
Value
Gross
Unrealized
Losses
Corporate debt securities$67.1 $(0.8)$1.5 $— 
Municipal bonds39.9 (0.4)16.0 (0.2)
U.S. government bonds152.2 (2.5)120.3 (0.1)
Total$259.2 $(3.7)$137.8 $(0.3)
December 31, 2021December 31, 2020
Securities that have been in a continuous loss position for more than 12 months (in millions):
Fair
Value
Gross
Unrealized
Losses
Fair
Value
Gross
Unrealized
Losses
Corporate debt securities$3.6 $(0.1)$— $— 
Municipal bonds4.5 (0.1)4.6 (0.1)
U.S. government bonds143.4 (3.6)— — 
Total$151.5 $(3.8)$4.6 $(0.1)
F-58

Table of Content
The following table summarizes the balance by contractual maturity of the available-for-sale debt securities invested by the RCRA Trusts as of December 31, 2021. Actual maturities may differ from contractual maturities because the issuers of the securities may have the right to prepay obligations before the underlying contracts mature.
(in millions)December 31, 2021
Due in one year or less$26.4 
Due after one year through five years351.9 
Due after five years through ten years293.9 
Due after ten years34.6 
Total debt securities$706.8 
For the year ended December 31, 2021, realized gains and (losses) were $5.8 million and $(3.4) million, respectively. For the year ended December 31, 2020, realized gains and (losses) were $17.7 million and $(1.5) million, respectively.
12. INCOME TAXES
In preparing our Consolidated Financial Statements, we utilize the asset and liability approach in accounting for income taxes. We recognize income taxes in each of the jurisdictions in which we have a presence. For each jurisdiction, we estimate the actual amount of income taxes currently payable or receivable, as well as deferred income tax assets and liabilities attributable to temporary differences between the financial statement carrying amounts of existing assets and liabilities and their respective tax bases. Deferred income tax assets and liabilities are measured using enacted tax rates expected to apply to taxable income in the years in which these temporary differences are expected to be recovered or settled. The effect on deferred tax assets and liabilities of a change in tax rates is recognized in income in the period that includes the enactment date.
The provision for income taxes for 2021, 2020 and 2019, consisted of the following:
 Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)202120202019
Current:
Federal$(12.7)$(22.0)$(75.5)
State5.6 1.3 (5.2)
Non-U.S.386.9 114.4 119.1 
Total current379.8 93.7 38.4 
Noncurrent:
Federal$— $— $— 
State— — — 
Non-U.S.110.0 3.2 — 
Total noncurrent110.0 3.2 — 
Deferred:
Federal$141.9 $(66.7)$(194.8)
State21.4 (12.9)(6.7)
Non-U.S.(55.4)(595.8)(61.6)
Total deferred107.9 (675.4)(263.1)
Provision for (benefit from) income taxes$597.7 $(578.5)$(224.7)
F-59

Table of Content
The components of earnings from consolidated companies before income taxes, and the effects of significant adjustments to tax computed at the federal statutory rate, were as follows:
 Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)202120202019
U.S.earnings (loss)$900.1 $(449.0)$(1,096.2)
Non-U.S. earnings1,324.7 629.9 (159.9)
Earnings (loss) from consolidated companies before income taxes$2,224.8 $180.9 $(1,256.1)
Computed tax at the U.S. federal statutory rate21.0 %21.0 %21.0 %
State and local income taxes, net of federal income tax benefit1.2 %(7.0)%2.6 %
Percentage depletion in excess of basis(1.1)%(10.3)%2.5 %
Impact of non-U.S. earnings6.3 %42.1 %5.3 %
Change in valuation allowance(0.3)%(330.0)%(3.1)%
Phosphates goodwill impairment— %— %(5.0)%
Non-U.S. incentives(5.7)%(35.6)%— %
Other items (none in excess of 5% of computed tax)5.5 %— %(5.4)%
Effective tax rate26.9 %(319.8)%17.9 %

2021 Effective Tax Rate
In the year ended December 31, 2021, there were two items impacting the effective tax rate: 1) items attributable to ordinary business operations during the year, and 2) other items specific to the period, including the Esterhazy mine closure costs.
The tax impact of our ordinary business operations is affected by the mix of earnings across jurisdictions in which we operate, by a benefit associated with depletion, by a benefit associated with non-U.S. incentives, changes in valuation allowances and by the impact of certain entities being taxed in both their foreign jurisdiction and the U.S., including foreign tax credits for various taxes incurred.
Tax expense specific to the period included a net benefit of $0.6 million. The net expense relates to the following: $23.9 million related to true-up of estimates primarily related to our U.S. tax return and $20.4 million related to an increase in non-U.S. reserves. The tax expenses are partially offset by net tax benefits related to $43.7 million of Esterhazy mine closure costs and $1.2 million related to a benefit for withholding taxes related to undistributed earnings and other miscellaneous tax expenses.
2020 Effective Tax Rate
In the year ended December 31, 2020, there were two items impacting the effective tax rate: 1) items attributable to ordinary business operations during the year, and 2) other items specific to the period, including impacts recorded due to the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the CARES Act). The CARES Act provides various tax relief measures to taxpayers impacted by the coronavirus.
The tax impact of our ordinary business operations is affected by the mix of earnings across jurisdictions in which we operate, by a benefit associated with depletion, by a benefit associated with non-U.S. incentives, changes in valuation allowances and by the impact of certain entities being taxed in both their foreign jurisdiction and the U.S., including foreign tax credits for various taxes incurred.
Tax expense specific to the period included a net benefit of $609.0 million. The net benefit relates to the following: $582.6 million for changes to valuation allowances in the U.S. and foreign jurisdictions, $23.6 million related to certain provisions of the CARES Act, $5.5 million related to release of the sequestration on AMT and miscellaneous tax expense of $2.7 million. The change to the valuation allowance in Brazil related to the Acquired Business. As of December 31, 2020, the Acquired Business has achieved cumulative income and therefore we were able to rely on future forecasts of taxable income which support realization of its deferred tax assets.
F-60

Table of Content
2019 Effective Tax Rate
In the year ended December 31, 2019, there were two items impacting the effective tax rate: 1) items attributable to ordinary business operations during the year, and 2) other items specific to the period, including impacts recorded due to the U.S. Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the Act).
The tax impact of our ordinary business operations is impacted by the mix of earnings across jurisdictions in which we operate, by a benefit associated with depletion, changes in valuation allowances and by the impact of certain entities being taxed in both their foreign jurisdiction and the U.S., including foreign tax credits for various taxes incurred.
Tax expense specific to the period included a benefit of $355.6 million. The benefit relates to various notable items, which resulted in the following tax benefits: $263.4 million related to the indefinite idling of the Colonsay mine, $81.0 million related to the Plant City closure costs, and $79.6 million related to the phosphates goodwill impairment. These tax benefits are partially offset by tax expense of: $21.2 million for changes in certain provisions of the Act, $15.9 million for valuation allowances in the U.S. and foreign jurisdictions, $14.0 million related to state tax rate changes, $12.5 million related to changes in estimates related to prior years (including changes in certain provisions of the Act), and miscellaneous tax expense of $4.8 million. The tax expense of $21.2 million related to certain provisions of the Act and is the reversal of the benefit recorded in December 31, 2018 that pertained to the one-time “deemed” repatriation.
Deferred Tax Liabilities and Assets
Significant components of our deferred tax liabilities and assets as of December 31 were as follows:
 December 31,
(in millions)20212020
Deferred tax liabilities:
Depreciation and amortization$456.2 $232.5 
Depletion430.1 527.0 
Partnership tax basis differences66.3 69.0 
Undistributed earnings of non-U.S. subsidiaries— 3.8 
Other liabilities39.1 32.5 
Total deferred tax liabilities$991.7 $864.8 
Deferred tax assets:
Deferred revenue$— $62.4 
Capital loss carryforwards— 0.1 
Foreign tax credit carryforwards775.1 628.6 
Net operating loss carryforwards232.3 321.8 
Pension plans and other benefits19.8 34.2 
Asset retirement obligations337.3 262.9 
Disallowed interest expense under §163(j)31.6 68.8 
Other assets351.2 287.6 
Subtotal1,747.3 1,666.4 
Valuation allowance774.7 683.0 
Net deferred tax assets972.6 983.4 
Net deferred tax liabilities$(19.1)$118.6 
We have certain non-U.S. entities that are taxed in both their local jurisdiction and the U.S. As a result, we have deferred tax balances for both jurisdictions. As of December 31, 2021 and 2020, these non-U.S. deferred taxes are offset by approximately $185.1 million and $191.0 million, respectively, of anticipated foreign tax credits included within our depreciation and depletion components of deferred tax liabilities above. Due to the Act, we have recorded a valuation allowance against the anticipated foreign tax credits of $229.6 million and $235.5 million for December 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively.

F-61

Table of Content
Tax Carryforwards
As of December 31, 2021, we had estimated carryforwards for tax purposes as follows: net operating losses of $1.5 billion, foreign tax credits of $775.1 million and $3.9 million of non-U.S. business credits. These carryforward benefits may be subject to limitations imposed by the Internal Revenue Code, and in certain cases, provisions of foreign law. Approximately $507.6 million of our net operating loss carryforwards relate to Brazil and can be carried forward indefinitely but are limited to 30 percent of taxable income each year. The majority of the remaining net operating loss carryforwards relate to U.S. federal and certain U.S. states and can be carried forward for 20 years. Of the $775.1 million of foreign tax credits, approximately $33.3 million have an expiration date of 2023, approximately $332.7 million have an expiration date of 2026, approximately $20.2 million have an expiration date of 2029, and approximately $14.6 million have an expiration date of 2030. The realization of our foreign tax credit carryforwards is dependent on market conditions, tax law changes, and other business outcomes including our ability to generate certain types of taxable income in the future. Due to current business operations and future forecasts, the Company has determined that no valuation allowance is required on its general basket foreign tax credits. As a result of changes in U.S. tax law due to the Act, the Company valuation allowances recorded against its branch basket foreign tax credits of $364.7 million as of December 31, 2021.
As of December 31, 2021, we have not recognized a deferred tax liability for un-remitted earnings of approximately $2.3 billion from certain foreign operations because we believe our subsidiaries have invested the undistributed earnings indefinitely, or the earnings will be remitted in a tax-neutral transaction. It is not practicable for us to determine the amount of unrecognized deferred tax liability on these reinvested earnings. As part of the accounting for the Act, we recorded local country withholding taxes related to certain entities from which we began repatriating undistributed earnings and will continue to record local country withholding taxes, including foreign exchange impacts, on all future earnings.
Valuation Allowance
In assessing the need for a valuation allowance, we consider whether it is more likely than not that some portion or all of the deferred tax assets will not be realized. We evaluate our ability to realize the tax benefits associated with deferred tax assets by analyzing the relative impact of all the available positive and negative evidence regarding our forecasted taxable income using both historical and projected future operating results, the reversal of existing taxable temporary differences, taxable income in prior carry-back years (if permitted) and the availability of tax planning strategies. The ultimate realization of deferred tax assets is dependent upon the generation of certain types of future taxable income during the periods in which those temporary differences become deductible. In making this assessment, we consider the scheduled reversal of deferred tax liabilities, our ability to carry back the deferred tax asset, projected future taxable income, and tax planning strategies. A valuation allowance will be recorded in each jurisdiction in which a deferred income tax asset is recorded when it is more likely than not that the deferred income tax asset will not be realized. Changes in deferred tax asset valuation allowances typically impact income tax expense.
For the year ended December 31, 2021, the valuation allowance increased by $91.7 million, of which a $111.2 million increase related to changes in the valuation allowance to U.S. branch foreign tax credits. These increases to the valuation allowance were partially offset by a decrease of $13.9 million related to changes in valuation allowances and currency translation in Brazil, $2.4 million decrease to net operating losses for certain U.S. states, and $3.4 million changes in valuation allowances in other foreign jurisdictions.
For the year ended December 31, 2020, the valuation allowance decreased by $774.1 million, of which a $763.5 million decrease related to changes in valuation allowances and currency translation in Brazil, $3.5 million related to net operating losses for certain U.S. states and $32.2 million related to our conclusion that we are more likely than not to use attributes at other foreign jurisdictions. These decreases to the valuation allowance were partially offset by the following increases: $24.1 million increase related to U.S. branch foreign tax credits and $0.9 million related to net operating losses in Peru.
For the year ended December 31, 2019, the valuation allowance decreased by $73.4 million, of which a $48.0 million decrease related to changes in valuation allowances and currency translation in Brazil, and a $49.8 million decrease related to U.S. branch foreign tax credits. These decreases to the valuation allowance were offset by the following increases: $6.8 million related to net operating losses for certain U.S. states, $8.3 million related to net operating losses in Peru, and $9.2 million related to our conclusion that we are not more likely than not to use attributes at other foreign jurisdictions.


F-62

Table of Content
Changes to our income tax valuation allowance were as follows:
Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)202120202019
Income tax valuation allowance, related to deferred income taxes
Balance at beginning of period$683.0 $1,457.10 $1,530.5 
Charges or (reductions) to costs and expenses91.7 (774.1)(73.4)
Balance at end of period$774.7 $683.0 $1,457.1 
Uncertain Tax Positions
Accounting for uncertain income tax positions is determined by prescribing a minimum probability threshold that a tax position must meet before a financial statement benefit is recognized. This minimum threshold is that a tax position is more likely than not to be sustained upon examination by the applicable taxing authority, including resolution of any related appeals or litigation processes, based on the technical merits of the position. The tax benefit to be recognized is measured as the largest amount of benefit that is greater than a fifty percent likelihood of being realized upon ultimate settlement.
As of December 31, 2021, we had $124.6 million of gross uncertain tax positions. If recognized, the benefit to our effective tax rate in future periods would be approximately $48.0 million of that amount. During 2021, we recorded net increases in our uncertain tax positions of $87.7 million related to certain U.S. and non-U.S. tax matters, of which $3.0 million impacted the effective tax rate. This increase was offset by items not included in gross uncertain tax positions.
Based upon the information available as of December 31, 2021, we expect to reach an agreement on $96.5 million of the unrecognized tax benefits in the next twelve months. Any other possible changes cannot reasonably be estimated as of December 31, 2021.
A summary of gross unrecognized tax benefit activity is as follows:
 Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)202120202019
Gross unrecognized tax benefits, beginning of period$36.9 $39.5 $38.1 
Gross increases:
Prior period tax positions84.7 — — 
Current period tax positions3.0 2.8 5.1 
Gross decreases:
Prior period tax positions— (5.9)(4.9)
Currency translation— 0.5 1.2 
Gross unrecognized tax benefits, end of period$124.6 $36.9 $39.5 
We recognize interest and penalties related to unrecognized tax benefits as a component of our income tax expense. Interest and penalties accrued in our Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2021 and 2020 were $31.1 million and $9.0 million, respectively, and are included in other noncurrent liabilities in the Consolidated Balance Sheets.
Open Tax Periods
We operate in multiple tax jurisdictions, both within the U.S.and outside the U.S., and face audits from various tax authorities regarding transfer pricing, deductibility of certain expenses, and intercompany transactions, as well as other matters. With few exceptions, we are no longer subject to examination for tax years prior to 2012.
Mosaic is continually under audit by various tax authorities in the normal course of business. Such tax authorities may raise issues contrary to positions taken by the Company. If such positions are ultimately not sustained by the Company this could result in material assessments to the Company. The costs related to defending, if needed, such positions on appeal or in court may be material. The Company believes that any issues considered are properly accounted for.
F-63

Table of Content
We are currently under audit by the Canada Revenue Agency for the tax years ended May 31, 2012 through December 31, 2017. Based on the information available, we do not anticipate significant changes to our unrecognized tax benefits as a result of these examinations other than the amounts discussed above.
13. ASSET RETIREMENT OBLIGATIONS
We recognize our estimated asset retirement obligations (“AROs”) in the period in which we have an existing legal obligation associated with the retirement of a tangible long-lived asset and the amount of the liability can be reasonably estimated. The ARO is recognized at fair value when the liability is incurred with a corresponding increase in the carrying amount of the related long lived asset. We depreciate the tangible asset over its estimated useful life. The liability is adjusted in subsequent periods through accretion expense which represents the increase in the present value of the liability due to the passage of time. Such depreciation and accretion expenses are included in cost of goods sold for operating facilities and other operating expense for indefinitely closed facilities.
Our legal obligations related to asset retirement require us to: (i) reclaim lands disturbed by mining as a condition to receive permits to mine phosphate ore reserves; (ii) treat low pH process water in Gypstacks to neutralize acidity; (iii) close and monitor Gypstacks at our Florida and Louisiana facilities at the end of their useful lives; (iv) remediate certain other conditional obligations; (v) remove all surface structures and equipment, plug and abandon mine shafts, contour and revegetate, as necessary, and monitor for five years after closing our Carlsbad, New Mexico facility; (vi) decommission facilities, manage tailings and execute site reclamation at our Saskatchewan potash mines at the end of their useful lives; (vii) de-commission mines in Brazil and Peru acquired as part of the acquisition (the “Acquisition”) of Vale Fertilizantes S.A. (now known as Mosaic Fetilizantes P&K S.A. and (viii) de-commission plant sites and close Gypstacks in Brazil, also as part of the Acquisition. The estimated liability for these legal obligations is based on the estimated cost to satisfy the above obligations which is discounted using a credit-adjusted risk-free rate.
A reconciliation of our AROs is as follows:
 Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)20212020
AROs, beginning of period$1,393.9 $1,315.2 
Liabilities incurred20.2 10.8 
Liabilities settled(163.1)(125.1)
Accretion expense71.9 68.0 
Revisions in estimated cash flows443.3 167.3 
Foreign currency translation(16.9)(42.3)
AROs, end of period1,749.3 1,393.9 
Less current portion222.4 190.2 
Non-current portion of AROs$1,526.9 $1,203.7 
North America Gypstack Closure Costs
A majority of our ARO relates to Gypstack Closure Costs in Florida and Louisiana. For financial reporting purposes, we recognize our estimated Gypstack Closure Costs at their present value. This present value determined for financial reporting purposes is reflected on our Consolidated Balance Sheets in accrued liabilities and other noncurrent liabilities. As of December 31, 2021 and 2020, the present value of our Gypstack Closure Costs ARO reflected in our Consolidated Balance Sheet was approximately $883.2 million and $669.9 million, respectively.
As discussed below, we have arrangements to provide financial assurance for the estimated Gypstack Closure Costs associated with our facilities in Florida and Louisiana.
EPA RCRA Initiative. On September 30, 2015, we and our subsidiary, Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC (“Mosaic Fertilizer”), reached agreements with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”), the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (“FDEP”) and the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality on the terms of two consent decrees (collectively, the “2015 Consent Decrees”) to resolve claims relating to our management of certain waste materials onsite at our Riverview, New Wales, Mulberry, Green Bay, South Pierce and Bartow fertilizer manufacturing facilities in Florida and our Faustina and Uncle Sam facilities in Louisiana. This followed a 2003 announcement by the EPA
F-64

Table of Content
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance that it would be targeting facilities in mineral processing industries, including phosphoric acid producers, for a thorough review under the U.S. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”) and related state laws. As discussed below, a separate consent decree was previously entered into with EPA and the FDEP with respect to RCRA compliance at the Plant City, Florida phosphate concentrates facility (the “Plant City Facility”) that we acquired as part of our acquisition (the “CF Phosphate Assets Acquisition”) of the Florida phosphate assets and assumption of certain related liabilities of CF Industries, Inc. (“CF”).
The remaining monetary obligations under the 2015 Consent Decrees include:
Modification of certain operating practices and undertaking certain capital improvement projects over a period of several years that are expected to result in remaining capital expenditures likely to exceed $20 million in the aggregate.
Provision of additional financial assurance for the estimated Gypstack Closure Costs for Gypstacks at the covered facilities. The RCRA Trusts are discussed in Note 11 to our Consolidated Financial Statements. In addition, we have agreed to guarantee the difference between the amounts held in each RCRA Trust (including any earnings) and the estimated closure and long-term care costs.
As of December 31, 2021, the undiscounted amount of our Gypstack Closure Costs ARO associated with the facilities covered by the 2015 Consent Decrees, determined using the assumptions used for financial reporting purposes, was approximately $1.8 billion, and the present value of our Gypstack Closure Costs ARO reflected in our Consolidated Balance Sheet for those facilities was approximately $603 million.
Plant City and Bonnie Facilities. As part of the CF Phosphate Assets Acquisition, we assumed certain AROs related to Gypstack Closure Costs at both the Plant City Facility and a closed Florida phosphate concentrates facility in Bartow, Florida (the “Bonnie Facility”) that we acquired. Associated with these assets are two related financial assurance arrangements for which we became responsible and that provided sources of funds for the estimated Gypstack Closure Costs for these facilities. Pursuant to federal or state laws, the applicable government entities are permitted to draw against such amounts in the event we cannot perform such closure activities. One of the financial assurance arrangements was initially a trust (the “Plant City Trust”) established to meet the requirements under a consent decree with the EPA and the FDEP with respect to RCRA compliance at Plant City. The Plant City Trust also satisfied Florida financial assurance requirements at that site. Beginning in September 2016, as a substitute for the financial assurance provided through the Plant City Trust, we have provided financial assurance for the Plant City Facility in the form of a surety bond (the “Plant City Bond”). The amount of the Plant City Bond is $249.7 million, which reflects our closure cost estimates as of December 31, 2021. The other financial assurance arrangement was also a trust fund (the “Bonnie Facility Trust”) established to meet the requirements under Florida financial assurance regulations that apply to the Bonnie Facility. In July 2018, we received $21.0 million from the Bonnie Facility Trust by substituting for the trust fund a financial test mechanism (“Bonnie Financial Test”) supported by a corporate guarantee as allowed by state regulations. Both financial assurance funding obligations require estimates of future expenditures that could be impacted by refinements in scope, technological developments, new information, cost inflation, changes in regulations, discount rates and the timing of activities. Under our current approach to satisfying applicable requirements, additional financial assurance would be required in the future if increases in cost estimates exceed the face amount of the Plant City Bond or the amount supported by the Bonnie Financial Test.
As of December 31, 2021 and 2020, the aggregate amounts of AROs associated with the combined Plant City Facility and Bonnie Facility Gypstack Closure Costs included in our consolidated balance sheet were $262.9 million and $251.8 million, respectively. The aggregate amount represented by the Plant City Bond exceeds the present value of the aggregate amount of ARO associated with that facility. This is because the amount of financial assurance we are required to provide represents the aggregate undiscounted estimated amount to be paid by us in the normal course of our Phosphates business over a period that may not end until three decades or more after the Gypstack has been closed, whereas the ARO included in our Consolidated Balance Sheet reflects the discounted present value of those estimated amounts.
14. DERIVATIVE INSTRUMENTS AND HEDGING ACTIVITIES
We periodically enter into derivatives to mitigate our exposure to foreign currency risks, interest rate movements and the effects of changing commodity prices. We record all derivatives on the Consolidated Balance Sheets at fair value. The fair value of these instruments is determined by using quoted market prices, third-party comparables, or internal estimates. We net our derivative asset and liability positions when we have a master netting arrangement in place. Changes in the fair value of the foreign currency, commodity and freight derivatives are immediately recognized in earnings. As of December 31, 2021
F-65

Table of Content
and 2020, the gross asset position of our derivative instruments was $45.3 million and $65.3 million, respectively, and the gross liability position of our liability instruments was $45.5 million and $49.9 million, respectively.
We do not apply hedge accounting treatments to our foreign currency exchange contracts, commodities contracts, or freight contracts. Unrealized gains and (losses) on foreign currency exchange contracts used to hedge cash flows related to the production of our products are included in cost of goods sold in the Consolidated Statements of Earnings. Unrealized gains and (losses) on commodities contracts and certain forward freight agreements are also recorded in cost of goods sold in the Consolidated Statements of Earnings. Unrealized gains or (losses) on foreign currency exchange contracts used to hedge cash flows that are not related to the production of our products are included in the foreign currency transaction gain/(loss) caption in the Consolidated Statements of Earnings.
From time to time, we enter into fixed-to-floating interest rate contracts. We apply fair value hedge accounting treatment to these contracts. Under these arrangements, we agree to exchange, at specified intervals, the difference between fixed and floating interest amounts calculated by reference to an agreed-upon notional principal amount. The mark-to-market of these fair value hedges is recorded as gains or losses in interest expense. We had no fixed-to-floating interest rate swap agreements in effect as of December 31, 2021 and 2020.
The following is the total absolute notional volume associated with our outstanding derivative instruments:
(in millions of Units)
InstrumentDerivative CategoryUnit of MeasureDecember 31,
2021
December 31,
2020
Foreign currency derivativesForeign CurrencyUS Dollars3,185.8 2,912.3 
Natural gas derivativesCommodityMM Btu23.6 27.3 
Credit-Risk-Related Contingent Features
Certain of our derivative instruments contain provisions that are governed by International Swap and Derivatives Association agreements with the counterparties. These agreements contain provisions that allow us to settle for the net amount between payments and receipts, and also state that if our debt were to be rated below investment grade, certain counterparties to the derivative instruments could request full collateralization on derivative instruments in net liability positions. The aggregate fair value of all derivative instruments with credit-risk-related contingent features that were in a liability position as of December 31, 2021 and 2020 was $8.6 million and $11.3 million, respectively. We have no cash collateral posted in association with these contracts. If the credit-risk-related contingent features underlying these agreements were triggered on December 31, 2021, we would have been required to post an additional $4.5 million of collateral assets, which are either cash or U.S. Treasury instruments, to the counterparties.
Counterparty Credit Risk
We enter into foreign exchange, certain commodity and interest rate derivatives, primarily with a diversified group of highly rated counterparties. We continually monitor our positions and the credit ratings of the counterparties involved and limit the amount of credit exposure to any one party. While we may be exposed to potential losses due to the credit risk of non-performance by these counterparties, material losses are not anticipated. We closely monitor the credit risk associated with our counterparties and customers and to date have not experienced material losses.
15. FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENTS
Following is a summary of the valuation techniques for assets and liabilities recorded in our Consolidated Balance Sheets at fair value on a recurring basis:
Foreign Currency DerivativesThe foreign currency derivative instruments that we currently use are forward contracts and zero-cost collars, which typically expire within eighteen months. Derivative instruments that we used to hedge anticipated cash flows related to our Esterhazy K3 expansion project expire within a period of thirty-six months. Most of the valuations are adjusted by a forward yield curve or interest rates. In such cases, these derivative contracts are classified within Level 2. Some valuations are based on exchange-quoted prices, which are classified as Level 1. Changes in the fair market values of these contracts are recognized in the Consolidated Financial Statements as a component of cost of goods sold in our Corporate, Eliminations and Other segment or foreign currency transaction (gain) loss. As of December 31, 2021, and 2020, the gross asset position of our foreign currency derivative instruments was $27.0 million and $58.6 million,
F-66

Table of Content
respectively, and the gross liability position of our foreign currency derivative instruments was $45.4 million and $48.7 million, respectively.
Commodity DerivativesThe commodity contracts primarily relate to natural gas. The commodity derivative instruments that we currently use are forward purchase contracts, swaps and three-way collars. The natural gas contracts settle using NYMEX futures or AECO price indexes, which represent fair value at any given time. The contracts’ maturities and settlements are scheduled for future months and settlements are scheduled to coincide with anticipated gas purchases during those future periods. Quoted market prices from NYMEX and AECO are used to determine the fair value of these instruments. These market prices are adjusted by a forward yield curve and are classified within Level 2. Changes in the fair market values of these contracts are recognized in the Consolidated Financial Statements as a component of cost of goods sold in our Corporate, Eliminations and Other segment. As of December 31, 2021 and 2020, the gross asset position of our commodity derivative instruments was $18.3 million and $6.7 million, respectively, and the gross liability position of our commodity derivative instruments was $0.1 million and $1.2 million, respectively.
Interest Rate DerivativesWe manage interest expense through interest rate contracts to convert a portion of our fixed-rate debt into floating-rate debt. From time to time, we also enter into interest rate swap agreements to hedge our exposure to changes in future interest rates related to anticipated debt issuances. Valuations are based on external pricing sources and are classified as Level 2. Changes in the fair market values of these contracts are recognized in the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements as a component of interest expense. In April 2020, we terminated our outstanding interest rate swap contracts which resulted in an immaterial impact to our Condensed Consolidated Statement of Earnings (Loss).
Financial Instruments
The carrying amounts and estimated fair values of our financial instruments are as follows:
 December 31,
 20212020
 CarryingFairCarryingFair
(in millions)AmountValueAmountValue
Cash and cash equivalents$769.5 $769.5 $574.0 $574.0 
Accounts receivable1,531.9 1,531.9 881.1 881.1 
Accounts payable1,260.7 1,260.7 769.1 769.1 
Structured accounts payable arrangements743.7 743.7 640.0 640.0 
Short-term debt302.8 302.8 0.1 0.1 
Long-term debt, including current portion3,978.8 4,516.1 4,578.0 5,172.1 
For cash and cash equivalents, accounts receivable, net, accounts payable, structured accounts payable arrangements and short-term debt, the carrying amount approximates fair value because of the short-term maturity of those instruments. The fair value of long-term debt, including the current portion, is estimated using quoted market prices for the publicly registered notes and debentures, classified as Level 1 and Level 2, respectively, within the fair value hierarchy, depending on the market liquidity of the debt. For information regarding the fair value of our marketable securities held in trusts, see Note 11 of our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.
16. GUARANTEES AND INDEMNITIES
We enter into various contracts that include indemnification and guarantee provisions as a routine part of our business activities. Examples of these contracts include asset purchase and sale agreements, surety bonds, financial assurances to regulatory agencies in connection with reclamation and closure obligations, commodity sale and purchase agreements, and other types of contractual agreements with vendors and other third parties. These agreements indemnify counterparties for matters such as reclamation and closure obligations, tax liabilities, environmental liabilities, litigation and other matters, as well as breaches by Mosaic of representations, warranties and covenants set forth in these agreements. In many cases, we are essentially guaranteeing our own performance, in which case the guarantees do not fall within the scope of the accounting and disclosures requirements under U.S. GAAP.
F-67

Table of Content
Our more significant guarantees and indemnities are as follows:
Guarantees to Brazilian Financial Parties. From time to time, we issue guarantees to financial parties in Brazil for certain amounts owed the institutions by certain customers of Mosaic. The guarantees are for all or part of the customers’ obligations. In the event that the customers default on their payments to the institutions and we would be required to perform under the guarantees, we have in most instances obtained collateral from the customers. We monitor the nonperformance risk of the counterparties and have noted no material concerns regarding their ability to perform on their obligations. The guarantees generally have a one-year term, but may extend up to two years or longer depending on the crop cycle, and we expect to renew many of these guarantees on a rolling twelve-month basis. As of December 31, 2021, we have estimated the maximum potential future payment under the guarantees to be $67.7 million. The fair value of our guarantees is immaterial to the Consolidated Financial Statements as of December 31, 2021 and 2020.
Other Indemnities. Our maximum potential exposure under other indemnification arrangements can range from a specified dollar amount to an unlimited amount, depending on the nature of the transaction. Total maximum potential exposure under these indemnification arrangements is not estimable due to uncertainty as to whether claims will be made or how they will be resolved. We do not believe that we will be required to make any material payments under these indemnity provisions.
Because many of the guarantees and indemnities we issue to third parties do not limit the amount or duration of our obligations to perform under them, there exists a risk that we may have obligations in excess of the amounts described above. For those guarantees and indemnities that do not limit our liability exposure, we may not be able to estimate what our liability would be until a claim is made for payment or performance due to the contingent nature of these arrangements.
17. PENSION PLANS AND OTHER BENEFITS
We sponsor pension and postretirement benefits through a variety of plans including defined benefit plans, defined contribution plans and postretirement benefit plans in North America and certain of our international locations. We reserve the right to amend, modify or terminate the Mosaic sponsored plans at any time, subject to provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), prior agreements and our collective bargaining agreements.
Defined Benefit
We sponsor various defined benefit pension plans in the U.S. and in Canada. Benefits are based on different combinations of years of service and compensation levels, depending on the plan. Generally, contributions to the U.S. plans are made to meet minimum funding requirements of ERISA, while contributions to Canadian plans are made in accordance with Pension Benefits Acts instituted by the provinces of Saskatchewan and Ontario. Certain employees in the U.S. and Canada, whose pension benefits exceed Internal Revenue Code and Canada Revenue Agency limitations, respectively, are covered by supplementary non-qualified, unfunded pension plans.
We sponsor various defined benefit pension plans in Brazil, and we acquired through the Acquisition multi-employer pension plans for certain of our Brazil associates. All our pension plans are governed by the Brazilian pension plans regulatory agency, National Superintendence of Supplementary Pensions. Our Brazil plans are not individually significant to the Company’s consolidated financial statements after factoring in the multi-employer pension plan indemnification that we acquired through the Acquisition. We made contributions to these plans, net of indemnification, of $0.2 million and $0.4 million during the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively.
F-68

Table of Content
Accounting for Pension Plans
The year-end status of the North American pension plans was as follows:
 Pension Plans
 Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)20212020
Change in projected benefit obligation:
Benefit obligation at beginning of period$796.6 $755.5 
Service cost4.4 4.2 
Interest cost14.6 20.9 
Actuarial loss(31.1)49.8 
Currency fluctuations0.3 10.9 
Benefits paid(45.2)(44.7)
Projected benefit obligation at end of period$739.6 $796.6 
Change in plan assets:
Fair value at beginning of period$845.2 $790.6 
Currency fluctuations0.4 11.0 
Actual return1.1 82.4 
Company contribution5.5 5.9 
Benefits paid(45.2)(44.7)
Fair value at end of period$807.0 $845.2 
Funded status of the plans as of the end of period$67.4 $48.6 
Amounts recognized in the consolidated balance sheets:
Noncurrent assets$78.1 $59.7 
Current liabilities(0.9)(0.6)
Noncurrent liabilities(9.8)(10.5)
Amounts recognized in accumulated other comprehensive (income) loss
Prior service costs$13.7 $15.8 
Actuarial loss83.1 88.7 
The accumulated benefit obligation for the defined benefit pension plans was $739.1 million and $796.1 million as of December 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively.
F-69

Table of Content
The components of net annual periodic benefit costs and other amounts recognized in other comprehensive income include the following components:
Pension Plans
(in millions)Years Ended December 31,
202120202019
Net Periodic Benefit Cost
Service cost$4.4 $4.2 $4.8 
Interest cost14.6 20.9 25.0 
Expected return on plan assets(30.4)(34.2)(33.8)
Amortization of:
Prior service cost2.1 2.3 2.3 
Actuarial loss3.8 9.2 9.2 
Preliminary net periodic benefit cost$(5.5)$2.4 $7.5 
Curtailment/settlement expense— 1.0 — 
Total net periodic benefit cost$(5.5)$3.4 $7.5 
Other Changes in Plan Assets and Benefit Obligations Recognized in Other Comprehensive Income
Prior service (credit) cost recognized in other comprehensive income$(2.1)$(2.3)$5.5 
Net actuarial gain recognized in other comprehensive income(5.6)(8.6)(13.9)
Total recognized in other comprehensive income (loss)$(7.7)$(10.9)$(8.4)
Total recognized in net periodic benefit income and other comprehensive income$(13.2)$(7.5)$(0.9)
The estimated net actuarial (gain) loss and prior service cost (credit) for the pension plans and postretirement plans that will be amortized from accumulated other comprehensive income into net periodic benefit cost in 2022 is $3.9 million.
The following estimated benefit payments, which reflect estimated future service are expected to be paid by the related plans in the years ending December 31:
(in millions)Pension Plans
Benefit Payments
Other Postretirement
Plans Benefit Payments
Medicare Part D
Adjustments
2022$46.9 $2.9 $0.1 
202344.5 2.7 0.1 
202444.2 2.5 0.1 
202544.1 2.2 0.1 
202644.0 2.0 0.1 
2027-2031212.0 7.8 0.2 
In 2022, we expect to contribute cash of at least $5.6 million to the pension plans to meet minimum funding requirements.
Plan Assets and Investment Strategies
The Company’s overall investment strategy is to obtain sufficient return and provide adequate liquidity to meet the benefit obligations of our pension plans. Investments are made in public securities to ensure adequate liquidity to support benefit payments. Domestic and international stocks and bonds provide diversification to the portfolio.
For the U.S. plans, we utilize an asset allocation policy that seeks to reduce funded status volatility over time. As such, the primary investment objective beyond accumulating sufficient assets to meet future benefit obligations is to monitor and manage the assets of the plan to better insulate the asset portfolio from changes in interest rates that impact the liabilities. This requires an interest rate management strategy to reduce the sensitivity in the plan’s funded status and having a portion of the plan’s assets invested in return-seeking strategies. Currently, our policy includes a 100% allocation to fixed income strategies.
F-70

Table of Content
For the Canadian pension plans the primary investment objective is to secure the promised pension benefits through capital preservation and appreciation to better manage the asset/liability gap and interest rate risk. A secondary investment objective is to most effectively manage investment volatility to reduce the variability of the Company’s required contributions. The plans are expected to achieve an annual overall return, over a five-year rolling period, consistent with or in excess of total fund benchmarks that reflect each plan’s strategic allocations and respective market benchmarks at the individual asset class level. Management of the asset/liability gap of the plans and performance results are reviewed quarterly. Until September 2018, Mosaic had the four Canadian pension plans, two salaried and two hourly plans, managed in one master trust. In order to better match the assets with the liabilities of each plan, Mosaic decided to split the master trust into one trust for each plan. Currently, our policy includes an 80% allocation to fixed income and 20% to return-seeking strategies for the salaried and hourly plans. Actual allocations may experience temporary fluctuations based on market movements and investment strategies.
A significant amount of the assets are invested in funds that are managed by a group of professional investment managers through Mosaic’s investment advisor. These funds are mainly commingled funds. Performance is reviewed by Mosaic management monthly by comparing each fund’s return to a benchmark with an in-depth quarterly review presented by Mosaic’s investment advisor to the Global Pension Investment Committee. We do not have significant concentrations of credit risk or industry sectors within the plan assets. Assets may be indirectly invested in Mosaic stock, but any risk related to this investment would be immaterial due to the insignificant percentage of the total pension assets that would be invested in Mosaic stock.
Fair Value Measurements of Plan Assets
The following tables provide fair value measurement, by asset class, of the Company’s defined benefit plan assets for both the U.S. and Canadian plans:
(in millions)December 31, 2021
Pension Plan Asset CategoryTotalLevel 1Level 2Level 3
Cash$5.2 $5.2 $— $— 
Equity securities(a)
71.3 — 71.3 — 
Fixed income(b)
720.0 — 720.0 — 
Private equity funds10.5 — — 10.5 
Total assets at fair value$807.0 $5.2 $791.3 $10.5 
(in millions)December 31, 2020
Pension Plan Asset CategoryTotalLevel 1Level 2Level 3
Cash$4.6 $4.6 $— $— 
Equity securities(a)
198.5 — 198.5 — 
Fixed income(b)
641.0 — 641.0 — 
Private equity funds1.1 — — 1.1 
Total assets at fair value$845.2 $4.6 $839.5 $1.1 
______________________________
(a)This class, which includes several funds, was invested approximately 44% in U.S. equity securities, 1% in Canadian equity securities and 55% in other international equity securities as of December 31, 2021, and 43% in U.S. equity securities, 0% in Canadian equity securities and 57% in other international equity securities as of December 31, 2020.
(b)This class, which includes several funds, was invested approximately 44% in corporate debt securities, 49% in governmental securities in the U.S. and Canada and 7% in other foreign entity debt securities as of December 31, 2021, and 48% in corporate debt securities, 45% in governmental securities in the U.S. and Canada and 7% in other foreign entity debt securities as of December 31, 2020.
Rates and Assumptions
The approach used to develop the discount rate for the pension and postretirement plans is commonly referred to as the yield curve approach. Under this approach, we use a hypothetical curve formed by the average yields of available corporate bonds rated AA and above and match it against the projected benefit payment stream. Each category of cash flow of the projected benefit payment stream is discounted back using the respective interest rate on the yield curve. Using the present value of projected benefit payments, a weighted-average discount rate is derived.
F-71

Table of Content
The approach used to develop the expected long-term rate of return on plan assets combines an analysis of historical performance, the drivers of investment performance by asset class and current economic fundamentals. For returns, we utilized a building block approach starting with inflation expectations and added an expected real return to arrive at a long-term nominal expected return for each asset class. Long-term expected real returns are derived from future expectations of the U.S. Treasury real yield curve.
Weighted average assumptions used to determine benefit obligations were as follows:
Pension Plans
Years Ended December 31,
202120202019
Discount rate2.84 %2.40 %3.12 %
Expected return on plan assets3.25 %3.89 %5.13 %
Rate of compensation increase3.00 %3.00 %3.00 %
Weighted-average assumptions used to determine net benefit cost were as follows:
Pension Plans
Years Ended December 31,
202120202019
Discount rate2.44 %3.12 %4.09 %
Service cost discount rate2.64 %3.15 %4.00 %
Interest cost discount rate1.90 %2.83 %3.77 %
Expected return on plan assets3.89 %4.88 %5.14 %
Rate of compensation increase3.00 %3.00 %3.50 %
Defined Contribution Plans
Eligible salaried and non-union hourly employees in the U.S. participate in a defined contribution investment plan which permits employees to defer a portion of their compensation through payroll deductions and provides matching contributions. We match 100% of the first 3% of the participant’s contributed pay plus 50% of the next 3% of the participant’s contributed pay, subject to Internal Revenue Service limits. Participant contributions, matching contributions and the related earnings immediately vest. Mosaic also provides an annual non-elective employer contribution feature for eligible salaried and non-union hourly employees based on the employee’s age and eligible pay. Participants are generally vested in the non-elective employer contributions after three years of service. In addition, a discretionary feature of the plan allows the Company to make additional contributions to employees. Certain union employees participate in a defined contribution retirement plan based on collective bargaining agreements.
Canadian salaried and non-union hourly employees participate in an employer funded plan with employer contributions similar to the U.S. plan. The plan provides a profit sharing component which is paid each year. We also sponsor one mandatory union plan in Canada. Benefits in these plans vest after two years of consecutive service.
The expense attributable to defined contribution plans in the U.S. and Canada was $55.8 million, $48.0 million and $56.4 million for 2021, 2020 and 2019, respectively.
Postretirement Medical Benefit Plans
We provide certain health care benefit plans for certain retired employees (“Retiree Health Plans”) which may be either contributory or non-contributory and contain certain other cost-sharing features such as deductibles and coinsurance.
The North American Retiree Health Plans are unfunded and the projected benefit obligation was $31.1 million and $35.0 million as of December 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively. This liability should continue to decrease due to our limited exposure. The related income statement effects of the Retiree Health Plans are not material to the Company. We anticipate contributing cash of at least $2.9 million in 2022 to the postretirement medical benefit plans to fund anticipated benefit payments.
F-72

Table of Content
The year-end status of the Brazil postretirement medical benefit plans with a discount rate of 7.69% and 7.45% on each of December 31, 2021 and December 31, 2020, respectively was as follows:
Postretirement Medical Benefits
Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)20212020
Change in accumulated postretirement benefit obligation (“APBO”):
APBO at beginning of year$96.8 $109.4 
Service cost0.3 1.0 
Interest cost6.6 7.9 
Actuarial loss(22.8)7.9 
Currency fluctuations(3.9)(27.7)
Benefits paid(1.7)(1.7)
Plan Amendments(17.3)— 
APBO at end of year$58.0 $96.8 
Change in plan assets:
Company contribution$1.7 $1.7 
Benefits paid(1.7)(1.7)
Fair value at end of year$— $— 
Unfunded status of the plans as of the end of the year$(58.0)$(96.8)
Amounts recognized in the consolidated balance sheets:
Current liabilities$— $(1.7)
Noncurrent liabilities(58.0)(95.1)
Amounts recognized in accumulated other comprehensive (income) loss
Prior service costs (credits)$(14.8)$— 
Actuarial loss$16.1 $42.6 
F-73

Table of Content
18. ACCUMULATED OTHER COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS) ("AOCI")
The following table sets forth the changes in AOCI by component during the years ended December 31, 2021, 2020 and 2019:
(in millions)Foreign Currency Translation Gain (Loss)Net Actuarial Gain and Prior Service CostAmortization of Gain on Interest Rate SwapNet Gain (Loss) on Marketable Securities Held in TrustTotal
Balance at December 31, 2018$(1,547.4)$(105.3)$0.4 $(4.8)(1,657.1)
Other comprehensive income (loss)74.1 (26.2)2.2 14.0 64.1 
Tax (expense) or benefit(4.7)1.9 (0.5)(3.1)(6.4)
Other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax69.4 (24.3)1.7 10.9 57.7 
Addback: loss attributable to noncontrolling interest1.2 — — — 1.2 
Balance at December 31, 2019$(1,476.8)$(129.6)$2.1 $6.1 $(1,598.2)
Other comprehensive income (loss)(246.1)12.2 2.0 16.6 (215.3)
Tax (expense) or benefit(3.4)7.7 (0.4)(3.8)0.1 
Other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax(249.5)19.9 1.6 12.8 (215.2)
Addback: loss attributable to noncontrolling interest7.2 — — — 7.2 
Balance at December 31, 2020$(1,719.1)$(109.7)$3.7 $18.9 $(1,806.2)
Other comprehensive income (loss)(117.0)56.5 2.0 (22.7)(81.2)
Tax (expense) or benefit8.8 (19.6)(0.5)5.1 (6.2)
Other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax(108.2)36.9 1.5 (17.6)(87.4)
Addback: loss attributable to noncontrolling interest1.8 — — — 1.8 
Balance at December 31, 2021$(1,825.5)$(72.8)$5.2 $1.3 $(1,891.8)
F-74

Table of Content
19. SHARE REPURCHASES
In August 2021, our Board of Directors authorized a new $1.0 billion share repurchase program (the “2021 Repurchase Program”), replacing our 2015 Repurchase Program. The 2021 Repurchase Program allows the Company to repurchase shares of our Common Stock, through open market purchases, accelerated share repurchase arrangements, privately negotiated transactions or otherwise and has no set expiration date. In connection with this authorization, the remaining amount of $700 million authorized under 2015 Repurchase Program was terminated.
During the year ended December 31, 2021, under the 2021 Repurchase Program, we repurchased 11,200,371 shares of Common Stock for a total of approximately $410.9 million. This includes 8,544,144 shares we purchased in an underwritten secondary offering by Vale S.A. when they fully divested their interest in Mosaic.
The extent to which we repurchase our shares and the timing of any such repurchases depend on a number of factors, including market and business conditions, the price of our shares, and corporate, regulatory and other considerations.
20. SHARE-BASED PAYMENTS
The Mosaic Company 2014 Stock and Incentive Plan (the “2014 Stock and Incentive Plan”) was approved by our stockholders and became effective on May 15, 2014. It permits up to 25 million shares of common stock to be issued under share-based awards granted under the plan. The 2014 Stock and Incentive Plan provides for grants of stock options, restricted stock, restricted stock units, performance units and a variety of other share-based and non-share-based awards. Our employees, officers, directors, consultants, agents, advisors and independent contractors, as well as other designated individuals, are eligible to participate in the 2014 Stock and Incentive Plan.
The Mosaic Company 2004 Omnibus Stock and Incentive Plan (the “Omnibus Plan”), which was approved by our stockholders and became effective in 2004 and subsequently amended, provided for the grant of shares and share options to employees for up to 25 million shares of common stock. While awards may no longer be made under the Omnibus Plan, it will remain in effect with respect to the awards that had been granted thereunder prior to its termination.
Mosaic settles stock option exercises, restricted stock units and certain performance units and performance shares with newly issued common shares. The Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors administers the 2014 Stock and Incentive Plan and the Omnibus Plan subject to their respective provisions and applicable law.
Stock Options
Stock options are granted with an exercise price equal to the market price of our stock at the date of grant and have a ten-year contractual term. The fair value of each option award is estimated on the date of the grant using the Black-Scholes option valuation model. Stock options vest in equal annual installments in the first three years following the date of grant (graded vesting). Stock options are expensed on a straight-line basis over the required service period, based on the estimated fair value of the award on the date of grant, net of estimated forfeitures.
Valuation Assumptions
Assumptions used to calculate the fair value of stock options awarded in 2017 are noted in the following table. There were no stock options granted or issued in 2021, 2020, or 2019. Expected volatility is based on the simple average of implied and historical volatility using the daily closing prices of the Company’s stock for a period equal to the expected term of the option. The risk-free interest rate is based on the U.S. Treasury rate at the time of the grant for instruments of comparable life.
 Year Ended December 31, 2017
Weighted average assumptions used in option valuations:
Expected volatility35.35 %
Expected dividend yield1.97 %
Expected term (in years)7
Risk-free interest rate2.34 %
F-75

Table of Content
A summary of the status of our stock options as of December 31, 2021, and activity during 2021, is as follows:
Shares
(in millions)
Weighted
Average
Exercise
Price
Weighted Average Remaining Contractual Term (Years)Aggregate
Intrinsic
Value
Outstanding as of December 31, 20201.8 $43.89 
Granted— — 
Exercised(0.1)$29.21 
Cancelled(0.6)$58.56 
Outstanding as of December 31, 20211.1 $38.47 3.4$6.5 
Exercisable as of December 31, 20211.1 $38.47 3.4$6.5 
The weighted-average grant date fair value of options granted during 2017 was $9.91. There were no options exercised during 2020 or 2019.
Restricted Stock Units
Restricted stock units are issued to various employees, officers and directors at a value equal to the market price of our stock at the date of grant. The fair value of restricted stock units is equal to the market price of our stock at the date of grant. Restricted stock units generally cliff vest after three years of continuous service and are expensed on a straight-line basis over the required service period, based on the estimated grant date fair value, net of estimated forfeitures.
A summary of the status of our restricted stock units as of December 31, 2021, and activity during 2021, is as follows:
Shares
(in millions)
Weighted
Average
Grant
Date Fair
Value Per
Share
Restricted stock units as of December 31, 20202.5 $21.48 
Granted0.7 29.88 
Issued and cancelled(0.8)$26.15 
Restricted stock units as of December 31, 20212.4 $22.44 
Performance Units
During the years ended December 31, 2021, 2020 and 2019, 717,952, 1,309,170 and 603,856 total shareholder return (“TSR”) performance units were granted, respectively. Final performance units are awarded based on the increase or decrease, subject to certain limitations, in Mosaic’s share price from the grant date to the third anniversary of the award, plus dividends (a measure of total shareholder return or TSR). The beginning and ending stock prices are based on a 30 trading-day average stock price. Holders of the awards must be employed at the end of the performance period in order for any units to vest, except in the event of death, disability or retirement at or after age 60, certain changes in control or the exercise of Committee or Board discretion as provided in the related award agreements.
The fair value of each TSR performance unit is determined using a Monte Carlo simulation. This valuation methodology utilizes assumptions consistent with those of our other share-based awards and a range of ending stock prices; however, the expected term of the awards is three years, which impacts the assumptions used to calculate the fair value of performance units as shown in the table below. 262,308 of the TSR performance awards issued in 2021 are to be settled in cash, and are therefore accounted for as a liability with changes in value recorded through earnings during the service period. The remaining TSR performance units issued in 2021, and all of the 2020 and 2019 TSR performance units, are considered equity-classified fixed awards measured at grant-date fair value and not subsequently re-measured. All of the TSR performance units cliff vest after three years of continuous service and are expensed on a straight-line basis over the required service period, based on the estimated grant date fair value of the award net of estimated forfeitures.
F-76

Table of Content
A summary of the assumptions used to estimate the fair value of TSR performance units is as follows:
Years Ended December 31,
202120202019
Performance units granted717,952 1,309,170 603,856 
Average fair value of performance units on grant date$27.91 $13.52 $25.87 
Weighted average assumptions used in performance unit valuations:
Expected volatility58.26 %43.49 %33.70 %
Expected dividend yield0.68 %1.24 %0.72 %
Expected term (in years)333
Risk-free interest rate0.32 %0.61 %2.43 %
A summary of our performance unit activity during 2021 is as follows:
Shares
(in millions)
Weighted
Average
Grant
Date Fair
Value Per
Share
Outstanding as of December 31, 20202.6 $18.27 
Granted0.7 27.91 
Issued and cancelled(0.5)$27.50 
Outstanding as of December 31, 20212.8 $18.91 
Share-Based Compensation Expense
We recorded share-based compensation expense of $63.5 million, $24.5 million and $31.6 million for 2021, 2020 and 2019, respectively. The tax benefit related to share exercises and lapses in the year was $6.5 million, $5.2 million and $6.7 million for 2021, 2020 and 2019, respectively.
As of December 31, 2021, there was $29.3 million of total unrecognized compensation cost related to options, restricted stock units and performance units and shares granted under the 2014 Stock and Incentive Plan and the Omnibus Plan. The unrecognized compensation cost is expected to be recognized over a weighted-average period of one year. No options vested in 2021, 2020 and 2019.
There was no cash received from exercises of share-based payment arrangements for 2021, 2020 or 2019. We received a tax benefit for tax deductions from options of $14.0 million, $3.3 million and $2.6 million in 2021, 2020 and 2019, respectively.
21. COMMITMENTS
We lease certain plants, warehouses, terminals, office facilities, railcars and various types of equipment under operating leases, some of which include rent payment escalation clauses, with lease terms ranging from one to 29 years. In addition to minimum lease payments, some of our office facility leases require payment of our proportionate share of real estate taxes and building operating expenses. Our future obligations under these leases are included in Note 3 of our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.
We also have purchase obligations to purchase goods and services, primarily for raw materials used in products sold to customers. In 2013, we entered into an ammonia supply agreement with CF (the “CF Ammonia Supply Agreement”) that commenced in 2017, under which Mosaic agreed to purchase approximately 545,000 to 725,000 tonnes of ammonia per year at a price tied to the prevailing price of U.S. natural gas. The term of the contract may extend until December 31, 2032, although we have rights to terminate this contract at certain dates.
We have long-term agreements for the purchase of sulfur, which is used in the production of phosphoric acid, and natural gas, which is a significant raw material used primarily in the solution mining process in our Potash segment as well as in our phosphate concentrates plants. Also, we have agreements for capital expenditures primarily in our Potash segments related to our expansion projects.
F-77

Table of Content
A schedule of future minimum long-term purchase commitments, based on expected market prices as of December 31, 2021 is as follows:
(in millions)Purchase
Commitments
2022$5,687.1 
2023966.5 
2024619.8 
2025354.9 
2026298.4 
Subsequent years1,174.0 
$9,100.7 
Purchases made under long-term commitments in were $3.1 billion in 2021, and $1.9 billion in 2020 and 2019, respectively.
Most of our export sales of potash crop nutrients are marketed through a North American export association, Canpotex, which may fund its operations in part through third-party financing facilities. As a member, Mosaic or our subsidiaries are contractually obligated to reimburse Canpotex for their pro rata share of any operating expenses or other liabilities incurred. The reimbursements are made through reductions to members’ cash receipts from Canpotex.
We incur liabilities for reclamation activities and Gypstack closures in our Florida and Louisiana operations where, in order to obtain necessary permits, we must either pass a test of financial strength or provide credit support, typically in the form of cash deposits, surety bonds or letters of credit. The surety bonds generally expire within one year or less but a substantial portion of these instruments provide financial assurance for continuing obligations and, therefore, in most cases, must be renewed on an annual basis. As of December 31, 2021, we had $645.7 million in surety bonds outstanding, of which $356.1 million is for reclamation obligations, primarily related to mining in Florida. In addition, included in the total amount is $249.7 million, reflecting our updated closure cost estimates, delivered to EPA as a substitute for the financial assurance provided through the Plant City Trust. The remaining balance in surety bonds outstanding of $39.9 million is for other matters.
22. CONTINGENCIES
We have described below the material judicial and administrative proceedings to which we are subject.
Environmental Matters
We have contingent environmental liabilities that arise principally from three sources: (i) facilities currently or formerly owned by our subsidiaries or their predecessors; (ii) facilities adjacent to currently or formerly owned facilities; and (iii) third-party Superfund or state equivalent sites. At facilities currently or formerly owned by our subsidiaries or their predecessors, the historical use and handling of regulated chemical substances, crop and animal nutrients and additives and by-product or process tailings have resulted in soil, surface water and/or groundwater contamination. Spills or other releases of regulated substances, subsidence from mining operations and other incidents arising out of operations, including accidents, have occurred previously at these facilities, and potentially could occur in the future, possibly requiring us to undertake or fund cleanup or result in monetary damage awards, fines, penalties, other liabilities, injunctions or other court or administrative rulings. In some instances, pursuant to consent orders or agreements with governmental agencies, we are undertaking certain remedial actions or investigations to determine whether remedial action may be required to address contamination. At other locations, we have entered into consent orders or agreements with appropriate governmental agencies to perform required remedial activities that will address identified site conditions. Taking into consideration established accruals of approximately $57.3 million and $61.4 million, as of December 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively, expenditures for these known conditions currently are not expected, individually or in the aggregate, to have a material effect on our business or financial condition. However, material expenditures could be required in the future to remediate the contamination at known sites or at other current or former sites or as a result of other environmental, health and safety matters. Below is a discussion of the more significant environmental matters.
New Wales Water Loss Incident. In August 2016, a sinkhole developed under one of the two cells of the Phase II Gypstack at our New Wales facility in Polk County, Florida, resulting in process water from the stack draining into the sinkhole. The incident was reported to the FDEP and EPA. In October 2016, our subsidiary, Mosaic Fertilizer, entered into a consent order
F-78

Table of Content
(the “Order”) with the FDEP relating to the incident. Under the order, Mosaic Fertilizer agreed to, among other things: implement a remediation plan to close the sinkhole; perform additional monitoring of the groundwater quality and act to assess and remediate in the event monitored off-site water does not comply with applicable standards as a result of the incident; evaluate the risk of potential future sinkhole formation at the New Wales facility and at Mosaic Fertilizer’s active Gypstack operations at the Bartow, Riverview and Plant City facilities with recommendations to address any identified issues; and provide financial assurance of no less than $40.0 million, which we have done without the need for any expenditure of corporate funds through satisfaction of a financial strength test and Mosaic parent guarantee. The Order did not require payment of civil penalties relating to the incident.
As of December 31, 2021, the sinkhole repairs were substantially complete. Additional expenditures could be required in the future for additional remediation or other measures in connection with the sinkhole including if, for example, FDEP or EPA were to request additional measures to address risks presented by the Gypstack. These expenditures could be material. In addition, we are unable to predict at this time what, if any, impact the New Wales water loss incident will have on future Florida permitting efforts.
EPA RCRA Initiative. We have certain financial assurance and other obligations under consent decrees and a separate financial assurance arrangement relating to our facilities in Florida and Louisiana. These obligations are discussed in Note 13 of our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.
Florida Sulfuric Acid Plants. On April 8, 2010, EPA Region 4 submitted an administrative subpoena to us under Section 114 of the Federal Clean Air Act (the “CAA”) regarding compliance of our Florida sulfuric acid plants with the “New Source Review” requirements of the CAA. The request received by Mosaic appears to be part of a broader EPA national enforcement initiative focusing on sulfuric acid plants. On June 6, 2010, EPA issued a notice of violation to CF (the “CF NOV”) with respect to “New Source Review” compliance at the Plant City Facility’s sulfuric acid plants and the allegations in the CF NOV were not resolved before our 2014 acquisition of the Plant City Facility. CF has agreed to indemnify us with respect to any penalty EPA may assess as a result of the allegations in the CF NOV.
We have been engaged in settlement discussions with U.S. EPA and the DOJ, originating with the allegations of violations of Clean Air Act Prevention of Significant Deterioration (“PSD”) permitting requirements at the Plant City sulfuric acid plants and encompassing injunctive relief regarding sulfur dioxide emissions across Mosaic’s Florida sulfuric acid plant fleet. With the closure of Plant City fertilizer operations, there is no longer a need to reach resolution with the government on injunctive relief (i.e., reduction of sulfur dioxide emissions) at that facility. Furthermore, the DOJ has determined that there is no basis for proceeding with a settlement, as EPA and the Department have not currently alleged any violations of the Clean Air Act PSD permitting requirements at any other of Mosaic’s Florida sulfuric acid plants. On July 24, 2020, the DOJ filed a complaint against CF and stipulation of settlement, including a $550,000 civil penalty, concluding enforcement against CF related to the CF NOV.
We cannot predict at this time whether EPA and DOJ will initiate an enforcement action in the future with respect to “New Source Review” compliance at our Florida sulfuric acid plants or what its scope would be, or what the range of outcomes might be with respect to such a potential enforcement action.
Uncle Sam Gypstack. In January 2019, we observed lateral movement of the north slope of the active phosphogypsum stack at the Uncle Sam facility in Louisiana, designated Stack 4. The observation was reported to the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality and the U.S. EPA. We continue to provide updates to the agencies on the movement, which has slowed following actions we have taken, which include reducing process water volume stored atop the stack to reduce the active load causing the movement; constructing a stability berm at the base of the slope to increase resistance; and removing gypsum from the north side to the south side. These steps have improved slope stability, reduced slope movement and reduced our capacity to store process water. There has been no loss of containment resulting from the movement observed, and none is expected. Although continued lateral movement on the north slope could have a material effect on our future operations at that facility, we cannot predict the prospective impact on our results of operations at this time.
Other Environmental Matters. Superfund and equivalent state statutes impose liability without regard to fault or to the legality of a party’s conduct on certain categories of persons who are considered to have contributed to the release of “hazardous substances” into the environment. Under Superfund, or its various state analogues, one party may, under certain circumstances, be required to bear more than its proportionate share of cleanup costs at a site where it has liability if payments cannot be obtained from other responsible parties. Currently, certain of our subsidiaries are involved or concluding involvement at several Superfund or equivalent state sites. Our remedial liability from these sites, alone or in the aggregate,
F-79

Table of Content
currently is not expected to have a material effect on our business or financial condition. As more information is obtained regarding these sites and the potentially responsible parties involved, this expectation could change.
We believe that, pursuant to several indemnification agreements, our subsidiaries are entitled to at least partial, and in many instances complete, indemnification for the costs that may be expended by us or our subsidiaries to remedy environmental issues at certain facilities. These agreements address issues that resulted from activities occurring prior to our acquisition of facilities or businesses from parties including, but not limited to, ARCO (BP); Beatrice Fund for Environmental Liabilities; Conoco; Conserv; Estech, Inc.; Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation; Kerr-McGee Inc.; PPG Industries, Inc.; The Williams Companies; CF; and certain other private parties. Our subsidiaries have already received and anticipate receiving amounts pursuant to the indemnification agreements for certain of their expenses incurred to date as well as future anticipated expenditures. We record potential indemnifications as an offset to the established accruals when they are realizable or realized. The failure of an indemnitor to fulfill its obligations could result in future costs that could be material.
Louisiana Parishes Coastal Zone Cases
Several Louisiana parishes and the City of New Orleans have filed lawsuits against hundreds of oil and gas companies seeking regulatory, restoration and compensatory damages in connection with historical oil, gas and sulfur mining and transportation operations in the coastal zone of Louisiana. Mosaic is the corporate successor to certain companies which performed these types of operations in the coastal zone of Louisiana. Mosaic has been named in two of the lawsuits filed to date. In addition, in several other cases, historical oil, gas and sulfur operations which may have been related to Mosaic’s corporate predecessors have been identified in the complaints. Based upon information known to date, Mosaic has contractual indemnification rights against third parties for any loss or liability arising out of these claims pursuant to indemnification agreements entered into by Mosaic’s corporate predecessor(s) with third parties. There may also be insurance contracts which may respond to some or all of the claims. However, the financial ability of the third-party indemnitors, the extent of potential insurance coverage and the extent of potential liability from these claims is currently unknown.
In September 2019, counsel for several of the parishes announced that an agreement had been reached to settle the claims against Mosaic and its corporate predecessors, subject to approval by the participating parishes and the State of Louisiana. In connection with that settlement agreement, the proposed settlement payment obligations would be paid by third-party indemnitors.
North America Phosphate Operations
Denial of the permits sought at any of our mines, issuance of the permits with cost-prohibitive conditions, substantial delays in issuing the permits, legal actions that prevent us from relying on permits or revocation of permits may create challenges for us to mine the phosphate rock required to operate our Florida and Louisiana phosphate plants at desired levels or increase our costs in the future.
Brazil Legal Contingencies
Our Brazilian subsidiaries are engaged in a number of judicial and administrative proceedings regarding labor, environmental, mining and civil claims that allege aggregate damages and/or fines of approximately $706.2 million. We estimate that our probable aggregate loss with respect to these claims is approximately $56.7 million, which is included in our accrued liabilities in our Consolidated Balance Sheets at December 31, 2021.
Approximately $548.3 million of the maximum potential loss relates to labor claims, such as in-house and third-party employees’ judicial proceedings alleging the right to receive overtime pay, additional payment due to work in hazardous conditions, risk premium, profit sharing, additional payment due to night work, salary parity and wage differences. We estimate that our probable aggregate loss regarding these claims is approximately $49.5 million, which is included in accrued liabilities in our Consolidated Balance Sheets at December 31, 2021.
Based on Brazil legislation and the current status of similar labor cases involving unrelated companies, we believe we have recorded adequate loss contingency reserves sufficient to cover our estimate of probable losses. If the status of similar cases involving unrelated companies were to adversely change in the future, our maximum exposure could increase and additional accruals could be required.
The environmental judicial and administrative proceedings claims allege aggregate damages and/or fines of approximately $19.0 million; however, we estimate that our probable aggregate loss regarding these claims is approximately $4.9 million, which has been accrued at December 31, 2021.
F-80

Table of Content
Our Brazilian subsidiaries also have certain other civil contingent liabilities with respect to judicial, administrative and arbitration proceedings and claims related to contract disputes, pension plan matters, real state disputes, regulatory issues and other civil matters arising in the ordinary course of business. These claims allege aggregate damages of approximately $138.8 million. We estimate that the probable aggregate loss with respect to these matters is approximately $2.3 million.
Uberaba Judicial Settlement
In 2013, the Federal Public Prosecutor filed a public civil action requesting that the Company adopt several measures to mitigate soil and water contamination related to the Gypstack at our Uberaba facility, located in the State of Minas Gerais, including compensation for the alleged social and environmental damages. In 2014, our predecessor subsidiary in Brazil entered into a judicial settlement with the Federal Public Prosecutor, the State of Minas Gerais public prosecutor and the federal environmental agency. Under this agreement, we agreed to implement remediation measures such as: constructing a liner under the Gypstack water ponds and lagoons, and monitoring the groundwater and soil quality. We also agreed to create a private reserve of natural heritage and to pay compensation in the amount of approximately $0.3 million, which was paid in July 2018. We are currently acting in compliance with our obligations under the judicial settlement and expect them to be completed by December 31, 2025.
Brazil Tax Contingencies
Our Brazilian subsidiaries are engaged in a number of judicial and administrative proceedings relating to various non-income tax matters. We estimate that our maximum potential liability with respect to these matters is approximately $380.0 million, of which $182.7 million is subject to an indemnification agreement entered into with Vale S.A in connection with the Acquisition.
Approximately $236.8 million of the maximum potential liability relates to a Brazilian federal value added tax, PIS and COFINS, and tax credit cases, while the majority of the remaining amount relates to various other non-income tax cases. The maximum potential liability can increase with new audits. Based on Brazil legislation and the current status of similar tax cases involving unrelated taxpayers, we believe we have recorded adequate loss contingency reserves sufficient to cover our estimate of probable losses, which are immaterial. If the status of similar tax cases involving unrelated taxpayer changes in the future, additional accruals could be required.
Other Claims
We also have certain other contingent liabilities with respect to judicial, administrative and arbitration proceedings and claims of third parties, including tax matters, arising in the ordinary course of business. We do not believe that any of these contingent liabilities will have a material adverse impact on our business or financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows.
23. RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS
We enter into transactions and agreements with certain of our non-consolidated companies and other related parties from time to time. As of December 31, 2021 and December 31, 2020, the net amount due from our non-consolidated companies totaled $63.0 million and $55.9 million, respectively. These amounts include a long-term indemnification asset of approximately $21.0 million from Vale S.A. for reimbursement of pension plan obligations.
The Consolidated Statements of Earnings included the following transactions with our non-consolidated companies:
 Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)202120202019
Transactions with non-consolidated companies included in net sales$1,120.9 $819.6 $969.5 
Transactions with non-consolidated companies included in cost of goods sold$1,483.8 $950.1 $1,057.7 
As part of the MWSPC joint venture, we market approximately 25% of the MWSPC production, for which approximately $12.2 million, $8.5 million and $8.3 million is included in revenue for the years ended December 31, 2021, 2020 and 2019, respectively.
In November 2015, we agreed to provide funds to finance the purchase and construction of two articulated tug and barge units, intended to transport anhydrous ammonia for our operations, through a bridge loan agreement with Gulf Marine Solutions, LLC (“GMS”). GMS is a wholly owned subsidiary of Gulf Sulphur Services Ltd., LLLP (“Gulf Sulphur
F-81

Table of Content
Services”), an entity in which we and a joint venture partner, Savage Companies (“Savage”), each indirectly own a 50% equity interest and for which a subsidiary of Savage provides operating and management services. GMS provided these funds through draws on the Mosaic bridge loan and through additional loans from Gulf Sulphur Services. We are the primary beneficiary of GMS, a variable interest entity, and consolidate GMS’s operations in our Phosphates segment.
On October 24, 2017, a lease financing transaction was completed with respect to the completed tug and barge unit, and, following the application of proceeds from the transaction, all outstanding loans made by Gulf Sulphur Services to GMS, together with accrued interest, were repaid, and the bridge loans related to the first unit’s construction were repaid. As of December 31, 2021 and December 31, 2020, there were outstanding bridge loans of $74.7 million relating to the cancelled second barge and the remaining tug, which bridge loans are eliminated in consolidation. Reserves against the bridge loans of approximately $54.2 million were established in 2018 and remain unchanged. The construction of the remaining tug, funded by the bridge loan advances in excess of the reserves, is recorded within construction in-progress within our consolidated balance sheet. Several subsidiaries of Savage operate vessels utilized by Mosaic under time charter arrangements, including the ammonia tug and barge unit.
24. BUSINESS SEGMENTS
The reportable segments are determined by management based upon factors such as products and services, production processes, technologies, market dynamics, and for which segment financial information is available for our chief operating decision maker.
For a description of our business segments see Note 1 of our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements. We evaluate performance based on the operating earnings of the respective business segments, which includes certain allocations of corporate selling, general and administrative expenses. The segment results may not represent the actual results that would be expected if they were independent, stand-alone businesses. Intersegment eliminations, including profit on intersegment sales, mark-to-market gains/losses on derivatives, debt expenses, Streamsong Resort® results of operations and the results of the China and India distribution business are included within Corporate, Eliminations and Other. As of January 1, 2019, certain selling, general and administrative costs that are not controllable by the business segments are no longer allocated to segments and are included within Corporate, Eliminations and Other.
F-82

Table of Content
Segment information for the years 2021, 2020 and 2019 is as follows:
(in millions)PhosphatesPotashMosaic FertilizantesCorporate,
Eliminations
and Other (a)
Total
Year Ended December 31, 2021
Net sales to external customers$3,889.7 $2,587.9 $5,088.5 $791.3 $12,357.4 
Intersegment net sales1,033.2 38.9 — (1,072.1)— 
Net sales4,922.9 2,626.8 5,088.5 (280.8)12,357.4 
Gross margin1,305.4 1,057.5 842.7 (5.3)3,200.3 
Canadian resource taxes— 259.5 — — 259.5 
Gross margin (excluding Canadian resource taxes)1,305.4 1,317.0 842.7 (5.3)3,459.8 
Impairment, restructuring and other expenses— 158.1 — — 158.1 
Operating earnings 1,179.8 836.6 745.9 (293.8)2,468.5 
Capital expenditures649.9 410.1 216.1 12.5 1,288.6 
Depreciation, depletion and amortization expense428.7 267.8 101.2 15.2 812.9 
Equity in net earnings of nonconsolidated companies5.4 — — 2.4 7.8 
Year Ended December 31, 2020
Net sales to external customers$2,543.5 $1,988.6 $3,481.6 $668.0 $8,681.7 
Intersegment net sales572.9 30.7 — (603.6)— 
Net sales3,116.4 2,019.3 3,481.6 64.4 8,681.7 
Gross margin125.5 468.3 419.6 51.5 1,064.9 
Canadian resource taxes— 146.1 — — 146.1 
Gross margin (excluding Canadian resource taxes)125.5 614.4 419.6 51.5 1,211.0 
Operating earnings (147.1)401.5 346.5 (188.0)412.9 
Capital expenditures538.1 478.2 144.9 9.4 1,170.6 
Depreciation, depletion and amortization expense443.4 282.4 105.7 16.1 847.6 
Equity in net (loss) earnings of nonconsolidated companies(94.1)— — 0.3 (93.8)
Year Ended December 31, 2019
Net sales to external customers$2,416.6 $2,081.7 $3,782.8 $625.2 $8,906.3 
Intersegment net sales824.7 32.1 — (856.8)— 
Net sales3,241.3 2,113.8 3,782.8 (231.6)8,906.3 
Gross margin(82.3)616.8 290.1 72.7 897.3 
Canadian resource taxes— 174.6 — — 174.6 
Gross margin (excluding Canadian resource taxes)(82.3)791.4 290.1 72.7 1,071.9 
Impairment, restructuring and other expenses931.6 530.5 — — 1,462.1 
Operating earnings(1,131.1)45.8 132.5 (142.1)(1,094.9)
Capital expenditures545.2 540.1 182.3 4.6 1,272.2 
Depreciation, depletion and amortization expense430.1 296.3 135.8 20.5 882.7 
Equity in net (loss) earnings of nonconsolidated companies(60.1)— — 0.7 (59.4)
Total assets as of December 31, 2021$8,776.4 $8,312.8 $4,908.2 $39.0 $22,036.4 
Total assets as of December 31, 20207,022.1 7,614.8 4,127.7 1,025.2 19,789.8 
Total assets as of December 31, 2019 (b)
7,183.5 7,219.2 3,974.9 920.9 19,298.5 
______________________________
(a)The “Corporate, Eliminations and Other” category includes the results of our ancillary distribution operations in India and China. For the years ended December 31, 2021, 2020 and 2019, distribution operations in India and China had revenues of $730.1 million, $639.4 million, and $575.6 million, respectively and gross margins of $141.6 million, $58.7 million, and $27.3 million, respectively.
(b)In 2019, we recorded an impairment of goodwill in Phosphates of $588.6 million, which reduced the total asset balance.
F-83

Table of Content
Financial information relating to our operations by geographic area is as follows:
Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)202120202019
Net sales(a):
Brazil$5,002.2 $3,377.1 $3,675.1 
Canpotex(b)
1,089.6 795.2 952.5 
Canada794.9 547.5 602.0 
China396.0 334.2 225.3 
India340.3 318.4 347.1 
Colombia135.1 93.4 82.8 
Paraguay113.8 94.3 102.9 
Japan112.4 58.8 33.0 
Argentina101.3 121.0 116.3 
Mexico93.6 77.1 117.8 
Australia64.8 85.1 91.3 
Peru40.0 62.0 89.3 
Dominican Republic29.8 17.1 17.3 
Honduras22.3 31.0 11.7 
Thailand18.1 21.2 24.8 
Other73.9 75.0 84.3 
Total international countries8,428.1 6,108.4 6,573.5 
United States3,929.3 2,573.3 2,332.8 
Consolidated$12,357.4 $8,681.7 $8,906.3 
______________________________
(a)Revenues are attributed to countries based on location of customer.
(b)Canpotex is the export association of two Saskatchewan potash producers. The net sales of potash from Mosaic to Canpotex included in our consolidated financial statements in the Net Sales line represent Mosaic’s sales of potash to Canpotex, and are recognized upon delivery to the unrelated third-party customer. Canpotex sales to the ultimate third-party customers are approximately: 30% to customers based in Brazil, 14% to customers based in Indonesia, 11% to customers based in China, 6% to customers based in India, and 39% to customers based in the rest of the world.
December 31,
(in millions)20212020
Long-lived assets:
Canada$5,012.2 $4,998.5 
Brazil2,011.0 1,904.1 
Other1,285.0 1,324.8 
Total international countries8,308.2 8,227.4 
United States6,233.6 5,688.8 
Consolidated$14,541.8 $13,916.2 
Excluded from the table above as of December 31, 2021 and 2020, are goodwill of $1,172.2 million and $1,173.0 million and deferred income taxes of $997.1 million and $1,179.4 million, respectively.
F-84

Table of Content
Net sales by product type for the years 2021, 2020 and 2019 are as follows:
Years Ended December 31,
(in millions)202120202019
Sales by product type:
Phosphate Crop Nutrients$3,552.7 $2,477.0 $2,541.3 
Potash Crop Nutrients3,367.9 2,566.7 2,716.8 
Crop Nutrient Blends1,800.0 1,232.7 1,415.7 
Performance Products(a)
1,973.6 1,370.8 1,193.6 
Phosphate Rock75.5 42.0 53.6 
Other(b)
1,587.7 992.5 985.3 
$12,357.4 $8,681.7 $8,906.3 
______________________________
(a)Includes sales of MicroEssentials®, K-Mag®, Aspire® and Sus-Terra™
(b)Includes sales of industrial potash, feed products, nitrogen and other products.
F-85

Table of Content
25. MINE CLOSURE COSTS
Due to increased brine inflows, on June 4, 2021, the Company made the decision to accelerate the timing of the shutdown of our K1 and K2 mine shafts at our Esterhazy, Saskatchewan potash mine. Closing the K1 and K2 shafts are key pieces of the transition to the K3 shaft, but the timeline for the closure was accelerated by approximately nine months. In 2021, we had pre-tax costs of $158.1 million related to the permanent closure of these facilities. These costs consisted of $109.9 million related to the write-off of fixed assets, $37.1 million related to AROs, and $11.1 million related to inventory and other reserves. In the third quarter of 2021, we resumed production at our previously idled Colonsay potash mine to offset a portion of the production lost by the early closure of the K1 and K2 shafts at Esterhazy.
On January 28, 2020, we announced that we intend to keep our Colonsay, Saskatchewan potash mine idled for the foreseeable future. The mine was placed in care and maintenance mode, employing minimal staff and allowing for resumption of operations when needed to meet customers’ needs. For the year ended December 31, 2019, we recorded pre-tax costs of approximately $529.7 million in impairment, restructuring and other expenses in our Consolidated Statement of Earnings (Loss), related to this idling. These costs consisted of approximately $493 million related to the write-off of fixed assets, $27 million related to severance and other employee costs, and $10 million related to the write-off of maintenance, repair, and operating inventories. The write-off is principally the carrying value of the 2013 expansion project, which increased Colonsay’s operating capacity to 2.1 million tonnes. Colonsay had been operating with a modified 1.5 million tonnes capacity since 2016.
On June 18, 2019, we announced the permanent closure of the Plant City Facility. We temporarily idled the Plant City Facility in the fourth quarter of 2017, as it was one of our higher cost phosphate facilities. For the year ended December 31, 2019, we recognized pre-tax costs of $341.3 million in impairment, restructuring and other expenses in our Consolidated Statement of Earnings (Loss), related to the permanent closure of this facility. These costs consisted of approximately $210 million related to the write-off of fixed assets, $110 million related to asset retirement obligations and $21 million related to inventory and other reserves.
26. SUBSEQUENT EVENTS
Subsequent to December 31, 2021, our Board of Directors approved an accelerated share repurchase ("ASR") of $400 million which is expected to be initiated in February 2022. This ASR will exhaust most of the remaining share repurchase authorization established in the 2021 Repurchase Program. Following the completion of the current authorization, our Board of Directors also approved the establishment of a new $1.0 billion share repurchase authorization, which will go into effect following completion of this ASR. The Board of Directors has also approved a regular dividend increase to $0.60 per share annually from $0.45, beginning with the second quarter 2022 payment.
F-86

Table of Content
Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
The Company’s management is responsible for establishing and maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting, as defined in Rule 13a-15(f) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Company’s internal control system is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance to our management, Board of Directors and stockholders regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation and fair presentation of our consolidated financial statements for external reporting purposes in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (U.S. GAAP), and includes those policies and procedures that:
Pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of our assets;
Provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in conformity with U.S. GAAP, and that receipts and expenditures are being made only in accordance with authorizations from our management and Board of Directors; and
Provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use or disposition of our assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.
Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.
Management assessed the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2021. In assessing the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2021 management used the control criteria framework of the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations (COSO) of the Treadway Commission published in its report entitled Internal Control—Integrated Framework (2013). Based on their evaluation, management concluded that the Company’s internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2021. KPMG LLP, the independent registered public accounting firm that audited the financial statements included in this annual report, has issued an auditors’ report on the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2021.
F-87

Exhibit 10.iii.b
DESCRIPTION OF MOSAIC MANAGEMENT INCENTIVE PROGRAM
Pursuant to the Management Incentive Plan (“MIP”) of The Mosaic Company (the “Company”), key managers of the Company and its subsidiaries, including executive officers, are eligible for annual cash incentive compensation based upon the level of attainment of business performance goals that are pre-established by the Board of Directors of the Company, upon the recommendation of the Compensation Committee.
The incentive measures and their respective weightings for executive officers for 2020 are described below:
Incentive ROIC, before specified items. Incentive ROIC is based in part on consolidated operating earnings before specified items. This measure has a weighting of 20% for executive officers.
Free Cash Flow: this measure is based on consolidated net cash provided by operating activities before specified items and has a 30% weighting for executive officers.
Incentive Controllable Operating Costs Per Tonne: this measure is based on controllable operating costs per tonne of products produced by the Company’s Phosphates, Potash and Mosaic Fertilizantes business segments. This measure has a 30% weighting for executive officers, as defined in the program.
Safety & Sustainability - Risk Reduction: the safety and sustainability measure is based on the effectiveness of the Company’s Environmental, Health and Safety management system for the Phosphates and Potash business units, and has a weighting of 10% for executive officers.
Premium Product Sales: this measure is based on metric tonnes of premium products for which the Company recognizes revenue, on a consolidated basis. This measure has a weighting of 10% for executive officers.

Threshold, target and maximum payout levels are set by the Compensation Committee based upon the extent to which the specified performance goals are attained.




NON-COMPETITION,
NON-SOLICITATION, NON-DEFAMATION AND CONFIDENTIALITY
AGREEMENT

    THIS NON-COMPETITION, NON-SOLICITATION, NON-DEFAMATION AND CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”) made and entered into this ____ day of ________, 202__, by and between the Mosaic Company or any entity with which it is or hereafter may become affiliated or any successor in interest to the Mosaic Company (referred to as “Company”) and ____________ (hereinafter referred to as “Employee”).

WITNESSETH

    WHEREAS, Company and Employee acknowledge that Company has a substantial and legitimate business interest in, among other things, its confidential business information, trade secrets, customer goodwill, customer and vendor lists, pricing, methods of business operation, methods and techniques, and substantial relationships with specific prospective and existing customers;

WHEREAS, Company and Employee recognize and acknowledge that in the performance of these services, and in the performance of this Agreement, Employee will acquire certain trade secrets, confidential information, sensitive business information, personnel and information system information, marketing data, business expertise, and information concerning customer and vendor relationships of Company. Employee further acknowledges that the foregoing information is a legitimate, valuable and basic business property right of Company, and that the same is information and knowledge not generally known in the public domain, or part of the skills which Employee will acquire during his/her employment with Company;

    WHEREAS, Company desires to be able to impart said confidential information and trade secrets to Employee with the secure knowledge that such confidential information and trade secrets will be solely and strictly used for its sole benefit and not to the detriment of Company, directly or indirectly, by Employee, or any of his/her agents, servants, future Employees or future employers;

    NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, Employee’s employment or continued employment, and of the mutual covenants and restrictions contained herein, and other valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, each of the parties, their respective personal representatives, heirs, successors and assigns, intending to be legally bound hereby agree as follows:    

    1.    EMPLOYMENT AND ACCESS TO COMPANY INFORMATION. In consideration for entering into this Agreement, Company agrees to employ or continue to employ Employee for an unspecified period of time. During the course of Employee’s employment, Employee may have access to Company’s trade secrets, confidential information, sensitive business information, personnel and information system information, marketing data, business expertise, and information concerning customer and vendor relationships, all of which are necessary to Employee’s ability to perform Employee’s work obligations for Company. Unless otherwise specified in a separate agreement, nothing contained herein shall in any way alter the employment-at-will nature of Employee’s employment. Employee and Company retain the right to terminate the employment relationship at any time for any reason or no reason, with or without cause. Except as outlined in the Senior Management Severance and Change in Control Agreement, Company retains the sole and complete discretion to alter any term or condition of employment, including but not limited to Employee’s responsibilities, position, compensation, and Company’s method of determining Employee’s compensation, and doing so is no defense to enforcement of this Agreement.



    2.    NONCOMPETITION COVENANT. For purposes of this paragraph, the term “Restricted Area” shall mean Florida, Minnesota, New Mexico, Illinois, Saskatchewan, Canada, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, and Peru, as well as any other states or countries where Company currently has or may hereafter expand its operations. Activities that are competitive to Company include, but are not limited to, any business or activity involved in the design, development, manufacture, sale, marketing, production, distribution, or servicing of phosphate, potash, nitrogen, fertilizer, or crop nutrition products, or any other significant business in which Company is engaged or preparing to engage as of the date of Employee’s termination.
Employee agrees that, during his/her employment with Company and for a period of Eighteen (18) months after termination of said employment, whether voluntary or involuntary, with or without cause, Employee will not within the Restricted Area:
(a) prepare to engage and/or engage in any activities competitive to Company, whether as an owner, agent, executive, consultant, employee, associate, contractor, or in any other capacity;
(b) provide or offer to provide products or services competitive to those offered by Company; and/or
(c) compete directly or indirectly with Company for the business of Company’s existing, prospective or former customers,1 including, without limitation, assisting any other individual or entity, of whatever type or description, in providing any such competing products or services;
(d) provide advice to, consult with, or provide any services whatsoever to any individual or business that in any way competes, or is preparing to compete with Company.
3.    NONSOLICITATION/NONACCEPTANCE COVENANT. Employee agrees that during his/her employment with Company and for a period of eighteen (18) months after termination of said employment, whether voluntary or involuntary, with or without cause, Employee will not, directly or indirectly:

(a) solicit or counsel any existing, prospective or former customer, business partner, or employee of Company, regardless of such person's or entity's location, to terminate any business relationship with Company and/or commence a similar business relationship with any other individual or entity; and/or

(b) accept or service, with or without solicitation, any business from any existing, prospective or former customer, business partner, or employee of Company, regardless of such person's or entity's location.

    4.    NONSOLICITATION OF EMPLOYEES COVENANT. Employee agrees that during his/her employment with Company and for a period of eighteen (18) months after termination of said employment, whether voluntary or involuntary, with or without cause, Employee will not: (i) solicit any of Company’s executives, employees, agents or independent contractors to terminate any business relationship with Company; (ii) on behalf of any other individual or entity, encourage or hire (or assist anyone else to hire) any of Company’s executives, agents, employees or independent contractors; and/or (iii) provide to any other individual or entity the identity of any of Company’s executives, agents, employees or independent contractors that Employee considers important, valuable, and/or critical to Company’s business.

1 For purposes of this Agreement, existing, prospective or former customers of Company shall mean any and all customers or prospective customers of Company to or with whom Company or Executive provide(d) services, offer(ed) to provide services, had substantial contact during the last two (2) years of Executive’s relationship with Company, or about which Executive learned Confidential Information as that term is defined in paragraph 5 hereof.
2



    5.    CONFIDENTIALITY COVENANT. Employee recognizes and acknowledges that during the course of employment with Company, Employee has had or will have access to trade secret and confidential information related to the Company’s business that Employee agrees to keep confidential at all times. Such confidential information includes, but is not limited to, any and all documents received or generated by Company or its executives or employees; customer lists, customer records, technical data, internal financial data, customer financial information, information regarding sales, costs, pricing, profits, operation techniques and procedures, service developments or improvements, processes, business and strategic plans, financial forecasts, sales and earnings information and trends, overhead and other costs, accounting information, banking and financing information, product and merchandising information, information concerning offered or proposed products or services, bids, products or services specifications, data, drawings, performance characteristics, features, capabilities and plans, vendor contracts, acquisition targets, development and delivery schedules, customer and supplier contact information, customer preference data, purchasing habits, sales history, computer hardware and software, research and development objectives, information belonging to or provided in confidence by any individual, customer, supplier, trading partner, as well as any other information to which Employee had access solely by reason of Employee’s employment with the Company, and any other information that derives economic value from being confidential to or trade secrets of Company (hereinafter “Confidential Information”). With respect to this Confidential Information, Employee agrees as follows:

a.    Employee will not, during or after the term of employment: (i) publish, disclose, or make accessible any Confidential Information or any part thereof, to any person, firm, corporation, or association or other entity for any reason whatsoever; or (ii) use or generate benefit from such information, except during employment with Company and for the benefit of Company, without prior written permission of the highest ranking executive officer of Company.

b.    Prior to the termination of Employee’s employment with Company, Employee shall return to Company all Confidential Information in Employee’s possession, regardless of whether Employee has such information in hard copy or electronic form, including but not limited to, any papers, lists, books, files, computer diskettes, USB storage devices, other portable storage devices, DVDs, CDs, laptops, tablets, mobile phones, cloud or internet based storage, or any other location that may contain Company’s Confidential Information.

c.    Employee acknowledges and agrees that disclosure of Confidential Information by Employee would cause irreparable harm to Company. In the event there is a breach or a threatened breach by Employee of the provisions of this paragraph, Company shall be entitled to an injunction restraining Employee from disclosing in whole or in part such information, generating a benefit from such information, or rendering a service to any person, firm, corporation, association, or other entity, to whom such information has been disclosed. Nothing herein shall be construed as prohibiting Company from pursuing such other remedies as may be available to it for such breach or threatened breach, including recovery of damages from Employee.

Employee further agrees that upon a violation of Sections 2, 3, 4 or 5 of this Agreement, the period during which the covenants herein apply will be extended by the number of days equal to the period of such violation.

6.    REMEDIES FOR BREACH OF COVENANTS. Company and Employee acknowledge that the remedies at law for any breach of the covenants herein shall be inadequate and that Company shall be entitled to injunctive relief without notice to Employee. Such injunctive relief shall not be exclusive, but shall be in addition to any other rights or remedies Company or its successors may have for such breach.

3



7.    WORKS MADE BY INDIVIDUAL. Any written materials or works Employee has created or will create during Employee’s work for Company which relate in any way to actual or potential business of Company, its customers and/or business units, shall be considered Company property. Employee assigns Employee’s right, title and interest in any such proprietary ideas based on Company property to Company. This Agreement does not apply to works that are or have been developed entirely by Employee on Employee’s own time without use of Company’s facilities, supplies, equipment, information or trade secrets, and that do not relate to Company or its business.

    8.    INVALID PROVISION. In the event any provision of this Agreement should be or become invalid or unenforceable, such facts shall not affect the validity and enforceability of any other provision of this Agreement. Similarly, if the scope of any restriction or covenant contained herein should be or become too broad or extensive to permit enforcement thereof to its full extent, then any such restriction or covenant shall be enforced to the maximum extent permitted by law, and Employee hereby consents and agrees that the scope of any such restriction or covenant may be modified accordingly in any judicial proceeding brought to enforce such restriction or covenant.

9. NON-DISPARAGEMENT.     Employee agrees not to make any statements, verbally or in writing, that disparage or subvert, the Company or any of its affiliated entities, or its or their products, services, finances, operations, or any aspect of the respective businesses, or current or former officers, executives, directors, shareholders, Executives, managers or agents. Employee further agrees not to engage in, or induce or encourage others to engage in, any conduct injurious to the reputation or interest of Company or its affiliated entities. Nothing herein shall prevent Employee from providing truthful testimony under oath or to a government agency or as otherwise required by law or from acting in compliance with applicable whistleblower laws. Employee’s obligations in this Section extend beyond the date of termination of employment with Mosaic and shall be binding upon Employee’s heirs, assigns, agents, advisors, and legal representatives.

    10.    CONSTRUCTION. Language in all parts of this Agreement shall be construed as a whole according to its fair meaning. The parties agree that this Agreement is the product of joint authorship, and in the event of any ambiguity, the Agreement shall not be construed against any party.

    11.    APPLICABLE LAW AND VENUE. This Agreement shall be interpreted under and governed by the laws of the State of Florida. The parties waive all objections to personal jurisdiction as not being residents of Florida. The parties hereto agree that the exclusive venue for any disputes arising out of or related in any way to this Agreement shall be either the state courts in Hillsborough County, Florida or the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division.

    12.    AMENDMENTS OR MODIFICATIONS.     No amendments or modifications to this Agreement shall be binding on any of the parties unless such amendment or modification is in writing and executed by all of the parties to this Agreement. No term, provision or clause of this Agreement shall be deemed waived and no breach excused unless such waiver or consent shall be in writing and executed by the highest ranking executive officer of Company.

    13.    SUCCESSORS, ASSIGNS AND INTENDED THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of Company’s successors and assigns, parents, subsidiaries, and affiliated companies and be enforceable by Company’s successors and assigns, parents, subsidiaries and affiliated companies without the need for any additional action by Employee. Employee hereby expressly agrees to the assignment of this Agreement as well as its restrictive covenants to a successor of Company and agrees that such successor may enforce this Agreement and its restrictive covenants against Employee. Employee expressly understands and agrees that Company has many related/affiliated entities, including subsidiaries, and that any or all of said related/affiliated entities,
4



including subsidiaries, are intended third party beneficiaries of this Agreement and may enforce any or all of the terms of this Agreement against Employee.

    14.    SURVIVING PROVISIONS. All of the provisions of this Agreement, including but not limited to the restrictions and remedies survive the termination of Employee’s employment, irrespective of the grounds or reasons for such termination, including termination by Company for any reason, or no reason at all.

15.    REASONABLENESS. Employee acknowledges that Employee’s employment and the restrictions hereby imposed are fair and reasonable and are reasonably required for the protection of Company. Employee has voluntarily and knowingly entered into this Agreement and agrees that this Agreement will not prevent Employee from finding suitable employment should Employee’s employment terminate.

16.    DISCLOSURE OF AGREEMENT. Employee shall, and Company may, disclose this Agreement and its terms to any future or prospective employer of Employee and to any customer or business partner, or prospective customer or business partner of Company.

17.    WAIVER OF JURY TRIAL. Employee and Company hereby knowingly, voluntarily and intentionally waive any right either may have to a trial by jury with respect to any litigation related to or arising out of, under or in conjunction with this Agreement.

18.    SEVERABLE AND INDEPENDENT PROVISIONS. Company and Employee acknowledge that the obligations in this Agreement shall be severable and independent from any other provisions of Employee’s employment relationship with Company, and the existence of any claim or cause of action that Employee may have against Company will not constitute a defense to the enforcement of this Agreement by Company.

19.    NO VIOLATION OF PRIOR AGREEMENTS. Employee represents and warrants that neither the exercise of Employee’s duties as an Employee of Company, Employee’s execution of this Agreement nor Employee’s performance hereunder will constitute a violation of any existing restrictive covenants given to any former employer or other third party.

20.    ACKNOWLEDGEMENT. Employee acknowledges having read this Agreement in full and completely understands all of its terms and obligations and enters into this Agreement freely and voluntarily.


[The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.]
5



IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the date set forth above.

The Mosaic Company
By:
Mark J. Isaacson
Its:Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary
Date:
Employee
(Print Name)
(Signature)
Date:


6


Exhibit 21
Subsidiary Information for The Mosaic Company
Certain subsidiaries of the Mosaic Company are listed below. Unnamed subsidiaries, considered in the aggregate as a single subsidiary, would not constitute a “significant subsidiary” as defined in Regulation S-X promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission.
 
Subsidiary Name  
Jurisdiction of Incorporation
Mosaic Global Holdings Inc.  Delaware
Mosaic USA Holdings Inc.  Delaware
The Vigoro Corporation  Delaware
Mosaic Crop Nutrition, LLC  Delaware
Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC  Delaware
Mosaic Potash Esterhazy Limited Partnership  Saskatchewan
Mosaic Esterhazy B.V .  Netherlands
Mosaic Global Netherlands B.V.  Netherlands
Mosaic Global Dutch Holdings B.V.  Netherlands
Mosaic Esterhazy Holdings ULC  Alberta
Mosaic Canada ULC  Nova Scotia
Mosaic Potash B.V.Netherlands
Mosaic Global Sales, LLCDelaware
Mosaic Fertilizantes P&K LtdaBrazil
Mosaic Fertilizantes do Brasil LtdaBrazil
Phosphate Acquisition Partners L.P. Delaware
Mosaic Brazil Fertilizantes B.V.Netherlands
PRP-GP LLC Delaware
Mosaic Potash Carlsbad Inc Delaware
Mosaic Canada Crop Nutrition, LPManitoba
Compañia Minera Miski Mayo S.R.L.Peru
MVM Resources International B.V.Netherlands
Mosaic Global Operations Inc.Delaware
Mosaic Phosphates B.V.Netherlands
Bayovar HoldingsLuxembourg
South Ft. Meade Land Management, Inc. Delaware
Mosaic Potash Colonsay ULCNova Scotia
Tampa Port Services, LLCDelaware
Mosaic Fertilizantes Netherlands C.V.Netherlands



Exhibit 23
Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors
The Mosaic Company:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No. 333-175087, 333-177251, 333-216133 and 333-260777) on Form S-3 and registration statements (Nos. 333-120501, 333-120503, 333-120878, 333-142268, and 333-198332) on Form S-8 of The Mosaic Company of our reports dated February 23, 2022, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of The Mosaic Company and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting.

/s/ KPMG LLP

Tampa, Florida
February 23, 2022


Brian D. Ball, Professional Engineer The Mosaic Company 101 East Kennedy BLVD, Suite 2500 Tampa FL 33602 CONSENT OF QUALIFIED PERSON I, Brian D. Ball, state that I am responsible for preparing or supervising the preparation of part(s) of the technical report summary titled Florida Phosphate Mining Technical Report Summary with an effective date of December 31, 2021, as signed and certified by me (the “Technical Report Summary”). Furthermore, I state that: (a) I consent to the public filing of the Technical Report Summary by The Mosaic Company; (b) the document that the Technical Report Summary supports is the annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021 (the “Document”); (c) I consent to the use of my name, or any quotation from or summarization in the Document of the parts of the Technical Report Summary for which I am responsible, to the filing of the Technical Report Summary as an exhibit to the Document, and to the incorporation of such information into the following registration statements: Nos. 333-260777, 333-175087, 333-177251, and 333- 216133 on Form S-3 and registration statements Nos. 333-120501, 333-120503, 333-120878, 333-142268, and 333-198332 on Form S-8; (d) I confirm that I have read the Document, and that the Document fairly and accurately reflects, in the form and context in which it appears, the information in the Technical Report Summary or in the part(s) thereof for which I am responsible. Dated at Lithia, Florida this _11_ day of February, 2022. __/s/Brian D. Ball Brian D. Ball, Professional Engineer Florida Board of Professional Engineers, License #75165 Exhibit 23.2 Gonglun Chen, Ph.D., Professional Engineer The Mosaic Company 101 East Kennedy BLVD, Suite 2500 Tampa FL 33602 CONSENT OF QUALIFIED PERSON I, Gonglun Chen, state that I am responsible for preparing or supervising the preparation of part(s) of the technical report summary titled Florida Phosphate Mining Technical Report Summary with an effective date of December 31, 2021, as signed and certified by me (the “Technical Report Summary”). Furthermore, I state that: (a) I consent to the public filing of the Technical Report Summary by The Mosaic Company; (b) the document that the Technical Report Summary supports is the annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021 (the “Document”); (c) I consent to the use of my name, or any quotation from or summarization in the Document of the parts of the Technical Report Summary for which I am responsible, to the filing of the Technical Report Summary as an exhibit to the Document, and to the incorporation of such information into the following registration statements: Nos. 333-260777, 333-175087, 333-177251, and 333- 216133 on Form S-3 and registration statements Nos. 333-120501, 333-120503, 333-120878, 333-142268, and 333-198332 on Form S-8; (d) I confirm that I have read the Document, and that the Document fairly and accurately reflects, in the form and context in which it appears, the information in the Technical Report Summary or in the part(s) thereof for which I am responsible. Dated at South Bradley, Florida this __9__ day of February, 2022. __/s/Gonglun Chen Gonglun Chen, Ph.D. Professional Engineer, Florida Mining License #73937 Kevin D. Farmer, Professional Geologist The Mosaic Company 101 East Kennedy BLVD, Suite 2500 Tampa FL 33602 CONSENT OF QUALIFIED PERSON I, Kevin D. Farmer, state that I am responsible for preparing or supervising the preparation of part(s) of the technical report summary titled Florida Phosphate Mining Technical Report Summary with an effective date of December 31, 2021, as signed and certified by me (the “Technical Report Summary”). Furthermore, I state that: (a) I consent to the public filing of the Technical Report Summary by The Mosaic Company; (b) the document that the Technical Report Summary supports is the annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021 (the “Document”); (c) I consent to the use of my name, or any quotation from or summarization in the Document of the parts of the Technical Report Summary for which I am responsible, to the filing of the Technical Report Summary as an exhibit to the Document, and to the incorporation of such information into the following registration statements: Nos. 333-260777, 333-175087, 333-177251, and 333- 216133 on Form S-3 and registration statements Nos. 333-120501, 333-120503, 333-120878, 333-142268, and 333-198332 on Form S-8; (d) I confirm that I have read the Document, and that the Document fairly and accurately reflects, in the form and context in which it appears, the information in the Technical Report Summary or in the part(s) thereof for which I am responsible. Dated at Lithia, Florida this _10_ day of February, 2022. _/s/Kevin D. Farmer Kevin D. Farmer Professional Geologist, State of Florida (PG-2735) Registered Member of the Society for Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration (Member #4207068) Bethany Niec, Professional Engineer The Mosaic Company 101 East Kennedy BLVD, Suite 2500 Tampa FL 33602 CONSENT OF QUALIFIED PERSON I, Bethany Niec, state that I am responsible for preparing or supervising the preparation of part(s) of the technical report summary titled Florida Phosphate Mining Technical Report Summary with an effective date of December 31, 2021, as signed and certified by me (the “Technical Report Summary”). Furthermore, I state that: (a) I consent to the public filing of the Technical Report Summary by The Mosaic Company; (b) the document that the Technical Report Summary supports is the annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021 (the “Document”); (c) I consent to the use of my name, or any quotation from or summarization in the Document of the parts of the Technical Report Summary for which I am responsible, to the filing of the Technical Report Summary as an exhibit to the Document, and to the incorporation of such information into the following registration statements: Nos. 333-260777, 333-175087, 333-177251, and 333- 216133 on Form S-3 and registration statements Nos. 333-120501, 333-120503, 333-120878, 333-142268, and 333-198332 on Form S-8; (d) I confirm that I have read the Document, and that the Document fairly and accurately reflects, in the form and context in which it appears, the information in the Technical Report Summary or in the part(s) thereof for which I am responsible. Dated at Lithia, Florida this _14_ day of February, 2022. __/s/Bethany Niec Bethany Niec Professional Engineer, Florida Board of Professional Engineers, License #68437


 
Tyler Wright, Professional Engineer The Mosaic Company 101 East Kennedy BLVD, Suite 2500 Tampa FL 33602 CONSENT OF QUALIFIED PERSON I, Tyler Wright, state that I am responsible for preparing or supervising the preparation of part(s) of the technical report summary titled Florida Phosphate Mining Technical Report Summary with an effective date of December 31, 2021, as signed and certified by me (the “Technical Report Summary”). Furthermore, I state that: (a) I consent to the public filing of the Technical Report Summary by The Mosaic Company; (b) the document that the Technical Report Summary supports is the annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021 (the “Document”); (c) I consent to the use of my name, or any quotation from or summarization in the Document of the parts of the Technical Report Summary for which I am responsible, to the filing of the Technical Report Summary as an exhibit to the Document, and to the incorporation of such information into the following registration statements: Nos. 333-260777, 333-175087, 333-177251, and 333- 216133 on Form S-3 and registration statements Nos. 333-120501, 333-120503, 333-120878, 333-142268, and 333-198332 on Form S-8; (d) I confirm that I have read the Document, and that the Document fairly and accurately reflects, in the form and context in which it appears, the information in the Technical Report Summary or in the part(s) thereof for which I am responsible. Dated at Fort Meade, Florida this __9__ day of February, 2022. _/s/Tyler Wright Tyler Wright Professional Engineer, State of Florida, License #78507 Scott Wuitschick, Professional Engineer The Mosaic Company 101 East Kennedy BLVD, Suite 2500 Tampa FL 33602 CONSENT OF QUALIFIED PERSON I, Scott Wuitschick, state that I am responsible for preparing or supervising the preparation of part(s) of the technical report summary titled Florida Phosphate Mining Technical Report Summary with an effective date of December 31, 2021, as signed and certified by me (the “Technical Report Summary”). Furthermore, I state that: (a) I consent to the public filing of the Technical Report Summary by The Mosaic Company; (b) the document that the Technical Report Summary supports is the annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021 (the “Document”); (c) I consent to the use of my name, or any quotation from or summarization in the Document of the parts of the Technical Report Summary for which I am responsible, to the filing of the Technical Report Summary as an exhibit to the Document, and to the incorporation of such information into the following registration statements: Nos. 333-260777, 333-175087, 333-177251, and 333- 216133 on Form S-3 and registration statements Nos. 333-120501, 333-120503, 333-120878, 333-142268, and 333-198332 on Form S-8; (d) I confirm that I have read the Document, and that the Document fairly and accurately reflects, in the form and context in which it appears, the information in the Technical Report Summary or in the part(s) thereof for which I am responsible. Dated at Lithia, Florida this __11__ day of February, 2022. __/s/Scott Wuitschick Scott Wuitschick Professional Engineer, State of Florida, License #54648


 
Damian Carmichael, Professional Engineer SNC-Lavalin Inc. 216 1st Avenue South Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada S7K 1K3 CONSENT OF QUALIFIED PERSON I, Damian Carmichael, state that I am responsible for preparing or supervising the preparation of part(s) of the technical report summary titled Belle Plaine Potash Facility Technical Report Summary with an effective date of December 31, 2021, as signed and certified by me (the “Technical Report Summary”). Furthermore, I state that: (a) I consent to the public filing of the Technical Report Summary by The Mosaic Company; (b) the document that the Technical Report Summary supports is the annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021 (the “Document”); (c) I consent to the use of my name, or any quotation from or summarization in the Document of the parts of the Technical Report Summary for which I am responsible, to the filing of the Technical Report Summary as an exhibit to the Document, and to the incorporation of such information into the following registration statements: Nos. 333-260777, 333-175087, 333-177251, and 333- 216133 on Form S-3 and registration statements Nos. 333-120501, 333-120503, 333-120878, 333-142268, and 333-198332 on Form S-8; (d) I confirm that I have read the Document, and that the Document fairly and accurately reflects, in the form and context in which it appears, the information in the Technical Report Summary or in the part(s) thereof for which I am responsible. Dated at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan this 11 day of February, 2022. __/s/Damian Carmichael Damian Carmichael, P.Eng. Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Saskatchewan, License #14279 Exhibit 23.3 Tyler Howard, Professional Engineer The Mosaic Company 101 East Kennedy BLVD, Suite 2500 Tampa FL 33602 CONSENT OF QUALIFIED PERSON I, Tyler Howard, state that I am responsible for preparing or supervising the preparation of part(s) of the technical report summary titled Belle Plaine Potash Facility Technical Report Summary with an effective date of December 31, 2021, as signed and certified by me (the “Technical Report Summary”). Furthermore, I state that: (a) I consent to the public filing of the Technical Report Summary by The Mosaic Company; (b) the document that the Technical Report Summary supports is the annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021 (the “Document”); (c) I consent to the use of my name, or any quotation from or summarization in the Document of the parts of the Technical Report Summary for which I am responsible, to the filing of the Technical Report Summary as an exhibit to the Document, and to the incorporation of such information into the following registration statements: Nos. 333-260777, 333-175087, 333-177251, and 333- 216133 on Form S-3 and registration statements Nos. 333-120501, 333-120503, 333-120878, 333-142268, and 333-198332 on Form S-8; (d) I confirm that I have read the Document, and that the Document fairly and accurately reflects, in the form and context in which it appears, the information in the Technical Report Summary or in the part(s) thereof for which I am responsible. Dated at Saskatchewan this _9_ day of February, 2022. __/s/Tyler Howard Tyler Howard, P.Eng. Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Saskatchewan, License #22654 Joshua Howe, Professional Engineer The Mosaic Company 101 East Kennedy BLVD, Suite 2500 Tampa FL 33602 CONSENT OF QUALIFIED PERSON I, Joshua Howe, state that I am responsible for preparing or supervising the preparation of part(s) of the technical report summary titled Belle Plaine Potash Facility Technical Report Summary with an effective date of December 31, 2021, as signed and certified by me (the “Technical Report Summary”). Furthermore, I state that: (a) I consent to the public filing of the Technical Report Summary by The Mosaic Company; (b) the document that the Technical Report Summary supports is the annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021 (the “Document”); (c) I consent to the use of my name, or any quotation from or summarization in the Document of the parts of the Technical Report Summary for which I am responsible, to the filing of the Technical Report Summary as an exhibit to the Document, and to the incorporation of such information into the following registration statements: Nos. 333-260777, 333-175087, 333-177251, and 333- 216133 on Form S-3 and registration statements Nos. 333-120501, 333-120503, 333-120878, 333-142268, and 333-198332 on Form S-8; (d) I confirm that I have read the Document, and that the Document fairly and accurately reflects, in the form and context in which it appears, the information in the Technical Report Summary or in the part(s) thereof for which I am responsible. Dated at Saskatchewan this _9_ day of February, 2022. _/s/Joshua Howe Joshua Howe, P.Eng. Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Saskatchewan, License #16554 Greg Potter, Professional Engineer and Geoscientist SNC-Lavalin Inc. 216 1st Avenue South Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada S7K 1K3 CONSENT OF QUALIFIED PERSON I, Greg Potter, state that I am responsible for preparing or supervising the preparation of part(s) of the technical report summary titled Belle Plaine Potash Facility Technical Report Summary with an effective date of December 31, 2021, as signed and certified by me (the “Technical Report Summary”). Furthermore, I state that: (a) I consent to the public filing of the Technical Report Summary by The Mosaic Company; (b) the document that the Technical Report Summary supports is the annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021 (the “Document”); (c) I consent to the use of my name, or any quotation from or summarization in the Document of the parts of the Technical Report Summary for which I am responsible, to the filing of the Technical Report Summary as an exhibit to the Document, and to the incorporation of such information into the following registration statements: Nos. 333-260777, 333-175087, 333-177251, and 333- 216133 on Form S-3 and registration statements Nos. 333-120501, 333-120503, 333-120878, 333-142268, and 333-198332 on Form S-8; (d) I confirm that I have read the Document, and that the Document fairly and accurately reflects, in the form and context in which it appears, the information in the Technical Report Summary or in the part(s) thereof for which I am responsible. Dated at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan this 11 day of February, 2022. __/s/Greg Potter Greg Potter, P.Eng., P.Geo. Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Saskatchewan, License #11180


 
Sheldon Rinas, Professional Engineer The Mosaic Company 101 East Kennedy BLVD, Suite 2500 Tampa FL 33602 CONSENT OF QUALIFIED PERSON I, Sheldon Rinas, state that I am responsible for preparing or supervising the preparation of part(s) of the technical report summary titled Belle Plaine Potash Facility Technical Report Summary with an effective date of December 31, 2021, as signed and certified by me (the “Technical Report Summary”). Furthermore, I state that: (a) I consent to the public filing of the Technical Report Summary by The Mosaic Company; (b) the document that the Technical Report Summary supports is the annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021 (the “Document”); (c) I consent to the use of my name, or any quotation from or summarization in the Document of the parts of the Technical Report Summary for which I am responsible, to the filing of the Technical Report Summary as an exhibit to the Document, and to the incorporation of such information into the following registration statements: Nos. 333-260777, 333-175087, 333-177251, and 333- 216133 on Form S-3 and registration statements Nos. 333-120501, 333-120503, 333-120878, 333-142268, and 333-198332 on Form S-8; (d) I confirm that I have read the Document, and that the Document fairly and accurately reflects, in the form and context in which it appears, the information in the Technical Report Summary or in the part(s) thereof for which I am responsible. Dated at Saskatchewan this _9_ day of February, 2022. __/s/Sheldon Rinas Sheldon Rinas, P.Eng. Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Saskatchewan, License #15136 Jessica Theriault, Professional Engineer The Mosaic Company 101 East Kennedy BLVD, Suite 2500 Tampa FL 33602 CONSENT OF QUALIFIED PERSON I, Jessica Theriault, state that I am responsible for preparing or supervising the preparation of part(s) of the technical report summary titled Belle Plaine Potash Facility Technical Report Summary with an effective date of December 31, 2021, as signed and certified by me (the “Technical Report Summary”). Furthermore, I state that: (a) I consent to the public filing of the Technical Report Summary by The Mosaic Company; (b) the document that the Technical Report Summary supports is the annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021 (the “Document”); (c) I consent to the use of my name, or any quotation from or summarization in the Document of the parts of the Technical Report Summary for which I am responsible, to the filing of the Technical Report Summary as an exhibit to the Document, and to the incorporation of such information into the following registration statements: Nos. 333-260777, 333-175087, 333-177251, and 333- 216133 on Form S-3 and registration statements Nos. 333-120501, 333-120503, 333-120878, 333-142268, and 333-198332 on Form S-8; (d) I confirm that I have read the Document, and that the Document fairly and accurately reflects, in the form and context in which it appears, the information in the Technical Report Summary or in the part(s) thereof for which I am responsible. Dated at Saskatchewan this _10_ day of February, 2022. __/s/Jessica Theriault Jessica Theriault, P.Eng. Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Saskatchewan, License #09947 Monica Tochor Senior Geologist The Mosaic Company 101 East Kennedy BLVD, Suite 2500 Tampa FL 33602 CONSENT OF QUALIFIED PERSON I, Monica Tochor, state that I am responsible for preparing or supervising the preparation of part(s) of the technical report summary titled Belle Plaine Potash Facility Technical Report Summary with an effective date of December 31, 2021, as signed and certified by me (the “Technical Report Summary”). Furthermore, I state that: (a) I consent to the public filing of the Technical Report Summary by The Mosaic Company; (b) the document that the Technical Report Summary supports is the annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021 (the “Document”); (c) I consent to the use of my name, or any quotation from or summarization in the Document of the parts of the Technical Report Summary for which I am responsible, to the filing of the Technical Report Summary as an exhibit to the Document, and to the incorporation of such information into the following registration statements: Nos. 333-260777, 333-175087, 333-177251, and 333- 216133 on Form S-3 and registration statements Nos. 333-120501, 333-120503, 333-120878, 333-142268, and 333-198332 on Form S-8; (d) I confirm that I have read the Document, and that the Document fairly and accurately reflects, in the form and context in which it appears, the information in the Technical Report Summary or in the part(s) thereof for which I am responsible. Dated at Saskatchewan this _9_ day of February, 2022. __/s/Monica Tochor Monica Tochor Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Saskatchewan (APEGS) License #12338


 
Damian Carmichael, Professional Engineer SNC-Lavalin Inc. 216 1st Avenue South Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada S7K 1K3 CONSENT OF QUALIFIED PERSON I, Damian Carmichael, state that I am responsible for preparing or supervising the preparation of part(s) of the technical report summary titled Esterhazy Potash Facility Technical Report Summary with an effective date of December 31, 2021, as signed and certified by me (the “Technical Report Summary”). Furthermore, I state that: (a) I consent to the public filing of the Technical Report Summary by The Mosaic Company; (b) the document that the Technical Report Summary supports is the annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021 (the “Document”); (c) I consent to the use of my name, or any quotation from or summarization in the Document of the parts of the Technical Report Summary for which I am responsible, to the filing of the Technical Report Summary as an exhibit to the Document, and to the incorporation of such information into the following registration statements: Nos. 333-260777, 333-175087, 333-177251, and 333- 216133 on Form S-3 and registration statements Nos. 333-120501, 333-120503, 333-120878, 333-142268, and 333-198332 on Form S-8; (d) I confirm that I have read the Document, and that the Document fairly and accurately reflects, in the form and context in which it appears, the information in the Technical Report Summary or in the part(s) thereof for which I am responsible. Dated at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan this 11 day of February, 2022. __/s/Damian Carmichael Damian Carmichael, P.Eng. Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Saskatchewan, License #14279 Exhibit 23.4 Dean Gerhardt, Professional Engineer The Mosaic Company 101 East Kennedy BLVD, Suite 2500 Tampa FL 33602 CONSENT OF QUALIFIED PERSON I, Dean Gerhardt, state that I am responsible for preparing or supervising the preparation of part(s) of the technical report summary titled Esterhazy Potash Facility Technical Report Summary with an effective date of December 31, 2021, as signed and certified by me (the “Technical Report Summary”). Furthermore, I state that: (a) I consent to the public filing of the Technical Report Summary by The Mosaic Company; (b) the document that the Technical Report Summary supports is the annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021 (the “Document”); (c) I consent to the use of my name, or any quotation from or summarization in the Document of the parts of the Technical Report Summary for which I am responsible, to the filing of the Technical Report Summary as an exhibit to the Document, and to the incorporation of such information into the following registration statements: Nos. 333-260777, 333-175087, 333-177251, and 333- 216133 on Form S-3 and registration statements Nos. 333-120501, 333-120503, 333-120878, 333-142268, and 333-198332 on Form S-8; (d) I confirm that I have read the Document, and that the Document fairly and accurately reflects, in the form and context in which it appears, the information in the Technical Report Summary or in the part(s) thereof for which I am responsible. Dated at Saskatchewan this __9__ day of February, 2022. _/s/Dean Gerhardt Dean Gerhardt, P.Eng. Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Saskatchewan (APEGS), License #15189 Bill Paramor, Professional Engineer The Mosaic Company 101 East Kennedy BLVD, Suite 2500 Tampa FL 33602 CONSENT OF QUALIFIED PERSON I, Bill Paramor, state that I am responsible for preparing or supervising the preparation of part(s) of the technical report summary titled Esterhazy Potash Facility Technical Report Summary with an effective date of December 31, 2021, as signed and certified by me (the “Technical Report Summary”). Furthermore, I state that: (a) I consent to the public filing of the Technical Report Summary by The Mosaic Company; (b) the document that the Technical Report Summary supports is the annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021 (the “Document”); (c) I consent to the use of my name, or any quotation from or summarization in the Document of the parts of the Technical Report Summary for which I am responsible, to the filing of the Technical Report Summary as an exhibit to the Document, and to the incorporation of such information into the following registration statements: Nos. 333-260777, 333-175087, 333-177251, and 333- 216133 on Form S-3 and registration statements Nos. 333-120501, 333-120503, 333-120878, 333-142268, and 333-198332 on Form S-8; (d) I confirm that I have read the Document, and that the Document fairly and accurately reflects, in the form and context in which it appears, the information in the Technical Report Summary or in the part(s) thereof for which I am responsible. Dated at Esterhazy, Saskatchewan this _9_ day of February, 2022. __/s/Bill Paramor Bill Paramor, P. Eng. Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Saskatchewan (APEGS), License #06656 Greg Potter, Professional Engineer and Geoscientist SNC-Lavalin Inc. 216 1st Avenue South Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada S7K 1K3 CONSENT OF QUALIFIED PERSON I, Greg Potter, state that I am responsible for preparing or supervising the preparation of part(s) of the technical report summary titled Esterhazy Potash Facility Technical Report Summary with an effective date of December 31, 2021, as signed and certified by me (the “Technical Report Summary”). Furthermore, I state that: (a) I consent to the public filing of the Technical Report Summary by The Mosaic Company; (b) the document that the Technical Report Summary supports is the annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021 (the “Document”); (c) I consent to the use of my name, or any quotation from or summarization in the Document of the parts of the Technical Report Summary for which I am responsible, to the filing of the Technical Report Summary as an exhibit to the Document, and to the incorporation of such information into the following registration statements: Nos. 333-260777, 333-175087, 333-177251, and 333- 216133 on Form S-3 and registration statements Nos. 333-120501, 333-120503, 333-120878, 333-142268, and 333-198332 on Form S-8; (d) I confirm that I have read the Document, and that the Document fairly and accurately reflects, in the form and context in which it appears, the information in the Technical Report Summary or in the part(s) thereof for which I am responsible. Dated at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan this 11 day of February, 2022. __/s/Greg Potter Greg Potter, P.Eng., P.Geo. Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Saskatchewan, License #11180


 
Grant Shaver, Professional Engineer The Mosaic Company 101 East Kennedy BLVD, Suite 2500 Tampa FL 33602 CONSENT OF QUALIFIED PERSON I, Grant Shaver, state that I am responsible for preparing or supervising the preparation of part(s) of the technical report summary titled Esterhazy Potash Facility Technical Report Summary with an effective date of December 31, 2021, as signed and certified by me (the “Technical Report Summary”). Furthermore, I state that: (a) I consent to the public filing of the Technical Report Summary by The Mosaic Company; (b) the document that the Technical Report Summary supports is the annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021 (the “Document”); (c) I consent to the use of my name, or any quotation from or summarization in the Document of the parts of the Technical Report Summary for which I am responsible, to the filing of the Technical Report Summary as an exhibit to the Document, and to the incorporation of such information into the following registration statements: Nos. 333-260777, 333-175087, 333-177251, and 333- 216133 on Form S-3 and registration statements Nos. 333-120501, 333-120503, 333-120878, 333-142268, and 333-198332 on Form S-8; (d) I confirm that I have read the Document, and that the Document fairly and accurately reflects, in the form and context in which it appears, the information in the Technical Report Summary or in the part(s) thereof for which I am responsible. Dated at Saskatchewan this _11__ day of February, 2022. __/s/Grant Shaver Grant Shaver, P.Eng. Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Saskatchewan (APEGS), License #14724 Jessica Theriault, Professional Engineer The Mosaic Company 101 East Kennedy BLVD, Suite 2500 Tampa FL 33602 CONSENT OF QUALIFIED PERSON I, Jessica Theriault, state that I am responsible for preparing or supervising the preparation of part(s) of the technical report summary titled Esterhazy Potash Facility Technical Report Summary with an effective date of December 31, 2021, as signed and certified by me (the “Technical Report Summary”). Furthermore, I state that: (a) I consent to the public filing of the Technical Report Summary by The Mosaic Company; (b) the document that the Technical Report Summary supports is the annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021 (the “Document”); (c) I consent to the use of my name, or any quotation from or summarization in the Document of the parts of the Technical Report Summary for which I am responsible, to the filing of the Technical Report Summary as an exhibit to the Document, and to the incorporation of such information into the following registration statements: Nos. 333-260777, 333-175087, 333-177251, and 333- 216133 on Form S-3 and registration statements Nos. 333-120501, 333-120503, 333-120878, 333-142268, and 333-198332 on Form S-8; (d) I confirm that I have read the Document, and that the Document fairly and accurately reflects, in the form and context in which it appears, the information in the Technical Report Summary or in the part(s) thereof for which I am responsible. Dated at Saskatchewan this _10_ day of February, 2022. __/s/Jessica Theriault Jessica Theriault, P.Eng. Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Saskatchewan, License #09947 Monica Tochor, Professional Geoscientist The Mosaic Company 101 East Kennedy BLVD, Suite 2500 Tampa FL 33602 CONSENT OF QUALIFIED PERSON I, Monica Tochor, state that I am responsible for preparing or supervising the preparation of part(s) of the technical report summary titled Esterhazy Potash Facility Technical Report Summary with an effective date of December 31, 2021, as signed and certified by me (the “Technical Report Summary”). Furthermore, I state that: (a) I consent to the public filing of the Technical Report Summary by The Mosaic Company; (b) the document that the Technical Report Summary supports is the annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021 (the “Document”); (c) I consent to the use of my name, or any quotation from or summarization in the Document of the parts of the Technical Report Summary for which I am responsible, to the filing of the Technical Report Summary as an exhibit to the Document, and to the incorporation of such information into the following registration statements: Nos. 333-260777, 333-175087, 333-177251, and 333- 216133 on Form S-3 and registration statements Nos. 333-120501, 333-120503, 333-120878, 333-142268, and 333-198332 on Form S-8; (d) I confirm that I have read the Document, and that the Document fairly and accurately reflects, in the form and context in which it appears, the information in the Technical Report Summary or in the part(s) thereof for which I am responsible. Dated at Saskatchewan this __9__ day of February, 2022. __/s/Monica Tochor Monica Tochor, P.Geo. Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Saskatchewan (APEGS) License #12338


 
Jerry DeWolfe. P.Geo. Golder Associates Ltd. 2800, 700 - 2nd Street SW, Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2P 2W2 CONSENT OF QUALIFIED PERSON I, Jerry DeWolfe, state that I am responsible for preparing or supervising the preparation of part(s) of the technical report summary titled ‘SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary, Mosaic Fertilizantes: Complexo Mineração de Tapira’ with an effective date of December 31, 2021, as signed and certified by me (the “Technical Report Summary”). Furthermore, I state that: (a) I consent to the public filing of the Technical Report Summary by The Mosaic Company; (b) the document that the Technical Report Summary supports is the annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021 (the “Document”); (c) I consent to the use of my name, or any quotation from or summarization in the Document of the parts of the Technical Report Summary for which I am responsible, to the filing of the Technical Report Summary as an exhibit to the Document, and to the incorporation of such information into the following registration statements: Nos. 333-260777, 333-175087, 333-177251, and 333- 216133 on Form S-3 and registration statements Nos. 333-120501, 333-120503, 333-120878, 333-142268, and 333-198332 on Form S-8; (d) I confirm that I have read the Document, and that the Document fairly and accurately reflects, in the form and context in which it appears, the information in the Technical Report Summary or in the part(s) thereof for which I am responsible. Dated at Calgary, Alberta, Canada, this 10th day of February, 2022. _______________________________________________ _ ___Jerry DeWolfe, P.Geo._____________________________ Exhibit 23.5 Terry L. Kremmel. P.E. Golder Associates USA Inc. 701 Emerson Road, Suite 250, Creve Coeur, Missouri USA 63141 CONSENT OF QUALIFIED PERSON I, Terry L. Kremmel, state that I am responsible for preparing or supervising the preparation of part(s) of the technical report summary titled ‘SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary, Mosaic Fertilizantes: Complexo Mineração de Tapira’ with an effective date of December 31, 2021, as signed and certified by me (the “Technical Report Summary”). Furthermore, I state that: (a) I consent to the public filing of the Technical Report Summary by The Mosaic Company; (b) the document that the Technical Report Summary supports is the annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021 (the “Document”); (c) I consent to the use of my name, or any quotation from or summarization in the Document of the parts of the Technical Report Summary for which I am responsible, to the filing of the Technical Report Summary as an exhibit to the Document, and to the incorporation of such information into the following registration statements: Nos. 333-260777, 333-175087, 333-177251, and 333- 216133 on Form S-3 and registration statements Nos. 333-120501, 333-120503, 333-120878, 333-142268, and 333-198332 on Form S-8; (d) I confirm that I have read the Document, and that the Document fairly and accurately reflects, in the form and context in which it appears, the information in the Technical Report Summary or in the part(s) thereof for which I am responsible. Dated at Columbia, Illinois, this 10th day of February, 2022. ________________________________________________ Terry L. Kremmel, P.E., MO, and NC SME Registered Member 179176 Exhibit 23.5


 

Exhibit 24


POWER OF ATTORNEY


    The undersigned, being a Director and/or Officer of The Mosaic Company, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), hereby constitutes and appoints James ("Joc") C. O'Rourke, Clint C. Freeland and Mark J. Isaacson his/her true and lawful attorneys and agents, each with full power and authority (acting alone and without the others) to execute and deliver in the name and on behalf of the undersigned as such Director and/or Officer, the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the calendar year ended December 31, 2021 (the "Annual Report") under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and to execute and deliver any and all amendments to the Annual Report for filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission; and in connection with the foregoing, to do any and all acts and things and execute any and all instruments which such attorneys and agents may deem necessary or advisable to enable the Company to comply with the securities laws of the United States and of any state or other political subdivision thereof. The undersigned hereby grants unto such attorney and agents, and each of them, full power of substitution and revocation in the premises and hereby ratifies and confirms all that such attorneys and agents may do or cause to be done by virtue of these presents.

/s/ Cheryl K. Beebe/s/ James C. O'Rourke
Cheryl K. BeebeFebruary 19, 2022James (“Joc”) C. O’RourkeFebruary 21, 2022
/s/ Oscar P. Bernardes/s/ David T. Seaton
Oscar P. BernardesFebruary 18, 2022David T. SeatonFebruary 16, 2022
/s/ Gregory L. Ebel/s/ Steven M. Seibert
Gregory L. EbelFebruary 19, 2022Steven M. SeibertFebruary 18, 2022
/s/ Timothy S. Gitzel/s/ Luciano Siani Pires
Timothy S. GitzelFebruary 16, 2022Luciano Siani PiresFebruary 20, 2022
/s/ Denise C. Johnson/s/ Gretchen H. Watkins
Denise C. JohnsonFebruary 16, 2022Gretchen H. WatkinsFebruary 19, 2022
/s/ Emery N. Koenig/s/ Kelvin R. Westbrook
Emery N. KoenigFebruary 15, 2022Kelvin R. WestbrookFebruary 16, 2022


Exhibit 31.1
Certification Required by Rule 13a-14(a)
I, James "Joc" C. O'Rourke, certify that:
1.I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of The Mosaic Company;
2.Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3.Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4.The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
 a)Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
 b)Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;
 c)Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
 d)Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5.The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
 a)All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
 b)Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
 
Date: February 23, 2022
/s/ James "Joc" C. O'Rourke
James "Joc" C. O'Rourke
Chief Executive Officer and President
The Mosaic Company



Exhibit 31.2
Certification Required by Rule 13a-14(a)
I, Clint C. Freeland, certify that:
1.I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of The Mosaic Company;
2.Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3.Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4.The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
 a)Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
 b)Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;
 c)Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
 d)Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5.The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
 a)All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
 b)Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
 
Date: February 23, 2022
/s/ Clint C. Freeland
Clint C. Freeland
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
The Mosaic Company



Exhibit 32.1
Certification of Chief Executive Officer Required by Rule 13a-14(b)
and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code
I, James "Joc" C. O'Rourke, the Chief Executive Officer and President of The Mosaic Company, certify that (i) the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021 of The Mosaic Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of The Mosaic Company.
 
February 23, 2022
/s/ James "Joc" C. O'Rourke
James "Joc" C. O'Rourke
Chief Executive Officer and President
The Mosaic Company



Exhibit 32.2
Certification of Chief Financial Officer Required by Rule 13a-14(b)
and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code
I, Clint C. Freeland, the Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of The Mosaic Company, certify that (i) the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021 of The Mosaic Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of The Mosaic Company.
 
February 23, 2022
/s/ Clint C. Freeland
Clint C. Freeland
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
The Mosaic Company



Exhibit 95
MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES
The following table shows, for each of our U.S. mines that is subject to the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (“MSHA”), the information required by Section 1503(a) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and Item 104 of Regulation S-K. Section references are to sections of MSHA.

Potash Mine
Florida Phosphate Rock Mines
Year Ended December 31, 2021
Carlsbad,
 New Mexico
Four Corners
South Fort Meade
Wingate
South Pasture
Section 104 citations for violations of mandatory health or safety standards that could significantly and substantially contribute to the cause and effect of a mine safety or health hazard (#)
21111200
Section 104(b) orders (#)
00000
Section 104(d) citations and orders (#)
00000
Section 110(b)(2) violations (#)
00000
Section 107(a) orders (#)
00000
Proposed assessments under MSHA (whole dollars)
$25,276$21,332$25,631$687$261
Mining-related fatalities (#)
00000
Section 104(e) notice
No
No
No
No
No
Notice of the potential for a pattern of violations under Section 104(e)
No
No
No
No
No
Legal actions before the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission (“FMSHRC”) initiated (#)
10000
Legal actions before the FMSHRC resolved (#)
00000
Legal actions pending before the FMSHRC, end of period:
Contests of citations and orders referenced in Subpart B of 29 CFR Part 2700 (#)
10000
Contests of proposed penalties referenced in Subpart C of 29 CFR Part 2700 (#)
00000
Complaints for compensation referenced in Subpart D of 29 CFR Part 2700 (#)
00000
Complaints of discharge, discrimination or interference referenced in Subpart E of 29 CFR Part 2700 (#)
00000
Applications for temporary relief referenced in Subpart F of 29 CFR Part 2700 (#)
00000
Appeals of judges’ decisions or orders referenced in Subpart H of 29 CFR Part 2700 (#)
00000
Total pending legal actions (#)
10000




Florida Phosphate Mining Florida, USA Technical Report Summary Florida Phosphate Mining Technical Report Summary Effective December 31, 2021 Florida Phosphate Mining Florida, USA Technical Report Summary Date: December 31, 2021 ii CONTENTS 1.0 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Property Locations ................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.3 Ownership and Status ............................................................................................................................... 1-3 1.4 Mineral Tenure, Surface Rights, Water Rights and Royalties.................................................................. 1-3 1.5 Geology and Mineralization ..................................................................................................................... 1-3 1.6 Mineral Resource Estimates ..................................................................................................................... 1-4 1.7 Mineral Reserve Estimates ....................................................................................................................... 1-6 1.8 Mining Methods ..................................................................................................................................... 1-14 1.9 Recovery Methods ................................................................................................................................. 1-14 1.10 Infrastructure .......................................................................................................................................... 1-14 1.11 Markets and Contracts ............................................................................................................................ 1-15 1.12 Environmental, Permitting and Social Considerations ........................................................................... 1-15 1.13 Capital Cost and Operating Cost Estimates............................................................................................ 1-15 1.14 Economic Analysis................................................................................................................................. 1-15 1.15 Interpretations and Conclusions ............................................................................................................. 1-16 1.16 Recommendations .................................................................................................................................. 1-16 2.0 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 Registrant ................................................................................................................................................. 2-1 2.2 Purpose and Terms of Reference ............................................................................................................. 2-1 2.3 Abbreviations and Units ........................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.4 Qualified Persons (QP) ............................................................................................................................ 2-2 2.5 Effective Dates ......................................................................................................................................... 2-2 2.6 Information Sources and References ........................................................................................................ 2-2 2.7 Previous Technical Report Summaries .................................................................................................... 2-3 3.0 Property Description ................................................................................................................................ 3-1 3.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 3-1 3.2 Properties and Title .................................................................................................................................. 3-3 3.2.1 Mineral Title ........................................................................................................................................ 3-3 3.2.2 Surface Rights .................................................................................................................................... 3-11 3.2.3 Water Rights ...................................................................................................................................... 3-11 3.2.4 Royalties ............................................................................................................................................ 3-11 3.3 Encumbrances ........................................................................................................................................ 3-11 3.4 Significant Factors and Risks That May Affect Access, Title or Work Programs ................................. 3-11 4.0 Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography ............................................. 4-1 4.1 Physiography ............................................................................................................................................ 4-1 4.1.1 Topography, Elevation and Vegetation ............................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Accessibility ............................................................................................................................................. 4-1 4.2.1 South Fort Meade Facility ................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2.2 Four Corners Facility ........................................................................................................................... 4-3 4.2.3 Wingate Facility ................................................................................................................................... 4-5 4.2.4 DeSoto Property ................................................................................................................................... 4-7 4.2.5 Pioneer Property .................................................................................................................................. 4-9 4.2.6 South Pasture Property....................................................................................................................... 4-11 4.3 Climate and Length of Operating Season ............................................................................................... 4-13 4.4 Infrastructure/Local Resources .............................................................................................................. 4-13 4.4.1 Water ................................................................................................................................................. 4-13 Florida Phosphate Mining Florida, USA Technical Report Summary Date: December 31, 2021 iii 4.4.2 Power and Electricity ......................................................................................................................... 4-13 4.4.3 Roads and Logistics ........................................................................................................................... 4-14 4.4.4 Personnel ........................................................................................................................................... 4-15 4.4.5 Supplies ............................................................................................................................................. 4-16 5.0 History ...................................................................................................................................................... 5-1 6.0 Geological Setting, Mineralization and Deposit ...................................................................................... 6-1 6.1 Deposit Type ............................................................................................................................................ 6-1 6.2 Regional Geology..................................................................................................................................... 6-1 6.3 Local Geology .......................................................................................................................................... 6-2 6.4 Property Geology ..................................................................................................................................... 6-3 6.4.1 General Deposit Description ................................................................................................................ 6-3 6.4.2 South Fort Meade Deposit ................................................................................................................... 6-4 6.4.3 Four Corners Deposit ........................................................................................................................... 6-5 6.4.4 Wingate Deposit .................................................................................................................................. 6-9 6.4.5 DeSoto Deposit .................................................................................................................................. 6-10 6.4.6 Pioneer Deposit .................................................................................................................................. 6-11 6.4.7 South Pasture Deposit ........................................................................................................................ 6-13 7.0 Exploration ............................................................................................................................................... 7-1 7.1 Exploration ............................................................................................................................................... 7-1 7.1.1 Grids and Surveys ................................................................................................................................ 7-1 7.1.2 Geological Mapping, Geochemistry and Geophysics .......................................................................... 7-1 7.1.3 Petrology, Mineralogy, and Research Studies ..................................................................................... 7-1 7.1.4 Exploration Potential ........................................................................................................................... 7-1 7.2 Drilling ..................................................................................................................................................... 7-1 7.2.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................................. 7-1 7.2.2 Property Drilling .................................................................................................................................. 7-2 7.2.2.1 South Fort Meade Facility ............................................................................................................... 7-2 7.2.2.2 Four Corners Facility ....................................................................................................................... 7-4 7.2.2.3 Wingate Facility .............................................................................................................................. 7-6 7.2.2.4 DeSoto Property .............................................................................................................................. 7-8 7.2.2.5 Pioneer Property ............................................................................................................................ 7-10 7.2.2.6 South Pasture Property .................................................................................................................. 7-12 7.2.3 Drill Methods ..................................................................................................................................... 7-14 7.2.4 Geological Logging ........................................................................................................................... 7-14 7.2.5 Recovery ............................................................................................................................................ 7-15 7.2.6 Collar Surveys and Down Hole Surveys............................................................................................ 7-15 7.3 Hydrogeology ......................................................................................................................................... 7-15 7.4 Geotechnical ........................................................................................................................................... 7-15 7.5 QP Interpretation of the Exploration and Drilling Information .............................................................. 7-15 8.0 Sample Preparation, Analyses and Security ............................................................................................. 8-1 8.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 8-1 8.2 Sampling Methods ................................................................................................................................... 8-1 8.2.1 Procedures ........................................................................................................................................... 8-1 8.2.2 Quality Control .................................................................................................................................... 8-1 8.3 Sample Preparation .................................................................................................................................. 8-2 8.3.1 Process ................................................................................................................................................. 8-2 8.3.2 Quality Control .................................................................................................................................... 8-4 8.4 Assaying and Analytical Procedures ........................................................................................................ 8-4 8.4.1 Procedures ........................................................................................................................................... 8-4 Florida Phosphate Mining Florida, USA Technical Report Summary Date: December 31, 2021 iv 8.4.2 Density Determinations ....................................................................................................................... 8-4 8.4.3 Moisture Estimation ............................................................................................................................. 8-5 8.4.4 Quality Assurance and Quality Control ............................................................................................... 8-5 8.5 Sample Security ....................................................................................................................................... 8-5 8.6 Database ................................................................................................................................................... 8-6 8.7 QP Opinion on Sample Preparation, Security, and Analytical Procedures .............................................. 8-6 9.0 Data Verification ...................................................................................................................................... 9-1 9.1 QP and Internal Data Verification ............................................................................................................ 9-1 9.2 External Data Verification ....................................................................................................................... 9-1 9.3 QP Opinion on Data Adequacy ................................................................................................................ 9-1 10.0 Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing ....................................................................................... 10-1 10.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 10-1 10.2 Procedures .............................................................................................................................................. 10-1 10.3 Quality Control ...................................................................................................................................... 10-1 10.4 Database and Records ............................................................................................................................ 10-2 10.5 Metallurgical Testing ............................................................................................................................. 10-2 10.6 Recovery Estimates ................................................................................................................................ 10-2 10.7 Metallurgical Variability ........................................................................................................................ 10-3 10.8 Deleterious Elements ............................................................................................................................. 10-6 10.9 Qualified Person’s Opinion on Data Adequacy ..................................................................................... 10-7 11.0 Mineral Resource Estimates ................................................................................................................... 11-1 11.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 11-1 11.2 Key Assumptions ................................................................................................................................... 11-1 11.3 Estimation Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 11-2 11.4 Exploratory Data Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 11-3 11.5 Validation ............................................................................................................................................... 11-3 11.6 Confidence Classification of Mineral Resource Estimates .................................................................... 11-3 11.7 Reasonable Prospects of Economic Extraction ...................................................................................... 11-4 11.8 Mineral Resource Statement .................................................................................................................. 11-7 11.9 Uncertainties (Factors) That May Affect the Mineral Resource Estimates ............................................ 11-1 12.0 Mineral Reserve Estimates ..................................................................................................................... 12-1 12.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 12-1 12.2 Key Assumptions ................................................................................................................................... 12-1 12.3 Estimation Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 12-2 12.4 Mineral Reserve Statement .................................................................................................................... 12-3 12.5 Uncertainties (Factors) That May Affect the Mineral Reserve Estimate ............................................... 12-8 13.0 Mining Methods ..................................................................................................................................... 13-1 13.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 13-1 13.2 Mining Methods ..................................................................................................................................... 13-1 13.2.1 Surface Dragline Mining ................................................................................................................... 13-1 13.2.2 Surface Dredge Mining ...................................................................................................................... 13-3 13.2.3 Dragline and Dredge Mining Geotechnical Considerations .............................................................. 13-5 13.2.4 Hydrogeological Considerations ........................................................................................................ 13-6 13.3 Mine Design and Operations .................................................................................................................. 13-7 13.3.1 Production Plan/Life of Mine Plan .................................................................................................... 13-7 13.3.2 Planning Assumptions/Design Criteria .............................................................................................. 13-9 13.3.3 Mining Sequence ............................................................................................................................... 13-9 13.3.4 Mine Production Monitoring ........................................................................................................... 13-13 13.3.5 Equipment ........................................................................................................................................ 13-13


 
Florida Phosphate Mining Florida, USA Technical Report Summary Date: December 31, 2021 v 13.3.6 Personnel ......................................................................................................................................... 13-14 14.0 Recovery Methods ................................................................................................................................. 14-1 14.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 14-1 14.2 Beneficiation Process ............................................................................................................................. 14-1 14.3 Plant Design ........................................................................................................................................... 14-2 14.4 Process Flowsheet .................................................................................................................................. 14-2 14.5 Equipment Characteristics and Specifications ....................................................................................... 14-6 14.6 Water Requirements ............................................................................................................................... 14-7 14.7 Power and Consumables ........................................................................................................................ 14-7 14.8 Key Metrics ............................................................................................................................................ 14-8 15.0 Infrastructure .......................................................................................................................................... 15-1 15.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 15-1 15.2 Roads, Rail and Logistics ....................................................................................................................... 15-1 15.2.1 South Fort Meade Facility ................................................................................................................. 15-1 15.2.2 Four Corners Facility ......................................................................................................................... 15-3 15.2.3 Wingate Facility ................................................................................................................................. 15-5 15.3 Stockpiles ............................................................................................................................................... 15-7 15.3.1 South Fort Meade Facility ................................................................................................................. 15-7 15.3.2 Four Corners Facility ......................................................................................................................... 15-9 15.3.3 Wingate Facility ............................................................................................................................... 15-11 15.4 Clay and Tailings Storage .................................................................................................................... 15-13 15.5 Pumping Systems ................................................................................................................................. 15-19 15.5.1 South Fort Meade Facility ............................................................................................................... 15-19 15.5.2 Four Corners Facility ....................................................................................................................... 15-20 15.5.3 Wingate Facility ............................................................................................................................... 15-21 15.6 Water Management Structures ............................................................................................................. 15-21 15.7 Built Infrastructure ............................................................................................................................... 15-22 15.8 Power and Electrical ............................................................................................................................ 15-22 15.8.1 South Fort Meade Facility ............................................................................................................... 15-22 15.8.2 Four Corners Facility ....................................................................................................................... 15-22 15.8.3 Wingate Facility ............................................................................................................................... 15-23 15.9 Water Supply ........................................................................................................................................ 15-23 16.0 Market Studies and Contracts ................................................................................................................ 16-1 16.1 Markets .................................................................................................................................................. 16-1 16.2 Commodity Price Forecasts ................................................................................................................... 16-1 16.3 Contracts ................................................................................................................................................ 16-2 17.0 Environmental Studies, Permitting and Plans, Negotiations or Agreements with Local Individuals or Groups ................................................................................................................................................................ 17-1 17.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 17-1 17.2 Baseline and Supporting Studies ............................................................................................................ 17-1 17.3 Environmental Considerations and Monitoring Programs ..................................................................... 17-3 17.3.1 Performance Standards, Monitoring and Reporting ........................................................................... 17-3 17.3.2 Management Plans ............................................................................................................................. 17-4 17.3.3 Resource Protection and Conservation Easements ............................................................................ 17-4 17.3.4 Non-Regulatory Programs ................................................................................................................. 17-4 17.4 Product and Rock Stockpiles.................................................................................................................. 17-4 17.5 Tailings Storage Facilities ...................................................................................................................... 17-5 17.5.1 Flotation Tailings ............................................................................................................................... 17-5 17.5.2 Clay-Sized Residuals ......................................................................................................................... 17-5 Florida Phosphate Mining Florida, USA Technical Report Summary Date: December 31, 2021 vi 17.6 Water Management ................................................................................................................................ 17-6 17.6.1 Sources and Uses of Water ................................................................................................................ 17-7 17.6.2 Water Recycling ................................................................................................................................ 17-7 17.6.3 Effects of Water Withdrawals ............................................................................................................ 17-7 17.6.4 Volumes and Characteristics of Water Discharges ............................................................................ 17-8 17.7 Reclamation, Mitigation and Closure ..................................................................................................... 17-8 17.7.1 Reclamation ....................................................................................................................................... 17-9 17.7.2 Mitigation ........................................................................................................................................ 17-10 17.7.3 Closure Requirements ...................................................................................................................... 17-10 17.7.4 Obligations Upon Asset Retirement ................................................................................................ 17-11 17.8 Permits and Registrations ..................................................................................................................... 17-11 17.8.1 Development Approvals .................................................................................................................. 17-12 17.8.2 Operating Permits ............................................................................................................................ 17-12 17.8.3 Registrations and Licenses ............................................................................................................... 17-12 17.8.4 Bureau of Land Management Leases ............................................................................................... 17-12 17.9 Social Considerations, Plans, Negotiations and Agreements ............................................................... 17-13 17.9.1 Consideration of the Human Environment ...................................................................................... 17-13 17.9.2 Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Program ................................................................. 17-13 17.9.3 Investment in the Environment ........................................................................................................ 17-14 17.9.4 Citizen Advisory Panels................................................................................................................... 17-14 17.9.5 Sierra Club Settlement Agreement .................................................................................................. 17-14 17.9.6 Peace River Stewardship Plan (PRMP) ........................................................................................... 17-14 17.9.7 Horse Creek Stewardship Plan (HCSP) ........................................................................................... 17-14 17.9.8 Southwest Florida Water Management District Agreement ............................................................ 17-15 17.9.9 United States Geological Survey (USGS) Agreement ..................................................................... 17-15 17.9.10 Hardee County Economic Development.......................................................................................... 17-15 17.9.11 Manatee County ............................................................................................................................... 17-15 17.10 Qualified Person’s Opinion on Adequacy of Current Plans to Address Issues .................................... 17-15 18.0 Capital and Operating Costs ................................................................................................................... 18-1 18.1 Capital Cost Estimates ........................................................................................................................... 18-1 18.1.1 Basis of Estimate ............................................................................................................................... 18-1 18.1.2 Exclusions for the Capital Cost Estimate ........................................................................................... 18-1 18.1.3 Capital Cost Estimate......................................................................................................................... 18-2 18.2 Operating Cost Estimates ....................................................................................................................... 18-2 18.2.1 Basis of Estimate ............................................................................................................................... 18-2 18.2.2 Mine Operating Costs ........................................................................................................................ 18-3 19.0 Economic Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 19-1 19.1 Methodology Used ................................................................................................................................. 19-1 19.2 Financial Model Inputs, Parameters and Assumptions .......................................................................... 19-1 19.3 Economic Analysis................................................................................................................................. 19-2 19.4 Sensitivity Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 19-4 20.0 Adjacent Properties ................................................................................................................................ 20-1 21.0 Other Relevant Data and Information .................................................................................................... 21-1 22.0 Interpretation and Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 22-1 22.1 Mineral Resources ................................................................................................................................ 22-1 22.2 Mineral Reserves .................................................................................................................................. 22-2 23.0 Recommendations .................................................................................................................................. 23-4 24.0 References .............................................................................................................................................. 24-1 25.0 Reliance on Information Provided by the Registrant ............................................................................. 25-1 Florida Phosphate Mining Florida, USA Technical Report Summary Date: December 31, 2021 vii TABLES Table 1-1: 2021 Mineral Resources ........................................................................................................................... 1-5 Table 1-2: 2021 Mineral Reserves ............................................................................................................................. 1-7 Table 2-1: List of Units and Abbreviations ............................................................................................................... 2-1 Table 2-2: Qualified Persons ..................................................................................................................................... 2-2 Table 2-3: Reliance on Other Experts ........................................................................................................................ 2-3 Table 3-1: Florida Phosphate Properties Status and Acreages................................................................................... 3-4 Table 3-2: Land Ownership ....................................................................................................................................... 3-4 Table 3-3: Property Surface Rights ......................................................................................................................... 3-11 Table 5-1: Florida Phosphate Mining History ........................................................................................................... 5-1 Table 5-2: Production History ................................................................................................................................... 5-2 Table 7-1: South Fort Meade Facility Exploration and Definition Drilling Summary .............................................. 7-2 Table 7-2: Four Corners Facility Exploration and Definition Drilling Summary ...................................................... 7-4 Table 7-3: Wingate Facility Exploration and Definition Drilling Summary ............................................................. 7-6 Table 7-4: DeSoto Property Exploration and Definition Drilling Summary ............................................................. 7-8 Table 7-5: Pioneer Property Exploration and Definition Drilling Summary ........................................................... 7-10 Table 7-6: South Pasture Property Exploration and Definition Drilling Summary ................................................. 7-12 Table 10-1: Notable Frequency of Samples............................................................................................................. 10-1 Table 10-2: South Fort Meade Mine Recovery and Product Quality ...................................................................... 10-2 Table 10-3: Four Corners Mine Recovery and Product Quality .............................................................................. 10-2 Table 10-4: Wingate Mine Recovery and Product Quality ...................................................................................... 10-3 Table 11-1: BPL in Concentrate and Pebble Cut-Offs ............................................................................................ 11-1 Table 11-2: Clay Percent Cut-Offs .......................................................................................................................... 11-1 Table 11-3: Productivity Cut-off Factors ................................................................................................................. 11-5 Table 11-4: Beneficiation Plant Recoveries ............................................................................................................ 11-5 Table 11-5: Mining Dilution .................................................................................................................................... 11-5 Table 11-6: Impurity Recoveries in Pebbles ............................................................................................................ 11-5 Table 11-7: Impurity Recoveries in Intermediate Pebbles ....................................................................................... 11-5 Table 11-8: Impurity Recoveries in Concentrate ..................................................................................................... 11-6 Table 11-9: 2021 Mineral Resources ....................................................................................................................... 11-8 Table 12-1: Productivity Cut-off Factors ................................................................................................................. 12-1 Table 12-2: Beneficiation Plant Applied Recoveries ............................................................................................... 12-1 Table 12-3: Mining Dilution .................................................................................................................................... 12-1 Table 12-4: Impurity Recoveries in Pebbles ............................................................................................................ 12-2 Table 12-5: Impurity Recoveries in Concentrate ..................................................................................................... 12-2 Table 12-6: 2021 Mineral Reserves ......................................................................................................................... 12-4 Table 13-1: 2021 Life of Mine Plans ....................................................................................................................... 13-8 Table 13-2: Major Mining Equipment ................................................................................................................... 13-14 Table 13-3: Primary Support Equipment ............................................................................................................... 13-14 Table 13-4: Mining and Beneficiation Plant Personnel Requirements (Hourly and Salary) ................................. 13-15 Table 14-1: Rougher Circuits Design Rate (tons/hour) ........................................................................................... 14-6 Table 14-2: Equipment Summary ............................................................................................................................ 14-6 Table 14-3: Plant Production and Deep Well Water Usage ..................................................................................... 14-7 Table 14-4: 2020 Power Consumption .................................................................................................................... 14-7 Table 14-5: Four Corners Key Beneficiation Plant Metrics .................................................................................... 14-9 Table 14-6: South Fort Meade Key Beneficiation Plant Metrics ........................................................................... 14-10 Florida Phosphate Mining Florida, USA Technical Report Summary Date: December 31, 2021 viii Table 14-7: Wingate Key Beneficiation Plant Metrics .......................................................................................... 14-11 Table 15-1: Infrastructure Maintained by Third Parties .......................................................................................... 15-1 Table 15-2: Current Clay Setting Areas Summary ................................................................................................ 15-13 Table 15-3: South Fort Meade Ore and Waste Stream Pumping Systems............................................................. 15-20 Table 15-4: Four Corners Ore and Waste Stream Pumping Systems .................................................................... 15-20 Table 15-5: Wingate Ore and Waste Stream Pumping Systems ............................................................................ 15-21 Table 15-6: Four Corners Facility Permitted Outfalls ........................................................................................... 15-21 Table 17-1: Baseline Monitoring and Impact Analyses ........................................................................................... 17-2 Table 17-2: Monitoring and Reporting Requirements ............................................................................................. 17-3 Table 17-3: Permit Required Management Plans .................................................................................................... 17-4 Table 17-4: Conservation Easement Summary ........................................................................................................ 17-4 Table 17-5: Bureau of Land Management Lease Summary .................................................................................. 17-13 Table 17-6: Human Environment Elements Considered ....................................................................................... 17-13 Table 18-1: Historical and LOM Plan Capital (M US$) .......................................................................................... 18-2 Table 18-2: Historical and LOM Plan Cash Costs ................................................................................................... 18-3 Table 19-1: Economic Analysis Summary .............................................................................................................. 19-2 Table 19-2: Cash Flow Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 19-3 Table 20-1: Order of Magnitude Exploration Potential Estimate on Adjacent Properties ....................................... 20-1 Table 25-1: Information Provided by the Registrant ............................................................................................... 25-1 FIGURES Figure 1-1: Florida Phosphate Mining Facility and Property Locations ............................................................................. 1-2 Figure 1-2: South Fort Meade Facility Mineral Reserves ................................................................................................... 1-8 Figure 1-3: Four Corners Facility Mineral Reserves ........................................................................................................... 1-9 Figure 1-4: Wingate Facility Mineral Reserves ................................................................................................................. 1-10 Figure 1-5: DeSoto Property Mineral Resources ............................................................................................................... 1-11 Figure 1-6: Pioneer Property Mineral Resources .............................................................................................................. 1-12 Figure 1-7: South Pasture Property Mineral Resources ..................................................................................................... 1-13 Figure 3-1: Florida Phosphate Property Locations .............................................................................................................. 3-2 Figure 3-2: South Fort Meade Facility Property Status and Location ................................................................................. 3-5 Figure 3-3: Four Corners Facility Property Status and Location ......................................................................................... 3-6 Figure 3-4: Wingate Facility Property Status and Location ................................................................................................ 3-7 Figure 3-5: DeSoto Property Status and Location ............................................................................................................... 3-8 Figure 3-6: Pioneer Property Status and Location ............................................................................................................... 3-9 Figure 3-7: South Pasture Property Status and Location ................................................................................................... 3-10 Figure 4-1: South Fort Meade Facility Location and Accessibility ..................................................................................... 4-2 Figure 4-2: Four Corners Facility Location and Accessibility ............................................................................................ 4-4 Figure 4-3: Wingate Facility Location and Accessibility .................................................................................................... 4-6 Figure 4-4: DeSoto Property Location and Accessibility .................................................................................................... 4-8 Figure 4-5: Pioneer Property Location and Accessibility .................................................................................................. 4-10 Figure 4-6: South Pasture Facility Location and Accessibility ......................................................................................... 4-12 Figure 6-1: Regional Geology ............................................................................................................................................. 6-1 Figure 6-2: Local Stratigraphic Column .............................................................................................................................. 6-2 Figure 6-3: South Fort Meade Geology Section .................................................................................................................. 6-4 Figure 6-4: Four Corners Bone Valley Geology Section .................................................................................................... 6-6 Figure 6-5: Four Corners Southern Extension Geology Section ......................................................................................... 6-8 Figure 6-6: Wingate Geology Section ................................................................................................................................. 6-9 Figure 6-7: DeSoto Geology Section ................................................................................................................................ 6-11


 
Florida Phosphate Mining Florida, USA Technical Report Summary Date: December 31, 2021 ix Figure 6-8: Pioneer Geology Section ................................................................................................................................ 6-12 Figure 6-9: South Pasture Geology Section ...................................................................................................................... 6-14 Figure 7-1: South Fort Meade Facility Drill Collar Location Plan ...................................................................................... 7-3 Figure 7-2: Four Corners Facility Drill Collar Location Plan ............................................................................................. 7-5 Figure 7-3: Wingate Facility Drill Collar Location Plan ..................................................................................................... 7-7 Figure 7-4: DeSoto Property Drill Collar Location Plan ..................................................................................................... 7-9 Figure 7-5: Pioneer Property Drill Collar Location Plan ................................................................................................... 7-11 Figure 7-6: South Pasture Property Drill Collar Location Plan ......................................................................................... 7-13 Figure 8-1: Core Sample Preparation Flow Sheet ............................................................................................................... 8-3 Figure 10-1: South Fort Meade Feed P2O5 Grade vs. Recovery% .................................................................................... 10-3 Figure 10-2: Four Corners Feed P2O5 Grade vs. Recovery% ............................................................................................ 10-4 Figure 10-3: Wingate Feed P2O5 Grade vs. Recovery% .................................................................................................... 10-4 Figure 10-4: South Fort Meade Plant Recovery Control Chart ......................................................................................... 10-5 Figure 10-5: Four Corners Plant Recovery Control Chart ................................................................................................. 10-5 Figure 10-6: Wingate Plant Recovery Control Chart ........................................................................................................ 10-6 Figure 11-1: DeSoto Property Mineral Resources ............................................................................................................. 11-9 Figure 11-2: Pioneer Property Mineral Resources .......................................................................................................... 11-10 Figure 11-3: South Pasture Property Mineral Resources ................................................................................................. 11-11 Figure 12-1: South Fort Meade Facility Mineral Reserves ............................................................................................... 12-5 Figure 12-2: Four Corners Facility Mineral Reserves ....................................................................................................... 12-6 Figure 12-3: Wingate Facility Mineral Reserves ............................................................................................................... 12-7 Figure 13-1: Dragline Mining Process .............................................................................................................................. 13-1 Figure 13-2: Dragline Operation ....................................................................................................................................... 13-2 Figure 13-3: Dragline Dumping in Well ........................................................................................................................... 13-3 Figure 13-4: Dredge Mining Process ................................................................................................................................ 13-4 Figure 13-5: Overburden Dredge ...................................................................................................................................... 13-4 Figure 13-6: Matrix Dredge .............................................................................................................................................. 13-5 Figure 13-7: Dragline Walk Path Soil Penetration Testing and Piezometers .................................................................... 13-6 Figure 13-8: Pre-mining Dewatering ................................................................................................................................. 13-7 Figure 13-9: South Fort Meade Facility LOM Plan Sequence ........................................................................................ 13-10 Figure 13-10: Four Corners Facility LOM Plan Sequence .............................................................................................. 13-11 Figure 13-11: Wingate Facility LOM Plan Sequence ..................................................................................................... 13-12 Figure 14-1: Phosphate Beneficiation Process Flowsheet ................................................................................................. 14-3 Figure 14-2: Matrix Clay Content vs. Maximum Feed ..................................................................................................... 14-4 Figure 15-1: South Fort Meade Facility Major Roads and Logistics Infrastructure .......................................................... 15-2 Figure 15-2: Four Corners Facility Major Roads and Logistics Infrastructure ................................................................. 15-4 Figure 15-3: Wingate Facility Major Roads and Logistics Infrastructure ......................................................................... 15-6 Figure 15-4: South Fort Meade Facility Beneficiation Plant and Related Infrastructure .................................................. 15-8 Figure 15-5: Four Corners Facility Beneficiation Plant and Related Infrastructure ........................................................ 15-10 Figure 15-6: Wingate Facility Beneficiation Plant and Related Infrastructure ................................................................ 15-12 Figure 15-7: South Fort Meade Facility Clay Settling and Sand Tailings Locations ...................................................... 15-14 Figure 15-8: Four Corners Facility Clay Settling and Sand Tailings Locations .............................................................. 15-16 Figure 15-9: Wingate Facility Clay Settling and Sand Tailings Locations ..................................................................... 15-18 Figure 17-1: Mine Process Flow Diagram ........................................................................................................................ 17-6 Figure 19-1: Sensitivity Results on NPV .......................................................................................................................... 19-4 Florida Phosphate Mining Florida, USA Technical Report Summary Date: December 31, 2021 x FORWARD LOOKING INFORMATION CAUTION All statements, other than statements of historical fact, appearing in this report constitute “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Statements regarding results depend on inputs that are subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause actual results to differ materially from those presented in this Report. Forward-looking statements may include words such as “anticipate”, “believe”, “could”, “estimate”, “expect”, “intend”, “may”, “potential”, “project” or “should”, Information that is forward-looking includes, but is not limited to, the following: • Mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates. • Assumed commodity prices and exchange rates. • Proposed and scheduled mine production plan. • Projected mining and processing recovery rates. • Capital cost estimates and schedule. • Operating cost estimates. • Closure costs estimates and closure requirements assumptions. • Environmental, permitting and social risk assumptions. Additional risks to the forward-looking information include: • Changes to costs of production from what is assumed. • Unrecognized environmental risks. • Unanticipated reclamation expenses. • Unexpected variations in production tonnage, grade or recovery rates. • Adverse weather conditions and climate change. • Failure of plant, equipment or processes to operate as anticipated. • Accidents, labor disputes and other risks of the mining industry. • Changes to tax rates. • Other material risks and uncertainties reported from time to time in the Company’s reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Date: December 31, 2021 1-1 1.0 Executive Summary 1.1 Introduction Florida phosphate mining consists of three active phosphate facilities (South Fort Meade, Four Corners and Wingate) and three exploration properties as defined by SEC Regulation S-K, Subpart 1300 (DeSoto, Pioneer and South Pasture), located in central Florida. Mining in central Florida started more than 130 years ago. The majority of mining currently takes place in Hardee County. Of the active mines, Four Corners and South Fort Meade are dragline mines and Wingate is a dredge mine. All of the exploration properties are planned to be dragline operations at the commencement of mining. A facility consists of an active mining area, mine office, an operating beneficiation plant and ancillary support facilities (e.g., pipelines, electric infrastructure, clay settling areas, etc.). The facilities are staffed with Mosaic personnel and contractor employees. Mining areas include areas of progressive reclamation and active mining. The 2021 Florida Phosphate Mining Technical Report Summary has been prepared by the Florida phosphate Qualified Persons and supports the mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates for the year ending December 31, 2021. Mineral resources and mineral reserves are reported as a beneficiation plant product (phosphate rock) tonnage and P2O5 grade including a total primary impurities ratio (MER). The mineral resources and mineral reserves are reported in accordance with SEC Regulation S-K, Subpart 1300. 1.2 Property Locations The Florida phosphate facilities and three exploration properties are located in central Florida (Figure 1-1), in DeSoto, Hardee, Hillsborough, Manatee and Polk counties. Date: December 31, 2021 1-2 Figure 1-1: Florida Phosphate Mining Facility and Property Locations


 
Date: December 31, 2021 1-3 1.3 Ownership and Status The Florida phosphate mining facilities and properties are owned by or have controlling interest granted to Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC (Mosaic Fertilizer), South Ft. Meade Land Management, Inc. (SFMLM) or South Ft. Meade Land Partnership, L.P. (SFMLP) each a direct or indirect wholly owned subsidiary of The Mosaic Company. For the purposes of this Report, unless otherwise noted, The Mosaic Company, Mosaic Fertilizer, SFMLM and the SFMLP will each be referred to interchangeably as Mosaic, as the context requires. 1.4 Mineral Tenure, Surface Rights, Water Rights and Royalties Mosaic, through subsidiaries owns or controls approximately 210,202 acres (85,065 hectares) of land in central Florida. A total of 191,139 acres (77,351 hectares) is owned fee simple and 19,055 acres (7,711 hectares) of mineral rights are owned. Mosaic owns approximately 191,341 acres (77,486 hectares) of surface rights in central Florida. All infrastructure including the beneficiation plant and Clay Settling Areas (CSA) are located on Mosaic-owned or controlled land. Mosaic-owned land not used for operations or operational support is either leased out for agricultural or commercial use or otherwise used by Mosaic for its own agricultural use. 1.5 Geology and Mineralization Phosphorite exists throughout the state of Florida with mineralization being nearly ubiquitous. There are, broadly speaking, two types of deposits within the state, hard rock and sedimentary. The entirety of Mosaic’s mineral reserves and resources exist within sedimentary deposits. Economic phosphorite exists in a matrix of gravels, sands, silts and clays that are readily extractible. These economic deposits overlay a carbonate platform where phosphorite is absent. The bedrock and economic matrix are overlain by sands, clays and silts that are easily removed. Limitations of extraction are the ease of excavation, the capacity of the matrix to slurry, the grade of the phosphorite, gangue minerals, the depth of the matrix, and the overburden to be removed. Deposition of phosphorite occurred in the Miocene and Pliocene epochs. The depositional environment was shallow marine with sea levels of 300 ft. (100 m) or less. Cold phosphate rich waters were upwelled and mixed with warm surface waters creating vigorous biologic activity. Biological remains settled on the sea floor in regional anoxic zones. Phosphate subsequently substituted into calcium carbonate in the form of the mineral francolite. Accessory mineralization does occur, but it is of little economic consequence. The deposit underwent transport and rework through marine winnowing. Post-depositional rework is extensive and site factors such as hydrology and groundwater geochemistry influence grade and gangue mineralization. Gangue minerals are generally limestone, dolomitic limestone, iron concretions of varying sizes and competent clays that resist disaggregation by washing. Limestone, dolomite and iron concretions exist as distinct particles that are inseparable through conventional sizing. There is limited intracrystalline substitution of metals within francolite. Most of the gangue minerals are distinct particles. Mosaic’s Florida phosphate mining currently consists of three producing facilities and three exploration properties. The geology across all the sites is a consistent sequence of sub- aerial and marine sediments. The upper most sediments are lacking in phosphates. The marine sediments and carbonate system that follow contains an economic concentration phosphate. The lower carbonate system is devoid of phosphate. At a site level, the geology is unique enough to warrant different ore management practices based on gangue clast size, composition and concentration. The Four Corners property geology consists of 21 to 41 ft. (6.4 to 12.5 m) of gray to white poorly graded quartz sand with varying abundance of reworked phosphate grains as waste overburden. The first economic zone is 13 to 26 ft. (4.0 to 7.9 m) of tan-gray to gray quartz sands, clays and silts with phosphate nodules and pellets present with phosphate grains and clasts predominate. There is an interbedded waste zone of 0 to 10 ft. (0.0 to 3.0 m) in thickness comprised of beds of blue to green barren sandy clays. Occasionally, there are beds of marine limestone and dolostones or marginally phosphatic sandy beds of dolomitic clasts and grains. The second economic zone is 0 to 15 ft. (0.0 to 4.6 m) of dark gray to dark gray-blue-green clays, silts with quartz sands with phosphate nodules and pellets present with phosphate grains Date: December 31, 2021 1-4 and clasts predominate. The phosphate grade ranges from 27 to 30% P2O5. The basal units are dark gray to black clays to phosphatic limestone rubble to beds of phosphatic limestone. The South Fort Meade property geology consists of 5 to 50 ft. (1.5 to 15.2 m) of gray to white poorly graded quartz sand with varying abundance of reworked phosphate grains. The economic zone is 0 to 50 ft. (0.0 to 15.2 m) thick, ranging in grade from 30 to 40% P2O5 and comprised gray to gray-blue clayey sands with lineation of red, brown, and white. Phosphate nodules and pellets are the dominant constituent to gray to gray-blue quartz sands, clays, and phosphate grains and some nodules. The basal units are gray to gray-blue barren clays to phosphatic limestone rubble to beds of phosphatic limestone. The Wingate property geology consists of 35 to 49 ft. (10.7 to 14.9 m) of white to tan-gray poorly graded quartz sand to brown gray to orange iron-cemented clayey sand hardpan to tan-gray to gray clayey sands with varying abundance of reworked phosphate grains. The economic zone is 19 to 37 ft. (5.8 to 11.3 m) thick, ranging in grade from 28 to 31% P2O5 and comprised of tan-gray to gray clayey sands with phosphate pellets and grains to gray to gray-blue quartz sands, clays, and phosphate grains and some nodules. The basal units are gray to gray-blue barren clays to phosphatic limestone rubble to beds of phosphatic limestone. The South Pasture property geology consists of 17 to 37 ft. (5.2 to 11.3 m) of mostly tan gray to gray poorly graded quartz sand with varying abundance of reworked phosphate grains. The first economic zone is 13 to 27 ft. (4.0 to 8.2 m) of tan-gray to gray-blue quartz sands, clays and silts with phosphate nodules and pellets are present with phosphate grains and clasts predominate. There is an interbedded waste zone of 0 to 13 ft. (0 to 4.0 m) in thickness comprised of beds of blue to green barren sandy clays. Occasionally beds of marine limestone and dolostones or marginally phosphatic sandy beds of dolomitic clasts and grains. The second economic zone is 0 to 14 ft. (0.0 to 4.3 m) of dark gray to dark gray-blue-green clays, silts with quartz sands with phosphate nodules and pellets present with phosphate grains and clasts predominate. The phosphate grade ranges from 29 to 33% P2O5. The basal units are dark gray to black clays to phosphatic limestone rubble to beds of phosphatic limestone. The DeSoto property geology consists of 18 to 32 ft. (5.5 to 9.8 m) of gray to white poorly graded quartz sand with varying abundance of reworked phosphate grains. The economic zone is 11 to 28 ft. (3.4 to8.5 m) thick, ranging in grade from 29 to 35% P2O5 and comprised of tan-gray to gray clay-rich sands with phosphate pellets and grains. The basal units are gray to gray-blue barren clays to phosphatic limestone rubble to beds of phosphatic limestone. The Pioneer property geology consists of 21 to 45 ft. (6.4 to 13.7 m) of gray to tan poorly graded quartz sand with varying abundance of reworked phosphate grains. The economic zone is 14 to 38 ft. (4.3 to 11.6 m) thick, ranging in grade from 26 to 33% P2O5 and comprised of tan-gray to gray to gray-blue quartz sands, silts and clays with phosphate pellets and grains. The basal units are gray green to dark-gray barren clays to phosphatic limestone rubble to beds of phosphatic limestone. 1.6 Mineral Resource Estimates The mineral resource estimates for Mosaic’s holdings are listed in Table 1-1. Mineral resources are reported exclusive of the mineral reserves. Figures 1-2 to 1-7 show the distribution of the mineral resources and mineral reserves for the Florida Phosphate Mining facilities and exploration properties. Date: December 31, 2021 1-5 Table 1-1: 2021 Mineral Resources Location Measured Mineral Resources Indicated Mineral Resources Measured + Indicated Mineral Resources Inferred Mineral Resources Tons (M) Tonnes (M) %P2O5 MER Tons (M) Tonnes (M) %P2O5 MER Tons (M) Tonnes (M) %P2O5 MER Tons (M) Tonnes (M) %P2O5 MER DeSoto Property 0 0 0.0 0.0 156 142 30.5 10.7 156 142 30.5 10.7 67 61 30 10 Pioneer Property 19 17 31.1 9.3 136 123 30.4 10.4 154 140 30.5 10.3 21 19 30 10 South Pasture Property 94 85 29.7 10.4 165 150 29.4 10.9 259 235 29.5 10.7 4 3 30 10 Total 113 102 30.0 10.2 457 415 30.1 10.7 569 517 30.0 10.6 92 83 30 10 Notes to accompany mineral resource table: 1. Mineral resource estimates were prepared by QP K. Farmer, a Mosaic employee. 2. Mineral resources are reported as a beneficiation plant product (phosphate rock) tonnage and P2O5 grade including a total primary impurities ratio (MER). 3. Mineral resources have an effective date of December 31, 2021. 4. Mineral resources are reported exclusive of those mineral resources that have been converted to mineral reserves. 5. Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. 6. Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not meet the threshold for mineral reserve modifying factors, such as estimated economic viability, that would allow for conversion to mineral reserves. There is no certainty that any part of the mineral resources estimated will be converted into mineral reserves. 7. Mineral resources assume dragline mining at all sites except Wingate Mine where dredging is assumed. 8. Mineral resources amenable to a dragline mining method are contained within a conceptual mine pit design using the same technical parameters as used for mineral reserves. 9. The cut-offs used to estimate mineral resources by site include, the minimum beneficiation plant concentrate BPL (%P2O5), minimum pebble BPL (%P2O5), maximum pebble magnesium oxide concentration and a maximum clay content cut-off for a logged matrix layer and the composite matrix volume (Section 11.2). 10. Impurities are reported as MER ((Fe + Al + Mg)/P2O5 x 100). 11. Tonnage estimates are in US Customary and metric units and are rounded to the nearest million tonnes. 12. Rounding as required by reporting guidelines may result in apparent summation differences. 13. A commodity price of US$102.72/tonne of phosphate rock was used to assess prospects for economic extraction but is not used for cut-off purposes. Date: December 31, 2021 1-6 1.7 Mineral Reserve Estimates The mineral reserve estimates for Mosaic’s holdings are listed in Table 1-2. Figures 1-2 to 1-7 show the distribution of the mineral resources and mineral reserves for the mining facilities and properties. Mineral reserves are sub-divided into two confidence categories in Regulation S-K 1300, proven and probable.


 
Date: December 31, 2021 1-7 Table 1-2: 2021 Mineral Reserves Location Proven Mineral Reserves Probable Mineral Reserves Total Mineral Reserves Tons (M) Tonnes (M) %P2O5 MER Tons (M) Tonnes (M) % P2O5 MER Tons (M) Tonnes (M) % P2O5 MER South Fort Meade Facility 6 5 27.4 10.9 24 21 26.7 7.6 29 26 26.9 8.2 Four Corners Facility 46 42 28.3 9.7 40 36 27.2 11.2 86 78 27.8 10.4 Wingate Facility 13 12 28.3 8.7 12 11 27.8 10.2 25 23 28.0 9.5 Total 65 59 28.2 9.6 76 69 27.1 9.9 141 128 27.6 9.8 Notes to accompany mineral reserves table: 1. Mineral reserve estimates were prepared by QP K. Farmer, a Mosaic employee. 2. Mineral reserves have an effective date of December 31, 2021. 3. Mineral reserves are based on measured and indicated mineral resources only. 4. Mineral reserves are reported as a beneficiation plant product (phosphate rock) tonnage and P2O5 grade including a total primary impurities ratio (MER). 5. South Fort Meade and Four Corners mineral reserves are mined by a dragline mining method. The Wingate mineral reserves are mined by dredge mining. 6. Cut-off based on productivity factors per site have been applied to estimate mineral reserves (Section 12.2). 7. Impurities are reported as MER ((Fe + Al + Mg)/P2O5 x 100). 8. Mine designs are used to constrain mineral reserves within mineable pit shapes. 9. Only after a positive economic test and inclusion in the Life of Mine Plan are the mineral reserve estimates considered and disclosed as mineral reserves. 10. Tonnage estimates are in US Customary and metric units and are rounded to the nearest million tonnes. 11. Rounding as required by reporting guidelines may result in apparent summation differences. 12. A commodity price of US$102.72/tonne of phosphate rock was used to assess the economic viability of the mineral reserves in the LOM. Date: December 31, 2021 1-8 Figure 1-2: South Fort Meade Facility Mineral Reserves Date: December 31, 2021 1-9 Figure 1-3: Four Corners Facility Mineral Reserves Date: December 31, 2021 1-10 Figure 1-4: Wingate Facility Mineral Reserves


 
Date: December 31, 2021 1-11 Figure 1-5: DeSoto Property Mineral Resources Date: December 31, 2021 1-12 Figure 1-6: Pioneer Property Mineral Resources Date: December 31, 2021 1-13 Figure 1-7: South Pasture Property Mineral Resources Date: December 31, 2021 1-14 1.8 Mining Methods Mosaic’s mining operations in central Florida extract phosphate using surface mining techniques. The active mines utilize either electric walking draglines or dredges to remove the overburden and mine the phosphate ore (matrix). The matrix is hydraulically transported via multiple series, centrifugal pumping systems to the beneficiation plant. Pre-mining development follows the issuance of regulatory permits. This involves ditch and berms for stormwater control, groundwater draw down mitigation where applicable, land clearing, installation of infrastructure and pre-mining dewatering (only for dragline mining). Development of the mine plan is based on several factors, including geological data, equipment, property boundaries, geotechnical considerations, clay impoundment, reclamation schedule, production (volume and quality) demands, permits (local, state and federal) and agreements. Production is monitored through dragline/dredge monitoring systems, mass-flow instrumentation on slurry pumping systems and pit surveys. In addition to draglines and dredges, heavy mobile equipment is used to support mining activities. While each mine is staffed with Mosaic personnel to handle production and maintenance, contractors are used on an as needed basis. 1.9 Recovery Methods Phosphate matrix mined at the three active facilities is processed through on-site beneficiation plants. The principal production components of Florida beneficiation plants consist of a washer, sizing and flotation plant. The washer separates >1.0 mm phosphate product and the <1.0 mm slurry of liberated clay, sand and phosphate particles. The clay is removed with hydrocyclones and pumped to clay settling areas while the >0.1 mm sand and phosphate move on to the Sizing section. The >0.1 mm sand and phosphate is separated into different size fractions using hydrosizers. An upward flow of water is injected into the hydrosizer that force the fine particles to rise and overflow the sizer, while the coarse particles gently fall and flow out the sizer’s underflow. The segregated fine and coarse particles are then sent to the Flotation Plant so the phosphate can be separated from the sand. The two step Crago flotation process (rougher flotation and cleaning flotation) is next utilized to separate phosphate from the sand. In the rougher flotation process, the phosphate mineral is recovered using flotation machines by adding fatty acid, oil, soda ash, and sodium silicate. To increase the recovered rougher phosphate grade, a second cleaning flotation process is used to remove the residual sand using amine. 1.10 Infrastructure The three Florida Phosphate Mining Facilities are situated in rural central Florida, and in close proximity to populated areas. They are located southeast of Tampa in Hillsborough, Polk, Hardee and Manatee Counties. The sites are located in agricultural zones with associated population centers and easy access to multiple transportation hubs in central Florida. The phosphate facilities have the infrastructure in place to meet the current production plans and long-range production goals. The current infrastructure includes major roads and highway access, railway support from CSX and supplied electricity by Duke Energy, TECO, PRECO, Florida Power, and Mosaic cogeneration in associated distribution areas. Water supply is from Mosaic-owned deep wells and recycle sources. Current clay and tailings management areas footprint is expected to meet current demands with additional capacity planned to meet the maximum volume and deposition rates in the Life of Mine (LOM) plan, which covers the period between 2022 and 2035. Additional infrastructure may be added to increase reliability of the existing product lines or add some additional production flexibility. The assets currently in place are maintained through a robust workflow process that focuses on proactive inspections and preventative maintenance while trying to minimize reactive maintenance.


 
Date: December 31, 2021 1-15 The sites are expected to continue to operate effectively while continuing to maintain the built infrastructure and renewing the long-term agreements in place for the sites’ water, electricity, and logistics needs. The long-term clay and sand tailings management area plan is in place to support the production at the levels indicated in the LOM plan. A focus on reliability centered maintenance will extend the life of the majority of assets to align with the LOM plan. It is expected that some infrastructure will need to be replaced as it reaches end of life. This has been factored into the capital cost requirements. 1.11 Markets and Contracts The open pit mining and beneficiation practices at the Florida mines result in a phosphate rock product with a grade of ~62% BPL (~28.5% P2O5) and is amendable as feedstock for phosphoric acid (and downstream high-analysis phosphate end-products). The phosphate rock concentrate is consumed internally at downstream phosphate production facilities to make finished products including phosphate fertilizers and animal feed phosphates. There is no quoted benchmark for phosphate rock in Florida (nor elsewhere in the United States). The CRU forecast finished product price was utilized as the basis to calculate a gross margin available to fund the upstream mining and processing of phosphate rock. The gross margin available for Florida Phosphate mining was calculated as $253 per metric tonne. The global market for phosphate rock is estimated to be approximately 210 million metric tonnes in 2021 and has grown at a compound annual growth rate of around 2% over the past two decades, though has slowed modestly in the past several years. Going forward, global phosphate rock demand growth is expected to continue to grow, with Mosaic and independent analysts typically projecting a growth rate of 1-2% per annum. This growth ensures sufficient market demand for continued production at Mosaic’s Florida phosphate rock mines. 1.12 Environmental, Permitting and Social Considerations All Florida Phosphate Mining facilities and exploration properties operate or will operate pursuant to federal, state and local environmental regulations. Accordingly, permits, licenses and approvals are obtained specific to each site, based on project specific requirements. Mosaic also has routine interactions with government officials and agencies related to agency inspections, permitting and other environmental matters. The information as supplied regarding the management of all environmental aspects, permitting and social considerations at Mosaic facilities is guided by Mosaic’s Environmental, Health and Safety Policy, management system of programs and procedures, and current permit, legal and regulatory requirements. 1.13 Capital Cost and Operating Cost Estimates Capital for the Four Corners, South Fort Meade and Wingate facilities’ 2021 LOM plan (2022 to 2035) and 2021 mineral reserves is estimated at US$1.37 B. The capital cost estimate includes mine, beneficiation plant, loading, maintenance, mobile equipment, land management and regulatory capital. Operating costs for the Four Corners, South Fort Meade and Wingate facilities 2021 LOM plan (2022 to 2035) and 2021 mineral reserves is estimated at US$4.50 B. This includes mining cash costs (mining, beneficiation plant, maintenance and direct overhead costs), other operating costs (central and functional overhead allocated costs) and royalties and other government levies or interests include severance taxes, royalties, and excluding income taxes. The operating cost forecasts are based on a combination of historical performance and calculations from first principles to take account variation in production rates and expected process improvements. 1.14 Economic Analysis The financial models that support the mineral reserve and mineral resource declarations are standalone models that calculate annual cash flows based on scheduled ore production, assumed processing recoveries, commodity sale prices, projected operating and capital costs, estimated taxes along with anticipated closure and reclamation costs. Date: December 31, 2021 1-16 The net present value analysis of the 2021 LOM plan mineral reserves indicates that there is significant economic value associated with mining the mineral reserves at the Four Corners, South Fort Meade and Wingate facilities, given the economic assumptions and operating parameters considered. The financial model reflects an after tax net present value of approximately US$3.4 B, utilizing a discount rate of 9.22%. A sensitivity analysis of the financial model by varying commodity price, total operating cost and total capital cost indicates that the financial results for the Four Corners, South Fort Meade and Wingate facilities are robust and considered low risk. The economic analysis of the DeSoto, Pioneer and South Pasture properties mineral resources indicates that there is positive economic value associated with the possible mining of the mineral resources based on the reasonable economic and operating assumptions considered. The economic assessments reflect positive after tax NPV estimates and positive total cash flows, and support reasonable prospects of economic extraction and the reporting of the mineral resources. 1.15 Interpretations and Conclusions Under the assumptions and technical data outlined in this Technical Report Summary, the Florida Phosphate Mining 2021 LOM plan utilizing South Fort Meade, Four Corners and Wingate facilities mineral reserves only, yields a positive after-tax cash flow and NPV. The economic assessment of the DeSoto, Pioneer and South Pasture properties mineral resources yields a positive after-tax cash flow and NPV and supports reasonable prospects of economic extraction and the reporting of the mineral resources. These economic assessments support the 2021 SEC Regulation S-K, Subpart 1300 disclosure of the Florida Phosphate Mining mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates. 1.16 Recommendations The following recommendations for additional work are focused on improving and maintaining important mineral resource and mineral reserve estimation processes. • Mosaic will continue to investigate and consider new innovations in phosphate mining and processing technology. • A thorough production reconciliation process will be considered to further improve and support the mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates. Sample and measuring points will be revisited and assessed. • The current exploration plan will be further refined to better define future opportunities for mineral resource and mineral reserve expansion. • Mosaic will consider increasing the drilling density in the indicated and inferred mineral resource areas. • Investigate new technology to improve the efficiency of core sample processing and sample tracking. • A more robust modeling software for mineral resource estimates will be considered. • Investigate the use of optimization processes for improving mineral resource limits. • The process of acquiring additional land adjacent to the operating mines should continue as this adds mineral resources and mineral reserves to the LOM plan. • More samplers at the beneficiation plants would help monitor the flotation performance for each circuit. • Completion of plant step tests are recommended to evaluate changes in the minerology, or verify correct setpoints when draglines have moved to a new area. Date: December 31, 2021 2-1 2.0 Introduction 2.1 Registrant The 2021 Florida Phosphate Mining Technical Report Summary has been prepared by the phosphate Qualified Persons for The Mosaic Company, headquartered in Tampa Florida, USA. 2.2 Purpose and Terms of Reference The Report was prepared to support the mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates for the year ending December 31, 2021. The mineral resources and mineral reserves are reported in accordance with SEC Regulation S-K, Subpart 1300. For the purposes of this Report, unless otherwise noted, The Mosaic Company will be referred to as Mosaic. Florida Phosphate Mining includes and refers to three active facilities (South Fort Meade, Four Corners and Wingate) and their respective beneficiation plants, and three exploration properties (DeSoto, Pioneer and South Pasture). Where practicable, measurement units used are US Customary units with metric unit conversions included. US Customary units are used in this Report when discussing the mining and processing facilities, including equipment capacities, pumping rates and equipment capacities. Some analytical results are also reported using US Customary units. 2.3 Abbreviations and Units Table 2-1: List of Units and Abbreviations BPL Bone Phosphate of Lime °C degree Celsius cm centimeter CSA clay settling areas CSX CSX Corporation EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement EMP Environmental Management Plan °F degree Fahrenheit Fcast. forecast ft. foot, feet gal US gallon US gpm US gallon per minute hp Horsepower HDPE High-density polyethylene IP Intermediate pebble IWUP Integrated water use permit km kilometer(s) kV kilovolt kW kilowatt lbs. pound(s) LiDAR Light Detection and Ranging LOM Life of Mine m meters M million(s) MER Ministry of Energy and Resources NEPA National Environmental Protection Agency NPV net present value P2O5 Phosphorus pentoxide P. Eng. Professional Engineer P. Geo. Professional Geoscientist PLS Product Loading System psi pounds per square inch QA Quality assurance QC Quality control QP Qualified Person SAP Enterprise software to manage business operations and customer relations SEC U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission SGS Inspection, verification, testing and certification company SWFWMD Southwest Florida Water Management District SPTs Soil penetration tests tonnes metric tonnes (2,204 lbs.) tons US Customary short tons (2,000 lbs.) tons/hour short tons per hour (US) tons/year tons per year (US) US$ United States dollar(s) USGS United States Geological Survey V volt(s) Date: December 31, 2021 2-2 2.4 Qualified Persons (QP) Table 2-2 outlines the people that served as Qualified Persons (QPs) for the Florida Phosphate Mining Technical Report Summary as defined in SEC Reg. S-K, Subpart 1300. Table 2-1: Qualified Persons QP Name Company Qualification Position/Title Site Visit / Inspection Dates Section of Responsibility Signature Kevin Farmer Mosaic Company SME Registered Member #4207068 Superintendent Mine Planning Full time Florida Phosphate employee 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 /s/Kevin Farmer Kevin Farmer Gonglun Chen Mosaic Company Ph.D., Professional Engineer Florida #73937 Engineer Lead Full time Florida Phosphate employee 10, 14 /s/Gonglun Chen Gonglun Chen Tyler Wright Mosaic Company Professional Engineer Florida #78507 Superintendent of Production Full time Florida Phosphate employee 15 /s/Tyler Wright Tyler Wright Brian Ball Mosaic Company Professional Engineer Florida License #75165 Director, Mine Strategy Full time Florida Phosphate employee 13, 16, 18, 19 /s/Brian Ball Brian Ball Bethany Niec Mosaic Company Professional Engineer Florida License #68437 Senior Manager, Environmental Full time Florida Phosphate employee 17.1, 17.2, 17.3, 17.8, 17.9 /s/Bethany Niec Bethany Niec Scott Wuitschick Mosaic Company Professional Engineer Florida License #54648 Director Geotech Ops, Water Management, Idle Plants Full time Florida Phosphate employee 17.4, 17.5, 17.6, 17.7 /s/Scott Wuitschick Scott Wuitschick 2.5 Effective Dates There are a number of effective dates: • Date of the mineral resource estimates: December 31, 2021. • Date of the mineral reserve estimates: December 31, 2021. • Date of supply of the most recent information on mineral tenure and permitting: December 2021. • Date of capital estimation: October 2021. • Date of operating cost estimation: October 2021. • Date of reclamation cost estimate: October 2021. • Date of economic analysis: December 31, 2021. The overall effective date of the Report is taken to be the date of the mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates and is December 31, 2021. 2.6 Information Sources and References The report listed in Table 2-3 and Section 24.0 (References) of this Report was used to support the preparation of this Report.


 
Date: December 31, 2021 2-3 Table 2-3: Reliance on Other Experts Expert Title Topic Supporting Section Date Received Burns & McDonnell Engineering Co. Site Closure Plan South Fort Meade Facility Site Closure Plan 17 August 8, 2021 2.7 Previous Technical Report Summaries There have been no prior Technical Report Summaries for Florida Phosphate Mining. Date: December 31, 2021 3-1 3.0 Property Description 3.1 Introduction The Mosaic Company’s three phosphate facilities and three exploration properties are located in central Florida (Figure 3-1) in DeSoto, Hardee, Hillsborough, Manatee and Polk counties. Even though property acquisition is an ongoing activity, most of the property currently being mined or planned for future mining has been in industry ownership for over 50 years. The South Fort Meade Facility is located in Polk and Hardee counties. Most of the 38,966 acres (15,769 hectares) of property associated with this mine straddle the county line along County Line Road beginning 1.3 miles (2 km) east of the City of Bowling Green and continuing another 5 miles (8 km). This facility has been in operation since 1995 (Figure 3-2). The Four Corners Facility, as the name implies, is in and around the intersection of four counties (Hardee, Hillsborough, Manatee and Polk). The 54,671 acres (22,124 hectares) of property associated with this mine exist in southeast Hillsborough County, northeast Manatee County, northwest Hardee County and southwest Polk County (Figure 3-3). The Wingate Facility is wholly located in eastern Manatee County. Most of the 8,761 acres (3,545 hectares) of property associated with this mine are west of Duette Road and north of State Road 64. There is a portion of this property that exists on the east side of Duette Road that begins approximately 3 miles (4.8 km) north of State Road 64 (Figure 3-4). This facility has been in operation off and on since 1981. The South Pasture property is wholly located in northwest Hardee County. The 38,273 acres (15,671 hectares) of property associated with this mine, occur along a 10 mile (16 km) stretch of State Road 64 and a seven mile stretch along Country Road 663. All parcels are bisected by County Road 663, State Road 62, State Road 64 and several local roads (Figure 3-7). The mining and beneficiation activities at this location have been idled. The DeSoto property is located in northwest DeSoto County and southeast Manatee County. The 43,064 acres (17,427 hectares) of property associated with this future mine site, is bisected by State Road 70 and State Road 72 running east and west and the county line running north and south. A portion of the DeSoto property is owned fee simple and the mining interests on the remaining portion is secured by mineral rights (Figure 3-5). The Pioneer property is located wholly in northwest Hardee County south of State Road 64. The 26,017 acres (10,529 hectares) of property associated with this future mine site, is bisected by County Road 663 running north and south. Several local roads (Murphy, Bridges, Bennett and Post Plant) criss-cross this parcel (Figure 3-6). Date: December 31, 2021 3-2 Figure 3-1: Florida Phosphate Property Locations Date: December 31, 2021 3-3 3.2 Properties and Title 3.2.1 Mineral Title The Florida Phosphate Mining facilities and properties are owned by or have controlling interest granted to Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC (Mosaic Fertilizer), South Ft. Meade Land Management, Inc. (SFMLM) or the South Fort Meade Land Partnership (SFMLP) all of which are wholly owned subsidiaries of The Mosaic Company. In Florida, the Public Land Survey System is the method used to divide Florida into one-square-mile sections for land grid purposes. Township lines are established six miles apart from south to north and range lines are established 6 miles (9.6 km) apart east to west starting at the Tallahassee Meridian located in Leon County, Florida. This frames a 6 mile (9.6 km) by 6 mile (9.6 km) township grid, containing 36 one square mile (approximately 640 acre) sections. Sections can be further subdivided into fractions (i.e., half and quarter) of parcels and land described as such are called fractional descriptions. A parcel of land may also be described by metes and bounds but this description is tied to a certified section corner recorded in the Florida Division of State Lands. In Florida, each land parcel is assigned a parcel ID number used for appraisal and taxing. Each county in Florida adopts its own numerical system for these parcel IDs. Each parcel boundary is based on the legal description (metes and bounds and/or fractional) in the property deed that is recorded in county’s Clerk of Courts official records. Any title encumbrances, amendments, and/or conveyances are to be recorded in said Clerk’s office under this parcel number. This information is accessible in digital or hard copy form from each respective County Clerk’s office to anyone that is interested. Requests for title examination are made to a private title company or attorney that researches these records and issues a report on their findings. For many parcels, the subsurface mineral rights are not severed from surface rights. Mosaic either owns or has controlling interest in the mineral rights to the current and future facilities. Table 3-1 summarizes the Florida Phosphate Mining property status and acreages. Table 3-2 summarizes the land owned by Mosaic comprising Mosaic Florida Phosphate Mining. Figures 3-2, 3-3, 3-4, 3-5, 3-6 and 3-7 show the location and distribution of the property status for the three facilities and three exploration properties. Within the total acreage owned by Mosaic, SFMLM or SFMLP are parcels of land with less than 100% of the mineral interest. These entities own the necessary mineral interests to mine the area shown.


 
Date: December 31, 2021 3-4 Table 3-1: Florida Phosphate Properties Status and Acreages Location Status (Acres) Status (Hectares) Fee Simple Mineral Rights Mining Agreement Total Fee Simple Mineral Rights Mining Agreement Total South Fort Meade Facility 13,326 112 25,528 38,966 5,393 45 10,331 15,769 Four Corners Facility 54,671 54,671 22,124 22,124 Wingate Facility 8,761 8,761 3,545 3,545 DeSoto Property 24,113 18,943 8 43,064 9,758 7,666 3 17,427 Pioneer Property 26,017 26,017 10,529 10,529 South Pasture Property 38,723 38,723 15,671 15,671 Total 165,611 19,055 25,536 210,202 67,020 7,711 10,334 85,065 Table 3-2: Land Ownership Property Acreage Acres Hectares South Fort Meade Facility 38,966 15,769 Four Corners Facility 54,671 22,124 Wingate Facility 8,761 3,545 DeSoto Property 43,064 17,427 Pioneer Property 26,017 10,529 South Pasture Property 38,723 15,671 Total 210,202 85,065 Date: December 31, 2021 3-5 Figure 3-2: South Fort Meade Facility Property Status and Location Date: December 31, 2021 3-6 Figure 3-3: Four Corners Facility Property Status and Location Date: December 31, 2021 3-7 Figure 3-4: Wingate Facility Property Status and Location


 
Date: December 31, 2021 3-8 Figure 3-5: DeSoto Property Status and Location Date: December 31, 2021 3-9 Figure 3-6: Pioneer Property Status and Location Date: December 31, 2021 3-10 Figure 3-7: South Pasture Property Status and Location Date: December 31, 2021 3-11 3.2.2 Surface Rights In Florida, surface rights are the same ownership and title as subsurface mineral rights unless they are severed. In other words, the mineral interest must be severed from the surface rights for there to be a difference. The severance must be documented in the public records as discussed in Section 3.2.1. In cases where Mosaic owns the surface rights, it is generally an indication that surface and mineral rights have not been severed. There are instances on Mosaic controlled holdings where Mosaic does not own the surface rights but does own the mineral rights. Mineral and surface rights are joined at the Four Corners, Wingate, Pioneer and South Pasture Properties. Portions of the DeSoto Property and South Fort Meade Facility have the surface and mineral interests severed. Table 3-3 outlines the surface rights ownership by Mosaic. Table 3-3: Property Surface Rights Property Surface Rights Acreage Acres Hectares South Fort Meade Facility 38,966 15,769 Four Corners Facility 54,671 22,125 Wingate Facility 8,761 3,545 DeSoto Property 24,113 9,758 Pioneer Property 26,017 10,529 South Pasture Property 38,723 15,761 Total 191,259 77,487 3.2.3 Water Rights The integrated water use permit (IWUP) issued by the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) in 2012 authorizes the withdrawal of groundwater from underground aquifers through permitted wells to provide potable and production-water supplies in support of mining and other operations. The IWUP addresses all of Mosaic’s active mining operations. A separate water use permit (WUP) was issued by SWFWMD for the South Pasture property in 2017. The IWUP and the South Pasture WUP also regulate mine dewatering to avoid adverse impacts to wetlands and offsite properties. Both the IWUP and the WUP are 20 year permits expiring in 2032 and 2037, respectively. 3.2.4 Royalties There are no current royalty obligations for Florida phosphate mining. 3.3 Encumbrances There are no significant environmental permitting encumbrances (existing or anticipated in the future) associated with the Florida Phosphate Mining facilities and exploration properties. Mosaic does not anticipate any future encumbrances based on current known regulations and existing permitting processes. There are no material outstanding violations and fines. 3.4 Significant Factors and Risks That May Affect Access, Title or Work Programs As discussed, mineral rights or surface rights are necessary to conduct mining in Florida. Once Mosaic owns or controls the mineral or surface rights, the risks related to title and access are mitigated. The risk that does exist is if there is an encumbrance or interest in the property that was not made a part of the public records and Mosaic is not aware of it. To mitigate that risk, title insurance is obtained for parcels that are acquired. However, there may be some legacy properties that have not gone through a title examination.


 
Date: December 31, 2021 4-1 4.0 Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography 4.1 Physiography 4.1.1 Topography, Elevation and Vegetation Much of the state of Florida is low-lying and fairly level, however there are some places that feature vistas that rise 50 to 100 ft. (15 to 30 m) above sea level. Central and North Florida, 25 miles (40 km) or more away from the coastline, feature rolling hills with elevations ranging from 100 to 250 ft. (30 to 76 m). Much of Florida has an elevation of less than 12 ft. (3.7 m). Due to the vast amounts of limestone bedrock that Florida sits above, water is allowed to move relatively freely beneath dry land and to rise up to the surface. 4.2 Accessibility 4.2.1 South Fort Meade Facility Primary access to the South Fort Meade Facility is through the main entrance road off County Line Road (Figure 4-1). The mining areas are accessed by County Line Rd, CR 657, CR 664A, and CR 664B. The South Fort Meade entrance is a paved road directly off County Line Road 664 and is the primary entrance to the beneficiation plant area including offices, maintenance shops and warehouse. Due to the large footprint, the mining areas have multiple access points. A system of unpaved dirt roads extends from these access points and are maintained regularly with a fleet of motor graders. South Fort Meade is serviced by 4.4 miles (6.4 km) of internal railroad track that connects into the CSX rail network. Date: December 31, 2021 4-2 Figure 4-1: South Fort Meade Facility Location and Accessibility Date: December 31, 2021 4-3 4.2.2 Four Corners Facility Primary access to the Four Corners Plant is through the Four Corners Mine Road entrance road off SR37 in Hillsborough County (Figure 4-2). The mining areas are accessed by SR37, SR39, SR62, Taylor-Gill Rd, and SR674. Four Corners Mine Road is a paved road directly off Florida State Road 37 and is the primary entrance to the beneficiation plant area including offices, maintenance shops and warehouse. This access point is monitored with a security guard gate and manned 24/7. Due to the large footprint, the mining areas have multiple access points. A system of unpaved dirt roads extends from these access points through infrastructure corridors allow personnel to access production equipment, water storage areas and waste disposal areas. Higher volume main corridor roads are capped in rock and maintained regularly with motor graders. Date: December 31, 2021 4-4 Figure 4-2: Four Corners Facility Location and Accessibility


 
Date: December 31, 2021 4-5 4.2.3 Wingate Facility Primary access to the Wingate Plant is through the Nu-Gulf Mine Road entrance off Duette Road in Manatee County (Figure 4-3). The mining areas are accessed from the main entrance road. Nu-Gulf Mine Road is a paved road directly off Duette Road and is the primary entrance to the beneficiation plant area including offices, maintenance shops and warehouse. This access point is monitored with a security guard gate and manned during day shift hours M-F. Mine areas are accessed from the entrance road and a system of unpaved dirt roads extending from these access points through infrastructure corridors allow personnel to access production equipment, water storage areas and waste disposal areas. Higher volume main corridor roads are capped in rock and maintained regularly with motor graders. Date: December 31, 2021 4-6 Figure 4-3: Wingate Facility Location and Accessibility Date: December 31, 2021 4-7 4.2.4 DeSoto Property The DeSoto property is located just east of Arcadia, Florida with primary access via NW Pine Level Street and/or SR 70 and SR 72 in DeSoto County (Figure 4-4). Date: December 31, 2021 4-8 Figure 4-4: DeSoto Property Location and Accessibility


 
Date: December 31, 2021 4-9 4.2.5 Pioneer Property Primary access to the Pioneer property is expected to be from the South Pasture property corridors (Figure 4-5). The area can also be accessed from SR64 in Hardee County. Date: December 31, 2021 4-10 Figure 4-5: Pioneer Property Location and Accessibility Date: December 31, 2021 4-11 4.2.6 South Pasture Property The South Pasture Mine View Road off SR 62 is the main entrance road to the Beneficiation Plant, including offices, maintenance shops and warehouse (Figure 4-6). Date: December 31, 2021 4-12 Figure 4-6: South Pasture Facility Location and Accessibility


 
Date: December 31, 2021 4-13 4.3 Climate and Length of Operating Season The climate of Florida is tempered by the fact that no part of the state is very distant from the ocean. In the northern areas, the prevalent climate is humid subtropical, while the southern coastal areas have a true tropical climate. Mean high temperatures for late July are range from 80 to 90°F (32 to 34°C). Mean low temperatures for early to mid-January range from 40 to 50°F (4 to 7°C) in northern Florida and 50°F (13°C) in southern Florida. In the summer, high temperatures in the state seldom exceed 100°F (38°C). During the late autumn and winter months, Florida occasionally experiences cold fronts that can bring high winds and relatively cooler temperatures for the entire state, with temperatures ranging from 20 to 30°F (-7 to 4°C). The seasons in Florida are determined more by precipitation than by temperature, with hot, wet springs and summers making up the wet season, and mild to cool, relatively dry winters and autumns, making the dry season. The length of the operating season for the Florida Phosphate Mining facilities is the full year, respecting some statuary holidays. The facilities operate for an average of 365 days per year. 4.4 Infrastructure/Local Resources 4.4.1 Water At South Fort Meade, potable water is provided to the plant and office areas from a well located in the plant area. Process water for plant and field operations is supplied by a recirculating water system distributed over the facility’s large footprint. Clarified waste streams are combined with collected stormwater and groundwater intrusion to supply most of the South Fort Meade water needs, however two supplemental production deep wells are available in the beneficiation plant area if needed. South Fort Meade utilizes five smaller deep wells to supply service water to a small percentage of its field pump assets. At Four Corners, potable water is provided to the plant and office areas from wells located near each office area. Process water for plant and field operations is mostly supplied by a recirculating water system distributed over the mine’s large footprint. Clarified waste streams are combined with collected stormwater and groundwater intrusion to supply most of the Four Corners water needs, however four supplemental production deep wells are available in the Plant areas if needed. The Facility utilizes several smaller deep wells to supply service water to a percentage of its isolated field pump assets. In addition, Four Corners operates and maintains three well field pumps to supply Manatee County water via the Manatee River and one Alafia River augmentation well located in Hillsborough County, near the Lonesome mining area. Potable water at Wingate is provided to the plant and office areas from a potable well located in the plant area. Process water for plant and field operations is mostly supplied by a recirculating water system distributed over the mine’s large footprint. Clarified waste streams are combined with collected stormwater and groundwater intrusion to supply most of the Wingate water needs, however, two supplemental production deep wells are available in the beneficiation plant area if needed. The facility utilizes smaller deep wells to supply service water to a small percentage of its isolated field pump assets. There are no potable water or production-water assets at the DeSoto and Pioneer exploration properties. At the South Pasture property potable water was provided to the plant and office areas from potable wells located in the plant area. Process water for plant and field operations was mostly supplied by a recirculating water system distributed over the mine’s large footprint. Clarified waste streams were combined with collected stormwater and groundwater intrusion to supply most of the past South Pasture water needs, however, four supplemental production deep wells are available in the area, if needed in the future. South Pasture utilized smaller deep wells in the past to supply service water to a small percentage of its isolated field pump assets. 4.4.2 Power and Electricity Duke Energy and the Mosaic cogeneration line from the Bartow chemical plant supply power to the South Fort Meade Facility. The beneficiation plant is powered from Duke Energy or Bartow cogeneration, while the mining area is powered by Duke Energy. Duke Energy supplies 230 kV power from Hines Power Plant in Fort Meade Florida; redundant 230 kV power can be supplied by the Duke Energy grid in central Florida. The 230 kV incoming power is routed through Duke Date: December 31, 2021 4-14 Energy’s South Polk Substation and is converted to 115 kV power that runs via Duke owned and operated overhead power lines to two Duke 115 to 25 kV substations and one 115 to 69 kV substation. The 25 kV or 69 kV power is routed throughout the mine through the South Fort Meade network of powerlines and substations. Diesel powered assets are used in particularly remote areas where electrical power distribution is impractical. Duke Energy, PRECO (Peace River Electric Cooperative, Inc.), TECO (Tampa Electric Company) and the Mosaic cogeneration line from the New Wales and South Pierce chemical plants supply power to the Four Corners Facility and plant areas. Four Corners presently uses approximately 15% cogenerated and 85% purchased power. The mining area power providers are divided by each power company’s supply area as approved by the government. Each company and cogenerated electricity utilize supply lines of 69 kV power. Mosaic uses a fleet of 69 kV to 4160V and 7200 V substations to distribute power to electrically powered assets through areas of the mine. Individual assets are powered using fully insulated and sealed power cables. Diesel powered assets are used in particularly remote areas where electrical power distribution is impractical. Florida Power and Duke Energy supply power to the Wingate Facility. The beneficiation plant and mining activities are powered from Florida Power while water return from the FM-1 and FM-2 clay settling pond is powered by Duke Energy. Wingate uses approximately 10% Duke Energy and 90% Florida Power. Cogenerated power is not available to the Wingate Facility. The mining area power provider is divided by each company’s supply area as approved by the government. Each company utilize supply lines of 69 kV power. Mosaic uses a fleet of 69 kV to 4160V and 7200 V substations to distribute power to electrically powered assets through areas of the mine. Individual assets are powered using fully insulated and sealed power cables. Diesel powered assets are used in particularly remote areas where electrical power distribution is impractical. DeSoto and Pioneer properties are located within the PRECO service area. Duke Energy and the Mosaic cogeneration line from the New Wales and South Pierce chemical plants supply power to the South Pasture property. When operations are resumed, South Pasture is expected to use approximately 69% Duke power and 31% Duke Energy. Duke Energy and Mosaic cogenerated power utilize the 69 kV supply lines. The Facility is expected to use a fleet of 69 kV to 4160V and 7200 V substations to distribute power to electrically powered assets through areas of the mine and Plant. Individual assets are powered using fully insulated and sealed power cables. Diesel powered assets are used in particularly remote areas where electrical power distribution is impractical. 4.4.3 Roads and Logistics The South Fort Meade Facility is located in central Florida with mining areas in Polk and Hardee counties. The facility is close to the town of Bowling Green and cities of Wauchula and Avon Park. Other population centers within a 50 mile (80 km) radius are the cities of Lakeland and Bartow FL. Logistical support to the site is primarily through Florida Department of Transportation paved road system and CSX rail network. Executive airports are located in Wauchula, Bartow and Avon Park. A regional airport is located in Lakeland and an international airport is located in Tampa. Primary access to Four Corners is through the Four Corners Mine Road entrance road off SR37 in Hillsborough County (Figure 15-2). The mining areas are accessed by SR37, SR39, SR62, Taylor-Gill Rd, and SR674. Four Corners Mine Road is a paved road directly off Florida State Road 37 and is the primary entrance road to the beneficiation plant area including offices, maintenance shops, warehouse. This access point is monitored with a security guard gate and manned 24 hours per day. Due to the large footprint, the mining areas have multiple access points. A system of unpaved dirt roads extends from these access points through infrastructure corridors allowing personnel access to production equipment, water storage areas and waste disposal areas. Higher volume main corridor roads are capped in rock and maintained regularly with motor graders. Most equipment, parts, and supplies to operate the mine are delivered via public roads and Mosaic’s road network. Certain reagents used in the beneficiation process are delivered via CSX/Mosaic owned railways. All phosphate rock at Four Corners is transported by either truck or rail to downstream chemical plants. Four Corners utilizes a Mosaic owned railway spur and locomotive to transfer product rail cars to its Agrock facility. Agrock provides maintenance and storage for empty and loaded railcars. From that point CSX picks up rail cars loaded with phosphate rock and delivers to the Mosaic fertilizer plants via CSX rail networks and locomotives. Four Corners utilizes truck haulage of final product on public roads to supplement rail haulage depending on logistics timing and destination. Primary access to Wingate is through the Nu-Gulf Mine Road entrance off Duette Road in Manatee County. The mining areas are accessed from the main entrance road. Nu-Gulf Mine Road is a paved road directly off County Line Road 664 and is the main entrance road to the beneficiation plant area including offices, maintenance shops, warehouse. This access point Date: December 31, 2021 4-15 is monitored with a security guard gate and manned during day shift hours Monday to Friday. Mine areas are accessed from the entrance road and a system of unpaved dirt roads extending from these access points through infrastructure corridors allows personnel to access to production equipment, water storage areas and waste disposal areas. Higher volume main corridor roads are capped in rock and maintained regularly with fleet of motor graders. Most equipment, parts, and supplies to operate the mine are delivered via public roads and then utilize mosaic’s road network. There is no rail service to the Wingate site. All final product at Wingate is transported via truck to Four Corners Facility for final shipping or directly to a Mosaic chemical plant. Wingate truck haulage of final product on public roads is only permitted using the Duette Road traveling north to SR62. The DeSoto property is located just east of Arcadia, Florida with primary access to the property via NW Pine Level Street and/or SR 70 and SR 72 in DeSoto County. The area is not developed and there is no rail service available to the property. Primary access to the Pioneer exploration property is expected to be from the South Pasture Facility corridors. The mining areas are expected to be accessed from SR64 in Hardee County. Potential mining areas are expected to be accessed from the entrance road and a system of unpaved dirt roads extending from these access points through infrastructure corridors allowing personnel to access to production equipment, water storage areas and waste disposal areas. All phosphate rock from Pioneer is expected to be transported by rail and truck from the South Pasture Facility directly to a Mosaic chemical plant. The South Pasture Mine View Road off SR 62 is the main entrance road to the beneficiation plant, including offices, maintenance shops and warehouse. Mining areas are accessed from the entrance road and a system of unpaved dirt roads extending from these access points through infrastructure corridors allowing personnel to access to production equipment, water storage areas and waste disposal areas. Most equipment, parts, and supplies are expected to be delivered via public roads and then utilize the Mosaic road network. All phosphate rock at South Pasture is expected to be transported by CSX railroad directly to a Mosaic chemical plant. 4.4.4 Personnel The South Fort Meade Facility is located within a 1-hour drive of many population centers. A majority of the workforce resides in the cities of Wauchula, Bartow and Lakeland. Additional third-party support services are available in Tampa that can be accessed by car in 1.5 hours or via air travel through Tampa or Lakeland Airports. The Facility is serviced by multiple hospitals in Wauchula, Bartow, and Lakeland. South Fort Meade has a helipad available for Medivac emergency support to Tampa General or Lakeland Regional Hospitals. The Four Corners Facility is located within a 1-hour drive of many population centers. The workforce employees reside in the cities of Brandon, Valrico, Wauchula, Bartow and Lakeland. Additionally, third-party support services are available in Tampa that can be accessed by car in about an hour. Air travel can easily be completed through Tampa or Lakeland Airports. The Facility is serviced by multiple hospitals in Brandon, Valrico, Tampa and Lakeland. Four Corners has a helipad available for Medivac emergency support to Tampa General or Lakeland Regional Hospitals. The Wingate Facility is located within a 1-hour drive of many population centers. The workforce employees reside in the cities of Brandon, Valrico, Bradenton, Apollo Beach and Lakeland. Additionally, third party support services are available in Tampa that can be accessed by car in about an hour. Air travel can easily be completed through Tampa or Lakeland Airports. The Facility is serviced by multiple hospitals in Brandon, Tampa and Lakeland. Four Corners has a helipad available for Medivac emergency support to Tampa General or Lakeland Regional Hospitals. The DeSoto property is located just outside of Arcadia, Florida and within a 1.5-hour drive of many population centers. The workforce employees are expected to reside in the cities of Sarasota, Arcadia, Bartow, Wauchula, Fort Meade, Siesta Key, Venice and Lakeland. Additionally, third-party support services are expected to be available in Tampa that can be accessed by car in about an hour also. Air travel can easily be completed through Tampa, Sarasota or Lakeland Airports. The property is expected to be serviced by multiple hospitals in Sarasota, Tampa and Lakeland. The Pioneer property is located within a 1-hour drive of many population centers. The workforce employees are expected to reside in the cities of Brandon, Valrico, Bradenton, Wauchula, Bartow and Lakeland. Additionally, third party support services are expected to be available in Tampa that can be accessed by car in about 1.5 hours. Air travel can easily be completed through Tampa or Lakeland Airports. The property is expected to be serviced by multiple hospitals in Brandon, Tampa and Lakeland. Pioneer, via the South Pasture property, is expected to have a helipad available for Medivac emergency support to Tampa General or Lakeland Regional Hospitals. Date: December 31, 2021 4-16 The South Pasture exploration property is located within a 1-hour drive of many population centers. The workforce employees are expected to reside in the cities of Brandon, Valrico, Bradenton, Wauchula and Bartow. Additionally, third- party support services are expected to be available in Tampa that can be accessed by car in about 1.5-hour. Air travel can easily be completed through Tampa or Lakeland Airports. The property is expected to be serviced by multiple hospitals in Brandon, Tampa and Lakeland. South Pasture is expected to have a helipad available for Medivac emergency support to Tampa General or Lakeland Regional Hospitals. 4.4.5 Supplies Phosphate mining in central Florida is a mature industry with a variety of companies operating mines in the area over the last 75 years. A robust network of suppliers, machine shops, fabricators, and speciality contractors exist to support mining, and reclamation activities. Many large component vendors have branch offices in either Lakeland or Tampa. Engineering, design, and technical services are readily available in Bartow, Lakeland, and Tampa. Much of this support infrastructure also supports Mosaic’s chemical plants in the area, further increasing the stability of the support network for Florida Phosphate Mining.


 
Date: December 31, 2021 5-1 5.0 History Table 5-1: Florida Phosphate Mining History Date Event/Activity 1881 Pebble phosphate discovered along the Peace River south of Fort Meade by Captain J. Francis LeBaron, chief engineer of a detachment of the Engineering Corps, United States Army. 1888 Phosphate rock first commercially mined along the Peace River. 1977 Farmland Industries purchased the Pioneer (eastern portion a.k.a. Hickory Creek) property. 1981 Beker Phosphate Company initially opened Wingate. 1983 Four Corners construction was completed. The operation was an equal partnership between IMC and W.R. Grace Corporation. 1985 Wingate was closed after Beker Phosphates files for bankruptcy. 1985 Four Corners started production. 1986 IMC purchased Brewster Phosphates and closed the Lonesome Mine which would later be consolidated into Four Corners. 1986 Four Corners is idled due to market conditions. 1986 The Desoto (also known as Pine Level) property is sold by AMAX Chemical Company to Consolidated Minerals, Incorporated (CMI). 1988 IMC gained 100% control of Four Corners. 1989 IMC restarted Four Corners. 1990 Wingate is acquired by Nu-Gulf. 1992 Wingate is reopened after a joint venture by Nu-Gulf and Royster Industries but closed later that year. 1993 IMC-Agrico is created by a joint venture by IMC and Agrico Chemical Company (a subsidiary of Freeport McMoRan). 1995 CF Industries opened and started production at South Pasture. 1995 Mobil Chemical Corporation opened and started production at South Fort Meade. 1996 Cargill Fertilizer (later Cargill Crop Nutrition) acquired South Fort Meade. 1996 Desoto (a.k.a. Pine Level) and Ona (includes western portion of Pioneer) properties are sold by CMI to IMC-Agrico. 1997 IMC acquired Freeport McMoRan’s share of IMC-Agrico. 1998 Wingate is reopened. 1999 Wingate is closed. 2002 Cargill Crop Nutrition acquired Pioneer (eastern portion a.k.a. Hickory Creek) from Farmland-Hydro. 2004 Cargill Crop Nutrition acquired and reopened the Wingate Facility. 2004 Mosaic was created through a merger between IMC and Cargill’s Crop Nutrition business. 2005 Wingate is shut down. 2006 The Fort Green site is closed permanently and the property is consolidated into Four Corners and Wingate. 2008 Wingate is reopened. 2014 Mosaic acquired CF Industries’ phosphate business in Florida, including the South Pasture property. 2018 The South Pasture Facility is idled. 2018 Ona (western portion) property is consolidated into the Four Corners Facility. 2020 Mosaic acquired the Eastern Reserves. Table 5-2 outlines the production history to the end of 2021. The 2021 production includes actual data for the months January to October and a forecast for November and December. Four Corners data isn’t available prior to 2005 due to database challenges and there is no South Pasture historical data prior to March 2014 available. To note, South Fort Meade did not produce for most of the time in 2011 due to a permitting issue. Wingate stopped production in 2006 due to market conditions. Mosaic purchased South Pasture in March 2014 and idled the site in August 2018. Date: December 31, 2021 5-2 Table 5-2: Production History Year South Fort Meade Facility Four Corners Facility Wingate Facility South Pasture Tons Tonnes % P2O5 Tons Tonnes % P2O5 Tons Tonnes % P2O5 Tons Tonnes % P2O5 1995 to 2000 18,324,388 16,623,885 29.5 36,597,906 33,201,621 29.2 17,629,217 15,993,226 29.6 2001 to 2010 58,347,800 52,933,124 29.1 29,428,990 26,697,980 30.1 4,724,155 4,285,753 29.4 33,076,792 30,007,266 29.4 2011 15,900 14,424 29.4 7,900,385 7,167,229 29.5 1,087,068 986,188 29.4 3,504,059 3,178,882 28.9 2012 4,099,645 3,719,198 29.1 7,829,940 7,103,322 29.4 1,846,234 1,674,903 28.4 3,482,504 3,159,328 29.2 2013 5,453,596 4,947,502 29.5 6,657,860 6,040,011 29.3 1,468,412 1,332,143 28.4 3,565,361 3,234,495 29.0 2014 4,486,923 4,070,537 28.2 5,941,205 5,389,861 29.3 1,246,583 1,130,900 29.2 3,671,298 3,330,602 28.1 2015 4,725,970 4,287,400 28.5 6,328,755 5,741,447 29.1 1,370,500 1,243,318 29.2 3,607,028 3,272,296 28.1 2016 4,642,757 4,211,909 28.8 5,845,800 5,303,310 28.9 1,380,926 1,252,776 28.9 3,785,671 3,434,361 28.6 2017 4,863,666 4,412,318 29.1 7,057,530 6,402,591 28.6 1,529,404 1,387,475 28.6 3,061,315 2,777,225 28.7 2018 4,669,596 4,236,257 28.9 7,647,568 6,937,874 28.5 1,752,125 1,589,528 28.1 1,594,651 1,446,667 28.6 2019 4,677,530 4,243,455 28.2 7,162,630 6,497,938 28.7 1,659,245 1,505,267 29.1 n/a n/a n/a 2020 4,086,632 3,707,393 28.4 8,482,144 7,695,001 28.4 1,485,707 1,347,833 28.4 n/a n/a n/a 2021 3,179,984 2,884,882 27.0 7,854,910 7,125,974 28.4 1,146,796 1,040,373 28.4 n/a n/a n/a Total 121,574,387 110,292,284 29.0 144,735,623 131,304,159 29.2 20,697,155 18,776,457 28.9 76,977,896 69,834,348 29.2 Date: December 31, 2021 6-1 6.0 Geological Setting, Mineralization and Deposit 6.1 Deposit Type The phosphate deposits of Florida are sedimentary in origin and part of a phosphate-bearing province that extends from southern Florida north along the Atlantic coast into southern Virginia. Sedimentary phosphate deposits consist of rock in which the phosphate mineral(s) occur in grains, pellets, nodules, and as phosphate replacement of calcium in the remains of animal skeletal material and excrement. Deposition of sedimentary phosphate rock is a continual process through geologic time and continues to the present. The materials that enter into sedimentary deposits have been derived chiefly from the weathering of rocks and organic material. The source of sedimentary phosphate is phosphorous-bearing rocks and minerals, with the transportation medium for such deposits being predominantly water. For the most part, the phosphate reaches the sea, but some is deposited in inland bodies of water or interior land basins. The reworking of phosphate-rich sediments is a major factor in the development of economic deposits of phosphate rock. Matrix material moved by variations in the intensity and the direction of ocean currents, leaves behind a phosphoric residue that in turn is moved and concentrated by currents. Transgressing seas can result in multiple cycles of phosphate pellet burial and subsequent erosion. 6.2 Regional Geology Florida has phosphate rock distributed along the entire peninsula with varying lateral extents and abundance. There are five phosphate districts recognized in Florida identified as the Northern, Northeast, Hardrock, Southeast and Central (Figure 6- 1). The phosphates of Florida occur in sedimentary rocks and are of secondary origin, having been redeposited either by mechanical or chemical action. During deposition most of the carbonate platform was drowned, and deposition was widespread. The intensity of reworking by marine processes allows some deposits to remain relatively near their origins and contribute to massive deposits while others were transported and winnowed into deposits of nodules, grains and pellets. The initial depositional environments affecting the Florida Platform were restricted environments allowing for intense evaporation and the development of evaporites in limited areas. As the Gulf of Mexico continued to expand and sea levels rose, siliciclastic and carbonate depositional environments began to cover more of the platform. Continued sea-level rise through the Cretaceous period eventually covered the exposed land area in northern Florida. The Florida Platform sediments were deposited in a complex interplay of siliciclastic, carbonate, and evaporite facies as a result of sea level fluctuations (Randazzo 1997). Siliciclastic deposition predominated on the northern part of the platform while carbonate and evaporate sediments formed to the south (Randazzo 1997). In the early Cenozoic era (Paleogene period), the siliciclastic sediment supply was limited due to the highlands of the Appalachian trend having been reduced by erosion, and carbonate deposition expanded to cover the entire Florida Platform and beyond by the Oligocene epoch. The carbonate platform, that began as a rimmed shelf in the Jurassic period, evolved to a carbonate ramp sequence by the early Cenozoic era (Randazzo 1997; Winston 1991). Subsequent to the maximum development of the carbonate platform, uplift occurred in the Appalachians providing a renewed supply of siliciclastic sediments (Scott 1988; Brewster-Wingard et al. 1997). This influx of siliciclastic sediments in the Neogene period replaced most carbonate deposition on the Florida Platform by the mid-Pliocene epoch. As sea level rose in the late Pleistocene epoch, there was a decrease in siliciclastic sedimentation and carbonate deposition increased on the southern Florida Platform. The interplay of the carbonate and siliciclastic sediments with fluctuating sea level and changing climate created complex depositional environments (Scott 1988; Missimer 2002). The interaction of the carbonates and siliciclastic on the Florida Platform has been investigated and discussed by a number of authors (Warzeski et al. 1996; Cunningham et al. 1998; Guertin 1998; Guertin et al. 2000; Missimer et al. 2000; Missimer 2001, 2002; Cunningham et al. 2003). Date: December 31, 2021 6-1 Figure 6-1: Regional Geology


 
Date: December 31, 2021 6-2 On a regional basis, deposits consist of four zones: overburden generally 5 to 50 ft. (1.5 to 15.2 m) thick, matrix generally 3 to 30 ft. (1.0 to 9.1 m) thick, bed clay and the basal bedrock. The overburden is comprised predominantly of soil, clay, and sand, and while it may contain minor amounts of phosphate- bearing material, this cannot be economically recovered. The matrix (that is, the ore) consists primarily of the mineral fluorapatite, silica sand, and clay minerals. The +1 mm size fraction, after washing to remove clay, is termed “washer rock” or “pebble”. The 150 mesh x 1 mm size fraction is processed by cyclones and froth flotation, with the resulting concentrates being the “concentrate”. The -150 mesh fraction is a phosphatic clay and can contain as much as one-third of the total phosphate present in the matrix. This material cannot be recovered by beneficiation and is discarded as waste. The bed clay that lies beneath the matrix is visibly different from the matrix. It may contain insignificant phosphate values and limestone boulders. The bedrock that lies beneath the bed clay is limestone or dolomitic limestone. 6.3 Local Geology The Central Florida Phosphate District (the “Central District”), in which the Mosaic phosphate operations and projects are located is subdivided into two portions, the Land Pebble District on the north and the South Florida Extension on the south. Most of the original phosphate in Florida was deposited in rocks of the Hawthorn Group of Middle Miocene epoch. These rocks were subsequently reworked, concentrated, and enriched, and the contained phosphate ultimately redeposited in the Bone Valley Member of the Peace River Formation in the upper part of the Hawthorn Group. The local stratigraphic relationship of these units is shown in Figure 6-2. The potentially mineable portion of the Central District encompasses an area approximately 80 miles (129 km) in length in a north-south direction and approximately 40 miles (64 km) in width. Q ua te rn ar y Pe rio d Recent Epoch Stream terraces and bars Mostly gray to white poorly graded quartz sand with varying abundance of reworked phosphate grains. Thickness 0 to 50 ft. (0.0 to 15.2 m). W as te Pleistocene Epoch Pleistocene Epoch Deposits Brown to gray quartz sands with scattered thin lenses of blue-gray to green-gray clay and occasional lentils of freshwater limestone. Thickness 0 to 20 ft. (0.0 to 6.1 m). Pliocene Epoch Bone Valley Member Peace River Formation Gray-blue with lineation of red, brown, and white. Phosphate nodules and pellets are the dominant constituent. Quartz sands and clays may be abundant in places. Fossiliferous with terrestrial and marine vertebrates. Thickness 18 to 30 ft. (5.5 to 9.1 m). Ph os ph at ic Te rti ar y Pe rio d Miocene Epoch upper lower Undifferentiated Peace River Formation Gray to gray-blue quartz sands, clays, and phosphate grains and some nodules. Weathered residuum exists frequently near contact with Bone Valley Formation. Ph os ph at ic to B ed Figure 6-2: Local Stratigraphic Column Date: December 31, 2021 6-3 The Central District has been the source of more than 70% of the phosphate rock produced in the U.S. during most of this century and as much as 30% of the world’s total production. Mining began in the late 1800s and has continued to the present. During the early years, mining was principally from “river pebble” deposits (that is, deposits of phosphate concentrated by rivers and streams reworking older sediments), with the mining of “land pebble” deposits increasing as these deposits were depleted. Phosphate deposits in the Central District are composed of phosphate particles ranging from clay to pebble size (-16 mesh), quartz grains, carbonate grains, and clay minerals. Only material with a particle size greater than 150 mesh can be recovered economically with current technology. The higher the pebble content of phosphate ore, the less beneficiation that is required since most of the pebble material is an economic product after simple screening, that results in lower overall production costs. The Bone Valley Member of the Peace River Formation is the ore-bearing unit in those properties lying in the Land Pebble District, primarily in Hillsborough and Polk Counties. Mineralization in this unit generally ranges between 15 to 25 ft. (4.6 to 7.6 m) thick, with grades in the range of 31 to 33% P205. This unit is noted for the relatively high pebble content of the matrix, ranging between 20 and 60%. Overburden ranges from 18 to 30 ft. (5.5 to 9.1 m) thick. The Bone Valley Member is late Miocene and early Pliocene epochs and consists of a lower phosphorite unit and an upper clayey sand unit that contains only minor phosphate (Altschuler and others, 1964). The phosphate in the Bone Valley Member was derived from the underlying Peace River Formation and is enriched in P2O5 and concentrated. The lower phosphorite unit consists of gray-green, gray-brown, and gray sand and clay that contain abundant phosphate particles ranging from about 0.1 mm to several centimeters in diameter. The phosphate particles contain from 30 to 40% P2O5, and the phosphate mineral is carbonate fluorapatite, also known as francolite, but with only small amounts of CO3 substituting for PO4. Weathering after deposition formed aluminum phosphate minerals from the original apatite and altered the clay minerals to kaolinite. The lower phosphorite unit of the Bone Valley Member ranges in thickness from 0 to 50 ft. (0 to 15.2 m). Thin beds of dolomite, doloclay, or dolosilt are present. The Bone Valley Member undergoes facies change to the south into the South Florida Extension, where it contains little or no phosphate values. The potentially mineable unit in this district is the Undifferentiated Peace River Formation, in which the potential ore zones are stratigraphically lower than those of the Bone Valley Member. Potential ore zones in this unit range from 15 to 20 ft. (4.5 to 6.1 m) thick, with grades in the range of 30 to 31% P2O5. The pebble content of the matrix in this unit is considerably lower than in the Bone Valley Member to the north, generally in the range of 10 to 25%. The overburden ranges from 18 to 36 ft. (5.5 to 11.0 m) thick. One of the major differences between deposits in the Land Pebble District and those in the South Florida Extension is the amount of magnesium in the product. Magnesium-rich limestone increases sulfuric acid consumption during phosphate rock digestion and can degrade the quality of the final fertilizer prill. The maximum acceptable level of magnesium, reported as MgO, is approximately 1.25% MgO. Phosphate in the Hawthorn Formation was deposited when cold, phosphorous-enriched marine water welled up onto a shallow warm-water plateau, or when cold, along-shore currents were turbulently mixed with warmer waters and phosphorous precipitated. Structural features on the coastal plain partially controlled the deposition. The deposits are located in basins on the flanks of the anticlines that were rising at the time, with deposition occurring mainly in these basins. Within the Central District a small structural feature known as the Hillsborough High controls phosphate deposition along its flank. 6.4 Property Geology 6.4.1 General Deposit Description All active mine deposits are in the Central Florida Phosphate District. The general description of the phosphatic deposits in Central Florida active mines consist of two general geological facies. The phosphate bearing units are within the Bone Valley Member of the Peace River Formation and the undifferentiated Member of the Peace River Formation within the South Florida Extension region of the Central District. The deposit characteristics transition from northeast to the southwest. The major phosphate bearing units in the north east consist of a productive Bone Valley Member with limited production in the Date: December 31, 2021 6-4 Undifferentiated Member. The phosphate bearing units in the south west exhibit limited production in the Bone Valley Member and a productive Undifferentiated Member of the Peace River Formation. 6.4.2 South Fort Meade Deposit The site geology of South Fort Meade consists of 5 to 50 ft. (1.5 to 15.2 m) of tan to brown sand to sandy clay material overlaying the Bone Valley Member. The Bone Valley is late Miocene and early Pliocene epoch in age and consists of a lower phosphorite unit and an upper clayey sand unit that contains only minor phosphate (Altschuler and others, 1964). The phosphate in the Bone Valley Member was derived from the underlying Peace River Formation within the Hawthorn Group and is enriched in P2O5 and concentrated. The lower phosphorite unit consists of gray-green, gray-brown, and gray sand and clay that contain abundant phosphate particles ranging from about 0.1 mm to several centimeters in diameter. The lower phosphorite unit of the Bone Valley Member ranges in thickness from 0 to 50 ft. (0 to 15.2 m). Thin beds of dolomite, doloclay, or dolosilt are present. The bed material is green to dark gray barren sandy clay to limestone or dolostone. Phosphate pebbles and nodules predominant product grain size with pebbles and nodules making up approximately 60% of the recoverable phosphate. The phosphate grains and clasts contain from 30 to 34% P2O5. The phosphate pebbles and nodules contain from 24 to 30% P2O5. Deposit Dimensions The South Fort Meade deposit prior to mining, extended under the entire limits of the property, for a total 38,966 acres (15,769 hectares). The average extents of the deposit are 9.5 miles (15.3 km) north to south and 5.7 miles (9.2 km) east to west. The mineral reserves extend from 177766N to 1193581N and 731317E to 764302E. Lithologies The geology of the South Fort Meade deposit consists of bed clay and limestone overlain by matrix and an upper overburden horizon (Figure 6-3). O ve rb ur de n Mostly gray to white poorly graded quartz sand with varying abundance of reworked phosphate grains. Thickness 5 to 50 ft. (1.5 to 15.2 m). W as te M at rix Gray to gray-blue with lineation of red, brown, and white. Phosphate nodules and pellets are the dominant constituent to gray to gray-blue quartz sands, clays, and phosphate grains and some nodules. Thickness 0 to 50 ft. (0.0 to 15.2 m) Ph os ph at ic B ed C la y an d Li m es to ne Gray to gray-blue barren clays to phosphatic limestone rubble to beds of phosphatic limestone. Thickness is unknown by company exploration. B ot to m Figure 6-3: South Fort Meade Geology Section The South Fort Meade phosphate deposit occurs in the Bone Valley Member and consist of soils ranging from sand to sandy clay in mineable thicknesses of 4 to 50 ft. (1.2 to 15.2 m). The deposit often appears as gray to blue/green sandy clay but can also appears as tan to gray sands. Within the deposit there are interbeds of stiff cream/yellow dolomitic clays and barren blue/green clay layers with high impurities and/or low phosphatic content. These beds pinch out laterally and are often limited in scope. The contacts between layers are mostly distinct but can be gradual where leaching occurs. Date: December 31, 2021 6-5 The overburden waste material consists of quartz sands and occasional lenses of freshwater limestone and residuum. There are grains of reworked phosphate throughout but are dispersed and in low abundance. There may be marine beds of clayey sand and sandy clay that are uneconomic beds that are devoid of phosphate. Mineable concentrations of phosphate grains, nodules, and pellets exist in clayey sand to sandy clay beds of sediments. The bed contact with the overlying waste material is predominantly distinct with a thin bed of phosphate pellets or nodules clearly visible. The reworking of this material by hydrologic processes can occasionally leach the phosphate leaving either enriched grains and nodules or residuum. In small areas this distinct bed pinches out and beds of clayey sand with predominantly phosphate grains appear and grade in normal and reverse bedding. The minable beds are near shore marine and fluvial in nature and present in consistent transgressive and regressive package that dips gently away from the paleo shoreline to the southwest direction. These beds and phosphate clasts are ubiquitous within the site. The beds economic viability is determined by phosphatic grade dilution in the form of insoluble clasts and/or degraded quality in the form magnesium. Interbeds of waste are preset in small amounts in the form of poorly indurated dolomitic limestone beds, dolomitic marl and beds devoid of phosphate clasts. These interbeds may or may not have viable phosphatic beds below them. They are amorphous, lenticular and trend with the paleo-coastline and limited to a few hundreds to a few thousands of square feet in area. Basal phosphatic beds are present from time to time and are recovered when magnesium is within acceptable ranges. These basal beds and the economic beds sit atop phosphatic limestone or dolostone that can vary in degree of induration. Unrecoverable beds of phosphate occur in dolomitic marl. These beds indicate the bottom of the mineable mineralization. Structure No major structures have been identified on the property from drilling and observations made during the mining process. Alteration Post-depositional dissolution of francolite occurs in areas throughout the deposit. Metals dissociate from the lattice structure upgrading or degrading the remaining mineral. The mineral can be upgraded by the removal of metals, namely calcium, in the natural leaching process. Dissolution of dolomitic clasts removing magnesium can also serve to upgrade the rock. The dissolution of aluminosilicates in the waste beds can provide aluminum to substitute into the mineral and can degrade the quality of finished product. Humates present in sufficient quantities within the subsurface provide iron that can substitute into the mineral and can also degrade quality. Mineralization Waste material consists of quartz sand and is predominantly rounded subaerial clasts ranging in size from 0.1 to 1 mm. There are occasional beds of freshwater limestone and are beds of poorly indurated floatstone or packstone. The primary phosphate mineral in the South Fort Meade deposit is francolite. Francolite mineralization occurs by substitution of phosphorus into the carbonate minerals. These are in the form of sub-rounded to rounded clasts present as nodules, pellets, grains, bioclasts, and clays ranging in size from 0.1 to 3.0 mm. Limestone and dolostone are present as clasts and as interbeds of waste. These are usually found as rounded clasts of micritic limestone or dolostone, bioclasts, beds of poorly indurated micrite or dismicrite and beds of poorly indurated floatstone or packstone. 6.4.3 Four Corners Deposit The site geology of Four Corners is varied due to the size of the property. Mining currently takes place in two distinct deposit facies. The mine historically has operated exclusively within the Bone Valley Member. The mine now produces predominantly within the South Florida Extension with limited production in the Bone Valley Member and predominant production within the Hawthorn Group.


 
Date: December 31, 2021 6-6 In general, the Bone Valley Member is a series of continuous marine basins that exist north of Florida State Road 62. These basins generally trend north to south. Most of this deposit has been mined. There is a minority of production ongoing in the remaining area. The economic zone in the South Florida Extension portion of the Central District exists generally south of Florida State Road 62. The Bone Valley Member of the deposit thins, is relatively discontinuous and pinches out southwards. The majority of Four Corners mining is currently within the Hawthorn Group and is a series of thick and continuous marine beds that dip gently towards the southwest. Phosphate grains and clasts are the predominant grain size with pebbles and nodules making up approximately 29% of the recoverable phosphate. The phosphate grains and clasts contain from 30 to 33% P2O5. The phosphate pebbles and nodules contain from 25 to 29% P2O5. The bed material is green to dark gray barren sandy clay to limestone or dolostone. Deposit Dimensions Prior to mining, the Four Corners deposit extended under the entire limits of the property, for a total 54,671 acres (22,124 hectares). The average extents of the deposit are 19 miles (30.6 km) north to south and 15 miles (24.1 km) east to west. The mineral resources and mineral reserves extend from 1141896N to 1237582N and 607735E to 669923E. Lithologies The geology of the Four Corners deposit consists of bed clay and limestone overlain by matrix and an upper overburden horizon (Figure 6-4). O ve rb ur de n Mostly gray to white poorly graded quartz sand with varying abundance of reworked phosphate grains. Thickness 26 to 48 ft. (7.9 to 14.6 m). W as te M at rix Phosphate nodules and pellets are the dominant constituent to tan-gray to gray to gray-blue quartz sands, clays, and phosphate grains and some nodules. Thickness 5 to 15 ft. (1.5 to 4.6 m). Ph os ph at ic B ed C la y an d Li m es to ne Gray to dark-gray barren clays to phosphatic limestone rubble to beds of phosphatic limestone. Thickness is unknown by company exploration. B ot to m Figure 6-4: Four Corners Bone Valley Geology Section The overburden consists of waste sand and clayey sand that are devoid of phosphate. The wastes are generally between 26 to 48 ft. (7.9 to 14.6 m) thick. The waste is poorly graded clean rounded or sub-rounded fine sands. The waste sands near the ore body generally increase in phosphate and clay content. The waste deposit of the Bone Valley in this area is relatively thick, and the economic zone is relatively thin. The beds of ore are in clayey and silty sands and occasionally sandy clays and silts and are tan-gray to gray-green-blue in color. The contact between waste and ore is generally distinct with an increase in clay and the presence of gray to brown to black concentrated beds of phosphatic gravels present at the contact. The beds are generally between 5 to 15 ft. (1.5 to 4.6 m) in thickness. The unconsolidated sediments contain phosphatic nodules and pellets and some phosphatic gravels. The Bone Valley consists of predominantly phosphatic pebbles and nodules and to a lesser extent grains and weathered clasts. Date: December 31, 2021 6-7 The basal beds are moderately consolidated gray to dark-gray barren clays. There are interbeds of limestone and dolostone rubble that transitions to moderately indurated limestone and dolostone rock with phosphatic nodules and grains in the limey matrix. A section of the Four Corners Southern Extension geology and a description of each lithology is summarized in Figure 6-5. The waste consists of sands, clayey sands and clays that are devoid of phosphate. The overburden is poorly graded clean rounded to sub-rounded sands that increase in clay content adjacent to the ore body. The waste bed is mostly what in color. The waste bed is generally between 21 to 41 ft. (6.4 to 12.5 m) thick. There are occasionally beds of barren clay above the ore. By comparison, the overburden is relatively thin and the economic zone relatively thick. The Undifferentiated Peace River Formation in this area of the deposit is predominantly grains and clasts with nodules and pebbles present. The first ore zone consists of tan-gray to gray-blue beds of clayey sands. The beds are generally between 13 and 26 ft. (4 to 8 m) in thickness. The contact of the overburden is usually distinct with increase in clay content and a thin bed of brown to gray phosphatic gravel but occasionally the lithology can be continuous and become devoid of phosphate. The ore zone is occasionally disrupted by beds of waste clays and silts that are not economical to mine. The waste interbeds are more abundant in the Southern Extension. They consist of moderately consolidated green-gray or blue-gray clays and silts. They are devoid of economic phosphates. Occasionally there are marine beds of sub-rounded to sub-angular quartz sands with clasts of limestone or dolostone and are devoid of phosphate. Finally, there are isolated beds of marine limestone and dolostone. They consist of bioclasts and poorly indurated floatstone and packstone. The vary in thickness from 0 to 10 ft. (0 to 3.0 m) in thickness. Local hydrogeology can cause thick beds of dolomite to spoil the underlain ore through mineral alteration. The second ore zone consists of sandy clays and silts. These beds green-gray to blue-gray to dark gray. They are generally between 0 to 15 ft. (0 to 4.6 m) in thickness. They have slightly elevated concentrations of limestone and dolostone clasts and gravels. Gangue minerals exist in a higher concentration and P2O5 in a lower concentration when compared to the Bone Valley deposit. The basal beds are phosphatic clays sand to phosphatic sands directly overlaying limestones and dolostone gravels. These sand and gravel beds grade into beds of moderately indurated limestone and dolostone rock with phosphatic nodules and grains in the limey matrix. Date: December 31, 2021 6-8 O ve rb ur de n Mostly gray to white poorly graded quartz sand with varying abundance of reworked phosphate grains. Thickness 21 to 41 ft. (6.4 to 12.5 m). W as te M at rix Phosphate nodules and pellets are present with phosphate grains and clasts predominate in tan-gray to gray quartz sands, clays and silts. Thickness 13 to 26 ft. (4.0 to 7.9 m). Ph os ph at ic In te rb ed de d W as te Beds of blue to green barren sandy clays. Occasionally beds of marine limestone and dolostones or marginally phosphatic sandy beds of dolomitic clasts and grains. Thickness 0 to 10 ft. (0.0 to 3.1 m). W as te M at rix Phosphate nodules and pellets are present with phosphate grains and clasts predominate in dark gray to dark gray-blue-green clays, silts with quartz sands. Thickness 0 to 15 ft. (0.0 to 4.6 m). Ph os ph at ic B ed C la y an d Li m es to ne Dark gray to black clays to phosphatic limestone rubble to beds of phosphatic limestone. Thickness is unknown by company exploration. B ot to m Figure 6-5: Four Corners Southern Extension Geology Section Structure No major structures have been identified on the property from drilling and observations made during the mining process. Alteration Post-depositional dissolution of francolite occurs in areas throughout the deposit. Metals dissociate from the lattice structure upgrading or degrading the remaining mineral. The mineral can be upgraded by the removal of metals, namely calcium, in the natural leaching process. Dissolution of dolomitic clasts removing magnesium can also serve to upgrade the rock. The dissolution of aluminosilicates in the waste beds can provide aluminum to substitute into the mineral and can degrade the quality of finished product. Humates present in sufficient quantities within the subsurface provide iron that can substitute into the mineral and can also degrade quality. Mineralization Waste material consists of quartz sand and is predominantly rounded subaerial clasts ranging in size from 0.1 to 1 mm. The primary phosphate mineral in the Four Corners deposit is francolite. Francolite mineralization occurs by substitution of phosphorus into the carbonate minerals. These are in the form of sub-rounded to rounded clasts present as nodules, pellets, grains, bioclasts, and clays ranging in size from 0.1 to 3.0 mm. Limestone and dolostone are present as clasts and as interbeds of waste. These are usually found as rounded clasts of micritic limestone or dolostone, bioclasts, beds of poorly indurated micrite or dismicrite and beds of poorly indurated floatstone or packstone. Date: December 31, 2021 6-9 6.4.4 Wingate Deposit The site geology of Wingate consists of a local basin of phosphatic ore trending north and south in the Bone Valley underlain by a broad and continuous deposit in the Hawthorn Group. The Bone Valley consistent of predominantly phosphatic pebbles and nodules and to a lesser extent grains and weathered clasts. The Hawthorn Group in this location is predominantly grains and clasts while nodules and pebbles are present. The economic mining zone thins from west to east. Near the eastern extent of the deposit there is a very narrow, north to south trending, ridge that is nearly devoid of phosphate of acceptable grade and the economic zone pinches out. Immediately east of the ridge, the deposit deepens and continues to thicken eastward. Mining began in the southwest of the deposit and has progressed towards the northeast. Phosphate grains and clasts are the predominant grain size with pebbles and nodules making up approximately 41% of the recoverable phosphate. The phosphate grains and clasts contain from 31 to 33% P2O5. The phosphate pebbles and nodules contain from 24 to 29% P2O5. Deposit Dimensions The Wingate deposit prior to mining, extended under the entire limits of the property, for a total 8,761 acres (3,545 hectares). The average extents of the deposit are 3 miles (4.8 km) north to south and 4 miles (6.4 km) east to west. The mineral resources and mineral reserves extend from 1141641N to 1155888N and 612046E to 632902E. Lithologies The geology of the Wingate deposit consists of bed clay and limestone overlain by matrix and an upper overburden horizon (Figure 6-6). O ve rb ur de n White to tan-gray poorly graded quartz sand to brown-gray to orange iron-cemented clayey sand hardpan to tan-gray to gray clayey sands with varying abundance of reworked phosphate grains. Thickness 35 to 49 ft. (10.7 to 14.9 m). W as te M at rix Tan-gray to gray clayey sands with phosphate pellets and grains to gray to gray-blue quartz sands, clays, and phosphate grains and some nodules. Thickness 19 to 37 ft. (5.8 to 11.3 m). Ph os ph at ic B ed C la y an d Li m es to ne Gray to gray-blue barren clays to phosphatic limestone rubble to beds of phosphatic limestone. Thickness is unknown by company exploration. B ot to m Figure 6-6: Wingate Geology Section The local overburden geology is unique at Wingate and frequently consists of cemented sediments. These hardpan sediments are the result of humates that act as a mining challenge related to the removal of overburden and serve to increase the local iron content in the underlining phosphatic ore. Drilling campaigns using SPT and reporting from core drilling are used to define and mitigate the risk. Pre-stripping plans are developed if the waste material is deemed to be problematic. This hardpan is localized in the contemporary soil horizon and can be stripped easily by excavator from natural grade. The overburden below the zone of cementation consists of well sorted quartz sand with some silts and clays. There are beds of sandy clays and silts. The economic zone is predominantly phosphatic grains and clasts with nodules and pebbles present. The zone consists of tan-gray to gray beds of clayey sands. The beds are generally between 19 and 37 feet in thickness. The economic contact is gradational and indistinct. The ore zone is occasionally disrupted by beds of waste clays and silts that are not economical to mine. These beds are mined if it is necessary for efficient and effective mining.


 
Date: December 31, 2021 6-10 The basal beds are phosphatic clays sand to phosphatic sands directly overlaying limestones and dolostone gravels. These sand and gravel beds grade to beds of moderately indurated limestone and dolostone rock with phosphatic nodules and grains in the limey matrix. Structure No major structures have been identified on the property from drilling and observations made during the mining process. Alteration Post-depositional dissolution of francolite occurs in areas throughout the deposit. Metals dissociate from the lattice structure upgrading or degrading the remaining mineral. The mineral can be upgraded by the removal of metals, namely calcium, in the natural leaching process. Dissolution of dolomitic clasts removing magnesium can also serve to upgrade the rock. The dissolution of aluminosilicates in the waste beds can provide aluminum to substitute into the mineral and can degrade the quality of finished product. Humates present in sufficient quantities within the subsurface provide iron that can substitute into the mineral and can also degrade quality. Mineralization Waste material consists of quartz sand and is predominantly rounded subaerial clasts ranging in size from 0.1 to 1 mm. The primary phosphate mineral in the Four Corners deposit is francolite. Francolite mineralization occurs by substitution of phosphorus into the carbonate minerals. These are in the form of sub-rounded to rounded clasts present as nodules, pellets, grains, bioclasts, and clays ranging in size from 0.1 to 3.0 mm. Limestone and dolostone are present as clasts and as interbeds of waste. These are usually found as rounded clasts of micritic limestone or dolostone, bioclasts, beds of poorly indurated micrite or dismicrite and beds of poorly indurated floatstone or packstone. 6.4.5 DeSoto Deposit The DeSoto deposit consists of 48 to 60 ft. (3.4 to 12.8 m) of tan to tan-gray sand to clayey material overlaying the Hawthorn Group. The deposit is a broad basin of phosphatic material and is bowl like in character. Beds containing ore are generally stable in thickness. The ore is hosted in the Hawthorn Group and consists of 10 to 26 ft. (3.3 to 7.9 m) of tan gray to gray clayey quartz sands. Phosphate grains and clasts are the predominant grain size with pebbles and nodules making up approximately 10% of the recoverable phosphate. The phosphate grains and clasts contain from 30 to 35% P2O5. The phosphate pebbles and nodules contain from 23 to 31% P2O5. The bed material is green to dark gray barren sandy clay to limestone or dolostone. Deposit Dimensions The DeSoto deposit extends the entirety of the property with an area of 43,064 acres (17,427 hectares). The average extents of the deposit are 11 miles (17.7 km) north to south and 14 miles (22.5 km) east to west. The mineral reserves extend from 1034128N to 1091901N and 609470E to 685858E. Lithologies The geology of the Desoto deposit consists of bed clay and limestone overlain by matrix and an upper overburden horizon (Figure 6-7). Date: December 31, 2021 6-11 O ve rb ur de n Mostly gray to white poorly graded quartz sand with varying abundance of reworked phosphate grains. Thickness 18 to 32 ft. (5.5 to 9.8 m). W as te M at rix Phosphate grains dominant constituent with some nodules and pellets to tan-gray to gray quartz sands, clays. Thickness 11 to 28 ft. (3.4 to 8.5 m). Ph os ph at ic B ed C la y an d Li m es to ne Gray to green-blue-dark gray barren clays to phosphatic limestone rubble to beds of phosphatic limestone. Thickness is unknown by company exploration. B ot to m Figure 6-7: DeSoto Geology Section Structure No major structures have been identified on the property from drilling and observations made during the mining process. Alteration Post-depositional dissolution of francolite occurs in areas throughout the deposit. Metals dissociate from the lattice structure upgrading or degrading the remaining mineral. The mineral can be upgraded by the removal of metals, namely calcium, in the natural leaching process. Dissolution of dolomitic clasts removing magnesium can also serve to upgrade the rock. The dissolution of aluminosilicates in the waste beds can provide aluminum to substitute into the mineral and can degrade the quality of finished product. Humates present in sufficient quantities within the subsurface provide iron that can substitute into the mineral and can also degrade quality. Mineralization Waste material consists of quartz sand and is predominantly rounded subaerial clasts ranging in size from 0.1 to 1 mm. The primary phosphate mineral in the DeSoto deposit is francolite. Francolite mineralization occurs by substitution of phosphorus into the carbonate minerals. These are in the form of sub-rounded to rounded clasts present as nodules, pellets, grains, bioclasts, and clays ranging in size from 0.1 to 3.0 mm. Limestone and dolostone are present as clasts and as interbeds of waste. These are usually found as rounded clasts of micritic limestone or dolostone, bioclasts, beds of poorly indurated micrite or dismicrite and beds of poorly indurated floatstone or packstone. 6.4.6 Pioneer Deposit The Pioneer deposit consists of 21 to 45 ft. (6.4 to 13.7 m) of tan to tan-gray sand to clayey material overlaying the Hawthorn Formation. The deposit is a series of marine beds that dip gently to the west. The beds of waste thicken from east to west. The ore is hosted in Hawthorn formation and consists of 14 to 38 ft. (4.3 to 11.6 m) of tan gray to gray clayey quartz sands. Phosphate grains and clasts are the predominant grain size with pebbles and nodules making up approximately 43% of the recoverable phosphate. The phosphate grains and clasts contain from 28 to 36% P2O5. The phosphate pebbles and nodules contain from 24 to 29% P2O5. The bed material is green to dark gray barren sandy clay to limestone or dolostone. Date: December 31, 2021 6-12 Deposit Dimensions The Pioneer deposit extends under the entirety of the property with an area of 26,017 acres (10,529 hectares). The average extents of the deposit are 6 miles (9.7 km) north to south and 11 miles (17.7 km) east to west. The mineral reserves extend from 1111958N to 1144215N and 643188E to 701797E. Lithologies The geology of the Pioneer deposit consists of bed clay and limestone overlain by matrix and an upper overburden horizon (Figure 6-8). O ve rb ur de n Mostly gray to tan poorly graded quartz sand with varying abundance of reworked phosphate grains. Thickness 21 to 45 ft. (7.6 to 13.7 m). W as te M at rix Phosphate nodules and pellets phosphate grains and clasts are roughly equal in proportions in tan-gray to gray to gray-blue quartz sands, silts and clays. Thickness 14 to 38 ft. (4.3 to 11.6 m). Ph os ph at ic B ed C la y an d Li m es to ne Gray-green to dark-gray barren clays to phosphatic limestone rubble to beds of phosphatic limestone. Thickness is unknown by company exploration. B ot to m Figure 6-8: Pioneer Geology Section Structure No major structures have been identified on the property from drilling and observations made during the mining process. Alteration Post-depositional dissolution of francolite occurs in areas throughout the deposit. Metals dissociate from the lattice structure upgrading or degrading the remaining mineral. The mineral can be upgraded by the removal of metals, namely calcium, in the natural leaching process. Dissolution of dolomitic clasts removing magnesium can also serve to upgrade the rock. The dissolution of aluminosilicates in the waste beds can provide aluminum to substitute into the mineral and can degrade the quality of finished product. Humates present in sufficient quantities within the subsurface provide iron that can substitute into the mineral and can also degrade quality. Mineralization Waste material consists of quartz sand and is predominantly rounded subaerial clasts ranging in size from 0.1 to 1 mm. The primary phosphate mineral in the Pioneer deposit is francolite. Francolite mineralization occurs by substitution of phosphorus into the carbonate minerals. These are in the form of sub-rounded to rounded clasts present as nodules, pellets, grains, bioclasts, and clays ranging in size from 0.1 to 3.0 mm. Limestone and dolostone are present as clasts and as interbeds of waste. These are usually found as rounded clasts of micritic limestone or dolostone, bioclasts, beds of poorly indurated micrite or dismicrite and beds of poorly indurated floatstone or packstone. Date: December 31, 2021 6-13 6.4.7 South Pasture Deposit The South Pasture deposit consists of 17 to 37 ft. (5.2 to 11.3 m) of tan to tan-gray sand to clayey material overlaying the Hawthorn Formation. The deposit is a series of marine beds that dip gently to the west. The ore is hosted in the Hawthorn formation and consists of two distinct phosphate bearing zones interrupted by a zone of interburden. The upper economic zone is 13 to 27 ft. (4.0 to 8.2 m) of tan gray to gray blue clayey quartz sands. The interbedded waste is 0 to 13 ft. (0.0 to 4.0 m) of blue to green smectite clays that are devoid of phosphate. The interbeds often include, and are occasionally completely comprised of, beds of poorly indurated clastic limestone and diagenetic residuum and/or various clastic lime mud clay’s with or without phosphates. The lower economic zone is 0 to 14 ft. (0 to 4.3 m) of dark gray to gray-blue-green clayey quartz sands. The lower beds lithology is continual but due to increased magnesium and decreased the beds are routinely not economical. Phosphate grains and clasts are the predominant grain size with pebbles and nodules making up approximately 30% of the recoverable phosphate. The phosphate grains and clasts contain from 31 to 34% P2O5. The phosphate pebbles and nodules contain from 27 to 31% P2O5. The bed material is green to dark gray barren sandy clay to limestone or dolostone. Deposit Dimensions The South Pasture mineralization extends under the entirety of the property with an area of 38,723 acres (15,671 hectares). The average extents of the deposit are 12 miles (19.3 km) north to south and 8 miles (12.9 km) east to west. The mineral resources extend from 1134609N to 1200386N and 665102E to 706884E. Lithologies The geology of the South Pasture deposit consists of bed clay and limestone overlain by matrix and an upper overburden horizon (Figure 6-9).


 
Date: December 31, 2021 6-14 O ve rb ur de n Mostly tan-gray to gray poorly graded quartz sand with varying abundance of reworked phosphate grains. Thickness 17 to 37 ft. (5.2 to 11.3 m). W as te M at rix Phosphate nodules and pellets are present with phosphate grains and clasts predominate in tan-gray to gray-blue quartz sands, clays and silts. Thickness 13 to 27 ft. (4.0 to 8.2 m). Ph os ph at ic In te rb ed de d W as te Beds of blue to green barren sandy clays. Occasionally beds of marine limestone and dolostones or marginally phosphatic sandy beds of dolomitic clasts and grains. Thickness 0 to 13 ft. (0.0 to 4.0 m). W as te M at rix Phosphate nodules and pellets are the present with phosphate grains and clasts predominate in dark gray to dark gray-blue- green clays, silts with quartz sands. Thickness 0 to 14 ft. (0.0 to 4.3 m). Ph os ph at ic B ed C la y an d Li m es to ne Dark gray to black clays to phosphatic limestone rubble to beds of phosphatic limestone. Thickness is unknown by company exploration. B ot to m Figure 6-9: South Pasture Geology Section At South Pasture, the waste consists of sands, clayey sands and clays that are devoid of phosphate. The overburden is poorly graded clean rounded to sub-rounded sands that increase in clay content adjacent to the ore body. The beds are generally between 17 to 37 ft. (5.2 to 11.3 m) thick. The wastes are tan-gray to gray in color. There are occasionally beds of barren clay above the ore. The Hawthorn in this portion of the deposit is predominantly grains and clasts with nodules and pebbles present. The first ore zone consists of tan-gray to gray-blue beds of clayey sands. The beds range from 13 to 27 ft. (4.0 to 8.2 m) in thickness. The contact of the overburden is usually distinct with increase in clay content and a thin bed of brown to gray phosphatic gravel but occasionally the lithology can be continuous and become devoid of phosphate. The mineralization is occasionally disrupted by beds of waste clays and silts that are not economical to mine. The waste interbeds are more abundant in the Southern Extension. They consist of moderately consolidated green-gray or blue-gray clays and silts. They are devoid of economic phosphates. Occasionally there are marine beds of sub-rounded to sub-angular quartz sands with clasts of limestone or dolostone and are devoid of phosphate. Finally, there are isolated beds of marine limestone and dolostone. They consist of bioclasts and poorly indurated floatstone and packstone. The vary in thickness from 0 to 13 ft. (0.0 to 4.0 m) in thickness. Local hydrogeology can cause thick beds of dolomite to spoil the underlain ore through mineral alteration. The second ore zone consists of sandy clays and silts. These beds green-gray to blue-gray to dark gray. They are generally between 0 to 14 ft. (0.0 to 4.3 m) in thickness. They have slightly elevated concentrations of limestone and dolostone clasts and gravels. Date: December 31, 2021 6-15 The basal beds are phosphatic clays sand to phosphatic sands directly overlaying limestones and dolostone gravels. These sand and gravel beds grade to beds of moderately indurated limestone and dolostone rock with phosphatic nodules and grains in the limey matrix. Structure No major structures have been identified on the property from drilling and observations made during the mining process. Alteration Post-depositional dissolution of francolite occurs in areas throughout the deposit. Metals dissociate from the lattice structure upgrading or degrading the remaining mineral. The mineral can be upgraded by the removal of metals, namely calcium, in the natural leaching process. Dissolution of dolomitic clasts removing magnesium can also serve to upgrade the rock. The dissolution of aluminosilicates in the waste beds can provide aluminum to substitute into the mineral and can degrade the quality of finished product. Humates present in sufficient quantities within the subsurface provide iron that can substitute into the mineral and can also degrade quality. Mineralization Waste material consists of quartz sand and is predominantly rounded subaerial clasts ranging in size from 0.1 to 1 mm. The primary phosphate mineral in the South Pasture deposit is francolite. Francolite mineralization occurs by substitution of phosphorus into the carbonate minerals. These are in the form of sub-rounded to rounded clasts present as nodules, pellets, grains, bioclasts, and clays ranging in size from 0.1 to 3.0 mm. Limestone and dolostone are present as clasts and as interbeds of waste. These are usually found as rounded clasts of micritic limestone or dolostone, bioclasts, beds of poorly indurated micrite or dismicrite and beds of poorly indurated floatstone or packstone. Date: December 31, 2021 7-1 7.0 Exploration 7.1 Exploration 7.1.1 Grids and Surveys Mine grids have been established at each of the three mines and three exploration properties based on local UTM coordinates. 7.1.2 Geological Mapping, Geochemistry and Geophysics Geologic contour maps of depths, grades, impurities, and concentration are produced using core data to increase understanding of the deposit as well as identify areas of inconsistency that would require additional drilling to better define any variations. These maps are also used when developing plans for mining. Contour maps are updated annually (or as needed) to include new drilling. No geochemical and geophysical surveys have been completed at the active phosphate mining facilities and none are planned for the exploration properties. 7.1.3 Petrology, Mineralogy, and Research Studies Throughout the history of mining in the Central Florida Phosphate District, many studies have taken place on various geologic topics. The scopes have ranged from general in “The Phosphate Deposits of Florida” in 1915, to more refined topics as in “Mineralogy and Alteration of the Phosphate Deposits of Florida” in 1990, and to specific locations such as “The Mineral Characteristics and Geochemistry of the Florida Phosphate of Four Corners and Hardee County Mines” in 2016. 7.1.4 Exploration Potential There is no exploration potential within current properties. Additional mineral resources are usually obtained by acquisition of adjacent properties. These adjacent properties (Section 24) are usually drilled to confirm the viability of any mineral resource prior to acquisition. 7.2 Drilling 7.2.1 Overview Exploration drilling commenced in earnest at varying times across the different properties. Overall exploration drilling began in the middle of the twentieth century at each property using mud rotary core drilling and has continued through as late as 1995 at the active sites and exploration properties. Exploration drilling is still underway at the future mining properties. Drilling has been performed by in-house and contract drill crews and geologists. Definition drilling is commonly undertaken in a phased process of increasing hole density until a “full” pattern of one hole per 2.5 acres. Additional drilling is done on an as needed basis. In addition to routine drilling certain holes are selected for “expanded” processing that includes additional metals and size fraction analysis. These holes are used to explore for the existence of heavy metals and other impurities in the ore body that can cause processing difficulties. The additional size fractions allow us to better understand the physical makeup of the ore body. Drilling completed after the exploration phase at each facility and property is classified as definition drilling. This drilling is completed to improve the confidence classification of the mineral resource estimates through increased drill hole density. Date: December 31, 2021 7-2 7.2.2 Property Drilling 7.2.2.1 South Fort Meade Facility A total of 9,084 holes have been drilled at South Fort Meade yielding a total of 337,929 ft. (103,001 m) of drilling (Table 7- 1). Figure 7-1 shows the collar locations of the drill holes considered for current geological interpretations, modeling and mineral resource estimation. Drill holes not included in the modeling for mineral resource estimation, are holes that do not have useable locations, or have data that has not been verified and is considered unreliable. These hole locations are placed on a redrill pattern and drilled again when time permits. The total number of holes that have been redrilled is 171 representing a total footage of 7,735 ft. (2,358 m). This is approximately 2.4% of the total property drilled footage. Table 7-1: South Fort Meade Facility Exploration and Definition Drilling Summary Year Drilled Purpose Total Holes Total Depth (ft.) Total Depth (m) Pre 1995 Exploration 2,624 87,975 26,815 1995 to 1999 Definition 2,161 86,789 26,453 2000 to 2004 Definition 1,439 53,486 16,303 2005 to 2009 Definition 313 11,788 3,593 2010 to 2014 Definition 1,114 40,779 12,429 2015 Definition 47 1,663 507 2016 Definition 153 6,726 2,050 2017 Definition 481 12,697 3,870 2018 Definition 56 2,864 873 2019 Definition 285 12,035 3,668 2020 Definition 49 1,912 583 2021 Definition 362 19,215 5,857 Total 9,084 337,929 103,001


 
Date: December 31, 2021 7-3 Figure 7-1: South Fort Meade Facility Drill Collar Location Plan Date: December 31, 2021 7-4 The drill holes shown in Figure 7-1 were used in the mineral resource and mineral reserve estimation process. Data that is not considered in the mineral resource and mineral reserve estimation process includes data that cannot be mapped, data that has missing densities, and data that has come from unverified sources through acquisition or other means. These concerns have been addressed and the data has been identified in the database. The total number of holes that have been excluded from the 2021 mineral resource estimate is 20 representing a total footage of 892 ft. (272 m). This is approximately 0.9% of the total drilled footage supporting the 2021 estimates. 7.2.2.2 Four Corners Facility A total of 37,948 holes have been drilled at Four Corners yielding a total of 2,016,188 ft. (614, 534 m) of drilling (Table 7- 2). Figure 7-2 shows the collar locations of the drill holes considered for current geological interpretations, modeling and mineral resource estimation. Drill holes not included in the modeling for mineral resource estimation, are holes that do not have useable locations, or have data that has not been verified and is considered unreliable. These hole locations are placed on a redrill pattern and drilled again when time permits. The total number of holes that have been redrilled is 157 representing a total footage of 14,819 ft. (4,517 m). This is approximately 0.7% of the total property drilled footage. Table 7-2: Four Corners Facility Exploration and Definition Drilling Summary Year Drilled Purpose Total Holes Total Depth (ft.) Total Depth (m) Pre 1985 Exploration 19,097 949,983 289,555 1985 to 1989 Definition 2,701 117,734 35,885 1990 to 1994 Definition 3,256 181,829 55,421 1995 to 1999 Definition 4,121 207,522 63,253 2000 to 2004 Definition 2,975 165,315 50,388 2005 to 2009 Definition 2,744 169,796 51,754 2010 to 2014 Definition 1,987 154,299 47,030 2015 Definition 351 22,629 6,897 2016 Definition 410 26,006 7,927 2017 Definition 76 5,528 1,685 2018 Definition 159 9,653 2,942 2019 Definition 28 2,217 676 2020 Definition 43 3,677 1,121 2021 Definition 130 11,298 3,444 Total 38,078 2,027,486 617,978 Date: December 31, 2021 7-5 Figure 7-2: Four Corners Facility Drill Collar Location Plan Date: December 31, 2021 7-6 The drill holes shown in Figure 7-2 were used in the mineral resource and mineral reserve estimation process. Data that is not considered in the mineral resource and mineral reserve estimation process includes data that cannot be mapped, data that has missing densities, and data that has come from unverified sources through acquisition or other means. These concerns have been addressed and the data has been identified in the database. The total number of holes that have been excluded from the 2021 mineral resource estimate is 139 representing a total footage of 12,989 ft. (3,959 m). This is approximately 1.5% of the total drilled footage supporting the 2021 estimates. 7.2.2.3 Wingate Facility A total of 1,613 holes have been drilled at Wingate yielding a total of 139,310 ft. (42,462 m) of drilling (Table 7-3). Figure 7-3 shows the collar locations of the drill holes considered for current geological interpretations, modeling and mineral resource estimation. Drill holes not included in the modeling for mineral resource estimation, are holes that do not have useable locations, or have data that has not been verified and is considered unreliable. These hole locations are placed on a redrill pattern and drilled again when time permits. The total number of holes that have been redrilled is 240 representing a total footage of 21,534 ft. (2,483 m). This is approximately 15.5% of the total property drilled footage. Table 7-3: Wingate Facility Exploration and Definition Drilling Summary Year Drilled Purpose Total Holes Total Depth (ft.) Total Depth (m) Pre 1980 Exploration 21 1,410 430 1980 to 1989 Definition 6 469 143 1990 to 1999 Definition 102 8,812 2,686 2000 to 2009 Definition 635 58,300 17,770 2010 to 2014 Definition 609 50,814 15,488 2015 Definition 49 4,419 1,347 2016 Definition 60 4,254 1,297 2017 Definition 19 1,400 427 2018 Definition 7 654 199 2019 Definition 64 5,394 1,644 2020 Definition 41 4,477 1,365 2021 Definition 24 2,048 624 Total 1,637 142,451 43,420


 
Date: December 31, 2021 7-7 Figure 7-3: Wingate Facility Drill Collar Location Plan Date: December 31, 2021 7-8 The drill holes shown in Figure 7-3 were used in the mineral resource and mineral reserve estimation process. Data that is not considered in the mineral resource and mineral reserve estimation process includes data that cannot be mapped, data that has missing densities, and data that has come from unverified sources through acquisition or other means. These concerns have been addressed and the data has been identified in the database. The total number of holes that have been excluded from the 2021 mineral resource estimate is 60 representing a total footage of 4,953 ft. (1,510 m). This is approximately 6.2% of the total drilled footage supporting the 2021 estimates. 7.2.2.4 DeSoto Property A total of 2,950 holes have been drilled at the DeSoto property yielding a total of 160,604 ft. (48,952 m) of drilling (Table 7-4). Figure 7-4 shows the collar locations of the drill holes considered for current geological interpretations, modeling and mineral resource estimation. Drill holes not included in the modeling for mineral resource estimation, are holes that do not have useable locations, or have data that has not been verified and is considered unreliable. These hole locations are placed on a redrill pattern and drilled again when time permits. The total number of holes that have been redrilled is 7 representing a total footage of 378 ft. (115 m). This is approximately 0.2% of the total property drilled footage. Table 7-4: DeSoto Property Exploration and Definition Drilling Summary Year Drilled Purpose Total Holes Total Depth (ft.) Total Depth (m) Pre 1970 Exploration 274 21,995 6,704 1970 to 1979 Exploration 596 42,609 12,987 1980 to 1989 Exploration 0 0 0 1990 to 1999 Exploration 1,813 80,619 24,573 2000 to 2009 Exploration 14 590 180 2010 to 2014 Exploration 0 0 0 2015 Exploration 0 0 0 2016 Exploration 0 0 0 2017 Exploration 253 14,790 4,508 2018 Exploration 0 0 0 2019 Exploration 0 0 0 2020 Exploration 0 0 0 2021 Exploration 0 0 0 Total 2,950 160,603 48,952 Date: December 31, 2021 7-9 Figure 7-4: DeSoto Property Drill Collar Location Plan Date: December 31, 2021 7-10 The drill holes shown in Figure 7-4 were used in the mineral resource estimation process. Data that is not considered in the mineral resource and mineral reserve estimation process includes data that cannot be mapped, data that has missing densities, and data that has come from unverified sources through acquisition or other means. These concerns have been addressed and the data has been identified in the database. The total number of holes that have been excluded from the 2021 mineral resource estimate is 179 representing a total footage of 13,679 ft. (4,169 m). This is approximately 2.8% of the total drilled footage supporting the 2021 estimates. 7.2.2.5 Pioneer Property A total of 2,984 holes have been drilled at Pioneer yielding a total of 231,066 ft. (47,042 m) of drilling (Table 7-5). Figure 7-5 shows the collar locations of the drill holes considered for current geological interpretations, modeling and mineral resource estimation. Drill holes not included in the modeling for mineral resource estimation, are holes that do not have useable locations, or have data that has not been verified and is considered unreliable. These hole locations are placed on a redrill pattern and drilled again when time permits. The total number of holes that have been redrilled is 35 representing a total footage of 2,797 ft. (853 m). This is approximately 1.2% of the total property drilled footage. Table 7-5: Pioneer Property Exploration and Definition Drilling Summary Year Drilled Purpose Total Holes Total Depth (ft.) Total Depth (m) Pre 1970 Exploration 536 24,142 7,358 1970 to 1979 Definition 1,414 121,024 36,888 1980 to 1989 Definition 466 32,427 9,884 1990 to 1999 Definition 160 15,926 4,854 2000 to 2009 Definition 406 36,812 11,220 2010 to 2014 Definition 2 94 29 2015 Definition 0 0 0 2016 Definition 0 0 0 2018 Definition 0 0 0 2019 Definition 0 0 0 2020 Definition 0 0 0 2021 Definition 0 0 0 Total 2,984 230,425 70,233


 
Date: December 31, 2021 7-11 Figure 7-5: Pioneer Property Drill Collar Location Plan Date: December 31, 2021 7-12 The drill holes shown in Figure 7-5 were used in the mineral resource estimation process. Data that is not considered in the mineral resource and mineral reserve estimation process includes data that cannot be mapped, data that has missing densities, and data that has come from unverified sources through acquisition or other means. These concerns have been addressed and the data has been identified in the database. The total number of holes that have been excluded from the 2021 mineral resource estimate is 4 representing a total footage of 229 ft. (70 m). This is approximately 0.1% of the total drilled footage supporting the 2021 estimates. 7.2.2.6 South Pasture Property A total of 9,936 holes have been drilled at South Pasture yielding a total of 569,473 ft. (173,575 m) of drilling (Table 7-6). Figure 7-6 shows the collar locations of the drill holes considered for current geological interpretations, modeling and mineral resource estimation. Drill holes not included in the modeling for mineral resource estimation, are holes that do not have useable locations, or have data that has not been verified and is considered unreliable. These hole locations are placed on a redrill pattern and drilled again when time permits. The total number of holes that have been redrilled is 1,938 representing a total footage of 8,507 ft. (2,593 m). This is approximately 1.5% of the total property drilled footage. Table 7-6: South Pasture Property Exploration and Definition Drilling Summary Year Drilled Purpose Total Holes Total Depth (ft.) Total Depth (m) Pre 1995 Exploration 4,258 238,915 72,821 1995 to 1999 Definition 1,760 92,805 28,287 2000 to 2004 Definition 882 52,062 15,868 2005 to 2009 Definition 1,038 58,893 17,951 2010 to 2014 Definition 643 44,385 13,529 2015 Definition 486 34,171 10,415 2016 Definition 357 20,267 6,177 2017 Definition 278 14,073 4,289 2018 Definition 115 6,943 2,116 2019 Definition 36 2,240 683 2020 Definition 83 4,720 1,439 Total 9,936 569,474 173,575 Date: December 31, 2021 7-13 Figure 7-6: South Pasture Property Drill Collar Location Plan Date: December 31, 2021 7-14 The drill holes shown in Figure 7-6 were used in the mineral resource estimation process. Data that is not considered in the mineral resource and mineral reserve estimation process includes data that cannot be mapped, data that has missing densities, and data that has come from unverified sources through acquisition or other means. These concerns have been addressed and the data has been identified in the database. The total number of holes that have been excluded from the 2021 mineral resource estimate is 133 representing a total footage of 10,661 ft. (3,249 m). This is approximately 5.1% of the total drilled footage supporting the 2021 estimates. 7.2.3 Drill Methods Drilling at all sites is completed using a Failings 1250 Mud Rotary unit that uses bentonite slurry and positive hydrologic head to maintain hole stability. A 10 ft. (3 m) long and four-inch diameter core barrel is used to collect in-situ samples in runs of 2 to 8 ft. (0.6 to 2.4 m). Negative pressure within the barrel occurs as the sample is retrieved and slurry is forced out the top of the drill stem. The vacuum that forms is employed to hold the core sample in the barrel as it is removed for the hole after each run. Once the barrel is safely removed from the hole a pump is used to fill the barrel with slurry to push the sample out of the bottom of the barrel. As the sample is removed it is placed in boxes in lengths of up to 5 ft. (1.5 m). 7.2.4 Geological Logging Each drill hole is logged in the field as it is drilled using a Mosaic customized logging sheet that feeds into the Mosaic master database. This is done by either a Mosaic or contract geologist that also accompanies and directs the drill crew. The logging geologist makes general notes on the overburden lithologies by viewing the cuttings and overburden core samples. During this process the depth and general firmness of the any “hardpan” is noted as well as any remarkable observations. Core samples are collected of the overburden to ensure that the contact with the mineralization is accurately identified. Once the contact with the matrix is observed, the onsite geologist inspects each sample of matrix using a variety of methods. The samples are described based on external appearance initially. Characteristics such as color, stiffness, swell, depth, and length are noted on the Mosaic customized logging sheet. The samples are then evaluated by hand using a hand lens or cutting tools to “open” the core to see the interior makeup. The visual appearance of the interior is then logged noting if the core is uniform or if there is differential layering of any kind, general abundance, size, and color of phosphate product and where within the core the product lies, the type and general number of impurities. The geologist characterizes the texture of the core constituents to describe the core in further detail to note if the core is clayey, sandy, dolomitic or if it contains rubble. Also, recorded is an opinion on pumping or digging difficulty. Specific features of each sample are noted and if there is a distinct transition between layers or if the deposit is uniform throughout. Samples are logged and separated by depth and specific geologic characteristics. Each separated sample within a hole is labeled with location and unit identifiers and bagged to be taken to the on-site metallurgical and analytical lab. Core logging is based on lithology and phosphatic abundance. It is not necessary to log lithological units and attempt to define seam conformity. The individual unit/beds generally exhibit lithological similarities across the property and region, but locally repeat in transgressive or regressive sequences. The interpretation is based on the total abundance of phosphatic material in the bed and the total phosphatic material within the borehole. Bed geometries that are sinusoidal or in some other way skewed towards disparity in grain size or material density can impact the predictive quality of data. In areas where features of this type exist the drilling density my not be sufficient to be predictive. This is only the case in fluvial deposits with phosphatic sediment loads that vary in composition over geological time and is not common. Interbeds of limestone or dolostone can present losses of recovery when they cannot be readily cored. In some cases, well indurated interbeds need to have the cuttings flushed from cutting surface of the bit for drilling to proceed. Drilling fluid and cuttings are washed from the core barrel and pumped through the annular space of the borehole to the mud tub. It is possible that small portions of phosphatic bed above and below the interbed are poorly resolved due to material losses.


 
Date: December 31, 2021 7-15 Beds of clays that are resistant to pumping are identified but the composition is poorly defined and can materially impact the mineability of the bed due to poor pumping exhibited by these materials. The geologist notes these beds and identifies and logs clays with material properties that indicate poor pumping performance. 7.2.5 Recovery A core recovery of 90% is required for each hole. If this recovery is not met, the hole is redrilled at that time. 7.2.6 Collar Surveys and Down Hole Surveys Prior to 2016, the collar coordinates for each hole were surveyed by Mosaic surveyors. Post 2016, LiDAR coordinates including elevations are obtained by annual flyovers done by a certified contractor. No downhole surveys are completed since all required geological information is obtained from the drill hole logging and core samples. 7.3 Hydrogeology There is no hydrogeological data collected at the exploration and drilling data acquisition stage. Most is collected during environmental permitting and studies. More detail is included in the environmental section. 7.4 Geotechnical No geotechnical data is collected at the drill data acquisition stage. Geotechnical considerations are taken into account during the mining of the phosphate. 7.5 QP Interpretation of the Exploration and Drilling Information In the opinion of the Section 7 QP, the quantity and quality of the lithological, collar and drilling data collected for all of the properties are sufficient to support mineral resource and mineral reserve estimation. The reasons for this are as follows: • The core logging meets industry standards for this type of deposit. • The collar surveys have been performed using industry-standard instrumentation. • Recovery data from core drilling programs is acceptable. • The drilling pattern and density are constant with industry standard. • The recorded data and classification of core constituents are in line with industry practice. • The drilling process and equipment are consistent with industry standards for this type of deposit. • The data that is determined to be defective is not used in the estimation process. Date: December 31, 2021 8-1 8.0 Sample Preparation, Analyses and Security 8.1 Introduction Mosaic owns and operates an analytical lab in Florida (A-Lab). The A-Lab is located at the Mosaic Four Corners Facility (11200 SR Hwy 37 South, Bradley, FL 33835). This facility is led by a Senior Lab Supervisor and operates 24 hours/day, 7 days/week in a rotating shift fashion. Each shift crew consists of a Senior Analytical Tech and two Analytical Lab Technicians. The A-Lab provides metallurgical and analytical services, including sample preparation to all Mosaic Florida minerals operations. Additionally, Mosaic’s New Wales Quality Control Lab provides analytical services when the A-Lab has an extended backlog and for periodic detection of additional metals. Both labs are owned by Mosaic and are not externally certified. Mosaic is one of 14 member companies of the Association of Fertilizers and Phosphate Chemists (AFPC) which also includes two overseas and two associate members. The AFPC’s main goal is to promote uniformity of sampling and analytical methods for the phosphate industry. The preparation and analysis of the A-Lab and New Wales Lab samples follow the protocol and the conventional methods of the industry. The following samples are collected for preparation and analysis: • Core samples collected from on-going drilling programs, including specific holes analyzed for additional metals and additional size fractions. The New Wales Quality Control Lab test for any additional metals. • QA/QC core sample. • Production samples collected after the beneficiation plant. 8.2 Sampling Methods 8.2.1 Procedures Core samples are grouped by depth and specific geologic characteristics as logged by the onsite geologist. Each sample is bagged by hand and each bag containing part of the sample is labeled with location and unit identifiers. A sample is made up of the entire core that is logged for that thickness and geologic characteristic. All the ore for each sample is taken to the lab. Samples are collected after logging the ideal maximum length of an individual split is 20 ft. (6.1 m), the ideal minimum length of an individual split is 4 ft. (1.2 m) the average split length is 6.1 ft. (1.9 m). Each sample is labeled in the field with identification information that is specific to only that sample. At the A-Lab that sample is given an “M-Number” that is used from that point on to track the data for that specific sample through the entire process. The M-Number is also stored in the database with the analytical data. 8.2.2 Quality Control Geologists receive onsite training for sample collection supervised by an experienced geologist. During training the geologist is provided instructions for the drilling, logging, and sampling process. This supervised training occurs within comparable phosphate deposits within the Central Florida Phosphate District. The tenured geologist provides continual feedback and assess the competencies of the geologist in training. The geologist in training is only released to work when the tenured geologist and the qualified person agree that they are proficient and capable to conduct work unsupervised. Boreholes are located by GPS and are drilled by a mud rotary coring method. The holes are drilled with a fish tail bit through the overburden. If phosphate is noticed at any time in the cuttings by the driller or the geologist, the driller stops and core Date: December 31, 2021 8-2 drilling begins. In most cases, coring begins prior to phosphatic beds. If there are an abundance of phosphatic cuttings in the mud tub, the hole may be re-drilled at the geologist’s discretion. Samples are recovered from the borehole and are placed in core boxes for visual description and logging. The thicknesses and depths are recorded in the drilling log and characteristics of the sediments and the phosphates are noted in the logs. The core is assessed for recovery by comparing the recovered footage to the footage communicated by the driller. In the case of poor recovery, the drilling logs are notated, and the hole is assessed for re-drilling. The core, in its entirety, is bagged and labeled on the bag and within the bag for sample processing at the lab. To ensure core samples are properly identified and labeled the Lead Lab Tech matches the log data to sample data. If there is a discrepancy, the onsite geologist that drilled the borehole is asked to correct it as the core is received. All core is consumed in processing and analysis. 8.3 Sample Preparation 8.3.1 Process Sample preparation at the A-Lab follows the process outlined in Figure 8-1. There is a detailed written process manual that details each step and includes supporting photos and directions. This manual is reviewed with personnel regularly. In general, the sample preparation process consists of the sample being weighed and placed on a rubber mat where it is disaggregated into a homogenous mixture. Two 1,000 gram moisture samples are taken from this mixture. A portion of the sample is placed in a cylinder of known volume. That portion of the sample is sent through a pilot washer. On the first part of the washer, screens separate the pebble size material. The second screen separates the feed size material from the smaller waste material. The pebble and feed material are screened at specific sizes, each sized portion is weighted, dried, ground and analyzed for specific metals and grade. The feed goes through a two-step floatation process using chemicals to separate the sand from the concentrate. The concentrate is then weighed, dried, ground and analyzed for specific metals and grade. Additionally, a portion of the waste material that passes through the feed screen is collected to be weighed, dried, ground and analyzed for specific metals and grade. Date: December 31, 2021 8-3 Figure 8-1: Core Sample Preparation Flow Sheet


 
Date: December 31, 2021 8-4 8.3.2 Quality Control The quality control process utilizes dual moisture samples to ensure the proper water content is used for the analysis of the samples. The weights of the samples are mass balanced to determine the volume of water in the core sample. Another process used to maintain quality is to split specific core samples into approximately equal portion and run them through the entire lab process to verify the results. The splitting of the core takes place in the field by the onsite geologist and is treated as a separate hole for production sampling. The geologist uses a cutting tool to divide the core in the field as close to evenly as possible. The split samples are bagged separately and labeled as a QA/QC sample. The A-Lab then treats both samples as a separate core and runs them through the process to ensure accurate a comparison is made of the sampling, processing, and analyzing. The results can then be reviewed for outliers and variations to adjust any part of the process that needs updating. 8.4 Assaying and Analytical Procedures 8.4.1 Procedures The drill hole core samples are assayed for phosphorous as BPL (Bone Phosphate of Lime), acid insoluble material, metals reported in percent oxide and ground moisture to correct the BPL analysis due to sample moisture. The wet chemistry portion of the analytical lab is staffed with two lab technicians and one senior lab technician. This portion of the lab is in continuous operation and always staffed with at least two technicians. Samples are logged into a LIMS (Laboratory Information Management System) that is used by A-Lab. LIMS manages the samples from receipt to release. The system is integrated into the company database and all results are recorded. When the analysis is completed, the sample results are released in duplicate to other tables in the database. Procedures for analysis of processed samples are identical for pebble, amine concentrate and clays. Each size fraction is dried and ground to a minimum of 0.25 mm. A one-gram sample of dried material is massed. The sample is digested in a solution of hydrochloric acid with heating. The samples are filtered. The insoluble particulate and filter paper are reserved. The aqueous solution undergoes analysis. The analysis uses an industry standard Scandium tracer to validate the instrument during analysis. The first and last samples of a ten-sample run are industry standard AFPC Check 22 to further validate the instrument during analysis. The insoluble material and filter paper are placed in a muffle furnace and the remaining insoluble material is massed in a controlled process to eliminate moisture fluctuations. Flotation feeds and flotation tails are ground, massed, and digested in HCL as described above. The samples are processed using the molybdovanadate and perchloric acid colorimetric method. The samples are then analyzed by Shimadzu spectrophotometer and are analyzed only for phosphorus BPL. Additional metallurgical analysis is routinely conducted at the New Wales Analytical Lab. The samples are processed and ground by the A-Lab. The samples are transferred by contractor security personnel to the New Wales Analytical Lab and are processed using a mass spectrometer to identify additional metals. 8.4.2 Density Determinations The density of in-situ core samples is determined by the water density method. A sample of the disaggregated homogenized core is placed in a cylinder of known volume (sample mass and cylinder volume will vary depending on available sample size). After the sample is weighed, the cylinder is filled to capacity with water. The cylinder is then weighed again and the density is derived. The mass of the dry material in the sample is determined by multiplying the sample by the percent solids. The volume of the water in the used cylinder is determined by dividing the mass of water in the cylinder by the mass of one cubic foot of water. The volume occupied by the dry material is found by subtracting the volume of water from the cylinder size. The density of the dry material is calculated by dividing the mass of the dry material by the volume it occupies in the cylinder. Date: December 31, 2021 8-5 The measured density is compared to a calculated density. The calculated density is the fractional density based on the weight percent of the dry components of each sample. This density is determined by multiplying the fractional percent of each component by a standard density assuming no void. It is then factored by the amount of moisture found in the sample and a constant void factor. The new factored density is then adjusted to account for the infill of water and small particles in the interparticle space between larger particles. This adjustment is done using standard coefficients derived from statistical regression to arrive at the calculated density that is compared to the measured lab density using a range of +/- 15%. 8.4.3 Moisture Estimation The moisture estimation process begins by collecting two approximate 1,000-gram representative samples of disaggregated and homogenized core prior to the sample density estimation process. The samples are collected from varying parts of the core to not over represent any particular portion of the core. The weights of the samples are verified using calibrated digital scales and any excess sample is removed to maintain similar weights across the samples. The samples are placed in a Grieve Oven for 8 to 12 hours to dry. The samples are reweighed after drying to determine moisture mass lost. The percent moisture of each sample is calculated, and mass balanced to be used in the core properties calculations. Samples are used in the percent moisture and density determination process to limit sample basis and increase accuracy. Ground sample moisture is determined by selecting a single five-gram sample of each ground sample to be weighed and placed in an oven for one hour to dry. The samples are reweighed after drying to determine moisture mass lost. The moisture determination process and estimation are rechecked as part of the QA/QC process. Each portion of the core selected as a QA/QC hole goes through the same procedure thereby producing four moisture samples for a single layer. The average variation between moisture samples of the same core is ~1.2%. 8.4.4 Quality Assurance and Quality Control For Quality Assurance (QA), the A-Lab instruments are calibrated at the beginning of each BPL and Metals run and when the samples are weighed for digestion, an AFPC Check 22 sample is also weighed, digested and analyzed along with the samples. Mosaic uses industry standard sample AFPC Phosphate Rock Check No. 22 as its QAQC reference sample. If the check assay fails (its analysis results are outside the certified value being assayed), the run is scrapped and repeated. In addition, control charts are generated from LIMS generated data to monitor BPL and metals analysis results. The A-Lab also participates in a bimonthly round-robin check program in which 32 industry labs analyze an unknown rock sample supplied by the participating labs and report their results to AFPC. Results are tabulated and published when data analysis is completed by AFPC; each lab’s results are expected to be within two standard deviations of the average of all the data. Three instruments are used to analyze the A-Lab samples for BPL and metals. They are covered with a service agreement with the manufacturer, that includes two preventive maintenance visits per year. The Lab Instrument Technicians do routine preventive maintenance weekly and the Technicians and the Chemist take care of minor to moderate instrument issues. Whenever there is an instrument problem that can’t be fixed in-house by the Instrument Technician or Chemist, the manufacturer is called to repair the units under the service agreement. 8.5 Sample Security Core samples are logged and collected by Mosaic personnel or approved contractors. The samples are transported to the storage area at the Four Corners Facility by the same personnel. The sample storage area is located behind the mine security gate. Only Mosaic personnel can access the storage area. If samples are taken to an outside lab for processing, a chain of custody is established that verifies the samples are accessed only by approved personnel at specified locations throughout the core processing procedure. Date: December 31, 2021 8-6 8.6 Database Drill hole collar, survey, assay and lithological data are collected from the drilling campaign, analytical laboratory and lidar surveys. This data is uploaded into an Oracle SQI database and available to appropriate staff through a proprietary graphical user interface. Tabular data is available to users. • Drill hole collar elevations are measured from lidar data using surveyed collar locations provided by the geologist. Data is uploaded into the database from the GIS department. • Lithological data is collected by the geologist during drilling including color, sediment makeup, degree of consolidation, phosphatic abundance and drill-hole information including depth to ore, thickness of ore split, and total depth. The logs are released to the analytical lab and entered into the database. • Physical properties data is entered directly into the database. Important items are: mass of sized samples, density, percent moisture and percent clay. • Analytical data is collected by the A-Lab LIMS system and uploaded into the secure database. Important items are: BPL, Fe2O3, Al2O3, MgO, and CaO. 8.7 QP Opinion on Sample Preparation, Security, and Analytical Procedures It is the opinion of the Section 8 QP, that the Florida Phosphate Mining sampling method, sample preparation and assaying and analytical procedures are suitable to support mineral resource and mineral reserve estimation. The rational for this is as follows: • The core sampling, sample preparation, security and analytical process are conducted using industry standard procedures. • Database maintenance and enhancements are ongoing to improve use and security and ensure the data is readily accessible for mineral resource and reserve estimation. • The core sampling, sample preparation, security and analytical process provide the grade, volume, and qualities needed to accurately estimate mineral resource and reserve estimates. • Quality Assurance and Quality Control processes are completed, ensuring the results are within industry standards. • It is assumed, based on a review of existing documents and compilation reporting, that the historical core sampling, sample preparation, security and assaying processes were appropriate for the time of data collection. The majority of the historic drilling areas have been mined and through production records, the QP has gained confidence that these estimations reconcile with realized mining expectations. • Internal sampling and laboratory procedures are standardized with the intention of providing accurate and representative samples of the material being mined. Date: December 31, 2021 9-1 9.0 Data Verification 9.1 QP and Internal Data Verification When geologic data is acquired, the Mosaic Senior Reserve Analyst (QP) and A-Lab staff perform the following regular internal data validations: • Ongoing assay data validation consisting of weight and assay checks is done using the QA/QC split core process. • Data verification is conducted on samples using numerical methods. Statistical analysis is conducted on a representative subsample of assays to determine expected elemental ratios. The comparison of the total of assay elements to a statistically representative total of expected elements is performed. If the ratio is outside of a prescribed passing range, the assay is repeated. If the new assay falls outside of the prescribed range the data are labeled as “bad data” and the drill-hole is scheduled to be drilled again. • Each sample split with its representative series of assay values is verified by the QP or an employee working under the direction of the QP. There are “flags” that identify data that fall outside of predicted ranges during the verification process. Each split is determined to be fit for purpose and is validated manually by the qualified person or an employee working under the direction of the qualified person for use in reserve and resource estimation. • All new assay data being added to the database is verified upon acquisition by the internal validation software. • Prior to entry into the database to be used in mineral resource estimation, the data is reviewed for improbable entries and high values. Any errors are flagged and corrected. • Mosaic staff regularly conduct laboratory reviews and audits of the A-Lab. • The on-site mine geologists visit the mining areas to visually inspect the mining excavation to compare observations to the drilling data. When required, samples are collected to understand differences in grade and verify the exploration data. • The QP visited the core logging and sampling facilities bi-annually. • The QP has conducted discussion with past professionals and original site experts regarding historical data. 9.2 External Data Verification The following external checks are performed: • The equipment used for analytical purposes is calibrated on a regular basis to know standards. • The core properties analysis from the density procedure through the analyte analysis has been duplicated by an outside lab for repeatability. • External round robin assay checks. • Quarterly mineral reserve audits and depletion reviews are done by KPMG as part of their financial reviews and audits. 9.3 QP Opinion on Data Adequacy It is the opinion of the QP that the data being used and relied upon in the Technical Report Summary is adequate to support mineral resource and mineral reserve estimation. The rational for this is as follows: • There is enough drill data to produce accurate mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates. • The data quality and quantity are aligned with industry standards.


 
Date: December 31, 2021 9-2 • The verification process is adequate to validate the data used as part of the mineral resource and mineral reserve estimation process. • The historical assay information is adequately supported by the reconciliation to actual mining results and activity. • The exploration results have been reviewed and there is confidence in the interpretations. • The QP has reviewed select internal reports and memos prepared by Mosaic staff and note that those reports and memos have not identified any material deficiencies with the adequacy of the data at the time the Technical Report Summary was prepared. Date: December 31, 2021 10-1 10.0 Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing 10.1 Introduction Metallurgical testing and quality control are crucial to Mosaic mineral processing. Laboratory and plant tests are a necessity to support the mining and beneficiation process because of inherent limitations of online measurement of matrix quality. Draglines and dredges extract the mineralization, known as the matrix, that is approximately 1/3 clay, 1/3 sand, and 1/3 phosphate rock. If the draglines and dredges are not mining in the proper zone, the matrix quality will vary from time to time. As such, shift samples are collected from each stream and analyzed in the A-Lab to ensure operating targets are being met throughout the process and to confirm final product purity/quality. 10.2 Procedures To support production quality, automatic samplers are installed at the Beneficiation plants to collect shift samples from all streams. At the end of each shift, samples are delivered to the A-Lab for analysis. Samples are collected by the operations group using the automatic samplers and brought to the A-Lab for analysis on a set routine. These routines have been established by each site’s Engineering and Operations personnel, based on the criticality and variability of each specific stream, noted over the site’s decades of operation. Once the A-Lab receives the samples, the standard procedures are followed to process the samples. The frequency of sample analysis is listed in Table 10-1. Table 10-1: Notable Frequency of Samples Sample Name Frequency of Samples Analysis Type Pebble Once every 3 to 4 hours based on production rate. Automatically collected samples at 15 to 20 minute interval. Chemistry Sizer Rock (Intermediate Pebble) x 2 per day Chemistry Flotation Feed x 2 per day Chemistry Flotation Rougher Concentrate x 2 per day Chemistry Flotation Rougher Tail x 2 per day Chemistry Final Concentrate x 2 per day Chemistry Shipment x 2 per day Chemistry 10.3 Quality Control For the A-Lab sample analysis, lab technicians follow the lab standard procedures to split, dry, grind, and analyze each sample. The A-Lab technicians put a standard sample in each batch samples to verify the equipment’s accuracy. If the lab data is questionable, production engineers will ask the A-Lab to recheck the sample. The equipment used to analyze samples in the A-Lab has service agreements with the manufacturer that include two preventative maintenance visits per year as well as emergency visits to troubleshoot instrument issues. Routine instrument maintenance is carried out by the lab chemist and E/I team. Date: December 31, 2021 10-2 10.4 Database and Records Processing related lab results are imported into a LIMS, that feeds the site’s larger reporting-based database. Shipping related lab results are entered into a PLS (Product Loading System) system, that creates a history of the values and provides a certificate of analysis to customers through Mosaic’s SAP billing system. Production data is saved into a database. Almost all data has been transferred to the Process Information (PI) database using tags. 10.5 Metallurgical Testing Metallurgical testing, processes and procedures are used to evaluate drilling data at the current active mines and the South Pasture, Pioneer and Desoto properties. As drilling continues at all properties, the metallurgical testing, processes, and procedures outlined in Section 10 also continue. Metallurgical testing is an on-going activity associated with all completed drilling. 10.6 Recovery Estimates The process recovery at the beneficiation plants is mainly dependant on the feed grade, production-water clarity, equipment health and reagent quality. The process recoveries are calculated using the shift samples that are collected by the automatic samplers from the feed, concentrate and tails. Production engineers will conduct reagent quality checks on a monthly schedule. Historical process recovery and product quality at South Fort Meade, Four Corners and Wingate are listed in the Table 10- 2, Table 10-3, and Table 10-4, respectively. Table 10-2: South Fort Meade Mine Recovery and Product Quality Year Recovery % P2O5% Acid Insolubles % MER % 2016 82.9 28.84 12.3 8.96 2017 86.8 29.11 11.2 9.14 2018 88.5 28.89 12.0 8.93 2019 88.1 28.20 13.7 9.57 2020 86.8 28.38 12.8 9.65 2021 87.8 28.20 13.0 9.72 Table 10-3: Four Corners Mine Recovery and Product Quality Year Recovery % P2O5 % Acid Insolubles % MER % 2016 84.3 28.93 13.2 8.93 2017 84.9 28.56 13.0 9.51 2018 87.3 28.47 12.9 9.82 2019 88.9 28.74 12.6 9.76 2020 89.5 28.43 13.9 9.54 2021 88.9 28.52 14.1 9.40 Date: December 31, 2021 10-3 Table 10-4: Wingate Mine Recovery and Product Quality Year Recovery % P2O5 % Acid Insolubles % MER % 2016 86.9 28.89 11.6 7.58 2017 88.0 28.61 11.1 8.60 2018 88.4 28.06 12.0 9.18 2019 85.9 29.07 10.3 8.49 2020 85.6 28.43 11.4 9.08 2021 85.7 28.75 9.6 9.13 Recovery is calculated as follows: Recovery% = (Concentrate P2O5) / (Feed P2O5) × (Feed P2O5-Tailing P2O5) / (Concentrate P2O5-Tailing P2O5) ×100%. 10.7 Metallurgical Variability The combination of drill core sampling and historically proven consistency of the P2O5 grade surrounding the facilities provides confidence to the metallurgical consistency. However, equipment health, production-water quality, and reagent quality affect the flotation recovery. Figure 10-1, 10-2, 10-3 show the relationship between feed grade and plant recovery from 2018 to 2020 using plant performance data for each plant. It indicates that a higher feed grade will generate a higher flotation recovery if the other factors remain unchanged. Figure 10-1: South Fort Meade Feed P2O5 Grade vs. Recovery%


 
Date: December 31, 2021 10-4 Figure 10-2: Four Corners Feed P2O5 Grade vs. Recovery% Figure 10-3: Wingate Feed P2O5 Grade vs. Recovery% Figures 10-4, 10-5, 10-6 show the recovery control chart for the Beneficiation Plant from 2018 to 2020 for South Fort Meade, Four Corners and Wingate, respectively. 65.00 70.00 75.00 80.00 85.00 90.00 95.00 Re co ve ry , % Feed P2O5 WIN Feed P2O5 vs. Recovery Date: December 31, 2021 10-5 Figure 10-4: South Fort Meade Plant Recovery Control Chart Figure 10-5: Four Corners Plant Recovery Control Chart Date: December 31, 2021 10-6 Figure 10-6: Wingate Plant Recovery Control Chart 10.8 Deleterious Elements Phosphate mineralization in central Florida contains some deleterious elements for all mines that have been tested and verified by lab and plant tests. The major elements include magnesium oxide (MgO), pyrite (FeS2) and aluminum oxide (Al2O3). MgO Sometimes the beneficiation plants process high MgO content feed. The high MgO content feed is mainly from dolomite, and the fatty acid can attach on dolomite and phosphate surfaces with calcium ions. If this happens, some high MgO content dolomite may go to the deoiling circuit which will affect deoiling and amine flotation recovery and final concentrate quality. Pyrite Pyrite is iron sulfide (FeS2). Most of the matrix is above 65 ft, but occasionally draglines still mine some matrix below 65 ft deep. There is a high chance that pyrite exists in the rock below a depth of 65 ft. It has been verified that the pyrite is present in many of the lower matrix zones at southern Bone Valley, found as tiny inclusions in the phosphate crystal. If they are present on the surface, the fatty acid will adsorb on the pyrite very easily, causing more difficult deoiling. Normally, the deoiling pH must go below 2.0 to remove the fatty acid from the pyrite mineral, but too low deoiling pH (less than 2.8) will result in lower phosphate recovery, as it causes ortho-P (soluble phosphorus) to form. Ortho-P is a depressant for rougher flotation. The more ortho-P in the flotation production-water, the lower the phosphate recovery. Al2O3 The clay minerals in the phosphate deposits of central Florida are a mixture of common (smectite, illite, and kaolinite) and less common (palygorskite and sepiolite) minerals. There are almost always some clay chips in the flotation feed. The clay mineral can be a source of Al2O3 in the phosphate product. In addition, aluminum phosphate (wavellite or crandallite) is common in Four Corners matrix. As a result, Four Corners phosphate rock has a higher Al2O3 content than South Fort Meade and Wingate phosphate rock. Date: December 31, 2021 10-7 Other Deleterious Elements Additional elements are noted in the mining and processing streams. These elements/compounds are in trace concentrations and have shown no notable accumulations within the process. These elements/compounds include calcium, aluminum, and sulfate. 10.9 Qualified Person’s Opinion on Data Adequacy It is the opinion of the QP that the mineral processing, metallurgical testing and analytical procedures used and relied upon in the Technical Report Summary is adequate to support mineral resource and mineral reserve estimation for Florida Phosphate Mining. The rational for this is as follows: • The analytical procedures used in the analysis are conventional and are aligned with industry practice. • The data quality and quantity are aligned with industry standards. • Collected samples are representative of the type and style of the mineralization and the mineral deposit as a whole. • The verification and QAQC processes validating the data is adequate. • Testwork programs, internal and external, continue to be performed to support current operations and potential improvements. • The metallurgical test work completed is appropriate for optimizing processing conditions and routes for proper process operation. • Tests are performed on samples that are considered to be representative of the mineralization styles and mineralogy. • Beneficiation recovery factors estimated are based on appropriate metallurgical test work and confirmed with production data. • The data received from the A-Lab is within industry standards to drive and support conclusions regarding the actual processes. See Section 8.1 for information regarding the A-Lab.


 
Date: December 31, 2021 11-1 11.0 Mineral Resource Estimates 11.1 Introduction Mosaic’s phosphate mineral resources are reported as a beneficiation plant product (phosphate rock) tonnage and P2O5 grade including a total primary impurities ratio (MER). Mineral resources are reported exclusive of mineral reserves. The geological information used to estimate the phosphate mineral resources for the mining facilities and exploration properties are based on drilling and sampling. The mineral resource estimates are completed using a proprietary software that applies specific grade, physical and impurity limits to the raw drill data of the property. These factors are used to select material that contains sufficient grade, limited impurities and is physically extractable to be included in the mineral resource estimate. The confidence and classification of the mineral resources is estimated based on the drill density of the evaluated area. 11.2 Key Assumptions The following outlines the key assumptions used for the estimation of mineral resources. • 100% of the estimated mineral resource (planned matrix) volume will be extracted. • The minimum beneficiation plant concentrate BPL (%P2O5) and minimum pebble BPL (%P2O5) mineral resource cut-offs used for each site are listed in Table 11-1. Table 11-1: BPL in Concentrate and Pebble Cut-Offs Location Minimum Concentrate BPL (%P2O5) Minimum Pebble BPL (%P2O5) Four Corners 60 (27.45%) 40 (18.30%) South Fort Meade 60 (27.45%) 40 (18.30%) Wingate 60 (27.45%) 40 (18.30%) South Pasture 60 (27.45%) 40 (18.30%) DeSoto 60 (27.45%) 50 (22.88%) Pioneer 60 (27.45%) 50 (22.88%) • Mineral resources are also defined by a maximum clay content cut-off for a logged matrix layer and the composite matrix volume (Table 11-2). South Pasture is expressed as a range to account for mineralogical variability. Table 11-2: Clay Percent Cut-Offs Location Clay % Volume Limit (Split/Hole) Four Corners 50/45 South Fort Meade 50/45 Wingate 40/40 South Pasture 40/40 to 50/50 DeSoto 40/40 Pioneer 40/40 • There is no dilution applied to the mineral resource estimates. • Mineral resource limits are based on: Date: December 31, 2021 11-2 o Setbacks from culturally sensitive, economically protected areas, municipal centers, adjacent property boundaries and structures as set by federal, state, county and local laws. The maximum set back is 1,320 ft. (402.3 m) from municipal centers. The minimum setback is 50 ft. (15.2 m). o Disturbance limits in issued federal, state and county permits. • The mineral resource quality allows for unadjusted maximum pebble magnesium oxide (MgO) volume cut-off of 2.5%. Impurity levels are adjusted based on historical measurements. • 100% of the estimated primary impurities (Fe2O3, Al2O3, MgO, and CaO) are recovered by mining. • Maximum mining depth of 85 ft. (26 m) below ground surface for facilities that utilize draglines. • Maximum mining depth of 109 ft. (33 m) below ground surface for facilities that utilize dredges. • Beneficiation Plant recovery assumptions: o 100% of the feed volume will be recovered o 100% of the pebble volume will be recovered o 100% of the concentrate will be recovered from the feed o 100% of the clay volume will be removed with no product included 11.3 Estimation Methodology The methodology for estimating mineral resources is described as follows: • Drill hole data is evaluated using a propriety software that applies mine specific mineral resource assumptions to each logged layer. • Each logged layer within a hole that meets the mine specific requirements is composited into a “matrix” zone using product volumes as the weighting agent. • Any analyzed logged layer that fails to meet the requirements and lies above all other passing logged layers, or in-between passing logged layers is composited with the waste volume. • Logged layers that underlie the entire passing volume are not included in the composite data. • The composite data is exported as a text file to be used to determine the shape of the resource area in a GIS software and in the creation grids for the geologic model in a mining software. • The composite data is then added to an GIS map and the mineral resource shape is drawn using the inverse distance weighted interpolation function based on where acceptable matrix is present in the drill data. • A contour of the mineral resource shape is created and loaded into the mining software. • The contour is then trimmed to account for permit and mine boundary limitations. • The composite data text file and is then loaded into mining software to create a geological model. • Areas that do not allow sufficient space for typical mining operation to take place with the production equipment in service at that mine are not considered for mineral resources. • The drill data is also used to determine the shape of the mineral resource area for each confidence classification by further modifying the mineral resource contour within the accepted limits of mining. • The interpolation method used in the geologic model to create the volume, density, grade, and impurity grids is inverse distance weighted based on the geo-located drill data. • Elevation grids are created using triangulation based on the LiDAR or survey data assigned to each drill hole. Date: December 31, 2021 11-3 • A utility macro is used to adjust elevations to account for holes with no matrix that meets the mine requirements. • The data from each grid is then volumetrically combined using product volumes for the specific mineral resource shape and mineral resource classification creating a block of uniform constituents. • Estimation of mineralization tonnage, grade and impurities is done by applying the volume weight percent of pebble, feed, and clay for the given mineral resource shape to the entire volume of the acceptable matrix within that mineral resource shape. 11.4 Exploratory Data Analysis The process for data analysis prior to mineral resource estimation is: • Sampled historical drill hole data is reviewed for selection accuracy and adjustments are based on the prescribed limits of the area of the remaining mineral resource. • As new drill data is added each hole is individually examined using operation specific mineral resource assumptions. • Annually, mineral resource limits are reviewed for possible changes to reflect in proposed mining and sequences. If changes are made to limits, drill data is updated with the new limits and re-evaluated. • Data that is not considered in the mineral resource estimation process includes data that cannot be geolocated, data that has missing densities, and data that has come from unverified sources through acquisition or other means. These are checked to ensure they have not been used in the current estimation process. 11.5 Validation The validations of the mineral resource estimates are: • Independent volumetric estimations are completed in parallel to the model estimates. • Comparison iterations using known changes to confirm model results are completed. 11.6 Confidence Classification of Mineral Resource Estimates Mineral Resource classifications are defined in SEC Regulation S-K, Subpart 1300. Mosaic adheres to these definitions when assigning confidence and classification to their mineral resource estimates. The SEC Regulation S-K, Subpart 1300 definitions of measure, indicated and inferred mineral resources are as follows. Measured Mineral Resource A measured mineral resource is that part of a mineral resource for which quantity and grade or quality are estimated on the basis of conclusive geological evidence and sampling. The level of geological certainty associated with a measured mineral resource is sufficient to allow a qualified person to apply modifying factors, as defined in this section, in sufficient detail to support detailed mine planning and final evaluation of the economic viability of the deposit. Because a measured mineral resource has a higher level of confidence than the level of confidence of either an indicated mineral resource or an inferred mineral resource, a measured mineral resource may be converted to a proven mineral reserve or to a probable mineral reserve. At all sites, a measured mineral resource is defined as mineralization delineated with at least a drill density of one hole per two and a half acres or greater. Indicated Mineral Resource An indicated mineral resource is that part of a mineral resource for which quantity and grade or quality are estimated on the basis of adequate geological evidence and sampling. The level of geological certainty associated with an indicated mineral resource is sufficient to allow a qualified person to apply modifying factors in sufficient detail to support mine planning and Date: December 31, 2021 11-4 evaluation of the economic viability of the deposit. Because an indicated mineral resource has a lower level of confidence than the level of confidence of a measured mineral resource, an indicated mineral resource may only be converted to a probable mineral reserve. At all sites, an indicated mineral resource is defined as mineralization delineated with a drill density of at least two holes per forty acres. Inferred Mineral Resource An inferred mineral resource is that part of a mineral resource for which quantity and grade or quality are estimated on the basis of limited geological evidence and sampling. The level of geological uncertainty associated with an inferred mineral resource is too high to apply relevant technical and economic factors likely to influence the prospects of economic extraction in a manner useful for evaluation of economic viability. Inferred mineral resource have the lowest level of geological confidence of all mineral resources. This prevents the application of the modifying factors in a manner useful for evaluation of economic viability, an inferred mineral resource may not be considered when assessing the economic viability of a mining project and may not be converted to a mineral reserve. For all sites, an inferred mineral resource is defined as mineralization delineated using a drill density of less than two holes per forty acres. 11.7 Reasonable Prospects of Economic Extraction Regulation S-K, Subpart 1300 requires that an evaluation be conducted as to the prospect of eventual economic extraction for mineral resources. The Florida Phosphate mineral resources are reported exclusive of the mineral reserves. The parameters and assumptions listed in Section 11.2 are used to estimate the mineral resources for all sites. The additional parameters and assumptions used to assess reasonable prospects for economic extraction of the measured and indicated mineral resources at DeSoto, Pioneer and South Pasture exploration properties are as follows. Unlike mineral reserves, mineral resources do not have demonstrated economic viability, but they do demonstrate reasonable prospects for economic extraction. The SEC does not require an assessment of reasonable prospects for economic extraction for the inferred mineral resources at the DeSoto, Pioneer and South Pasture properties. General Assumptions • Deleterious elements have a minor impact on recovery of the mineral resources. • There are no environmental, geotechnical and hydrogeological factors and concerns that will impact the prospects for economic extraction of the mineral resources. • Each site will develop its own pumping, water and clay storage strategies. • Reclamation plans are expected to be designed and approved by appropriate Federal, State and local agencies prior to any mining at the exploration properties. • The mining and surface rights are in place for the areas of mineral resource. • The mineral reserve cut-off based on productivity factors per site have been applied to assess the prospects for economic extraction of the mineral resources. These are listed in Table 11-3.


 
Date: December 31, 2021 11-5 Table 11-3: Productivity Cut-off Factors Location Recoverable Phosphate Rock tons vs. Matrix Volume Mined Recoverable Phosphate Rock tons vs. Total Volume Mined DeSoto >7.5% >2.2% Pioneer >7.8% >2.2% South Pasture >7.8% >2.2% • The Beneficiation Plant assumed recoveries are listed in Table 11-4. Table 11-4: Beneficiation Plant Recoveries Location Recovered Sand Feed Volume % Recovered Pebble Volume % Recovered Intermediate Pebble Volume Concentrate Grade Recovered from the Feed Feed Grade Recovered Recovered Concentrate BPL tons Volume from the Feed DeSoto 100.0% 89.0% n/a 85.0% 80.0% 68.0% Pioneer 100.0% 89.0% n/a 85.0% 80.0% 68.0% South Pasture 87.0% 67.5% 280.0% 87.0% 83.0% 62.8% • Mining dilution (Table 11-5) grading 0% P2O5 is applied to estimate mineral reserves. Table 11-5: Mining Dilution Location Minimum Pebble Volume Dilution Minimum Intermediate Pebble Volume Dilution Minimum Concentrate Volume Dilution DeSoto 12.0% n/a 6.0% Pioneer 12.0% n/a 6.0% South Pasture 12.0% n/a 4.5% • Primary impurity recoveries in pebbles, intermediate pebbles and concentrate based on a three-year rolling average are listed in tables 11-6, 11-7 and 11-8 respectively. Table 11-6: Impurity Recoveries in Pebbles Location Fe2O3 Al2O3 CaO MgO DeSoto 100% 100% 100% 100% Pioneer 100% 100% 100% 100% South Pasture 96% 103% 99% 140% Table 11-7: Impurity Recoveries in Intermediate Pebbles Location Fe2O3 Al2O3 CaO MgO South Pasture 96% 83% 98% 74% Date: December 31, 2021 11-6 Table 11-8: Impurity Recoveries in Concentrate Location Fe2O3 Al2O3 CaO MgO DeSoto 100% 100% 100% 100% Pioneer 100% 100% 100% 100% South Pasture 98% 104% 102% 92% DeSoto Property Assumptions • The mineral resources are amenable to dragline mining. • An expected annual average production rate of 6.0 M tons/year (5.4 M tonnes/year) based on 365 production days per year. • It is anticipated that the three current draglines in use at South Fort Meade will be moved to DeSoto and an additional dragline will be made available from Four Corners. • The potable and production-water supplies and associated infrastructure are expected to be developed for the DeSoto property. • DeSoto is expected to be a standalone site requiring its own new infrastructure and Beneficiation Plant. • Rail and road access will be permitted and built. • Water, matrix slurry, and clay pumping assets are expected to be acquired and sized to accommodate the planned production rate. • A “washer” of sufficient capacity is expected to be built to separate the oversized waste material, pebble product from finer size material. • A “sizer” of sufficient capacity is expected to be built to separate the coarser sand size material from the finer sand size material. • A section of the beneficiation plant flotation circuit is expected to be built to separate the finer sand size material from the fine waste material. • There are no water management structures or production-water assets presently on site. These are expected to be developed in the future. • DeSoto expects to develop a power and electricity strategy. Pioneer Property Assumptions • The mineral resources are amenable to dragline mining. • An expected production rate of 3.5 M tons/year (3.2 M tonnes/year) based on 365 production days per year. • Beneficiation is assumed to be through the South Pasture beneficiation plant. The Pioneer Property is expected to begin production as the South Pasture Property is exhausted. • Pioneer is expected to share and supplement water and clay storage requirements with South Pasture. • There are no water management structures or production-water assets presently on site. These are expected to be developed in the future. • The potable and production-water supplies and associated infrastructure are expected to be developed for the Pioneer property. • There are no beneficiation activities planned in this area as they are expected to be shared with South Pasture. South Pasture beneficiation facilities are expected to continue to use Duke and Mosaic cogenerated power. • Mosaic is expected to develop a power and electricity strategy. Date: December 31, 2021 11-7 South Pasture Property Assumptions • The mineral resources remain amenable to dragline mining. • An expected average annual production rate of 3.5 M tons/year (3.2 M tonnes/year) based on 365 production days per year. • The idled active beneficiation plant is expected to be restarted to process this mineralization. • It is likely that the Duke Energy and the Mosaic cogeneration line from the New Wales and South Pierce chemical plants will resume supplying power to the site. • South Pasture currently has two active clay settling areas that are permitted for clay storage, with approximately 33.7 M cubic yards of clay storage available. There are a number of other areas that will be considered for future construction. • There are two operating public water wells for office areas and personnel. It is expected that these will be maintained and utilized. • South Pasture Mine currently has some of the required infrastructure in place to support mining and processing. The office complex and associated maintenance areas are expected be used once the mine restarts production. Additionally, a portion of the beneficiation plant equipment is expected to be usable. • The current water management structures are permitted to release water at a regulated quality and quantity from its two permitted in-service outfalls. This is expected to continue and be sufficient for the site. Individual economic assessments have been completed for DeSoto, Pioneer and South Pasture. The positive after tax NPV and total cash flow results of the assessments support reasonable prospects of economic extraction for the three exploration properties and the mineral resource estimates. 11.8 Mineral Resource Statement The mineral resource estimates for the Florida Phosphate exploration properties are listed in Table 11-9. Mineral resources are reported exclusive of the mineral reserves. Figures 11-1, 11-2 and 11-3 show the distribution of the mineral resources at the DeSoto, Pioneer and South Pasture properties respectively. Date: December 31, 2021 11-8 Table 11-9: 2021 Mineral Resources Location Measured Mineral Resources Indicated Mineral Resources Measured + Indicated Mineral Resources Inferred Mineral Resources Tons (M) Tonnes (M) % P2O5 MER Tons (M) Tonnes (M) % P2O5 MER Tons (M) Tonnes (M) % P2O5 MER Tons (M) Tonnes (M) % P2O5 MER DeSoto Property 156 142 30.5 10.7 156 142 30.5 10.7 67 61 30 10 Pioneer Property 19 17 31.1 9.3 136 123 30.4 10.4 154 140 30.5 10.3 21 19 30 10 South Pasture Property 94 85 29.7 10.4 165 150 29.4 10.9 259 235 29.5 10.7 4 3 30 10 Total 113 102 30.0 10.2 457 415 30.1 10.7 569 517 30.0 10.6 92 83 30 10 Notes to accompany mineral resource table: 1. Mineral resource estimates were prepared by QP K. Farmer, a Mosaic employee. 2. Mineral resources are reported as a beneficiation plant product (phosphate rock) tonnage and P2O5 grade including a total primary impurities ratio (MER). 3. Mineral resources have an effective date of December 31, 2021. 4. Mineral resources are reported exclusive of those mineral resources that have been converted to mineral reserves. 5. Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. 6. Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not meet the threshold for mineral reserve modifying factors, such as estimated economic viability, that would allow for conversion to mineral reserves. There is no certainty that any part of the mineral resources estimated will be converted into mineral reserves. 7. Mineral resources assume dragline mining at all sites except Wingate Mine where dredging is assumed. 8. Mineral resources amenable to a dragline mining method are contained within a conceptual mine pit design using the same technical parameters as used for mineral reserves. 9. The cut-offs used to estimate mineral resources by site include, the minimum beneficiation plant concentrate BPL (%P2O5), minimum pebble BPL (%P2O5), maximum pebble magnesium oxide concentration and a maximum clay content cut-off for a logged matrix layer and the composite matrix volume (Section 11.2). 10. Impurities are reported as MER ((Fe + Al + Mg)/ P2O5 x 100). 11. Tonnage estimates are in US Customary and metric units and are rounded to the nearest million tonnes. 12. Rounding as required by reporting guidelines may result in apparent summation differences. 13. A commodity price of US$102.72/tonne of phosphate rock was used to assess prospects for economic extraction but is not used for cut-off purposes.


 
Date: December 31, 2021 11-9 Figure 11-1: DeSoto Property Mineral Resources Date: December 31, 2021 11-10 Figure 11-2: Pioneer Property Mineral Resources Date: December 31, 2021 11-11 Figure 11-3: South Pasture Property Mineral Resources Date: December 31, 2021 11-1 11.9 Uncertainties (Factors) That May Affect the Mineral Resource Estimates A mineral resource is an estimate only and not a precise and completely accurate calculation, being dependent on the interpretation of limited information on the location, shape, and continuity of the occurrence and on the available sampling results. Actual mineralization can be more or less than estimated depending upon actual geological conditions. The mineral resource statement includes inferred mineral resources. There is a low level of geological confidence associated with inferred mineral resources and there can be no certainty that further exploration work will result in the determination of indicated or measured mineral resources. The following outlines a number factors that impact the mineral resource estimates. • Changing hole density as drilling continues. • Unforeseen deposit changes such as continuity of matrix, impurities etc. not captured in current drill data density and spacing. • Drills holes can be offset from a designated pattern as a result of field conditions or access limitations. This could impact the pattern consistency for mine planning and mineral reserve pattern. • The shape of the mineral resource boundary may change as additional properties are acquired and as additional data is added. Estimates will vary as drilling is added and as additional properties are acquired. • Changes in finished products offered or developed could alter the limits and area that are used to estimate the mineral resource. • The area included in the mineral resource estimation may change as permit restrictions are refined. • If setback waivers aren’t acquired, the area of the mineral resource shape could change resulting in changed mineral resource limits and estimates.


 
Date: December 31, 2021 12-1 12.0 Mineral Reserve Estimates 12.1 Introduction Mosaic’s mineral reserves are reported as a beneficiation plant product (phosphate rock) tonnage and P2O5 grade including a total primary impurities ratio (MER). Mineral reserves have demonstrated economic viability utilizing the criteria and assumptions required at each phosphate facility. The geological information used to estimate the phosphate mineral reserves is based on applying specific product recoveries, concentration, and plant limits to the raw drill data of mineral resource areas of the property. These factors are used to select material that contains sufficient product volume of economic value to be included in the mineral reserve estimate. The confidence and classification of the mineral reserves is estimate based on the drill density of the evaluated area. 12.2 Key Assumptions The following outlines the key assumptions used for the estimation of mineral reserves. • Cut-off based on productivity factors per site have been applied to estimate mineral reserves (Table 12-1). Table 12-1: Productivity Cut-off Factors Location Recoverable Finished Product tons vs. Matrix Volume Mined Recoverable Finished Product tons vs. Total Volume Mined South Fort Meade 9.8% 2.2% Four Corners 9.9% 2.2% Wingate 9.4% 2.2% • The Beneficiation Plant applied recoveries are based on an annual reconciliation process for a rolling three-year period (Table 12-2). Table 12-2: Beneficiation Plant Applied Recoveries Location Recovered Sand Feed Volume Recovered Pebble Volume Concentrate Grade Recovered from the Feed Feed Grade Recovered Recovered Concentrate BPL tons Volume from the Feed South Fort Meade 109.6% 102.4% 86.1% 68.1% 64.3% Four Corners 113.3% 99.2% 88.0% 77.9% 77.7% Wingate 107.8% 100.0% 86.6% 99.4% 92.8% • Mining dilution (Table 12-3) grading 0% P2O5 is applied to estimate mineral reserves. Table 12-3: Mining Dilution Location Minimum Pebble Volume Dilution Minimum Concentrate Volume Dilution South Fort Meade 15.7% 10.9% Four Corners 18.2% 11.2% Wingate 18.0% 10.3% Date: December 31, 2021 12-2 • Primary impurity recoveries in pebbles and concentrate based on a three-year rolling average and are listed in tables 12-4 and 12-5 respectively. Table 12-4: Impurity Recoveries in Pebbles Location Fe2O3 Al2O3 CaO MgO South Fort Meade 96% 110% 93% 90% Four Corners 101% 120% 100% 127% Wingate 89% 97% 100% 166% Table 12-5: Impurity Recoveries in Concentrate Location Fe2O3 Al2O3 CaO MgO South Fort Meade 97% 105% 93% 79% Four Corners 96% 103% 100% 86% Wingate 86% 91% 100% 105% 12.3 Estimation Methodology The methodology used to estimate mineral reserves is as follows: • Drill hole data is evaluated using our proprietary software that applies mine specific mineral resource and mineral reserve limits to logged layers. • Each logged layer within a hole that meets the mine specific requirements as detailed above, is composited into a “matrix” zone using product volumes as the weighting agent. • Any analyzed logged layer that fails to meet the requirements and lies above all other passing logged layers, or in-between passing logged payers is composited with the waste volume. • Logged layers that underlie the entire passing volume are not included in the composite data. • Drill holes not containing any matrix that meets the required mineral reserve assumptions will have the upper most matrix layer included in the compositing process to provide mineral reserve data where mine pits lie outside of the mineral resource shape. • The composite data is exported as a text file and loaded into a mining software to create a geological model. • The interpolation method used in the geologic model to create the volume, density, grade, and impurity grids is inverse distance weighted based on the geo-located drill data. • Elevation grids are created using triangulation based on the LiDAR or survey data assigned to each drill hole. • A utility macro is used to apply plant volume recoveries, adjust insoluble limits and elevations grids. The pebble and concentrate insoluble sand are adjusted as per each mines criterion (Table 12-3), resulting in a reduction in grade. • Mineral reserves (mining areas) are overlaid on the mineral resource model by the Mine Planner. • The data from each grid is then volumetrically combined using product volumes for the specific mine plan pit shape creating a block of uniform constituents. Tons, grades and product quality are estimated by applying the mining shapes to the geological model. • The recoverable tons of pebble and feed for the entire mine pit are calculated based on the area of the mine pit. Date: December 31, 2021 12-3 • The beneficiation plant grade recoveries are than applied to the recoverable feed tons to estimate the mineral reserves and recoverable concentrate tons. 12.4 Mineral Reserve Statement Mineral reserves are sub-divided into two confidence categories in Regulation S-K 1300, proven and probable. Table 12-6 outlines the 2021 mineral reserves for South Fort Meade, Four Corners and Wingate mining facilities. Figures 12-1, 12-2 and 12-3 show the distribution of the mineral reserves at the three Florida phosphate facilities. Proven Mineral Reserves A proven mineral reserve is the economically mineable part of a measured mineral resource and can only result from conversion of a measured mineral resource.” Regulation S-K 1300 provides additional guidance that a proven mineral reserve, the qualified person must have a high degree of confidence in the results obtained from the application of the modifying factors and in the estimates of tonnage and grade or quality. At the mines, a proven mineral reserve is defined as the mineable portion of a measured mineral resource. Probable Mineral Reserves A probable mineral reserve is the economically mineable part of an indicated and, in some cases, a measured mineral resource.” Regulation S-K 1300 provides additional guidance that a probable mineral reserve, the qualified person’s confidence in the results obtained from the application of the modifying factors and in the estimates of tonnage and grade or quality is lower than what is sufficient for a classification as a proven mineral reserve, but is still sufficient to demonstrate that, at the time of reporting, extraction of the mineral reserve is economically viable under reasonable investment and market assumptions. The lower level of confidence is due to higher geologic uncertainty when the qualified person converts an indicated mineral resource to a probable reserve or higher risk in the results of the application of modifying factors at the time when the qualified person converts a measured mineral resource to a probable mineral reserve. At the producing mines, a probable mineral reserve is defined as the mineable portion of an indicated mineral resource. Date: December 31, 2021 12-4 Table 12-6: 2021 Mineral Reserves Location Proven Mineral Reserves Probable Mineral Reserves Total Mineral Reserves Tons (M) Tonnes (M) %P2O5 MER Tons (M) Tonnes (M) % P2O5 MER Tons (M) Tonnes (M) % P2O5 MER South Fort Meade Facility 6 5 27.4 10.9 24 21 26.7 7.6 29 26 26.9 8.2 Four Corners Facility 46 42 28.3 9.7 40 36 27.2 11.2 86 78 27.8 10.4 Wingate Facility 13 12 28.3 8.7 12 11 27.8 10.2 25 23 28.0 9.5 Total 65 59 28.2 9.6 76 69 27.1 9.9 141 128 27.6 9.8 Notes to accompany mineral reserves table: 1. Mineral reserve estimates were prepared by QP K. Farmer, a Mosaic employee. 2. Mineral reserves have an effective date of December 31, 2021. 3. Mineral reserves are based on measured and indicated mineral resources only. 4. Mineral reserves are reported as a beneficiation plant product (phosphate rock) tonnage and P2O5 grade including a total primary impurities ratio (MER). 5. South Fort Meade and Four Corners mineral reserves are mined by a dragline mining method. The Wingate mineral reserves are mined by dredge mining. 6. Cut-off based on productivity factors per site have been applied to estimate mineral reserves (Section 12.2). 7. Impurities are reported as MER ((Fe + Al + Mg)/ P2O5 x 100). 8. Mine designs are used to constrain mineral reserves within mineable pit shapes. 9. Only after a positive economic test and inclusion in the Life of Mine Plan are the mineral reserve estimates considered and disclosed as mineral reserves. 10. Tonnage estimates are in US Customary and metric units and are rounded to the nearest million tonnes. 11. Rounding as required by reporting guidelines may result in apparent summation differences. 12. A commodity price of US$102.72/tonne of phosphate rock was used to assess the economic viability of the mineral reserves in the LOM.


 
Date: December 31, 2021 12-5 Figure 12-1: South Fort Meade Facility Mineral Reserves Date: December 31, 2021 12-6 Figure 12-2: Four Corners Facility Mineral Reserves Date: December 31, 2021 12-7 Figure 12-3: Wingate Facility Mineral Reserves Date: December 31, 2021 12-8 12.5 Uncertainties (Factors) That May Affect the Mineral Reserve Estimate A mineral reserve is an estimate only. It is based on applying modifying factors to the mineral resources determined to be measured and indicated. Actual mineralization can be more or less than estimated depending upon actual geological conditions. The following outlines a number of uncertainties that exist at the three producing phosphate mines that could impact the mineral reserve estimates. • Actual geological thickness and grades are proven to be relatively uniform, but can vary locally. • Changes in the level of the water table can impact the ability to mine the entire mineral reserve. • The beneficiation plant recovery assumptions could change based on the 3-year reconciliation process that is completed annually. • Mine pit conditions can limit the recovery of the matrix volume and grade. • As drilling continues tonnage, grade and impurity levels may change. • There is variation in matrix volume and composition that may not be captured in the drilling data.


 
Date: December 31, 2021 13-1 13.0 Mining Methods 13.1 Introduction Phosphate is extracted using surface mining techniques. Mining utilizes either electric walking draglines or dredges to remove the overburden and mine the phosphate ore (matrix). The matrix is hydraulically transported to the beneficiation plant via a series of centrifugal pumping systems. Pre-mining development follows the issuance of regulatory permits. This involves ditch and berms for stormwater control, groundwater draw down mitigation where applicable, land clearing, installation of infrastructure and pre-mining dewatering (only for dragline mining). 13.2 Mining Methods 13.2.1 Surface Dragline Mining Mining started at Four Corners and South Fort Meade in 1981 and 1995, respectively. Since inception, both facilities have utilized draglines for mining. Figure 13-1 outlines the dragline mining method process. Figure 13-1: Dragline Mining Process Pre-Mining Upon issuance of regulatory permits (federal, state and local), development activities are initiated. An engineered Best Management Practice ditch and berm system (BMP) is constructed for the purpose of containing stormwater on the site. If necessary, it can also serve as groundwater drawdown mitigation off property or around preserved areas as a result of pre- mining dewatering and mining activities. Stormwater conveyance is installed and powered by electrical or diesel pumping systems. Dry cut conditions are desired during the mining process. Excess water in the cut can contribute to increased dilution, decreased reserve recovery and unstable ground conditions. In areas where the water table is high, pre-mining dewatering takes place with electric submersible pumps installed to the bottom of the deepest minable phosphate bearing layer. Based on water table and soil characteristics, these wells will run three (3) to six (6) months prior to dragline mining. During this time, the remaining infrastructure (hydraulic water supply and matrix pumping systems) are installed. Mining – Overburden Removal Draglines utilize a one-pass, modified simple side-cast method for overburden removal and mining of matrix (Figure 13-2). Overburden will be spoiled on top of the ground, in an adjacent mined out cut or pumped, depending on overburden/matrix thickness and available area. Geological considerations such as overburden /matrix thickness, spoil stacking characteristics and dragline reach are considered in cut design to ensure spoiled overburden does not encroach on uncovered matrix. Cut types are as follows: Date: December 31, 2021 13-2 • Box cuts are utilized in mining new areas. As an adjacent, previously mined cut is unavailable for spoil placement, overburden is placed at grade within the dragline dumping radius. When no space exists to spoil at grade, the overburden will be pumped to previously mined areas. • Standard (modified simple side cast) cuts are utilized adjacent to previously mined areas. These cuts allow for the dragline to mine in one direction and place spoil into the void created from previous mining. • Wiper cuts are similar to standard cuts in that the dragline can place spoil in adjacent previously mined cuts. However, wiper cuts are very short in length in that only one well per cut is required to receive the matrix from the dragline. Figure 13-2: Dragline Operation Mining – Matrix Regardless of the cut type and spoil placement, matrix is mined in a consistent manner. An earthen well is formed with earthmoving equipment outside of the dragline cut but within the dragline dumping radius. After the dragline uncovers an advance of approximately 50 ft. (16 m), matrix is mined and placed in the well (Figure 13-3) where it is slurried with 10,000 US gpm of water at high pressure (250 to 300 psi). Once all matrix is mined, the dragline walks back and repeats the process. While the dragline generally advances in one direction the tub follows an arc within the cut as the dragline is dumping matrix to a fixed location. Once the dragline advances past the reach of the well, crews and equipment will move the well 300 ft. (91 m) parallel to the cut in the direction of advance such that the new location is within the dragline’s reach. Depending on geology and rate of mining, this takes place every 3 to 5 days. Date: December 31, 2021 13-3 Figure 13-3: Dragline Dumping in Well Matrix and Waste Handling and Transportation Mined phosphate matrix is slurried and pumped to the beneficiation plant via a series centrifugal pumping systems. Upon dumping into the well, matrix is slurried by the addition of high-pressure water (250 to 300 psi) at around 10,000 US gpm. Water is delivered via a centrifugal pumping system in a 24 inch (61 cm) outside diameter steel pipeline. Matrix pumping systems are engineered to move 1,800 to 2,200 tons per hour in 20 to 22 inch (51 to 56 cm) outside diameter steel pipelines at a velocity of 15 to 17 ft./sec at the pit (13,000 to 15,000 US gpm). Centrifugal pumps ranging from 1,750 to 2,000 hp are spaced to match static head and friction resulting from flow and slurry characteristics. Slurry properties considered in design are concentration, solids density, shape and size distribution. Solid size distribution ranges from six inches to microns. The pumping systems are controlled by an operator with feedback on slurry flow, density, electrical pump demand and pipeline pressures. General mill tailings (GMT), already slurried from the flotation process, are pumped back into previously mined cuts for reclamation purposes via a series centrifugal pumping system in 20 to 24 inch (51 to 61 cm) outside diameter steel pipe. The same parameters used in matrix pumping design are applied to the tailings pumping system. Solid particles range from 16 mesh (1mm) to 150 mesh (0.1mm). The water is recovered and re-introduced to the recirculating water system for use by the plant or matrix pumping systems. Clay from the washer is transported to clay settling areas (CSA’s) via 36 inch (91 cm), 42 inch (107 cm) and 48 inch (122 cm) outside diameter HDPE pipelines. Each of these lines is fed by a single centrifugal pump. Nominal particle size is less the 150 mesh (0.1 mm). 13.2.2 Surface Dredge Mining Since its startup in the 1980’s, Wingate has utilized two electric dredges, one to remove overburden and the other to mine phosphate matrix. Both dredges are equipped with cutter heads and slurry pumping systems to liberate and transport material. Spuds are used to position the dredges and allow a point by which to pivot. Cables extending from the dredges to anchors on the port and starboard sides enable swinging across the cut. Upon each pass, the dredges advance further into the cut. Periodically, the dredges will retreat and perform a “clean up” pass for additional overburden or matrix recovery. Date: December 31, 2021 13-4 On average, the phosphate matrix is deeper at Wingate, compared to the other mines. Dredge mining allows for extraction of the phosphate at greater depths with minimal impact on the surrounding water table. The two original Ellicott dredges were replaced in 2013 and 2014 by two comparable dredges from Dredge Supply Company (DSC). Figure 13-4 outlines the dredge mining method process. Figure 13-4: Dredge Mining Process Pre-Mining Wingate faces the same permitting process as dragline mines. Ditch and berm systems are built to provide stormwater containment on-site. As the presence of a high groundwater table does not affect the dredges, pre-mining dewatering is not utilized. Mining – Overburden Removal and Waste Handling Transportation Cut widths are dependent upon dredge geometry and overburden thickness. The water level of the dredge pond is nominally 15 ft. (4.6 m) below the ground surface. The overburden dredge (Figure 13-5) utilizes a centrifugal pumping system with 26 inch (66 cm) steel pipe to transport and discharge spoil into previously mined areas of the pond. As the cutter head feeds the suction underwater, the solids are diluted with an abundance of surrounding water. Slurry is transported at flows in excess of 20,000 US gpm. On occasion, dense, consolidated sand known as hardpan is encountered. As this material is tough to extract, contractors are used on an as needed basis to remove and haul this material outside the immediate mining area. This is known as pre-stripping. Figure 13-5: Overburden Dredge


 
Date: December 31, 2021 13-5 Mining – Matrix and Transportation As with the overburden dredge, the cut width of the matrix dredge (Figure 13-6) is based on dredge geometry and matrix depth. It also utilizes a centrifugal pumping system with 20 inch (51 cm) steel pipe to transport matrix to the beneficiation plant. Ease of material extraction and pumpability are generally determined by the clay content of the matrix. The pumping system is designed to the same specifications as the 20 inch (51 cm) systems used for dragline operations. Figure 13-6: Matrix Dredge 13.2.3 Dragline and Dredge Mining Geotechnical Considerations Ground conditions are considered not only for dragline stability while relocating or mining, but also outside the mining area as it relates to road and utilities rights of way (i.e., power lines, gas lines, etc.), preservation areas, non-Mosaic property and internal infrastructure (i.e., pipelines, powerlines, ditches, clay settling areas, mine roads, etc.). Ground conditions are considered during mine design when establishing appropriate setbacks from these features. When a dragline completes mining of an area it is necessary to relocate the machine and related equipment. These are referred to as dragline relocations and require establishing dragline walk paths for safe movement of the mining equipment. Soil characteristics and water table are considered when determining walk path locations. Soil penetration tests (SPT’s) are performed to characterize the soils’ ability to take load (Figure 13-7). Testing that identifies poor soils are re-evaluated and mitigated. Dragline cuts are inspected frequently by the geologists. Highwall condition, water inflow and ground conditions are observed. These factors, in addition to overburden/matrix thickness and soil characteristics are considered when the geologist establishes appropriate digging slopes and dragline setbacks from the highwall. Date: December 31, 2021 13-6 Figure 13-7: Dragline Walk Path Soil Penetration Testing and Piezometers 13.2.4 Hydrogeological Considerations Groundwater levels can impact the relocation of draglines and the mining process. Piezometers are installed to establish the water table elevation for dragline relocation walk paths. A minimum water table of 10 ft. (3 m) below the walk path grade is desired. This is achieved by a combination of ditching and dewatering wells (Figure 13-8). When dewatering techniques do not achieve the desired effect, earthen fill can be placed to raise the dragline walk path grade. Water inflow into mine cut during mining contributes to increased dilution, decreased phosphate matrix recovery and potential unstable ground conditions. When needed, dewatering wells with submersible pumps are installed to the bottom of the deepest layer of matrix and operate for a period of three to six months prior to mining. Once a mine cut is established, the dragline digs a pit ditch below the bottom of the deepest mineable layer. The ditches convey water to a sump established by the dragline. A pump is placed in the sump and periodically repositioned as necessary. Cut water is discharged into previously mined cuts, clarified and re-introduced into the mine recirculating water system. Date: December 31, 2021 13-7 Figure 13-8: Pre-mining Dewatering Due to the water level required for operation, dredge mining is less impactful to the hydrogeology than dragline mining. Groundwater drawdown mitigation is not needed due to the absence of pre-mining dewatering. The water level in the mining area is generally held within 10 to 15 ft. (3.0 to 4.6 m) from natural ground. 13.3 Mine Design and Operations 13.3.1 Production Plan/Life of Mine Plan The LOM plan for South Fort Meade extends from 2022 to 2030, Four Corners from 2022 to 2032 and Wingate from 2022 to 2035 (Table 13-1). Data from 2017 to 2020 are actual data, 2021 consists of 10 months of actual data and a 2 month forecast. Date: December 31, 2021 13-8 Table 13-1: 2021 Life of Mine Plans Year Status South Fort Meade Facility Four Corners Facility Wingate Facility Tons Tonnes P2O5% MER Tons Tonnes P2O5% MER Tons Tonnes P2O5% MER 2017 Actual 4,863,666 4,412,318 29.1 9.1 7,057,530 6,402,591 28.6 9.5 1,529,404 1,387,475 28.6 8.6 2018 Actual 4,669,596 4,236,257 28.9 8.9 7,647,568 6,937,874 28.5 9.8 1,752,125 1,589,528 28.1 9.2 2019 Actual 4,677,530 4,243,455 28.2 9.6 7,162,630 6,497,938 28.7 9.8 1,659,245 1,505,267 29.1 8.5 2020 Actual 4,086,632 3,707,393 28.4 9.7 8,482,144 7,695,001 28.4 9.5 1,485,707 1,347,833 28.4 9.1 2021 Forecast 3,548,494 3,219,194 27.2 11.4 8,077,073 7,327,521 28.3 9.6 1,233,056 1,118,628 28.6 9.2 2022 Plan 3,346,378 3,035,834 27.4 11.2 8,537,959 7,745,636 28.3 9.6 1,562,162 1,417,193 28.9 7.8 2023 Plan 3,109,946 2,821,343 27.4 9.1 8,321,954 7,549,677 28.1 10.1 2,291,642 2,078,978 27.9 9.7 2024 Plan 3,723,546 3,378,001 27.8 9.6 8,338,255 7,564,465 28.0 10.6 2,670,513 2,422,689 28.1 9.1 2025 Plan 2,996,860 2,718,751 26.4 7.8 8,370,702 7,593,901 27.8 10.3 2,712,883 2,461,128 28.4 8.5 2026 Plan 4,068,119 3,690,598 25.9 6.9 7,847,985 7,119,692 27.1 10.4 2,465,626 2,236,815 28.4 8.3 2027 Plan 3,748,266 3,400,427 26.7 7.0 7,472,434 6,778,992 27.4 10.4 1,448,997 1,314,530 28.8 7.8 2028 Plan 3,284,263 2,979,483 26.0 7.9 7,731,291 7,013,827 26.8 10.7 1,880,658 1,706,133 28.3 8.5 2029 Plan 3,373,592 3,060,523 27.1 7.2 7,634,394 6,925,922 27.5 11.4 1,362,045 1,235,647 28.1 8.0 2030 Plan 1,485,958 1,348,061 27.8 6.7 7,234,948 6,563,545 27.9 11.3 1,854,587 1,682,481 28.1 8.7 2031 Plan 7,248,713 6,576,032 28.1 10.5 1,470,449 1,333,992 27.8 9.2 2032 Plan 7,227,741 6,557,007 28.3 9.7 1,246,249 1,130,598 28.1 8.7 2033 Plan 1,935,114 1,755,535 27.0 13.3 2034 Plan 1,801,069 1,633,929 26.8 14.4 2035 Plan 698,854 634,000 27.7 9.1 Total LOM 29,136,928 26,433,021 26.9 8.2 85,966,376 77,988,696 27.8 10.4 25,400,848 23,043,648 28.0 9.4


 
Date: December 31, 2021 13-9 13.3.2 Planning Assumptions/Design Criteria The following outlines the planning assumptions incorporated into the phosphate facilities 2021 Life of Mine (LOM) Plan. • Legal and permit limitations eliminate areas of reserve based on federal, state, and local laws and agreements. • Mine pits are designed based on equipment limits and efficient mining practices. • Mining areas are sequenced and scheduled based on various priorities including: waste disposal, reclamation requirements, permit limits, volume, grade, and quality needs. • No optimization is required as all areas determined to have recoverable matrix of sufficient finished product volume, grade and quality will be mined. • Equipment production rates and availability. • Mine pit limits are designed based on stability setbacks from impoundments, powerlines, and other permanent infrastructure. • Overburden is removed at a sufficient rate that the matrix mining dredge at the Wingate Facility will not be negatively impacted. • Areas not currently permitted for mining will be available as sequenced in the LOM plan. 13.3.3 Mining Sequence The mining sequences for South Fort Meade, Four Corners and Wingate facilities are presented in figures 13-9, 13-10 and 13-11 respectively. The planned mining covers the extent of the current mineral reserves. The sequence was developed to maximize the equipment availability and production from the reserve acreage available at that time. The mining sequence and planning for the producing facilities consider the following points. • Timing required to build, place needed infrastructure, and area preparation for mining to commence. • The need to balance ton volume and quality. • Time needed to receive permits for newly acquired property. • Equipment relocations and access requirements. • Permit limitations. • Waste storage needs. • Reclamation planning and timing. Date: December 31, 2021 13-10 Figure 13-9: South Fort Meade Facility LOM Plan Sequence Date: December 31, 2021 13-11 Figure 13-10: Four Corners Facility LOM Plan Sequence Date: December 31, 2021 13-12 Figure 13-11: Wingate Facility LOM Plan Sequence


 
Date: December 31, 2021 13-13 13.3.4 Mine Production Monitoring Mine production is monitored in real time as follows: Draglines • A Dragline Monitoring System (DMS) is installed on each dragline that provides real time feedback on: o Bucket count of matrix and overburden. o Cubic yards moved of matrix and overburden. o Dragline operating and downtimes. o Dragline cycle times. o Dragline swing angles. • Video cameras are installed on each dragline and monitored at a central location. • Mass-flow systems are installed on each matrix pumping system utilizing nuclear density gauges for density and magnetic flow meters for slurry flow. The combination produces real-time mass-flow (tons per hour) feedback. • Matrix and hydraulic water pumping systems are equipped with pressure transducers and ammeters to monitor performance. Dredges • A dredge monitor is installed on each dredge that provides real time feedback on: o Cutter head depth (i.e., mining depth) o Hydraulic system pressures (i.e., cutter head, swings, etc.) o Suction vacuum • Video cameras are installed on each dredge and monitored at a central location. • Mass-flow systems are installed on each matrix pumping system utilizing nuclear density gauges for density and magnetic flow meters for slurry flow. The combination produces real-time mass-flow (tons per hour) feedback. • Matrix and overburden pumping systems and equipped with pressure transducers and ammeters to monitor performance. 13.3.5 Equipment Each mine controls the equipment necessary for overburden removal and phosphate matrix extraction. Table 13-2 outlines the amount of major mining equipment and their associated capacities and estimated useful life. Table 13-3 outlines the support equipment including any lease terms. Date: December 31, 2021 13-14 Table 13-2: Major Mining Equipment Facility Manufacturer / Model Quantity Bucket Capacity (cu yds) Estimated Useful Life (Years) South Fort Meade Electric Walking Dragline 3 55 75 Four Corners Electric Walking Dragline 1 65 75 Four Corners Electric Walking Dragline 4 55 75 Four Corners Electric Walking Dragline 2 42 75 Four Corners Electric Walking Dragline 2 40 to 42 75 Four Corners Electric Walking Dragline 1 45 50 Wingate Electric Cutter Head Dredge – 26 inch 1 n/a 30 Wingate Electric Cutter Head Dredge – 20 inch 1 n/a 30 Table 13-3: Primary Support Equipment Type Quantity Lease Term (months) Wheel Loader 21 60 to 64 Track Dozer 26 30 to 36 Motor Grader 4 60 Excavator 9 48 to 60 Crane 8 60 to 84 Draglines are scheduled for 12-hour repair days every four to six weeks. Major maintenance turnarounds are scheduled every five to seven years depending on the scope of major repairs to be completed. Major repairs include repair or replacement of mast/boom suspension cables, tub, rack/rails/rollers, drag/hoist/swing/propel drivetrains, motors, generators, etc. Heavy mobile equipment used for supporting activities are leased for 30 to 84 month terms. Upon termination of the lease, equipment is replaced with like equipment. 13.3.6 Personnel Table 13-4 outlines the current and forecasted mine personnel requirements. It excludes personnel who may report to a centralized support function. The sites utilize contractors on an as needed basis. The bulk of the Mosaic mining workforce is positioned as operational workforce including supervisory roles and support to the operational workforce. Contractors used on site must adhere to strict safety guidelines and registration within an online portal. This portal tracks contractor’s safety performance and compliance to specific registrations, such as insurance coverage. Where contracted employees are in an embedded contractor relationship supervision is provided by the contractor with an assigned liaison for oversight who is a Mosaic employee. Date: December 31, 2021 13-15 Table 13-4: Mining and Beneficiation Plant Personnel Requirements (Hourly and Salary) Location Area 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 LOM Plan Actual Actual Actual Actual Fcast. Plan Plan Plan Plan Plan Four Corners Hourly Operations 248 244 267 256 249 249 249 249 249 249 249 South Fort Meade 125 127 127 123 128 128 128 128 128 128 128 Wingate 67 64 61 59 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 Subtotal 440 435 455 438 437 437 437 437 437 437 437 Four Corners Hourly Maintenance 132 141 145 141 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 South Fort Meade 42 39 44 45 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 Wingate 25 25 26 25 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 Subtotal 199 205 215 210 191 191 191 191 191 191 191 Four Corners Salary 81 104 100 84 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 South Fort Meade 34 50 49 45 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 Wingate 25 26 25 24 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 Subtotal 140 181 175 153 127 127 127 127 127 127 127 Four Corners Overall 461 489 512 481 442 442 442 442 442 442 442 South Fort Meade 201 215 220 213 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 Wingate 118 116 112 107 102 102 102 102 102 102 102 Total 779 820 844 801 755 755 755 755 755 755 755 Date: December 31, 2021 14-1 14.0 Recovery Methods 14.1 Introduction After receiving matrix from the pits, washers separate minerals from each other and generate four separate material groups. These are debris, pebbles, clay, and unsized flotation feed. The debris is mineralization rejected due to the high MgO content. The minimum size for the rejected debris is 5/16 inch, ¾ inch, and 1 inch for Four Corners, South Fort Meade and Wingate, respectively. This difference is due to the mineralogy at the three facilities. Pebbles are one of the final products with a particle size ranging from 5/16 inch to 16 mesh, ¾ inch to 16 mesh and 1 inch to 20 mesh for Four Corners, South Fort Meade, and Wingate, respectively. Material smaller than 150 mesh is pumped to the clay settling areas. The remaining material is unsized flotation feed and ranges in size from 16 to 150 mesh. Sizing separates the unsized flotation feed into four parts: intermediate pebble (IP), ultra-coarse flotation feed (South Fort Meade only), coarse flotation feed, and fine flotation feed. The IP (or sizer rock) is one of the final products and its size is in the range of 16 to 20 mesh. The ultra-coarse, coarse, and fine flotation feed will be pumped to the flotation plant and the particle size is normally in the range of 20 to 24 mesh, 24 to 35 mesh, and 35 to 150 mesh, respectively. Flotation separates phosphate and sand using reagents in a two stage process. The final concentrate product is transported to stockpile via conveyors with the tailings pumped back for reclamation. 14.2 Beneficiation Process When mined, the phosphate and sand particles are embedded in compacted mud, or “clay-balls.” Before separation can begin, all the particles must be liberated from the matrix of mud. The very first unit operation in the beneficiation process is to disaggregate the various particles. This starts while the matrix is flowing through the pipeline from the mine to the beneficiation plant. While in the pipeline, the matrix is exposed to shear forces as it passes through the various centrifugal pumps. These intense shear forces cause a significant percentage of the sand and phosphate particles to be liberated from the clay-balls by the time they arrive at the beneficiation plant. Once reaching the plant, the first goal is to finish disaggregating the clay and make a size separation at 1 mm. This processing is conducted in the “washer.” In all the currently operating beneficiation plants, the washer is a large structure that receives the matrix, screens it, then discharges a +1.0 mm “pebble” phosphate product and a -1.0 mm slurry of liberated clay, sand, and phosphate particles. This first phosphate product (the “pebble”) can be as little as 5%, and as large as 70% of the mine’s total production depending on the nature of the matrix being mined. The next process objective is to remove the clays that are finer than 0.1 mm. The beneficiation plant does this with hydro- cyclones. Slurry from the washer is fed tangentially into the cyclone (a conical chamber) at a high gravitational force. The slurry swirls around inside the cyclone until fines overflow the top of the chamber. Coarse sand and phosphate particles swirl to the bottom of the cyclone and exit. The fine clays are collected and pumped to large impoundments. The +0.1 mm sand and phosphate move on to the next process, sizing. Sizing is done with equipment called “hydrosizers.” Feed and upward flowing water are injected into large tanks that force the fine particles to rise and overflow the tank, while the coarse particles gently fall and flow out the sizer’s underflow. The phosphatic material that passes through the sizing process is then separated from the waste material by the flotation process that is used in mineral beneficiation plants around the world. Flotation was discovered early in the 20th century, and today it is the most commonly used separation technology in the mining industry. Flotation separates valuable minerals (copper, lead, zinc, iron, and phosphate) from the unwanted minerals in the ore (sand in this case). In the direct flotation process the valuable mineral is coated with a special hydrocarbon (fatty acid). Once the phosphate surfaces are coated, they repel water just like a freshly waxed car during a rainstorm. The slurry of waxed-phosphate and un-waxed sand is diluted and put in agitated tanks. Tiny air bubbles are injected into the tanks (called flotation cells) that attach to the waxed phosphate particles (the water-repelling particles are pushed out of the water into the bubbles). The air bubbles rise with the phosphate to the top of the flotation cell where the valuable froth is skimmed from the surface and collected. This unique chemical technology can make particles denser than water rise to the top and float on the surface of a slurry.


 
Date: December 31, 2021 14-2 To upgrade the initial (“rougher”) phosphate concentrate to a usable product, a second cleaning flotation process is used to remove the last of the residual sand. The original hydrocarbons are stripped from the phosphate surfaces, and then a different hydrocarbon is applied to the rougher concentrate. This second hydrocarbon is an amine-based reagent that coats sand, but not phosphate. Once again, the slurry is fed into flotation cells, agitated and exposed to tiny air bubbles. The air carries the remaining sand to the surface where it is skimmed off and discarded. The remaining phosphate mineral (“concentrate”) is collected, blended with the pebble product and shipped via rail or truck to the chemical plant for the third step in making phosphate fertilizer. The sand from the rougher and cleaner flotation process is collected and pumped back to the mine cuts for use in land reclamation. 14.3 Plant Design The beneficiation plants are designed with primary production inputs from the draglines or dredge and with a smaller secondary input from recaptured circuits. All inputs enter the plant at the washer and flow through the sizing section to the flotation plant. There is a restricted recycle process that can relieve overflow from the sizing section by transferring volume to the flotation plant to keep the plant operational. Phosphate rock is transported to stockpiles via conveyors and waste is pumped to storage impoundments or back to the mine for reclamation. 14.4 Process Flowsheet The simplified plant flowsheet is shown in Figure 14-1 and described below. This is a typical phosphate beneficiation plant flowsheet. The South Fort Meade plant has three step sizers (primary, secondary, and tertiary), while the Four Corners and Wingate plants only have one step sizers. The South Fort Meade beneficiation plant has an ultra-coarse flotation circuit, which is similar to the Four Corners IP circuit. Wingate doesn’t have the IP product because it is recycled back to the washer trammel screen underflow tank. In addition, the cut size of debris varies from plant to plant due to rock minerology difference, that is 5/16 inch, ¾ inch and 1 inch for Four Corners, South Fort Meade and Wingate, respectively. Date: December 31, 2021 14-3 Figure 14-1: Phosphate Beneficiation Process Flowsheet Washer Area In general, the Washer Area receives matrix/ore feed from the mine, disaggregates the clays from pebble and screens the matrix into four size fractions: +3/4 inch as rejects, -3/4 inch to +16 mesh as pebble, -16 mesh to +150 mesh as raw feed (unsized flotation feed), and -150 mesh as waste clay. The Washer Area consists of trommels, hammermills, and hydroslicers. The trommels are used to separate oversize materials for size reduction, whereas the hammermills and hydroslicers are used to break down or disaggregate mudball materials containing feed and clays. South Fort Meade washer has hydroslicers that were installed in 2000. Before the installation of hydroslicers, the washer used hammermills to break the mudballs. The hydroslicers use 600 to 700 psi pressure water to detach material trapped on the surface of the large mudballs. After the process of hammermills and hydroslicers, the coarse materials (>1 inch) are saved at mudball pile. Date: December 31, 2021 14-4 The primary and secondary log washers are used to disintegrate clay balls that contain phosphate material. Three stages of vibrating screening (intermediate screens, double deck screens, finishing screens) remove the remaining and newly disintegrated -16 mesh material from the pebble. The design capacity of Four Corners washer is 8,000 tons/hour, 4,000 tons/hour at South Fort Meade and 2,200 tons/hour for Wingate. However, the maximum matrix rate is associated with the clay content. If the clay content increases, the matrix rate is decreased to reduce feed losses. Declay Area Material smaller than 16 mesh is pumped to primary declay cyclones for clay removal. Cyclones separate particles based on the mass of each individual particle. If all the particles are the same specific gravity, then effectively a size separation can be made. The clay, sand, and phosphate minerals are all virtually the same specific gravity which allows the segregation of fine particles from coarse particles using cyclones. As the cyclone feed clay content rises, there is a documented exponential increase in fluid viscosity. This results in worse sizing performance. Based on historical results, the clay content of the overflow should be lower than 4.5% solids to have optimal cyclone sizing performance. A typical 24 inch declay cyclone can be fed with up to 15.7 tons/hour clay by assuming the overflow discharge at ~1,350 US gpm. Four Corners and South Fort Meade have 48 primary declay cyclones, allowing the washer to process up to 751 tons/hour of clay and still have acceptable losses. Compared to Four Corners and South Fort Meade, the Wingate declay cyclone design is different, as it has twelve 24 inch and thirteen 26 inch cyclones. The clay content changes from shift to shift, therefore the matrix feed rate to the plant should be adjusted accordingly. The relationship between the clay content of the matrix and the maximum feed rate to avoid excessive cyclone feed losses (for 48 cyclones) is presented in Figure 14-2. Figure 14-2: Matrix Clay Content vs. Maximum Feed The declay cyclone systems can recover 99.5% of the +150 mesh material using current technology, leaving 0.5% of the feed reporting to the clay. For the old cyclones, the feed loss is approximately 1.0%. The mine plan provides the average matrix clay content. Then the maximum matrix pumping rate can be estimated using the average clay content. Any time the washer is fed higher than this maximum rate, a higher feed loss will occur. Date: December 31, 2021 14-5 Samples are collected from each cyclone overflow and then processed in the lab to calculate the feed losses from each cyclone. If the feed loss is higher than 1.0%, action items will be taken to reduce the feed losses. The cyclone is easily choked by wood or trash which reduces cyclone pressure and affects its performance. In addition, cyclone apex size significantly affects separating efficiency. To determine a correct cyclone apex size, samples will be collected from each cyclone underflow using a teapot sampler. The correct percent solids (by weight) of each cyclone underflow is approximately 55% by adjusting the apex size. Sizing Area South Fort Meade is different from the other beneficiation plants in that it includes three stages of sizing. The raw feed (unsized feed) is pumped to a secondary declay cyclone to remove clay and the underflow feeds the primary sizer. The overflow of the primary sizer feeds the fine flotation bins while the underflow of the primary sizer feeds the secondary sizer. The overflow of the secondary sizer reports to the coarse flotation bin and the underflow feeds the tertiary sizer. The overflow of tertiary sizer reports to the ultra-coarse feed bin while the underflow is pumped to the sizer rock bin as phosphate rock product or recycles back to the washer. South Fort Meade sizing generates four materials: sizer rock, ultra-coarse flotation feed, coarse flotation feed, and fine flotation feed. The particle size is in the range of 16 to 20 mesh, 20 to 24 mesh, 24 to 35 mesh, and 35 to 150 mesh, respectively. Four Corners has two stages of sizing. The unsized feed is pumped to a secondary declay cyclone to remove clay and the cyclone underflow goes to the hydrosizer. The overflow of the hydrosizer feeds the fine flotation bins while the underflow of the hydrosizer goes to the banana screens. The underflow of the banana screens reports to coarse flotation bin and the overflow of banana screens (IP or intermediate pebble) is a phosphate rock product. The particle size of Four Corners IP, coarse flotation feed, and fine flotation feed is 16 to 24 mesh, 24 to 35 mesh, and 35 to 150 mesh, respectively. Wingate plant has two steps of sizing – primary and secondary. The unsized feed goes to a secondary declay cyclone to remove clay. Cyclone underflow feeds the primary sizer. The overflow of primary sizer reports to the fine flotation feed bin while the underflow is pumped to scalp screen. The overflow of scalp screen is recycled back to trommel screen underflow tank and the underflow goes to the secondary sizer. The overflow of secondary sizer combines with primary sizer overflow and feeds the fine flotation circuits. The underflow of secondary sizer reports to the coarse flotation feed bin. The particle size of Wingate coarse flotation feed and fine flotation feed is 20 to 35 mesh and 35 to 150 mesh, respectively. Flotation Area Flotation was originally patented in 1906. It utilizes the differences in physical-chemical surface properties of particles. This may be a natural difference or a difference created by use of reagents. In some cases, increasing the differential in surface properties is required. It is applicable to almost any type of mineral. Approximately 65% of the total Florida Phosphates produced is a result of flotation. Flotation allows the mining of low-grade and complex mineralization. South Fort Meade has eight rougher flotation circuits using two different flotation machines. Circuit #1 to #5 are fine flotation circuits. The coarse circuit is designed to process coarse feed. The swing circuit can handle fine and coarse feed, allowing the plant to balance feed inventory. The Four Corners plant has six rougher flotation circuits using mechanical cells. Wingate plant has four rougher circuits. The fine circuits use Mosaic columns while the coarse circuit uses belt flotation. Proper conditioning of the flotation feed with fatty acid and oil is considered to be the most critical step to achieve the maximum recovery with good selectivity. The plants use vertical stirred tanks for conditioning, except for Wingate coarse circuit which uses a drum conditioner. Table 14-1 outlines the maximum feed rate of the flotation plants. To achieve an acceptable recovery, the flotation feed rate is targeted for 4,100, 1,900, and 1,100 tons/hour for Four Corners, South Fort Meade, and Wingate flotation plants, respectively.


 
Date: December 31, 2021 14-6 Table 14-1: Rougher Circuits Design Rate (tons/hour) Circuit Four Corners South Fort Meade Wingate Fine Rougher 3,400 1,350 1,050 Coarse Rougher 700 430 50 Ultra-coarse Rougher n/a 120 n/a Total 4,100 1,900 1,100 Four Corners has six amine flotation circuits, four fine amine and two coarse amine flotation circuits. South Fort Meade has four amine flotation circuits, one coarse amine and three fine amine. Wingate has one amine flotation circuit that processes the rougher concentrates from all rougher circuits. 14.5 Equipment Characteristics and Specifications Tables 14-2 summarizes the equipment specifications and sizing for the beneficiation plants. Table 14-2: Equipment Summary Equipment Four Corners South Fort Meade Wingate No. of Trommels 8 8 2 Trommel Diameter, ft. 10 7 8 Trommel Length, ft. 16 16 20 No. of Primary Washers 8 4 n/a Log Diameter, inches 46 46 n/a Log Length, ft. 30 35 n/a No. of Secondary Washers 8 4 2 Diameter, inches 46 38 38 Length, ft. 30 30 30 No. of Upper Vibrating Screens 8 4 2 Screen Width, ft. 6 8 8 Screen Length, ft. 16 13 20 No. of Middle Vibrating Screens 8 4 2 Screen Width, ft. 6 6 8 Screen Length, ft. 16 13 20 No. of Lower Vibrating Screens 8 4 2 Screen Width, ft. 6 6 8 Screen Length, ft. 16 13 20 No. of Primary Cyclones 48 48 25 Date: December 31, 2021 14-7 Equipment Four Corners South Fort Meade Wingate Cyclone Size (Diameter), inches 24 24 24 to 26 No. of Secondary Cyclones 32 8 4 Cyclone Size (Diameter), inches 24 30 24 No. of Primary Sizers 12 2 2 Primary Sizer Dimensions, ft. 10 x 10 20/14 7 x 19 No. of Secondary Sizers 6 2 2 Secondary Sizer Dimensions, ft. 21 x 9.5 9/6 7 x 19 No. of Tertiary Sizers n/a 2 n/a Tertiary Sizer Dimensions, ft. n/a 5/3 n/a 14.6 Water Requirements The total beneficiation plant water usage is approximately 150,000, 120,000, and 85,000 US gpm for Four Corners, South Fort Meade, and Wingate, respectively. Water consumption is split between the washer (30%), sizing (30%) and flotation (40%). 95% of the production-water is recycled from the clay settling areas. A small amount of deep well water is used for reagent mixing and supplemental production-water. In 2020, the average deep well water usage ranged from 4,100 to 4,800 US gpm for the three facilities (Table 14-3). Water usage is periodically re-evaluated for possible reduction. Table 14-3: Plant Production and Deep Well Water Usage Location Production (M tons) Production (M tonnes) Operation Hours Deep Well Water (M cu m) Deep Well Water (US gpm) Deep Well Water (tons/US gal) Four Corners 8.482 7.694 7,850 7.339 4,116 229 South Fort Meade 4.087 3.708 5,899 6.352 4,741 411 Wingate 1.486 1.348 5,628 5.358 4,191 953 14.7 Power and Consumables Power is supplied by Duke, TECO, PRECO, and Florida Power. Mosaic also cogenerates its own power from New Wales and Bartow plants. A portion of this power is distributed to South Fort Meade and Four Corners. The annual power consumption is listed in the Table 14-4. Table 14-4: 2020 Power Consumption Supplier Four Corners (kW) South Fort Meade (kW) Wingate (kW) PRECO 37,968,200 0 0 Duke 309,279,186 191,745,419 10,262,952 TECO 187,400,328 0 0 Florida Power 0 0 145,758,468 Mosaic Cogenerated 342,211,939 122,555,594 0 Total 876,859,653 314,301,013 156,021,420 Date: December 31, 2021 14-8 The reagent consumption varies and depends on the reagent formula, flotation feed grade and production-water quality, etc. The purpose of each reagent is summarized below. • Fatty acid: This reagent functions as a collector for the phosphate. It selectively coats the surface of the phosphate creating a hydrophobic surface. • Oil: It is an extender for the fatty acid. It acts to increase the hydrophobicity of the fatty acid coated phosphate surface. Oil also serves to change the surface tension of the froth phase. • pH Modifier: pH Modifier is used to adjust the pH of the conditioning slurry. The fatty acid must be saponified first, which is accomplished by increasing the pH of the slurry. • Surfactant: A surfactant is used to keep bubbles from coalescing. Fine bubbles are necessary to achieve good flotation recovery. • Sodium Silicate: Sodium silicate is used to depress sand. It reduces the quantity of sand that reports to the rougher concentrate. • Sulfuric acid: This reagent is used to remove the fatty acid and oil from the phosphate surface. After this step, there are no reagents attached to the phosphate mineral. • Amine, is the reagent for the collection of sand that facilitates the floatation of sand. 14.8 Key Metrics The historical and projected future key metrics for the Four Corners, South Fort Meade, and Wingate beneficiation plants have been tabulated in Table 14-5, 14-6, and 14-7, respectively. It should be noted that historical values listed in these three tables have been calculated from field level measurement and on-site metallurgical analysis. Future tonnage recoveries are calculated using a mass and energy balance software package that has been programmed to simulate the process. Recoveries are reported using a rolling three-year reconciliation process. Date: December 31, 2021 14-9 Table 14-5: Four Corners Key Beneficiation Plant Metrics Year 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Actual Actual Actual Actual Fcast. Plan Plan Plan Plan Plan Feed Volume, tons (x1000) 25,328.7 28,050.0 27,362.2 30,034.9 31,436.3 31,285.2 30,364.8 30,841.2 30,738.2 31,411.5 Feed Ton Recovery, % 100.0 100.0 98.0 99.5 97.4 97.4 97.4 97.4 97.4 97.4 Water Usage (estimate) X1000 Gal. 64,096,920 68,827,320 64,412,280 70,482,960 71,113,680 69,063,840 67,014,000 67,881,240 67,881,240 69,300,360 Flotation Recovery, % 84.9 87.3 88.9 89.5 88.0 88.0 88.0 88.0 88.0 88.0 Feed BPL 13.31 12.82 13.88 14.25 13.61 13.67 13.22 13.59 13.13 12.37 Concentrate Volume, ton 4,387,915 4,814,864 5,186,670 5,900,625 5,930,421 5,893,651 5,532,072 5,807,909 5,694,655 5,640,080 Concentrate BPL 65.3 65.2 65.1 64.9 63.5 63.9 63.9 63.5 62.4 60.6 BPL recovery, % 95.0 97.0 98.5 95.9 97.1 97.1 97.1 97.1 97.1 97.1 Matrix Volume, cubic yds 30,142,200 33,740,400 35,159,800 36,156,100 28,874,100 32,601,600 31,487,400 32,987,300 33,301,900 36,063,300 Tailings BPL Grade % 2.43 1.97 1.91 1.93 2.00 2.00 1.90 2.00 1.90 1.80 Tailing Volume, tons 19,899,312 22,216,897 22,175,519 23,848,216 25,505,800 25,391,500 24,832,700 25,033,200 25,043,500 25,771,400 Pebble Volume, tons 2,669,615 2,832,704 1,975,960 2,581,519 2,223,789 2,644,308 2,623,798 2,837,319 2,609,936 2,091,625 Pebble Recovery, % 100.0 105.0 111.0 107.1 96.5 96.5 96.5 96.5 96.5 96.5 Sizer Volume, tons 25,859,546 28,333,913 27,647,182 30,041,404 32,222,207 31,691,907 30,759,542 31,242,136 31,137,796 31,819,850 Concentrate BPL Ton Recovery, % 78.0 82.5 84.0 82.5 81.9 81.9 81.9 81.9 81.9 81.9


 
Date: December 31, 2021 14-10 Table 14-6: South Fort Meade Key Beneficiation Plant Metrics Year 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Actual Actual Actual Actual Fcast. Plan Plan Plan Plan Plan Feed Volume, tons (x1000) 11,481.4 11,874.7 11,830.9 11,139.0 9,733.0 12,457.2 11,451.9 13,535.4 11,776.6 13,048.0 Feed Ton Recovery, % 100.0 118.0 117.5 109.6 109.6 109.6 109.6 109.6 109.6 109.6 Water Usage (estimate) X1000 Gal. 48,844,800 48,492,000 47,505,600 42,465,600 35,951,040 46,042,560 42,258,240 49,826,880 43,519,680 48,439,296 Flotation Recovery, % 86.8 88.5 88.1 86.8 88.1 88.1 90.0 90.0 90.0 90.0 Feed BPL 15.05 15.14 14.54 12.92 11.35 8.81 8.05 9.58 9.52 7.84 Concentrate Volume, ton 2,327,305 2,449,795 2,321,060 1,930,418 1,529,476 1,494,924 1,271,047 1,804,992 1,543,628 1,374,746 Concentrate BPL 64.50 64.80 65.30 64.72 63.63 64.70 65.24 64.68 65.38 65.44 BPL recovery, % 67.5 66.5 67.5 68.1 68.1 68.1 68.1 68.1 68.1 68.1 Matrix Volume, cubic yds 11,873,300 12,753,300 14,229,600 12,073,600 11,961,900 12,354,400 11,328,700 13,320,200 12,206,400 13,977,500 Tailings BPL Grade % 2.48 2.18 2.14 2.06 1.60 1.20 0.90 1.10 1.10 1.10 Tailing Volume, tons 9,154,135 9,397,949 9,509,820 9,208,624 8,203,500 10,962,300 10,180,800 11,730,400 10,232,900 11,673,300 Pebble Volume, tons 2,536,362 2,219,801 2,356,470 2,156,214 2,595,544 2,160,384 2,135,250 2,153,373 2,821,668 2,533,970 Pebble Recovery, % 124.5 114.0 103.0 102.4 102.4 102.4 102.4 102.4 102.4 102.4 Sizer Volume, tons 11,928,170 12,230,941 12,185,827 11,422,920 9,976,325 12,768,630 11,738,120 13,873,785 12,071,015 13,374,200 Concentrate BPL Ton Recovery, % 57.4 66.7 67.4 64.3 64.3 64.3 64.3 64.3 64.3 64.3 Date: December 31, 2021 14-11 Table 14-7: Wingate Key Beneficiation Plant Metrics Year 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Actual Actual Actual Actual Fcast. Plan Plan Plan Plan Plan Feed Volume, tons (x1000) 5,909.4 5,963.2 6,412.1 5,100.9 7,999.2 6,341.0 5,968.8 5,998.0 5,899.3 5,993.4 Feed Ton Recovery, % 115.0 111.0 107.0 107.4 104.4 104.4 104.4 104.4 104.4 104.4 Water Usage (estimate) X1000 Gal. 35,383,392 33,819,732 30,871,116 28,637,316 41,638,032 33,551,676 31,585,932 31,630,608 31,183,848 31,675,284 Flotation Recovery, % 88.0 88.4 85.9 85.6 85.0 86.6 86.6 86.6 86.6 86.6 Feed BPL 12.86 13.46 13.18 12.71 9.50 10.94 15.43 17.33 18.74 18.96 Concentrate Volume, ton 1,032,728 1,089,666 1,104,934 839,618 979,997 915,243 1,225,537 1,379,620 1,461,122 1,500,738 Concentrate BPL 64.8 65.1 65.7 66.1 65.3 65.7 65.1 65.3 65.5 65.6 BPL recovery, % 62.5 65.0 71.0 75.0 75.2 75.2 75.2 75.2 75.2 75.2 Matrix Volume, cubic yds 6,260,100 6,032,300 6,287,600 5,480,600 6,944,200 5,796,400 5,852,200 6,006,800 5,818,500 5,876,300 Tailings BPL Grade % 1.87 1.93 2.27 2.21 1.60 1.70 2.60 3.00 3.30 3.40 Tailing Volume, tons 4,876,717 4,873,558 5,307,203 4,261,246 6,942,200 5,425,757 4,743,263 4,618,380 4,438,178 4,492,662 Pebble Volume, tons 496,676 662,459 554,311 646,689 541,392 426,621 931,336 1,106,693 937,743 916,775 Pebble Recovery, % 85.0 85.0 83.0 84.5 94.3 94.3 94.3 94.3 94.3 94.3 Sizer Volume, tons 5,938,860 5,981,451 6,434,509 5,205,253 8,162,902 6,467,820 6,088,176 6,117960 6,017,286 6,113,268 Concentrate BPL Ton Recovery, % 63.0 61.3 64.2 69.0 70.1 70.1 70.1 70.1 70.1 70.1 Date: December 31, 2021 15-1 15.0 Infrastructure 15.1 Introduction The three active mining facilities are located in Hillsborough, Polk, Manatee, and Hardee counties, Florida. The facilities are readily accessible from multiple paved public roads and are situated in close proximity to several population centers, eliminating the need for onsite housing for working personnel. The facilities have the infrastructure in place to meet current production goals and anticipated future expansion if needed. Internal infrastructure includes a Mosaic owned power distribution system, railways, water supply systems, clay settling areas, a number of pumping systems and a networks of access roads. These assets are inspected and maintained by Mosaic personnel and using third party vendors and consultants to ensure the operation can meet current and anticipated future production expectations. Mosaic also relies on some infrastructure that is maintained by third parties (Table 15-1). Table 15-1: Infrastructure Maintained by Third Parties Infrastructure Supplied and Maintained Rail Network CSX Road Network Florida Department of Transportation FDOT Power Duke Energy, TECO, PRECO, Florida Power, Mosaic cogeneration Communications Verizon 15.2 Roads, Rail and Logistics 15.2.1 South Fort Meade Facility Primary access to the South Fort Meade Facility is through the main entrance road off County Line Road (Figure 15-1). The mining areas are accessed by County Line Rd, CR 657, CR 664A, and CR 664B. The primary entrance road to the beneficiation plant area including offices, maintenance shops, warehouse and is a paved road directly off County Line Road 664. This access point is monitored with a security guard gate and manned 24/7. Due to the large footprint, the mining areas have multiple access points. A system of unpaved dirt roads extends from these access points through infrastructure corridors allowing personnel to access production equipment, water storage areas and waste disposal areas. Higher volume main corridor roads are capped in rock and maintained regularly with motor graders. Most equipment, parts, and supplies to operate the mine are delivered via public roads and then utilize Mosaic’s road network. Certain reagents used in the beneficiation process are delivered via CSX/ Mosaic owned railways. All phosphate rock at South Fort Meade is transported via rail to Mosaic chemical plants. South Fort Meade utilizes a 4.4 mile (7.0 km) Mosaic owned railway spur and locomotive to transfer product rail cars to a transfer yard at which point CSX picks up and delivers product to the Mosaic fertilizer plants via CSX rail networks and locomotives. At South Fort Meade, truck haulage of phosphate rock on public roads is not permitted. Date: December 31, 2021 15-2 Figure 15-1: South Fort Meade Facility Major Roads and Logistics Infrastructure


 
Date: December 31, 2021 15-3 15.2.2 Four Corners Facility Primary access to the Four Corners Facility is through the Four Corners Mine Road entrance road off SR37 in Hillsborough County (Figure 15-2). The mining areas are accessed by SR37, SR39, SR62, Taylor-Gill Rd, and SR674. Four Corners Mine Road is a paved road directly off Florida State Road 37 and is the primary entrance road to the beneficiation plant area including offices, maintenance shops and warehouse. This access point is monitored with a security guard gate and manned 24/7. Due to the large footprint, the mining areas have multiple access points. A system of unpaved dirt roads extends from these access points through infrastructure corridors allowing personnel to access production equipment, water storage areas and waste disposal areas. Higher volume main corridor roads are capped in rock and maintained regularly with fleet of motor graders. Most equipment, parts, and supplies to operate the mine are delivered via public roads and then utilize Mosaic’s road network. Certain reagents used in the beneficiation process are delivered via CSX/ Mosaic owned railways. All phosphate rock at the Four Corners Site is transported by either truck or rail to Mosaic chemical plants. Four Corners utilizes a Mosaic owned railway spur and locomotive to transfer product rail cars to a transfer yard at the Agrock location, from which point CSX picks up and delivers product to the Mosaic fertilizer plants via CSX rail networks and locomotives. Four Corners utilizes truck haulage of phosphate rock on public roads to supplement rail haulage depending on logistics timing and destination. Date: December 31, 2021 15-4 Figure 15-2: Four Corners Facility Major Roads and Logistics Infrastructure Date: December 31, 2021 15-5 15.2.3 Wingate Facility Primary access to the Wingate Plant is through the Nu-Gulf Mine Road entrance off Duette Road in Manatee County (Figure 15-3). The mining areas are accessed from the main entrance road. Nu-Gulf Mine Road is a paved road directly off County Line Road 664 and is the main entrance road to the beneficiation plant area including offices, maintenance shops, warehouse. This access point is monitored with a security guard gate and manned during day shift hours M-F. Mine areas are accessed from the entrance road and a system of unpaved dirt roads extending from these access points through infrastructure corridors allowing personnel to access production equipment, water storage areas and waste disposal areas. Higher volume main corridor roads are capped in rock and maintained regularly with fleet of motor graders. Most equipment, parts, and supplies to operate the mine are delivered via public roads and then utilize Mosaic’s road network. There is no rail service to the Wingate site. All phosphate rock at Wingate is transported via truck to Four Corners Mine for final shipping or directly to a Mosaic chemical plant. Wingate truck haulage of phosphate rock on public roads is only permitted using the Duette Road traveling north to SR62. Date: December 31, 2021 15-6 Figure 15-3: Wingate Facility Major Roads and Logistics Infrastructure


 
Date: December 31, 2021 15-7 15.3 Stockpiles 15.3.1 South Fort Meade Facility The South Fort Meade Facility produces a pebble and concentrate size fraction phosphate rock product. The pebble product is temporarily stored on the washer day pile and then transferred to the South Fort Meade phosphate rock stockpile. The stockpiles are located near the beneficiation plant (Figure 15-4) The concentrate size fraction product is transferred directly to the primary product stockpile. Product streams are segregated by product grade and deposited on the product stockpile using a large mobile stacker system. A system of gates and a loadout tunnel allow for Mosaic to blend phosphate rock as it is loaded into rail cars. Date: December 31, 2021 15-8 Figure 15-4: South Fort Meade Facility Beneficiation Plant and Related Infrastructure Date: December 31, 2021 15-9 15.3.2 Four Corners Facility The Four Corners Facility produces a pebble and concentrate size fraction phosphate rock product. The pebble product is conveyed to the Four Corners Primary Product stockpile. The stockpiles are located near the beneficiation plant (Figure 15- 5) The concentrate size fraction product is transferred directly to the primary product stockpile. Product streams are segregated by product grade and deposited on the product stockpile directly from the conveyor. A system of gates and a loadout tunnel allow for Mosaic to blend phosphate rock as it is loaded into rail cars. On-highway trucks are loaded by mobile equipment from the stockpile perimeters. Date: December 31, 2021 15-10 Figure 15-5: Four Corners Facility Beneficiation Plant and Related Infrastructure


 
Date: December 31, 2021 15-11 15.3.3 Wingate Facility The Wingate Facility produces a pebble and concentrate size fraction phosphate rock product. The pebble product is transported using a stationary stacker conveyor to the Pebble Product stockpile. The concentrate size fraction product is transported using a second stationary stacker conveyor directly to the concentrate product stockpile. Pebble (NW) and Concentrate (NE) stockpiles are north of the beneficiation plant (Figure 15-6). Pebble and concentrate products are loaded into trucks from the perimeter of piles. Blends are accomplished by controlling the ratio of pebble and concentrate loaded in each truck and by number of total trucks shipped of each product. Date: December 31, 2021 15-12 Figure 15-6: Wingate Facility Beneficiation Plant and Related Infrastructure Date: December 31, 2021 15-13 15.4 Clay and Tailings Storage The South Fort Meade, Four Corners and Wingate phosphate facilities produce two primary tailings by-products from the beneficiation process, clays and sand tailings. Clays are pumped hydraulically via large diameter pumping systems to clay settling areas (CSAs) for storage, which are then subject to consolidation, decommissioning and reclamation. Sand tailings are pumped hydraulically to mine reclamation program areas where they are placed below grade and recontoured to match the approved reclamation topography. Areas that have been disturbed in the mining process must be reclaimed after mining operations are complete. Clay Settling Areas (CSA) CSAs are earthen embankments approximately 40 to 60 ft. (12 to 18 m) high above the surrounding ground surface. Table 15-2 outlines the number and the storage available at each of the three operating facilities. The CSAs are engineered and constructed out of compacted competent soils, under the direction of a third-party engineer with extensive expertise in such impoundments. As clays are hydraulically placed in the clay settling areas, clay particles consolidate and settle leaving a clarified supernatant that is subsequently decanted through spillway towers. Each CSA utilizes redundant spillways, each capable of passing the design storm and process flows. This decant water is returned to the beneficiation plant and field production areas through a network of above and below grade return water ditches. Mosaic maintains a minimum 5 ft. (1.5 m) of freeboard on all clay settling areas and a minimum 3 ft. (0.9 m) of freeboard on ditches. Table 15-2: Current Clay Setting Areas Summary Location Number Storage Available (Acre-ft.) Storage Available (M yd3) Storage Available (M m3) South Fort Meade Facility 9 32,500 52.4 40.1 Four Corners Facility 13 25,500 41.1 31.5 Wingate Facility 3 7,400 12.0 9.1 Monitoring of the CSA includes: • Site visits and reviews by operations personnel twice a day. Their focus is to manage water levels and mine-wide water balance while complying to strict water level restrictions. • Weekly inspections of the CSA embankment by trained specialist technicians that monitor conditions including pore water pressures, erosion features, vegetation, seepage, cracks, sloughing, infrastructure and overall embankment integrity. • An annual inspection by a Mosaic geotechnical engineering consultant, focusing on the CSA embankments. South Fort Meade currently has nine active CSAs (Figure 15-7) with approximately 32,500 acre-ft. of total clay storage currently available. This remaining clay storage volume is adequate to meet the South Fort Meade 2021 LOM plan clay storage needs. Date: December 31, 2021 15-14 Figure 15-7: South Fort Meade Facility Clay Settling and Sand Tailings Locations


 
Date: December 31, 2021 15-15 Four Corners currently has thirteen active CSAs (Figure 15-8) with approximately 25,500 acre-ft. of clay storage currently available to final pool elevation. Four Corners currently has two CSAs under construction for future clay storage and eleven future CSA’s planned in Hardee and Manatee Counties. Date: December 31, 2021 15-16 Figure 15-8: Four Corners Facility Clay Settling and Sand Tailings Locations Date: December 31, 2021 15-17 Wingate currently has three active CSAs (Figure 15-9) with approximately 7,400 acre-ft. of clay storage currently available. Wingate has one CSA, designated as ISA, that is active but at capacity and one (WC-1) planned for future construction. This additional clay settling pond is believed to be adequate to allow Wingate to meet its LOM plan clay storage needs. Date: December 31, 2021 15-18 Figure 15-9: Wingate Facility Clay Settling and Sand Tailings Locations


 
Date: December 31, 2021 15-19 Sand Tailings Sand tailings are pumped hydraulically from beneficiation plants to mine reclamation program areas where they are placed below grade and recontoured to match the approved reclamation topography. As the sand tailings are pumped hydraulically to these areas, a fleet of heavy equipment places this material to the required grade. Water from the pumping process is captured in sumps and is pumped via diesel and electric pumps into the mine network of return water ditches. Mine reclamation programs are identified in the permitting process and post-mining reclamation plans are planned at that time. Reclamation plans are based on permit conditions, regulatory requirements and post reclamation land use. Reclamation programs are identified below, and sand tailings are used to achieve program contours. Monitoring of the sand tailings areas: • Water levels in reclamation area sumps are managed to strict water level restrictions and are inspected twice daily by operations personnel. • All mine boundaries are protected by a BMP berm system to contain stormwater or production-water flows from leaving the property. The berms are passable by pickup trucks and inspected daily. Weekly inspections of the BMP berms are completed by trained specialist technicians that monitor conditions including erosion features, roadway condition, vegetation, cracks, sloughing, and overall berm integrity. • Mosaic reclamation personnel work in conjunction with various third-party contractors to place sand tailings on schedule and to final approved grade. Third-party contractors widely utilize GPS equipped earthmoving equipment to maintain actual grade to the planned grade. 15.5 Pumping Systems Pumping systems are critical and widely utilized across the entire mining process. Detailed engineering is performed to properly size systems to meet production requirements and evenly distribute line pressure throughout the long pumping systems. Each facility has a maintenance department utilizing Mosaic and third-party specialists monitor and maintain asset health using a variety of preventative and predictive maintenance practices. Ore (matrix) and byproduct from the beneficiation plant are transported hydraulically, as a slurry, through a network of pipelines. Each mine utilizes large diameter centrifugal pumps, arranged in a series configuration to transport ore and waste streams long distances. Table 15-2 provides an overview of ore and waste stream pumping systems. These systems are operated by remote control by a single operator. Pumping assets are fully instrumented and data is logged in a historian. Critical operating data from each asset is transmitted nearly instantaneously to operators so that any abnormal pumping system conditions can be rectified. Reclaimed and recycled water is supplied to the remote mining areas using a network of pipelines and pumps. This water is boosted to 285 psi at the pits to assist in breaking down the ore into a pumpable slurry. Multiple processes and technologies are utilized to maintain the asset health of pipelines, and mechanical / electrical equipment. Each operation utilizes third party technicians to measure steel pipe thicknesses using ultrasonic equipment. This data is used to manage a process of rolling (shifting pipe wear areas), and pipe replacements. Mine facilities use technicians to monitor vibration for mechanical equipment and measure powerline, substations, and switchgear temperature using IR thermography. Each facility may be converted to conditional based online vibration monitoring in the future. Lubrication preventative maintenance and time interval-based inspections on mechanical equipment are completed at each site. Pumping systems along with a system of sumps and mine recirculation ditches are used to maintain mine water balance and manage storm water. The facilities currently utilize a fleet of rental and Mosaic owned pumps for this purpose. 15.5.1 South Fort Meade Facility Table 15-3 outlines the South Fort Meade dragline ore and byproduct pumping systems. Date: December 31, 2021 15-20 Table 15-3: South Fort Meade Ore and Waste Stream Pumping Systems Pipeline Pumps Type Miles in Service Diameter (inches) Type Quantity Size (inches) Horsepower Ore (Matrix) 34 20 AR Steel 39 54 1,750 to 2,000 Clay 8 36 to 48 HDPE 4 42 1750 Sand Tailings 12 20 AR Steel 9 46 1,500 to 1,750 Water Supply to pits 8 24 to 42 Steel/HDPE 3 30 vertical 600 Water Boosters Steel 6 50 1,500 15.5.2 Four Corners Facility Table 15-4 outlines the Four Corners dragline ore and waste stream pumping systems. Table 15-4: Four Corners Ore and Waste Stream Pumping Systems Pipeline Pumps Type Miles in Service Diameter (inches) Type Quantity Size (inches) Horsepower Ore (Matrix) 76 20/22 AR Steel 78 54 1,500 to 2,000 Clay 32 36 to 48 HDPE 7 42 1500 to 1750 Sand Tailings 35 24 AR Steel 26 46 1,500 to 2,000 Water Supply to pits 24 Steel/HDPE 6 30 vertical 600 to 1,500 Water Boosters 6 24 Steel 12 50 1,500 Date: December 31, 2021 15-21 15.5.3 Wingate Facility Table 15-5 outlines the Wingate dredge ore and by-product pumping systems. Table 15-5: Wingate Ore and Waste Stream Pumping Systems Pipeline Pumps Type Miles in Service Diameter (inches) Type Quantity Size (inches) Horsepower Ore (Phosphator Dredge) 3 20 AR Steel 4 54 1,500 to 2,000 Overburden (Liberator Dredge) 1 26 AR Steel 7 54 1500 to 1750 Clay 14 36 to 48 HDPE 4 42 1500 to 1750 Sand Tailings 3 20 AR Steel 3 46 1,500 Water Supply to pits n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 15.6 Water Management Structures All the phosphate facilities manage production-related and storm water flows through a complex system of ditches, spillways and pumping systems, and outfalls. They primarily operate on recirculated and storm water collected throughout its large footprint. Deep well pumps are available but provide a very small percentage of water required to operate the facility. Water is managed on a 24-hours, 365 days per year basis. Due to the large facility footprint and rainfall that the area receives, stormwater management is of great importance. Stormwater is collected in open below grade mining cuts that are kept below levels to contain a 25-year stormwater event. The stormwater collected in these open cuts is primarily pumped to clay settling areas where it clarified for use in the mine’s production-related water streams. A large pipeline network consisting of Mosaic owned or rented pumps is utilized for water management. Mosaic may treat or use a sand filter(s) to achieve water quality standards. Outfalls are managed by operations and environmental staff. Mosaic has obtained a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permit that authorizes South Fort Meade to discharge water at a regulated quality and quantity from its two permitted outfalls, designated MSF D-001 and 002, located in Polk and Hardee counties, respectively. South Fort Meade has an additional outfall scheduled for completion in early 2022. Mosaic has obtained a NPDES permits that authorizes Four Corners to discharge water at a regulated quality and quantity from its nine permitted in-service outfalls as listed in Table 15-6. Table 15-6: Four Corners Facility Permitted Outfalls Outfall Number County MFC-D-001 Manatee MFC-D-002 Polk MFC-D-003 Hillsborough MLS-D-006 Hillsborough MLS-D-003 Hillsborough MFG-D-002 Polk MFG-D-003 Hardee MFG-D-005 Polk MFG-D-006 Hardee Date: December 31, 2021 15-22 Mosaic has obtained a NPDES permit that authorizes Wingate to discharge water at a regulated quality and quantity from its two permitted in-service outfalls, MWG-D-002 and 004, located in Manatee and Hardee counties respectively. 15.7 Built Infrastructure The infrastructure built at the three operating mines includes: • Beneficiation plant area includes office buildings, maintenance shops, warehouse, and employee parking. Backup generators are in place for the main office building. • A potable water well is located in the plant area. • Plant and office areas utilize an effluent waste water treatment system. • Emergency fire suppression water is provided by a diesel unit located at the beneficiation plant hydraulic. • A combination of wireless and fiber optic networks is used for pumping system telemetry over the long pumping distances. • South Fort Meade uses dedicated radio channels and third-party cellular service for all mine communications. 15.8 Power and Electrical 15.8.1 South Fort Meade Facility Duke Energy and the Mosaic cogeneration line from the Bartow chemical plant supply power to the South Fort Meade mine. The beneficiation plant can be powered by Duke Energy or Bartow cogeneration, while the mining area can only be powered by Duke Energy. South Fort Meade uses 30% cogenerated and 70% Duke power. Duke Energy supplies 230 kV power from Hines Power Plant in Fort Meade Florida through the 230 kV transmission line. Redundant 230 kV power can be supplied by the Duke Energy grid in central Florida. The 230 kV power is routed through Duke Energy’s South Polk Substation and is converted to 115 kV power that then runs via Duke owned and operated overhead power lines to two Duke 115 to 25 kV substations (South Fort Meade and Lake Branch), and one 115 to 69 kV substation (Parker Branch). The northern, western, and southern areas of the operation are supplied by 25 kV overhead powerlines with current mining in the east powered by 69 kV powerlines. Mosaic utilizes a fleet of 38 25 kV to 4160/7200 V and 12 69 kV to 4160/7200 V substations to distribute power to electrically powered assets through areas of the mine. Individual assets are powered using fully insulated and sealed power cables. Diesel powered assets are used in particularly remote areas where electrical power distribution is impractical. 15.8.2 Four Corners Facility Duke Energy, PRECO, TECO and the Mosaic cogeneration line from the Bartow chemical plant supply power to the Four Corners mine. The beneficiation plant can be powered by Duke Energy or Bartow cogeneration, while the field can only be powered by Duke Energy. Four Corners mine presently uses approximately 15% cogenerated and 85% purchase power. Power is supplied at 69kV. Mosaic uses a fleet of 69 kV to 4160V and 7200 V substations to distribute power to electrically powered assets through areas of the mine. Individual assets are powered using fully insulated and sealed power cables. Diesel powered assets are used in particularly remote areas where electrical power distribution is impractical.


 
Date: December 31, 2021 15-23 15.8.3 Wingate Facility Florida Power and Duke Energy supply power to the Wingate mine. The beneficiation plant and mining activities are powered by Florida Power while water return from the FM-1 and FM-2 clay settling pond is powered by Duke Energy. Wingate uses 10% Duke Energy and 90% Florida Power. Cogenerated power is not available for Wingate operations. Power is supplied at 69kV. Mosaic uses a fleet of 69 kV to 4160 V and 7200 V substations to distribute power to electrically powered assets through areas of the mine. Individual assets are powered using fully insulated and sealed power cables. Diesel powered assets are used in particularly remote areas where electrical power distribution is impractical. 15.9 Water Supply Potable water is supplied from wells in the footprint of the beneficiation plant or mine areas. Production-related water for beneficiation plant and field operations is mostly supplied by a recirculating water system distributed over the mine’s large footprint. Clarified water streams are combined with collected stormwater and groundwater intrusion to supply most of the mine’s water needs, however, supplemental production deep wells are available in the beneficiation plant area of each operation, if needed. Large, centrifugal slurry pumps require water for reliable operation. This water is supplied by either deep wells or the recirculating water system. Date: December 31, 2021 16-1 16.0 Market Studies and Contracts 16.1 Markets Phosphorus is one of the three primary crop nutrients required for plant growth and is not substitutable. Phosphate rock is the raw material feedstock utilized to produce virtually all phosphate fertilizers worldwide, as well as being the phosphate feedstock for animal feed ingredients and industrial and food products. Production of phosphate end-products is most commonly achieved by reacting the phosphate rock with sulphuric acid to produce intermediate phosphoric acid, which is then used as the precursor for nearly all high-analysis granular phosphate fertilizers (e.g. ammonium phosphates) as well as most animal feed and industrial/food phosphates. A less common process route involves reacting phosphate rock with sulphuric acid to produce single superphosphate, a low-analysis phosphate fertilizer. The global market for phosphate rock is estimated to be approximately 210 million metric tonnes in 2021 and has grown at a compound annual growth rate of around 2% over the past two decades, though has slowed modestly in the past several years (CRU Phosphates Rock Database, August 2021). Going forward, global phosphate rock demand growth is expected to continue to grow, with Mosaic and independent analysts typically projecting a growth rate of 1-2% per annum. This growth ensures sufficient market demand for continued production at Mosaic’s Florida phosphate rock mines. In fact, such demand growth will necessitate some combination of new mining capacity globally or higher operating rates at existing mines to meet the growing demand. Global phosphate rock trade has been rangebound at around 30 million tonnes for the past two decades. The Florida phosphate rock mines produce circa 13 million tonnes of phosphate rock concentrate per annum which is further processed into finished products at nearby downstream phosphate production facilities – i.e. phosphoric acid intermediate product, then phosphate fertilizers and animal feed phosphates. A small volume of phosphate rock is also shipped to Mosaic’s downstream facility at Uncle Sam, Louisiana. The open pit mining and beneficiation practices at the Florida mines result in a phosphate rock product with a grade of ~62% BPL (~28.5% P2O5) and is amendable as feedstock for phosphoric acid (and downstream high-analysis phosphate end- products). 16.2 Commodity Price Forecasts All phosphate rock produced in Florida is consumed internally for downstream phosphate fertilizer manufacturing. There is no quoted benchmark for phosphate rock in Florida (nor elsewhere in the United States), as such, a phosphate rock internal transfer price forecast was constructed. To do so, CRU’s benchmark forecasts for downstream phosphate products – into which Mosaic’s Florida phosphate rock production is processed – were utilized to derive an available margin to fund the production of the phosphate rock raw material. Costs (raw material costs such as sulphur and ammonia, labor, overhead, capital, etc.) associated with converting phosphate rock into downstream finished product sold to external customers were subtracted from the downstream product price. For the purposes of modeling the ammonia and sulphur costs, CRU forecasts were also utilized, along with a forecast for natural gas utilizing the New York Mercantile Exchange Henry Hub forward curve which is a component to estimate the costs of ammonia purchased under the long-term contract with CF Industries. In other words, if the total cost of producing phosphate rock from Mosaic’s Florida mines, plus an additional cost-plus factor of 10%, is less than the expected margin available to fund phosphate rock production basis the raw material and finished product forecasts reference above, then the phosphate rock mining activity is deemed economic. For further detail on the analysis, refer to Section 19 (Economic Analysis) of this report. The phosphate fertilizer price forecast from CRU utilized in the above methodology is Diammonium Phosphate (DAP) FOB NOLA (New Orleans, Louisiana), from CRU’s Phosphate Fertilizer Market Outlook dated July 2021. This price is then adjusted for freight utilizing Mosaic’s freight standards to derive a FOB plant netback and then adjusted to reflect the historical pricing differential for the various phosphate end-products other than DAP that are produced by Mosaic to arrive at an average annual fertilizer price for the period 2022-2026. For 2026, the CRU price for 2025 was carried forward. The Date: December 31, 2021 16-2 arithmetic average of this period was then utilized for all years of the forecast period through the life of mine. This average fertilizer price is $481 per metric tonne. Similar methodology was applied to the downstream operations costs for sulphur and ammonia, along with internal forecasts for the remaining costs. The arithmetic average of the 2022-2026 period of these costs is $229 per metric tonne, leaving a margin before phosphate rock costs of $253 per metric tonne. For the prior five-year period (2017-2021), the average fertilizer price, downstream costs and margin before phosphate rock costs figures were $384, $243 and $141 per metric tonne, respectively. Under this approach, the phosphate rock internal transfer price cannot exceed the gross margin available. The internal transfer price was estimated based on the projected operating and capital costs for mining and beneficiation plus a margin of 10%. The application of this method was designed to show the cost of supplying the rock in a vertically integrated company. The resulting price for 2022-2026 period is $103 per metric tonne which is less than the gross margin available of $253 per metric tonne and for the historical period 2017-2021 the price was $96 per metric tonne which is less than the gross margin available. This analysis demonstrates that the margin available for phosphate rock exceeds the total costs plus 10% of phosphate rock production. The previously computed internal transfer price was used to calculate the discounted cash flow (DCF) in Section 19. 16.3 Contracts Effectively all phosphate rock produced in Florida is consumed at Mosaic’s nearby downstream facilities. Date: December 31, 2021 17-1 17.0 Environmental Studies, Permitting and Plans, Negotiations or Agreements with Local Individuals or Groups 17.1 Introduction The Environmental Section of this document (Section 17) mainly focuses on the permitted and active phosphate facilities, consisting of South Fort Meade (SFM), Four Corners (FCO), and Wingate (WIN). Discussion of each mine in this Section also includes associated extension tracts or infill parcels. Some discussion in the Environmental Section also includes the exploration properties South Pasture (SP), DeSoto, and Pioneer. Although not an active phosphate facility, SP, including the South Pasture Extension (SPE), has obtained required permits and continues to maintain some of the same environmental requirements as the active sites. Properties such as DeSoto and Pioneer, although not fully permitted, may be included in certain subsections of this Environmental Section and will be specifically referenced. If not specifically referenced, the discussion only applies to the active phosphate facilities previously mentioned. 17.2 Baseline and Supporting Studies Prior to initiating mining operations on any tract of land, Mosaic must obtain federal, state, and local approvals. As more fully described in the permits section below (Section 17.8), these approvals authorize Mosaic to conduct its mining, reclamation, and mitigation plans on each tract without the need for renewals (i.e., “Life of Mine” approvals). Mosaic’s permitted mine boundaries have been addressed in either an environmental impact statement (EIS) or an environmental assessment (EA) to fulfill requirements under the federal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Prior to 2011, Mosaic’s mine sites were subject to review and approval under the Development of Regional Impact (DRI) process (Section 380.0651(2)(t), F.S.). The DRI process has been replaced by each County’s own Land Development Code (LDC) that regulate phosphate mining. Those regulatory processes require collection of baseline data and studies addressing potential impacts, that inform a regulator’s decision about whether to issue the permits and approvals. Additionally, applications for Florida Wetland or Environmental Resource Permits (WRP/ERP) require baseline data and impact analyses that are focused on environmental resources (Table 17-1).


 
Date: December 31, 2021 17-2 Table 17-1: Baseline Monitoring and Impact Analyses NEPA DRI/LDC ERP/WRP Map Land Covers x x x Delineate Wetlands x x x Wetland Functional Value x x x Wildlife Surveys x x x Threatened & Endangered (T&E) Species x x x Surface Water Flow x x x Surface Water Quality x x x Groundwater Aquifers x x Groundwater Quality x x x Soils x x x Flooding Potential/Floodplains x x x Water Supply x x Stormwater Runoff x x x Wastewater Discharge x x Solid/Hazardous Waste x x Air Quality/Noise x x Cultural Resources x x x • Collectively, the baseline monitoring data and impact analyses and related modeling provide agency decisionmakers with the data necessary to determine that the following criteria for issuance have been met, including consideration of secondary and cumulative impacts: o Wetland impact and avoidance plans were found to be the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative, as required by the CWA and Florida law. o Wetland mitigation plans result in no net loss of wetland functions. o Surface water quality meets designated Florida standards. o Mining and reclamation are not expected to cause downstream flow volumes in streams to fall below minimum levels established by Florida law. o Measures implemented to prevent offsite impacts from mine dewatering have proven effective. o Groundwater quality beneath and adjacent to the mine meets designated Florida standards. o Mining and reclamation are not expected to adversely affect public water supplies. o No prime farmland was present prior to mining. o Mining and reclamation are not expected to cause increases in downstream flood levels/impacts. o Stormwater runoff following 25-year and 100-year 24-hour storm events is not expected to increase materially. o No critical habitat for threatened or endangered species was present prior to mining. o Mining and reclamation are not expected to adversely affect any threatened or endangered species. o National ambient air quality standards are being met during mining. o Noise and light levels generated by mining operations conform with current county land development code limits. o Discharges of excess production-water and stormwater are not toxic to fish and aquatic organisms have not been demonstrated to cause or contribute to violations of Florida’s surface waters standards. o No significant cultural resources have been found and if found, would be avoided or mitigated in accordance with regulations. Date: December 31, 2021 17-3 17.3 Environmental Considerations and Monitoring Programs The permits and approvals under which Mosaic operates each mine site prescribe performance standards that are protective of the environment with respect to unavoidable but minimized impacts to wetlands and waterways, air quality, and water supply and quality, along with requirements to monitor each on a routine schedule. Also imposed are requirements to develop and implement management plans to address mine dewatering, wildlife habitat and listed species, spill prevention and control, pollution prevention, and hazardous waste management. Protection of environmentally sensitive lands can be addressed in a conservation easement, together with reclamation and mitigation requirements addressed below. Routine reporting of environmental conditions, as well as upsets or incidents, is required. In addition, Mosaic conducts other voluntary programs described below in Section 17.9. 17.3.1 Performance Standards, Monitoring and Reporting Permits and approvals impose requirements to meet regulatory criteria and standards, monitor conformance with those requirements. and report the monitoring results. Table 17-2 below provides the main water quality/quantity monitoring and reporting requirements that are required at each mine site. Table 17-2: Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Permit/Approval Performance Standards Monitoring Reporting National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Surface Water Quality, Groundwater quality, Effluent quality, Aquatic toxicity Weekly, monthly, quarterly, semi-annually Weekly, monthly, quarterly, semi-annually, incident Water Use Permit (WUP) Water Levels Weekly, monthly Monthly, semi-annually, incident Wetland Resource Permit (WRP) Surface Water Quality Monthly, quarterly Annual Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) Surface Water Quality, Groundwater quality Monthly, quarterly Annual, Incident Development of Regional Impact (DRI)/County Land Development Code (LDC) Surface Water Quality, Groundwater quality, Water Levels, Air Quality Monthly, quarterly Annual, quarterly, incident Monitoring data is submitted to each applicable agency according to the terms of relevant approvals. In 2020, there were no NPDES permit limit exceedances that were considered a violation of a permit. In 2021, there was one NPDES permit limit exceedance for turbidity that occurred at a Four Corners outfall due to Hurricane Elsa. Other sporadic deviations have occurred historically; however, all prior excursions have since been reversed or resolved. deviations have occurred historically; however, all prior excursions have since been reversed or resolved. Similarly, reportable incidents have occurred infrequently in the past. In 2020, there were two minor reportable releases that required notification to the Florida State Watch Office and a Public Notice of Pollution. One incident occurred at the SFM facility, while the other occurred at the South Pasture property. In 2021, there were also two reportable releases requiring the same notifications. One incident occurred at the South Pasture property, while the other occurred at the Four Corners facility. All of these incidents have since been resolved with the exception of the Four Corners incident which is not expected to have a material impact. Date: December 31, 2021 17-4 17.3.2 Management Plans Management plans are an integral component of permit conditions designed to be protective of environmental conditions on and adjacent to Mosaic’s active mine sites. Table 17-3 below provides a list of management plans that are required by permits at each mine site. While this list is not inclusive of every required environmental plan for Mosaic’s mine sites, it does cover the main plans utilized by each facility. Table 17-3: Permit Required Management Plans Permit Plan Required Purpose Integrated water use permit (IWUP) Environmental Management Plan Prevent water table drawdown National pollutant discharge elimination system permit (NPDES) Spill prevention, control, and countermeasures plan (SPCC) Protect water quality National pollutant discharge elimination system permit (NPDES) Best management practices/pollution prevention plan (BMP3) Protect water quality Certain Environmental Resource Permits (ERPs) Wildlife habitat management plan (WHMP) Protect habitat and listed species 17.3.3 Resource Protection and Conservation Easements Conservation Easements (CEs) may be required by the WRP/ERP or the federal wetland permit (hereafter, 404 Permit) to provide permanent protection for existing preserved wetlands and for compensatory wetland and stream mitigation required to offset impacts at each mine site. The onsite resource protection measures consist of three categories: land avoided by mining disturbance (referred to as preservation areas); certain wetlands and streams created following mining; and restored/reclaimed crossings of waterways otherwise preserved. In certain permits, Mosaic has also agreed to execute CEs over land that is outside of the mine boundary but included as a component of the overall mitigation plan. The CEs impose upon Mosaic obligations to manage the easement areas to conserve existing environmental attributes. Agencies periodically inspect the condition of easement areas. Mosaic is in conformance with these requirements. Table 17- 4 provides a summary of Conservation Easements that have been executed within the active phosphate facilities and at the South Pasture property and include acreages. Table 17-4: Conservation Easement Summary Location Acres Executed Four Corners Facility 7,662 South Fort Meade Facility 8,283 South Pasture Property 4,147 Wingate Facility 1,425 17.3.4 Non-Regulatory Programs In addition to the above-described programs and plans, Mosaic has implemented other monitoring programs that are not required by permit conditions. These programs are the result of an agreement with a third-party organization and are addressed within Section 17.9 below. 17.4 Product and Rock Stockpiles The phosphate rock product is stockpiled at the beneficiation plant prior to loading into trucks or rail cars for shipment to one of Mosaic’s concentrates plants. Some off-specification phosphate rock (e.g., low-grade or high impurities) is also produced depending on the geology of specific areas being mined. Off-specification rock is either reprocessed through the Date: December 31, 2021 17-5 beneficiation plant, utilized for internal mine road stability, or stockpiled at the plant for use in reclamation at the end of the life of the mine. 17.5 Tailings Storage Facilities The phosphate ore is a matrix of phosphate rock, sand, and clay at varying percentages as defined by particle size. The coarsest size, referred to as “pebble,” is recovered by screening, without use of any reagent chemicals, and is transferred to the product stockpile as described above. The following two subsections describe the remaining particle size separation process and the tailings that are generated. 17.5.1 Flotation Tailings The sand-sized ore is comprised of a mixture of phosphate rock product and barren silica quartz sand. Ore separation is accomplished using a two-stage flotation process that applies sulfuric acid, oil, and proprietary amine-based reagents. While the residual quartz sand is referred to as tailings, the particle size composition is much larger than tailings generated by hard rock mining operations and does not require use of impoundments. Instead, the tailings are used to backfill mine voids via hydraulic deposition in advance of reclamation. The hydraulic deposition of tailings in mine voids is regulated as a discharge to groundwater by a mine’s NPDES permit. Annual monitoring is required to document tailings deposition is not resulting in groundwater impacts. Monitoring conducted has not detected evidence of groundwater contamination. 17.5.2 Clay-Sized Residuals Washing, screening, and gravity separation methods are used to separate particles too fine to be effectively separated by flotation. These particles pass through 200 mesh screens and are referred to as “clay”, but. are comprised of clay minerals such as montmorillonite along with similarly-sized fine particles of phosphate rock and silica sand. Clay Settling Area Impounds The clay-sized residuals are pumped as a 3 to 5% solids slurry into above-grade impoundments referred to as clay settling areas (CSAs). CSA Design and Operating Requirements The WRP/ERP and County approvals specify the number, locations, sizes, and volumes of CSAs authorized to be constructed and operated. Specific conditions of the ERP and County approvals require periodic revisions to projections for the future CSA capacity needs to minimize the overall CSA footprint required. Mosaic is in compliance with these conditions. Chapter 62-672, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) along with local development regulations and approvals provide specific requirements for the design (including site investigation), operation, maintenance, inspection, and closure CSAs. The construction and operation of CSAs is generally authorized by a new, or a modification to an existing, NPDES permit. By Florida law, third-party engineers are required to conduct all engineering evaluations, prepare designs, certify construction, and perform annual inspections of all CSAs. In accordance with applicable rules and standards, Emergency Response Plans (Plan) are developed for each CSA to document procedures and actions that are to be followed in the event of an emergency CSA condition. CSAs are required to be inspected daily by trained Operations personnel and weekly by highly trained geotechnical inspectors. As part of the weekly inspection, piezometers are read and reviewed and compared against design specifications by site Geotechnical Engineers. CSA Dam Closure Requirements and Reclamation Each CSA is filled with the dilute clay slurry generated at the beneficiation plant until the fluid levels reach the maximum allowable level. The slurry undergoes a natural gravity settling and consolidation process, without the addition of flocculants or other additives, with the clean water decanted to provide recycled water supply for operations or discharged to a receiving


 
Date: December 31, 2021 17-6 stream through a NPDES outfall. CSAs are subjected to a stage filling process where these phases are repeated to maximize the volume of solids stored. Once a CSA has been filled to its capacity, low ground pressure earthmoving equipment is used to develop a solidified surface, or crust. Once the crust has been fully developed and all standing water drained via a network of surface ditches, a closure design and plan is developed by a third-party engineer for approval via modification of the NPDES permit. Once the closure design is approved, the dam wall is excavated, or breached, to preclude its ability to impound water under FDEP’s rules and reclamation of the area is initiated in accordance with the CRP. 17.6 Water Management Mining and ore processing is water reliant. Extracted ore is pumped to the beneficiation plant in pipelines. At the beneficiation plant, ore slurries are first washed and screened, with the sand sized fraction then subjected to flotation. The sand and clay residuals are hydraulically transported in pipelines to reclamation backfill sites and CSAs, respectively (Figure 7-1). Figure 17-1: Mine Process Flow Diagram Wide variations in the volumes of water withdrawn from the deep wells or discharged through a NPDES outfall have occurred historically and will occur in the future. These variations have been, and will continue to be, driven by variations in rainfall received. During droughts, little, if any, water is released through the NPDES outfall and deep well withdrawals are required to provide the make up water supply. In contrast, during wet years, little to no groundwater is required, but discharges occur on a near-continuous basis during the wet season. Date: December 31, 2021 17-7 17.6.1 Sources and Uses of Water The sources of supply include rainfall; treated effluent from local municipalities; groundwater contained in the overburden sands and the ore matrix; and groundwater withdrawn from the mine production and dewatering wells. Rainfall captured by perimeter berms encompassing active mining and reclamation areas is the predominant source of water and the most variable. Groundwater contained in the overburden sands and the ore matrix (i.e., interstitial water) is a consistent and sizeable source of water. Groundwater volumes withdrawn from the Floridan aquifer are highly variable and countercyclical to rainfall. Mine uses of water consist of slurry transport of ore to the beneficiation plant and processing in the plant, transportation of the sand tailings to reclamation areas or stockpiles, transportation of clay to the CSAs, and other mining activities. Uses and disposition of water at the mine consist of evapotranspiration, rehydration of the surficial aquifer following mining, recharge of the surficial aquifer adjacent to the perimeter ditch and berm systems, moisture contained in product, and surface water discharges through an approved NPDES outfall. Evapotranspiration losses are predominant and vary somewhat based upon rainfall levels and general weather patterns. Rehydration of the surficial aquifer is a consistent and sizeable use of water following mining. Recharge of the surficial aquifer is a sizeable use that is somewhat countercyclical to rainfall. Surface water discharges are highly variable and generally occur coincidentally with rainfall. Moisture contained in product shipments is a small and consistent use. 17.6.2 Water Recycling The well withdrawal and water discharge volumes provided above represent net demands in terms of aquifer withdrawals and surface water discharges. Within an active mine, however, daily recirculation and re-use volumes generally exceed 100 M US gallons per day and the recirculation system contains over one billion gallons of water. During the Florida wet season (late May – mid October), rainfall and recirculation provide all of the water needed to operate the mine. Discharges occur when the recirculation system is adequately filled by rainfall and provides a surplus to the operational demand; similarly, aquifer withdrawals occur when dry periods create the need for makeup water. On average, less than ten percent of the mine water requirements are supplied by the aquifer well water withdrawals. 17.6.3 Effects of Water Withdrawals Permits issued by the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) authorize use of the production wells to provide water for mining and beneficiation plant operations. A major component of each permit is the Environmental Management Plan (EMP), which is an expansive environmental monitoring program that outlines the processes and procedures Mosaic must implement to ensure that groundwater withdrawals do not result in adverse impacts to existing legal users or environmental features adjacent to and in areas surrounding the mine project boundaries. The EMP is designed to accomplish four overall tasks: 1. Prevention – identify the measures that will be used to prevent adverse impacts to protected environmental features, water resources, off-site land uses, and existing legal users. 2. Monitoring – define the pre-mining, during mining, and post-mining monitoring necessary to ensure that potential concerns are identified before adverse impacts result. 3. Corrective Action – provide a framework and approach to undertake specified corrective actions to address identified problems. 4. Reporting – define the reporting requirements. Mosaic complies with these requirements and is taking a proactive approach so that groundwater flows are maintained in the areas of active mine activities. As demonstrated through this program, regular monitoring is already a component of Mosaic’s daily mine operations, and the EMP provides a framework that identifies issues are remediated and/or mitigated such that adverse impacts to adjacent environmental features and hydrologic conditions do not occur. Date: December 31, 2021 17-8 17.6.4 Volumes and Characteristics of Water Discharges All active mining, beneficiation plant, mine infrastructure, and reclamation areas are encircled by perimeter berms and ditches to preclude non-point source discharges. Containment of rainfall and run-off results in the need to discharge water when the volume of water within the active mining and reclamation areas exceeds the mine’s recirculation system capacity. Discharge volumes are generally correlated to antecedent rainfall levels and vary significantly in the short term and long term. For example, no discharges have occurred when central Florida was in an extended drought. In contrast to the drought years, during years when central Florida experienced chronic excessive rainfall and hurricanes, discharges were nearly continuous and discharge volumes were correspondingly larger. As shown on the mine process flow diagram (Figure 7-1) all production-related water and collected storm water are contained within the mine water recirculation system. The recirculation system consists of pumps, pipelines, ditches, and CSAs and is designed to store and recycle water to supply the mine’s needs. Discharges generally occur only when the system is full and cannot store additional rainfall or in advance of a major predicted weather event (i.e., hurricane). The CSAs are multi-functional in that these areas are used to backfill mined lands with clay residuals; provide much of the storage capacity for the mine recirculation system; and serve as the pre-treatment facility for water to be discharged. Specifically, the settling areas provide treatment defined as “sedimentation” by FDEP. Domestic Wastewater The domestic wastewater produced onsite at each beneficiation plant or supporting buildings/offices is either disposed of through a permitted septic system or treated through the use of an onsite package plant. Effluent from a package plant is discharged through an approved NPDES outfall into the mine recirculation system. Internal Water Management Facilities The internal water management facilities consist of: • Perimeter ditch and berm systems. • Stormwater sumps (surge ponds), pumps and pipelines. • The mine water recirculation system. • Final clarification ponds and NPDES outfalls. • CSAs. • Mined areas (pits). • Mine water ditches and water storage ponds. • Upon completion of reclamation and mitigation, the internal water management facilities are removed. Water Control Structures Various water control structures have been and will be installed, that include the retaining berms around the boundaries of active mining and reclamation areas, outlet structures for CSA dams, NPDES outfalls, etc. Upon completion of reclamation and mitigation, all water control structures will be removed. 17.7 Reclamation, Mitigation and Closure Mosaic is subject to state or county requirements to reclaim each acre disturbed by mining operations. In certain circumstances, financial responsibility must be provided to backstop those commitments. Mosaic satisfies these financial responsibilities using mechanisms such as surety bonds, audited financial statements, insurance certificates, financial tests, and corporate guarantees. Financial responsibility mechanisms are updated and submitted to the appropriate agency as required. Additionally, for certain counties, Mosaic’s financial responsibility is reviewed and approved by the Board of County Commissioners on an annual basis. Mosaic is currently in compliance with these reclamation financial responsibilities. Date: December 31, 2021 17-9 Mitigation (Section 17.7.2) is required by the 404 Permits and the WRP/ERPs issued to authorize disturbance of waters of the State and United States. Financial responsibility must be provided commensurate with funding to complete construction and monitoring of the mitigation sites. Once implemented, the conservation easements covering most mitigation sites include long-term management plans and financial responsibility to implement those plans. Closure of the beneficiation plant and associated facilities (see Section 17.7.3), including infrastructure corridors, is regulated by the reclamation obligation according to each site’s approved post-reclamation land use included in the Conceptual Reclamation Plan (CRP). 17.7.1 Reclamation According to 62C-16.0051(12)(b)4, F.A.C. “Reclamation and restoration shall be completed within two (2) years of the actual completion of mining operations, exclusive of the required growing season to ensure the growth of vegetation, except that where sand-clay-mix or other innovative technologies are used, the Department may specify a later date for completion. The required completion date may vary within a reclamation parcel, depending upon the specific type of mining operation conducted.” Due to this reclamation timing requirement, reclamation is completed as mining is ongoing. Annual reports for each active and idle mine site are submitted to the FDEP each year detailing the number of acres mined or disturbed and the amount of land reclaimed within that footprint. The reclaimed acres are provided in three categories; contoured to final grade, revegetated, and released. These detailed reports are public information and can be found on the FDEP website. Additionally, each County requires a separate annual report detailing county requirements. Florida Requirements Rule 62C-16.0075, F.A.C., establishes minimum reclamation requirements in terms of the percent of mined land that must be reclaimed during each five-year interval following commencement of mining operations. If a mine operator fails to comply with this “rate of reclamation rule”, the operator must post a financial security to cover the cost of reclaiming “delinquent acres” and remain in effect until the delinquent acres have been reclaimed. Mosaic is in compliance with the rate of reclamation rule at all active mine sites in Florida, therefore, is not subject to the reclamation financial responsibility requirements. Polk County Requirements Chapter 10, Article III, in the Polk County Code of Ordinances is known as the Polk County Mining Ordinance. The Ordinance imposes no other requirements beyond those established by Chapter 62C-16, F.A.C. at the state level. Hardee County Requirements Section 3.14.02 of the Hardee County LDC establishes the Hardee County Mining Regulations. The Regulations prescribe requirements for preparation and approval of a MMRP for each mine in the County; standards and minimum schedules for the reclamation of mined and disturbed lands; fee schedules; and financial responsibility requirements. The financial responsibility requirements are US$15,000 for each acre of land excavated but not yet reclaimed and $1,000 for each acre- ft. of the maximum above grade volume of the largest CSA. The annual review fee is US$7.00 per acre of mined or disturbed land not yet reclaimed, and the annual monitoring fee is $1.20 per acre of mined land. Manatee County Manatee County Ordinance No. 04-39 is codified as Chapter 2-20 in the Code of Ordinances and is titled The Manatee County Phosphate Mining Code. Generally, the Code imposes requirements to obtain approval of a life-of-mine Master Mining Plan (MMP), that is implemented and governed by issuance of a sequence of 5-year operating permits. The MMP must include a reclamation plan that meets the requirements of the applicable Manatee County Phosphate Mining Reclamation Manual. Reclamation through initial planting must be completed no later than five years after cessation of mining extraction on each specific reclamation unit, with the exception of CSAs. Section 2-22-42 establishes the following financial responsibility mechanisms and amounts: • Insurance


 
Date: December 31, 2021 17-10 o Personal injury coverage = US$5 M; o Property damage = $5 M; and o CSA environmental damage = $25 M or $1,000 for each acre-ft. of above-grade storage in the largest CSA. • Unqualified certified financial statements demonstrating the ability to fund liabilities of not less than: o $3,000 per acre of land to be disturbed during the operating permit term; and o $4,000 for each acre-foot of above-grade storage in the largest existing or proposed CSA. • General Surety Bond equal to $500 for each acre to be disturbed during the operating permit term. • Reclamation bond in an amount equal to 110% of the cost to reclaim each acre of land to be disturbed during the upcoming year plus all land previously disturbed but not yet released by the county as estimated by a registered professional engineer, as well as the cost to physically demolish and dispose of all mine infrastructure not needed after mining and reclamation are complete. Hillsborough County Part 8.02.00 in the Land Development Code establishes the Hillsborough County Phosphate Mining Regulations. The regulations define the requirements for approval of a life-of-mine operating permit; annual reports; standards for operations; standards and minimum schedules for reclamation; fee schedules; and financial responsibility requirements. Generally, physical reclamation work must be completed within four years of completion of mining in each mining unit or use as a CSA or other mine infrastructure. Financial responsibility is calculated annually in the annual report for each acre to be disturbed during the upcoming year plus all land disturbed but not yet released at a rate of $6,113 per acre, which is then escalated from base year 2020 by applying the Construction Cost Index. CSA liability is $1,000 for each acre-ft. of above-grade storage in the largest active CSA. Evidence of financial responsibility may be furnished by current financial statements, corporate guarantees, letters of credit, insurance, surety bonds, or other financial instruments acceptable to the county. 17.7.2 Mitigation Mitigation is required to offset impacts to waters of the state and United States with specific requirements defined in conditions in the 404 Permits and WRP and ERPs that authorize mining. Mitigation credits are generated by: (a) preserving high quality wetlands and streams; (b) enhancing lower quality wetlands and streams avoided by mining operations; (c) creating wetlands and streams on mined land during the reclamation process, and/or (d) purchasing credits from a mitigation bank. Mitigation is sufficient if the sum of the credits from the above-listed actions exceeds the loss of functional value resulting from wetland and stream disturbance associated with mining. The mitigation plan for each site is outlined in the 404, WRP or ERP Permits. Mosaic provides annual reports to the agencies with the status of each site’s mitigation obligation. Information regarding conservation easements that have been granted or committed to as part of these mitigation plans can be found in Section 17.3.3. 17.7.3 Closure Requirements The chemical storage tanks at a beneficiation plant must be closed once operation of the plant ceases. There are no financial responsibility obligations associated with the storage tanks. The financial liabilities associated with current/future reclamation obligations and closure/demolition of the beneficiation plant and associated facilities are discussed in Section 17.7.4. Date: December 31, 2021 17-11 17.7.4 Obligations Upon Asset Retirement Mosaic’s financial liabilities associated with active phosphate facilities consist of current and future reclamation obligations, beneficiation plant closure/demolition, and mitigation obligations. Current liabilities are “net” of reclamation/mitigation work already completed. Life of Mine Estimated Reclamation Costs Mosaic’s current estimate for life of mine reclamation costs for Four Corners, Wingate, and South Fort Meade is $259,664,244. This estimate includes costs for existing reclamation obligations as well as future obligations based on the current mine plan. Beneficiation Plant Closure/Demolition Mosaic retained Burns & McDonnell Engineering Co., Inc to develop site closure plans for each beneficiation plant. A +/- 25% estimate of total closure is included in each site closure plan. The costs include decommissioning costs based on the demolition of the site in mobilization, as well as credits for salvage and recycling. An initial estimate of additional required environmental assessment costs is also included. The costs listed below have been consolidated and include only the active mining facilities (i.e., Four Corners, South Fort Meade, and Wingate). The following costs are based on the reports prepared by Burns & McDonnell Engineering Co., Inc during 2021. Demolition Activities It is estimated that closure cost to complete the facility demolition activities for all existing active mining facilities (including facility buildings and structures, infrastructure, and ACM) is $12,280,600. The anticipated 25% range of the estimate was determined to be $9,210,525 to $15,350,875. Environmental costs are provided for the asbestos abatement and decommissioning of residual universal and regulated waste. Scrap Value The total estimated value of the scrap on-site for all existing active mining facilities is $6,226,800. This includes the process structures. Net Total Estimate The net total estimate (demolition cost – scrap value) for site closure for all existing active mining facilities ranges from $2,983,725 to $9,124,075. Mitigation Liabilities Mosaic must provide financial responsibility to ensure the mitigation work required in the form of wetland and stream creation and enhancement is completed. Annually, Mosaic submits to the FDEP the Financial Assurance documents as required by the WRP/ERP Permit and F.A.C. Rule 62-312.390 utilizing the guarantee specified in subpart H of 40 CFR and/or section 373.414(19)(b)7, F.S. 17.8 Permits and Registrations Mosaic has received all necessary governmental permits and approvals to authorize the mining operations currently being conducted. These approvals can be categorized as discretionary development approvals, operating permits, and licenses/registrations. In addition, a Conceptual Reclamation Plan (CRP) has been approved by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) for each site; however, the CRP does not regulate or authorize mining. Mosaic maintains an extensive database to track each permit and specific condition compliance. Permits for the active and idle sites are renewed as necessary. For future mineral resource areas, such as DeSoto and Pioneer, permits must be obtained from federal, state, and local agencies before any mining activities commence are still needed. Date: December 31, 2021 17-12 17.8.1 Development Approvals The federal approval for each facility consists of a 404 Permit, which includes a certification of conformance with the Endangered Species Act (i.e., USFWS biological opinions), the National Historic Preservation Act, and NEPA. The Florida approval consists of a Wetland Resource Permit (WRP) or an Environmental Resource permit (ERP), that regulate surface water and wetland resources and represents the Section 401 CWA and Section 307 Coastal Zone Management Act state certifications. The local approval consists of DRI or County Land Development Code (LDC) and Master Mining and Reclamation Plan approvals. As noted above, each of these approvals do not require periodic renewals, unlike the operating permits described below. However, most have 5-year compliance review/re-opener conditions. To date, 5-year reviews have found Mosaic to be in compliance with the conditions of approval and have not required any material changes in operations. 17.8.2 Operating Permits Operating permits are issued by FDEP, the Florida Department of Health (FDOH), the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD), and certain Counties. The operating permits authorize activities or actions common to many industries, landowners, and municipalities in Florida. All have defined terms and renewal requirements. Renewal of these types of operating permits is likely throughout the life of the facility, however, it is at the discretion of the authorizing agency. Several have mining-specific requirements or authorizations as described below. The FDEP-issued National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit (also referred to as the Industrial Wastewater Facility Permit), not only represents the federal CWA Section 402 authorization, but also authorizes and regulates discharges to the surficial groundwater aquifer. In addition, the permit authorizes the construction, operation, and abandonment of above-grade impoundments referred to as CSAs. The SWFWMD integrated water use permit (IWUP) authorizes the withdrawal of groundwater from underground aquifers through permitted wells to provide potable and production-water supplies. One IWUP addresses all of the Mosaic’s active mining operations. A separate water use permit (WUP) was issued for the South Pasture facility. The IWUP and the South Pasture WUP also regulate mine dewatering to ensure wetlands and offsite properties are not adversely affected as described above. Certain operating permits include conditions of approval that impose monitoring and/or reporting requirements as described above. All of the operating permits have been issued based on agency findings that the proposed action meets the criteria for permit issuance or renewal. Continued renewals of the operating permits in the future is likely. 17.8.3 Registrations and Licenses Registrations and licenses are, in essence, perfunctory approvals that seldom include discretionary decisions by agency staff. These are for facilities common to many industries (e.g., petroleum storage tanks). 17.8.4 Bureau of Land Management Leases Mineral rights beneath the acreage shown in the table below (Table 17-5) were reserved by the United States. Prior to mining these areas, federal leases were obtained or will be obtained from the U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Mosaic is currently in compliance with this requirement. Date: December 31, 2021 17-13 Table 17-5: Bureau of Land Management Lease Summary Location Acres Total Acres Mined Acres Remaining Four Corners Facility 111.4 49.3 62.1 South Fort Meade Facility 916.6 759.2 157.4 South Pasture Property 41.0 0.0 41.0 DeSoto Property 39.1 0.0 39.1 17.9 Social Considerations, Plans, Negotiations and Agreements The following sub-sections discuss some of the social considerations, plans, negotiations and agreements that Mosaic currently maintains in relation to mining. 17.9.1 Consideration of the Human Environment Consideration of the potential effects of each mine site on the human environment were an integral component of the analyses conducted by the Corps when conducting NEPA reviews. Evaluations under County standards also considered potential impacts to the human environment (Table 17-6). Table 17-6: Human Environment Elements Considered NEPA DRI/County State Historic, cultural, and scenic x x x Property ownership x x NA Safety of impoundment structures x x x Water supply and conservation x x x Energy conservation and development x NA NA Economics x x NA Public health and safety x x x Aesthetics x NA NA Demographics/environmental justice x NA NA Transportation x x NA Government revenue generation NA x NA Land use compatibility NA x NA Issuance of the 404 Permits and County approvals include findings by the Army Corps and the County Commissions that the human environment was considered, and potential impacts were found to be insignificant. Florida Regulatory Agencies also applied certain human environment criteria which must be met under Florida Law as a pre-condition for permit issuance. These state permits include WUP, NPDES, and ERP permits. 17.9.2 Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Program The Mosaic Company has developed and is implementing a company-wide Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) program. Specific quantifiable targets/goals have been adopted for achievement by 2025. The 2025 environmental goals applicable to the mine sites include: • Eliminate significant environmental incidents; • Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% per tonne of product; and • Reduce freshwater use by 20% per tonne of product.


 
Date: December 31, 2021 17-14 17.9.3 Investment in the Environment Mosaic supports organizations that work in watershed restoration, habitat conservation and nutrient stewardship. These programs, respectively, include shoreline restoration and oyster reef installations; improved land management practices and wildlife protection; and 4R nutrient stewardship, that is best management practices for fertilizer application, minimizing field runoff and improving farmer yields. In 2020, Mosaic invested in the following areas: Habitat Conservation $688,063, Nutrient Stewardship $165,500, Watershed Restoration $81,000 for a total of $934,563. 17.9.4 Citizen Advisory Panels Mosaic has organized and implemented a citizen advisory panel (CAP) program in each county where mining is occurring. The CAPs consist of a diverse group of citizens from each county in terms of occupations, demographics, history, etc. A key role of each CAP is to help Mosaic identify and address community impact issues. 17.9.5 Sierra Club Settlement Agreement As noted above, the Sierra Club litigated issuance of the 404 Permit that authorizes SFM Hardee County Extension (SFM- HC). Ultimately, Mosaic and the Sierra Club entered into a settlement agreement. The key provisions of the agreement were: • Avoidance, enhancement and/or CE protection of additional wetlands on SFM-HC; • Additional CE protection of land adjacent to SFM-HC; • Use of recharge wells within a certain mining area; • Additional acreage of reclaimed wetland in the reclamation plan; • Development and implementation of the Peace River Monitoring Plan (PRMP); and • Donation and placement of lands in perpetual conservation. Mosaic is in compliance with the terms of this agreement and submits an annual report to the Sierra Club on the results of the PRMP. 17.9.6 Peace River Stewardship Plan (PRMP) One component of Mosaic’s overall monitoring program is the Peace River Monitoring Plan (PRMP). This monitoring is in addition to the monitoring that is required by Mosaic’s approved permits. The PRMP consists of monitoring water quality and stream biology at locations within the upper, middle, and lower reaches of the river. This monitoring data complements monitoring conducted by government agencies in terms of documenting the chemical and biological conditions in the Peace River and one of its major tributaries. 17.9.7 Horse Creek Stewardship Plan (HCSP) In collaboration with Peace River Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority (PRMRWSA) since 2003, the HCSP is a long-term monthly monitoring agreement of water quality and quantity at several locations within Horse Creek. Horse Creek is a major tributary to the Peace River. The program provides a protocol for collection of information on the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of Horse Creek during Mosaic’s mining activities in the watershed. This monitoring is in addition to the monitoring that is required by Mosaic’s approved permits. Date: December 31, 2021 17-15 17.9.8 Southwest Florida Water Management District Agreement Mosaic entered into an agreement with the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) for public reporting purposes of surface water stage elevation data. Mosaic installed and continues to operate, maintain, and monitor stage level recording devices at eight surface water stations (referred to as “SCADA” Surface Water Level Monitoring). Data is uploaded monthly to the SWFWMD system. Mosaic may terminate the agreement without cause upon thirty days written notice. 17.9.9 United States Geological Survey (USGS) Agreement Mosaic entered into an agreement that requires the USGS to provide continuous water-level data for three gauges on Little Charlie Creek in Hardee County adjacent to the SFM mine. USGS owns, operates, and maintains all three gauges. The agreement may be terminated by either party on 30 days written notice. 17.9.10 Hardee County Economic Development Mosaic has entered into Local Development Agreements (LDAs) with Hardee County to implement Goal E5 of the County’s Comprehensive Plan. The LDA provides resources to achieve economic diversity and maximize sustainability on reclaimed lands through the initiatives advanced by the County’s Economic Development Council/Industrial Development Authority. Mosaic presented a status summary on April 1, 2021 to the Hardee County Board of County Commissioners and is in compliance with the terms of the LDAs. 17.9.11 Manatee County For the promotion and benefit of the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Manatee County, Mosaic has agreed to additional conditions in certain Manatee County approvals/operating permits. These conditions are often referred to as “overriding public benefit”. Mosaic has fulfilled the obligations in those agreements with the exception of the ongoing/future efforts related to the Wingate East permit, including the agreement for Mosaic to pay a portion of the cost to replace the Duette Bridge in Manatee County. Mosaic’s proportionate share for the bridge replacement is approximately $384,000. Mosaic has executed a surety bond to ensure payment of its proportionate share of the bridge replacement costs until Manatee County replaces the Duette Bridge. 17.10 Qualified Person’s Opinion on Adequacy of Current Plans to Address Issues Based on information referenced in Section 17.1, 17.2, 17.3, 17.8, and 17.9, it is the QP’s (Bethany Niec) opinion that Mosaic has monitoring plans in place to evaluate environmental performance to standards applicable to the active phosphate facilities as prescribed by applicable law and permit conditions. Based on the information referenced in Section 17.4, 17.5, 17.6, and 17.7, it is the QP’s (Scott Wuitschick) opinion is that Mosaic has monitoring plans that are designed to minimize the risks of significant environmental incidents in the near future related to the operation of the active phosphate facilities. Date: December 31, 2021 18-1 18.0 Capital and Operating Costs 18.1 Capital Cost Estimates 18.1.1 Basis of Estimate The basis to estimate capital expenditures for the Four Corners, South Fort Meade and Wingate facilities is as follows: • The target accuracy level is at a pre-feasibility level, -25% to +25%. • The estimate was prepared and reported in USD currency. • The estimates have been compiled and organized annually with cost by category. • Mine capital costs include only capital expenditures related to the extraction of the mineral reserves. Expenditures are classified as mine capital if they relate to physical assets, exceed US$10,000, or have a minimum expected useful life of two years. • Expansion costs consist of Land/Reserve acquisitions, field-related mining Infrastructure and equipment additions. These costs are based on currently available engineering estimates. • Sustaining – Geotech / Clay Settling Area (CSA) costs are derived from the mining plan and estimated from unit cost rates that have been established from historical costs. • Sustaining – Other. 1) Dragline and dredge sustaining turnaround timing is based on maintenance schedules and costs are estimated by historical analysis. 2) Field mining (pipe/pumping systems) required to move mined mineral reserves (matrix slurry form) to site beneficiation plant facilities. Costs are based on historical spending in these areas. 3) Electrical infrastructure such as power lines, substations, transformers and other required to sustain operations are estimated from historical spending levels. 4) Plant processing and material handling/loading costs are derived from anticipated production levels and based on historical spending. • Capital cost forecasts are based on planned mine development and construction needs, mobile equipment re- build/replacement schedules, and fixed asset replacement and refurbishment schedules. • The estimate is inclusive of project indirect costs and owner costs as these are captured in the historical cost analysis used to prepare the estimate. • State and County sales tax are included. • Freight and installation are included. • Contingency has not been added. 18.1.2 Exclusions for the Capital Cost Estimate The following has not been included in this capital cost estimate. • Schedule delays and associated costs, such as those caused by unexpected conditions and labor disputes. • Inflation and escalation. • Capital expenditures related to fire, flood and severe weather events (hurricanes, tornados). • General and administrative costs are not allocated to capital projects at Mosaic and have not been included in this cost estimate. Date: December 31, 2021 18-2 18.1.3 Capital Cost Estimate The capital cost estimates for the 2021 LOM plan based on mineral reserves are listed by category in Table 18-2. The total capital for the 2021 LOM plan (2022 to 2035) is estimated at US$1,370 M. Historical costs from 2017 to 2020 and a forecast for 2021 are included. Table 18-1: Historical and LOM Plan Capital (M US$) Year Status Expansion M US$ Sustaining- Geotech / CSAs M US$ Sustaining- Other M US$ Total Capex M US$ 2017 Actual 31.8 28.9 66.6 127.3 2018 Actual 26.4 32.1 59.9 118.4 2019 Actual 107.8 20.5 52.2 180.5 2020 Actual 82.5 47.5 47.3 177.3 2021 Fcast. 147.8 69.2 84.2 301.2 2022 Plan 47.0 90.0 55.3 192.3 2023 Plan 127.7 72.3 57.1 257.0 2024 Plan 137.6 74.7 56.8 269.1 2025 Plan 62.3 63.6 55.1 181.0 2026 Plan 0.0 42.5 56.2 98.7 2027 to 2035 Plan 0.0 123.6 248.4 372.0 Total LOM Plan Plan 374.6 466.6 529.0 1,370.1 18.2 Operating Cost Estimates 18.2.1 Basis of Estimate The basis of estimate used for the mining operating costs are as follows: • The estimate was prepared in USD currency. • Operating costs do not include inflation and are in today’s dollars over the three active mining phosphate facilities (South Fort Meade, Four Corners, and Wingate) LOM plan. • Historical costs are used as the basis for mining operating forecasts and adjustments are made by using a variable cost per tonne. The accuracy of the operating costs is within the required parameters for a pre-feasibility level estimate, -25% to +25%. • Mosaic and contractor labor headcount complement are assumed relatively constant and fixed in total for the LOM plan. • Other operating costs consist of functional, administrative and plant costs. These costs are assumed to remain relatively constant compared to the 2021 forecast. • Depreciation, Depletion and Accretion are excluded from the operating cost estimates listed below. Section 18.1 outlines the expected future capital expenditures and outlay of cashflows over the 2021 LOM plan. • Freight charges are excluded from the operating costs and are shown net of the sales price.


 
Date: December 31, 2021 18-3 18.2.2 Mine Operating Costs Historical costs are used as the basis for mine operating cost forecasts, that are estimated using a long-term cost model. This model accounts for the impact of varying production rates and labor complement. Mine operating costs are organized in the following categories: • Mining cash costs include mining, beneficiation plant, maintenance and direct overhead costs but exclude the clay settling areas, sustaining capital, Geotech costs, and expansion development costs. • Other Operating Costs comprise central and functional overhead allocated costs. These costs consist of services related to warehousing, purchasing, accounting, information technology, environmental and safety, mechanical integrity, asset reliability, and quality control. • Royalties and other Government levies or interests include severance taxes, royalties, and excludes income taxes. The total operating costs supporting the 2021 LOM plan are estimated at US$4,496.1 M. Table 18-3 summarizes them (US$/tonne). Table 18-2: Historical and LOM Plan Cash Costs Year Status Production M tonnes Mining Cash Costs M US$ Other Operating Costs M US$ Royalties and Other Government Levies or Interests M US$ Total Site Cash Costs M US$ 2017 Actual 12.2 352.2 49.1 35.4 436.8 2018 Actual 12.8 372.4 43.9 33.9 450.2 2019 Actual 12.2 388.8 45.1 37.6 471.6 2020 Actual 12.8 377.2 47.5 36.5 461.2 2021 Fcast. 11.7 351.3 49.9 27.8 429.1 2022 Plan 12.2 365.8 51.0 24.9 441.8 2023 Plan 12.5 353.3 51.3 22.8 427.4 2024 Plan 13.4 355.9 51.3 24.4 431.6 2025 Plan 12.8 336.8 47.8 23.4 408.0 2026 Plan 13.0 355.6 49.5 23.9 429.0 2027 to 2035 Plan 63.6 1,952.3 289.1 117.0 2,358.4 Total LOM Plan 127.5 3,719.8 539.9 236.4 4,496.1 Date: December 31, 2021 19-1 19.0 Economic Analysis 19.1 Methodology Used The financial model that supports the mineral reserve and mineral resource declarations is a standalone model that calculates annual cash flows based on scheduled mined production, assumed processing recoveries, commodity sale prices, projected operating and capital costs, estimated taxes along with anticipated reclamation and decommissioning costs. This economic analysis includes sensitivities to variations in operating parameters to assist the reader in understanding the sensitivities that the life of mine net present value (NPV) has with respect to changes in material economic assumptions and drivers. NPV results are based on end-of-year discounting. All monetary amounts are presented in United States dollars (US$). 19.2 Financial Model Inputs, Parameters and Assumptions The financial model treats 2022 as the base year cash flow and does not discount these results. The model projects the cashflows generated from mining from the base year to the end of the scheduled mineral reserves. The sum of the discounted cashflows reflects the discounted value as of December 31, 2022. The following outlines the input, parameters and assumptions used in the financial model. • The active mining facilities consist of Four Corners, Wingate and South Fort Meade. • The planned production life based on mineral reserves is from 2022 to 2035. • The LOM plan assumed mineral transfer prices discussed in Section 16 and applied in the financial model. • Total capital for the LOM plan is estimated as $1,370 M. This includes all the capital required for mine development and other sustaining capital to maintain the equipment and infrastructure and to support continuing operations from 2022 to 2035. • The mining costs include the direct labor, materials and direct costs incurred through mine operations. Other operating costs includes the central administrative and allocated costs. • The mines pay a severance tax to State of Florida of approximately $1.80/tonne mined ore each year. • Florida sales and use tax applies to taxable goods and certain taxable services acquired by the Florida Phosphate facilities. The rate is approximately 7.5% in total and comprises a state and county portion. • Property taxes are assessed by County Assessors and collected by County Treasurers with oversight from Property Tax Division. Florida collects Realty and Tangible Personal Property taxes. • Mosaic is taxed on its taxable income in the United States. It is taxed at the Federal and State level. The total statutory tax rate is 22.4%, consisting of a 21% Federal rate and a 1.4% State rate (net of Federal benefit). • Reclamation and closure related costs of approximately $260 M were included in the financial model. This estimate is informed from the work undertaken each year to estimate the asset retirement obligations for financial and compliance reporting purposes. The costs relating to closure of the facilities include all demolition, reclamation and decommissioning costs, net of the estimated salvage and scrap proceeds. Since many of the reclamation and decommissioning obligations extend well beyond the mine closure date, these cashflow obligations were discounted back to 2035 and included in the cashflows analysis as one discounted value as at end of year 2035. • The economic analysis is based on 100% equity financing. Date: December 31, 2021 19-2 • The financing and capital structure of mines were not considered in the analysis. The earnings are reduced for a notional cash income tax expense. • The economic analysis is based on 2021 prices and future values have not been adjusted for inflation. • The discounted cashflow analysis applies end of year discounting and uses a discount rate of 9.22%. 19.3 Economic Analysis The net present value analysis reflects that there is significant economic value associated with Florida mineral reserves, given the economic assumptions and operating parameters considered. The financial model reflects an after-tax net present value of approximately US$3,439 M, utilizing a discount rate of 9.22%. Table 19-1 outlines the results of the economic analysis of the mineral reserves in the 2021 LOM plan. Table 19-2 shows the annualized cash flow for the 2021 LOM plan. Table 19-1: Economic Analysis Summary NPV Discount Rate 9.22% 3,439,061 Economic Feasibility Summary Capex 000's $USD 1,370,100 Projected Cash Flow excluding Capital 6,990,640 Cash Flow 5,620,540 2022 - 2035 Phosphate Rock Volume 000s' Tonnes 127,465 Date: December 31, 2021 19-3 Table 19-2: Cash Flow Analysis Sales Price ($USD / Tonne) 103$ 103$ 103$ 103$ 103$ 103$ 103$ 103$ Phosphate Rock Volume (000's Tonnes) 12,199 12,450 13,365 12,774 13,047 51,920 11,711 127,465 Discount Rate 9.2% 9.2% 9.2% 9.2% 9.2% 9.2% 9.2% 9.2% Phospate 1,256,461$ 1,282,348$ 1,376,609$ 1,315,698$ 1,343,850$ 5,347,713 1,206,237 13,128,917$ Sales Revenue (FOB Mine [or Port for CMMM]) 1,256,461$ 1,282,348$ 1,376,609$ 1,315,698$ 1,343,850$ 5,347,713 1,206,237 13,128,917$ Mining 365,847$ 353,342$ 355,909$ 336,765$ 355,605$ 1,601,451 350,851 3,719,771$ Other Operating Costs 51,038$ 51,265$ 51,271$ 47,842$ 49,450$ 234,211 54,871 539,949$ Resource Taxes, Royalties and Other Government Levies or Interests 24,874$ 22,779$ 24,417$ 23,381$ 23,880$ 95,592 21,452 236,374$ Cash Costs of Production 441,759$ 427,387$ 431,596$ 407,988$ 428,936$ 1,931,254 427,174 4,496,094$ Income Taxes Income Tax 138,439$ 146,502$ 164,512$ 155,793$ 158,975$ 496,162 122,136 1,382,518$ ARO Reclamation and Closure 266$ 1,743$ 4,831$ 10,058$ 15,766$ 117,526 109,475 259,664$ Capital Expenditures Capital Expenditures 192,300$ 257,010$ 269,110$ 181,020$ 98,680$ 355,780 16,200 1,370,100$ Cash Flow Annual Net Cash Flow 483,698$ 449,707$ 506,560$ 560,838$ 641,493$ 2,446,992 531,252 5,620,540$ Economic Viability Net Present Value 3,439,061$ 2032-2035 2022-2035 LOM2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027-2031S-K 1300 - Florida Assumptions 00 0' s $U SD Revenue Costs of Production


 
Date: December 31, 2021 19-4 19.4 Sensitivity Analysis A sensitivity analysis is shown in the Figure 19-1 utilizing the following factors. • Phosphate rock price • Total operating cost • Total capital cost The sensitivity analysis of the 2021 LOM plan is presented in Figure 19-1. The LOM plan NPV is most sensitive to the phosphate rock price followed by operating costs and capital costs. • The commodity price sensitivity tests the impact that a 20% change would have on sales revenue along with the resulting expense impacts of royalties, severance taxes and income taxes. A 20% decrease in commodity price will generate a significant positive NPV. • If the operating costs were to increase 20% from those currently estimated, Florida Phosphate Mining will remain economically viable, yielding a positive NPV. • The capital spending sensitivity assumes a 20% change to annual capital spending requirements each year. If the capital costs were to increase 20% from those currently estimated, Florida Phosphate Mining will remain economically viable, yielding a positive NPV. Figure 19-1: Sensitivity Results on NPV Date: December 31, 2021 20-1 20.0 Adjacent Properties No information from adjacent properties has been included in the preceding sections of this Report. All information used and included in this report is the result of geology, engineering, mining, environmental and processing etc. activities completed at the mines. Properties adjacent to the mining facilities and exploration properties are owned by many individuals and other parties. These properties have a level of historical exploratory drilling already completed. This drilling is of varying quality but does provide information on the potential for additional phosphate mineralization. Mosaic has access to the majority of the drill hole information from the adjacent properties and uses this to make decisions on future property acquisitions. There is no publicly disclosed information or mineral resource estimates from the owners of the adjacent properties. Table 20-1 provides a Mosaic generated order of magnitude range estimate of the exploration potential on the adjacent properties to the Florida Phosphate Mining facilities and properties. Table 20-1: Order of Magnitude Exploration Potential Estimate on Adjacent Properties Estimated Number of Owners Approximate Acreage (Acres) Tonnage Estimate (M tonnes) 500 to 1,500 10,000 to 15,000 50 to 150 M Date: December 31, 2021 21-1 21.0 Other Relevant Data and Information All data relevant to the estimation of the Florida Phosphate Mining mineral resources and mineral reserves has been included in the sections of this Technical Report Summary. Date: December 31, 2021 22-1 22.0 Interpretation and Conclusions 22.1 Mineral Resources The following is a summary of the key interpretations and conclusions relating to the mineral resource estimates: • All of the land included in mineral resource estimation is controlled by Mosaic. Any outstanding mineral rights without lease agreements are not significant and do not represent a risk to mineral resource estimate. • The geology team has a strong understanding of the lithology, stratigraphy and phosphate mineralization. The available data is appropriate to support the geological interpretation for this style of mineralization. • The geologic and deposit related knowledge has been considered and applied in support of exploration, interpretation, and mineral resource estimation processes used by the Florida Phosphate geology team. • Exploration data collection methods follow industry standard practices that were in place at the time of the various past and current exploration campaigns. • Data that does not meet the standards for reliability are removed from the mineral resource estimation process. • The validated geological information is considered reliable, representative and is fit for purpose in developing a geological model and for mineral resource estimates, as well as for use in other modifying factors studies including mine design, scheduling and mineral reserve estimation. • The appropriate internal data verification and data validation work on historical and recent exploration data to ensure the geological information is reliable, representative, and free of material errors or omissions has been completed. • The sample preparation, security, and analytical procedures that have been utilized at Florida Phosphate mining facilities are suitable to support mineral resource and mineral reserve estimation. • The analytical procedures, data quality and quantity are aligned with industry standards and practice. The data received from the A-Lab and the QAQC processes validating is within industry standards to drive and support conclusions regarding the actual processes. • The current mining processes and methods employed at the Florida phosphate mines support the establishment of reasonable prospects for economic extraction for the Florida Phosphates mineral resource estimates. • The active facilities have power and water infrastructure and staffing plans needed to operate efficiently. Each facility is readily accessible by municipal roads and private rail service. • The mature nature of Florida phosphate mining and the good understanding of the continuity of the phosphate mineralization, supports the establishment of reasonable prospects for economic extraction for the Florida Phosphates mineral resource estimates. • Mosaic’s active phosphate facilities are well established and have been producing for over 40 years. There are no issues that require further work relating to relevant technical and economic factors that are likely to influence the prospect of economic extraction. • The classification of mineral resources into confidence classes measured, indicated, and inferred considered geological confidence, uncertainty and the distribution of the geological and mining data. Risks or uncertainties associated with the Florida Phosphate Mining mineral resource estimates are: • There are a number of uncertainties (Section 11.9) that exist at the mines that could impact the mineral resource estimates. They are considered as areas of future mineral resource estimation improvements. • Historically, there has not been external third-party data verification and mineral resource estimation audits completed. • Drilling density variation is observed occasionally through the drilling programs. This adds some uncertainty to tonnage estimates.


 
Date: December 31, 2021 22-2 • As enhancements are pursued to allow the mining of higher impurity or heavier clay material, the mineral resource estimates may change. 22.2 Mineral Reserves The following is a summary of the key interpretations and conclusions relating to the mineral reserve estimates and supporting modifying factors. • The mineralization, mining, processing, and environmental aspects of the facilities are very well understood. The operational and technical knowledge has been appropriately used in the development of the LOM plan and mineral reserve estimates. • Land included in the LOM plans is controlled. Any outstanding mineral rights without lease agreements are not significant and do not represent a risk to the LOM plan. • The reconciliation process used to develop mine modifying factors is adequate to produce LOM plans. • The modeling creation procedure is sufficient to generate accurate LOM plan. • The mines have appropriate power and water infrastructure and are staffed with ample personnel needed to operate efficiently. The facilities are readily accessible by municipal roads and private rail service. • Years of historical operational data and observations have been adequately documented. • The mineral reserve estimate has been prepared to comply with all disclosure standards for mineral reserves under S-K 1300 reporting requirements. • The mineral reserve estimates are based on a 2021 LOM plan, employing proven industry and practical methods of mining applicable to the type of mineralization and are demonstrated to be economic through a supporting economic evaluation. • The facilities have the appropriate equipment for mining and have identified and scheduled the capital spending required to provide the required equipment fleet size and capacity, and labor staffing to support the LOM plan. • The mining and material transport processes have been shown to be effective from a cost, reliability, and production standpoint. • Beneficiation recovery relies upon standardized metallurgical and analytical testing. The metallurgical and analytical testing and historical data are adequate for the estimation of recovery factors supporting the mineral reserves. The metallurgical test work is performed on samples that are considered to be representative of the mineralization styles and mineralogy. The data quality and quantity are aligned with industry standards. Beneficiation recovery factors are based on appropriate metallurgical test work and confirmed with production data. • There is sufficient infrastructure in place to support the mining and processing activities at the mines. • The management of all environmental aspects, permitting and social considerations at all Mosaic facilities is guided by Mosaic’s Environmental, Health and Safety Policy, the Mosaic Management System Program and Procedures, and current legal and regulatory requirements. Mosaic understands the sustainability of their business and communities are indelibly linked and strives to be a thoughtful and engaged neighbor who invests carefully and generously and seeks long-term partnerships with organizations that are making a difference. • Mosaic has monitoring plans in place to evaluate the environmental performance to standards as prescribed by applicable law and permit conditions. • Closure plans are completed, representing current land disturbance conditions and anticipated land disturbance conditions at the end of the LOM plan. • Beneficiation recovery factors estimated are based on appropriate metallurgical test work and confirmed with production data. Date: December 31, 2021 22-3 • The economic results and sensitivity analysis for the mineral reserves indicates that the mines can withstand 20% variations in the key cash flow components. • Future new technology and innovation may be relevant to mining operations. The technological and process efficiencies that may be achieved have not been factored into the LOM and economic assessments. The benefit of achieving these targets along with the operational efficiencies that will be enabled by new technologies in the years that follow, create potential for significant upside to the cashflows presented. Risks or uncertainties associated with the Florida Phosphate Mining mineral reserve estimates are: • There are a number of uncertainties that exist at mines that could impact the mineral reserve estimates. They are considered as areas of future mineral reserve estimation improvements. • The current reconciliation process limits comparison to the lithologic units that pass mineability criteria. When unmineable units are considered, the mineral reserve estimate could change. • A more robust design and timing software that considers the complexity of the mineralization and more complex mining conditions, could change the mineral reserve estimate. • There is a risk and opportunity associated with the variation of pricing on product sale prices and the prices of operational and capital materials and services. The sensitivity analysis is provided to help understand the impact that this risk could have on net present value. • Over the lengthy time span there is risk that the amount of annually invested capital required to sustain the plant could fluctuate above the levels estimated. Date: December 31, 2021 23-4 23.0 Recommendations Based on current project status, the QP’s are not recommending additional work at this time. However, the following recommendations have been identified to further enhance internal processes and planning. • Mosaic will continue to investigate and consider new innovations in phosphate mining and processing technology. • A thorough production reconciliation process will be considered to further improve and support the mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates. Sample and measuring points will be revisited and assessed. • The current central Florida exploration plan will be further refined to better define future opportunities for mineral resource and mineral reserve expansion. • Mosaic will consider increasing the drilling density in the indicated and inferred mineral resource areas. • Investigate new technology to improve the efficiency of core sample processing and sample tracking. • A more robust modeling software for mineral resource estimates will be considered. • Investigate the use of optimization processes for improving mineral resource limits. • The process of acquiring additional land adjacent to the operating mines should continue as this adds mineral resources and mineral reserves to the LOM plan. • More samplers at the beneficiation plants would help monitor the flotation performance for each circuit. • Completion of plant step tests are recommended to evaluate changes in the minerology, or verify correct setpoints when draglines have moved to a new area. Date: December 31, 2021 24-1 24.0 References Altschuler, ZS, Dwornik EJ, Kramer H. 1963. Transformation of montmorillonite to kaolinite during weathering. Science 141 (3576): pp. 148-152. Blakely, A.F (1973). The Discovery of Phosphate Rock in Florida. The Florida Phosphate Industry: A History of the Development and Use of a Vital Mineral (pp. 19 and 22). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Wertheim Committee, Harvard University. Brewster-Wingard, G.L., Scott, T.M., Edwards, L.E., Weedman, S.D., and Simmons, K.R., 1997, Reinterpretation of the peninsular Florida Oligocene: an integrated stratigraphic approach: Sedimentary Geology, v. 108, pp. 207-228. Cunningham, K., McNeill, D., Guertin, L., Ciesielski, P., Scott, T., and de Verteuil, L., 1998, New Tertiary stratigraphy for the Florida Keys and southern peninsula of Florida: Bulletin, Geological Society of America, v. 110, n. 2, pp. 231- 258. Cunningham, K., Locker, S. D., Hine, A. C., Bukry, D., Barron, J. A., and Guertin, L. A., 2003, Interplay of late Cenozoic siliciclastic supply and carbonate response on the southeast Florida Platform: Journal of Sedimentary Research, Vol. 73, no. 1, pp. 31-46. CRU International Ltd., Phosphate Rock Database, August 2021 Guertin, L. A., 1998, A late Cenozoic mixed carbonate/siliciclastic system, South Florida: lithostratigraphy, chronostratigraphy and sea-level record: Ph. D. dissertation, University of Miami, pp. 424. Guertin, L.A., Missimer, T. M., and McNeill, D. F., 2000, Hiatal duration of correlative sequence boundaries from Oligocene-Pliocene mixed carbonate/siliciclastic sediments of the south Florida Platform: Sedimentary Geology Vol. 134, pp. 1-26. Missimser, T. M., Maliva, R. G., Walker, C. W., and Owosina, E., 2000, Anatomy of a nearshore mixed siliciclastic-carbonate deposit, the Plio-Pleistocene of southern Broward County, Florida: Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies Transactions, Vol. L, pp. 111-128. Missimser, T. M., 2001, Siliciclastic facies belt formation and the Late Oligocene to Middle Miocene partial drowning of the southern Florida Platform: Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies Transactions, Vol. LI, pp. 229-238. Missimser, T. M., 2002, Late Oligocene to Pliocene evolution of the central portion of the south Florida Platform: Mixing of siliciclastic and carbonate sediments: Florida Geological Survey Bulletin 65, 184 p., 6 plates. Randazzo, A. F., 1997, The sedimentary platform of Florida: Mesozoic to Cenozoic: in Randazzo, A. F., and Jones, D. S., 1997, The geology of Florida, University Press, Gainesville, FL, pp. 39-56. Schmidt, W., 1997, Geomorphology and physiography of Florida: in Randazzo, A. F., and Jones, D. S., 1997, The geology of Florida, University Press, Gainesville, FL, pp. 1-12. Scott, T. M., 1988, the lithostratigraphy of the Hawthorn Group (Miocene) of Florida: Florida Geological Survey Bulletin 59, pp. 148. Warzeski, E. R., Cunningham, K. J., Ginsburg, R. N., Anderson, J. B., and Ding, Z. D., 1996, Neogene mixed siliciclastic and carbonate foundation for the Quaternary carbonate shelf, Florida Keys: Journal of Sedimentary Research, Vol. 66, pp. 788-800. Winston, G.O., 1991, Atlas of structural evolution and facies development on the Florida-


 
Date: December 31, 2021 24-2 Bahama Platform – Triassic through Paleocene: Miami Geological Society, 39 pp. Date: December 31, 2021 25-1 25.0 Reliance on Information Provided by the Registrant Table 25-1 outlines the information provided from the Registrant (Mosaic) for use by the QPs in the writing of the Florida Phosphate Mining TRS. Table 25-1: Information Provided by the Registrant Brian Ball 16. Market Studies Marketing information including commodity price and exchange rates Brian Ball 18.Capital and Operating Costs 19. Economic Analysis Royalties and other accommodations; Taxes and other governmental factors Mine closure costs


 
Esterhazy Potash Facility Saskatchewan, Canada Technical Report Summary Esterhazy Potash Facility Technical Report Summary Effective December 31, 2021 CONTENTS 1.0 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Property Location ..................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.3 Ownership and Status ............................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.4 Mineral Tenure, Surface Rights, Water Rights, Royalties and Agreements ............................................ 1-1 1.5 Geology and Mineralization ..................................................................................................................... 1-2 1.6 Mineral Resource Estimate ...................................................................................................................... 1-3 1.7 Mineral Reserve Estimation ..................................................................................................................... 1-6 1.8 Mining Method ........................................................................................................................................ 1-7 1.9 Recovery Methods ................................................................................................................................... 1-7 1.10 Infrastructure ............................................................................................................................................ 1-7 1.11 Markets and Contracts .............................................................................................................................. 1-8 1.12 Environmental, Permitting and Social Considerations ............................................................................. 1-8 1.13 Capital Cost and Operating Cost Estimates.............................................................................................. 1-8 1.14 Economic Analysis................................................................................................................................... 1-9 1.15 Interpretations and Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 1-9 1.16 Recommendations .................................................................................................................................... 1-9 2.0 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 Registrant ................................................................................................................................................. 2-1 2.2 Purpose and Terms of Reference ............................................................................................................. 2-1 2.3 Abbreviations and Units ........................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.4 Qualified Persons (QP) ............................................................................................................................ 2-2 2.5 Effective Dates ......................................................................................................................................... 2-3 2.6 Information Sources and References ........................................................................................................ 2-3 2.7 Previous Technical Report Summaries .................................................................................................... 2-4 3.0 Property Description ................................................................................................................................ 3-1 3.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 3-1 3.2 Property and Title ..................................................................................................................................... 3-2 3.2.1 Mineral Title ........................................................................................................................................ 3-2 3.2.2 Surface Rights ...................................................................................................................................... 3-8 3.2.3 Water Rights ........................................................................................................................................ 3-8 3.2.4 Royalties .............................................................................................................................................. 3-8 3.3 Encumbrances .......................................................................................................................................... 3-8 3.4 Significant Factors and Risks That May Affect Access, Title or Work Programs ................................... 3-8 4.0 Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography ............................................. 4-1 4.1 Physiography ............................................................................................................................................ 4-1 4.1.1 Topography, Elevation and Vegetation ............................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Accessibility ............................................................................................................................................. 4-1 4.3 Climate ..................................................................................................................................................... 4-3 4.3.1 Climate ................................................................................................................................................. 4-3 4.3.2 Length of Operating Season ................................................................................................................ 4-3 4.4 Infrastructure/Local Resources ................................................................................................................ 4-3 4.4.1 Water ................................................................................................................................................... 4-3 4.4.2 Power and Electricity ........................................................................................................................... 4-3 4.4.3 Natural Gas .......................................................................................................................................... 4-3 4.4.4 Roads and Logistics ............................................................................................................................. 4-3 4.4.5 Personnel ............................................................................................................................................. 4-4 4.4.6 Supplies ............................................................................................................................................... 4-4 5.0 History ...................................................................................................................................................... 5-1 6.0 Geological Setting, Mineralization and Deposit ...................................................................................... 6-1 6.1 Deposit Type ............................................................................................................................................ 6-1 6.2 Regional Geology..................................................................................................................................... 6-1 6.3 Local Geology .......................................................................................................................................... 6-6 6.3.1 Stratigraphy ......................................................................................................................................... 6-6 6.3.2 Stratigraphic Anomalies ...................................................................................................................... 6-7 6.4 Property Geology ..................................................................................................................................... 6-9 6.4.1 Esterhazy Potash Deposit ..................................................................................................................... 6-9 6.4.2 Deposit Dimensions ........................................................................................................................... 6-10 6.4.3 Lithologies ......................................................................................................................................... 6-10 6.4.4 Structure ............................................................................................................................................. 6-12 6.4.5 Mineralization .................................................................................................................................... 6-12 7.0 Exploration ............................................................................................................................................... 7-1 7.1 Exploration ............................................................................................................................................... 7-1 7.1.1 Grids and Surveys ................................................................................................................................ 7-1 7.1.2 Geological Mapping ............................................................................................................................ 7-1 7.1.3 Geochemistry ....................................................................................................................................... 7-1 7.1.4 Seismic Survey Geophysics ................................................................................................................. 7-1 7.1.5 Petrology, Mineralogy, and Research Studies ..................................................................................... 7-3 7.1.6 Exploration Potential ........................................................................................................................... 7-3 7.2 Drilling ..................................................................................................................................................... 7-3 7.2.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................................. 7-3 7.2.2 Drilling Supporting Mineral Resource Estimates ................................................................................ 7-3 7.2.3 Drilling Excluded from the Mineral Resource Estimates .................................................................... 7-5 7.2.4 Drill Methods ....................................................................................................................................... 7-9 7.2.5 Geological Logging ............................................................................................................................. 7-9 7.2.6 Recovery ............................................................................................................................................ 7-11 7.2.7 Collar Surveys ................................................................................................................................... 7-11 7.3 Chip Sampling ........................................................................................................................................ 7-11 7.4 QP Interpretation of the Exploration Information .................................................................................. 7-12 8.0 Sample Preparation, Analyses and Security ............................................................................................. 8-1 8.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 8-1 8.2 Sampling Method ..................................................................................................................................... 8-1 8.2.1 Procedures: Core .................................................................................................................................. 8-1 8.2.2 Quality Control: Core .......................................................................................................................... 8-2 8.2.3 Procedure: In-Mine Chip Samples ....................................................................................................... 8-2 8.2.4 Quality Control: In-Mine Chip Samples .............................................................................................. 8-3 8.3 Sample Preparation .................................................................................................................................. 8-4 8.3.1 Procedures: Core .................................................................................................................................. 8-4 8.3.2 Quality Assurance and Quality Control: Core ..................................................................................... 8-4 8.3.3 Procedures: In-Mine Chip Samples ..................................................................................................... 8-4 8.3.4 Quality Assurance and Quality Control: In-Mine Chip Samples ......................................................... 8-5 8.4 Assaying and Analytical Procedures ........................................................................................................ 8-5 8.4.1 Procedures: Core .................................................................................................................................. 8-5 8.4.2 Quality Assurance and Quality Control: Core ..................................................................................... 8-6 8.4.3 Procedures: In-Mine Chip Samples ..................................................................................................... 8-6 8.4.4 Quality Assurance and Quality Control: In-Mine Chip Samples ......................................................... 8-6 8.5 Sample Security ....................................................................................................................................... 8-7 8.5.1 Core ..................................................................................................................................................... 8-7 8.5.2 In-Mine Chip Samples ......................................................................................................................... 8-7 8.6 Database ................................................................................................................................................... 8-7 8.6.1 Core ..................................................................................................................................................... 8-7 8.6.2 In-Mine Chip Samples ......................................................................................................................... 8-8 8.7 QP Opinion on Sample Preparation, Security, and Analytical Procedures .............................................. 8-8 9.0 Data Verification ...................................................................................................................................... 9-1 9.1 QP and Internal Data Verification ............................................................................................................ 9-1 9.2 External Data Verification ....................................................................................................................... 9-2 9.3 QP Opinion on Data Adequacy ................................................................................................................ 9-2 10.0 Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing ....................................................................................... 10-1 10.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 10-1 10.2 On Site Laboratories .............................................................................................................................. 10-1 10.3 Quality Control ...................................................................................................................................... 10-2 10.4 Database and Records ............................................................................................................................ 10-3 10.5 Metallurgical Testwork .......................................................................................................................... 10-3 10.6 Recovery Estimates ................................................................................................................................ 10-4 10.7 Metallurgical Variability ........................................................................................................................ 10-4 10.8 Deleterious Elements ............................................................................................................................. 10-4 10.9 QP Opinion on Data Adequacy .............................................................................................................. 10-4 11.0 Mineral Resource Estimates ................................................................................................................... 11-1 11.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 11-1 11.2 Key Assumptions ................................................................................................................................... 11-1 11.3 Estimation Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 11-1 11.4 Exploratory Data Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 11-3 11.5 Validation ............................................................................................................................................... 11-3 11.6 Confidence Classification of Mineral Resource Estimate ...................................................................... 11-4 11.7 Reasonable Prospects of Economic Extraction ...................................................................................... 11-5 11.8 Mineral Resource Statement .................................................................................................................. 11-6 11.9 Uncertainties (Factors) That May Affect the Mineral Resource Estimate ............................................. 11-9 12.0 Mineral Reserve Estimates ..................................................................................................................... 12-1 12.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 12-1 12.2 Key Assumptions ................................................................................................................................... 12-1 12.3 Estimation Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 12-1 12.4 Mineral Reserve Statement .................................................................................................................... 12-2 12.5 Uncertainties (Factors) That May Affect the Mineral Reserve Estimate ............................................... 12-5 13.0 Mining Methods ..................................................................................................................................... 13-1 13.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 13-1


 
13.2 Underground Mining and Development Process ................................................................................... 13-1 13.2.1 ROGA (Rotating Ore Grade Analyzer) ............................................................................................. 13-8 13.2.2 Geotechnical Considerations ............................................................................................................. 13-9 13.2.3 Hydrogeological Considerations ...................................................................................................... 13-10 13.3 Mine Design and Operations ................................................................................................................ 13-11 13.3.1 Production Plan/Life of Mine Plan .................................................................................................. 13-11 13.3.2 Planning Assumptions ..................................................................................................................... 13-13 13.3.3 Mining Sequence ............................................................................................................................. 13-14 13.3.4 Blasting and Explosives ................................................................................................................... 13-16 13.3.5 Ventilation ....................................................................................................................................... 13-16 13.3.6 Ore and Waste Handling .................................................................................................................. 13-17 13.3.7 Backfill ............................................................................................................................................ 13-18 13.3.8 Water Management .......................................................................................................................... 13-18 13.3.9 Underground Infrastructure Facilities .............................................................................................. 13-19 13.3.10 Operational Cut-off Grades ............................................................................................................. 13-19 13.3.11 Mine Production Monitoring ........................................................................................................... 13-19 13.3.12 Equipment ........................................................................................................................................ 13-19 13.3.13 Personnel ......................................................................................................................................... 13-21 14.0 Recovery Methods ................................................................................................................................. 14-1 14.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 14-1 14.2 Flowsheets .............................................................................................................................................. 14-1 14.3 Plant Throughput and Design ................................................................................................................. 14-4 14.3.1 Key Metrics ....................................................................................................................................... 14-4 14.3.2 Equipment Characteristics and Specifications ................................................................................... 14-6 14.3.3 Water and Energy Requirements ....................................................................................................... 14-8 14.3.4 Personnel ......................................................................................................................................... 14-10 15.0 Infrastructure .......................................................................................................................................... 15-1 15.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 15-1 15.2 Roads and Logistics ............................................................................................................................... 15-5 15.3 Tailings Storage Facilities ...................................................................................................................... 15-5 15.4 Brine Management Structures ................................................................................................................ 15-6 15.5 Built Infrastructure ................................................................................................................................. 15-6 15.6 Power and Electrical .............................................................................................................................. 15-7 15.7 Natural Gas ............................................................................................................................................ 15-7 15.8 Water Supply .......................................................................................................................................... 15-7 16.0 Market Studies and Contracts ................................................................................................................ 16-1 16.1 Markets .................................................................................................................................................. 16-1 16.2 Commodity Price Forecasts ................................................................................................................... 16-1 16.3 Contracts ................................................................................................................................................ 16-2 17.0 Environmental Studies, Permitting and Plans, Negotiations or Agreements with Local Individuals or Groups 17-1 17.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 17-1 17.2 Baseline and Supporting Studies ............................................................................................................ 17-1 17.3 Environmental Considerations/Monitoring Programs ............................................................................ 17-3 17.3.1 Environmental Considerations ........................................................................................................... 17-3 17.3.2 Environmental Monitoring ................................................................................................................ 17-4 17.3.3 Incidents and Releases ....................................................................................................................... 17-6 17.4 Stockpiles ............................................................................................................................................... 17-6 17.4.1 General Waste Management .............................................................................................................. 17-6 17.4.2 Hazardous Substances and Waste Dangerous Goods ........................................................................ 17-6 17.5 Waste Rock Storage Facilities ................................................................................................................ 17-6 17.6 Tailings Storage Facility ........................................................................................................................ 17-7 17.6.1 Tailings Pile ....................................................................................................................................... 17-7 17.6.2 Brine Pond and Flood Containment Pond.......................................................................................... 17-7 17.6.3 Solids and Surface Brine Control ...................................................................................................... 17-7 17.6.4 Deep Well Injection ........................................................................................................................... 17-7 17.7 Water Management ................................................................................................................................ 17-8 17.7.1 Freshwater ......................................................................................................................................... 17-8 17.7.2 Runoff ................................................................................................................................................ 17-9 17.7.3 Wastewater ........................................................................................................................................ 17-9 17.8 Closure and Reclamation Considerations ............................................................................................... 17-9 17.8.1 Decommissioning and Reclamation Guidelines .............................................................................. 17-10 17.8.2 Site Investigation and Reclamation Plan ......................................................................................... 17-10 17.9 Permitting ............................................................................................................................................. 17-15 17.10 Social Considerations, Plans, Negotiations and Agreements ............................................................... 17-15 17.11 Qualified Person’s Opinion on Adequacy of Current Plans to Address Issues .................................... 17-15 18.0 Capital and Operating Costs ................................................................................................................. 18-16 18.1 Capital Cost Estimates ......................................................................................................................... 18-16 18.1.1 Basis of Estimate ............................................................................................................................. 18-16 18.1.2 Exclusions for the Capital Cost Estimate ......................................................................................... 18-16 18.1.3 Capital Cost Estimate....................................................................................................................... 18-17 18.2 Operating Cost Estimates ..................................................................................................................... 18-17 18.2.1 Basis of Estimate ............................................................................................................................. 18-17 18.2.2 Mine Operating Costs ...................................................................................................................... 18-18 19.0 Economic Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 19-1 19.1 Methodology Used ................................................................................................................................. 19-1 19.2 Financial Model Inputs, Parameters and Assumptions .......................................................................... 19-1 19.3 Economic Analysis................................................................................................................................. 19-2 19.4 Sensitivity Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 19-5 20.0 Adjacent Properties ................................................................................................................................ 20-1 21.0 Other Relevant Data and Information .................................................................................................... 21-1 22.0 Interpretation and Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 22-1 22.1 Mineral Resources .................................................................................................................................. 22-1 22.2 Mineral Reserves .................................................................................................................................... 22-2 23.0 Recommendations .................................................................................................................................. 23-1 24.0 References .............................................................................................................................................. 24-1 25.0 Reliance on Information Provided by the Registrant ............................................................................. 25-1 TABLES Table 1-1: 2021 Mineral Resources ........................................................................................................................... 1-4 Table 1-2: 2021 Mineral Reserves ............................................................................................................................. 1-6 Table 2-1: List of Units and Abbreviations ............................................................................................................... 2-1 Table 2-2: Qualified Persons ..................................................................................................................................... 2-2 Table 2-3: Reliance on Other Experts ........................................................................................................................ 2-4 Table 3-1: Crown Mineral Leases ............................................................................................................................. 3-4 Table 3-2: Sections and Acreages Owned by the Crown ........................................................................................... 3-4 Table 3-3: Sections and Acreages of Mosaic Owned Mineral Rights ....................................................................... 3-5 Table 3-4: Partial Mineral Rights Area ...................................................................................................................... 3-6 Table 5-1: Esterhazy History Summary ..................................................................................................................... 5-1 Table 5-2: Esterhazy Production History (1962 to 2021) .......................................................................................... 5-3 Table 7-1: Drill Summary Table Supporting Mineral Resource Estimates ............................................................... 7-6 Table 8-1: Digital Photograph Records ..................................................................................................................... 8-2 Table 8-2: Esterhazy Geological Bed Names and Average Thickness ...................................................................... 8-3 Table 10-1: Regular On-Site Laboratory Testing .................................................................................................... 10-1 Table 10-2: Notable Frequency of Samples............................................................................................................. 10-2 Table 10-3: Sample Accuracy and Precision ........................................................................................................... 10-3 Table 11-1: 2021 Mineral Resources ....................................................................................................................... 11-7 Table 12-1: 2021 Mineral Reserves ......................................................................................................................... 12-3 Table 13-1: Development Design Criteria ............................................................................................................... 13-5 Table 13-2: Production Panel Development Design Criteria ................................................................................... 13-8 Table 13-3: 2021 LOM Plan .................................................................................................................................. 13-12 Table 13-4: Major Mining Equipment ................................................................................................................... 13-20 Table 13-5: Mine Personnel - Current and Forecasted .......................................................................................... 13-21 Table 14-1: K1 Key Processing Plant Metrics ......................................................................................................... 14-5 Table 14-2: K2 Key Processing Plant Metrics ......................................................................................................... 14-5 Table 14-3: Process Plants Equipment Characteristics and Specifications .............................................................. 14-6 Table 14-4: Water Requirements ............................................................................................................................. 14-9 Table 14-5: Natural Gas Requirements ................................................................................................................... 14-9 Table 14-6: Electricity Requirements ...................................................................................................................... 14-9 Table 14-7: Processing Plant Personnel ................................................................................................................. 14-10 Table 15-1: Infrastructure Maintained by Third Parties .......................................................................................... 15-1 Table 16-1: Commodity Prices and Exchange Rates ............................................................................................... 16-2 Table 17-1: Esterhazy Water License Summary ..................................................................................................... 17-8 Table 17-2: Esterhazy Brine Injection License Summary ....................................................................................... 17-9 Table 18-1: Historical, LOM Plan Project Capital ................................................................................................ 18-17 Table 18-2: Historical and LOM Plan Cash Costs ................................................................................................. 18-19 Table 19-1: Economic Analysis Summary .............................................................................................................. 19-3 Table 19-2: Cash Flow Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 19-4 Table 25-1: Information Provided by the Registrant ............................................................................................... 25-1 FIGURES Figure 1-1: General Ore Geology .............................................................................................................................. 1-3 Figure 1-2: Location and Distribution of Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves ................................................ 1-5 Figure 3-1: Location Map .......................................................................................................................................... 3-1 Figure 3-2: Esterhazy Leases (KL 105, KL 126, KLSA 003) ................................................................................... 3-3 Figure 3-3: 2021 Mineral Rights Location and Status ............................................................................................... 3-7 Figure 4-1: Location and Accessibility ...................................................................................................................... 4-2 Figure 6-1: Regional Geology Plan of the Elk Point Basin (RESPEC 2021) ............................................................ 6-2 Figure 6-2: Regional Central Saskatchewan Stratigraphy ......................................................................................... 6-3 Figure 6-3: Regional Cross Section Illustrating the Stratigraphic Relationships of the Prairie Evaporite Formation (RESPEC 2021) ......................................................................................................................................................... 6-5 Figure 6-4: Local Stratigraphy (modified from RESPEC 2021) ............................................................................... 6-6 Figure 6-5: Types of Stratigraphic Anomalies (RESPEC 2021) ............................................................................... 6-7 Figure 6-6: Wash-out Anomaly ................................................................................................................................. 6-8 Figure 6-7: Leach Anomaly ....................................................................................................................................... 6-9 Figure 6-8: General Ore Geology ............................................................................................................................ 6-10 Figure 6-9: Deposit Stratigraphy ............................................................................................................................. 6-11 Figure 7-1: Seismic Surveys ...................................................................................................................................... 7-2 Figure 7-2: Exploration Hole Locations .................................................................................................................... 7-4 Figure 7-3: In-Mine Chip Sample Assay Results and Statistics .............................................................................. 7-12 Figure 8-1: Esterhazy Member Potash Mineralization .............................................................................................. 8-3 Figure 11-1: Location and Distribution of Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves............................................. 11-8 Figure 12-1: Location and Distribution of Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves............................................. 12-4 Figure 13-1: Four Rotor Continuous Miner ............................................................................................................. 13-1 Figure 13-2: Production Room Section View .......................................................................................................... 13-2 Figure 13-3: Plan View of a Four Rotor Setup ........................................................................................................ 13-2 Figure 13-4: Section View of a Four Rotor Setup ................................................................................................... 13-2 Figure 13-5: Mining Area Terminology .................................................................................................................. 13-3 Figure 13-6: Mine Development Overview ............................................................................................................. 13-4 Figure 13-7: Configuration for Single Panel Mining ............................................................................................... 13-6 Figure 13-8: Configuration for Multiple Panel Mining ........................................................................................... 13-7 Figure 13-9: Esterhazy Member Potash Mineralization .......................................................................................... 13-9 Figure 13-10: Stratigraphy Above Esterhazy Mining Horizon .............................................................................. 13-11 Figure 13-11: LOM plan Mining Sequence ........................................................................................................... 13-15 Figure 13-12: Surface Fan General Arrangement .................................................................................................. 13-16 Figure 13-13: Four Rotor Set Up ........................................................................................................................... 13-18 Figure 14-1: K1 Processing Plant Flow Sheet ......................................................................................................... 14-1 Figure 14-2: K2 Processing Plant Flow Sheet ......................................................................................................... 14-2 Figure 15-1: Esterhazy K1 Infrastructure Plan ........................................................................................................ 15-2 Figure 15-2: Esterhazy K2 Infrastructure Plan ........................................................................................................ 15-3 Figure 15-3: Esterhazy K3 Infrastructure Plan ........................................................................................................ 15-4 Figure 19-1: Sensitivity Results on NPV ................................................................................................................. 19-5 Figure 20-1: Adjacent Properties ............................................................................................................................. 20-2


 
FORWARD LOOKING INFORMATION CAUTION All statements, other than statements of historical fact, appearing in this report constitute “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Statements regarding results depend on inputs that are subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause actual results to differ materially from those presented in this Report. Information that is forward-looking includes, but is not limited to, the following: • Mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates. • Assumed commodity prices and exchange rates. • Assumed freight charges. • Proposed and scheduled mine production plan. • Projected mining and processing recovery rates. • Capital cost estimates and schedule. • Operating cost estimates. • Closure costs estimates and closure requirements assumptions. • Environmental, permitting and social risk assumptions. Additional risks to the forward-looking information include: • Changes to costs of production from what is assumed. • Unrecognized environmental risks. • Unanticipated reclamation expenses. • Unexpected variations in production tonnage, grade or recovery rates. • Failure of plant, equipment or processes to operate as anticipated. • Accidents, labor disputes and other risks of the mining industry. • Changes to tax rates. Date: December 31, 2021 1-1 1.0 Executive Summary 1.1 Introduction Potash is the generic term used to describe potassium chloride, also known as muriate of potash. It is one of the three primary crop nutrients required for plant growth and is not substitutable. Potash (and other fertilizer products derived from it) provides the overwhelming majority of potassium nutrient worldwide. Potash is mined globally with the most significant mineral reserves and mineral resources deposited in Saskatchewan, Canada. Most potash deposits are a mixture of potassium chloride (KCl), sodium chloride (NaCl) and clay. The Mosaic Company is a leading producer of Canadian potash utilizing underground and solution mining methods. The Esterhazy Potash Facility, located in Saskatchewan, Canada started production at K1 in 1962 and at K2 in 1967. For approximately 60 years it consisted of two interconnected mines, K1 and K2. In 2010, work began to expand the mine into a new area of the potash deposit. The K3 mine is accessed with separate shafts and provides ore to the existing processing plants at K1 and K2 via overland conveyor. Production at the K3 mine began in 2018 and is expected to operate until 2054. The K1 and K2 mines ceased production in June 2021. K4, an area consisting of mineral resources has been scheduled in the 2021 LOM plan after mining depletion of the K3 mineral reserves. The mineral resources are tentatively scheduled to start production in 2050 and expected to last until 2090. The processing plants at K1 and K2 are expected to be accessed via overland conveyors to receive the ore from K4. The 2021 LOM plan for the Esterhazy Potash Facility includes the K3 mineral reserves. The K4 mineral resources are currently scheduled after depletion of the K3 mineral resources. Production is based on an average production rate of 19.324 M tons per year (17.527 M tonnes per year), based on 320 production days per year. Processing for the LOM plan continues at the K1 and K2 processing plants. The Esterhazy mineral resources and mineral reserves are reported with reference to the SEC Regulation S-K, Subpart 1300. 1.2 Property Location The Esterhazy Potash Facility is located in an area overlapping the Rural Municipalities of Fertile Belt, Langenburg, and Spy Hill in the province of Saskatchewan, Canada. The K1 Mill is located 9 miles (15 km) northeast of Esterhazy. The K2 Mill is located 12 miles (19 km) east of Esterhazy. The K3 site is located 4 miles (7 km) east of Esterhazy and the K4 mineral resources are located 18 miles (30 km) northeast of Esterhazy. 1.3 Ownership and Status The Esterhazy Potash Facility is 100% owned by Mosaic Potash Esterhazy Limited Partnership, a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of The Mosaic Company. For the purposes of this Report, unless otherwise noted, The Mosaic Company and Potash Esterhazy Limited Partnership will each be referred to interchangeably as Mosaic, as the context requires. 1.4 Mineral Tenure, Surface Rights, Water Rights, Royalties and Agreements Mosaic leases approximately 197,920 acres of mineral rights for the Esterhazy Potash Facility from the Crown under Subsurface Mineral Leases KL 105, KL 126, and KLSA 003. The lease terms are for 21 years, with renewals at Mosaic’s option for additional 21-year lease periods. In addition, Mosaic owns or leases approximately 206,228 acres of freehold mineral rights within the Esterhazy area. All mineral properties owned or leased by Mosaic include the “subsurface mineral” commodity as defined in The Subsurface Mineral Tenure Regulations (Saskatchewan). Date: December 31, 2021 1-2 Mosaic owns approximately 20,059 acres of surface rights in the Esterhazy area. All infrastructure including the processing plant, TMAs (Tailings Management Areas), and overland conveyors are located on Mosaic-owned land. Mosaic-owned land not used for infrastructure is leased for agricultural use. Mosaic holds multiple Water Rights Licenses issued by the Saskatchewan Water Security Agency for the Esterhazy sites. The Licenses are associated with the allocation and withdrawal of ground water and surface water for the sites. The Potash Crown Royalty is payable under The Subsurface Mineral Royalty Regulations, 2017 (Saskatchewan). Mosaic pays royalties that are based on a royalty rate of 3% on the value of the potash produced from Crown mineral lands. Value is determined as the average price realized by the producer in the year, as determined by revenues and sales under The Potash Production Tax Regulations, 1990 (Saskatchewan). Non-crown royalties are also paid based on each individual freeholder ownership at a rate of 3% of the value of potash produced. Value is determined as the average price realized by the producer in the year, as determined by revenues and sales under The Potash Production Tax Regulations, 1990 (Saskatchewan). 1.5 Geology and Mineralization The intracratonic Elk Point Basin is a major sedimentary geological feature in western Canada and the northwest USA. It contains one of the world’s largest stratabound potash resources. The nature of this type of deposition is largely continuous with predictable depths and thickness. It is estimated to host >5 billion tonnes of ore (Orris, 2014) and is mined at a number of locations, including Mosaic’s Esterhazy potash facility. Saskatchewan potash represents almost 25% of the global potash production due to its relatively low-cost, bulk tonnage mining methods. (Orris, 2014.) The Esterhazy Potash Facility is situated in the eastern extent of what is commonly termed the “Commercial Potash Mining Belt” where potash is mined by conventional underground means. The total thickness of potash beds in the Prairie Evaporate at Esterhazy ranges from approximately 100 to 131 ft. (30 to 40 m) at a depth of approximately 3,000 to 3,400 ft. (900 to 1,050 m). In the Esterhazy area, the Esterhazy, White Bear and Belle Plaine Members are present within the Prairie Evaporite Formation. All mining activity at Esterhazy is contained within the Esterhazy Member. The naming convention at site refers to the beds in the Esterhazy Member as beds 50, 45, 40, 35, and 30 (in ascending order). The highest-grade potash is hosted in Bed 40. It has an average thickness of 4.3 ft. (1.3 m). Figure 1-1 shows the thickness and grades for each of the beds. It is possible to encounter variation in the thickness and grade of these beds, but usually, the normal stratigraphy is present. Date: December 31, 2021 1-3 Figure 1-1: General Ore Geology The potash deposit at Esterhazy is uniform and laterally continuous. Potash mineralization contains sylvinite, a mixture of iron oxide stained halite and sylvite. There are also minor amounts of carnallite and insoluble minerals present. The color of the potash can vary from light orange to deep red rimmed crystals. The mineralization can be locally bedded or massive. The halite and sylvite crystals can range from small to more coarse to large. This is attributed to the conditions during deposition since there has been no alteration to affect grain size. When carnallite is present, it occurs interstitially or as more massive pods that can deteriorate rapidly. The gamma response from well log data can be converted to indicate the amount of potash in the formation as a %K2O. Gamma Ray Equivalent Calculation (GREC) can be applied to interpret and verify the quality of the ore where core may not be available. The neutron-density log is used to indicate the presence of carnallite. These correlations are possible based on understanding from examination of core. 1.6 Mineral Resource Estimate The mineral resource estimates for the Esterhazy Potash Facility are listed in Table 1-1. Mineral resources are reported exclusive of the mineral reserves. Figure 1-2 shows the distribution of the mineral resources and mineral reserves on the Esterhazy property.


 
Date: December 31, 2021 1-4 Table 1-1: 2021 Mineral Resources Location Measured Mineral Resources Indicated Mineral Resources Measured + Indicated Mineral Resources Inferred Mineral Resources Tons (M) Tonnes (M) % K2O % Carnallite Tons (M) Tonnes (M) % K2O % Carnallite Tons (M) Tonnes (M) % K2O % Carnallite Tons (M) Tonnes (M) % K2O % Carnallite K4 282 255 23.3 9.8 2,305 2,092 22.8 5.9 2,587 2,347 22.9 6.4 0 0 0 0 Total 282 255 23.3 9.8 2,305 2,092 22.8 5.9 2,587 2,347 22.9 6.4 0 0 0 0 Notes to accompany mineral resource table: 1. Mineral resource estimates were prepared by QP M. Tochor, a Mosaic employee. 2. The mineral resources are reported as in-situ mineralization and are exclusive of mineral reserves. 3. Mineral resources have an effective date of December 31, 2021. Mineral resources are reported exclusive of those mineral resources that have been converted to mineral reserves. Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. 4. Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not meet the threshold for mineral reserve modifying factors, such as estimated economic viability, that would allow for conversion to mineral reserves. There is no certainty that any part of the mineral resources estimated will be converted into mineral reserves. 5. Mineral resources assume an underground room and pillar mining method. 6. Mineral resources amenable to underground mining method are accessed via shaft and scheduled for extraction based on a conceptual room and pillar design using the same technical parameters as for mineral reserves. 7. No cut-off grade or value based on commodity price is used to estimate mineral resources. This is because the mining method used at Esterhazy is not grade selective. The potash mineralization is mined on one level by continuous miners following the well-defined and continuous beds of mineralization with relatively consistent grades (Section 11.2). 8. Tonnage measurements are in US Customary and metric units and are rounded to the nearest million tonnes 9. Rounding as required by reporting guidelines may result in apparent summation differences. 10. %K2O refers to the total %K2O of the samples. 11. The percent carnallite refers to the mineral associated with potash ore at Esterhazy (KCl.MgCl3.6H2O). It is considered an impurity. 12. The following KCl commodity prices were used to assess prospects for economic extraction for the mineral resources but are not used for cut-off purposes, 2022-$271/tonne, 2023-$231/tonne, 2024-$219/tonne, 2025-$185/tonne, 2026-$188/tonne and for the LOM plan $219/tonne. 13. A US$/C$ exchange rate of 1.31 was used to assess prospects for economic extraction for the mineral resources but were not used for cut-off purposes. Date: December 31, 2021 1-5 Figure 1-2: Location and Distribution of Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves Date: December 31, 2021 1-6 1.7 Mineral Reserve Estimation The mineral reserve estimate for the Esterhazy Potash Facility is listed in Table 1-2. Figure 1-2 shows the distribution of the mineral resources and mineral reserves on the Esterhazy property. Mineral reserves are sub-divided into two confidence categories in Regulation S-K 1300, proven and probable. Table 1-2: 2021 Mineral Reserves Location Proven Mineral Reserves Probable Mineral Reserves Total Mineral Reserves % Mining Recovery % Dilution Tons (M) Tonnes (M) % K2O % Carnallite Tons (M) Tonnes (M) % K2O % Carnallite Tons (M) Tonnes (M) % K2O % Carnallite K3 Mine Footprint 74 68 26.8 4.9 31 28 24.8 4.7 105 95 26.2 4.9 27.6% 0% K3 Outside Footprint 58 52 20.1 5.6 451 409 20.6 5.7 509 462 20.6 5.7 27.6% 0% Total 132 119 23.9 5.2 483 438 20.8 5.7 615 557 21.5 5.6 27.6% 0% Notes to accompany mineral reserves table: 1. Mineral reserve estimates were prepared by QP M. Tochor, a Mosaic employee. 2. The mineral reserves are based on measured and indicated resources only and are reported as in-situ mineralization. 3. Mineral reserves have an effective date of December 31, 2021. 4. Underground mining standards and design criteria are used to constrain measured and indicated mineral resources within mineable shapes. 5. Only after a positive economic test and inclusion in the LOM plan is the mineral reserve estimate included as mineral reserves. 6. Tonnage measurements are in US Customary and metric units and are rounded to the nearest million tonnes. 7. Rounding as required by reporting guidelines may result in apparent summation differences. 8. %K2O refers to the total %K2O of the samples. 9. The percent carnallite refers to the mineral associated with potash ore at Esterhazy (KCl.MgCl3.6H2O). It is considered an impurity. 10. The following KCl commodity prices were used to assess economic viability for the mineral reserves, but were not used for cut-off purposes, 2022-$271/tonne, 2023- $231/tonne, 2024-$219/tonne, 2025-$185/tonne, 2026-$188/tonne and for the LOM plan $219/tonne. 11. A US$/C$ exchange rate of 1.31 was used to assess economic viability for the mineral reserves but were not used for cut-off purposes. Date: December 31, 2021 1-7 1.8 Mining Method Since mining began in Esterhazy in 1962, a room and pillar mining method has been used to extract the potash. This method consists or mining parallel rooms, separated by left in place pillars. The design of this method has evolved over the years. Current designs are a nominal room length of 6,000 ft. (3,229 m) and width of 66 ft. (20.1m). Geophysical and geological investigations, including 3D seismic surveys, are performed to identify potentially problematic features. Mine engineering incorporates this information into the design of the mine workings and overall mine plans. Ore grade optimization via gamma detection at the mining face is achieved through the use of a Rotating Ore Grade Analyzer (ROGA). The mine production equipment used has evolved over the years. Currently the ore is mined using 4 Rotor Mining Machines that break up the potash rock as the machines mine through it. These machines discharge the mined ore directly onto a conveyor system directly behind the mining machine. The ore is then conveyed through a network of conveyors to the shafts, where it is hoisted to surface, then discharged onto the overland conveyors for transport to the processing plants at K1 and K2. The 2021 LOM plan for the Esterhazy Potash Facility includes the K3 mineral reserves and the K4 mineral resources. It is based on an average production rate of 19.324 M tons per year (17.527 M tonnes per year), based on 320 production days per year. The K3 mineral reserves production is expected to ramp up to full production from 2022 to 2024 and then ramps down starting in 2051, with mining anticipated to be completed in 2054. The K4 mineral resources are currently scheduled to start mining in 2050 and expected to ramp up to full production in 2055 and ending in 2090. 1.9 Recovery Methods The Esterhazy processing plant, or Mill Area, consists of two separate mill facilities, designated as K1 and K2. Each of these mills processes the raw ore feed stock received from the underground mining operations through crushing, separation, screening and compaction unit operations to produce on grade saleable product. The mills utilize online grade analyzers to monitor the process as well as routine samples that are analyzed by the onsite lab. The Mill Area can be broken down into two main functions: the wet end separates potash and salt while the dry end sizes potash for sale. The wet end of the mill begins with raw ore sizing and crushing to prepare it for the separation processes. In heavy media the larger size fraction is separated into potash and salt through dense media separation that is driven by differences of buoyancy in salt and potash. Flotation receives the smaller size fraction and has specific reagents added that allow the potash crystals to float while the salt is rejected as tailings material. At K2 there is also a crystallizer circuit that produces potash using solubility, temperature, and pressure differences. Dewatering and drying is the final stage in the wet end where potash is sent through centrifuges and industrial driers to remove all moisture. Once the product is dried it is sent to screen to separate right sized material from the over and undersize material for all the different product grades. Oversize material is sent through a crushing circuit to break it down to right sized material. The undersize material is upgraded through compaction to a larger product. Esterhazy plans to ramp up milling rates once the K3 mine is up to full capacity and then stabilize at a total milling rate to the end of mine life. The differences in final product tons will be based on supplied raw ore grade as it varies throughout the mine workings. The site’s ability to produce at the increasing rates being forecasted in the LOM plan are supported by a production proving run in 2013, when the Esterhazy plants achieved a production nameplate of 7.0 million tons (6.3 million tonnes) overall. 1.10 Infrastructure The Esterhazy Potash Facility is situated in close proximity to relevant existing infrastructure. The TransGas natural gas distribution pipelines pass through the area, the Cutarm Reservoir is located 1.5 miles (2.0 km) from the K2 plant


 
Date: December 31, 2021 1-8 site, and the K1 site is located over the Upper Dundurn aquifer. The sites are located in an agricultural zone with associated population centers and serviced by nearby rail lines. The Esterhazy Potash Facility has the infrastructure in place to meet the current production plans and 2021 LOM plan production goals. The current infrastructure includes major road and highway access, railway support from Canadian National and Canadian Pacific railways, SaskPower supplied electricity, TransGas supplied natural gas and water supplied from local fresh water sources. The current Tailings Management Area (TMA) footprint will require expansion to support the maximum volume and deposition rates from the 2021 LOM plan. Additional infrastructure may be added to increase reliability of the existing product lines or add additional production flexibility. The assets currently in place are maintained through a robust workflow process that focuses on proactive inspections and preventative maintenance while trying to minimize reactive maintenance. Looking to the future, the site is projected to continue to operate effectively while continuing to maintain the built infrastructure and renewing the long-term agreements in place for the site’s water, electricity, natural gas, and logistics needs. The long-term Tailings Management Area Development Plan is being revised to support the production at the levels indicated in the 2021 LOM plan. A focus on reliability centered maintenance will extend the life of the majority of assets to align with the 2021 LOM plan. It is expected that some infrastructure will need to be replaced as it reaches end of life, and this has been factored into the capital cost requirements and planned. 1.11 Markets and Contracts The Esterhazy Potash Facility produces several specifications of potash that are primarily sold into the crop nutrient (to be utilized as fertilizer) market, domestically, defined as the U.S. and Canada, as well as export markets. The conventional mining and milling practices at Esterhazy result in a potash product with a grade of ~60% K2O. This is the typical nutrient specification of most potash operations worldwide. Esterhazy produces a combination of granular and standard grade products – i.e., the potash is marketed either in its standard form as produced at the mill or compacted at the mill and sold as a granular product. Potash prices vary due to this differing physical sizing of the product, with a price premium ascribed to granular (blend) grade product versus standard grade product. The global market for potash is estimated to be approximately 70 M tonnes in 2021 and has grown at a compound annual growth rate of around 2.5% over the past 30 years. In other words, potash demand over the long term has been rather linear, though with significant year-to-year variability. Going forward, global potash demand growth is expected to continue this trend, with Mosaic and independent analysts projecting a growth rate of >2% per annum. This growth ensures sufficient market demand for continued production at the Esterhazy Potash Facility. 1.12 Environmental, Permitting and Social Considerations All potash facilities and processing plants operate pursuant to federal, provincial and local environmental regulations. Accordingly, permits, licenses and approvals are obtained specific to each site, based on project specific requirements. Mosaic also has routine interactions with government officials and agencies related to agency inspections, permitting and other environmental matters. The information as supplied regarding the management of all environmental aspects, permitting and social considerations at Mosaic facilities is guided by Mosaic’s Environmental, Health and Safety Policy, the Mosaic Management System Program and Procedures, and current regulatory requirements. 1.13 Capital Cost and Operating Cost Estimates The capital cost estimates include mine, processing plant, loading, maintenance, mobile equipment, land management and regulatory capital. The total capital cost for the 2021 LOM plan (2022 to 2054) and 2021 mineral reserves is estimated at US$2,993 M. Date: December 31, 2021 1-9 The Esterhazy mining cash costs, processing cash costs, Central and Functional Overhead indirect allocated costs, selling, general and administrative costs and taxes and other non-production costs include Canadian Resource Taxes, Canadian Income Taxes and any other non-production costs are estimated at US$14,909 M for the 2021 mineral reserves and LOM plan. The operating cost forecasts are based on a combination of historical performance and calculations from first principles to take account variation in production rates and expected process improvements. 1.14 Economic Analysis The financial models that support the mineral reserve and mineral resource declarations are standalone models that calculate annual cash flows based on scheduled ore production, assumed processing recoveries, commodity sale prices and US$/C$ exchange rate, projected operating and capital costs, estimated taxes along with anticipated closure and reclamation costs. The net present value analysis of the K3 2021 LOM plan mineral reserves indicates that there is significant economic value associated with mining, refining and selling the K3 mineral reserves at Esterhazy, given the economic assumptions and operating parameters considered. The financial model reflects an after tax net present value of approximately US$4.8 B utilizing a discount rate of 9.4%. A sensitivity analysis of this financial model by varying product price, total operating cost, total capital cost and foreign exchange projects that the financial results for the Esterhazy Potash Facility are robust and considered low risk. The economic analysis of the K4 mineral resources indicates that there is positive economic value associated with the possible mining, refining and selling the K4 mineral resources based on the reasonable economic and operating assumptions considered. The economic assessment reflects a positive after tax NPV and positive total cash flow and supports reasonable prospects of economic extraction and the reporting of the K4 mineral resources. 1.15 Interpretations and Conclusions Under the assumptions and technical data outlined in this Technical Report Summary, the Esterhazy Potash Facility LOM plan utilizing K3 mineral reserves only, yields a positive after-tax cash flow and NPV. In addition, the assessment of reasonable prospects for economic extraction of the K4 mineral resources also yields a positive after- tax cash flow and NPV. These economic assessments support the 2021 SEC Regulation S-K, Subpart 1300 disclosure of the Esterhazy Potash Facility mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates. 1.16 Recommendations The following recommendations for additional work are focused on improving and maintaining important mineral resource and mineral reserve processes and estimates. • The Land and Minerals team will continue to align with the LOM plan to ensure timely acquisition of surface and mineral rights as required. • Mosaic should continue to investigate and consider new innovations in mining and processing technology. • The global density estimate has been based on a subset of the exploration data. Additional study based on in- mine sampling could be completed to increase confidence. • A thorough production reconciliation process will be considered to further improve and support the mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates. • A more robust modeling software for mineral resource estimates will be considered. • Continue duplicate analysis comparing results from the internal metallurgical lab with those from a third- party analytical lab. • Continue to update and maintain the geological databases. Date: December 31, 2021 1-10 • Evaluate the channel sampling program with a third-party sample analysis to verify the accuracy of the current in-mine chip sampling. • Continue review of the GREC calculation applied at Esterhazy to include all exploration drilling. Future coring should be assayed to confirm that the GREC calculation applied at Esterhazy is sufficient for estimating the mineral reserves and mineral resources. • Additional 3D seismic data should be collected and processed in strategic areas to ensure the continuity of available data for mine planning. • The seismic model supporting the mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates will continue to develop and improve as seismic data collection and interpretation improves. Date: December 31, 2021 2-1 2.0 Introduction 2.1 Registrant The 2021 Esterhazy Potash Facility Technical Report Summary has been prepared by the Esterhazy Qualified Persons for The Mosaic Company, headquartered in Tampa Florida, USA. 2.2 Purpose and Terms of Reference The Report was prepared to support the mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates for the year ending December 31, 2021. The mineral resources and mineral reserves are reported in accordance with SEC Regulation S-K, Subpart 1300. Where practicable, measurement units used are US Customary units with metric unit conversions included. US Customary units are used in this Report when discussing the mining and processing facilities, including equipment capacities, pumping rates and equipment capacities. Some analytical results are also reported using US Customary units. Unless otherwise noted, monetary units are in United States dollars (US$). 2.3 Abbreviations and Units Table 2-1: List of Units and Abbreviations 3D Three dimensional AER Annual Environmental Report AFIA American Fertilizer Industry Association AOI areas of interest ATO Approval to Operate Pollutant Control Facilities Avg average API An API unit is a unit of radioactivity used for measuring natural gamma rays in the ground BOL Bill of Lading °C degree Celsius C$ Canadian dollar(s) CBL Cement Bond Log) cdam Cubic decameter CFIA Canadian Fertilizer Industry Association cm centimeter CNSC Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission COPC constituents of potential concern CRF Combined Return Flow Crown The Province of Saskatchewan CS cluster sites D & R Decommissioning and Reclamation DDR Discharge Reporting EA Environmental Assessment EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement El elevation EM electromagnetic EPA Environmental Protection Agency EPCM Engineering, Procurement and Construction Management EPP Environmental Protection Plan °F degree Fahrenheit Fcast. Forecast FOS Factor of Safety ft. foot, feet ft2 square feet, foot ft3 Cubic foot g/L grams per litre gal US gallon GJ giga joules gm gram(s) US gpm US gallon per minute GREC Gamma Ray Equivalent Calculation ha hectare hp horsepower hr hour(s) HREM High resolution electromagnetic IEC International Electrotechnical Commission IRR internal rate of return ISO International Standards Organization K2O Potassium Oxide, K2O = 0.6317 x KCl.


 
Date: December 31, 2021 2-2 KCl Potassium Chloride kcfm 1,000 cubic feet per minute kg kilogram km kilometer(s) kV kilovolt kVA kilovolt x amps kW kilowatt kWh kilowatt hour kWh/t kilowatt hour per ton lbs. pound(s) LOM Life of Mine m meters M million(s) MCC Motor Control Center MD Measured Depth MER Ministry of Energy and Resources mg/drm3 milligrams per dry reference cubic meter. MOE Ministry of Environment MRMR Mineral Resources, Mineral Reserves MVA mega volt amp MW mega watt NPV net present value OCHL Original Cased Hole Log P. Eng. Professional Engineer P. Geo. Professional Geoscientist PCB Polychlorinated biphenyls PLS Product Loading System ppm parts per million psi pounds per square inch psi, g Pounds per square inch gauge pressure QA Quality assurance QC Quality control QCL Quality Control Lab QP Qualified Person SAP Enterprise software to manage business operations and customer relations SEC U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission SGS Inspection, verification, testing and certification company TMA Tailings Management Area tonnes metric tonnes (2,204 lbs.) tons US Customary short tons (2,000 lbs.) tons/hour tons per hour (US) tons/year tons per year (US) tpd tons per day (US) TVD True Vertical Depth US$ United States dollar(s) V volt(s) W watt(s) wt.% weight percent Yr. year(s) 2.4 Qualified Persons (QP) Table 2-2 outlines the people that served as Qualified Persons (QPs) for the Esterhazy Potash Facility Technical Report Summary as defined in SEC Reg. S-K, Subpart 1300. Table 2-1: Qualified Persons QP Name Company Qualification Position/Title Site Visit/ Inspection Dates Section of Responsibility Signature Monica Tochor Mosaic Company P. Geologist Senior Geologist June 24, 2021 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 /s/Monica Tochor Monica Tochor Grant Shaver Mosaic Company P. Engineer Senior Manager Process Engineering August 23, 2021 10, 14, 16, 18, 19 /s/Grant Shaver Grant Shaver Dean Gerhardt Mosaic Company P. Geologist Senior Geologist June 10, 2021 6, 13 /s/Dean Gerhardt Dean Gerhardt Bill Paramor Mosaic Company P. Engineer Senior Manager Engineering, Mechanical Integrity Full time on-site employee 15 /s/Bill Paramor Bill Paramor Jessica Theriault Mosaic Company P. Engineer Director, Government & Public Affairs K1: August 23, 2021 K2: February 11, 2020 K3: November 28, 2019 17.3.1, 17.3.2 (Air Emission Monitoring, Subsidence Monitoring, Brine Pond Monitoring and General Waste /s/Jessica Theriault Jessica Theriault Date: December 31, 2021 2-3 QP Name Company Qualification Position/Title Site Visit/ Inspection Dates Section of Responsibility Signature Management sections), 17.3.3, 17.4, 17.8, 17.9, 17.10 Greg Potter Damian Carmichael SNC- Lavalin P. Geo. And P. Eng. P. Eng. Director, Hydrogeology and Earth Sciences Director, Geoscience & Infrastructure, Prairies Long term Consultant for Mosaic 17.2, 17.3.2 (Groundwater Quality Monitoring, Horizontal Pathway Monitoring, Vertical Pathway Monitoring, Surface Water Quality Monitoring, Soils Monitoring, Dyke Instrumentation and Monitoring, Tailings Pile Instrumentation and Monitoring), 17.5, 17.6, 17.7 SNC-Lavalin /s/Damian Carmichael By: Damian Carmichael Title: Director, Industrial/Mining, Prairies & NWT 2.5 Effective Dates There are a number of effective dates: • Date of the mineral resource estimates: December 31, 2021. • Date of the mineral reserve estimates: December 31, 2021. • Date of supply of the last information on mineral tenure and permitting: December 2021. • Date of capital estimation: September 2021. • Date of operating cost estimation: September 2021. • Date of reclamation cost estimate: December 2021. • Date of market analysis: February 2021. • Date of economic analysis: December 2021. The overall effective date of the Report is taken to be the date of the mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates and is December 31, 2021. 2.6 Information Sources and References The reports and documents listed in Table 2-3 and Section 24.0 (References) of this Report were used to support the preparation of the Report. Date: December 31, 2021 2-4 Table 2-3: Reliance on Other Experts Expert Title Topic Date Received RESPEC GREC evaluation – Farfield Include gamma derived grades 2021 RPS Energy Canada Ltd. 2015 K3 3D Final Interpretation Report 3D seismic review to support mineral reserves estimate 2015 2.7 Previous Technical Report Summaries There have been no prior Technical Report Summaries for the Esterhazy Potash Facility. Date: December 31, 2021 3-1 3.0 Property Description 3.1 Introduction The Esterhazy Potash Facility is located in an area overlapping the Rural Municipalities of Fertile Belt, Langenberg, and Spy Hill in the province of Saskatchewan, Canada. (Figure 3-1). The K1 site is located 9 miles (15 km) northeast of Esterhazy. The K2 site is located 12 miles (19 km) east of Esterhazy. The currently active K3 site is located 4 miles (7 km) east of Esterhazy and the K4 mineral resources are located 18 miles (30 km) northeast of Esterhazy. The geographic coordinates for K1 are latitude 50.726463 N and longitude -101.933506 W. The K2 coordinates are latitude 50.6574 N and longitude -101.8422 W and the K3 coordinates are latitude 50.64623 N and longitude - 101.99346 W. Figure 3-1: Location Map


 
Date: December 31, 2021 3-2 3.2 Property and Title 3.2.1 Mineral Title In Saskatchewan, the Dominion Land Survey is the method used to divide the province into one-square-mile (2.6 sq. km) sections for land grid purposes. Township lines are established 6 miles (9.7 km) apart from south to north starting at the U.S. border, and range lines are established 6 miles (9.7 km) apart east to west starting at key meridians aligned with lines of longitude. This frames a 6 mile by 6 mile (9.7 by 9.7 km) township grid, containing 36 one square mile (approximately 640 acre) sections. Sections are further subdivided into 160 acre quarter sections, and can be again subdivided into 40 acre legal subdivisions (LSD). In Saskatchewan, Information Services Corporation (ISC), a registry and information management services company, provides land titles management services for all surface and mineral properties on behalf of the Province of Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan land titles registry can be accessed at isc.ca. Subsurface mineral rights are subject to separate ownership and title from surface mineral rights. Mosaic, through its wholly-owned indirect subsidiary Mosaic Potash Esterhazy Limited Partnership, leases 197,919.94 acres of mineral rights from the Crown under Subsurface Mineral Leases KL 105, KL 126, and KLSA 003 (Figure 3-2). Table 3-1 outlines additional information regarding the three Crown leases. Table 3-2 outlines the total acreage of the Crown leases split by township and range. The Esterhazy Crown lease terms are for a period of 21 years, with renewals at the Company’s option for successive 21-year periods. In addition, Mosaic owns or leases 206,228.04 acres (818.29 ha) of freehold mineral rights (Figure 3-3) within the Esterhazy area (Table 3-3). All mineral titles owned or leased by Mosaic include “subsurface minerals”, which under The Subsurface Mineral Tenure Regulations (Saskatchewan) means all natural mineral salts of boron, calcium, lithium, magnesium, potassium, sodium, bromine, chlorine, fluorine, iodine, nitrogen, phosphorus and sulfur, and their compounds, occurring more than 60 m below the surface of the land. Other commodities (e.g., petroleum and natural gas, coal, etc.) may be on mineral titles Mosaic leases or owns but are not specifically sought after when acquired. Within the total acreage leased from the Crown or owned/leased by Mosaic are parcels of land where Mosaic owns or leases less than a 100% share of the mineral rights. To potentially mine these properties, Mosaic will need to acquire 100% control ether by lease or ownership. Acres currently not mineable due to less than 100% control are shown in Table 3-4. Date: December 31, 2021 3-3 Figure 3-2: Esterhazy Lease Boundaries (KL 105, KL 126, KLSA 003) Date: December 31, 2021 3-4 Table 3-1: Crown Mineral Leases Crown Lease Number Type Area (ha) Expiration Date KL 105 Subsurface Mineral Lease 26,124.70 November 2, 2023 KL 126 Subsurface Mineral Lease 28,473.06 October 25, 2026 KLSA 003 Subsurface Mineral Lease 25,497.51 November 18, 2030 Table 3-2: Sections and Acreages Owned by the Crown Township/Range Sections of Mineral Rights Owned by Crown* Area of Mineral Rights Owned by Crown (acres) 19/30 19-2/16 12,221.33 20/30 18-1/16 11,541.89 21/30 18-6/16 11,752.78 22/30 2-1/16 1,331.05 19/31 18-1/16 11,561.32 20/31 19-3/16 12,264.88 21/31 13-7/16 8,613.35 22/31 15-15/16 10,238.25 18/32 5-7/16 3,470.88 19/32 18-15/16 12,116.02 20/32 14-11/16 9,388.00 21/32 17-2/16 10,969.57 22/32 4-6/16 2,798.88 18/33 5-12/16 3,661.78 19/33 10-11/16 6,849.92 20/33 11-7/16 7,326.00 21/33 8-5/16 5,313.21 22/33 1-6/16 878.14 18/1 15-9/16 9,969.15 19/1 15-14/16 10,157.53 20/1 16-7/16 10,533.41 21/1 14-6/16 9,207.34 22/1 4-3/16 2,668.21 19A/1 2-12/16 1,761.70 18/2 6-1/16 3,865.46 19/2 4-13/16 3,083.28 19A/2 1-12/16 1,130.17 Total 309-4/16 194,763.50 *Full sections range from 640 acres to 644 acres; total acreage shown above is based on 640 acres per section where actual survey acreage is not available. Date: December 31, 2021 3-5 Table 3-3: Sections and Acreages of Mosaic Owned Mineral Rights Township/Range Sections of Mineral Rights Owned/ Leased by Mosaic* Area of Mineral Rights Owned/Leased by Mosaic (acres) 19/30 17-14/16 11,420.16 20/30 19-7/16 12,430.39 21/30 18-8/16 11,821.53 19/31 16-13/16 10,760.43 20/31 17-13/16 11,388.77 21/31 23-6/16 14,954.27 22/31 4-7/16 2,846.02 18/32 4-15/16 3,167.59 19/32 18-8/16 11,842.69 20/32 22-12/16 14,553.00 21/32 19-12/16 12,623.64 22/32 4-8/16 2,868.44 18/33 5-14/16 3,764.03 19/33 10-6/16 6,631.30 20/33 9-8/16 6,087.17 21/33 12-10/16 8,075.09 22/33 2-3/16 1,390.29 18/1 2-8/16 1,582.66 19/1 18-14/16 12,084.41 19A/1 4-15/16 3,177.08 20/1 20-8/16 13,133.70 21/1 21-7/16 13,707.29 22/1 9-15/16 6,342.55 18/2 2-9/16 1,630.85 19/2 10-4/16 6,579.42 19A/2 2-2/16 1,365.26 Total 322-4/16 206,228.04 *Full sections range from 640 acres to 644 acres; total acreage shown above is based on 640 acres per section where actual survey acreage is not available.


 
Date: December 31, 2021 3-6 Table 3-4: Partial Mineral Rights Area Township/Range Crown Mineral Rights Leased by Mosaic, Currently Not Mineable (acres)* Mineral Rights Owned/Leased by Mosaic, Currently Not Mineable (acres)* 21/30 320.95 20/31 80.40 21/31 80.43 22/31 80.23 513.85 21/32 321.08 21/33 74.29 18/1 149.55 19/1 1209.02 137.54 19A/1 322.31 20/1 220.96 21/1 80.04 159.44 18/2 160.06 19/2 160.59 19A/2 60.83 Total 3,246.44 885.12 *Less than 100% share of a mineral rights parcel. Date: December 31, 2021 3-7 Figure 3-3: 2021 Mineral Rights Location and Status Date: December 31, 2021 3-8 3.2.2 Surface Rights Surface rights are subject to separate ownership and title from subsurface mineral rights. At Esterhazy, Mosaic owns 20,059.39 acres (8,117.74 ha) of surface rights. All material infrastructure including the processing plants, TMA (tailings management area), cluster sites, and pipeline rights of way are located on Mosaic owned land. Owned land not used for infrastructure is leased for agricultural use. 3.2.3 Water Rights Mosaic holds multiple Water Rights Licenses issued by the Saskatchewan Water Security Agency for the Esterhazy sites. The Licenses are associated with the allocation and withdrawal of ground water and surface water for the sites. 3.2.4 Royalties Mosaic pays the Potash Crown Royalty under The Subsurface Mineral Royalty Regulations, 2017 (Saskatchewan) on all potash produced from Esterhazy Crown mineral lands. Royalties are based on a royalty rate of 3% on the value of potash produced from Crown mineral lands. Value is determined as the average price realized by the producer in the year, as determined by revenues and sales under The Potash Production Tax Regulations, 1990 (Saskatchewan). Non-crown royalties are also paid based on each individual freeholder ownership at a rate of 3% of the value of potash produced. Value is determined as the average price realized by the producer in the year, as determined by revenues and sales under The Potash Production Tax Regulations, 1990 (Saskatchewan). 3.3 Encumbrances There are no other significant encumbrances, including permitting requirements (existing or anticipated in the future) associated with the Esterhazy Potash Facility. Except for royalties, Mosaic does not anticipate any future significant encumbrances based on current known regulations and existing permitting processes. There are no outstanding violations and fines. 3.4 Significant Factors and Risks That May Affect Access, Title or Work Programs Surface rights acquisition is important for the continued operation of the Esterhazy Potash Facility. All surface rights in the Esterhazy area are privately owned, so Mosaic is required to negotiate land purchases for any infrastructure requirements. Although successful to date in the history of operation of the mines, there is a risk that at some point in the future Mosaic may not be able to acquire the surface land it requires. Approximately 98.5% of mineral rights in the Esterhazy lease area are controlled. Any inability to acquire the remaining 1.5% would not be a significant risk to the LOM plan. Date: December 31, 2021 4-1 4.0 Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography 4.1 Physiography 4.1.1 Topography, Elevation and Vegetation Overall, the Esterhazy lands consist of flat, cleared farmland with a knob-and kettle topography and occasional rows of trees planted to serve as windbreaks. The area was settled by farmers beginning in the late-1880s after the arrival of the Canadian Pacific Railway (CP) and is primarily crop land used to grow wheat, canola, canary seed and flax, although there are scattered pastures and grazing lands. 4.2 Accessibility The Esterhazy Property is located in east central Saskatchewan approximately 20 km south of Highway #16 and 50 km north of Highway #1, the two major east-west transportation routes in the province. Figure 4-1 shows the Esterhazy Facility area railways and major roadways.


 
Date: December 31, 2021 4-2 Figure 4-1: Location and Accessibility Date: December 31, 2021 4-3 4.3 Climate 4.3.1 Climate The climate is typical of the Canadian prairies and consists of a winter period (November–March) of snow with a mean temperature of –11°C and a warm 15° to 35°C summer period (June to early September) with moderate precipitation. The spring (April to May) and autumn (late-September to October) are cool with precipitation in the form of rain and occasional snow. Exploration operations and construction of the processing plant and other surface facilities are limited by weather conditions during the spring and fall periods when soft ground conditions due to thawing and/or precipitation create difficulties in moving heavy machinery. During the winter and summer months, access is largely restricted only by local conditions, periodic rains or snowfalls, or environmentally sensitive ground conditions. 4.3.2 Length of Operating Season The length of the operating season for the Esterhazy Potash Facility is the full year. Esterhazy operates for an average 365 days per year. 4.4 Infrastructure/Local Resources 4.4.1 Water The water source for the K1 processing plant is a set of three approximately 200 ft. (61 m) deep wells drilled into the upper Dundurn aquifer. These wells supply process and potable water. The K2 processing plant water supply comes from the Cutarm Creek dam reservoir, owned and operated by Mosaic. Located 1.5 miles (2.4 km) northeast of the K2 shaft, the dam forms a reservoir approximately 5.25 miles (8.5 km) long and 650 ft. (200 m) wide. K3 water is supplied from K2 via a 7.4 mile (11.8 km) long pipeline. 4.4.2 Power and Electricity The power required to operate the Esterhazy Potash Facility is supplied by the provincial utility, SaskPower. The K1 site is serviced by a 72 kV line with approximately 36 MVA capacity. The K2 site has two services at 72 kV and 138 kV respectively, with a combined capacity of 125 MVA. K3 is serviced by a 230 kV line from SaskPower with 140 MVA capacity. Two transformers step down the voltage, each rated at 70 MVA. 4.4.3 Natural Gas TransGas pipelines provide an uninterrupted supply of natural gas to the Esterhazy Potash Facility. Esterhazy has regulator stations for the natural gas at each of the sites, with a low-pressure distribution piping network. 4.4.4 Roads and Logistics The Esterhazy Potash Facility consisting of the K1, K2, and K3 sites, is located in east central Saskatchewan approximately 32 miles (20 km) south of highway #16 and 31 miles (50 km) north of highway #1, the two major east- west transportation routes in the province. The K1 and K2 sites are serviced by the Canadian National Railway main line, and by spur lines to the Canadian Pacific Railway. The surrounding area is developed for agriculture, with the required road network, villages and towns. Date: December 31, 2021 4-4 Regina International Airport is 140 miles (225 km) by highway west of the Esterhazy mine sites, while Yorkton municipal airport is 55 miles (90 km) to the northwest. The Town of Esterhazy maintains a paved 3,000 ft. (914 m) long airstrip, located 8 miles (13 km) southwest of K1. 4.4.5 Personnel The Esterhazy Potash Facility is located within 10 miles (16 km) to the east of the Town of Esterhazy. They are 56 miles (90 km) southeast of the city of Yorkton and 137 miles (220 km) east of the city of Regina, the provincial capital. In addition, there are a number of towns and villages within a 31 mile (50 km) radius, including Gerald, Churchbridge, Langenburg, Bredenbury, Saltcoats and Stockholm. Esterhazy and Yorkton local areas have a combined population of approximately 40,000 people. The Esterhazy workforce lives throughout the area, including rural and farm properties, generally within 62 miles (100 km) of the mine sites. This includes the Russell and Binscarth areas of western Manitoba. Education and healthcare facilities are located in Esterhazy, Russell, Melville and Yorkton. Yorkton Regional Hospital is a large modern facility serving the east central Saskatchewan region. 4.4.6 Supplies The province of Saskatchewan offers a large variety of suppliers for the potash mine operators. The potash industry in Saskatchewan is very mature making it easier to attract vendors to support the needs of the various mine sites throughout the province. Trade associations, notably the Saskatchewan Mining Association, the Saskatchewan Ministry of Trade and Export Development and the Saskatchewan Industrial and Mining Suppliers Association, put on an annual Supply Chain Forum for vendors and potash producers. Saskatoon and Regina have large industrial sectors with a variety of machine shops and industrial support services. Some specialty services are provided from Alberta or Manitoba. The Mosaic Company procurement team focuses on setting up longer term contracts with vendors to ensure an uninterrupted supply of required resources for the site is maintained. Several large industrial supply vendors have established branches in Esterhazy to provide services to Mosaic. Small steel fabricators and machine shops located in Esterhazy, Rocanville, Yorkton, and surrounding area provide custom fabrication and repair services. Date: December 31, 2021 5-1 5.0 History Table 5-1: Esterhazy History Summary Date Event/Activity 1928 Discovery of evaporites in the sedimentary sequence in Saskatchewan. 1943 Discovery of potash in the evaporite bed. 1955 International Minerals and Chemicals (IMC, Canada) Ltd. acquired >500,000 acre lease in Esterhazy area and started drilling. 1957 IMC Corporation begins shaft sinking at the K1 mine site in Yarbo. 1961 The K1 Shaft sinking successfully advanced through the water bearing Blairmore Formation. 1962 The K1 shaft sinking was completed and the K2 site development started in the town of Gerald. The first official K1 mine production started September at a capacity of 1.0 M tons/year. 1965 K2 Tailings Management Area (TMA) Phase I Expansion. 1966 The K1 mine capacity was expanded to 1.6 M tons/year. 1967 The K2 shaft sinking was completed to a capacity of 2.6 M tons/year. The first potash production from K2 was in April/May. 1968 The K2 Tailings Management Area (TMA) Phase II Expansion was completed. 1974 K2 Mill Expansion, heavy media circuit. 1978 IMC had a reserve and production agreement with Amax Potash. In January 1978, the Saskatchewan Government under Potash Company of Saskatchewan purchased the AMAX agreement (part of the Govt Deal in Obtaining Sask Potash). 1981 The K2 Tailings Management Area (TMA) Phase III Expansion was completed. 1985 Inflow 10B was detected December 29, 1985 in the D400 entry at a point 3.5 miles (5.6 km) southwest of the K2 shaft. Initial inflow was estimated to be 1,000 gpm. Information obtained using seismic surveys allowed for targeted drilling and placement of calcium chloride and various grouts to reduce the inflow to manageable levels. The pumping capacity was increased through a series of stages to bring online a total of 22 pumps, to a maximum capacity of 4,000 gpm. As a result of these efforts, K1 and K2 sites continued normal mining operations. 1987 Mineral Resource Location Study – Vibroseis Study was completed. 1989 12 exploration drill holes to delineate the K1 and K2 mining area were completed. 1991 3D seismic survey (3 sq. mile) in the Gerald area. 1992 2D seismic survey (67.5 sq. km) in the Gerald West area. 1995 2D seismic survey (81 sq. km) in the Cutarm area. 1996 Ownership changed to IMC Kalium in a stock exchange for Vigoro Corp. 1997 IMC Kalium Merged with IMC Global and Freeport-McMorRan. 1998 2D seismic survey (191 sq. km) NE of Cutarm ‘95, West of Gerald 3D, SE of Gerald West 2D areas. 1999 Company renamed to IMC Potash. 2000 2D seismic survey at (75 km) East of Cutarm 1995 area, East of K1 and K2. 3D seismic survey (37 sq. km) east of Cutarm Creek, 3 miles (5 km) north-east of K2, 5 km east of K1. 2001 3D seismic survey (13 sq. km), south of Gerald 1991 3D area. 2002 3D seismic survey completed at Q Block, S Block (44 km), and T Block (25 sq. km). 2003 3D seismic surveys completed at V Block (56.7 sq. km) and W Block (28 sq. km). 2004 Mosaic Company was formed from a merger between IMC Global and Cargill Crop Nutrition, 2005 3D seismic surveys completed at K1 (19.5 sq. km) and K2 (10.3 sq. km). 2006 3D (31.5 sq. km) and 2D (10.3 sq. km) seismic surveys were completed at K2. An Esterhazy plant expansion added an additional 1.116 M tonnes/year. Inflow 13D was detected. Source was located with a seismic survey. Drilling and grouting began in February 2007 to control the inflow. Completion of a hoist expansion at K2.


 
Date: December 31, 2021 5-2 Date Event/Activity 2007 3D (46.8 sq. km) seismic survey completed at K2. A Canpotex proving run was successfully completed increasing the site nameplate processing plant capacity from 4.1 M tons per year (3.7 M tonnes per year) to 5.3 M tons per year (4.8 M tonnes per year). 2008 3D seismic surveys completed at K1 (73 sq. km) SW, K2 (11.9 sq. km) and K2 East (53.8 sq. km). 2009 3D seismic surveys completed at Esterhazy SE (19.3 sq. km) and Yarbo South (13.3 sq. km). Inflow 12F was detected. Used a seismic survey to pinpoint the inflow source, and drilling and grouting activities were used to successfully control the inflow. K2 Tailings Management Area (TMA) Phase IV Expansion was completed. Esterhazy K3 Project Stage 2 Expansion proposal presented to the Board of Directors. Exploration drilling of 10 holes including two shaft pilot holes was completed as part of the K3 Expansion Project. 2010 Completion of the crushing expansion at K1. 2011 3D seismic surveys at K1 North (51.4 sq. km) and Perrin Lake (37.3 sq. km). 2012 K3 South shaft pre-sink was completed. Esterhazy exits Tolling agreement with PCS. 3D seismic survey Saskman, K1 NW, K1 SWD Field. Seven brine injection wells were drilled at Farfield. 2013 K3 South Shaft sunk to the potash level. 3D seismic survey at Panel 11Q (9.2 sq. km) completed. Completion of mill expansion at K2 for an additional 0.8 M tons/year. A Canpotex proving run was successfully completed increasing the site nameplate processing plant capacity from 5.3 M tons per year (4.8 M tonnes per year) to 7.0 M tons per year (6.3 M tonnes per year). 2014 3D seismic survey at Panel 11Q 3C (9.3 sq. km) completed. 2015 3D seismic surveys at Gerald (12.1 sq. km) and K3 (232.4 sq. km) completed. 2016 Nine exploration drill holes completed. 2017 The K3 north shaft sinking was completed and the first K3 ore from the South Shaft was skipped to surface and trucked to the K1 Mill. 2018 The K3 to K2 overland conveyor construction was completed in September. The K3 North Shaft steel and Keope hoist rope up were completed in November. The K3 North Shaft first ore was skipped on December 18 and trucked to the K2 Mill. The first K3 ore was conveyed on the overland conveyor to the K2 mill in December. 2019 Commissioned K3 Koepe production and Blair service hoists. Four drum miners cutting K3 shaft pillar development started. First four rotor miner assemblies completed and began cutting in October. The second four rotor miner assembly completed and began cutting in December. The K3 South shaft sinking was completed in November. 2020 Completion of the South shaft bottom steel, added a third four rotor miner, installed the Mainline conveyor, added a fourth rotor miner cutting and completed the K3 South Headframe concrete slip. In July, the K1 overland conveyor started conveying ore to K1 and in May, the K3 South Sinking Headframe demo was completed. K3 shaft pillar development was completed in December. The K3 fifth four rotor miner started cutting in October. The first ore from K3 to K1 on the overland belt was conveyed. 2021 The sixth K3 four rotor miner started cutting in January and the seventh four rotor miner started cutting in May. K1 and K2 mine closed 9 months ahead of schedule to mitigate brine inflow risk. The Esterhazy Potash Facility K1 started production in 1962 and K2 started production in 1967. Table 5-2 outlines the K1 and K2 production history to the end of 2021. The 2021 production includes actual data for the months January to October inclusive and a forecast for November and December. Date: December 31, 2021 5-3 Table 5-2: Esterhazy Production History (1962 to 2021) Year K1 Mineral Reserves Mined K2 Mineral Reserves Mined K3 Mineral Reserves Mined Total Mineral Reserves Mined Total Product Tons M Tonnes M %K2O Tons M Tonnes M %K2O Tons M Tonnes M %K2O Tons M Tonnes M Tons M Tonnes M 1962 to 2000 166.8 151.3 26.0 148.3 134.5 23.9 n/a n/a n/a 315.0 285.8 115.4 104.7 2001 to 2010 49.4 44.8 25.6 60.4 54.8 23.6 n/a n/a n/a 109.8 99.6 38.2 34.7 2011 6.0 5.4 24.4 7.7 7.0 23.4 n/a n/a n/a 13.7 12.4 4.5 4.1 2012 5.6 5.1 23.6 7.8 7.1 22.0 n/a n/a n/a 13.4 12.2 4.2 3.8 2013 5.1 4.6 25.3 8.2 7.4 22.9 n/a n/a n/a 13.3 12.0 4.4 4.0 2014 5.1 4.7 26.3 8.0 7.3 23.3 n/a n/a n/a 13.2 12.0 4.4 4.0 2015 5.5 5.0 24.1 8.7 7.9 23.7 n/a n/a n/a 14.2 12.9 4.7 4.3 2016 5.7 5.2 24.4 8.3 7.5 24.4 n/a n/a n/a 14.0 12.7 4.6 4.2 2017 6.4 5.8 23.6 8.2 7.4 24.3 n/a n/a n/a 14.6 13.2 4.7 4.3 2018 5.8 5.3 23.5 9.5 8.6 23.8 0.1 0.1 22.0 15.4 13.9 5.0 4.6 2019 4.8 4.4 23.5 6.7 6.0 23.6 1.6 1.4 20.3 13.0 11.8 4.3 3.9 2020 4.8 4.3 23.1 7.2 6.5 24.5 4.6 4.2 22.4 16.5 15.0 5.5 5.0 2021 0.9 0.8 23.5 3.5 3.2 24.6 10.3 9.3 24.5 14.7 13.3 4.8 4.3 Total 271.8 246.6 25.5 292.4 265.3 23.8 16.5 15.0 23.5 580.8 526.9 204.9 185.8 Date: December 31, 2021 6-1 6.0 Geological Setting, Mineralization and Deposit 6.1 Deposit Type Potash at the Esterhazy Potash Facility area occurs conformably within Middle Devonian-age sedimentary rocks and is found in total thicknesses ranging from approximately 100 to 131 ft. (30 to 40 m) at a depth of approximately 5,345 to 5,740 ft. (1,630 to 1,750 m). Evaporites are generally formed by seawater flowing into landlocked basins, followed by the evaporation of the seawater and precipitation of the dissolved salts. Progressive solar distillation of these salt- rich brines results in sequentially precipitated beds of limestone (CaCO3), dolomite (CaCO3·MgCO3), anhydrite (CaSO4), halite (NaCl), carnallite (KCl·MgCl2·6H2O), sylvite (KCl), kieserite (MgSO4.H2O), and other calcium and magnesium salts. The term potash is the common name for various compounds that contain the element potassium. Potash is expressed and reported in K2O equivalents. Since commercial potash minerals include chlorides and sulfates containing varying quantities of potassium, potassium-bearing minerals are compared on the basis of their K2O contents. The term muriate of potash (MOP) is used for commercial grade fertilizer containing potassium chloride. The product mined and sold is KCl. A tonne of KCl contains an equivalent of 0.6963 tons (0.6317 tonnes) of K2O. Sylvinite is a rock comprising a mixture of sylvite and halite that is the source of potash. The Prairie Evaporites may also contain carnallite and insoluble materials such as clay, anhydrite, and dolomite crystals. The widespread consistency of the potash-bearing Prairie Evaporite Formation sub-members and the flat lying, bedded nature of the sylvinite intervals result in highly mechanized conventional underground mining operations. Where underground operations are not economically viable due to depth of deposition, other mining sites have safely and productively developed solution mining with an efficient process for recovering otherwise inaccessible minerals. 6.2 Regional Geology The intracratonic Elk Point Basin is a major sedimentary geological feature in western Canada and the northwest USA (Figure 6-1). It contains one of the world’s largest stratabound potash resources. The nature of this type of deposition is largely continuous with predictable depths and thickness. It is estimated to host >5 billion tonnes of ore (Orris, 2014) and is mined at a number of locations, including the Esterhazy Potash Facility. Saskatchewan potash represents almost 25% of the global potash production due to its relatively low-cost, bulk tonnage mining methods. (Orris, 2014.) Date: December 31, 2021 6-2 Figure 6-1: Regional Geology Plan of the Elk Point Basin (RESPEC 2021) The regional subsurface stratigraphic column of central Saskatchewan is presented in Figure 6-2. The geological column may be subdivided into three broad intervals. 1. An uppermost sequence extending from surface to an approximate depth of 575 to 650 ft. (175 to 200 m) and consisting of glacial tills, gravels, and clays and containing freshwater aquifers. 2. A medial sequence extending from the base of the glacial sediments to an approximate depth of 3,215 ft. (980 m) and consisting of Triassic to Cretaceous shales, siltstones, and sandstones with limited aquifers of brackish water. 3. A lowermost sequence extending from the Triassic/Mississippian Unconformity to below 6,900 ft. (2,100 m) depth and consisting of Cambrian to Mississippian carbonates, evaporites, and basal shales and sandstones.


 
Date: December 31, 2021 6-3 Figure 6-2: Regional Central Saskatchewan Stratigraphy The Deadwood Formation sandstone that lies immediately above the Precambrian basement is be used for disposal of excess salt brines from the mine and mill. The above strata are underlain by gneisses and granites of the Precambrian basement. Laterally extensive, evaporite beds containing deposits of halite, sylvite, and carnallite are found within the Middle Devonian Elk Point Group, whose top ranges from a depth of 8,200 ft. (2,500 m) in southern Saskatchewan to surface outcrop in northwestern Manitoba. The Elk Point Group lies unconformably on the Silurian-age Interlake Formation and is overlain unconformably by carbonate deposits of the Middle Devonian-age Dawson Bay Formation. The evaporite beds are contained within the Prairie Evaporite Formation that overly the Winnipegosis Formation within the Elk Point Group. The basal contact between the Prairie Evaporite and the Winnipegosis Formation is marked by a sharp transition from halite of the Prairie Evaporite Formation to mixed limestone, dolomite, and anhydrite of the Potash Beds Date: December 31, 2021 6-4 Winnipegosis Formation. The uppermost contact between the Prairie Evaporite and the Dawson Bay formations consists of shale and poorly consolidated silty detrital deposits named the “Second Red Beds.” Regionally, the underlying Winnipegosis Formation forms a broad flat basin to platform deposit with local development of limestone/dolomite “reefs.” The Elk Point Group was deposited within a broad mid-continental basin extending from North Dakota and northeastern Montana at its southern extent in a northwest direction through southwestern Manitoba, southern and central Saskatchewan, to eastern and northern Alberta. The evaporite strata in the basin are restricted to the southern third of the Elk Point Basin in south-central Saskatchewan, southwestern Manitoba, northeastern Montana, and northwestern North Dakota (Holter 1969). The Manitoba Group that overlies the Elk Point Basin consists of the Dawson Bay Formation and overlying Souris River Formation. Present within this sequence are two halite beds: 1. The Hubbard Salt, the uppermost bed of the Dawson Bay Formation. 2. The Davidson Evaporite overlies the First Red Beds within the Souris River Formation. These halite beds are important from an underground mining viewpoint as they form a flood protection zone that separates the Prairie Evaporite Formation mining horizon from the overlying water and brine aquifers present within the Cretaceous sands, especially the Mannville Group (formerly known as the Blairmore Formation). The Prairie Evaporite Formation is divided into a basal “Lower Salt” and an overlying unnamed unit containing three potash-bearing units and one unit containing thin “marker beds.” In ascending order, the potash horizons in the upper unit are the Esterhazy Member, White Bear Marker Beds, Belle Plaine Member, and Patience Lake Member. Mineralogically, these Members consist of sylvite and halite with minor amounts of carnallite (KCl MgCl2 6H2O). Potash mineralogy in Saskatchewan locally includes high concentrations of carnallite. Carnallite is considered an impurity because it can negatively impact the effective recovery of potash in the milling process. Carnallite dissolves preferentially to sylvite. This can reduce the concentration of sylvite in suspension in solution mining efforts and process recovery. There is currently no remote sensing application that effectively identifies the presence of carnallite in the Prairie Evaporite. Fuzesy (1982) and others have shown areas of high carnallite grade on regional maps based on interpretations of downhole gamma and neutron geophysical logs and assay records maintained for historical drill holes by Saskatchewan Ministry of Energy and Resources. Figure 6-3 shows a regional cross section showing the potash bearing members being mined at the Mosaic Company Saskatchewan operations. The Esterhazy Potash Facility mines the Esterhazy Member. Date: December 31, 2021 6-5 Figure 6-3: Regional Cross Section Illustrating the Stratigraphic Relationships of the Prairie Evaporite Formation (RESPEC 2021) Date: December 31, 2021 6-6 6.3 Local Geology 6.3.1 Stratigraphy In the Esterhazy area, the Esterhazy, White Bear and Belle Plaine Members are present, and the Patience Lake Member is missing (Figure 6-4, modified from a RESPEC, LLC image). The following is a summary of the key stratigraphic units for the Esterhazy Potash Facility area: • Belle Plaine Member: The Belle Plaine Member underlies Second Red Bed and makes up part of the salt back that is critical to isolating the mining horizon from the formations above. The Belle Plaine Member is mined using solution mining techniques at the Belle Plaine Potash Facility and is not mined at the Esterhazy Facility. • White Bear Member: The White Bear Member consists of marker beds that are a distinctive unit of thin interbedded clay, halite, and sylvinite horizons that are not minable due to insufficient thickness 4.0 to 5.0 ft. (1.2 to 1.5 m). • Esterhazy Member: The Esterhazy Member is separated from the Belle Plaine Member by the White Bear Member marker beds, a sequence of clay seams, low-grade sylvinite, and halite. The Esterhazy Member is mined using conventional underground techniques at the Esterhazy Potash Facility in southeastern Saskatchewan, and by solution mining techniques at the Belle Plaine Potash Facility. Figure 6-4: Local Stratigraphy (modified from RESPEC 2021) The typical sylvinite intervals within the Prairie Evaporite Formation consists of a mass of interlocked sylvite crystals that range from pink to translucent, and may be rimmed by greenish-grey clay or bright red iron insoluble material,


 
Date: December 31, 2021 6-7 with minor halite randomly disseminated throughout the mineralized zones. Local large one inch (2.5 cm) cubic translucent to cloudy halite crystals may be present within the sylvite groundmass, and overall, the sylvinite ranges from a dusky brownish red color (lower grade, 23% to 27% K2O with an increase in the amount of insoluble material) to a bright, almost translucent pinkish orange color (high grade, 30%+ K2O). Carnallite is also present locally in the Prairie Evaporite Formation as a mineral fraction of the depositional sequence. The intervening barren salt beds consist of brownish red, vitreous to translucent halite with minor sylvite and carnallite and increased insoluble materials content. 6.3.2 Stratigraphic Anomalies Potash-bearing horizons may be affected by three general types of anomalies. In general, any disturbance that affects the normal mineability of the sylvinite-bearing horizons is considered an “anomaly”. Figure 6-5 illustrates the typical disturbances that create anomalous altered zones within the main sylvinite-bearing horizons at Saskatchewan potash mining properties. These anomalies range from localized features less than a square kilometer in extent to disturbances that are regional (i.e., several square kilometers in extent) and can result in local disruptions to the grade of the ore body (either leaching or in some cases, enrichment). Figure 6-5: Types of Stratigraphic Anomalies (RESPEC 2021) Dissolution and collapse anomalies, or simply “collapse” anomalies, are those formed by the absence of a portion or the entire mass of evaporite salts. In the case of these anomalies, the overlying beds slump down into the void thus formed, creating a rubble pile or “breccia chimney” where normally the evaporite beds would be expected. In contrast to the leach or washout anomaly, the collapse anomaly can be identified by means of seismic reflection surveys and can thus be avoided through mine design by defining exclusions. Collapse anomalies are considered high risk to conventional underground potash mining operations as they breach all overlying aquitards and aquicludes, thus forming conduits for overlying brines and freshwaters to flow downward into potential mine workings. Date: December 31, 2021 6-8 Individual collapse occurrences are reviewed and categorized based on their potential impact to the mining operation, and exclusion areas are added to the mine plan to ensure the safety of the mining area. A “washout anomaly” is an anomaly wherein the typical sylvinite horizon has been replaced or altered to a halite mass that consists of medium to large ½ inch (1 cm) halite crystals within a groundmass of smaller intermixed halite and insoluble clay. Clay intrusions up to ½ inch (1 cm) long may be present and there is a concentration of clay at the top and base of the altered zone. Mackintosh and McVittie (1983) describe these disturbances as “salt-filled V- or U- shaped structures (Figure 6-6), that transect the normal bedded sequence and obliterate the stratigraphy.” Washouts may extend laterally for considerable distances, but generally appear over short intervals. These features are easily identified in a conventional mining operation through visual inspection but are not detectable by seismic interpretation. Figure 6-6: Wash-out Anomaly A “leach anomaly” is an anomaly wherein the typical sylvinite bed has been altered in such a manner that the sylvite mineral has been removed and replaced by halite (Figure 6-7). Such anomalies are also colloquially termed “salt horses” or “salt horsts” by mine operators. If the altered zone crosses any stratigraphic boundaries, these boundaries are commonly unaltered. This type of disturbance is generally considered post depositional (i.e., formed after deposition of the primary sylvinite). These anomalies are commonly associated with underlying Winnipegosis reefs, that may have some formative influence upon the anomaly. There are many examples at the Esterhazy Potash Facility where a leach anomaly is encountered and there is partial or complete remineralization of the in-situ sylvite. These anomalies are local in extent ranging in diameter from a few meters to as much as 400 m. Date: December 31, 2021 6-9 Figure 6-7: Leach Anomaly The above-described anomalies can impact mining operations by potentially reducing the insitu grade of the potash ore. Identification of any disruption to normal continuous deposition requires evaluation prior to developing a mine plan. Surface seismic reflection surveys (2D and 3D) can be used to identify and, in the case of 3D seismic, delineate large scale collapse zones. Careful examination of core or logged data from surface drill holes can identify anomalous grade conditions if they are intersected but provide no information on their shape or extent. 6.4 Property Geology The Esterhazy Potash Facility is situated in the eastern extent of what is commonly termed the “Commercial Potash Mining Belt” where potash is mined by conventional underground means. The total thickness of potash beds in the Prairie Evaporate at Esterhazy ranges from approximately 100 to 131 ft. (30 to 40 m) at a depth of approximately 3,000 to 3,400 ft. (900 to 1,050 m). In the Esterhazy area, the Esterhazy and White Bear Marker Beds are present (Figure 6-4). The White Bear Marker Beds, a distinctive unit of thin interbedded clay, halite, and sylvinite horizons between the Belle Plaine and Esterhazy Members is insufficient in thickness and grade to be attractive for mining. The potash mineralization in the Esterhazy Member includes five major potash bearing beds that are extracted by conventional mining machines. The key mining horizons are initially delineated using information gathered during production drilling using geophysical logging technology. These logs are compared to physical core to evaluate the quality of the mineralization. 6.4.1 Esterhazy Potash Deposit The potash mined at Esterhazy is a mixture of halite and sylvite and in some parts of the mining area, moderate amounts of carnallite. The key mining horizons are initially delineated using information gathered during exploration drilling using geophysical logging technology. These logs are compared to physical core to evaluate the quality of the mineralization. The potash deposit is generally uniform and laterally continuous. The grade is estimated using geochemical assays of core or chip samples. Properly calibrated, the gamma response from well log data can be converted to indicate the amount of potash in the formation as a %K2O. Gamma Ray Equivalent Calculation (GREC) can be applied to interpret Date: December 31, 2021 6-10 and verify the quality of the ore where core may not be available. The neutron-density log is used to indicate the presence of carnallite. Confidence in this correlation is gained by comparing GREC to assay results. 6.4.2 Deposit Dimensions In the Esterhazy area the potash mineralization is from the Esterhazy Member. It includes five major potash bearing beds that are extracted by conventional mining machines. The naming convention at site refers to the beds in the Esterhazy Member as beds 50, 45, 40, 35, and 30 (in ascending order). The highest-grade potash is hosted in Bed 40. It has an average thickness of 4.3 ft. (1.3 m). Figure 6-8 outlines the thickness and grades for each of the beds. It is possible to encounter variation in the thickness and grade of these beds, but usually, the normal stratigraphy is present. Figure 6-8: General Ore Geology 6.4.3 Lithologies The Esterhazy general ore geology and lithologies are shown in Figure 6-9. The deposit geology is described as a series of beds. • 30 Bed: 30 Bed consists of clear to pink halite, sylvite that is cloudy to milky and rimmed by orange to red iron oxides. Carnallite when present is red. The insoluble content is the 30 Bed is high. • 35 Bed: 35 Bed consists of clear to light grey and milky white halite and clear to light pink sylvite. Carnallite when present is light orange. The insoluble content is very low. • 40 Bed: 40 Bed consists of milky white halite, cubic in shape and gritty when scratched. The sylvite is clear to pinkish orange, rimmed by light orange iron oxides and waxy when scratched. Carnallite when present is orange and infilling between the crystals. The insoluble content is very low and the light from a miner lamp diffuses easily. • 45 Marker Bed: The 45 Bed Marker Bed consists of clear halite, clear to pinkish orange, sylvite rimmed by red iron oxides, that give this bed a darker appearance. Carnallite when present is dark red and infilling


 
Date: December 31, 2021 6-11 between the crystals. The insoluble content is much higher than bed 40 and the light from a miner lamp does not diffuse. • 50 Bed: 50 Bed is very similar in appearance to 40 Bed. The insoluble content is slightly higher. Bed 45 ore is present as fill material in desiccation cracks. • 55 Bed (Floor Salt): 55 Bed consists of mainly halite; the insoluble content is brown and sometimes bedding is present. In sylvite, the contact with 50 Bed is generally sharp. In carnallite rich ore, the contact with 50 Bed is gradational. Figure 6-9: Deposit Stratigraphy Date: December 31, 2021 6-12 6.4.4 Structure The Prairie Evaporite is a relatively flat-lying deposit with uniform bedding across the property. The 3D seismic interpretation is used to describe the structure within mining zone. Evaluation of Winnipegosis mounds, collapse features and the total salt isopach supports mine planning activities at Esterhazy. The underlying Winnipegosis Formation locally affects the elevation topography of the mining horizon. These local inflections result from compaction on the reef/mound structures found in the Winnipegosis carbonates and can affect the potash zones. There is limited impact to mining based on the occurrence of these mounds, that are well defined by 3D seismic interpretation. Geological expertise at Mosaic potash mines in Saskatchewan has resulted in an evolved internal registry of mound encounters. Appropriate operational strategy and mine planning controls are effective in limiting the impact of the local bed dip inflections and mineralogical variance associated with mound encounters in both the conventional and solution environments. 6.4.5 Mineralization Potash mineralization contains sylvinite, a mixture of the iron oxide stained halite, sylvite and carnallite. Minor amounts of insoluble minerals are also present, most notably in the 45 Bed. When present interstitially or as more massive pods, carnallite can deteriorate rapidly or be preferentially dissolved. The color of the potash can vary from light orange to deep red rimmed crystals. The mineralization can be locally bedded or massive. The halite and sylvite crystals can range from small to more typically coarse to large. This can be attributed to the conditions during deposition as there has been no alteration. Date: December 31, 2021 7-1 7.0 Exploration 7.1 Exploration 7.1.1 Grids and Surveys The UTM grid (NAD83 Zone 13N) is used for all exploration drilling as well as all seismic surveys. 7.1.2 Geological Mapping There has been no geological mapping completed at Esterhazy since there is no bedrock exposure. 7.1.3 Geochemistry No significant surface rock or drill core geochemistry surveys have been completed at Esterhazy. 7.1.4 Seismic Survey Geophysics Over the past 30 years, the surface seismic method has gained widespread recognition in the potash industry, as a valuable mine planning tool and as an analytical tool for anomalous underground encounters at the mining level. Today, problems such as analysis of site-specific solution collapse anomalies, void space mapping, and brine inflow site identification are being solved through the use of surface seismic investigations. International Minerals and Chemical Corporation (Canada) Ltd. (“IMC”), a predecessor company of Mosaic started 2D seismic surveying in the Esterhazy area in 1985 with a targeted 9 line survey. During the period of 1985 to 1990, five additional 2D programs were completed. Four programs were run between 1997 and 2000, and a small 6.4 miles (10.3 km) 2D program were completed in 2006. An additional 106 miles (170 km) of vintage 1986-88 trade data was purchased in 2008 for coverage in the K3 area. Over the course of 23 years, a total of 1,440 miles (2,319 km) was either run or purchased and then merged and reprocessed. Over time, advancement of seismic technology has evolved from 2D to 3D methodology, which is now the primary exploration tool at Esterhazy. The first 3D seismic survey at the Esterhazy Potash Facility was done in 1991 as a test of technology at the time. This was followed by the first full scale 3D seismic survey in 2000. During the period of 2000 to 2015, 24 more 3D seismic surveys were completed, ending with the extensive K3 3D survey in 2015 covering 90 sq. miles (232 sq. km). In total, there are 411 sq. miles (1,065 sq. km.) of 3D seismic coverage at Esterhazy. The seismic survey coverage is shown in Figure 7-1. Mosaic contracts all seismic work including surveys, interpretation, and maintenance of the seismic model to a qualified third party, RPS Energy Canada Ltd. based in Calgary, Alberta. Date: December 31, 2021 7-2 Figure 7-1: Seismic Surveys


 
Date: December 31, 2021 7-3 7.1.5 Petrology, Mineralogy, and Research Studies The petrology or mineralogy studies that have been done in the exploration stage and early production years (1960s) are no longer available for review. There have been no recent studies completed. A tonnage factor is used to estimate ore tons from volume and is defined as the reciprocal of ore density. The ore tonnage factor is expressed as cubic feet per ton. A recent study was completed to determine if the historical tonnage factor and density used at the K1/K2 mining operation was applicable to the K3 area. Calculations were carried out using the assay data from 17 exploration holes drilled over the K3 mining lease area. The density value for ore recovered from each exploration well was calculated using established densities for all minerals contained in the ore, as per concentrations determined analytically. Ore density was considered to be the mean average density of this data set. The mean average of the well data set was determined to be 129.878 lbs./cu ft. (2080.446 kg/ cubic m). The corresponding reciprocal ore tonnage factor is 15.40 cu ft. per ton. This compares favorably to the historical K1/K2 value of 15.10 cu ft. per ton. The new K3 ore tonnage factor is used in the 2021 mineral resource and mineral reserve calculation. 7.1.6 Exploration Potential The potential to increase mineral resources is very limited at Esterhazy. The current Crown Lease area is almost completely surrounded by crown lease dispositions held by other companies. The only location available for expansion is to the north-east into an undisposed area. Mosaic has first rights to lease this area from the Crown as it is within the Mosaic Esterhazy Development Zone (Subsurface Mineral Tenure Regulations, 2015 C-50.2 Reg 30, Section 33(2)). In addition, as the remaining uncontrolled mineral rights within the lease area are acquired, more mineral resources or mineral reserves will be delineated. 7.2 Drilling 7.2.1 Overview Oil and gas drilling in the Esterhazy area dates back to the early 1950’s with the first potash exploration drilling completed by IMC in 1956. Fourteen exploration drill holes were drilled prior to production starting at K1 in 1962. Exploration drilling has continued through to 2015 with an additional 57 holes drilled. Drill programs of note were the K3 Phase I drilling in 2009 to 2010 when 10 holes were drilled to evaluate the proposed K3 Shaft site, and the K3 Phase II drilling in 2016 when 9 drill holes were drilled to evaluate the K3 mining area. These drilling campaigns were completed under Mosaic supervision with the field work, core logging and sampling being performed by professional consulting geologists at RESPEC (North Rim Exploration Limited) and Norwest Corporation respectively. The potash mineralization in the majority of drill holes was cored, and the potash bearing zones were analyzed. In most cases a full suite of geophysical logs was run, particularly in the more recent holes. Ten holes drilled in 2012 to 2015 to create a brine injection field were not cored and have been evaluated through the use of GREC (Gamma Ray Equivalent Calculation) to determine potash grade so that they can be utilized in the estimation of mineral resources. 7.2.2 Drilling Supporting Mineral Resource Estimates The exploration drill holes used to support the Esterhazy K3 and K4 mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates are shown with a “Y” in the “Used for MRMR” column in Table 7-1. Included is whether the well core samples were assayed or grade was estimated from downhole gamma logging (GREC). Date: December 31, 2021 7-4 Figure 7-2: Exploration Hole Locations Date: December 31, 2021 7-5 7.2.3 Drilling Excluded from the Mineral Resource Estimates The exploration drilling used to support the Esterhazy K3 and K4 mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates are listed in Table 7-1. Included is whether the hole core samples were assayed or grade was estimated from downhole gamma logging (GREC). Drilling that was excluded for mineral resource estimation purposes is shown with a “N” in the “Used for MRMR” column in Table 7-1. In most cases, the assay data for these exploration holes was either not available or incomplete through the potash ore zone. It is important to note that the mining zone thickness and grade defined by the exploration drilling is 8.5 ft. (2.6 m) at an average grade of 23.4% K2O. These support the thickness and grade assumptions used to estimate mineral resources. Date: December 31, 2021 7-6 Table 7-1: Drill Summary Table Supporting Mineral Resource Estimates Location Well Identifier Legal Subdivision Section Township Range Year Drilled Total Depth (ft.) Total Depth (m.) Used for MRMR (Y/N) Total Mining Zone Grade (%K2O) Grade Analysis Method K4 50I004 6 8 22 32 W1 1950 2,905 885 N K4 57H085 1 16 20 30 W1 1957 4,315 1,315 N K4 60H003 1 24 20 32 W1 1960 3,081 939 Y 34.8 Assay K4 60I013 16 36 20 32 W1 1960 3,139 957 N K4 60I024 13 15 21 32 W1 1960 3,082 939 Y 25.2 Assay K4 60J011 13 35 20 32 W1 1960 3,089 942 Y 32.0 Assay K4 62B002 9 14 19 30 W1 1962 3,058 932 Y 28.7 Assay K4 62B022 11 2 20 30 W1 1962 3,015 919 Y 18.3 Assay K4 62B021 2 29 20 30 W1 1962 2,959 902 Y 32.5 Assay K4 62H070 16 7 21 30 W1 1962 2,882 878 Y 20.0 Assay K4 62H072 4 25 20 30 W1 1962 2,918 889 Y 30.4 Assay K4 62H071 1 2 21 31 W1 1962 2,987 910 Y 28.2 Assay K4 62H068 9 24 21 30 W1 1962 2,792 851 N K4 62H069 4 2 21 30 W1 1962 2,863 873 Y 17.7 Assay K4 62J033 4 2 22 31 W1 1962 2,865 873 Y 31.2 Assay K4 63E084 4 26 21 31 W1 1963 2,870 875 Y 18.5 Assay K4 63E083 16 11 21 31 W1 1963 2,943 897 Y 17.2 Assay K4 63E090 14 32 20 30 W1 1963 2,919 890 Y 20.9 Assay K4 63E080 13 6 22 30 W1 1963 2,831 863 Y 18.0 Assay K4 63E092 5 21 21 31 W1 1963 2,991 912 Y 29.8 Assay K4 63F001 4 4 22 31 W1 1963 2,908 886 Y 19.4 Assay K4 63E093 8 14 20 30 W1 1963 2,966 904 Y 21.8 Assay K4 63F002 2 14 22 31 W1 1963 2,843 867 Y 22.8 Assay K4 63E081 4 20 22 31 W1 1963 2,926 892 Y 23.0 Assay K4 63E094 13 12 22 32 W1 1963 3,014 919 Y 20.3 Assay K4 63H050 16 4 21 31 W1 1963 3,028 923 N K4 63H051 4 22 20 30 W1 1963 2,980 908 N K4 63I037 14 22 20 30 W1 1963 2,920 890 N K4 63I038 11 25 20 31 W1 1963 2,985 910 Y 24.3 Assay K4 63J101 2 16 22 31 W1 1963 2,914 888 Y 27.9 Assay K4 63J096 10 18 21 31 W1 1963 3,022 921 Y 18.5 Assay


 
Date: December 31, 2021 7-7 K4 63J115 13 29 21 31 W1 1963 2,960 902 Y 22.3 Assay K4 65D001 3 10 22 31 W1 1965 2,837 865 Y 18.6 Assay K4 65C080 9 10 21 31 W1 1965 2,982 909 Y 22.3 Assay K4 65D003 15 28 21 31 W1 1965 2,900 884 Y 29.3 Assay K4 65D002 8 36 20 31 W1 1965 2,934 894 Y 20.0 Assay K4 65F111 4 10 22 32 W1 1965 4,429 1,350 N K4 65I098 13 28 20 31 W1 1965 3,045 928 N K3 65J030 2 17 22 1 W2 1965 3,097 944 N K3 65J064 1 34 21 33 W1 1965 3,061 933 N K3 65K071 13 23 21 1 W2 1965 3,228 984 N K4 89G049 13 29 19 30 W1 1989 3,123 952 N K4 89G048 14 8 19 30 W1 1989 3,140 957 N K4 89I068 1 8 20 30 W1 1989 3,022 921 N K4 92F060 5 17 20 31 W1 1992 3,333 1,016 Y 41.1 Assay K3 09K092 13 14 19 1 W2 2009 3,535 1,078 Y 23.6 Assay K3 09K217 4 34 19 33 W1 2009 3,409 1,039 Y 28.9 Assay K3 09J166 5 25 19 33 W1 2010 3,615 1,102 Y 23.7 Assay K3 09L134 4 11 19 1 W2 2010 3,596 1,096 Y 24.5 Assay K3 10A046 15 24 19 1 W2 2010 3,465 1,056 Y 33.9 Assay K3 10B222 13 23 19 33 W1 2010 3,423 1,043 Y 23.5 Assay K3 10B221 12 22 19 33 W1 2010 3,442 1,049 Y 34.8 Assay K3 10E268 12 22 19 33 W1 2010 3,609 1,100 Y 19.1 Assay K3 10F031 2 4 19 1 W2 2010 3,714 1,132 Y 25.4 Assay K3 10E269 12 22 19 33 W1 2010 3,661 1,116 Y 30.4 Assay K3 12F347 1 28 21 1 W2 2012 4,006 1,221 Y 21.3 GREC K3 12G178 14 16 21 1 W2 2012 4,062 1,238 Y 9.4 GREC K3 12H036 3 20 21 1 W2 2012 4,096 1,249 Y 20.3 GREC K3 12H053 14 20 21 1 W2 2012 4,078 1,243 Y 20.6 GREC K3 12G205 15 29 21 1 W2 2012 4,052 1,235 Y 22.4 GREC K3 12I209 16 32 21 1 W2 2012 3,980 1,213 Y 21.3 GREC K3 12K047 9 33 21 1 W2 2012 3,976 1,212 Y 9.2 GREC K3 15F233 8 16 21 1 W2 2015 4,085 1,245 Y 23.1 GREC K3 15F234 8 18 21 1 W2 2015 4,117 1,255 Y 26.2 GREC K3 15F235 10 30 21 1 W2 2015 4,101 1,250 Y 15.5 GREC K3 15J304 15 36 18 1 W2 2016 3,693 1,126 Y 14.1 Assay K3 15J288 1 5 19A 1 W2 2016 3,791 1,156 Y 28.2 Assay K3 15J300 13 36 18 2 W2 2016 3,881 1,183 Y 14.9 Assay Date: December 31, 2021 7-8 K3 51680 16 16 19 1 W2 2016 3,609 1,100 Y 20.3 Assay K3 15J308 4 3 20 1 W2 2016 3,435 1,047 Y 26.2 Assay K3 51678 16 2 19 2 W2 2016 3,885 1,184 Y 18.3 Assay K3 51698 16 17 20 1 W2 2016 3,399 1,036 Y 23.8 Assay K3 51666 16 14 19 2 W2 2016 3,681 1,122 Y 23.0 Assay K3 51662 14 5 19 1 W2 2016 3,681 1,122 Y 19.7 Assay Total 243,272 74,149 Average 23.4 Date: December 31, 2021 7-9 7.2.4 Drill Methods All historical exploration drill holes were drilled vertically using standard oil and gas well drilling techniques of the day. Modern drilling uses standard rotary techniques combined with directional drilling utilizing mud motors and MWD (Measurement While Drilling) equipment. Single shot, multi shot, and MWD directional surveys are run during the drilling process. A final multi-shot directional survey is completed when total depth is reached. In all exploration holes drilled prior to 2015, hydrogeology was evaluated by drill stem tests. In 2015 to 2016, the Phase II drilling at K3 utilized Modular Formation Dynamics testing (MDT). This newer technology was used as it can isolate and test zones in specific intervals, multiple samples can be collected from specific intervals within one wellbore, and the MDT tool is run on wireline rather than on the drill string. Early potash exploration drilling in the Esterhazy area focused on hydrogeological testing of the Mannville Group and Dawson Bay formations, with isolated testing on the Nisku and Souris River formations. The hydrogeology portion of the drilling campaign in the 1980’s focused specifically on the Souris River and Dawson Bay Formations to evaluate the presence of formational water immediately above the Prairie Evaporite. This continued into the K3 Phase I and II drilling from 2009 to 2016. The only exception was the “Farfield” brine injection drilling program that only tested the target Winnipeg Formation. Any geotechnical studies done on core from the pre-1980 exploration holes are no longer available for review. Three shaft pilot drill holes were drilled in 2009 and 2010 as part of the K3 Phase I drilling program – PH1 (09J166), 2EH (10E269), and 3EH (10E268). All three were cored for the entire length of the well to provide representative samples for shaft design purposes. Extensive geotechnical studies were done including the measurement/calculation of the following properties: • Mass – density relations (specific gravity, moisture content, wet and dry density, void ratio and porosity). • Grain size. • Discontinuities and Joint Sets. • Point load (PL). • Unconfined compressive strength (UCS). • Elastic Properties (Young’s Modulus and Poisson’s Ratio). • Rock Classification – RMR (Rock Mass Rating), RQD (Rock Quality Designation), and Q (Rock Mass Quality) ratings. • Tri-axial testing. • The data was used to develop shaft design and excavation plans, including freeze hole design for shaft sinking through the formational water bearing Lower Mannville Group. It was also used for shaft liner design and formational grouting design. 7.2.5 Geological Logging Core Logging Core was retrieved from all potash exploration drill holes at Esterhazy. Core was not retrieved from the ten holes drilled for the Farfield brine injection field. A grade estimation process using gamma logs was used for the brine injection holes so that they could be used in the mineral reserve estimation process. Government drilling regulations require cutting samples to be obtained every 16.4 ft. (5 m) from the Second White Specks Formation down to bottom hole. Samples, and a complete set of drilling data are submitted to the government drilling authority as required by the Regulations. Date: December 31, 2021 7-10 Core logging procedures for the oldest drilling (approximately 1960 to 1980) are no longer available for review. The following procedures were used in the K3 Phase I and II drilling programs: • The field recovery of the core was technically managed by a core retrieval specialist. The initial core review and handling was supervised by geological consultants to ensure a high-quality physical record was maintained. All standard procedures and quality control measures were adhered to for each drilling campaign. • The drill core was secured for shipping with the appropriate chain of custody documents and delivered from the site to the geological consultant’s core facility in Saskatoon, SK. • As soon as the core arrived in Saskatoon, the geological consultant’s staff inspected the shipment and unloaded the core onto the tables in stratigraphic order. From this point forward, the consulting geologists were responsible for supervising the core. • Prior to commencement of any technical work, the core samples require some degree of cleaning to remove any material adhering to the core surface that may interfere with core logging and analysis. It is important that all cleaning procedures focus only on one core segment at a time, and appropriate cleaning methods for different core type are followed. • After the core boxes were laid out in stratigraphic order, the core segments in each box were re-fitted together in the best possible manner to restore the core to its original condition and length. • Once the logging geologist was satisfied with the organization of the core, properly marked final labels were added to supplement any markings or labels placed onto the box at the well site. Each core box was assigned its own unique information, including depths corrected (in feet below Kelly Bushing) using available geophysical logs. • After the initial assessment was performed, the consulting geologists proceeded with the detailed core logging process. Core descriptions were entered directly into the consultant’s core logging database. Geologists adhered to the following format and sequence of elements where applicable. o Lithology (major), then minor lithology (if applicable). o Rock color. o Rock texture. o Rock hardness and competency. o Structural deformation. o Mineralogy and fossils. o Other special features. o Porosity and permeability. o Basal contact. Geophysical Logging A variety of geophysical logs have been run on potash exploration holes at Esterhazy. Information from the early drilling period (1960–1980) is very limited, but the provincial government well data repository, Integrated Resource Information System (IRIS) indicates a typical suite of logs would include “electrical”, “gamma ray – neutron”, “sonic – caliper”, and “induction”. In the drilling that occurred during 1989 – 1992 the standard set of geophysical logs run were GR (Gamma Ray), CNL (Compensated Neutron Log), DIL (Dual Induction Laterolog), and BHC (Borehole Compensated Sonic). The K3 Phase I and II drilling programs utilized a modern suite of geophysical logs including Spectral Pe Density Compensated Neutron Gamma Ray Log (SPED), Monopole Dipole Acoustic Semblance Log (MDA), Borehole Compensated Sonic Log (BCS), Simultaneous Triple Induction SFL Log (STI), and High Resolution Micro Imager Log (HMI). All geophysical logs are submitted to the government drilling authority as required by the applicable regulations.


 
Date: December 31, 2021 7-11 Grade estimation utilizing gamma logs was evaluated at Esterhazy for the purpose of including the 10 holes drilled for the Farfield brine injection drilling program in the Mineral Reserve and Mineral Resource estimation. The potash assay results from three holes in the K3 Phase I drilling program (EH1, EH4, and EH6) were compared to the grade interpreted from gamma logs. Mosaic relied on the expertise of a third party potash consultant (RESPEC) to complete the GREC analysis at Esterhazy. Two methods of correlating gamma ray API and %K2O were reviewed. The first, described as the “Alger and Crain method” (Alger and Crain, 1966) uses the following data to determine the correlation between gamma ray API and %K2O: • Borehole diameter at depth of interest. • Mud weight. • Downhole logging speed. • Centralization or decentralization of gamma tool downhole. • Calipers – hole condition, shape of hole (washouts, etc.). The second, described at the “Bannatyne method” (after Bannatyne, 1983) uses a linear relationship between gamma ray API and %K2O and does not consider borehole diameter, mud weight or other downhole parameters. An analysis was completed, and it was determined the Alger-Crain method provided better correlation between assayed grade and gamma grade. Gamma derived potash grades are used for the 10 Farfield drill holes in the mineral resource estimation, as shown in Table 7.1. 7.2.6 Recovery Core recovery during the history of drilling in the Esterhazy area has been excellent due to well established drilling procedures, and the use of drilling fluids that protect the target Prairie Evaporite Formation from dissolution during coring. In the early drilling period (1960 to 1980) recoveries averaged 98.4% in available records from 48 drill holes. Data from 11 holes drilled during the period of 1989 to 1992 indicated core recovery was 99%. Core recovery in the K3 Phase I drilling was 98.0% and 99.1% in the Phase II drilling. 7.2.7 Collar Surveys Historical exploration holes were located by a Land Surveyor registered in the Province of Saskatchewan. The current standard operating procedure is for the exploration well collars to be surveyed by a third party licensed survey contractor using GPS. 7.3 Chip Sampling In-mine chip sampling is completed to support the grade interpretation for the active mining areas. The samples are collected by mine engineering technical employees under the supervision of the mine geologist following a standard procedure. These samples are prepared and analyzed at Mosaic’s K1 and K2 Esterhazy Quality Control Laboratories. Samples are taken at 200 ft. (61 m) intervals along all development entryways. At the sample location the geological beds are marked and a representative sample is taken from each bed. Geochemical analysis of the samples and weighting by bed thickness provides an average grade of the mining horizon at the sample location. In-mine chip sample results (Figure 7-3) are used to estimate the average potash grade along the development drifts. The mean average of these samples is used to represent the average grade of the mineral resource within 0.5 mile (800 m) of the development drifts inside the active mining area. Date: December 31, 2021 7-12 Figure 7-3: In-Mine Chip Sample Assay Results and Statistics 7.4 QP Interpretation of the Exploration Information In the opinion of the QP for this section, the quantity and quality of the lithological, collar and drilling data collected in the exploration program prior to 1962 and the definition drilling completed to date (2015) are sufficient to support mineral resource and mineral reserve estimation. The reasons for this are as follows: • The post 1980 core logging meets industry standards for this type of deposit. There is some uncertainty regarding the core logging procedures for the oldest 1960 to 1980 drilling. The procedures are no longer available for review. • The collar surveys have been performed using industry-standard instrumentation. • Down-hole surveys were performed using industry-standard instrumentation. • Drill orientations are appropriate for the mineralization style and have been drilled at orientations that are acceptable for the orientation of mineralization for the bulk of the deposit area. • Drill orientations appropriately test the mineralization. • Recovery data from core drilling programs is acceptable. • The drilling pattern and density are consistent with industry standard. • The recorded data and classification of core constituents are in line with industry practice. Date: December 31, 2021 7-13 • The drilling process and equipment are consistent with industry standards for this type of deposit. • The data that is determined to be defective is not used in the estimation process. Date: December 31, 2021 8-1 8.0 Sample Preparation, Analyses and Security 8.1 Introduction The potash mineralization at Esterhazy is evaluated by collecting core samples from 59 exploration drill holes and from in-mine chip samples collected underground from the main infrastructure drives. There have been two additional substantial exploration drilling programs to further define the remaining mineral reserves and mineral resources in the Esterhazy lease area: The K4 area is located on the eastern side of the previous mining operation (K1/K2). The area was largely explored in 1989 with 17 additional holes added to the interpretation. There are partial and complete records from the historic drilling with the records being archived in Integrated Resource Information System (IRIS). There are limited records regarding the standard processes that were in place regarding the sampling, assay, and data collection methods. The QP considers the processes that were in place acceptable for the time of collection. The K3 area is located on the western side of the previous mining operation (K1/K2). In 2009, Mosaic commenced a multi-stage exploration drilling program to define the mineral resource potential for K3. A total of 19 holes were drilled and evaluated to define the mineral reserves currently being mined at K3; 16 were partially cored and three were cored from surface to total depth. Core sample preparation, analysis and security was performed by Accredited Laboratory No. 537 – ISO/IEC 17025:2017, Geoanalytical Laboratories, Saskatchewan Research Council (SRC). This lab is based in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, and is considered a global leader in the analysis of potash samples. The in-mine chip sampling is completed to support the grade interpretation for the active mining area (mine footprint). The samples are collected following a standard procedure by mine engineering technical employees under the supervision of the mine geologist. These samples are prepared and analyzed at the K1 and K2 Quality Control laboratories. 8.2 Sampling Method 8.2.1 Procedures: Core Determining individual sample locations was based on visually inspecting the core and consulting the respective geophysical logs. This information was used by geologists to assess changes in mineralogy, lithology, and grade. Individual samples were selected according to the following process: • Changes in lithology, mineralogy, K2O grade, crystal size, or insoluble content warranted a new sample. • Clay seams were broken out as their own samples, with approximately 0.4 inches (1 cm) overlap on either side of the seam. • Samples were limited to a range of 3 to 12 inches (10 to 30 cm). Within barren intervals, sampling limits did not exceed 30 inches (75 cm) and the minimum sample length was no less than 3 inches (10 cm). • Prior to sample cutting, the core was divided into individually marked samples with straight lines perpendicular to core axis, by the geologist. The upper half of the core with the marked sample intervals was then cut with the band saw, where no natural breaks occur. Only one piece of core was removed from the core box at any one time and cut across the marked sample lines. This cutting process was repeated throughout the assay interval. • Once the sample interval to be assayed was chosen, the core was slabbed lengthwise into halves with the use of a guide to ensure a straight cut across the diameter of the core. The core was cut with the dry band saw equipped with a dust collection system at the core logging facility. As stated above, only one piece of core was removed from the core box at any one time and slabbed down the vertical orientation lines marked on


 
Date: December 31, 2021 8-2 the core. Once slabbed, the two complimentary core halves must be placed back into their respective box, with both cut surfaces facing up, prior to the next piece being taken to ensure proper stratigraphic order. This process was repeated until the cored interval was slabbed. The cutting process was always supervised by the geologist. • Slabbed core samples selected for analysis were bagged, labeled and sent to the SRC laboratory for processing and analysis. The suite of analyses included the following standard package of potash analysis provided by SRC: o Soluble Digestion and ICP-OES analysis. o Insoluble Determination (filtered). o Moisture Content (wt.%). 8.2.2 Quality Control: Core The following quality control practices are in place supporting the core sampling process. • The SRC laboratory is temperature and humidity controlled to prevent core from rapidly deteriorating. • Depth correcting of the core to the wireline log depth is a quality assurance quality control (QA/QC) measure undertaken by the geologists to ensure that accurate depths are recorded for critical elements observed in core. Depth correcting must be performed prior to any further geological analysis of the core and all depth corrections must be peer reviewed. Where appropriate, a correction factor is applied to the measured depth to calculate the true vertical depth over the cored interval. • Digital photographic records of the core and sample intervals systematically collected and compiled by the geologists (Table 8-1). This ensures there are no mix ups in sample location and depth intervals. Table 8-1: Digital Photograph Records Photo Series Interval Location Core Condition Moisture Content Primary Cored Interval Field / Lab Whole Wet / Dry Assayed Assayed Interval Lab Slabbed Dry (Brine) Assayed- Tagged Assayed Interval Lab Slabbed Dry (Brine) • With each set of 40 samples, two potash standards, one quartz blank, and one sample pulp replicate analysis are completed. After processing the entire group of samples, a split sample replicate is also completed. After receiving all results from the Geoanalytical Lab, the QA/QC department completes checks to ensure accuracy. 8.2.3 Procedure: In-Mine Chip Samples The following outlines the procedure for the collection of in-mine chip samples. • Samples are collected at 200 ft. intervals in all entries, termed sample stations. • The geological beds are identified at each sample station (Figure 8-1) and are painted with red paint using the average thickness as a guide (Table 8-2). This ensures consistency of bed identification. • Once all mined beds are identified, a rock hammer is used to chisel a representative sample from each bed. • The samples are collected in separate linen sample bags and have individual sample tags placed in each bag. • Each sample station is documented with the overall thickness and is checked to ensure that it matches the mining height. Date: December 31, 2021 8-3 • The sample set from a sample station is tied together and placed in a pail for transport to the on-site laboratory facility. Figure 8-1: Esterhazy Member Potash Mineralization Table 8-2: Esterhazy Geological Bed Names and Average Thickness Bed Name Average Thickness (ft) Average Thickness (m) 50 2 to 2.5 0.61 to 0.76 45 1.7 0.52 40 4.3 1.31 35 1.5 0.46 30 2 0.61 8.2.4 Quality Control: In-Mine Chip Samples Underground chip sample collection is completed by trained personnel who hold a technical diploma or a degree from a recognized educational institution. Bed identification is a routine procedure for the mining personnel. Sample locations are marked with paint for confirmation by the geologist as required. Supervision of sampling by the geologist is not required for all sampling, but frequent informal internal auditing includes sample recollection and comparison to ROGA results. Date: December 31, 2021 8-4 8.3 Sample Preparation 8.3.1 Procedures: Core At the (SRC) laboratory, samples were prepared for assaying and analytical procedures following the process below. • Rock samples were jaw crushed and a subsample split out using a riffler. The subsample was pulverized using a puck and ring grinding mill. The pulp was transferred to a barcode labeled plastic snap top vial. • All samples are kept in their original bags throughout all preparation procedures. • Samples are dried in their original bags. • The entire dried sample was crushed to 95% minus 2 mm. • A representative subsample was taken by passing the samples through a riffle splitter to riffle out an aliquot for mill grinding. The riffle has 10 riffle banks per side with ½ inch (1.3 cm) openings. All crushed “rejects” were vacuum sealed and returned to the original pails. The lab will place coarse rejects into storage until requested by the customer. • Homogenization of the subsample was achieved by mild steel grind to 95% minus 0.106 mm. • Transfer a portion of the homogenized aliquot to a barcode labeled plastic snap top vial. The remaining ground material (pulp) was sealed in the pulp bag. 8.3.2 Quality Assurance and Quality Control: Core Quality control performed during the sample preparation process at the SRC lab includes: • Screen size analysis on 5% of samples is performed, after crushing to minus 2 mm and after pulverization to minus 0.106 mm, 95% passing. All data will be tracked and available to client. • Loss of mass monitoring on 5% of samples is performed after crushing to minus 2 mm and after pulverization to minus 0.106 mm, 95% passing. All data is tracked and available to client. • Silica sand is used at the start of every group to clean the grinding mills. Silica sand is used to clean grinding mills between samples as required (sticky samples). Sample blanks (quintus quartz) are inserted at a rate of 5% per group. All data is available when requested. • A quintus quartz sand blank is inserted at a rate if 1 per 20 samples or 1 per group in the case there are less than 20 samples. • A pulp repeat (R) is included with every set of 36 samples and there is one split sample repeat (SSR) with every group. • Results will also include one reagent blank per group being processed. 8.3.3 Procedures: In-Mine Chip Samples All in-mine chip samples are prepared for analysis at the K1 and K2 Esterhazy analytical laboratories using the following procedures: • The in-mine samples are delivered from underground to the control room by the mine technicians and transported to the lab by Mosaic’s internal site delivery service. • Once received, the samples are dried. Sample material and sample ID tags are placed in a plastic cup to ensure proper sample ID. Date: December 31, 2021 8-5 • Sample material is split to ~100g using a splitter or riffle to distribute a larger sample into smaller representative samples for pulverization. (SOP # 1935 – Splitting Samples) • Pulverizers are used to finely grind samples for chemical analysis. The sample enters the pulverizer chamber by filling the hopper and is fed using a feed screw into a rotating pulverizer blade. A motor on the pulverizer rotates the blades generating enough pressure and frictional forces on the sample to pulverize it. The pulverized sample exits the chamber through the mesh screen at the base of the pulverizing chamber and is collected in a sample cup. The mesh screen ensures that oversized product is held in the pulverizing chamber until the appropriate particle size is obtained. (SOP# 1615 – Pulverizing Samples). The samples must be dry prior to pulverizing and large sample chunks are put through the disc mill prior to feeding it into the pulverizer. Carry over contamination between samples is reduced by blowing out the pulverizer hopper, side access door, and under mesh screen before use and between samples. • The pulverized product is prepared into XRF pellets using the Angstrom 4451AE Briquet Press. To prepare a pellet, an aluminum cup is filled with pulverized sample and placed onto the piston. The press must reach 30,000 psi for four seconds. The pellet is then removed from the press and ready for XRF analysis. (Procedure # 1630 – Pressing Samples for XRF Analysis using Angstrom Sample Press (PDCA)). Th die is cleaned between samples by wiping on a Kim wipe cleaning pad. Regular maintenance is performed on the die and press to avoid rust contamination of pellets. 8.3.4 Quality Assurance and Quality Control: In-Mine Chip Samples Quality control performed during the sample preparation process at the Mosaic metallurgical lab includes: • Chip Samples are dried in their original bags before being prepared for analysis. • Chip samples are jaw crushed and a subsample is split out to approximately 100 g using a riffle splitter if the original sample is too large to properly prepare. • Sample tags are taken from mine sample bags and placed into the sample’s container. • Pulverized material is ~ 200 mesh for XRF usage. • High pressure air nozzles are used to clean pulverizer chamber and hopper in between each sample. • Pulverized samples are then mixed thoroughly to ensure homogenization before being made into the pressed pellets that will be run on the XRF. • A glass bead control sample is run at the start and end of every batch of chip samples that is run on the XRF. Batch is re-run if control sample parameters are not met. • XRF QC samples are pressed in triplicate. The standard deviation of the %K2O of the three pellets must be less than <0.15. If the standard deviation is greater than 0.15 between the triplicate samples the sample is re- split and new pellets are prepared. • Control sample data is recorded and tracked in excel spreadsheets. The control sample analysis must be in range for samples to be reported. Control charts are reviewed twice per week by the QC Specialist/QC Supervisor. • Original chip samples and analyzed portions are not kept for retention. • QC records are kept for two years. 8.4 Assaying and Analytical Procedures 8.4.1 Procedures: Core The basic Potash Exploration Package (ICP 2 Geo Chem) offered by SRC was used to analyze the core samples.


 
Date: December 31, 2021 8-6 The assaying and analytical procedures performed at the SRC lab utilizes soluble and insoluble digestion and ICP- OES analysis. An aliquot of the sample pulp was weighed and placed in a volumetric flask. Deionized water from a thermostatically controlled system was added to the flask then shaken and placed in an agitated thermostatically controlled water bath. The volumetric flask was allowed to cool then topped to volume with deionized water and shaken. The solution was then vacuumed filtered. The reweighed filter paper was dried overnight cooled in a desiccator and weighed. The weight percent insoluble are then calculated. The detection limit for this method is 0.1 wt.%. Only calibrated glassware is used aligning with ISO 17025 requirements. A moisture determination is also completed. An aliquot pulp is placed into a pre-weighed crucible and heated. The sample was then weighed again and the moisture is calculated as wt.% with a detection limit 0.1 wt.%. Assay standards are labeled with the sample number in which they were inserted after with a corresponding A to denote no thickness is given to the standard sample. 8.4.2 Quality Assurance and Quality Control: Core Reference materials POT004B (higher grade) and POT003B (lower grade) were developed and are alternately inserted by SRC every twenty samples. In addition to the inserted QA/QC samples, all SRC instruments were calibrated using commercial standards. Quality control samples from the Lab are prepared and analyzed with each batch of submitted samples. One in every 40 samples is analyzed in duplicate. All quality Lab control results must be within specified limits otherwise corrective action is taken. 8.4.3 Procedures: In-Mine Chip Samples At the Esterhazy Quality Control Lab, the Potassium Oxide (K2O) content of samples is determined using the Thermo Scientific® ARL ADVANT’X Sequential XRF (X-ray fluorescence) IntelliPower with X-Y Sample Changer. The XRF instrument is prepared for sample analysis by inputting the sample batch that includes location information and unique sample identification number into the system; in-mine samples are analyzed for K2O and Mg content. XRF Pellets are loaded into cassettes and the analysis process is initiated. A control pellet is run with each batch before and/or after samples. The control pellet (glass bead pellet) is commercially prepared by Thermo Scientific®. Results from external control samples are recorded in Mosaic’s Livelink data repository. Data results are immediately available for review. Any anomalous analyses are flagged by the instrument. These individual sample canisters will be repositioned and re-run for analysis. This process is repeated until the lab technician is satisfied with the quality of the results. Sample pellets are discarded. The %K2O and %Mg are transcribed and entered into the Mine Ore database. A paper copy is returned to the mine engineering technical group at the mine site for verification. 8.4.4 Quality Assurance and Quality Control: In-Mine Chip Samples The XRF instrument is calibrated using matrix matched samples of KCl with known concentrations. The standards used to assemble the calibration curve are stored in XRF room in a desiccant chamber. The concentrations are determined using STPB (Sodium tetraphenyl boron) titration. As per the IFA Method Harmonization Working Group’s evaluation of analytical methods used globally for the quality testing of potassium content in Potassium Chloride Fertilizer the STPB method is the preferred method or best practice methodology for use in international fertilizer trade. The KCl can be calculated by determining the amount of minor impurities that are Ca, Mg, NaCl, Bromide, Sulfate and Insol. This value is compared to the KCl analysis on each sample. Control samples are prepared in the same manner as product samples to ensure accurate sample preparation. XRF matrix matched controls are prepared internally by the QCL Technologist and ran each shift by the QCL Operators with a run of samples. Statistical Quality Control (SQC) practices are in place in the Esterhazy Quality Control Laboratory, where control sample values are plotted on SQC charts and maintained in Mosaic’s document control database. SQC charts are created for analytical methods and reviewed by the QCL Technologist, QC Supervisor or Date: December 31, 2021 8-7 QC Specialist. Each analytical procedure at Esterhazy lists the method accuracy and precision as determined by the Six Sigma Measurement Systems Analysis, summarized in Table XX. QC Laboratory audits are completed yearly by Mosaic’s Quality Assurance team. The audit findings are given to the QC Supervisor and tracked in LabVantage software. Esterhazy participates in a potash producer round robin sample exchange program using the Sodium Tetraphenylborate (STPB) method. The round robin analysis is performed by all producers to verify the analytical methods as standardized methods. As per the International Fertilizer Association Method Harmonization Working Group’s evaluation of analytical methods, used globally for the quality testing of potassium content in Potassium Chloride Fertilizer, the STPB method is the preferred method or best practice methodology for use in international fertilizer trade. Instrument calibration curves are based off of generic methods. The XRF instrument used to analyze samples has a service agreement with the manufacturer which includes two preventative maintenance visits per year as well as emergency visits to troubleshoot instrument issues. Routine instrument maintenance is carried out by QCL Technologist and Operators and the instrument specific log books document daily maintenance. Maintenance procedures for QCL equipment and instrument trouble shooting procedures and are stored in Mosaic’s document control database. For in-mine samples, %K2O and %Mg is reported back to Mine Engineering for validation. Results are also entered into the secure Mine Ore database. 8.5 Sample Security 8.5.1 Core Samples collected for geochemical assay were secured in plastic bags to avoid being exposed to moisture. To preserve the sample identification, the sample number was written on the sample in permanent ink, a sample tag was placed inside the bag, and the bag was labeled with the sample number. The sample bags were sealed and packed in numbered plastic pails and the pails were labeled with the client’s contact information. The samples remained sealed until they were opened for processing at the geochemical laboratory. Samples were delivered securely to the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 17025 accredited facility at SRC Geoanalytical Laboratories at Suite 125, 15 Innovation Boulevard in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, for analysis. Upon completion of the assaying and QA/QC procedures, the geochemical results were e-mailed to the client contact list in a password-protected zip file. 8.5.2 In-Mine Chip Samples Chip samples collected from each in-mine location at K3, are secured in a linen bag with a tie. All beds are sampled separately, and the individual bags are tied together for each location and placed in a large water-proof bag for transport to surface. Once on surface, the samples are delivered to the Mosaic monitored control room. The samples are retrieved by Mosaic’s delivery service and delivered to the K2 Lab. 8.6 Database 8.6.1 Core All the assayed intervals are compiled into the drilling database for further evaluation and compositing. The data is managed in a geological database management system called GeoSequel®. The historic assay data has been reviewed by the QP and digitized to be included with recent drilling information. The geological database includes all available exploration drilling and is a combination of assayed core data and interpreted geophysical log data. Date: December 31, 2021 8-8 The information has been audited by the QP with respect to the ore zone interval selected and associated grade interpretation. Pertinent geological details are included in the database including elevation, formation tops, and grade interpretation to allow for confirmation of the average global grade and deposit dimensions used for the mineral reserves and mineral resources estimates. 8.6.2 In-Mine Chip Samples The lab results from the in-mine chip samples get entered in the Mine Ore database that populates a secure internal Data Management and Reporting (DMR) program. All departments access their required reports from this source. The information has been audited by the Mine Engineering technical staff with respect to the ore zone intervals and associated grade analysis. Pertinent geological details from the in-mine samples are entered in the database including elevation, formation tops, and grade interpretation for the active mining area. The average grade from these samples is used for the mineral reserves and mineral resources estimates. 8.7 QP Opinion on Sample Preparation, Security, and Analytical Procedures It is the opinion of the Section 8 QP that the sample preparation, security, and analytical procedures are suitable to support mineral resource and mineral reserve estimation. The rational for this is as follows: • The post-2009 core sampling, sample preparation, security and analytical procedures were conducted using industry standard procedures by RESPEC (formerly North Rim Exploration Ltd) or Norwest and SRC. RESPEC and Norwest had industry recognized potash QP’s overseeing all aspects of the exploration program on behalf of Mosaic. • It is assumed based on a review of existing documents and compilation reporting, that the historical (pre- 2009) core sampling, sample preparation, security and assaying processes were appropriate for the time of data collection. The majority of the historic drilling areas have been mined and through production records, the QP has gained confidence that these estimations reconcile with realized mining expectations and results. • Internal sampling and laboratory procedures are standardized with the intention of providing accurate and representative samples of the material being mined. Date: December 31, 2021 9-1 9.0 Data Verification 9.1 QP and Internal Data Verification The following regular data validations are completed by the QP and Mosaic personnel: • The density of the minable mineralization in all cored exploration holes used for the K3 mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates have been reviewed by internal senior geology personnel to ensure that the most representative value was used to estimate the mineral resource and mineral reserves at Esterhazy. • The logged depths from wireline and geological interpretations from core are compared to the predicted elevations generated in the 3D seismic model. All new elevation information is provided to the seismic consulting team at RPS for inclusion in the 3D seismic model to maintain current interpretation for mine planning. • All new grade and thickness information is included in the GeoSequel® drilling database. Average thickness and grade are recalculated to ensure the most accurate estimate is applied to the mineral reserve and mineral resource estimates. • All new grade information from in-mine sampling is tabulated for the main entries to ensure the most accurate grade interpretation is applied to the mineral resource estimates for the active mining area (mine footprint). • The QP has reviewed the in-mine sampling process and the lab facility procedures. • The QP has visited the mining areas to visually inspect and verify the sampling process and competencies of the technicians responsible for this sample collection. • Copies of the original analytical lab results are available internally and in the IRIS data repository. The data has been digitized for further interpretation and verification of the mineral resource estimates. Any drill holes with no data files have been excluded from the current mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates. Internal checks were completed on the location, area of influence and assay interval selected. • Exploration coring was supervised by the consulting geologists and the past and present QPs. Core retrieval, field logging and storage was verified by the consulting geological team. Site visits were made by the QP to each core retrieval during the most recent drilling campaign in 2015. • The QP visited the core logging and sampling facilities during the 2015 drilling campaign. • The QP verified all the sample intervals, reviewed the assay results and re-ran selected samples to verify the sample analysis. • The QP has reviewed the existing copies of the original analytical lab results for the historic and recent drilling data used in the mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates. There is limited historic core remaining from the original drilling campaigns, but the logged results and assays are available and included in the mineral resource and reserve estimation. • Drill core recovered from the mineralized zone post 2009 was examined by the QP. Assay intervals and stratigraphic markers were confirmed to ensure that the correct interpretation was made to correlate with the underground mining horizon. The drill core has been analyzed and is preserved in the sample repository of the Saskatchewan Subsurface Geological Laboratory as a permanent record. • The QP has conducted discussion with past professionals and original site experts regarding historic data. Numerous academic reviews of the application of logging processes and the internally generated research have been performed to validate the data included in the MRMR estimation process.


 
Date: December 31, 2021 9-2 9.2 External Data Verification The following external data verifications have been completed supporting the Esterhazy mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates. • All the exploration core for K3 was logged by qualified geological consultants with sample analysis being completed by an accredited lab. Pre-2009 exploration data has not been formally reviewed by an external consultant for the current TRS. • A review and audit of the internal GREC (Gamma Ray Equivalent Calculation) applied at Mosaic was completed to verify the process relied upon at Esterhazy. This was completed by the qualified geological consulting team at RESPEC for independent review. • Exploration coring was supervised by the qualified consulting geologists and Mosaic QP. Core retrieval, field logging and storage was supervised by the qualified geologists. Site visits were made by the QP to each core retrieval during the 2015 drilling campaign. • All drilling results have been tabulated and provided to the geophysical consultants at RPS. This geological data is used to validate the 3D seismic model and refine the interpretation used for mine planning. All seismic interpretations are produced by qualified experts at RPS. • Pulps and rejects are bagged and sent to SRC for assay to compare the Mosaic internal lab results. Similarly, existing Mosaic samples were requested from SRC for the Mosaic internal lab to analyze. 9.3 QP Opinion on Data Adequacy It is the opinion of the Section 9 QP that the data being used and relied upon in the Technical Report Summary is adequate to support mineral resource and mineral reserve estimation. The rational for this is as follows: • The data quality and quantity are aligned with potash industry standards. • There is adequate drilling information to produce accurate mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates. • The verification process is adequate to validate the data used as part of the mineral resource and mineral reserve estimation process. • During the preparation of the report, the QP has reviewed the historical data set used to confirm the potash intervals included in the mineral resource calculation, however there is no formal documentation regarding the quality control measures and data verification procedures applied by the initial assayer. • The pre-2009 exploration results have been reviewed and there is confidence in the interpretations, however the QP has not independently verified the information by means of check assay results. • Through the existing 3D seismic interpretation, combined with the regional geology interpretation, the QP is able to verify that potash is present with a level confidence that supports the mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates. • The QP has reviewed select internal reports and memos prepared by Mosaic staff and notes that those reports and memos have not identified any material deficiencies with the adequacy of the data at the time the Technical Report Summary was prepared. • Pulps and rejects were bagged and sent to SRC for assay to compare the Mosaic internal lab results. The results of this comparison provide confidence in the results for the in-mine chip samples form the Esterhazy labs being used in the grade estimation of the mineral resources. • Over 50 years of mining history supports the geological interpretations being used to estimate the mineral resources and mineral reserves. Date: December 31, 2021 10-1 10.0 Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing 10.1 Introduction Metallurgical testing and quality control are crucial to the processing of Esterhazy potash ore. Metallurgical performance of the processing facilities is monitored through a combination of online (instrumentation) and offline (laboratory) analysis. Esterhazy has on site metallurgical and QAQC laboratories at K1 and K2 to ensure operating targets are being met throughout the process while maintaining calibration of online measurements and to confirm final product purity/quality. 10.2 On Site Laboratories Esterhazy has onsite QC and metallurgical laboratories for analyzing process conditions, providing analysis for mine chip samples, maintaining calibration of online process instrumentation as well as a Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) lab for confirming product quality to customer specifications at the K1 and K2 sites. The labs operate 24 hours/day, 7 days a week. They are owned and operated by Mosaic and are not certified labs. The QC Supervisor and QC Specialist are responsible for training and onboarding new employees at both labs. One- on-one training is provided until competency has been demonstrated in required job duties and proficiency examinations for each training area are conducted and maintained in Mosaic’s training database. A review of the quality manual is done on an annual basis by the QC Laboratory Supervisor, where any updates must go through a formal controlled document change procedure. These changes must be approved by the QA/QC Manager. Changes to the lab standard operating procedures are under the control of the QC Supervisor and the QC Specialist. Quality control worksheets are also filed and records maintained for a minimum of one year. The labs are located within the K1 and K2 administrative buildings, making them central to the many groups accessing their services. The labs consist of numerous types of industry standard benchtop lab equipment, as well as some notably larger footprint analytical equipment. The labs are well equipped with fume hoods, chemical storage, and PPE to safely perform analyses. Lab analyses are employed throughout the entire mining process (mining to shipping). Samples are primarily collected by the Operations group and brought to the labs for analysis on a set routine. These routines have been established by engineering and operations personnel, based on the criticality and variability of each specific stream, noted over the site’s decades of operation. The labs receive solid and liquid samples, each analyzed following well defined procedures that are subject to the Mosaic document control standards. Major analyses utilized are summarized in Table 10-1 and the frequency of the analyses is listed in Table 10-2. Processing related lab results are imported into a Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS) called LabVantage (Sapphire), that feeds the site’s larger reporting-based database. Shipping related lab results are entered into a PLS (Product Loading System) system. This creates a history of the values and also provides a certificate of analysis to customers through the Mosaic SAP billing system. Table 10-1: Regular On-Site Laboratory Testing Analysis/ Equipment Sample Type Available Measurement Application XRF (X-Ray Fluorescence) Liquid/Brine/Slurry NaCl (g/L) K2O (g/L) MgCl2 (g/L) Br- (g/L) CaCl2 (g/L) SO4 -2 (g/L) • Process brine • Reclaim brine Solid NaCl (wt.%) K2O (wt.%) Mg (wt.%) • Process Streams • Screening and Compaction Streams • Shipping area streams Date: December 31, 2021 10-2 Analysis/ Equipment Sample Type Available Measurement Application Ca (wt.%) Insolubles (wt.%) • In-mine chip samples ICP (Inductively Coupled Plasma) Spectroscopy Solids B (wt.%) • Aspire product Manual Sieves/ CPA Solids Size Distribution over broad mesh sizes • Screening and compaction Samples • Shipping Area Streams Table 10-2: Notable Frequency of Samples Sample Name Minimum Frequency of Samples Analysis Type Mine chip samples As required and supplied Chemistry Raw Ore, x daily Chemistry Heavy Media Feed x 1 per day Chemistry Heavy Media Tailings x 3 per 12 hour shift Chemistry Heavy Media Rougher Float x 3 per 12 hour shift Chemistry Heavy Media Middling x 1 per 12 hour shift Chemistry Flotation Tailings x 3 per 12 hour shift Chemistry Thickener Underflows x 1 per 12 hour shift Chemistry Product Screening Area x 3 per 12 hour shift Chemistry Size Compaction Area x 4 per 12 hour shift Chemistry Size Shipping Every rail car Every bulk truck Per Customer Requirements: Chemistry • K2O Equivalent Content • Impurity Concentrations Size 10.3 Quality Control Instrument calibration is performed with standards prior to each sample run on the ICP and Flame photometer. Standards of known concentration are purchased and run to verify calibration curves for the ICP. In addition to this, controls are used to confirm the validity of the in-house preparation, prior to running the XRF and ICP equipment. Control samples are prepared in the same manner as product samples to ensure accurate sample preparation. Known control samples are purchased for ICP, while XRF liquid controls are prepared internally by QCL Technologists and run as unknowns with each run of samples. Statistical Quality Control (SQC) practices are in place in the Esterhazy Quality Control Laboratory, where control sample values are plotted on SQC charts and maintained in Mosaic’s document control database. SQC charts are created for analytical methods and reviewed by the QCL Technologists, QC Supervisor or QC Specialist. Each analytical procedure at Esterhazy lists the method accuracy and precision as determined by the Six Sigma Measurement Systems Analysis. Summarized in Table 10-3. QC Laboratory audits are completed yearly by Mosaic’s Quality Assurance team. The audit findings are given to the QC Supervisor and tracked in a software package. The Esterhazy Potash Facility also participates in a potash producers sample exchange program using the Sodium Tetraphenylborate (STPB) analytical method. The round robin analysis is performed by all producers to verify the Date: December 31, 2021 10-3 analytical methods as standardized methods. As per the International Fertilizer Association Method Harmonization Working Group’s evaluation of analytical methods, used globally for the quality testing of potassium content in Potassium Chloride Fertilizer, the STPB method is the preferred method or best practice methodology for use in the international fertilizer trade. Instrument calibration curves are based off generic methods. Table 10-3: Sample Accuracy and Precision Equipment Descriptor Accuracy XRF Liquids – In house control +/- 1.5 Standard deviation of the mean Solids – In house control including chip samples +/- 3.0 Standard deviation of the mean ICP Certified Control +/- 10% from control value In house control +/- 3.0 Standard deviation of the mean Flame Photometer Certified Control +/-0.045 from control value The Perkin Elmer ICP and the Malvern Thermo Scientific XRF used to analyze samples have service agreements with the manufacturer that include two preventative maintenance visits per year as well as emergency visits to troubleshoot instrument issues. Routine instrument maintenance is carried out by QCL Technologists and instrument specific log books document daily maintenance. Maintenance procedures for QCL equipment and instrument trouble shooting procedures and are stored in the Mosaic document control database. Heavy metal analysis is conducted on a quarterly basis on all major streams/final products. This analysis is conducted by the Saskatchewan Research Council. 10.4 Database and Records Composite samples are collected for each rail car, and truck loaded at Esterhazy. They are stored by QCL personnel in the shipment and truck storage rooms. Every tenth sample for each product grade is analyzed as per the shipment standard operating procedure. The samples are retained for a period of time based on the destination of the product shipment, three months for domestic shipments and six months for export shipments. Certificates of analysis are prepared and issued by the Quality Control Laboratory (QCL) and are double signed by QCL Technologists prior to issuance to customers. Customers can obtain their Certificate of analysis from Mosaic Online, Mosaic’s sales and marketing web tool, while certificates of analysis are filed, and records maintained in Mosaic’s document management system for a minimum of three years. The American Fertilizer Industry Association (AFIA) requires that the bill of ladings (BOL) must contain the guaranteed product grade information as required by Canadian Fertilizer Industry Association (CFIA), AFIA and US State Regulations. Changes to the bill of lading information are under the control of the QA Specialists or QA/QC Manager. As product is unloaded at ports for International shipment it is sampled and analyzed by a third party laboratory. This analysis is compared to the analysis on the product as the train was loaded to ensure accuracy. This provides third party confirmation of final product purity, by SGS. The SGS lab has ISO/IEC 17025:2005 accreditation for the analysis of Potassium (K2O) and sodium chloride (NaCl) in potassium chloride and other fertilizers. Composite samples and certificates of analysis are tracked by SAP Material ID numbers for each grade of product, rail car product labels, rail and truck scale tickets and shipments load lists. 10.5 Metallurgical Testwork Metallurgical analysis is performed throughout the Esterhazy processing facilities. Samples are taken by metallurgical or operational personnel. Samples collected by operational personnel are brought to either the K1 or K2 labs for analysis (either chemistry of particle size analysis). This analysis is subjected to the rigor discussed in the above section. Operator Sampling locations and frequencies are noted above, providing the minimum amount of information to understand process performance. Samples collected by metallurgical personnel may be analyzed for density, percent


 
Date: December 31, 2021 10-4 solids, particle size analysis, chemistry, viscosity etc. Metallurgical samples are collected from a significantly larger set of locations, primarily to understand performance of individual pieces of equipment in the process. 10.6 Recovery Estimates Recovery is estimated at Esterhazy on a shift-by-shift basis. The amount of ore processed is measured by online belt scales on the incoming belts. The K2O grade is determined by using a weighted average of the online ore K2O analyzers and the online belt scales. The K2O measurement is converted to a sylvite K2O utilizing the Mg analysis performed on the raw ore by the QA/QC labs once per shift. Finished product tons are measured by online belt scales and are determined on a shift basis. The K2O concentration for each product is determined based on chemical analysis performed on 12-hour composite samples by the QA/QC labs. Losses to tailings are monitored based on the sample collected by operational personnel and analyzed by the QA/QC labs. Those values are used by operations personnel to adjust process operating conditions to minimize losses to tailings. Overall finished production inventories are measured at a minimum of quarterly, those values are compared with measured production volumes and product shipment volumes to reconcile total production. Actual monthly or quarterly production and/or recovery are recalculated based on adjustments made as a result of that reconciliation. 10.7 Metallurgical Variability There are tendencies for small amounts of variation in process recoveries on shift or daily basis due to variations in milling adjustments, impacts of the deleterious elements listed below and typical drift in process instrumentation. Larger variations in recovery would be caused by larger planned production outages or unplanned interruptions caused by unexpected failure of process equipment. Monthly or annualized recoveries are quite consistent year over year and are rarely impacted by the characteristics of the material processed from the K3 mine. 10.8 Deleterious Elements The mineralization at Esterhazy contains certain deleterious elements that are monitored in several brine streams, the solid stream, and finished products. The major elements of this group include sodium chloride (NaCl) and magnesium chloride (MgCl2) and insoluble clay minerals. Under normal operations only increased amounts of NaCl can significantly impact production volumes. NaCl NaCl is the primary component in the raw ore mined at Esterhazy. Depending on the area that is mined, higher concentrations of NaCl in mined ore results in lower milling rates and production volumes. Small amount of NaCl are not separated from KCl and can be found in finished products. MgCl2 This compound is found in high carnallite regions of the mining area. Carnallite as a mineral contains KCl, however that material is not recoverable in the existing milling operations. High levels of carnallite can impact flotation performance resulting in lower overall plant recoveries or higher reagent costs. Insoluble Clay Minerals The Esterhazy milling process is not very effective at removing insoluble clay minerals from the process. Higher levels of clay minerals will increase operating costs due to the increased usage of flotation depressants and will have a negative impact on recovery. 10.9 QP Opinion on Data Adequacy It is the opinion of the Section 10 QP that the mineral processing, metallurgical testing and analytical procedures used and relied upon in the Technical Report Summary is adequate to support mineral resource and mineral reserve estimation. The rational for this is as follows: Date: December 31, 2021 10-5 • The metallurgical and QA/QC procedures used in the K1 and K2 QC labs are conventional and are aligned with industry practice, meeting domestic and international requirements. • The chip sample analytical results from the Esterhazy analytical labs are adequate to be used for mineral resource estimation. • The data quality and quantity are aligned with industry standards and are reasonably practicable. • Test work programs, internal and external, continue to be performed to support current operations and potential improvements. • The QA/QC processes for analyzing product and confirming accuracy is adequate. • The metallurgical analyses and their respective analysis frequencies are appropriate for optimizing processing conditions and informing site personnel of anomalous conditions. • Processing recovery projections are based on appropriate metallurgical test work and compared against historical production data for validity. Date: December 31, 2021 11-1 11.0 Mineral Resource Estimates 11.1 Introduction The Esterhazy mineral resources are reported as in-situ mineralization and are exclusive of mineral reserves. Unlike mineral reserves, mineral resources do not have demonstrated economic viability, but they do demonstrate reasonable prospects for economic extraction utilizing the criteria and assumptions required at Esterhazy. A total of 59 property exploration holes and 50 years mining history from adjacent operations at Esterhazy were considered when developing the criteria and methodology for the estimation of the mineral resources. Potash in Saskatchewan, including the mineralization at Esterhazy, has been described as having “remarkable consistency of grade and thickness over many tens of kilometers” (as stated in the Best Practices Estimation of Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves Page 36 in the Guidelines specific to Particular Commodities, Potash and adopted by the CIM Council November 2003). This regional interpretation is used to interpolate the quality of the potash between data points used at Esterhazy for mineral resource estimation. The geological information used to estimate the potash mineral resources at Esterhazy includes core drilling, gamma-ray logging, and 3D seismic modeling. The Esterhazy property is divided into two areas, the eastern and western. The eastern portion is referred to as “K4”. The current mining operations are focused within a mineral area referred to as “K3” that includes the western portion of the Esterhazy property. These two areas are separated by the historical mine workings referred to as “K1/K2” that were shut down in June 2021. 11.2 Key Assumptions The following outlines the key assumptions used for the estimation of mineral resources at Esterhazy. • The mineralization is assumed to be laterally continuous and consistent based on publicly available regional geological information and Mosaic’s knowledge of the local geology and area. Local seismic studies are used to refine the property geology for mineral resource consideration. Areas where mineralization is not present are geologically excluded from the mineral resource estimation. • The average total thickness of the potash mineralization used to determine the total mineral resources is 8.55 ft. (2.6 m). This thickness is based on the ratio of 8.5 ft. (2.6 m) production panel mining height to the development 9.0 ft. (3.1 m) mining height. • No cut-off grade or value based on commodity price is used to estimate mineral resources. This is because the mining method used at Esterhazy is not grade selective. The potash mineralization is mined on one level by continuous miners following the well-defined and continuous beds of mineralization with relatively consistent grades. At no point in the mine development and mining processes is a decision made to mine or not mine the potash mineralization in advance of the miners, unless it is defined by a mining layout for mining, geotechnical or infrastructure reason as discussed in Section 13.3.10 Operational Cut Off Grades. • A density of 129.878 lbs./cu ft. (2080.446 kg/cu m) is used to estimate the mineral resource tonnage. This was determined analytically by calculating the mean average of the density for the mining interval from 17 cored K3 exploration holes. • No grade capping or restricting of grade outliers are applied. • The average grade of all major infrastructure in-mine channel samples (27.1% K2O) was used for mineralization that is outside the area of influence of a drill hole within the mine footprint. 11.3 Estimation Methodology The methodology for estimating mineral resources at Esterhazy is described as follows: Date: December 31, 2021 11-2 1. The spatial location, continuity and thickness of the potash mineralization is interpreted in plan view using AutoCAD 2020 software. This plan interpretation is based on existing drill holes, 3D seismic geophysical surveys and regional geological studies. The seismic surveys also provide information regarding the possible location of structural disturbances and geologic anomalies (dissolution or non-deposition) of the potash horizons. The 3D seismic survey interpretation serves as the geologic model and provides the highest resolution detail of the potash horizon. Mosaic has thoroughly compared survey results and predicted interpretations to actual locations (drill hole intersections) and characteristics of the potash horizons in the underground operations. The understanding gained from comparing predicted to actual geological conditions allows for increased confidence in areas covered by 3D seismic surveys across all Mosaic potash properties. 2. The property AutoCAD map is updated as follows: o To show the current mineral rights status. o To show the limits of the current mining footprint. o To include all completed seismic survey results. o To confirm known areas (geological anomalies, town sites and other known surface features that make the resource inaccessible) that are excluded from the mineral resource estimation process. o To include a barrier pillar of no mining for a distance of 0.5 mile (0.8 km) against the Nutrien Controlled leases and a barrier pillar of 100.0 ft. (30.5 m) against the adjacent controlled leases. o To delineate the no mining areas in the uncontrolled mineral rights areas. o To ensure the mineral resources occur only within the Esterhazy lease. o To include a 2,500 ft. (762 m) radius pillar surrounding the Esterhazy shafts, and 3,000 ft. (914 m) wide pillars surrounding the towns of Langenburg and Marchwell. o To include a 500 ft. (152 m) radius pillar around the exploration drill holes. o To include the Type 1, 2 and 3 collapse zones identified from the seismic surveys where no mining can be completed. At Esterhazy once collapse features are identified, a restricted mining buffer varying from 330 to 1,310 ft. (100 to 400 m) is placed around it to ensure the integrity of the mine workings. o To include a 1.0 mile (1.6 km) pillar between the K1/K2 mining area and the adjacent K4 mineral resource areas. 3. Any areas not considered to be mineable resources are excluded from the mineral resource estimate. 4. A 0.5 mile (800 m) radius is drawn around each drill hole to identify measured resource area. For each hole, the area is estimated, and the average thickness of 8.5 ft. (2.6 m) is applied to estimate a volume and the tonnage factor is applied to estimate the mineral resources tons. 5. The grade for each drill hole is applied to each polygon area to estimate the average measured mineral resource grade. 6. A polygonal estimation has been applied to the remaining mineralization. Polygons are drawn around each drill hole. The individual polygon areas and volumes are estimated, and the tonnage factor is applied to estimate the tonnage for each polygon. The drill hole grade for each hole is applied to each associated polygon. 7. In-mine chip sample results are used to estimate the average potash grade along the development drifts. The mean average of these samples is used to represent the average grade of the mineral resource within 0.5 mile (800 m) of the development drifts inside the active mining area. 8. The mineral resource is categorized as measured, indicated or inferred based on the amount and quality of the supporting data.


 
Date: December 31, 2021 11-3 11.4 Exploratory Data Analysis At the Esterhazy Potash Facility, over 114 drill holes have been drilled and 566 M tons (514 M tonnes) of potash has been mined in the last 57 years. The potash mineralization has been assayed in cored holes that intersect the Esterhazy Member to verity the mineral grade of the potash deposit. These drill holes were also logged with a calibrated gamma ray tool. A Gamma Ray Equivalent Calculation (GREC) was developed to quantitatively relate potash grade to the gamma ray readings. Exploration drilling is minimized for the estimation of potash reserves due to the risk posed by overlying water-bearing formations. Safety pillars are required to offset mining from these cross-formational conduits resulting in sterilization of ground. Surface seismic data has been collected and analyzed by consulting professionals at RPS. These seismic interpretations confirm the extent and continuity of the potash stratigraphy between known sample points without increasing risk to mining. The following outlines the exploratory data analysis completed supporting the mineral resources. • Drill hole assay data was verified and mineral resource interval was recalculated to reflect current mining conditions. • The mining zone thickness and grade defined by the exploration drilling is 8.5 ft. (2.6 m) at an average grade of 23.4% K2O. This supports the 2021 mineral resource estimates. • The following verifications of the in-mine chip sampling are completed to ensure accurate grade interpretation: o Standard data collection standards in place and training completed by technicians. o Supervisor audit of sampling procedures to ensure consistency between technicians. o Re-sampled near original location to duplicate analysis • ROGA – on-board ore grade analyzer data is continuously logged to compare with results. • Mill Head Grade – monthly review of data points tabulated by the belt ore grade analyzers to express mill feed grade. • Composite exploration data compared to chip sample results – results from subset exploration holes compared to close in-mine sampling results. • The location of the in-mine chip samples are verified to ensure only samples from the conveyor drifts were used in the estimate of the measured and indicated mineral resource grade. Chip samples from within the active mining panels are not used for the estimation of the mineral resources. • Seismic data is depth corrected with known drilling intersections to allow for the best interpretation of the potash horizon. • Geophysical and geological investigations are completed to identify the integrity and thickness of the salt back and to identify potentially problematic areas because of high carnallite content or non-typical geology in the block entries before panel development can commence. 11.5 Validation The validation completed for the mineral resource estimates are: • Comparisons of the chip sample grades and the mill head grades are completed monthly to ensure reasonableness of the mineral resource estimates. • An annual MRMR forum is held internally at Mosaic to align QPs regarding mineral resources and reserves calculations. This includes a review of proposed workflow, source data inputs and industry best-practices interpretation. Date: December 31, 2021 11-4 • The QP reviews the lease area with the Land and Mineral team to ensure alignment on property limits, mineral rights control and ownership. • To ensure the active mining area limits are accurate, there is a review completed of all producing and sterilized areas for inclusion in the updated property map. • A review is completed to ensure the mineral resource estimates align with the established definitions for each mineral resource category. • Mineral resources estimates are peer-reviewed by an alternate site QP and the Senior Mine Engineering Manager to ensure alignment regarding mining reconciliation. • Mineral resource estimates are reviewed with the Senior Mine Engineering Manager and site senior management. • All exploration data included in the mineral resource estimations were reviewed and verified with respect to current mining standards. • Mining heights were reviewed and applied to the assayed data to estimate the average grade for the mineral resources. • All assay files were reviewed and are considered suitable for inclusion in the mineral resource estimations by the QP. • The data collection standards applied at the time the exploration results were generated is deemed suitable for inclusion in the mineral resource estimations by the QP. 11.6 Confidence Classification of Mineral Resource Estimate Mineral Resource classifications are defined in SEC Regulation S-K, Subpart 1300. Mosaic adheres to these definitions when assigning confidence and classification to their mineral resource estimates. The SEC Regulation S- K, Subpart 1300 definitions of measure, indicated and inferred mineral resources are as follows. Measured Mineral Resource A measured mineral resource is that part of a mineral resource for which quantity and grade or quality are estimated on the basis of conclusive geological evidence and sampling. The level of geological certainty associated with a measured mineral resource is sufficient to allow a qualified person to apply modifying factors, as defined in this section, in sufficient detail to support detailed mine planning and final evaluation of the economic viability of the deposit. Because a measured mineral resource has a higher level of confidence than the level of confidence of either an indicated mineral resource or an inferred mineral resource, a measured mineral resource may be converted to a proven mineral reserve or to a probable mineral reserve. At Esterhazy, a measured mineral resource is defined as mineralization that is confirmed by a 2D or 3D seismic interpretation and is within 0.5 mile (0.8 km) of drilling or sampled and analyzed mine development. Indicated Mineral Resource An indicated mineral resource is that part of a mineral resource for which quantity and grade or quality are estimated on the basis of adequate geological evidence and sampling. The level of geological certainty associated with an indicated mineral resource is sufficient to allow a qualified person to apply modifying factors in sufficient detail to support mine planning and evaluation of the economic viability of the deposit. Because an indicated mineral resource has a lower level of confidence than the level of confidence of a measured mineral resource, an indicated mineral resource may only be converted to a probable mineral reserve. At Esterhazy, an indicated mineral resource is defined as mineralization that is confirmed by a 2D seismic grid or 3D seismic interpretation or is within 1.0 mile (1.6 km) of drilling or sampled and analyzed mine development. Date: December 31, 2021 11-5 Inferred Mineral Resource An inferred mineral resource is that part of a mineral resource for which quantity and grade or quality are estimated on the basis of limited geological evidence and sampling. The level of geological uncertainty associated with an inferred mineral resource is too high to apply relevant technical and economic factors likely to influence the prospects of economic extraction in a manner useful for evaluation of economic viability. Because an inferred mineral resource has the lowest level of geological confidence of all mineral resources, which prevents the application of the modifying factors in a manner useful for evaluation of economic viability, an inferred mineral resource may not be considered when assessing the economic viability of a mining project, and may not be converted to a mineral reserve. At Esterhazy, an inferred mineral resource is defined as mineralization that has been investigated through a regional geological study but has limited exploration drilling, limited 2D seismic coverage and no 3D seismic interpretation. 11.7 Reasonable Prospects of Economic Extraction Regulation S-K, Subpart 1300 requires that an evaluation be conducted as to the prospect of eventual economic extraction for mineral resources. The Esterhazy K4 mineral resources are reported exclusive of the K3 mineral reserves. The parameters and assumptions supporting the mineral resource estimates are as follows: • The mineral resources are expected to be recovered by an underground room and pillar mining method. • The average thickness of the potash mineralization estimated for underground mining is 8.5 ft. (2.6 m) based on the ratio of development mining 9.0 ft. (2.7 m) to panel production mining 8.55 ft. (2.6 m). The mining equipment is only capable of mining a static dimension; this equipment has been designed to accommodate the most economical fraction of the Esterhazy Member. • A new shaft to a depth of 3,500 ft. (1,067 m) is expected to be required to access the K4 mineral resources. The associated supporting exploration drilling of 10,000 ft. (3,050 m) to support this new shaft location has been included in the assessment. • The mine design criteria for the mineral resources are as follows: o The three-entry development consists of 46.3 ft. (14.1 m) wide drifts, 300 ft. (91.4 m) wide pillars and a 9.0 ft. (2.7 m) mining height. o The mainline conveyor standard length is approximately 6,000 ft. (1,829 m) but varies from 4,000 to 8,000 ft. (1,219 to 2,438 m) dependent on the panel layout. o The room and pillar mine design consists of 66.5 ft (20.3 m) wide rooms with a height if 8.5 ft. (2.6 m). o The mining room nominal length is 6,000 ft. (1,829 m). The minimum length is 4,000 ft. (1,219 m), the maximum length is 9,000 ft. (2,743 m) and will vary in certain circumstances. o A 1,000 ft. (305 m) barrier pillar is established between long term greater than 10 year mining entries and mining panel rooms. • Production was assumed as achieving 19.324 M tons per year (17.527 M tonnes per year) of ore to supply the surface processing plants. This is the result of 1.4 to 1.8 M tons/year (1.3 to 1.6 M tonnes/year) from four rotor miners in three entry development areas and 1.8 to 2.1 M tons/year (1.6 to 1.9 M tonnes/year) from four rotor miners in the production panels. • A mining recovery of 27.6% is assumed to estimate the K4 minable mineral resource for inclusion in an economic model. • Based on the current drilling, carnallite is expected to not be a concern at K4. Date: December 31, 2021 11-6 • An average production rate of 19.384 M tons per year (17.581 M tonnes per year) is assumed based on 320 production days per year. • The current K1 and K2 mills and Tailings Management Areas are expected to be used for the processing of the K4 mineral resources after the mining of the K3 mineral reserves production ramp down starts in 2051 and is completed in 2054. • The K4 mineral resources are scheduled to start mining in 2050 ramping up to full production in 2055 and ending in 2090. • A land conveyor is assumed to be constructed to move K4 production to K1 and K2. • The processing recovery for the K4 mineralization is assumed to be 86%. This is consistent with the K3 processing recoveries. • There are no known expected deleterious elements that will adversely impact the recovery of the mineral resources. • There are no known environmental, geotechnical and hydrogeological factors and concerns that will impact the prospects for economic extraction of the K4 mineral resources. • The current K1 and K2 Esterhazy surface infrastructure is assumed to be maintained and available for eventual extraction of the mineral resources. • The mining and surface rights are expected to be in place for the areas of mineral resource. The completed K4 mineral resource economic assessment supports reasonable prospects of economic extraction and the reporting of the K4 mineral resources. The assessment reflects a positive after tax NPV and positive total cash flow. 11.8 Mineral Resource Statement The mineral resource estimates for the Esterhazy Potash Facility are listed in Table 11-1. Mineral resources are reported as in-situ mineralization and are exclusive of the mineral reserves. Figure 11-1 shows the distribution of the Esterhazy Potash Facility mineral resources and mineral reserves.


 
Date: December 31, 2021 11-7 Table 11-1: 2021 Mineral Resources Location Measured Mineral Resources Indicated Mineral Resources Measured + Indicated Mineral Resources Inferred Mineral Resources Tons (M) Tonnes (M) % K2O % Carnallite Tons (M) Tonnes (M) % K2O % Carnallite Tons (M) Tonnes (M) % K2O % Carnallite Tons (M) Tonnes (M) % K2O % Carnallite K4 282 255 23.3 9.8 2,305 2,092 22.8 5.9 2,587 2,347 22.9 6.4 0 0 0 0 Total 282 255 23.3 9.8 2,305 2,092 22.8 5.9 2,587 2,347 22.9 6.4 0 0 0 0 Notes to accompany mineral resource table: 1. Mineral resource estimates were prepared by QP M. Tochor, a Mosaic employee. 2. The mineral resources are reported as in-situ mineralization and are exclusive of mineral reserves. 3. Mineral resources have an effective date of December 31, 2021. Mineral resources are reported exclusive of those mineral resources that have been converted to mineral reserves. Unlike mineral reserves, mineral resources do not have demonstrated economic viability, but they do demonstrate reasonable prospects for economic extraction. 4. Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not meet the threshold for mineral reserve modifying factors, such as estimated economic viability, that would allow for conversion to mineral reserves. There is no certainty that any part of the mineral resources estimated will be converted into mineral reserves. 5. Mineral resources assume an underground room and pillar mining method. 6. Mineral resources amenable to underground mining method are accessed via shaft and scheduled for extraction based on a conceptual room and pillar design using the same technical parameters as for mineral reserves. 7. No cut-off grade or value based on commodity price is used to estimate mineral resources. This is because the mining method used at Esterhazy is not grade selective. The potash mineralization is mined on one level by continuous miners following the well-defined and continuous beds of mineralization with relatively consistent grades (Section 11.2). 8. Tonnages are in US Customary and metric units and are rounded to the nearest million tonnes. 9. Rounding as required by reporting guidelines may result in apparent summation differences. 10. %K2O refers to the total %K2O of the sample. 11. The percent carnallite refers to the mineral associated with potash ore at Esterhazy (KCl.MgCl3.6H2O). It is considered an impurity. 12. The following KCl commodity prices were used to assess prospects for economic extraction for the mineral resources but are not used for cut-off purposes, 2022-$271/tonne, 2023-$231/tonne, 2024-$219/tonne, 2025-$185/tonne, 2026-$188/tonne and for the LOM plan $219/tonne. 13. A US$/C$ exchange rate of 1.31 was used to assess prospects for economic extraction for the mineral resources but were not used for cut-off purposes. Date: December 31, 2021 11-8 Figure 11-1: Location and Distribution of Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves 1.6 km 6 Miles Town of Esterhazy Town of Langenburg Date: December 31, 2021 11-9 11.9 Uncertainties (Factors) That May Affect the Mineral Resource Estimate A mineral resource is an estimate only and not a precise and completely accurate calculation, being dependent on the interpretation of limited information on the quality and continuity of the occurrence and on the available sampling results. Actual mineralization can be more or less than estimated depending upon actual geological conditions. The following outlines a number of uncertainties identified by the QP that exist at Esterhazy and could impact the mineral resource estimates. • Actual geological interpretations including thickness and grades of the potash mineralization are proven to be relatively uniform but can vary locally across the Esterhazy property. • The grade is estimated based on widely spaced exploration holes. Although the distance between data points is deemed suitable to define the quality of the ore in the potash deposit at Esterhazy, there could be local fluctuations affecting the overall average grade estimation. • The average grade is estimated by selecting the highest grade continuous section from the core at that location. There could be circumstances where the highest grade mining interval is not recovered because of local elevation changes or operator error. • The seismic model includes some areas with only 2D seismic information. Prior to mining, 3D seismic interpretation is required to ensure no undetected risk exists. Additional seismic interpretation could affect the total resource estimate if geologically anomalous conditions are identified. • Actual geological interpretations related to carnallite can vary locally across the Esterhazy property. • A review and audit of the internal GREC (Gamma Ray Equivalent Calculation) applied at Mosaic was completed to verify the process relied upon at Esterhazy. Most of the exploration data used in the mineral reserves and mineral resources estimation calculation is determined from core and assay results. The application of GREC has been made in some cases where there was minor core loss, and in the case of drill holes where no core was recovered, but geophysical logs exist. • In some cases, drill holes encounter anomalous conditions in the core. Based on the ground-truthing at the K1/K2 site, these have been removed from the mineral resource estimation database. Ground-truthing refers to the correlation of in-mine encounters (drill holes or excavations) with the seismic model. • There are a small number of potential mineral acquisitions that could increase the mineral resources for the Esterhazy Potash Facility. Date: December 31, 2021 12-1 12.0 Mineral Reserve Estimates 12.1 Introduction The Esterhazy mineral reserves are reported as in-situ mineralization accounting for all applicable modifying factors. They are estimated by identifying economically mineable portions of the mineral resources and applying modifying factors. Mineral reserves meet all the mining criteria required at Esterhazy including, but not limited to mining, processing, metallurgical, infrastructure, economic, marketing, legal, environmental, social and governmental factors. 12.2 Key Assumptions The following outlines the key assumptions used for the estimation of mineral reserves at Esterhazy. • The mineral resources are assumed to be laterally continuous and consistent based on local mining activity. • Seismic survey results are used to plan the details for mining. • An average mining recovery of 27.6% is applied in the conversion of mineral resources to mineral reserves. • The mineral reserves are recoverable by an underground room and pillar mining method. • There is no unplanned or external dilution applied because all development and mining panels are planned in mineable ore. There is no overbreak due to the controlled cutting limits of the rotary miners. In addition, Rotating Ore Grade Analyzers (ROGA) are used to guide mining activity, by providing grade optimization via gamma detection. 12.3 Estimation Methodology The following outlines the methodology used for the estimation of the Esterhazy mineral reserves and development of a mining plan to support the mineral reserve estimates. 1. The seismic surveys provide information regarding the possible location of structural disturbances and geologic anomalies (dissolution or non-deposition) of the potash horizons. 2. Mine design work is completed utilizing the following design criteria. o The three entry development consists of 46.3 ft. (14.1 m) wide drifts, 300 ft. (91 m) wide pillars and a 9.0 ft. (2.7 m) mining height. o The mainline conveyor standard length is approximately 6,000 ft. (1,829 m) but varies from 4,000 to 8,000 ft. (1,219 to 2,438 m) dependent on the panel layout. o The room and pillar mine design consists of 66.5 ft (20.3 m) wide rooms with a height if 8.5 ft (2.6 m). o The mining room nominal length is 6,000 ft. (1,829 m). The minimum length is 4,000 ft. (1,219 m), the maximum length is 9,000 ft. (2,743 m) and will vary in certain circumstances. o A 1,000 ft. (305 m) barrier pillar is established between long term, greater than 10 year mining entries, and mining panel rooms. 3. A mining recovery of 27.6% is applied to the mineral resource tonnage to estimate the proven and probable mineral reserve tonnages. 4. The estimated mineral reserves are scheduled in the 2021 LOM plan using the average grade of the total mineral reserves. No local grades are used. 5. The following steps are completed to estimate the tonnage and grade of the mine footprint.


 
Date: December 31, 2021 12-2 o Proven mineral reserves: The 2021 mining limits were extended ½ mile from the workings and assigned a new polygon area referred to as “Mine Footprint Proven”. The areas within ½ mile of an exploration drill hole retain the associated drill hole grade. The remaining proven mineral reserve area is assigned the mean average grade of the in-mine chip sampling for main infrastructure development mining. A weighted average is calculated to define the grade. o Probable mineral reserves: The 2021 mining limits were extended from ½ to 1 mile from the workings and assigned a new polygon area referred to as “Mine Footprint Probable”. The areas within this polygon are assigned the exploration grade from their associated original polygon and drill hole intersection and included as a subset grade used in the “Mine Footprint” estimation. o The total mine footprint grade is a weighted average of these areas together. 6. The average grade estimated from the drill holes is applied to each remaining polygon outside of the mine footprint. The weighted average is calculated and applied to the total probable reserves. 12.4 Mineral Reserve Statement The mineral reserves estimate for the Esterhazy Potash Facility is listed in Table 12-1. Figure 12-1 shows the distribution of the mineral resources and mineral reserves on the Esterhazy property. Mineral reserves are sub-divided into two confidence categories in Regulation S-K 1300, proven and probable. Proven Mineral Reserve A proven mineral reserve is the economically mineable part of a measured mineral resource and can only result from conversion of a measured mineral resource.” Regulation S-K 1300 provides additional guidance that for a proven mineral reserve, the qualified person must have a high degree of confidence in the results obtained from the application of the modifying factors and in the estimates of tonnage and grade or quality. At Esterhazy, a proven mineral reserve is described as the mineable portion of the measured mineral resource. Probable Mineral Reserve A probable mineral reserve is the economically mineable part of an indicated and, in some cases, a measured mineral resource.” Regulation S-K 1300 provides additional guidance that for a probable mineral reserve, the qualified person’s confidence in the results obtained from the application of the modifying factors and in the estimates of tonnage and grade or quality is lower than what is sufficient for a classification as a proven mineral reserve, but is still sufficient to demonstrate that, at the time of reporting, extraction of the mineral reserve is economically viable under reasonable investment and market assumptions. The lower level of confidence is due to higher geologic uncertainty when the qualified person converts an indicated mineral resource to a probable reserve or higher risk in the results of the application of modifying factors at the time when the qualified person converts a measured mineral resource to a probable mineral reserve. At Esterhazy, a probable mineral reserve is described as the mineable portion of the indicated mineral resource. Date: December 31, 2021 12-3 Table 12-1: 2021 Mineral Reserves Location Proven Mineral Reserves Probable Mineral Reserves Total Mineral Reserves % Mining Recovery % Dilution Tons (M) Tonnes (M) % K2O % Carnallite Tons (M) Tonnes (M) % K2O % Carnallite Tons (M) Tonnes (M) % K2O % Carnallite K3 Mine Footprint 74 68 26.8 4.9 31 28 24.8 4.7 105 95 26.2 4.9 27.6% 0% K3 Outside Footprint 58 52 20.1 5.6 451 409 20.6 5.7 509 462 20.6 5.7 27.6% 0% Total 132 119 23.9 5.2 483 438 20.8 5.7 615 557 21.5 5.6 27.6% 0% Notes to accompany mineral reserves table: 1. Mineral reserve estimates were prepared by QP M. Tochor, a Mosaic employee. 2. The mineral reserves are based on measured and indicated resources only. 3. Mineral reserves have an effective date of December 31, 2021. 4. Underground mining standards and design criteria are used to constrain measured and indicated mineral resources within mineable shapes. Only after a positive economic test and inclusion in the LOM plan is the mineral reserve estimate included as mineral reserves. 5. Tonnages are in US Customary and metric units and are rounded to the nearest million tonnes. 6. Rounding as required by reporting guidelines may result in apparent summation differences. 7. %K2O refers to the total %K2O of the samples. 8. The percent carnallite refers to the mineral associated with potash ore at Esterhazy (KCl.MgCl3.6H2O). It is considered an impurity. 9. The following KCl commodity prices were used to assess economic viability for the mineral reserves, but were not used for cut-off purposes, 2022-$271/tonne, 2023- $231/tonne, 2024-$219/tonne, 2025-$185/tonne, 2026-$188/tonne and for the LOM plan $219/tonne. 10. A US$/C$ exchange rate of 1.31 was used to assess economic viability for the mineral reserves but was not used for cut-off purposes. Date: December 31, 2021 12-4 Figure 12-1: Location and Distribution of Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves Date: December 31, 2021 12-5 12.5 Uncertainties (Factors) That May Affect the Mineral Reserve Estimate A mineral reserve is an estimate only. It is based on applying modifying factors to the resources determined to be measured and indicated. Actual mineralization can be more or less than estimated depending upon actual geological conditions. The following outlines a number of uncertainties identified by the QP that exist at Esterhazy and could impact the mineral reserve estimates. • Actual geological interpretations including thickness and grades of the potash mineralization are proven to be relatively uniform but can vary locally across the Esterhazy property. • The average grade of the potash outside the mine footprint is based on widely spaced exploration holes. Although the distance between data points is deemed suitable to define the quantity and quality of the ore in the potash deposit at Esterhazy, there could be local fluctuations affecting the overall average grade estimation. • Locally, chip samples grades can vary considerably but the average of all of the samples is considered reasonable and representative of the grade. • The average grade of the core is calculated by selecting the representative mining interval from the core at that location. There could be circumstances where the highest-grade mining envelope is not recovered because of local elevation changes or operator error. • The seismic model includes some areas with only 2D seismic information. Prior to mining, 3D seismic interpretation is required to ensure no undetected risk exists. Additional seismic interpretation could affect the total mineral reserve estimate if geologically anomalous conditions are identified. • Mining recovery is described as an average recovery factor. A particular part of the mining area may be slightly higher or lower from the designed production expectations. A change to the average mining recovery factor could result in a change to the mineral reserve estimate. • As mining advances deeper at K3, mining recoveries may need to be adjusted to account for the effects of depth and mineralogy of the potash mineralization. The mining recovery may be subject to change for safety and panel optimization reasons. • Panel mining recoveries have been adjusted to account for the effects of depth and mineralogy of the potash mineralization. The local mining recovery is subject to change for safety and panel optimization reasons. • Minor amounts of localized dilution are expected in areas where salt anomalies are encountered. This dilution is blended with other material from the mine. The overall effect is negligible.


 
Date: December 31, 2021 13-1 13.0 Mining Methods 13.1 Introduction Mining at Esterhazy has always used the room and pillar method. The planned total extraction of the in-situ potash ore is 27.6%. Pillars are left in place between mining rooms to support the overlying rock. This is intended to prevent a failure of the upper rock formations and to prevent an inflow of brine from any overlying water bearing zones. These pillars also help minimize localized rock movement and maintain safe working conditions for the underground work force. The room and pillar mining is completed on a single level. The rooms are cut at 8.5 to 9.0 ft high (2.6 to 2.7 m) in the highest potash ore grade zone of the Esterhazy salt member. Historically this has been done manually by visual observations of the ore zone while mining through it. Recent developments on ROGA (Rotating Ore Grade Analyses) systems have been instituted to automate this process to help achieve the highest ore grade possible. 13.2 Underground Mining and Development Process The Esterhazy K3 Potash Facility utilizes a retreat room and pillar mining method that is mined with a four-rotor continuous mining machine dumping on an extensible conveyance (Figure 13-1). Figure 13-1: Four Rotor Continuous Miner The drift design calls for a width that is greater than the width of the miner so multiple cutting passes are required to achieve the extra width. A section view of the cutting sequence is shown in Figure 13-2. The first pass will consist of the miner cutting full face for approximately 6,000 ft. (1,825 m) depending on the panel design. The miner will then turn around at the end of first pass and cut a second pass back towards the start of the room. The third pass will be cut on the opposite side of the belt and follow the first pass direction. Rooms are designed to be either two or three passes wide, and the miner will cut the side pass that consists of a partial face. Overlapping of mining is required to maintain a level back. Date: December 31, 2021 13-2 Figure 13-2: Production Room Section View A typical room setup is shown in Figures 13-3 and 13-4. A room set up involves installation of support equipment to cut the room. This equipment is installed in a short room (breakthrough) that is cut between the central beltline entry and an outside fresh air/travel entry. Between the beltline and the miner are the extensible drive, take-up/belt storage magazine, high stands, HWI, and the tow tub. Figure 13-3: Plan View of a Four Rotor Setup Figure 13-4: Section View of a Four Rotor Setup In general, the K3 Mine can be separated into three distinct mining areas (Figure 13-5). These include the: • Shaft Pillar • Development Drifts • Production Panels Date: December 31, 2021 13-3 Figure 13-5: Mining Area Terminology Shaft Pillar Area The shaft pillar area was developed to include the following infrastructure: • 4 Rotor Build Shop • Auxiliary equipment build shop • Diesel Bay • Electrical Substation • Fuel Bay • Ore Storage Bins • Mainline Conveyance • Warehouse • Offices and lunchrooms Date: December 31, 2021 13-4 After initial development is completed no mining or rehabilitation cutting is to be done in the shaft pillar without approval of the General Manager. Development Drifts Development mining consists of a three entry system. This system consists of: 1. A central entry cut for the mainline conveyance and exhaust air. 2. Two outside entries are cut for fresh air and travel ways. 3. Dead-end turnarounds to allow room for the four-rotor miner to turn around to cut additional width. 4. Breakthroughs connecting the three entries to allow access to the belt entry and minimize dead end turnaround. 5. Underpasses connecting the fresh air entries to allow for ventilation and travel isolated from the belt entries. 6. Mainline drive sites. On average these drifts are developed in 6,000 ft. (1,829 m) lengths. These drifts are approximately 46 ft. (14.0 m) wide and require two passes with the mining machine to reach the design width. The initial entry requires a dead-end turnaround to be cut to allow the miner to turn and cut the second pass. After the second pass is completed, the miner will tram back to the end of the drift and cut a series of breakthroughs that extend into the adjacent fresh air entries. The miner utilizes a Flexiveyor (a mobile flexible conveyor) to transport the muck from the miner onto the extensible belt. After the central drift has been cut, the miner will then relocate to one of the fresh air entries and repeat the process of cutting two passes to reach design width. On the first pass the miner will break into the crosscuts forgoing the need to cut a dead-end turnaround when cutting the fresh air entries. The typical cut height for the development entries is 9 ft. (2.7 m). An overview of the mine development cutting/excavation requirements is shown in Figure 13-6. Figure 13-6: Mine Development Overview Table 13-1 outlines the design criteria for the different types of development at Esterhazy K3 Mine.


 
Date: December 31, 2021 13-5 Table 13-1: Development Design Criteria Type of Development Maximum Width (ft.) Nominal Cutting Length (ft.) Height (ft.) Minimum Pillar/Beam Thickness (ft.) Comments Fresh Air 46.3 6,000 9.0 250 Spaced on 300 ft. centers Belt 46.3 6,000 9.0 250 Spaced on 300 ft. centers Breakthroughs 40.0 to 46.3 250 to 300 9.0 250 Spaced on 300 ft. centers Underpass 29.5 550 9.0 10 Beam measure from top of underpass to bottom of Belt entry Drive site 63.0 305 13.5 n/a Production Panels Production panels are designed to allow the production miners to effectively cut ore while minimizing ineffective tasks such as completing miner turns, or room to room moves. Production panels are designed to be mined as retreat room and pillar. Production panels consist of the following development (Figure 13-7). • Fresh air entry: This is a standard development entry to allow fresh air and access to the production miner. • Exhaust/Belt entry: A panel belt is installed in this room and is connected to the fresh air entry through a series of cross cuts. These cross cuts provide room for the miner extensible setups and allow exhaust air to flow out of the panel. • Breakthrough: These are utilized for miner and ventilation setups and allows muck from the miner to be transported to the panel belt. They are cut in advance of the miner to minimize miner move times. • Production room: These are located between the fresh air entry and boundary drifts. Panels are cut wider than development entries to maximize ore production per miner setup. The normal cutting height for a production room is 8.5 ft (2.6 m) to minimize unplanned dilution and maximize grade. • Boundary drift: These are located at the far end of the production panel and are used to allow the miners to complete their turns for cutting additional passes and providing ventilation. • Underpass: These are only utilized in panels where two miners are cutting off the same belt entry. They are used to provide access and ventilation for both sides of the panel. Date: December 31, 2021 13-6 Figure 13-7: Configuration for Single Panel Mining Production panels can be designed to accommodate one or two production miners cutting at the same time. Setup for a single miner panel requires one fresh air, belt and boundary drift. To accommodate a second miner another fresh air entry and boundary drift on the opposite side of the belt entry need to be developed. An underpass is also required to provide fresh air and access to both sides of the panel. Single and multiple mining configurations are shown in Figure 13-8. Date: December 31, 2021 13-7 Figure 13-8: Configuration for Multiple Panel Mining Panel design is based on criteria established by the geotechnical department. Overall panels are designed utilizing a mining extraction ratio. This ratio is calculated as the ratio of the room and pillar width inside the panel and excludes development, entries and pillars. Typically, a 1,000 ft. (305 m) barrier pillar is left between the last production room and adjacent long-term entry system but can vary based on circumstances. The design criteria for production panel development are summarized in Table 13-2. Date: December 31, 2021 13-8 Table 13-2: Production Panel Development Design Criteria Type of Development Maximum Width (ft.) Nominal Cutting Length (ft.) Height (ft.) Minimum Pillar/Beam Thickness (ft.) Comments Fresh Air 46.3 6,000 9.0 218.7 Spaced on 265 ft. centers Belt 46.3 6,000 9.0 218.7 Spaced on 265 ft. centers Production Room 66.3 6,000 to 6,500 8.5 Varies Determined based on extraction ratio for the panel Boundary Drift 46.3 to 66.3 6,000 to 6,500 8.5 500.0 Pillar between adjacent panes Breakthrough 40.0 to 46.3 220 9.0 Varies Determined based on extraction ratio for the panel Underpass 29.5 485 9.0 10.0 Beam measure from top of underpass to bottom of Belt entry Drive Site 63 305 13.5 n/a 13.2.1 ROGA (Rotating Ore Grade Analyzer) The mining zone of the Esterhazy Member is divided into five bedding units that are distinguished by their differences in geological character. A schematic cross section of the Esterhazy Member mining zone is shown in Figure 13-9. Since the degree of potash mineralization not only varies between beds but also within each individual bedding unit, achieving optimal grade is dependent on the proportions of each that are included within the mining face at any given location. Though it accounts for only a minor percentage of the total potassium present, the K40 isotope in potash is radioactive and releases gamma energy through a process of electron capture. Since the amount of gamma radiation is directly proportional to the quantity of potassium present, a measurement of its levels can be used to gauge potash ore quality. Grade optimization via gamma detection at the mining face is achieved through the use of a Rotating Ore Grade Analyzer or ROGA which is an on-vehicle gamma grade detector designed to improve the grade of the potash ore that is mined by the rotary miner. It is mounted on the outside cutting rotors of a borer miner. Scintillating sodium iodine (NaI) crystals found within each ROGA detect the gamma ray distribution in the roof, walls, and floor providing the operator with the most ideal horizon to follow to achieve optimal grade. Potash ore exists as an 8 ft. (2.4 m) thick seam, under and overlain by salt. The mining horizon is currently determined by following an insoluble rich seam (marker bed) in the ore zone. The optimum mining horizon is loosely correlated to the marker bed and is known to vary. Optimizing ore grade cannot be done visually. A schematic cross section of the K3 potash mineralization is shown in Figure 13-9. The mineralization contains K40, a potassium isotope, that emits naturally occurring gamma radiation. The emitted radiation is directly proportional to the K2O grade that can be detected with scintillating sodium iodine (NaI) crystals.


 
Date: December 31, 2021 13-9 Figure 13-9: Esterhazy Member Potash Mineralization The gamma detectors are mounted on each of the outside rotors of the miners. They detect and measure the amount of natural radiation that exists in the minerals in the back, walls and floor that is being mined. The data in the form of relative gamma count is then viewed on the operator’s screen and the cutting is adjusted. Information is collected sequentially as the rotor arm and the detector rotate from the back to the floor. This information is then used by the mining machine’s operators as guidance to ensure the best mining horizon grade is extracted. 13.2.2 Geotechnical Considerations The pseudo-plastic behavior of salt and potash present unique mining challenges. Rock deformation within the mine is dependent on multiple factors that contribute to ore strength as well as the magnitude and distribution of stresses over time. Rock creep, or time-dependent deformation, occurs immediately after mining and continues indefinitely for the life of an excavation. This process results in vertical and horizontal convergence that will reduce room widths and heights. At increased rates of creep, as can occur under greater stresses and/or weaker rock, micro-fracturing and slip along crystal boundaries begins to occur resulting in volume-increasing dilation and damage that accumulates over time. If stress loads exceed rock strength, fractures will develop, and may ultimately lead to ground failure. The K3 Mine operates within the Esterhazy Member of the Prairie Evaporite Formation. Since this basin-style deposit is void of any appreciable tectonic influence, pre-mining stresses are derived solely from mining depth. Consequently, the effects of increased stress levels must be considered as mining advances towards deeper areas of the property. Locally, stress conditions are also influenced by their proximity to adjacent mining activities, current and past. This is mitigated during planning to ensure that unfavorable stress interactions between mining areas are minimized. Despite its relative consistency, ore from the Esterhazy Member does demonstrate some mineral variability that warrants geotechnical consideration. Ore strength and, by extension, its ability to withstand the effects of stress, is dependent on the properties and proportions of the minerals that comprise it. When the mineralogy demonstrates Date: December 31, 2021 13-10 variation beyond what is deemed typical, additional investigation and/or measures may be required to ensure that mining conditions remain safe. Such variation may include increased amounts of salt or insoluble components such as clays, carbonates, or sulfates that can introduce weaknesses in the rock by altering its strength or introducing bedding planes or seams that would not normally be present. These situations are often associated with geological features found above or below the actual mining zone. Though the extent and degree of their influence cannot be accurately determined in advance, guidance as to where conditions might be impacted by such features is obtained using 3D seismic data. Though almost always present to some degree, the mineral carnallite (KMgCl3•6H2O) has been demonstrated to significantly impact ore strength when in greater quantities. Mining rooms with carnallite rich ore are also more prone to the development of bedding separations within the roof. As with anomalous conditions, the presence and distribution of carnallite cannot be accurately predicted, however, sampling conducted within the immediate mining area does provide some measure of guidance that can be used during the mine planning process. 13.2.3 Hydrogeological Considerations Undersaturated brines from adjacent aquifers have long been recognized to be of significant risk to conventional mining in the Esterhazy area. It is therefore pertinent that measures be taken so that mining activities are carried out in such a fashion so as to minimize their impact. Brine inflow into the mine may occur as a result of breaching the protective salt layers that exist above and below the mining horizon. A breach through the salt to the ore zone may result from mining activities (i.e., exploration drilling, extraction, etc.) or be naturally occurring (i.e., collapse features) and these must be carefully considered during the planning process. Boundary pillars are used to isolate drill holes from the mine workings as well as minimize the influence of stresses and subsequent rock deformation that may be imparted. Collapse features are post-depositional structures that result from rock dissolution and vertical failure. Their size and extent are variable and may transition through a number of stratigraphic units including those with water-bearing zones. Similar to drill holes, boundary pillars are implemented to physically isolate collapses from the workings as well as reduce mining-related stresses in that area. The size of the pillar employed is dependent on the extent of disruption, volume of upper salt loss, and the degree of breaching or fracturing in the aquifers. These factors are determined in advance of mining through the use of 3D seismic analysis. 3D seismic information is also utilized to help define salt back thickness and the likelihood of water-bearing zones being present within the carbonate Dawson Bay Formation. Special consideration is given to areas where the remaining evaporites between the mine horizon and Dawson Bay Formation are found to be less than 75 ft. thick or if the Dawson Bay Formation itself is damaged or determined to contain water (Figure 13-10). When identified, mining in such areas may be reduced or possibly eliminated should conditions suggest the potential risk for flooding is high. Date: December 31, 2021 13-11 Figure 13-10: Stratigraphy Above Esterhazy Mining Horizon 13.3 Mine Design and Operations 13.3.1 Production Plan/Life of Mine Plan The 2021 LOM plan for the Esterhazy Potash Facility includes the K3 mineral reserves and the K4 mineral resources. It is based on an average production rate of 19.324 M tons per year (17.527 M tonnes per year), based on 320 production days per year. The K3 mineral reserves production is planned to ramp up to full production by 2024 and is expected to ramp down starting in 2051, with mining completed in 2054. Date: December 31, 2021 13-12 The K4 mineral resources are scheduled to start mining in 2050 ramping up to full production in 2055 and ending in 2090. Table 13-3 outlines the 2021 LOM plan for the K3 mineral reserves and the K4 measured and indicated mineral resources. Table 13-3: 2021 LOM Plan Year Total Tons (‘000) %K2O Total Tonnes (‘000) Site Tons (‘000) Tonnes (‘000) K3 K4 K3 K4 2022 18,042 24.8% 16,364 K3 18,042 16,364 2023 18,899 24.2% 17,141 K3 18,899 17,141 2024 19,324 23.8% 17,527 K3 19,324 17,527 2025 19,324 23.8% 17,527 K3 19,324 17,527 2026 19,324 23.7% 17,527 K3 19,324 17,527 2027 19,324 21.1% 17,527 K3 19,324 17,527 2028 19,324 20.6% 17,527 K3 19,324 17,527 2029 19,324 20.6% 17,527 K3 19,324 17,527 2030 19,324 20.6% 17,527 K3 19,324 17,527 2031 19,324 20.6% 17,527 K3 19,324 17,527 2032 19,324 20.6% 17,527 K3 19,324 17,527 2033 19,324 20.6% 17,527 K3 19,324 17,527 2034 19,324 20.6% 17,527 K3 19,324 17,527 2035 19,324 20.6% 17,527 K3 19,324 17,527 2036 19,324 20.6% 17,527 K3 19,324 17,527 2037 19,324 20.6% 17,527 K3 19,324 17,527 2038 19,324 20.6% 17,527 K3 19,324 17,527 2039 19,324 20.6% 17,527 K3 19,324 17,527 2040 19,324 20.6% 17,527 K3 19,324 17,527 2041 19,324 20.6% 17,527 K3 19,324 17,527 2042 19,324 20.6% 17,527 K3 19,324 17,527 2043 19,324 20.6% 17,527 K3 19,324 17,527 2044 19,324 20.6% 17,527 K3 19,324 17,527 2045 19,324 22.0% 17,527 K3 19,324 17,527 2046 19,324 22.0% 17,527 K3 19,324 17,527 2047 19,324 22.0% 17,527 K3 19,324 17,527 2048 19,324 22.3% 17,527 K3 19,324 17,527 - 2049 19,324 22.0% 17,527 K3 19,324 17,527 - 2050 19,324 22.0% 17,527 K3 19,174 150 17,391 136 2051 19,324 21.7% 17,527 K3/K4 17,824 1,500 16,166 1,361 2052 19,324 20.5% 17,527 K3/K4 12,324 7,000 11,178 6,349 2053 19,324 22.4% 17,527 K3/K4 10,324 9,000 9,364 8,163 2054 19,324 22.6% 17,527 K3/K4 6,000 13,324 5,442 12,085 2055 19,324 22.9% 17,527 K4 19,324 - 17,527 2056 19,324 22.9% 17,527 K4 19,324 - 17,527 2057 19,324 22.9% 17,527 K4 19,324 17,527


 
Date: December 31, 2021 13-13 Year Total Tons (‘000) %K2O Total Tonnes (‘000) Site Tons (‘000) Tonnes (‘000) K3 K4 K3 K4 2058 19,324 22.9% 17,527 K4 19,324 17,527 2059 19,324 22.9% 17,527 K4 19,324 17,527 2060 19,324 22.9% 17,527 K4 19,324 17,527 2061 19,324 22.9% 17,527 K4 19,324 17,527 2062 19,324 22.9% 17,527 K4 19,324 17,527 2063 19,324 22.9% 17,527 K4 19,324 17,527 2064 19,324 22.9% 17,527 K4 19,324 17,527 2065 19,324 22.9% 17,527 K4 19,324 17,527 2066 19,324 22.9% 17,527 K4 19,324 17,527 2067 19,324 22.9% 17,527 K4 19,324 17,527 2068 19,324 22.9% 17,527 K4 19,324 17,527 2069 19,324 22.9% 17,527 K4 19,324 17,527 2070 19,324 22.9% 17,527 K4 19,324 17,527 2071 19,324 22.9% 17,527 K4 19,324 17,527 2072 19,324 22.9% 17,527 K4 19,324 17,527 2073 19,324 22.9% 17,527 K4 19,324 17,527 2074 19,324 22.9% 17,527 K4 19,324 17,527 2075 19,324 22.9% 17,527 K4 19,324 17,527 2076 19,324 22.9% 17,527 K4 19,324 17,527 2077 19,324 22.9% 17,527 K4 19,324 17,527 2078 19,324 22.9% 17,527 K4 19,324 17,527 2079 19,324 22.9% 17,527 K4 19,324 17,527 2080 19,324 22.9% 17,527 K4 19,324 17,527 2081 19,324 22.9% 17,527 K4 19,324 17,527 2082 19,324 22.9% 17,527 K4 19,324 17,527 2083 19,324 22.9% 17,527 K4 19,324 17,527 2084 19,324 22.9% 17,527 K4 19,324 17,527 2085 19,324 22.9% 17,527 K4 19,324 17,527 2086 19,324 22.9% 17,527 K4 19,324 17,527 2087 19,324 22.9% 17,527 K4 19,324 17,527 2088 19,324 22.9% 17,527 K4 19,324 17,527 2089 10,000 22.9% 9,070 K4 10,000 9,070 2090 5,000 22.9% 4,535 K4 5,000 4,535 13.3.2 Planning Assumptions The following outlines the planning assumptions incorporated into the Esterhazy K3 2021 LOM plan. • An underground room and pillar mining method is used. • The production plan goal is to achieve 19.324 M tons per year (17.527 M tonnes per year) of ore to supply the surface processing plants. This is the result of 1.4 to 1.8 M tons/year (1.3 to 1.6 M tonnes/year) from four Date: December 31, 2021 13-14 rotor miners in three entry development areas and 1.8 to 2.1 M tons/year (1.6 to 1.9 M tonnes/year) from four rotor miners in the production panels. • Mine design work is completed utilizing the following design criteria. o The three-entry development consists of 46.3 ft. (14.1 m) wide drifts, 300 ft. (91.4 m) wide pillars and a 9 ft. (2.7 m) mining height. o The mainline conveyor standard length is approximately 6,000 ft. (1,829 m) but varies from 4,000 to 8,000 ft. (1,219 to 2,438 m) dependent on the panel layout. o The room and pillar mine design consists of 66.5 ft (20.3 m) wide rooms with a height if 8.5 ft (2.6 m). o The mining room nominal length is 6,000 ft. (1,829 m). The minimum length is 4,000 ft. (1,219 m), the maximum length is 9,000 ft. (2,743 m) and will vary in certain circumstances. Rooms shorter than 4,000 ft. (1,220 m) will result in excessive miner moves and setups that would adversely affect miner productivity. If a mining room is longer than 9,000 ft. (2,743 m) the standard mining rate from the four-rotor miner will exceed the room conveyor capacity, thereby reducing the miner productivity by reducing the four rotor mining rate. o A 1,000 ft. (305 m) barrier pillar is established between long term (greater than 10 year) mining entries and mining panel rooms. • A total continuous miner fleet of 13 four rotor miners with 11 to 12 miners setup to cut and one to two in maintenance/overhaul is assumed. There is a limit of one miner per single panel and a limit of two miners per double panel. Four rotor miners are expected to have shutdowns for a six-month overhaul after cutting 12.0 M tons (13.2 M tonnes). Four rotor miners are expected to have a minor overhaul shutdown for one month after cutting 6.0 M tons (6.6 M tonnes). • No development advances until a 3D seismic survey has been completed to identify geological anomalies that may interfere with development entries. 13.3.3 Mining Sequence The Esterhazy 2021 LOM plan mining sequence is summarized in Figure 13-11. Date: December 31, 2021 13-15 Figure 13-11: LOM Plan Mining Sequence Date: December 31, 2021 13-16 13.3.4 Blasting and Explosives There is very little blasting that takes place for mining at Esterhazy K3. Blasting occasionally occurs when the ore storage bins are blocked. Explosives are sometimes used to loosen the blockage allowing the ore to flow in the bin. One other use is to remove loosened rock in the roof, floors and walls in underground openings that cause a safety hazard and other means of removal have been unsuccessful. These operations occur very infrequently. No explosives are permanently stored underground. When, required, explosives that have been stored in a surface magazine are taken underground and used immediately. There are strict operational procedures regarding the safe storage, transport and use of explosives. Only those trained and holders of a valid blasting certificate are authorized to handle explosives. 13.3.5 Ventilation The underground ventilation circuit at Esterhazy K3 consists of two surface fresh air fans that run in parallel to direct air into the mine through the South Shaft plenum into the South Downcast Shaft. Underground there are two large booster fans that direct the fresh air either North or South into the mine workings (Figure 13-12). Once the air has transferred through the mine and has completed the air circuit, it returns to the North shaft as return air. The return air is then pulled from the North shaft by two exhaust air fans that also run in parallel. Figure 13-12: Surface Fan General Arrangement The South shaft intake fans are two full bladed fans that run in parallel to each other to push fresh air into the South shaft. The fresh air moves through a Burner Housing Building where the air is heated when outside ambient temperatures are consistently below 0° C. After the intake air moves through the heating house, the air is then moved through the plenum and enters the shaft at the sub-collar level of the South headframe. Running at full capacity, the fans are designed to move a nominal 470 kcfm (221.8 m3/s) into the underground workings. These fans are also fitted with a Variable Frequency Drive (VFD) so that the air volume can be adjusted based on underground requirements and head frame pressures. The South headframe is designed to operate in a positive pressure state of with standard pressure differential units of 0.0 to 0.3 inches of water gauge (0 to 7.62 mm H2O). The North exhaust fans are two full bladed fans that run in parallel to draw air from the underground workings and back into atmosphere. The fan blades are set at 31.6 degrees and are capable of drawing upwards of 250 kcfm (110.9


 
Date: December 31, 2021 13-17 m3/s) each on a variable frequency drive. The exhaust fans are also designed to pull air from the North headframe and maintain a negative pressure with standard pressure differential units of -0.25 to -0.50 inch water gauge (-6.35 to - 12.7 mm H2O) within the headframe. This negative pressure is to keep dust, created by the skips and chimney effect of the mine exhaust air, off the mechanics and hoisting equipment on the upper levels of the North head frame. The overall mine ventilation strategy has travel ways (or outer drifts) used as fresh air paths, and center drifts (or belt drifts) used as exhaust air paths. Underpass drifts are utilized to cross fresh air from one travel way to another, without the use of fan and ducting crossover air path. Due to the dust that gets stirred during ore haulage along the belt lines, it makes the most sense to keep that dust paired with exhaust air and the fresh air paths free from unnecessary dust. There are two full bladed booster axial fans that move air North and South underground in a main airway to supply fresh air into the mine workings. The underground booster fans are designed to move upwards of 250 kcfm (118 m3/s) each and are VFD controlled to adjust to underground air requirements. There are three different types of ventilation doors underground at K3; high pressure steel doors, and low pressure solid roll up doors high pressure steel doors are used directly around the North and South shafts to prevent the short circuiting of fresh air, and the recirculation of exhaust air. The high pressure doors are designed to withstand a pressure with standard pressure differential units of 5 inch water gauge (127 mm H2O) and are installed closest to the shaft areas to withstand the positive and negative pressures created by the surface and underground booster fans. Low pressure solid roll up doors, are designed to withstand a pressure with standard pressure differential units of 1 inch water gauge (25.4 mm H2O) are placed in areas where there is little pressure due to ventilation infrastructure. The opening and closing of these doors for brief periods will not disrupt the overall ventilation system. The shaft pillar at K3 is split between a fresh air and an exhaust air side. The combination of high pressure steel doors, and low pressure roll up doors (solid and pivoting) create the barrier. Fresh air moves from the South Shaft and gets distributed North and South via the underground booster fans. Fresh air to the north takes two paths through the pillar area before entering the Northern mine workings. The first path is through a main airway and moves directly north to the mine workings. The second path has air diverting through the shops area before heading to the north production area. Once the air moves through the shop and office areas, it joins the other direct air path and gets sent to the North mine workings. Air that distributes through the South booster fan takes one path to get distributed into the South Mine workings via fresh air travel ways and underpasses that connect the travel ways. Room ventilation is achieved through means of fans, brattice lines, vent tubing, vent doors and vent stoppings at strategic locations to achieve the desired ventilation flow. The main goal is to provide adequate air volume, approximately 50,000 cfm (23.6 m3/s) of fresh air, to remove dust generated at the mining face, along with removal of heat generated by the mining machine. Fresh air is brought to the mining face from the rear of the miner and flushed over the face as cutting progresses. For the case of first pass, dead end mining, a fan mounted on the miner draws air from the mining face and exhausts to a brattice line that runs the length of the room behind the miner. Flow into and out of the room is controlled by fans and controls. For the case of second and third pass mining, flow through ventilation is provided, again with fresh air approaching from the rear of the miner and flows through over the miner to eventual exhaust. Once exhausted from the mining room, the air then is routed to the main exhaust system, usually the belt drift network. Air then arrives back in the shaft pillar area and is routed up the north shaft for exhaust to surface. As the mine expands to the west, north and south, it is estimated that more booster fan setups, similar to what was described above, will be required. Allowances have been made in the LOM Capital estimate for the installation of these setups. 13.3.6 Ore and Waste Handling A four-rotor miner must be set up with various pieces of support equipment to function to maximize productivity. A typical miner setup can be seen in Figure 13-13. An automatic hardware installer is positioned right behind a miner. The function of this is to install panel belt posts/idlers in the ground as the miner progresses. Autonomous operation allows un-crewed operation over shift change and will increase 1st Pass production and reduce exposure to moving equipment. Date: December 31, 2021 13-18 Figure 13-13: Four Rotor Set Up Behind the belt storage magazine there is the belt extensible drive. A belt extensible drive is used to run extensible belts. They are placed in the break-through of the room being mined. This is the discharge end of the extensible belt. Workers ensure before starting to cut that the transfer chute on the extensible is not plugged and properly aligned with the conveyor. For the safety aspect, a pull cord runs along the length of the extensible. Pulling this cord will stop the extensible. Workers check this safety cord making sure it is in working condition before the equipment is turned on. Extensible belts are temporary and are installed/ taken out whenever a miner moves from room to room. Extensible belts discharge onto panel belts that are semi-permanent belts that will last the lifetime of a panel, approximately five years. The panel belts discharge onto the mainline belts that may extend multiple kilometers. They run throughout the length of the mine. These belts are suspended from the back of the underground working. After the ore mined in an active mining area, the ore is conveyed through a network of main line conveyors back to the shaft pillar area. The mainline belts dump into the underground bins. K3 has two ore bins and two surge bins. These bins allow ore to be stored underground, allowing mining to continue when the shaft is not available for hoisting. All underground conveying systems discharge into the north and south raw ore bins. Ore is reclaimed from the bottom of the ore bins with rotating plow feeders that discharge onto a reclaim belt that transfers the ore to the surge bin. Ore is reclaimed from the bottom of the surge bin with apron feeders that discharge onto a shaft feed belt. Ore from the shaft feed belt is discharged into two weigh bins located in the shaft loading pocket. Theses bins then load the skips for transportation to surface. Esterhazy K3 has two shafts in operation. The North shaft is equipped with two skips and a hoist to operate the skips. In addition, the north shaft has a four-compartment cage, operated by a hoist capable of load ups to 27 tons (24.5 tonnes), for the transportation of personnel and materials. The South shaft will be equipped with two skips and a hoist. The skips discharge into a 300 ton (272 tonne) bin located in each headframe. Ore is reclaimed from these bins using apron feeders and loaded on the overland conveying system for transport to K1 and K2 mills. 13.3.7 Backfill There is no backfilling of underground openings performed at the Esterhazy Potash Facility. 13.3.8 Water Management Nominal seepage is observed in the shaft liners. It is collected and transferred to the K2 tailings pond. Date: December 31, 2021 13-19 13.3.9 Underground Infrastructure Facilities Power is supplied to the K3 site from a 70MVA 138 kV/14.4 kV (GIS Substation). Power is routed to the underground through six 15 kV feeder lines to underground 15 KV Switchgear consisting of 600 A,15 kV, 25 KA isolation switches, vacuum circuit breakers and accessories. There is then a network of 15 kV cable lines to a series of 14.4 kV to 4.16 kV transformers to power the four rotor miners, and 14.4 kV-600 V transformers to power auxiliary. 13.3.10 Operational Cut-off Grades There may be times when areas are encountered where salt mineralization has replaced potash mineralization. When encountered, decisions are made whether to continue mining through the area (that contains little to no potash) to access potash deposits on the other side of the encountered zone, or to abandon the area. This is a very infrequent occurrence. In development headings, the usual decision is to continue mining. In production rooms, the usual decision is to not continue mining and to abandon the room. 13.3.11 Mine Production Monitoring To monitor ongoing changes in the production grade of the Esterhazy Member, chip samples of each mineralized bed are collected by Mine Engineering personnel in each production and development entry at 200 ft. (61 m) intervals. The sampling and analysis process consists of: • Identifying each distinct geological bed (30, 35, 40 and 50). • Gathering chips from wall sampling (using a chisel hammer) into a sample bag. • Filling out the sample tag with proper location and stratigraphic information. • Submitting the samples at the end of each shift to either the K1 or K2 lab for analysis where the samples are pulverized and standard K2O% and Mg% are analyzed using XRF techniques (X-Ray Fluorescence). This allows for the sylvite and carnallite concentration calculation. • Once the sample results are given to the technical services department, they are examined and corrected for any errors or omissions. The production sample results are used to create interpolated contour maps of sylvite and carnallite for the mine. Based on these maps, a general prediction for sylvite and carnallite content is made for adjacent unmined rooms. In addition to regular chip sampling, mapping is also conducted to identify any off-grade cutting, salt anomalies, or other anomalous geology that could adversely affect the mine grade. The grade results and any anomalous geology are taken into consideration when reviewing the mine plan. At surface, at the outlet of the Headframe apron feeder, the hoisted ore grade is determined by the use of a Potassium Meter 444 M-40. The concentration of potassium in bulk materials or liquid solution is measured by detecting gamma radiation of the natural isotope K-40. This isotope is contained in natural potassium in a constant percentage (0.0119%). As the isotope K-40 decays, it emits gamma radiation with an energy of 1.46 MeV. The detector LB 5340 detects radiation using an organic scintillator (PVT), the detector LB 5402 using a NaI crystal. The radiation triggers tiny flashes of light in the scintillator that are converted into electrical pulses by the photomultiplier. The count rate of this radiation is a direct measure for the potassium concentration. 13.3.12 Equipment The Esterhazy Potash Facility owns all the equipment necessary to execute the primary operational functions in the mine. Mining is completed via continuous mining machines, predominantly four-rotor miners. There is also a fleet of cutting and mobile equipment used to support the operations, construction and maintenance activities of the underground mine. Date: December 31, 2021 13-20 Table 13-4 outlines the amount of major mining equipment and their associated estimated useful life. In addition, it is estimated that in the future, K3 will need to purchase a mobile equipment unit to trim floor from travel ways and belt drifts to maintain operationally effective drift heights. Allowance for this unit(s) has been made in the capital estimate. Table 13-4: Major Mining Equipment Major Assets in Current Equipment Fleet Quantity Estimated Useful Life (Years) Drum Miner 2 30 Alpine Miner 1 30 Four Rotor Miner 13 30 Two Rotor Miner 2 30 Battery Hauler 20 ton 8 30 Lube Truck 3 10 Scaler Truck 1 10 Truck 2 10 Truck - Mechanic 1 10 Truck - Sanitation 1 10 JLG 60 ft. 4 5 Ariel Lift 45 ft. 1 5 Backhoe Excavator 1 5 Cable Handler 1 5 Cement Mixer 1 5 Compressor - Portable 11 5 Compressor- Stationary 1 10 Mobile Crane 25 ton 1 20 Mobile Crane 20 ton 1 20 Mobile Crane 15 ton 1 20 Mobile Crane 10 ton 1 20 Mobile Crane 6 ton 1 20 Forklift 4 5 Personnel Carrier 38 5 Generator 1 20 Excavator 1 5 135 Excavator 1 5 60G Excavator 5 5 Paymover 1 20 Polaris Ranger 13 2 Roof bolter 5 20 Scoop Tram 2.5 Yd 12 10 Scoop Tram 6 Yd 2 10 Scoop Tram 3 Yd 5 10 Scoop Tram 4 Yd 2 10 Scissor Lift 1 10 Skid steer 1 10 Telehandler 2 5 Telehandler Large 3 5 Telehandler Medium 9 5 Trucks - Crew Transport 40 10 Trailer 6 30 Tram Unit 350 KW Generator 2 30 Welder 1 30 Surface Half Ton Pick up Trucks 10 10


 
Date: December 31, 2021 13-21 13.3.13 Personnel Table 13-5 outlines the Esterhazy current and forecasted mining personnel requirements. It excludes Capital and personnel reporting offsite to a centralized Capital workforce. The bulk of the mining workforce is positioned as operational workforce, support to the operational workforce, or supervisory roles. Table 13-5: Mine Personnel - Current and Forecasted Area 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 to 2054 Actual Actual Actual Actual Fcast. Plan Maintenance 158 152 147 159 155 125 Operations 235 233 217 190 179 128 Other 57 54 59 49 48 43 Total 450 439 423 398 382 296 Date: December 31, 2021 14-1 14.0 Recovery Methods 14.1 Introduction The Esterhazy Potash Facility processing consists of two separate mill facilities, designated as K1 and K2. Each of these mills processes the raw ore feed stock received from the underground mining operations through crushing, separation, screening and compaction unit operations to produce on grade saleable product. Operations utilizes online grade analyzers to monitor the process as well as routine samples that are analyzed by the onsite lab. The metallurgical department also collects key samples to confirm proper operating conditions of the processing plants. 14.2 Flowsheets The flowsheets for the Esterhazy processing plants at K1 and K2 are outlined in Figures 14-1 and 14-2. Figure 14-1: K1 Processing Plant Flow Sheet Date: December 31, 2021 14-2 Figure 14-2: K2 Processing Plant Flow Sheet Crushing The crushing circuit processes raw ore supplied by the underground operations that contains Potash (potassium chloride, KCl), salt (sodium chloride, NaCl), and clays; within the circuit raw ore is reduced in size to less than 9.5 mm so that the potash and salt crystals are liberated for separation. Potash concentration in the ore feed stream is continuously read with an online ore analyzer. Raw ore is conveyed from the headframe bins to screen out on size and oversized ore. Oversize material is sent through a crusher so that it is reduced to the proper milling size, ore that is not reduced sufficiently recycles through the crushing loop until it is on size. On size material is slurried and sent into heavy media for further screening by size. Heavy Media The first step within the heavy media operation is to screen with vibratory sizing screens ore for processing in heavy media or flotation; ore greater than 1.7 mm remains in heavy media while the rest is processed in flotation. Heavy media separation is possible when the difference in buoyance of materials is great enough and the liquid used as the separation media falls between those two values. On size ore is combined with a magnetite slurry to create a solution that has a specific gravity of 2.05 and is then sent through the rougher cyclones to reject salt to tailings. The ore mixture remaining is then dewatered and put into a second slurry with a specific gravity of 1.95 so that product can be separated and washed. The rejected material still contains potash but is not liberated from the salt crystals so it must be sent through an impactor to further break down the crystals. All of the magnetite slurry that is washed off of the various process streams is collected so that the magnetite can be concentrated again for reuse within the system. To complete this process magnetic separation drums are used to pull the magnetite out of the brine slurry. Brine leaving this system is then also reused within the system as wash brine. Flotation Flotation receives the -1.7 mm size fraction from the sizing screens and is then further separated into fine and coarse fractions so that each segment receives the correct reagent rates. Within flotation, four different reagents are used: depressant is applied to bind the clays to prevent them from consuming reagents down stream, collector coats the Date: December 31, 2021 14-3 negatively charged potash crystals to make them water repellant to float, extender oil then attaches itself to the collector to further promote flotation of the coarse fraction and finally, frother is used to form stable bubbles to float the potash particles to the surface of the flotation cells. Once the particles are mixed with the required reagents, they recombine into one flotation feed stream to the rougher flotation cells where salt is rejected. The overflow of the rougher cells then contains product mixed with fine salts, to segregate the fine salt this stream is run over stationary screen. The fine salt and small potash pass through the screens and are then slurried to go through cleaner cells to be removed from the product. Crystallizer Circuit One major difference in the K1 and K2 processing plants is the presence of a crystallizer circuit. K2 currently uses three growth crystallizers, that are classified suspension product removal crystallizers with well-developed bed fluidization and with circulation of slurry. Fresh feed is mixed into the recirculation stream that feeds into the crystallizer dome. The recirculation flowrate will be 7 to 10 times the flow of the fresh feed. This large flowrate enters the dome through a nozzle that diffuses the velocity to reduce turbulence at the dome surface. Vapor evolves from the liquid surface as the pressure in the dome is dropped by the cooler liquid flow to the condenser, the temperature difference between the dome and condenser produces a vacuum, as does the compression of the vapor as it takes up less space. As the vapor is removed, the liquid cools, driving the brine to reach supersaturation (the point where the water can no longer hold all salt) and precipitation of KCl occurs. Precipitation will drive new crystal formation as well as growth onto crystals that have been recirculated from the retention tank. The crystals formed will then fall with the large recirculation flow through the downcomer into the retention tank. Because of the high flowrate travelling down the downcomer and the proximity of the downcomer exit to the bottom of the tank, the crystals in the retention tank become fluidized. Gravity will assist the crystals in classifying with small crystals requiring growth residing at the top of the tank (subject to recirculation and subsequent growth) and larger crystals will settle to the bottom, ready to be pumped out of the vessel via the slurry pump. Dewatering and Drying Circuits The K1 and K2 processing plants have two distinct dewatering and drying circuits based on product stream they are fed from wither flotation or heavy media; with one additional circuit at K2 to handle the crystallizer product. Dewatering, or removal of process brine from the KCl solids as a filtrate is done through centrifuges. Potash from the heavy media circuit is dewatered through vibratory centrifuges because the oscillating action that moved product through the centrifuges does so without breaking down the crystals into finer size fraction. Product that is produced in flotation and crystallizer circuits is run through a screen bowl centrifuge. The effluent from all of the centrifuges is made up of process brine and is sent to the scavenger cell circuit. K1 and K2 process this stream differently; at K1 this is used for brine clarification and returned to the process brine holding tank while K2 further separates fine particles to be sent to the string filter and onto crystallizer feed. The dryers utilized on site are natural gas fired and are of fluidized bed dryer or rotary dryer designs. Each dryer is equipped with its own burner to produce high temperature combustion gas that comes into direct contact with the KCl solids to remove surface and internal moisture. Every dryer is also equipped with a wet scrubber system to comply with local government emissions regulations. Testing is performed by a third party annually and submitted to the Ministry of Environment as proof of compliance. Dried product exits each dryer with minimal moisture content and at an elevated temperature. The dry product is conveyed into either a shared or dedicated elevator that lifts the product into the Sizing Area. Thickener Area Process brine is used throughout the various processing steps as a slurry medium and must be clarified and recaptured to maintain high plant recoveries. Brine removed form slurries is collected and sent to the tailings thickener to allow any impurities collected to be removed from the process brine before it is recycled back to the process brine tank. Within the thickener, flocculant is added to agglomerate small particles into a large enough size to allow them to settle. The particles that settle to the bottom are removed from the thickener and pumped to the tailing management area.


 
Date: December 31, 2021 14-4 Screening Area The screening area is comprised of screens and gates that are used to split the product by size. Each circuit product is conveyed to individual screening sections that will split feed streams into on size and oversize. The oversize fraction is sent to a crushing circuit to be broken down and then recycled back to the screening section. All on size product from the individual screening sections are combined into the proper dispatch bins within the mill. From the dispatch bins, product can either be sent on to the compactor feed or sent out to the storage and loading area of the plants. Compaction Area The compaction area is used to compress a portion of the site’s production of dry KCl particles into a larger flake so that it can be crushed and screened to product grade size. Compaction systems are required so that smaller size fraction products can be converted to a larger, more valuable product. There are two distinct compaction circuits at K1 and four at K2. Individual compactors are composed of two large diameter corrugated rolls that are spinning in opposite directions using an electrical motor and gearbox. One roll’s position is stationary, while the other roll moves on a track. Pressure is applied to the floating roll through hydraulic rams. As product is continually fed between the two spinning corrugated rolls, the pressure from the hydraulic rams is transferred to the particles, allowing them to be mechanically compressed into a larger solid flake. Product feeding the inlet of the compactors is a combination of fresh feed from the dryers and recirculating product from the downstream compaction screening systems. Once created, the flake is gravity fed into a crusher that will create a distribution of particle sizes, that will report to an elevator and then into a bank of screens for sizing. Compaction circuit screens allow for undersized product to be sent back to the compactors, oversized product sent to another crusher in the system that discharges back into the screen’s feed, and the on size product to progress to product dispatch. One of the two compaction systems at K1 has the ability to add in sodium tetraborate to the compaction feed to produce a specialty product as well. Storage and Shipping Area Product is weighed and conveyed into the Esterhazy warehouses using belt conveyors and is distributed to the appropriate warehouse through gates, trippers, and chutes that allow the product to freefall and land atop existing product in the warehouse. Product that is produced, stored and shipped offsite must meet customer grade. Warehouses are configured such that each product has its own dedicated warehouse(s) to avoid product contamination. Total site warehouse capacity at K1 is 184,000 tons (166,921 tonnes) from five warehouses and 262,000 tons (237,682 tonnes) from six warehouses. Product in a warehouse is reclaimed through one of the reclaim systems. The reclaiming process starts with product being moved in the warehouse with bucket loaders. A loader moves product into a floor opening in the warehouse that is covered by Grizzly Bars. This opening feeds a reclaim conveyance system that weighs the product and then brings the product into the loadout building for its final screening before it is treated and loaded into railcars or trucks. Each reclaim system has dedicated screens and elevators, allowing site to load different products at the same time. Product that is screened to size reports to a belt conveyor that weighs and transfers the product to the loadout bins. These bins act as surge capacity for product being loaded into rail cars/trucks and allows operations to pre-load the shipping system, while trains or trucks are being moved into position. Product entering a railcar or truck is weighed by government regulated scales. 14.3 Plant Throughput and Design 14.3.1 Key Metrics The historical and planned future key performance metrics for the Esterhazy processing plants have been tabulated in Table 14-1 and Table 14-2. Future tonnage and recoveries are projected based on mine plan information and historical performance to match production capacity with sales demand. The average LOM plan processing recovery for the mineral reserves sent to K1 and K2 is 86.1%. Date: December 31, 2021 14-5 Table 14-1: K1 Key Processing Plant Metrics 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 to 2054 Actual Actual Actual Actual Fcast. Plan Plan Plan Plan Plan Plan Total Milled Tons (000s) 6,351 5,887 4,801 5,889 6,474 6,444 6,750 6,901 6,901 6,901 6,901 Total Produced Tons (000s) 2,127 2,023 1,623 1,947 2,194 2,257 2,360 2,373 2,373 2,363 2,363 Recovery 86.9% 88.9% 87.6% 86.5% 86.0% 84.0% 88.0% 88.0% 88.0% 88.0% 88.0% Total Shipped Tons (000s) 2,129 2,020 1,666 1,929 2,194 2,255 2,333 2,401 2,401 2,402 2,402 Table 14-2: K2 Key Processing Plant Metrics 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 to 2054 Actual Actual Actual Actual Fcast. Plan Plan Plan Plan Plan Plan Total Milled Tons (000s) 8,203 9,481 6,663 10,618 11,374 11,598 12,149 12,423 12,423 12,423 12,423 Total Produced Tons (000s) 2,602 3,026 2,639 3,542 3,765 4,015 4,104 4,127 4,127 4,109 4,109 Recovery 79.5% 81.9% 83.0% 83.1% 84.0% 85.0% 85.0% 85.0% 85.0% 85.0% 85.0% Total Shipped Tons (000s) 2,671 2,919 2,805 3,545 3,765 3,925 4,041 4,153 4,153 4,154 4,154 Date: December 31, 2021 14-6 Historically, plant recovery trends are very consistent and have only shown variance that correlates to plant upgrades. The ability to produce at the increasing rates being forecasted in the LOM Plan are supported by a Canpotex proving run in 2013, when the Esterhazy plants achieved a production nameplate capacity of 7.0 million tons (6.3 million tonnes) overall. The K1 plant achieved 2.9 million tons (2.6 million tonnes) and the K2 plant achieved 4.1 million tons (3.7 million tonnes). 14.3.2 Equipment Characteristics and Specifications Table 14-3 outlines and summarizes the K1 and K2 process plants main equipment characteristics and specifications. Table 14-3: Process Plants Equipment Characteristics and Specifications Circuit/Area Site Equipment Name Details Crushing K1 Raw Ore Warehouse 1 x Rectangular Style Warehouse 6,000 ton Capacity Raw Ore Screen 2 x Primary Screen (1 cut Tyler Screen) 1 x Secondary Screen (1 cut Tyler Screen) Raw Ore Bins 2 x Headframe Bins (100 ton capacity) 1 x Raw Ore Bin (450 ton capacity) 1 x Fine Ore Bin (150 ton capacity) Raw Ore Analyzer 1 x K2O Probe Roll Crusher 1 x Dual stage roll crusher Carnallite Pumps 2 x 300 hp Electrical Centrifugal Pump K2 Raw Ore Warehouse 1 x Rectangular Style Warehouse 10,000 ton Capacity Raw Ore Screen 3 x Grizzly Screen Raw Ore Bins 2 x Headframe Bins (200 ton capacity) 3 x Raw Ore Surge Bin (400 ton capacity) Raw Ore Analyzer 3 x K2O Probe Roll Crusher 3 x Impactor Recycle Pumps 3 x 150 hp Electrical Centrifugal Pump Heavy Media Feed Pumps 3 x 200 hp Electrical Centrifugal Pump Heavy Media K1 Sizing Screen 6 x 6 ft. Vibrating Screen Deck Midsize Screen 1 x 6 ft. Vibrating Screen Deck Product Screen 2 x 6 ft. Vibrating Screen Deck Tailings Screen 3 x 6 ft. Vibrating Screen Deck Rougher Float Screen 3 x 8 ft. Inclined Stationary Screen Rougher Cyclones 15 x 15 inch Dense Media Cyclones Cleaner Cyclones 6 x 15 inch Dense Media Cyclones Dilute Cyclones Magnetic Separators 5 x Primary – 48 inch Diameter Drum 2 x Secondary – 30 inch Diameter Drum Rougher Pumps 3 x 200 hp Electrical Centrifugal Pump Date: December 31, 2021 14-7 Circuit/Area Site Equipment Name Details Cleaner Pump 1 x 400 hp Electrical Centrifugal Pump Dilute Pump 1 x 300 hp Electrical Centrifugal Pump Midsize Pump 1 x 150 hp Electrical Centrifugal Pump Product Pump 1 x 75 hp Electrical Centrifugal Pump Midsize Crusher 1 x Impactor K2 Sizing Screen 12 x ft. Vibrating Screen Deck Midsize Screen 3 x 7 ft. Vibrating Screen Deck Product Screen 3 x 7 ft. Vibrating Screen Deck Tailings Screen 6 x 7 ft. Vibrating Screen Deck Rougher Float Screen 6 x 7’ Vibrating Screen Deck Rougher Cyclones 24 x 15 inch Dense Media Cyclones Cleaner Cyclones 18 x 15 inch Dense Media Cyclones Magnetic Separators 9 x 48 inch Diameter Drum Rougher Pumps 3 x 800 hp Electrical Centrifugal Pump Cleaner Pump 3 x 600 hp Electrical Centrifugal Pump Mag Sep Feed Pump 3 x 350 hp Electrical Centrifugal Pump Midsize Pump 1 x 150 hp Electrical Centrifugal Pump Midsize Crusher 1 x Impactor Flotation K1 Deslime Feed Pump 1 x 300 hp Electrical Centrifugal Pump Flot Feed Pump 1 x 300 hp Electrical Centrifugal Pump Deslime Cyclones 12 x 14 inch Hydrocyclone Reagent Mix 2 x Stationary Mixing Launder Rougher Cells 7 x Flotation Bank Cleaner Cells 2 x Flotation Bank Scavenger Cell 1 x Flotation Bank Flot Concentrate Pump 1 x 100 hp Electrical Centrifugal Pump Flot Fines Pump 1 x 150 hp Electrical Centrifugal Pump Centrifuge Feed Pump 1 x 100 hp Electrical Centrifugal Pump K2 Deslime Screen Feed Pump 3 x 200 hp Electrical Centrifugal Pump Deslime Cyclone Feed Pump 3 x 350 hp Electrical Centrifugal Pump Flot Feed Pump 3 x 250 hp Electrical Centrifugal Pump Deslime Cyclones 16 x 12 inch Hydrocyclone 4 x 10 inch Hydrocyclone Hydro Separator 2 x 4 ft. Diameter Reagent Mix 3 x Coarse Reagentizing Screw 3 x Fines Reagent Mix Tank with Agitator Rougher Cells 17 x Flotation Bank Cleaner Cells 6 x Flotation Bank Re-Cleaner Cells 6 x Flotation Bank


 
Date: December 31, 2021 14-8 Circuit/Area Site Equipment Name Details Cleaner Cell Feed Pump 3 x 75 hp Electrical Centrifugal Pump Centrifuge Feed Pump 3 x 125 hp Electrical Centrifugal Pump Dewatering and Drying K1 HM Product Centrifuge 3 x Tema Vibratory Centrifuge Fines Product Centrifuge 4 x 54 inch x 70 inch Broadbent Screen Effluent Pump 1 x 100 hp Electrical Centrifugal Pump 2 x 40 hp Electrical Centrifugal Pump500 Rotary Dryers 4 x 8 ft. Diameter x 60 ft. Length Fluid Bed Dryer 1 x 13 ft. -9 inch Diameter K2 Fines Product Centrifuge 4 x 54 inch x 70 inch Soap Dish Screen 2 x 54 inch x 70 inch Divergent Screen Bowl 2 x 54 inch x 70 inch Divergent Screen Bowl HM Product Centrifuge 2 x Vertical Basket w/ 0.75 mm Slots Effluent Pump 1 x 125 hp Electrical Centrifugal Pump Fluid Bed Dryers 2 x 16 ft. Diameter 2 x 11 ft. Diameter Rotary Dryer 1 x 10 ft. Diameter x 70 ft. Length 14.3.3 Water and Energy Requirements The Esterhazy mining and milling process is an energy and water intensive process. Over the many years of production, upgrades have been implemented to increase the efficiency of the overall process. The historical and the projected future water and energy requirements to meet production requirements are listed in Tables 14-4, 14-5 and 14-6. Date: December 31, 2021 14-9 Table 14-4: Water Requirements 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027-2054 Actual Actual Actual Actual Fcast Plan Plan Plan Plan Plan Plan Freshwater Usage (000, s cu. m) 3,156 3,032 2,883 3,174 4,107 4,322 4,514 4,539 4,539 4,539 4,539 Table 14-5: Natural Gas Requirements 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 to 2054 Actual Actual Actual Actual Fcast. Plan Plan Plan Plan Plan Plan K1 (000’s GJ) 853 796 679 781 838 838 838 838 838 838 838 K2 (000’s GJ) 1,780 2,000 1,819 2,100 2,100 2,087 2,087 2,087 2,087 2,087 2,087 K3 (000’s GJ) 42 46 54 64 117 195 195 195 195 195 195 Total (000’s GJ) 2,676 2,843 2,554 2,946 3,056 3,120 3,120 3,120 3,120 3,120 3,120 Table 14-6: Electricity Requirements 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 to 2054 Actual Actual Actual Actual Fcast. Plan Plan Plan Plan Plan Plan K1 (000’s kWh) 233,629 217,355 205,574 209,250 207,412 115,611 120,920 124,166 123,979 123,979 123,979 K2 (000’s kWh) 573,063 587,823 564,272 611,783 588,027 269,808 276,023 279,058 278,617 278,617 278,617 K3 (000’s kWh) 14,481 15,150 34,151 58,382 46,267 129,050 163,175 183,065 182,571 182,571 182,571 Total (000’s kWh) 821,173 820,329 803,998 879,415 841,706 630,081 681,038 710,456 709,148 709,148 709,148 Date: December 31, 2021 14-10 14.3.4 Personnel The Esterhazy processing plant workforce consists of Mosaic personnel. The breakdown of current and projected headcount for the K1 and K2 processing plants is listed in Table 14-7 and excludes Capital and personnel reporting offsite to a centralized Capital workforce. Table 14-7: Processing Plant Personnel Area 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 to 2054 Actual Actual Actual Actual Fcast. Plan Maintenance 274 271 252 231 200 202 Operations 166 169 162 178 176 188 Other 145 146 135 138 95 88 Total 585 586 549 547 471 478 Date: December 31, 2021 15-1 15.0 Infrastructure 15.1 Introduction The Esterhazy Potash Facility consist of three sites, K1, K2, and K3, located in east central Saskatchewan approximately 12 miles (20 km) south of Highway #16 and 31 miles (50 km) north of Highway #1, the two major east-west transportation routes in the province. The mine site is situated in close proximity to a reliable high-tension power grid, natural gas pipelines, freshwater bodies, and communications networks. The sites are in close proximity to the Canadian National Railway main line and are serviced by spur lines to the Canadian Pacific Railway. The surrounding area is developed for agriculture, with the required road network, villages and towns to accommodate the workforce. The Esterhazy operation has the infrastructure in place to meet current and anticipated production targets. The assets currently in place are maintained through a robust workflow process that focuses on proactive inspections and preventative maintenance while trying to minimize reactive maintenance. Mosaic uses qualitative and quantitative inspections to identify the current condition and remaining life of the assets. The assets are inspected using a risk-based approach following the American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice – API RP 580 and there is a dedicated mechanical integrity team on site that are focused on inspections and creating remediation plans when deficiencies are found. The site’s major structural assets have been inspected by third party professional engineers, and models of the main structures are available to quickly and accurately determine member by member fitness for service. Figure 15-1 shows the location of the major Esterhazy K1 infrastructure. Figure 15-2 shows the location of the major Esterhazy K2 infrastructure and Figure 15-3 shows the location of the major Esterhazy K3 infrastructure. The infrastructure at each of these sites is discussed further below. Off site infrastructure and distribution networks maintained by third parties are listed in Table 15-1. Table 15-1: Infrastructure Maintained by Third Parties Infrastructure Supplied and Maintained by Rail Network Canadian Pacific Railway, Canadian National Railway Road Network Rural Municipality of Spy Hill, Rural Municipality of Langenburg, Rural Municipality of Fertile Belt and the Saskatchewan Ministry of Highways Electric Power SaskPower Natural Gas TransGas and SaskEnergy Communications SaskTel


 
Date: December 31, 2021 15-2 Figure 15-1: Esterhazy K1 Infrastructure Plan Date: December 31, 2021 15-3 Figure 15-2: Esterhazy K2 Infrastructure Plan Date: December 31, 2021 15-4 Figure 15-3: Esterhazy K3 Infrastructure Plan Date: December 31, 2021 15-5 15.2 Roads and Logistics The main road access to the K1 site is via Saskatchewan Highway #80, running from the intersection with Highway #22 at the town of Esterhazy to the Yellowhead Highway #16 at Churchbridge. Access to K2 and K3 is off SK Highway #22 that runs east/west and connects to north/south SK highways #8 and #9 which in turn connects to the TransCanada Highway #1 and Yellowhead Highway #16. Access to site is maintained throughout the year with snow clearing and grading being a normal routine practiced. There are a variety of rural municipality-maintained roads through the area that are part of the rural township grid road system common on the prairies. These are all-weather gravel roads. Canadian National and Canadian Pacific Railways are available to K1 and K2 to move final product to port. The majority of finished product leaves site by rail. Mosaic owns a portion of the tracks on site that are operated by Cando, a third-party switching provider. The remainder of the tracks are owned by CN and CP, but Mosaic has running rights and lease agreements to operate on the tracks. Product is then moved via CP Rail to port or south into the USA. Regina International Airport is located 140 miles (225 km) by highway west of the Esterhazy operation, while the Yorkton municipal airport is 55 miles (90 km) to the northwest. The Town of Esterhazy maintains a paved 3,000 ft. (914 m) long airstrip, located 8 miles (13 km) southwest of K1. 15.3 Tailings Storage Facilities The K1 tailings management area (TMA) is located 450 ft. (137 m) west of the mill building. It consists of a tailings pile, brine ponds and surrounding containment dykes and covers an area of 538 hectares. The tailings pumping system has two parallel pipelines to provide redundancy. There are three pumping stations on each line, located in the mill, midpoint on the east slope of the tailings pile, and at the east crest of the tailings pile. The tailings pipelines from the mill to the TMA are made of basalt lined steel pipe to provide wear resistance and minimize the potential for failures. High density polyethylene piping is used within the TMA. The HDPE pipes are regularly rotated to achieve even wear and have a life cycle of two years. The K2 tailings management area is located 1,000 ft. (305 m) northwest of the mill building. It consists of a tailings pile, brine ponds and surrounding containment dykes and covers an area of 468 hectares. The tailings pumping system has two parallel 16 inch and one 14 inch (355mm) pipeline to provide redundancy. There are two pumping stages on each line, located in the mill. The tailings pipelines from the mill to the TMA are made of basalt lined steel pipe to provide wear resistance and minimize the potential for failures. High density polyethylene piping is used within the TMA. The HDPE pipes are regularly rotated to achieve even wear and have a life cycle of two years. Monitoring of the TMA includes, but is not limited to: • Site visits and review by operations personnel on a daily basis. • Monthly inspections of the TMA. • Quarterly monitoring performed by a Mosaic environmental consultant. • An annual inspection completed by a Mosaic environmental consultant, focusing on the TMA dykes. • Various forms of instrumentation, including real time instrumentation monitoring of portions of the TMA dykes and tailings pile. The instrumentation includes vibrating wire piezometers, and slope inclinometers, that monitor and measure any movement and provide alarms. There is no requirement for tailings handling or storage at K3 since there is no processing plant. Refer to Section 17 for additional information about the TMA.


 
Date: December 31, 2021 15-6 15.4 Brine Management Structures Brine management structures for the K1 site consist of TMA dykes and brine ponds, collection ditches, French drains, sewage lagoon, and a catchment area for impacted surface runoff water. High pressure pumps, pipelines, and deep formation injection wells dispose of produced water and impacted surface runoff water. K1 mill produced brine water is pumped to the TMA through the tailings pumping system. Collection ditch, French drain and catchment area water is pumped to the TMA via surface and submersible pumps and associated pipelines. Brine management structures for the K2 site consist of TMA dykes and brine ponds, collection ditches, sewage lagoon, and a catchment area for impacted surface runoff water. High pressure pumps, pipelines, and deep formation injection wells dispose of produced water and impacted surface runoff water. The K2 mill produced brine is pumped to the TMA through the tailings pumping system. Collection ditch and catchment area water is pumped to the TMA via surface and submersible pumps and associated pipelines. Brine collected in both the K1 and K2 TMAs is disposed of through injection wells into a porous water bearing formation below the mining horizon. Surface water management structures at K3 include a perimeter ditch system, berms, catchment area, waste-water handling station, and pipeline. All water collected at the K3 site is pumped to the K2 TMA through a buried polyethylene pipeline from the waste- water handling facility at K3. 15.5 Built Infrastructure The infrastructure built at the Esterhazy Potash Facility includes: • Office and administration buildings, change rooms, maintenance shops, parts warehouses, parking lots, and security fences. • Sanitary waste handling facilities for office, refinery, shops, and warehouse buildings. K1 and K2 have lift stations that pump to a lagoon. K3 uses septic tanks, with the effluent being trucked to the K2 sewage lagoon. • A fire water system with diesel powered booster pumps at each site. The fire water system is supplied by the water towers at K1 and K2, and from the water storage and handling facility at K3. The fire water piping is separate from process water at K1 and K2, while it is a combined piping loop at the K3 site. The fire water piping supplies hydrants and automatic sprinkler systems for buildings and certain process equipment. Annual tests are performed on fire hydrants and sprinklers. • High Temperature Hot Water (HTHW) boilers and distribution piping supply process and space heating requirements at K1 and K2. K1 has three natural gas fired boilers producing HTHW at 375° F and 305 psi (190° C @ 2.1 MPa). K2 has four boilers that produce HTHW at 450° F and 405 psi (232° C @ 2.8 MPa). • Direct gas fired heating is in place for mine air and space heating requirements at K3. • A chilled glycol system for at K2 for surface space cooling requirements. This system consists of evaporative chillers, cooling towers, distribution piping and heat exchangers. The two chiller units are rated at 900 tons per day (816 tonnes per day) refrigeration capacity each. • An ammonia refrigerant/chilled glycol plant at K3, rated at 2,200 pounds per day (1,000 kg per day) refrigeration capacity, to provide cooling to the hoists. • Inter-site fibre-optic data and communications lines with external connection to the SaskTel network. There is also an on-site radio system in place with repeaters to boost the signal, and available cellular coverage provided by SaskTel. Date: December 31, 2021 15-7 15.6 Power and Electrical Electric power to the three Esterhazy sites is provided by the provincial utility, SaskPower. K1 is serviced by a 72 kV line with about 22 MVA demand. SaskPower can supply around 36 MVA presently with their current infrastructure. K2 has two services at 72 kV and 138 kV respectively. The 72 kV service provides 42 MVA load primarily to the mill and surface operations. SaskPower can supply around 50 MVA on the 72 kV line, and 75 MVA on the 138 kV line. K3 is serviced by a 230 kV line from SaskPower with 140 MVA capacity. Two transformers step down the voltage, each rated at 70 MVA. 15.7 Natural Gas TransGas provides a continuous natural gas supply to the Esterhazy sites through its pipeline network. The TransGas system delivers to a metering station at each site. Gas then enters Mosaic owned piping for site distribution. This piping is inspected regularly by the site mechanical integrity team. K1 is fed from the utility metering station by an 8 inch main pipe to the Mosaic regulating station located immediately west of the K1 mill building. Low pressure gas is distributed from the regulating station to five product dryers in the mill and three hot water boilers located in the K1 powerhouse. A small portion of gas goes to space heating, although most heating is provided by the boilers. Gas supply is adequate to meet anticipated future demand. K2 is fed from the metering station by a 12 inch (30 cm) main to the regulating station in the K2 powerhouse. Gas is distributed to five product dryers and four hot water boilers. A small portion of gas goes to space heating, although most heating is provided by the boilers. Gas supply is adequate to meet anticipated future demand. K3 is supplied from the TransGas line that runs parallel to Highway 22. Gas is supplied from the metering station to the mine air heating facility and surface buildings for space heating. 15.8 Water Supply Water supply for the K1 plant site is provided by wells located on the plant site, within 1,650 ft (500 m) of the mill. There are three operating wells supplying process water to the K1 water tower, with a combined permitted diversion rate of 1,545 US GPM (97.5 L/S), and one out of service well. The wells are approximately 200 ft. (61 m) deep and draw from the Upper Dundurn aquifer. Well casing is 10 inch (254 mm) and equipped with submersible pumps. There are also four smaller wells located beside brine injection pumphouses to supply gland water for the pumps. Total permitted water withdrawal is 1,380,000 m3 per year. The K1 water tower is 28 ft. (8.5 m) in diameter with 122 ft. (37.1 m) of elevation above grade to the bottom of the bowl. This provides a steady head to the process and fire water piping circuits. Potable water is provided to site personnel by drawing water from the tower into a water treatment facility, consisting of a reverse osmosis membrane bank followed by sodium hypochlorite treatment. The potable water system is operated and maintained by employees certified to government standards. Mosaic owns and operates the Cutarm Creek Dam, that was constructed in 1965 and provides freshwater for the mining operations at the K2 plant site. The dam is located approximately 0.5 miles (0.8 km) east and 0.9 miles (1.5 km) north of the K2 mine site (NW35-19-32-W1). The dam is a rip rap protected earth filled dam with a 120 ft. (36.6 m) wide chute spillway designed to handle approximately 6,500 cubic ft. of water per second (183 m3/s). A 3.9 ft. (1.2 m) diameter riparian discharge line passes through the dam to provide the minimum riparian flow downstream, if required. The dam forms a reservoir approximately 5.3 miles (8.5 km) long and 650 ft. (200 m) wide. The Cutarm dam pumphouse has three electric pumps and a diesel backup that supply water to the K2 plant water tower through a 10 inch (254 mm) buried pipeline. The water tower is 32 ft. (9.8 m) in diameter with 132 ft. (40 m) of elevation above grade to the bottom of the bowl. This provides a steady head to the process and fire water piping circuits. Potable water is provided to site personnel by drawing water from the tower into a water treatment facility, Date: December 31, 2021 15-8 consisting of a nano-filtration system followed by sodium hypochlorite treatment. The potable water system is operated and maintained by employees certified to government standards. K3 water is supplied from K2 through a 6 inch (150 mm) buried polyethylene pipe, approximately 7.4 miles (12 km) in length, to the K3 water handling facility. This facility consists of a 200,000 US gallon concrete storage tank, an adjacent pumphouse with electric process water distribution pumps, a diesel powered fire booster pump, and a shaft wash water heater with storage tank. The water storage and handling facility is located approximately 250 ft. (76.2 m) north of the K3 north shaft. K3 potable water is produced by ultra-filtration followed by reverse osmosis and chlorination using sodium hypochlorite. The filtration plant is located on the north side of the site, fed from the process water loop. The potable water system is operated and maintained by employees certified to government standards. Date: December 31, 2021 16-1 16.0 Market Studies and Contracts 16.1 Markets Potassium is one of the three primary crop nutrients required for plant growth and is not substitutable. Potassium chloride, otherwise referred to as muriate of potash (MOP), as well as other fertilizer products derived from it, provides the overwhelming majority of potassium nutrient worldwide. While the term potash can be used to refer to a number of salts that contain potassium in a water-soluble form, it is common practice to refer to MOP as potash. Relatively small volumes of potash are also utilized in industrial applications and as a mineral supplement for livestock. The global market for potash is estimated to be approximately 70 M tonnes in 2021 and has grown at a compound annual growth rate of around 2.5% over the past 30 years. In other words, potash demand over the long term has been rather linear, though with significant year-to-year variability. Going forward, global potash demand growth is expected to continue this trend, with ourselves and independent analysts projecting a growth rate of >2% per annum. This growth ensures sufficient market demand for continued production at the Esterhazy Potash Facility. In fact, such demand growth will necessitate some a combination of new mining capacity or higher operating rates at existing mines to meet the growing demand. The Esterhazy Potash Facility produces several specifications of potash that are primarily sold into the crop nutrient (to be utilized as fertilizer) market, domestically, defined as the U.S. and Canada as well as export markets. Mosaic’s overall sales of potash are split about evenly between domestic and offshore markets. The conventional mining and milling practices at Esterhazy result in a potash product with a grade of ~60% K2O. This is the typical nutrient specification of most potash operations worldwide. Esterhazy produces a combination of granular and standard grade products – i.e., the potash is marketed either in its standard form as produced at the mill or compacted at the mill and sold as a granular product. Potash prices vary due to this differing physical sizing of the product, with a price premium ascribed to granular (blend) grade product versus standard grade product. For the purposes of this analysis, Esterhazy’s production is assumed as representative of the FOB Vancouver price benchmark published by an independent third party that includes standard and granular potash sales. 16.2 Commodity Price Forecasts Table 16-1 outlines the Mosaic potash commodity prices and exchange rate forecasts to be used in the economic assessment for support of the Esterhazy Potash Facility 2021 mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates. The commodity price forecasts utilized in the analysis are derived from an independent third party, CRU, a reputable supplier of market forecasts across a range of commodities including potash. Specifically, CRU publishes a regular forecast of potash pricing on a Free on Board, port of Vancouver (FOB, Vancouver) basis. In addition, CRU publishes potash production cost estimates for most mines around the world, including Esterhazy. These cost estimates include figures on a FOB, Vancouver basis as well a site cost (ex-works) basis at Esterhazy, the difference provides an estimate of the handling and transport cost from the mine to port. Utilizing the CRU price forecast FOB, Vancouver less this handling/transport cost estimate yields a price forecast at the Esterhazy site. The price forecast is inherently conservative, as the price reflects export sales (FOB, Vancouver) and does not account for the higher mine netbacks that are achieved with domestic market sales. The US dollar / Canadian dollar exchange rate utilized in the analysis is derived as the arithmetic average of the five years 2017 to 2021, with the actuals sourced from Bloomberg.


 
Date: December 31, 2021 16-2 Table 16-1: Commodity Prices and Exchange Rates 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 LOM Actual Actual Actual Actual Fcast. Fcast. Fcast. Fcast. Fcast. Fcast. Fcast. Foreign Exchange (US$/C$) 1.30 1.30 1.33 1.34 1.27 1.31 1.31 1.31 1.31 1.31 1.31 Potash K2O ($/tonne) 169 203 225 178 222 271 231 219 185 188 219 Sources: Exchange Rate: (Actual) Bloomberg – arithmetic average of the end-of-day spot rate; (Forecast) Arithmetic average of the five years 2017 to 2021. Potash: CRU Potassium Chloride Market Outlook February 2021, FOB, Vancouver minus an estimate of the cost of freight/handling from mine to port via the CRU Potash Cost Service October 2020 (FOB cost minus cost ex-works at realized production). 16.3 Contracts Potash sales from Esterhazy can be split into two general categories: domestic and export. The export sales mechanism utilizes Canpotex Limited, a joint venture between potash producers Mosaic and Nutrien that undertakes all sales of the member producers’ potash outside of the U.S. and Canada. All Esterhazy, export sales are made to Canpotex, which then undertakes the logistics to move product to offshore markets as well as undertaking the sales function. Domestic sales are managed by Mosaic’s internal sales function. These sales are largely made on a spot basis, though a minority of sales are also made under longer-term contracts (with prices that adjust to reflect market conditions). Date: December 31, 2021 17-1 17.0 Environmental Studies, Permitting and Plans, Negotiations or Agreements with Local Individuals or Groups 17.1 Introduction The Mosaic Company (Mosaic) commissioned SNC-Lavalin Inc. (SNC-Lavalin) to compile Section 17 of the SK- 1300 Disclosure for the Esterhazy mine sites (the Sites). 17.2 Baseline and Supporting Studies Groundwater Studies Investigation of groundwater at the Sites has been a continuous process since mining began with many boreholes and wells installed over the operational history. To date there have been over 1,200 boreholes drilled for various environmental purposes and over 600 installations completed including monitoring wells, dewatering wells, vibrating wire piezometers, pneumatic piezometers, slope inclinometers, EM39 ports, etc. The drilling, instrumentation and testing programs, coupled with ongoing groundwater level and chemistry monitoring and periodic electromagnetic (EM) surveys have characterized the hydrogeology and are used for environmental monitoring purposes. The following discussion provides supporting groundwater studies that have been instrumental in environmental investigations and permitting to date. At the K1 and K2 sites, the most comprehensive groundwater assessments completed to date included mapping of aquifer limits, groundwater surface elevations, and chloride concentrations based on all the available data; chloride concentration and groundwater level trends were also assessed in conjunction with EM survey data to evaluate potential migration, impacts and the groundwater monitoring network itself at the K1 and K2 sites. These reports provide proposed site-specific background chloride concentrations for each aquifer, monitoring rationalization, and recommended decommissioning and instrumentation to optimize monitoring efforts. At the K1 Site, there have been a series of recent groundwater and/or surface water investigations focusing on data gaps and impacts east of the tailings management area (TMA) and plant, and toward addressing the Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment’s (MOE) requests. In 2021, Mosaic plans to address the other data gaps, assess all available information, and have a workshop to discuss the findings and next steps for this area. EM surveys coupled with vibrating wire piezometer, slope inclinometers, and monitoring well installations and testing have addressed the majority of the shallow data gaps at the K2 Site. While there are still several shallow and deeper groundwater monitoring data gaps to be filled, groundwater flow and solute migration in the vicinity of the site are generally well understood. Hydrogeological and geotechnical investigations between 2010 and 2017 established the hydrogeology and geology in the vicinity of the K3 site, K3-K2 conveyor, and K3-K1 conveyor; SNC-Lavalin 2017c provides the most recent and comprehensive hydrogeological framework in the vicinity of these features. Background / pre-operational groundwater conditions were determined for general chemistry parameters, petroleum hydrocarbons (PHCs), select pesticides and herbicides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and dissolved metals based on data collected from monitoring wells at the K3 site and along the K3-K2 conveyor prior to 2016. In 2017 and 2019, baseline / pre- operational groundwater monitoring was obtained from existing wells in the vicinity of the K3-K1 conveyor. Baseline EM surveys have also been obtained for the K3 site / K3 to K2 conveyor and K3-K1 conveyors. Third party water user baseline studies have also been completed for the K3 site and conveyors (SNC-Lavalin 2017c), as well as the Far Field site. These documents provide baseline information on third party groundwater wells in the vicinity of these features. Air Baseline and Supporting Studies Air dispersion modelling (AERMOD) was completed as part of the Esterhazy Stage 2 Expansion Project Environmental Impact Statement (MDH, 2010a). AERMOD was completed by Hatch to assess the relative impact of the then-proposed K3 site and haul road on the air shed. The model examined existing and project post expansion Date: December 31, 2021 17-2 emissions from K3 and the expanded K2 mine site. SNC-Lavalin also completed an air dispersion modelling project for the K2 Mill Expansion Project in order to evaluate impacts from the processing plant expansion. Confidential dust modelling has been completed for the K3 to K2 conveyor and the K3 to K1 conveyor, to establish baseline dustfall levels. The Mosaic Potash Esterhazy K1, K2 and K3 Annual Environmental Report (AER) includes air management commitments and strategies. The report also contains the results of a dryer compliance stack sampling program at the Sites. The sampling programs include the testing of dryer exhaust stacks to show that particulate emissions complied with the Ministry of Environment (MOE) Saskatchewan Environmental Quality Guidelines. Biophysical Baseline and Supporting Studies Numerous and extensive baseline biophysical studies have been completed to support continued operations and expansion of Mosaic’s Esterhazy operations. Most of these studies contain field and desktop assessments of the terrain and soils, terrestrial and wetland vegetation, wildlife and wildlife habitat, fish and fish habitat if applicable, species at risk and species of conservation concern, land cover mapping exercises, and general mitigation strategies for reducing environmental impacts that may be caused by ongoing developments and operations. This includes the following: • Esterhazy Stage 2 Expansion Project Environmental Impact Statement (MDH 2010a), • Mosaic Potash Esterhazy K2 Phase V TMA and Mill Expansion (MDH 2009a), • Biological Assessment, Phase IV Brine Pond Mosaic Potash Esterhazy K2 (MDH 2008), • Biological and Heritage Screening. Proposed Exploration Hole Leases Mosaic Potash Esterhazy K2, • Mosaic Potash Esterhazy K2 Biological and Heritage Assessment Injection Well #13, • K1 Far-Field Completion Project Technical Project Proposal, • K3 to K2 Technical Project Proposal (SNC-Lavalin 2015ba), • K3 to K1 Technical Proposal (SNC-Lavalin 2017c), and • K1 Interceptor Ditch Aquatic Survey. A series of Wildlife Management Plans and Monitoring Plans provide general guidance for management of wildlife commonly encountered on the site including a description of the wildlife and wildlife habitat in the area, wildlife management protocols, and mitigation and protective measures for wildlife in the area. These documents include: • K3 to K2 Conveyor Project Construction Environmental Management Plan, • K3 to K1 Conveyor Project Construction Environmental Management Plan, • Nest Management Procedure Technical Memorandum, • Bird Deterrent Setup Technical Memorandum, • Bird Management and Deterrent Methods Technical Memorandum, and • Wildlife Crossing Monitoring. K3 to K2 Overland Conveyor. Surface Water Baseline and Supporting Studies Regional hydrology and surface water assessments have been completed as part of the environmental assessments and baseline testing for EIAs (MDH 2009a, 2009b, 2010a) and Technical Proposals (SNC-Lavalin 2015b and 2017c). These assessments included some or all of the following: a study and description of the dominant hydrological processes, topography, inventory of local hydrological features, soils, and land use, and delineation and classification of wetlands (where applicable) within the proposed expansion area using desktop and/or field-based methods. Some of these assessments also featured field sampling programs that established baseline water quality for the surface water features in the regional and local study areas, as well as mitigation strategies to reduce the impacts to surface water features in the area. Date: December 31, 2021 17-3 Baseline soil and/or surface water chemistry has been obtained at select locations in the vicinity of the Sites. In the spring of 2011, baseline soil, groundwater and surface water chemistry was obtained in vicinity of the K3 Site. Baseline soil and water chemistry was obtained at several locations north of the K2 site in 2013. In 2016, background soil chemistry was obtained for FF1 injection well 8, 10, and 11, and the K1 Pump-up Well containment sites; it is noted that soil sampling may have also been completed as part of the permitting of the other injection wells at the Sites. Various SNC-Lavalin reports summarize baseline soil and surface water chemistry in the vicinity of the K3-K2 and K3-K1 conveyors. Heritage Assessments When undertaking a new development, Mosaic adheres to provisions of The Heritage Property Act to protect any heritage resources, in alignment with requirements set forth by the Government of Saskatchewan. The heritage screening process within a project area includes partnering with a third-party expert and consulting with the Saskatchewan Heritage Conservation Branch of the Government of Saskatchewan. This information is included in a comprehensive report that is subsequently provided to the Saskatchewan Ministry of the Environment for review and approval prior to development. 17.3 Environmental Considerations/Monitoring Programs 17.3.1 Environmental Considerations Legacy Information Constituents of potential concern (COPC), existing assessment data, known and/or potential contamination and exposure pathways, assessment needs and risks, required actions, etc. associated with areas of interest (AOI) have been documented by Mosaic in draft for the K2 site and K1 site. Compilation and refinement of legacy information is ongoing at these two sites and has not been started for the K3 site and ancillary infrastructure as it was only recently commissioned. Any remaining COPCs will be addressed at the final decommissioning & reclamation phase. Permitting Approval to Operate Pollutant Control Facilities Pursuant to the Environmental Management and Protection Act, 2010, and regulations there under, the K1, K2, and K3 Site has Approval to Operate (ATO) Pollutant Control Facilities No. PO18-111, PO18-104, PO18-078, respectively, with an expiry date of July 1, 2028, issued by the Ministry of Environment. Note that it is expected to be renewed on or before the expiry date. These permits provide the terms and conditions for operation of each site with respect to: • tailings management; • materials, storage, handling, and transportation; • waste management, transportation and disposal; • air quality management; • water management; • pipelines; • inspections, monitoring and reporting; • decommissioning and reclamation; • contingency planning and reporting; • alterations; and • other site specific conditions.


 
Date: December 31, 2021 17-4 Approval for Hazardous Substances and/or Waste Dangerous Goods Approval no. PO18-111, PO18-104, PO18-078 also provides the Approval to Construct, Alter, Expand, Operate, and Decommission a Hazardous Substances and/or Waste Dangerous Goods Storage Facility, pursuant to the Hazardous Substances and Waste Dangerous Goods Regulations; Chapter E-10.2 Reg 3, issued by the Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment. This is included in the ATOs for the Sites. 17.3.2 Environmental Monitoring Groundwater Quality Monitoring There are about 380 standpipe piezometer / monitoring wells across the Sites. These wells are generally monitored for potentiometric elevation (i.e., groundwater level) and/or routine water chemistry analysis (i.e., Cl, Na, K, Ca, Mg, CO3, SO4, HCO3, sum of ions, conductivity, and ionic balance) annually to every 5 years depending on the location, assessment of results, and stipulations in the ATOs. The 2020 Annual Environmental Reports (AERs) provides the most recent groundwater monitoring data. Horizontal Pathway Monitoring Water chemistry data is used in conjunction with EM31 and EM34 surveys to monitor horizontal brine migration. Horizontal migration in and around the mine facilities is generally slow due to the confining properties associated with the native soils and operation of mitigation measures (e.g., French Drain at K1, pumping wells at K1 and K2). The EM surveys are scheduled every 5 years with the latest completed in 2020 at the K1, K2, and K1-K3 conveyor. The SNC-Lavalin survey included EM31 in the vicinity of each FFI injection well site. Mosaic completes an annual EM31 survey along the Pump-Up Well (PUW) #9 and #10 brine lines at the K2 site, as per a commitment to the Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment. EM surveys were last completed for the K3 site / K3 to K2 conveyor in 2018. Vertical Pathway Monitoring Water chemistry data is used in conjunction with EM39 surveys are utilized to gauge vertical brine migration within selected on-site monitoring casings. Monitoring is completed on a re-occurring five-year schedule with the latest completed in 2020 at the K1 site and K2 site. Surface Water Quality Monitoring There are 57 surface water sampling locations that are monitored for routine chemistry analysis in spring and fall at a minimum. Presently, K3 also performs summer monitoring at the surface water sampling points associated with the site. The Sites also perform weekly monitoring of Cl and conductivity at select locations along Cutarm Creek. The AERs provide recent surface water monitoring results. Soils Monitoring Unlike surface water or groundwater monitoring, soil monitoring is not a regulatory requirement. Rather, soil sampling is completed as part of specific assessment programs for a variety of purposes (e.g., geotechnical, environmental, etc.) on an as required basis. Soil sampling and geochemical or geotechnical analysis has been completed for numerous programs. Air Emission Monitoring Annual air emission tests are conducted for the stacks in compliance with the Saskatchewan Industrial Source (Air Quality) Chapter and the results are submitted to the Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment. For the K1and K2 Site, particulate tests on all sources showed concentrations below the Saskatchewan Environmental Quality Guidelines’ potash mining emission limit standards of 570 milligrams per dry reference cubic meter (mg/drm3). SRC obtained stack testing results that gave representative concentrations and emission rates for the sampling periods. Environmental Protection Plans (EPPs) for the Saskatchewan Potash Producers Association (SPPA) related to The Industrial Source (Air) Chapter of the Saskatchewan Environmental Code have been prepared and are provided in the AERs. Subsidence Monitoring Monitoring of surface subsidence is conducted as per the regulatory requirements to determine surface subsidence induced by mining. These surveys assist in identifying any subsidence issues, prior to problems arising. Subsidence Date: December 31, 2021 17-5 has not, nor is expected to significantly alter drainage patterns on surface, impact groundwater, or structurally impact any surface facilities in the Mining Area according to Mosaic. Brine Pond Monitoring TMA brine pond levels are monitored to confirm that freeboard is maintained as per the ATO and readings are provided on an annual basis to the MOE as part of the AER. Under the current pond configurations, some of the brine ponds at K1 and K2 were at Notification Level 1 (Normal Freeboard or Maximum Operating Level exceeded) as per the new Saskatchewan Potash Industry Brine Pond Freeboard Guidelines and Reporting Requirements within the ATO. For these ponds, Mosaic has been submitting weekly Notification Level 1 communications to the MOE. Mosaic is currently in the design phase of dyke improvement projects at the K1 and K2 sites which will achieve the freeboard requirements and various progress updates have been provided to the MOE. These projects are anticipated to be completed by the end of 2022 at K1 and 2024 at K2. Because some of the K1 and K2 ponds are operating at Notification Level 1 (above the maximum operating level), they are anticipated to exceed the maximum flood storage level and enter Notification Level 2 in the event that a design storm event occurs in advance of completion of the planned dyke improvement projects. Note that there are no brine ponds at K3. Dyke Instrumentation and Monitoring Visual inspections of the TMA dykes and ditches at K1 and K2 are completed as per the ATO (K3 does not have a TMA). On an annual basis, an independent engineering firm is contracted to conduct a comprehensive annual visual dyke inspection (AVDI) which is provided in the AER. Dyke and tailings instrumentation consists of slope inclinometers, vibrating wire piezometers, standpipe piezometers or shape acceleration arrays (SAA) at K1 and K2. As per the ATO, a minimum calculated Factor of Safety (FOS) equal to 1.5 is required for containment dykes. The most recent FOS calculations for the TMA dykes indicate that there is one segment of the K1 TMA dyke that is at 1.44 and one segment of the K2 dyke that is at 1.45. The FOS calculations assume brine pond levels at the maximum flood storage level. The dyke improvement projects are scheduled for completion in 2022 and 2024 for K1 and K2 respectively and anticipated to achieve the required FOS for all dyke segments. Tailings Pile Instrumentation and Monitoring Tailings pile stability monitoring at K1 and K2 is conducted as per the ATO and includes real time and quarterly monitoring. Monitoring consists of collecting data at slope inclinometer casings, piezometers or SAA’s installed at various locations within and around the perimeter of the existing TMAs. The instrumentation network is reviewed and inspected on an annual basis and recommendations for replacement, maintenance, or expansion are provided. Results of the monitoring are reviewed quarterly by a qualified third party and included in the annual TMA report that is provided in the AER submitted to the MOE. As per the ATO, a minimum calculated Factor of Safety (FOS) equal to 1.3 is required for all segments of the tailings pile. There are currently 2 segments of the K1 tailings pile and 5 segments of the K2 tailings pile that have a Factor of Safety (FOS) less than 1.3. Work to increase the FOS in these segments relies on operational factors and future tailings deposition. The tailings deposition plan for these areas incorporates this work and interim mitigation measures have been identified and being implemented. The Ministry of Environment has been updated and is aware of the mitigation plans. A summary of the calculated FOS for the tailings pile segments is provided in AER. The geotechnical instrumentation network has experienced functional fluctuations over time, primarily due to periodic instrument malfunction. Maintenance and replacement of instrumentation is a routine and expected activity. Additional instrumentation has been recommended in the AER for the few areas of the tailings pile that are not currently monitored and/or replacement of failed instrumentation. Mosaic is developing implementation plans to address the AER instrumentation recommendations. Date: December 31, 2021 17-6 General Waste Management Mosaic’s operations generate a variety of nonhazardous solid wastes, including domestic refuse, construction and demolition debris, and waste lubricants. Mosaic’s waste management program provides assurance that all our locations have a process in place to minimize waste generation, maximize recycling, and to ensure that waste management practices do not adversely affect the environment or health and safety of employees and the public. The AERs provide a general summary of the site waste management program for the 2020 calendar year. All hazardous substances and waste dangerous goods in the storage facilities listed in Appendix C of ATOs are stored in accordance with The Hazardous Substances Waste Dangerous Goods Regulations according to the 2020 AERs. Generated wastes appear to be managed in compliance with applicable environmental legislation through facility inspections conducted by Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment, as well as monitoring and documentation policies instituted by Mosaic and internal/external audits. 17.3.3 Incidents and Releases The AERs provides a summary of events, releases, incidents, and reclamation activities in 2020. All reporting was completed as required by ATOs. Known historical releases are provided in the legacy information. There was one reportable incident (releases to secondary containment over a reportable regulatory quantity) and no reportable spills (releases to the environment over a reportable quantity) at the K1 site in 2020. At the K2 site there was one reportable incident and no reportable spills that occurred in 2020. All reporting for these events was completed as required by the site ATO. There were no reportable incidents or reportable spills at the K3 site. 17.4 Stockpiles 17.4.1 General Waste Management The Sites generate a variety of nonhazardous solid wastes, including domestic refuse, construction and demolition debris, and waste lubricants. The waste management programs provide an assurance that processes are in place to minimize waste generation, maximize recycling, and to ensure that waste management practices do not adversely affect the environment or health and safety of employees and the public. 17.4.2 Hazardous Substances and Waste Dangerous Goods Current Hazardous Substances and Waste Dangerous Goods stored on the Sites are listed in the ATOs and discussed in the Mosaic AERs. Storage of these substances are reported to and approved by Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment annually. Hazardous waste is periodically removed by a qualified third-party contractor. The total amount of hazardous substances and waste dangerous goods removed from the Sites are reported in the AERs. Until 2014 and 2016, waste asbestos was disposed of in the asbestos disposal area and buried upon placement at the K1 and K2 sites, respectively. These sites are demarcated with a sign and was only used for the disposal of asbestos. Survey records of these previous asbestos burial areas are retained within the environmental files, on Livelink and available upon request. In 2020, asbestos was disposed of offsite at the Mosaic’s waste management contractor, which has been a standard practice since 2014 and 2016, respectively. 17.5 Waste Rock Storage Facilities Waste rock is not produced at the Site. Date: December 31, 2021 17-7 17.6 Tailings Storage Facility 17.6.1 Tailings Pile Salt tailings are hydraulically transported (via brine slurry) to the K1 and K2 TMAs. The TMAs consists of a salt pile, brine and flood storage ponds, and control structures that limit migration of process brines from the TMAs. The tailings placement on the pile utilizes spigots and loaders to form the pile. The brine used to transport the tailings runs off the tailings pile where it collects within the TMAs. Brine is produced primarily by tailings dissolution during processing and, to a lesser extent, by precipitation falling on the salt tailings pile. Containment for tailings and brine is controlled by a combination of dykes, seepage and interceptor ditches, and interceptor ditch pump back wells at the K1 and K2 sites. The K1 site also utilizes French drains to control brine. Excess brine is disposed of by deep well injection into the Interlake, Stonewall and /or Stony Mountain formations. The configuration of the tailings pile at K1 is not anticipated to change significantly into the near future. The K2 pile is expected to expand into the current brine ponds as well as the future pond expansion. 17.6.2 Brine Pond and Flood Containment Pond The mining operation makes extensive use of ditches, drains, and collection ponds to capture process fluids and site runoff for re-use in the process. The overall drainage collection is operated as a closed loop system. The brine pond is impounded by the perimeter dykes of the TMAs. Brine pond levels or freeboard in the TMAs are monitored as per the ATO. 17.6.3 Solids and Surface Brine Control The primary brine and tailings control structures at the K1 and K2 sites are the perimeter containment dykes; the TMAs are surrounded by approximately 7 miles (12 km) and 6 miles (9 km) of containment dykes, respectively. A system of open interceptor ditches has been constructed around the perimeter of the TMAs to collect seepage. The seepage water collected in the ditches flows by gravity and is pumped back to the TMA. The ditches are maintained to ensure ditch flow. At the K1 site, sub-surface brine seepage is controlled by a combination of seepage interception ditches and French drains. The French drains are deep, narrow (1 m) trenches that are keyed into an unoxidized glacial till material and filled with an engineered drainage aggregate. The bottoms of the trenches are graded to a collection point (i.e., pumphouse) and most contain a perforated pipe along the base to collect and promote drainage. 17.6.4 Deep Well Injection The K1 and K2 sites dispose of excess brine into the Interlake, Stonewall and /or Stony Mountain formations (the deepest possible disposal horizon in the area). The amount of brine injected is controlled to maintain brine levels in the TMA, sufficient flood storage, and production requirements. The total brine injection required per year varies with precipitation, evaporation, and potash production. Injection wells are operated and permitted as per the requirements of the Saskatchewan Ministry of Energy and Resources pursuant to The Oil and Gas Conservation Act. The table below summarizes the current injection wells at the sites, associated Ministerial Order / Approval and regulated injection pressures. Monitoring data provided by Mosaic shows the daily measured injection pressures below the Regulated Well Head Injection Pressure (RWHIP), with the exception of occasional atypical pressure spikes (i.e., above the (RWHIP)) that Mosaic attributes to gauge malfunctions because of extreme cold.


 
Date: December 31, 2021 17-8 Table 17-1: Esterhazy Water License Summary RWHIP – Regulated well head injection pressure 17.7 Water Management 17.7.1 Freshwater Mosaic recognizes that water is a critical natural resource that is essential to the sustainability of our operations, as well as the communities and ecosystems in which they operate. The Sites monitor and evaluate water use to confirm it is minimized, and water recycling and reuse are being maximized according to Mosaic. Water use, including source and allocated volumes, are subject to site-specific regulations and permits. The Sites are subject to multiple licenses to withdraw groundwater as listed in the table below, from the 2019 and 2020 Saskatchewan Water Security Agency (WSA) Report[s] for Mosaic Potash Esterhazy K1, K2, and K3 (dated February 27, 2020 and January 8, 2021, respectively). It is noted that Mosaic is responsible for adhering to general and special conditions to each of these licenses. General and specific conditions are provided in the license and approval. Annual water usage is reported in the AERs and to the WSA as per licensing conditions. Document No. Mosaic Well No. Location Ministers Order No. Maximum Injection Pressure (kPa) SWD 1093 FF-1 21-1-28-21-1-2 MRO 509/12 9,100 RWHIP SWD 1093 FF-2 11-9-33-21-1-2 MRO 771/12 9,100 RWHIP SWD 1093 FF-3 41-15-29-21-1-2 MRO 560/12 9,250 RWHIP SWD 1093 FF-4 41-16-32-21-1-2 MRO 670/12 9,200 RWHIP SWD 1093 FF-5 31-14-20-21-1-2 MRO 616/12 9,250 RWHIP SWD 1093 FF-6 41-14-16-21-1-2 MRO 568/12 9,250 RWHIP SWD 1093 FF-7 11-3-20-21-1-2 MRO 615/12 9,300 RWHIP SWD 1093 FF-8 11-8-16-21-1-2 MRO 281/15 9,150 RWHIP SWD 1093 FF-10 21-8-18-21-1-2 MRO 281/15 9,150 RWHIP SWD 1093 FF-11 31-10-30-21-1-2 MRO 281/15 9,150 RWHIP SWD 168 K1-1 21-10-20-33-1 MA 5/82 21,500 SWD 255 K1-2 11-01-26-20-33-1 MA 56/86 9,000 RWHIP SWD 1093 K1-3 11-16A-26-20-33-1 MRO 203/07 9,100 RWHIP SWD 258 K1-4 21-11-26-20-33-1 MA 64/86 9,000 RWHIP SWD 1093 K1-5B 14-26-20-33-1 MRO 109/15 9,050 RWHIP SWD 274 K1-6 11-23-20-33-1 MA 12/87 9,000 RWHIP SWD 1093 K1-7 10-25-20-33-1 MRO 1074/07 9,100 RWHIP SWD 1093 K2-14 4-25-19-33-1 MRO 673/12 9,550 RWHIP SWD 94 K2-1 11-14-27-19-32-1 MRO 35/72 A 12 None Listed SWD 153 K2-2 31-11-27-19-32-1 MA 3/81 20,400 SWD 237 K2-3 91-5-33-19-32-1 MA 22/86 9,500 RWHIP SWD 249 K2-4 42-4-33-19-32-1 MA 48/86 10,100 RWHIP SWD 1093 K2-5 41-12-26-19-32-1 MRO 311/07 9,100 RWHIP SWD 1093 K2-6 31-6-26-19-32-1 MRO 253/07 9,100 RWHIP SWD 1093 K2-7 31-7-22-19-32-1 MRO 251/07 9,100 RWHIP SWD 1093 K2-8 31-10-22-19-32-1 MRO 251/07 9,100 RWHIP SWD 1093 K2-9 11-13-15-19-32-1 MRO 134/09 9,100 RWHIP SWD 1093 K2-10B 21-2-15-19-32-1 MRO 831/09 9,300 RWHIP SWD 1093 K2-11 9-11-11-19-32-1 MRO 37/10 9,200 RWHIP SWD 1093 K2-12 41-16-9-19-32-1 MRO 210/10 9,200 RWHIP Date: December 31, 2021 17-9 Table 17-2: Esterhazy Brine Injection License Summary cdam - cubic decameter A - total allocation from all these wells is 1,380 cdam The K2 Site is also subject to license E2-10587 issued on October 27, 2021, for the operation of surface water works and pursuant to The Saskatchewan Watershed Authority Act and regulations under that Act. The license is for the operation of the K2 Cutarm Creek intake, plant, and associated pipelines to supply surface water to the K2 Site. Under the license, Mosaic can use up to a maximum of 3,014 cubic decameters annually. According to the 2020 Saskatchewan Water Agency Report for Mosaic Potash Esterhazy K1, K2, and K3, dated January 8, 2021, 2,387 cdam of water was used at the K2 site. 17.7.2 Runoff The runoff from the TMAs drain into the brine pond system and is managed through a network of control structures. The plant site surface water runoff is collected in drainage ditch systems and ponds which are equipped to pump water into the TMA, ponds, or into the processing plants where it can be stored and reused, while excess brine is disposed of via the deep well disposal system. The drainage from other site infrastructure such as injection well sites is designed so that runoff is contained within a local perimeter berm system. 17.7.3 Wastewater Sewage lagoons are present at the Sites and operated as per the site ATOs. 17.8 Closure and Reclamation Considerations The Sites maintain Decommissioning and Reclamation (D&R) Plans that are updated every five years. Updated D&R Plans were submitted to the Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment in June 2021. Mosaic actively participates in the D&R Potash Technical Working Group which drives the plan updates and incorporation of best management practices across the potash industry in Saskatchewan. Mosaic maintains financial assurance to support its D&R obligations as required by The Mineral Industry Environmental Protection Regulations 1996 (Saskatchewan). This financial assurance is in the form of a trust fund which was established by way of a trust agreement between Mosaic and the Province of Saskatchewan. The C$25 M trust fund is intended to cover Mosaic’s financial assurance requirements for all Mosaic Saskatchewan potash facilities. The evaluation of the performance of the fund to date will be undertaken as part of the 2026 reporting cycle, and the review will address any new liabilities that may affect the fund and the growth potential of the fund over the 100-year time frame. WSA File Well ID Land Location Purpose Allocation E3/3201 K1-5092 SE 26-20-33-1 Industrial A E3/3203 K1-9206 SE 24-20-33-1 Industrial A E3/4546 K1-9298 NE 14-20-33-1 Industrial A E3/4548 K1-9254 NE 14-20-33-1 Industrial A E3/4596 K1-9209 SE 24-20-33-1 Industrial A E3/4804 K1-612461-02-PW SE 26-20-33-1 Industrial A E3/4833 K1-614873-PW SE 26-20-33-1 Industrial 36.9 cdam E3/4973 K1-9203 SE-24-20-33-1 Industrial A E3/3199 K2-20232 SW 33-19-32-1 Industrial A E3/3385 K2-M1385-2007-03 SW 22-19-32-1 Drainage 44.15 litres/second E3/5468 K3 - Well Field (37, 40 and 41) NW 22-19-33-1 Drainage Pumping capacity E3/4522 K3-677530-01 NW 22-19-33-1 Drainage Pumping capacity Date: December 31, 2021 17-10 Mosaic is currently in the process of decommissioning planning for K1 and K2 and the transitioning of mining to the K3 Mine Site. Mosaic is continuing to develop the K3 mine which provides raw ore via overland conveyors to the K1 and K2 processing plants for processing. The K1 and K2 decommissioning activities will include closure and decommissioning of the shafts, the underground facilities, grout site at K2, as well as the surplus infrastructure associated with these facilities. When the decommissioning is complete, K1 and K2 will continue to process the raw ore provided by the K3 mine site via the overland conveyor system and associated infrastructure (e.g., transfer houses). The overland conveyors and transfer houses are included as part of the K3 D&R Plan. 17.8.1 Decommissioning and Reclamation Guidelines Mosaic acknowledges responsibility for all aspects of its operations and works with the Province of Saskatchewan to address and resolve environmental issues. The objective of the most recent D&R Plans was to meet the requirements of Section 16 of The Mineral Industry Environmental Protection Regulations 1996 (Saskatchewan), with respect to review and resubmission of the D&R Plans and financial assurance fund once every five years. In addition to meeting all applicable regulatory requirements, Mosaic is committed to the following Decommissioning and Reclamation (D&R) principles: • Protect the environment. • Decommissioning the sites, not including the TMA, to a state environment compatible with the surrounding land use (safe and stable environment) following mine closure. • Reclamation of the TMA to an engineered saline wetland environment following TMA decommissioning. • Establish a means of measuring the effectiveness of the D&R plans. • Provide an action plan with costs for the determination of a suitable Financial Assurance. Assumptions The development of the decommissioning, demolition, remediation and reclamation plans was based on the following: • Decommissioning and demolition of all existing structures currently on the Sites, • Decommissioning and reclamation of the processing plants to a stable environment compatible with the surrounding land use following mine closure, and • Reclamation of the TMA to an engineered saline wetland environment following TMA decommissioning. Monitoring, Inspections, Evaluation and Reporting Monitoring is expected to be conducted during the course of the decommissioning and reclamation, with monitoring results provided on an agreed upon timeline with the Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment. Inspections of tailings pile dissolution and dyke integrity are expected to be conducted by Mosaic on an agreed upon schedule and scope with the Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment. Soils, surface water and groundwater monitoring and acceptance criteria are expected to be developed through discussions with the Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment. 17.8.2 Site Investigation and Reclamation Plan Environmental Reporting Technical proposals will be prepared to determine if the project poses a significant environmental impact and considered as a “development”. The technical proposals will document physical, biological and human environment features within the Project area and present an evaluation of the potential, residual, and cumulative environmental and socio-economic effects of the Project, and mitigation measures that will be applied. An environmental site assessment will be conducted to assess the soil and groundwater impacts associated with the current and historic operation of the facilities. A sampling rationale plan will be developed to determine potential contaminants of concern. Primary potential contaminants of concern will include petroleum hydrocarbons and chlorides. Corrective action plans will follow the environmental site assessment to reclaim each site to a stable environment compatible with the surrounding land use. Date: December 31, 2021 17-11 Following the corrective actions, Mosaic is then expected to seek to be released from additional environmental responsibility at the site. An environmental monitoring program approved by the Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment is expected to be conducted during reclamation to determine the effectiveness of the reclamation process. Processing Plant Sites On-Site Landfill On-site landfills will be designed, constructed, and used for the disposal of materials during the demolition activities at the Sites. The landfill will be a non-engineered facility, waste disposal and will be limited to inert non-recyclable, non-hazardous materials. A recycle station will be established during demolition activities to recover recyclable materials (i.e., metal, and corrugated metals panels, jacketed cable, etc.). Should the ministry interpret some inert waste as ‘industrial’, the Sites commit to ensuring all regulatory requirements for the construction, operation and decommissioning of an industrial waste landfill is met should the Sites pursue this remedial option. Processing Plants / Other Buildings Facilities associated with the processing plant sites and ancillary buildings will be decommissioned. Prior to commencing demolition, the Sites will be secured. Hazardous materials including fuels, lubricants, hydraulic oil, reagents, chemicals, etc., will be inventoried and removed by an environmental contractor licensed in the management and disposal of these materials. Asbestos containing materials encountered during demolition will be managed in accordance with standard industry practices under the direction of a licensed asbestos abatement contractor. Asbestos waste will be hauled to an approved off-site landfill facility for disposal. Buildings will be demolished using a combination of mechanical demolition, hydraulic shearing of structural steel and felling demolition techniques. Deconstruction or controlled demolition may be required during the early stages of demolition to remove salvageable equipment and to remove remaining asbestos containing materials and recyclable materials. The steel structures will be sheared and recycled as scrap. Miscellaneous building debris including fiberglass panels, masonry, wood, insulation, electrical cable, equipment, and instrumentation, etc. is expected to be removed and hauled to the designated recycle station with all non- recyclable non-hazardous materials hauled to an on-site landfill for disposal. Slab-on-grade and below-grade concrete floors will be perforated or cracked to ensure permeability and left in-place. Where applicable, foundation walls will be folded into basements, sumps and/or tunnels and left in-place. Excavations will be backfilled with fill soils from the Sites and compacted to ensure that voids in the backfill do not occur. Miscellaneous Surface Infrastructure Mosaic owned near-surface pipelines not required during the reclamation activities will purged and capped at their existing depths. Mosaic owned buried power and communication lines will be de-energized, isolated, and left in place. Third party utilities will remain in service during the decommissioning and reclamation activities to support electrical power, heating, and communication needs during this time. Where applicable, water utilities will be disconnected at the property line. Following completion of the saline wetland development, a component of the reclamation activities, the remaining third-party utilities will be disconnected by the appropriate utility provider at the mine site property line and left in place.


 
Date: December 31, 2021 17-12 Overland Conveyors The overland conveyors from the K3 to K1 and K2 will be dismantled. The gravel pad constructed to support the conveyors and service roads will be reclaimed and re-contoured to reflect the natural topography. The highway, grid road, cattle and railway crossings will be reclaimed to their original elevations. Reservoir and Lagoon Wastewater lagoons are located at the K1 and K2 mine sites. Water from the lagoons will be pumped into the respective TMAs and the dykes will be used to backfill the lagoon. The associated underground pipelines will be flushed and capped at depth. Regulated Storage Vessels & Materials An application to decommission the vessels is expected to be submitted to the Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment prior to any decommissioning activities. Upon approval, any remaining products in the vessels will be removed and the vessels purged, cleaned, and made inert. Any residual product will likely either be recycled or disposed of in accordance with the applicable regulations by an appropriate qualified person or contractor. The vessels will be reused or destroyed and recycled as scrap under the direction of an approved environmental contractor. Waste Management Systems Hazardous materials storage compounds are located on the Sites. Regular and hazardous waste will be hauled off-site to an approved disposal site. The existing facilities will be assessed as part of the environmental site assessments to determine the presence or absence of impacts. The processing plant site reclamation plan may include actions to remediate the areas to the applicable guidelines. Scrap yards and laydown areas are located at the Sites. Existing materials will either be recycled or returned to the appropriate suppliers. These areas will be assessed as part of the processing plant site investigation to determine the presence or absence of impacts. The processing plant site reclamation plan will include actions to remediate the areas to the applicable guidelines. Roads, Rail, Grounds and Supporting Infrastructure Roads, including access, operations and parking lots not required for post-decommissioning site activities, will be removed and contoured to meet site grades as part of processing plant site reclamation activities. Topsoil and seed will be placed where required to support vegetation. Mine owned rail will be recycled as scrap and railway ties recycled. The remaining roadbed will be graded and contoured to meet site grades as part of processing plant site reclamation activities. The remaining rail facilities will be decommissioned by the owner of the facilities. Underground Shaft and Underground Workings Decommissioning of the underground mine workings will consider all underground materials and equipment including all regulated materials. Mining equipment such as miners, conveyors, support vehicles, equipment stores, electrical cable and equipment, etc., will be left in-place. Brine Injection Wells at K1 Mosaic K1 operates 4 brine injection pump houses, 1 booster pump house and 17 injection wells to dispose of excess brine at the mine site and Farfield injection well fields. Two mine site pump houses, the booster pump house, the Farfield pump house will be decommissioned in accordance with the Processing Plant Site section of 17.8.2 of this report. Fifteen of the wells will be decommissioned in accordance with the Saskatchewan Ministry of Energy and Resources during processing plant reclamation. The aboveground pipelines associated with the mine site injection well field will be flushed and recycled as scrap. The underground pipelines from the booster pump house to the Farfield brine injection pump house and from the Farfield brine injection pump house to the Farfield injection wells will be flushed and capped at their existing depth. Date: December 31, 2021 17-13 Two injection wells and associated pump houses will remain operational during the dissolution of the tailings pile and early stages of the TMA reclamation. Once the disposal of the brine has been considered complete in consultation with the Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment, the wells will be decommissioned in accordance with the Saskatchewan Ministry of Energy and Resources. The pump house and pipelines will be demolished in accordance with the Processing Plant Site section of 17.8.2 of this report. Mosaic will continue to work with the Saskatchewan Ministry of Energy and Resources on licensing brine injection wells, reporting, monitoring, maintenance and well replacement. Brine Injection Wells at K2 Mosaic K2 operates 5 brine injection pump houses and 12 injection wells to dispose of excess brine. Two wells originally installed for brine injection purposes in the grout site have been repurposed as observation wells. Four injection well pump houses and 10 injection wells will be decommissioned during the processing plant site reclamation. The pump houses will be decommissioned in accordance with the Processing Plant Site section of 17.8.2 of this report. The wells will be decommissioned in accordance with the Saskatchewan Ministry of Energy and Resources. Two injection wells and associated pump houses will remain operational during the dissolution of the tailings pile and early stages of the TMA reclamation. Once the disposal of the brine has been considered complete in consultation with the Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment, the wells will be decommissioned in accordance with the Saskatchewan Ministry of Energy and Resources. The pump house and pipelines will be demolished in accordance to the Processing Plant Site section of 17.8.2 of this report. Mosaic will continue to work with the Saskatchewan Ministry of Energy and Resources on licensing brine injection wells, reporting, monitoring, maintenance and well replacement. Environmental Monitoring Wells There are hundreds of environmental monitoring wells for the Sites. The environmental monitoring well system is expected to be modified on an ongoing basis to reflect changing conditions encountered during the reclamation of the processing plant sites, dissolution of the tailings pile and reclamation of the TMA as an engineered saline wetland environment. Fifty new environmental monitoring wells are expected to be installed as part of the processing plant environmental site assessments at each of the K1 and K2 sites. Twenty new wells are expected for the environmental site assessment for the K3 site. The monitoring wells will be incorporated into the overall mine site monitoring program. The wells will be decommissioned after 15 years, assuming that the processing plant site meets applicable reclamation criteria established by the Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment. It is assumed that 70% of the wells associated with the Sites will be decommissioned at processing plant closures with the remaining wells repurposed to track the effectiveness of the decommissioning and reclamation strategies. The remaining 30% of the wells are projected to be decommissioned after mine site closures following approval from the Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment that the reclamation criterion for the engineered saline wetland has been achieved. The wells will be decommissioned in accordance with applicable Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment guidelines. Water Wells The K1 mine site operates 8 water wells: 4 potable water wells and 4 brine injection pump house gland wells. Seven of the wells at K1 will be decommissioned during processing plant reclamation with 1 brine injection pump house gland well to remain operational during dissolution of the tailings pile. The K2 site operates two water wells: a production well to provide cooling water for the injection wells and charge pumps at Brine Injection Pump House #2 and a mitigation well installed into the K2 aquifer to manage the lateral migration of brine. The production well will be decommissioned at the processing plant closure and the mitigation well at TMA closure. The K3 site operates four dewatering wells and an observation well. The wells will be decommissioned at site closure. Date: December 31, 2021 17-14 The water wells will be decommissioned in accordance with Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment and Water Security Agency guidelines. Pump-Up Wells The K1 site operates 1 pump-up well while the K2 site operates 10 pump-up wells. The wells will be decommissioned during processing plant reclamation in accordance with Saskatchewan Ministry of Energy and Resources guidelines. Grout and Backfill Wells The K2 site operates 131 grout and backfill wells. The wells will be decommissioned at the processing plant closure in accordance with Saskatchewan Ministry of Energy and Resources guidelines. Decommissioning planning activities are currently underway to remove a majority of the grout and backfill wells, but these wells will remain part of the D&R plan until the decommissioning has been completed. Tailings Management Area Decommissioning Sequence The general decommissioning sequence prior to the development of the K1 and K2 TMAs as an engineered saline wetland will be as follows: • Production ceases • Dissolution of tailings continues • Brine injection continues • Drainage ditch collection/pump back continues • Dyke maintenance continues • Tailing salts all dissolve • Insolubles contained within dykes • Seepage/runoff collected/injected • Salinity reduced – injection discontinued • Injection pump houses demolished and wells decommissioned • Drainage ditch system decommissioned Tailings Pile at K1 Site The K1 TMA consists of a tailings pile and brine ponds and covers an area of 538 hectares. The salt inventory in the K1 TMA is 131,417,950 tonnes of salt based on the 31 December 2021 mass salt balance. The average annual salt addition to the K1 TMA is projected to equal 2,909,121 tonnes per year for use in estimating the final pile configuration at the end of life for the Esterhazy mine. Following the ultimate mine closure, both active and passive dissolution strategies will be used to dissolve the salt pile. The duration associated with salt dissolution is based on pile configuration and inventory at time of closure. Following dissolution of the TMA, an engineered saline wetland will be constructed. Tailings Pile at K2 Site* The K2 TMA consists of a tailings pile and brine ponds and covers an area of 468 hectares. The salt inventory in the K2 TMA is 147,019,273 tonnes of salt based on the 31 December 2021 mass salt balance. The average annual salt addition to the TMA is projected to equal 5,050,704 tonnes per year for use in estimating the final pile configuration at the end of life for the Esterhazy mine. Following the ultimate mine closure, both active and passive dissolution strategies will be used to dissolve the salt pile. The duration associated with salt dissolution is based on pile Date: December 31, 2021 17-15 configuration and inventory at time of closure. Following dissolution of the TMA, an engineered saline wetland will be constructed. 17.9 Permitting All Mosaic mines and processing plants operate pursuant to federal, provincial, and local environmental regulations. Accordingly, permits, licenses and approvals are obtained specific to each site, based on project specific requirements. Mosaic also has routine interactions with government officials and agencies related to agency inspections, permitting and other environmental matters. 17.10 Social Considerations, Plans, Negotiations and Agreements Mosaic understands the sustainability of their business and communities are indelibly linked. Mosaic strives to be a thoughtful and engaged neighbor who invests carefully and generously and seeks long-term partnerships with organizations that are making a difference. Mosaic is also committed to building strong relationships with the communities that surround their operations. On an annual basis, Mosaic’s Sustainability Report is released, providing additional insight and information on the commitments, engagement, and progressive leadership on sustainability issues. When undertaking a new development, Mosaic also adheres to provisions of the provincial and federal environmental assessment regulatory requirements, which include a review of socio-economic considerations. This information is included in a comprehensive report that is subsequently provided to the appropriate levels of government for review and approval prior to development. 17.11 Qualified Person’s Opinion on Adequacy of Current Plans to Address Issues Based on information referenced in Section 17, SNC-Lavalin’s opinion is that Mosaic has monitoring plans in place to evaluate environmental performance to standards applicable to the Sites as prescribed by applicable law and permit conditions. These monitoring plans are designed to minimize the risks of environmental incidents in the near future, subject to the following exceptions described above based on available information at the time of writing Section 17: the factor of safety of specific dykes and tailings pile sections which are currently below the requirements of the ATO; and ponds at K1 and K2 mine sites are at Freeboard Notification Level 1 and several ponds expected to exceed Notification Level 2 or Minimum Freeboard in the event of a design storm event. SNC-Lavalin is unable to provide an opinion regarding the adequacy of the Permitting (Section 17.3.1), Air Emissions Monitoring (Section 17.3.2), Subsidence Monitoring (Section 17.3.2), Brine Pond Monitoring (17.3.2), General Waste Management (Section 17.3.2), Incidents and Releases (Section 17.3.3), Stockpiles (Section 17.4), Closure and Reclamation Considerations (Section 17.8), Permitting (Section 17.9) or the Social Considerations, Plans, Negotiations and Agreements (Section 17.10) portions of this report. For those sections Mosaic will be the QP.


 
Date: December 31, 2021 18-16 18.0 Capital and Operating Costs 18.1 Capital Cost Estimates 18.1.1 Basis of Estimate The basis of estimate used to estimate the Esterhazy Potash Facility capital expenditures is as follows: • The target accuracy level is at a pre-feasibility level, -25% to +25%. • The estimate was prepared in C$ and converted to US$ at an exchange rate of 1 US$ = 1.31 C$ or 1 C$ = 0.77 US$. • The estimates have been compiled and organized by asset and aligned with re-build/ replacement schedules and fixed asset replacement and refurbishment schedules. • Mine capital costs include only capital expenditures related to the extraction of mineral reserves. Expenditures are classified as mine capital if they relate to physical assets, exceed C$10,000 and have a minimum expected useful life of two years. • The mine capital costs are broken into two major categories: Sustaining and Expansion. Sustaining capital is defined as “ongoing” capital expenditures required for maintaining current production levels while project capital expands production capacity. • Sustaining capital for the Esterhazy mills is based on scheduled maintenance and re-builds and the Asset Management Framework system, that is used to assess the condition and associated risks of fixed assets. A fixed amount per plant is scheduled to account for the general capital cost of maintaining them. Sustaining estimates are prepared by asset and have been built up from realized historical capital costs. • Mine Sustaining capital costs are based on the sustaining mine development plans. These costs are a makeup of routine infrastructure repairs and/or replacements related to hoisting, belting, and mining machines • Mine Area Expansion capital is included for the K3 site. The K3 expansion funding is in progress and will be complete in 2026. Estimates are based from historical costs. • TMA expansions in 2021 to 2024 and again in 2037 to 2040 are assumed to be sufficient to support the K1 and K2 mill operations for the LOM. • The estimate is inclusive of all project indirects and owner costs as these costs are captured in the historical cost analysis used to prepare the estimate. • An annual rate of 2% inflation was used to bring historical cost to current dollars (2021). • Provincial Sales Tax (PST) has been included. • Freight and installation were included. • Contingency has not been included. 18.1.2 Exclusions for the Capital Cost Estimate The following has not been included in the Esterhazy Potash Facility capital cost estimate. • Goods and Services Tax (GST). • Foreign currency exchange fluctuations. • Schedule delays and associated costs, such as those caused by: o Unexpected conditions Date: December 31, 2021 18-17 o Labor disputes • Future Inflation and escalation. • Capital expenditures related fire, flood and severe weather events. • General and Administrative are not allocated to capital projects at Mosaic and have not been included in this cost estimate. 18.1.3 Capital Cost Estimate The capital cost estimates for Esterhazy Potash Facility 2021 LOM plan based on mineral reserves are listed by category in Table 18-2. The total capital for the 2021 LOM plan (2022 to 2054) is estimated at US$2,993 M. Historical costs from 2017 to 2020 and a forecast for 2021 are included. Table 18-1: Historical, LOM Plan Project Capital Year Status Expansion M US$ Mine Sustaining M US$ Processing Plant M US$ Other M US$ Total M US$ 2017 Actual 221 12 41 13 287 2018 Actual 269 11 45 13 338 2019 Actual 325 10 46 7 388 2020 Actual 321 2 46 13 383 2021 Fcast. 207 0 80 16 303 2022 Plan 77 0 82 21 179 2023 Plan 53 0 54 24 131 2024 Plan 77 0 46 23 147 2025 Plan 19 0 45 22 86 2026 Plan 0 20 41 15 76 2027 to 2054 Plan 0 402 1,690 281 2,374 LOM Total Plan 226 422 1,958 386 2,993 18.2 Operating Cost Estimates 18.2.1 Basis of Estimate The basis of estimate used for the Esterhazy Potash Facility operating costs are as follows: • The estimate was prepared in Canadian dollars and converted to US dollars at an exchange rate of 1 C$ = 0.77 US$, 1 US$ = 1.33 C$. • Operating costs do not include inflation and are in today’s dollars over the LOM plan. • Historical costs are used as the basis for mining operating forecasts and adjustments are made by using a variable cost per tonne. The accuracy of the operating costs is within the required parameters for a pre- feasibility level estimate, -25% to +25%. • The latest sales and market prices are estimated for the next five years and then projected over the remaining LOM plan for royalties, natural gas, and other goods and services. • Mosaic and contractor labor headcount complement are assumed to remain relatively constant and fixed in total over the LOM plan. Date: December 31, 2021 18-18 • Indirect site overhead selling, general, administrative and cost of goods sold costs are allocated to Esterhazy based on a percentage of its total direct operating spend compared to the other operating potash sites. • Depreciation, depletion and accretion are excluded from the operating cost estimates listed below. Section 18.1 outlines the expected future capital expenditures and outlay of cashflows over the 2021 LOM plan. • Freight charges are excluded from the operating costs and are shown net of the sales price. • Contingency has not been included. 18.2.2 Mine Operating Costs Historical costs are used as the basis for mine operating cost forecasts, that are estimated using a long-term cost model. This model accounts for the impact of varying production rates and labor complement. The Esterhazy costs are grouped in the following categories: • Mining cash costs include underground development and production mining and hoist/shaft operating, maintenance including the overland conveyor belt transportation costs to the K1 and K2 mills. In addition, it includes the K3 direct overhead costs including the surface infrastructure and facilities required to support the K3 underground mining operations. • Processing cash costs include the K1 and K2 mills and surface buildings and loading cash costs applied to the mineral reserves mined throughout the LOM plan. The cash costs include variable operating and fixed maintenance and direct overhead costs that directly relate processing the ore to its finished product and storing it in the Esterhazy K1 and K2 warehouses. • Other Operating Costs are central and functional overhead allocated costs, that include site warehousing, purchasing, accounting, information technology, environmental and safety, mechanical integrity and asset reliability, and quality control labs. • Resource taxes, royalties and other Government levies or interests include Crown and Freehold royalty payments, mineral lease payments and Canadian resource taxes, and excludes income taxes. The total operating costs supporting the 2021 LOM plan are estimated for 2022 to 2054 at US$14,909 M. Table 18-3 summarizes the Esterhazy Potash Facility mine operating and processing costs (US$/tonne). Due to closing of the K1 and K2 mines effective June 4, 2021, there is no brine management costs in the 2021 LOM plan. Date: December 31, 2021 18-19 Table 18-2: Historical and LOM Plan Cash Costs Year Status Production M tonnes Mining MOP Cash Costs M US$ Brine Cash Costs M US$ Processing Cash Costs M US$ Other Operating Costs M US$ Resource Taxes, Royalties and Other Government Levies or Interests M US$ Total Cash Costs of Production M US$ 2017 Actual 4.3 74 120 84 62 47 386 2018 Actual 4.6 76 123 105 71 59 434 2019 Actual. 3.9 93 101 99 65 68 426 2020 Actual 5.0 105 74 131 69 78 457 2021 Fcast. 4.4 86 28 144 75 110 442 2022 Plan 5.7 75 0 157 54 216 502 2023 Plan 5.8 81 0 164 56 180 481 2024 Plan 5.8 85 0 169 58 169 482 2025 Plan 5.8 88 0 175 59 136 457 2026 Plan 5.8 90 0 179 59 142 471 2027 to 2054 Plan 135.8 2,366 0 4,512 1,570 4,068 12,515 Total LOM Plan 165 2,784 - 5,356 1,856 4,913 14,909


 
Date: December 31, 2021 19-1 19.0 Economic Analysis 19.1 Methodology Used The financial model that supports the mineral reserve and mineral resource declaration is a standalone model that calculates annual cash flows based on scheduled ore production, assumed processing recoveries, commodity sale prices and C$/US$ exchange rates, projected operating and capital costs, estimated taxes along with anticipated closure and reclamation costs. This economic analysis includes sensitivities to variations in operating parameters to assist the reader in understanding the sensitivities that the life of NPV has with respect to changes in material economic assumptions and drivers. NPV results are based on end-of-year discounting. All monetary amounts are presented in United States dollars (US$) and were converted using a foreign exchange rate assumption of 1 US$ = 1.31 C$ or 1 C$ = 0.77 US$ that is based on the average historical rate 2017 to 2021. 19.2 Financial Model Inputs, Parameters and Assumptions The financial model treats 2022 as the base year cash flows and does not discount these results. The model projects the cashflows generated from the Esterhazy Potash Facility from the base year to the end of assumed mineral reserve K3 mine life in 2054. The sum of the discounted cashflows reflects the discounted value as at December 31, 2022. The following outlines the input, parameters and assumptions used in the financial model. • The mineral reserve life is estimated to extend to Year 2054 based in the 2021 LOM plan. The LOM plan assumes that K3 begins a production ramp down approximately 5 years prior to end of mine life. • The planned production life based on mineral reserves is from 2022 to 2054. • The LOM plan potash prices and exchange rates are discussed in Section 16 and applied in the financial model. • Total capital for the LOM plan is estimated as $2,993 M (Table 18-2). This includes all the sustaining capital required to maintain the equipment and infrastructure and to support continuing operations through to 2054. • The operating costs reflect mining, refining and processing; central administrative and allocated costs as well as SG&A as listed in Section 18. • Royalties are calculated using the royalty structure discussed in Section 3.2.4. They are impacted by the quantity of tonnes produced as well as the assumed sales price in each period. The 2022 to 2054 royalty cost assumptions are using 3% of the average sales price per the cashflow analysis divide by 61.15% the K2O factor times the K2O production tonnes times the percentage of crown land assumed to be produced and mined over the LOM plan. For non-crown royalties, the cost assumptions are using quantity of potash produced pertaining to each individual freeholder ownership times the average sales price per K2O times the regulation royalty rate of 3%. The quantity is express in K2O tonnes and the average factor is approximately 61%. • Mosaic pays Canadian resource taxes consisting of the Potash Production Tax and resource surcharge. The Potash Production Tax is a Saskatchewan provincial tax on potash production and consists of a base payment and a profits tax. Mosaic also pays a resource surcharge equal to 3% of the value of resource sales from the Saskatchewan potash facilities. • A 5% federal value (GST) added tax applies to most goods and services acquired by Esterhazy. The GST paid is recoverable in the form of an input tax credit. Date: December 31, 2021 19-2 • A 6% Saskatchewan provincial sales tax (PST) applies to most goods and services acquired by Esterhazy. The PST is not a recoverable tax and is charged to the corresponding expense account of the good or service acquired. The economic cash flows over the LOM plan assumes Esterhazy’s operating, maintenance supplies and contract service costs that are normally charged PST will continue. • Provincial property taxes applicable to the Esterhazy land, buildings, and resource production equipment (i.e., mining equipment) are payable annually by the end of September to the Village of Yarbo, the Rural Municipality of Fertile Belt, the Rural Municipality of Langenburg, and the Rural Municipality of Spy Hill. • The Saskatchewan provincial carbon tax applies to site emissions that exceed established standards under the Saskatchewan Output Based Pricing System (OBPS). Indirect carbon tax impacts from energy consumption has been assumed in the cash flow analysis as it is known today. Due to the uncertainty of the impact that direct carbon tax will have on operations through these regulations - the current economic analysis does not include any carbon tax costs based on emissions. • Supply chain costs that are not recoverable from customers are included within Other Costs in the model based on historical cost experience for tonnes sold in North America. • The income taxes included in the cash flow model include the following: o Esterhazy is subject to income tax at the federal and provincial level on its taxable income. The total tax rate is 27% and consists of 15% federal tax rate, and 12% provincial tax rate. o Esterhazy income may be subject to immediate U.S. taxation under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code’s Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income (GILTI). However, it is expected that foreign tax credits would be allowed to offset the US calculated income tax liability. As a result, the cashflow model assumes that Esterhazy’s tax obligation ultimately reflects the income tax liability incurred in the local jurisdiction (Canada). • Provisional closure costs of approximately US$776 M were included in the financial model. This estimate is informed from the work undertaken each year to estimate the asset retirement obligations for financial and compliance reporting purposes. The costs relating to closure of the facilities include all demolition, reclamation and decommissioning costs, net of the estimated salvage and scrap proceeds. Since many of the reclamation and retirement obligations extend well beyond the mine closure date, these cashflow obligations were discounted back to 2054 ($134 M) in the cashflows analysis. • Changes in working capital investment were calculated within the model using assumed balances based on the below assumptions. Since the levels of sales and volumes were relatively stable across most of the analysis period, the changes in working capital investment assumed in the model were immaterial to the cashflow analysis.  Accounts Receivable = 35 days sales outstanding  Inventory = 15 days on hand  Accounts Payable = 50 days on hand. • The economic analysis is based on 100% equity financing. • The financing and capital structure of the Esterhazy Potash Facility was not considered in the analysis. The earnings are reduced for a notional cash income tax expense. • The economic analysis is based on 2021 price levels and future values have not been adjusted for inflation. • The discounted cashflow analysis applies end of year discounting and uses a discount rate of 9.4%. 19.3 Economic Analysis The net present value analysis reflects that there is significant economic value associated with mining, refining and selling the potash mineral reserves at Esterhazy, given the economic assumptions and operating parameters Date: December 31, 2021 19-3 considered. The financial model reflects an after-tax net present value of approximately US$4,815 M, utilizing a discount rate of 9.4%. Table 19-1 outlines the results of the economic analysis of the mineral reserves in the 2021 LOM plan. Table 19-2 shows the annualized cash flow for the 2021 LOM plan. Table 19-1: Economic Analysis Summary Economic Feasibility Summary 2022 - 2054 Production 000's M Tonnes 164,653 Capex 000's $USD $2,992,672 Projected Cash Flow excluding Capital $16,671,957 Cash Flow $13,679,285 NPV Discount Rate 9.40% $4,815,295 Date: December 31, 2021 19-4 Table 19-2: Cash Flow Analysis 2022-2054 LOM Sales Price ($USD / Tonne) 271$ 231$ 219$ 185$ 188$ 219$ 219$ 219$ 219$ Mined Tonnes (000's Tonnes) 16,364 17,141 17,527 17,527 17,527 175,269 175,269 112,122 548,745 Finished Production Volume (000's Tonnes) 5,665 5,790 5,823 5,823 5,798 50,462 51,011 34,280 164,653 FX Rate (CAD to USD) 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 Discount Rate 9.4% 9.4% 9.4% 9.4% 9.4% 9.4% 9.4% 9.4% 9.4% Potash Revenue 1,535 1,337 1,273 1,075 1,089 11,028 11,148 7,492 35,977 Sales Revenue (FOB Mine) 1,535 1,337 1,273 1,075 1,089 11,028 11,148 7,492 35,977 Mining 75 81 85 88 90 899 899 568 2,784 Processing 157 164 169 175 179 1,697 1,704 1,111 5,356 Other Operating Costs 54 56 58 59 59 595 595 380 1,856 Resource Taxes, Royalties and Other Government Levies or Interests 216 180 169 136 142 1,650 1,579 840 4,913 Cash Costs of Production 502 481 482 457 471 4,840 4,776 2,899 14,909 Allocated Costs Other Costs 17 18 18 17 17 158 158 102 505 Income Taxes Income Tax 217 173 153 110 111 1,088 1,080 829 3,761 ARO Reclamation and Closure 44 6 1 1 2 11 14 56 134 Capital Expenditures Capital Expenditures 179 131 147 86 76 926 949 498 2,993 Working Capital Net Change in Working Capital (35) 18 6 16 (1) 8 (10) 1 3 Cash Flow Annual Net Cash Flow 539 546 479 419 412 4,014 4,161 3,109 13,679 Economic Viability Net Present Value 4,815 2037 - 2046 2047 - 2054 Assumptions Revenue Costs of Production 2022S-K 1300 - Esterhazy 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 - 2036 00 0' s $U SD


 
Date: December 31, 2021 19-5 19.4 Sensitivity Analysis A sensitivity analysis is shown in the Figure 19-1 utilizing the following factors. • Potash commodity price • Foreign exchange rate • Total operating cost • Total capital cost The sensitivity analysis of the 2021 LOM plan is presented in Figure 19-1. The LOM plan NPV is most sensitive to the potash price followed by foreign exchange rate, operating costs and capital costs. • The commodity price sensitivity tests the impact that a 20% change would have on sales revenue along with the resulting expense impacts of royalties, resource taxes and income taxes. A 20% decrease in commodity price would still generate a significant positive NPV. • The exchange rate sensitivity indicates that a +-20% variation in the exchange rate would yield a positive NPV. • If the operating costs were to increase 20% from those currently estimated, the Facility would remain economically viable, yielding a positive NPV. • The capital spending sensitivity assumes a 20% change to annual capital spending requirements each year. If the capital costs were to increase 20% from those currently estimated, the Facility would remain economically viable, yielding a positive NPV. Figure 19-1: Sensitivity Results on NPV Date: December 31, 2021 20-1 20.0 Adjacent Properties No information from adjacent properties has been included in the preceding sections of this Report. All information used and included in this report is the result of geology, engineering, mining, environmental and processing etc. activities completed on the Esterhazy property. The adjacent properties to the Esterhazy Potash Facility are indicated in Figure 20-1. These include: Producing Subsurface Mineral Leases • Nutrien Potash Lease KL 305 - 54183.83 ha. Non-producing Potash Exploration Permits and Subsurface Mineral Leases • BHP Billiton Ltd. Crown Potash Exploration Permit KP 342 – Active Pending Lease – 21427.57 ha. • Nutrien Potash Lease KL 125 – 14577.13 ha. • Nutrien Potash Lease KL 200 – 14794.62 ha. • Nutrien Potash Lease KL 279 – 26350.73 ha. The Nutrien potash mine at Rocanville is located 50 km from Esterhazy. The Esterhazy Member is mined and accessed via two shaft locations, Rocanville and Scissors Creek. Mining methods are similar to that at Esterhazy and the facility has a reported operational capacity is 6.0 M tons (5.4 M tonnes) of finished product in the Nutrien 2018 NI 43-101 publication, the property was described as hoisting 606 M tons (550 M tonnes) of mineral reserves at an average grade of 23.4% K2O equivalent. The mine has been in production since 1970 and over 253 M tons (230 M tonnes) of potash ore has been mined to produce over 82 M tons (75 M tonnes) of finished product. (2018, NI 43-101 Technical Report on Rocanville Potash Deposit KL 305). The Rocanville mine shares a boundary with Mosaic Potash Esterhazy. Nutrien and Mosaic have negotiated a safety pillar of 1 mile (800 m) between the mining leases to eliminate risk of impact from operations. Previous exploration in the Melville/Bredenbury area by BHP (Athabasca Potash) and Nutrien (Agrium) included 2D and 3D seismic surveys and exploration core drilling. No published summary work was available for discussion in this report. Date: December 31, 2021 20-2 Figure 20-1: Adjacent Properties Date: December 31, 2021 21-1 21.0 Other Relevant Data and Information All data relevant to the estimation of the Esterhazy mineral resources and mineral reserves has been included in the sections of this Technical Report Summary.


 
Date: December 31, 2021 22-1 22.0 Interpretation and Conclusions 22.1 Mineral Resources The following is a summary of the key interpretations and conclusions relating to the Esterhazy mineral resource estimates: • Approximately 98.5% of mineral rights in the Esterhazy Lease area are controlled. Any inability to acquire the remaining 1.5% would not be a significant risk to the LOM plan. • The geology team at Esterhazy has a strong understanding of the lithology, stratigraphy and potash mineralization. The available data is appropriate to support the geological interpretation for this style of mineralization. • The geology and deposit related knowledge has been considered and applied in support of exploration, interpretation, and mineral resource estimation processes used by the Esterhazy geology team. • Exploration data collection methods follow industry standard practices that were in place at the time of the various past and current exploration campaigns. • Data that does not meet the standards for reliability are removed from the mineral resource estimation process. • The QPs have conducted appropriate internal data verification and data validation work on historical and recent exploration data to ensure the geological information is reliable, representative, and free of material errors or omissions. • The sample preparation, security, and analytical procedures that have been utilized at Esterhazy are suitable to support mineral resource and mineral reserve estimation. • The validated geological information is considered reliable, representative and is fit for purpose in developing a geological model and for mineral resource estimates, as well as for use in other modifying factors studies including mine design, scheduling and mineral reserve estimation. • The mature nature of the Esterhazy Potash Facility and the good understanding of the continuity of the potash mineralization, supports the establishment of reasonable prospects for economic extraction for the K4 mineral resource estimates. • The Esterhazy Potash Facility is a well-established operation that has been producing for 60 years. There are no issues that require further work relating to relevant technical and economic factors that are likely to influence the prospect of economic extraction. • The classification of mineral resources into confidence classes measured, indicated, and inferred considered geological confidence, uncertainty and the distribution of the geological and mining data. Risks or uncertainties associated with the Esterhazy mineral resource estimates are: • There are a number of uncertainties (Section 11.9) that exist at Esterhazy that could impact the mineral resource estimates. They are considered as areas of future process improvements. • The exploration data collection methods and results are documented. A fully updated potash database to include all historical and recent exploration campaigns is recommended to allow for improved data retention standards. • Historically, there has not been external third-party data verification and mineral resource estimation audits completed. Date: December 31, 2021 22-2 22.2 Mineral Reserves The following is a summary of the key interpretations and conclusions relating to the mineral reserve estimates and supporting modifying factors. • The Esterhazy Potash Facility is a well-established operation. The mineralization, mining, processing, and environmental aspects of the facility are very well understood. The operational and technical knowledge has been appropriately used in the development of the LOM plan and mineral reserve estimates. • Years of historical operational data and observations have been adequately documented. • The mineral reserve estimate has been prepared to comply with all disclosure standards for mineral reserves under S-K 1300 reporting requirements. • The mineral reserve estimates are based on a 2021 LOM plan, employing proven industry and practical methods of mining applicable to the type of mineralization and are demonstrated to be economic through a supporting economic evaluation. • Esterhazy has the appropriate equipment for underground mining and has identified and scheduled the capital spending required to provide the required equipment fleet size and capacity, and labor staffing to support the LOM plan. • Process recovery relies upon standardized metallurgical and analytical testing. The metallurgical and analytical testing and historical data is adequate for the estimation of recovery factors supporting the mineral reserves. • There is sufficient infrastructure in place to support the mining and processing activities at the Esterhazy Potash Facility. • The management of all environmental aspects, permitting and social considerations at all Mosaic facilities is guided by Mosaic’s Environmental, Health and Safety Policy, the Mosaic Management System Program and Procedures, and current regulatory requirements. Mosaic understands the sustainability of their business and communities are indelibly linked and strives to be a thoughtful and engaged neighbor who invests carefully and generously and seeks long-term partnerships with organizations that are making a difference. • Mosaic has monitoring plans in place to evaluate the environmental performance to standards as prescribed by applicable law and permit conditions. • Closure plans are completed, representing current land disturbance conditions and anticipated land disturbance conditions at the end of the LOM plan. • The economic results and sensitivity analysis for the mineral reserves indicates that the Esterhazy Potash Facility is a robust potash producing facility that can withstand 20% variations in the key cash flow components. • Over such a long mine life, the potential new technology and innovations that could come to bear on this facility are difficult to conceptualize. The technological and process efficiencies that are being targeted by the site have not been factored into this analysis. The benefit of achieving these targets along with the operational efficiencies that will be enabled by new technologies in the years that follow, create potential for significant upside to the cashflows presented. Risks or uncertainties associated with the Esterhazy mineral reserve estimates are: • There are a number of uncertainties (Section 12.5) that exist at Esterhazy that could impact the mineral reserve estimates. They are considered as areas of future process improvements. • K3 is currently waiting completion of some key mine components such as the south headframe and the underground ore bins etc. Some of this won’t be fully commissioned until early 2022. It is unlikely that this is a risk to the mineral reserves but is considered an uncertainty at this time. Date: December 31, 2021 22-3 • A possible future uncertainty to the economic analysis is the uncertain impact that the carbon tax policy will have on the Esterhazy Potash Facility. At the present time, the future direct and indirect impacts of carbon taxation in Canada are still evolving and subject to further discussion and review before accurate long-term forecasts are possible. • There is a risk and opportunity associated with the variation of pricing on product sale prices and the prices of operational and capital materials and services. The sensitivity analysis is provided to help the reader understand the impact that this risk could have on net present value. • Over the lengthy time span there is risk that the amount of annually invested capital required to sustain the plant could fluctuate above the levels estimated. Date: December 31, 2021 23-1 23.0 Recommendations The following recommendations for additional work are focused on improving and maintaining important MRMR processes and estimates. • The Land and Minerals team will continue to align with the LOM plan to ensure timely acquisition of surface and mineral rights as required. • Mosaic should continue to investigate and consider new innovations in mining and processing technology. • The global density estimate has been based on a subset of the exploration data. Additional study based on in- mine sampling could be completed to increase confidence. • A thorough production reconciliation process will be considered to further improve and support the mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates. • A more robust modeling software for mineral resource estimates will be considered. • Continue duplicate analysis comparing results from the internal metallurgical lab with those from a third- party analytical lab. • Continue to update and maintain the geological databases. • Evaluate the channel sampling program with a third-party sample analysis to verify the accuracy of the current in-mine chip sampling. • Continue review of the GREC calculation applied at Esterhazy to include all exploration drilling. Future coring should be assayed to confirm that the GREC calculation applied at Esterhazy is sufficient for estimating the mineral reserves and mineral resources. • Additional 3D seismic data should be collected and processed in strategic areas to ensure the continuity of available data for mine planning. • The seismic model supporting the mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates will continue to develop and improve as seismic data collection and interpretation improves.


 
Date: December 31, 2021 24-1 24.0 References Alger, R.P. and Crain, E.R., 1966. Defining evaporite deposits with electrical well logs. In: L.L. Raymer, W.R. Hoyle and M.P. Tixier (Editors), Second Symposium on Salt. North Ohio Geol. Soc., pp. 116-130. Bannatyne, B.B. (1983), Devonian Potash Deposits in Manitoba, Manitoba Department of Energy and Mines: Mineral Resources Division - Open File Report of 83-3. CIM Council, 2003. Estimation of Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves Best Practice Guidelines – Guidelines Specific to Particular Commodities, p.36-37. Crain, E.R. and Anderson, W.B. (1966), Quantitative Log Evaluation of the Prairie Evaporite Formation in Saskatchewan, 17th Annual Technical Meeting, The Petroleum Society of C.I.M. Danyluk, T. K., G. D. Phillips, A. F. Prugger and M. S. Pesowski (1999), “Geophysical Analysis of an Unusual Collapse Structure at PCS Potash, Lanigan Division,” Mining: Catalyst for Social and Economic Growth, 101st Annual General Meeting of CIM, May 2–5. Fuzesy, A. (1982). Potash in Saskatchewan, Saskatchewan Industry and Resources Report 181, pp. 44. Holter, M. E. (1969), The Middle Devonian Prairie Evaporite of Saskatchewan, Report No. 123, Department of Mineral Resources, Regina, Saskatchewan, pp. 133. Mackintosh, A. D. and G. A. McVittie (1983), “Geological Anomalies Observed at the Cominco, Ltd., Saskatchewan Potash Mine,” Potash 83 Potash Technology—Mining, Processing, Maintenance, Transportation, Occupational Health and Safety, Environment, Pergamon Press, Toronto, pp. 59–64. MDH Engineered Solutions Ltd. (MDH), 2008. Biological Assessment Proposed Phase IV Brine Pond Mosaic Potash Esterhazy K2. File No. M1465-1500408 MDH, 2009a. Mosaic Potash Esterhazy K2 Phase V TMA and Mill Expansion. File No. M1639-1500408. MDH, 2009b. Mosaic Potash Esterhazy K2 Phase IV Tailings Expansion Environmental Impact Statement. File No. M1465-1500408. MDH, 2010a. Mosaic Potash Esterhazy Stage 2 Expansion Project. Environmental Impact Statement Volume I – Main Document. November 2010. File No. M1980-1500409. Orris, G. J., Cocker, M. D., Dunlap, P., Wynn, J. Spanski, G. T., Briggs, D. A., and Gass, L. with contributions from Bliss, J. D., Bolm, K. S., Yang, C., Lipin, B. R., Ludington, S., Miller, R. J., and Slowakiewicz, M. (2014) Potash— A Global Overview of Evaporite-Related Potash Resources, Including Spatial Databases of Deposits, Occurrences, and Permissive Tracts, Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5090–S. SNC-Lavalin 2015b. K3 to K2 Conveyor Project. Technical Project Proposal. File No. 619342. SNC-Lavalin, 2017c. K3 to K1 Conveyor Project. Technical Proposal. File No. 628475. Yang, C., G. Jensen, and Berenyi, J,2009. “The Stratigraphic Framework of the Potash-rich Members of the Middle Devonian Upper Prairie Evaporite Formation, Saskatchewan,” Summary of Investigations 2009, Volume 1, Saskatchewan Geological Survey, Sask. Ministry of Energy and Resources, Misc. Rep. 2009-4. 1, CD-ROM, Paper A-4, pp. 28. Date: December 31, 2021 25-1 25.0 Reliance on Information Provided by the Registrant Table 25-1 outlines the information provided from the Registrant (Mosaic) for use by the QPs in the writing of the Esterhazy Potash Facility TRS. Table 25-1: Information Provided by the Registrant The QP considers it reasonable to rely on the information provided by the registrant. QP Name TRS Section Subjects Grant Shaver 16. Market Studies Marketing information including commodity price and exchange rates Grant Shaver 18.Capital and Operating Costs 19. Economic Analysis Royalties and other accommodations; Taxes and other governmental factors Mine closure costs


 
Belle Plaine Potash Facility Saskatchewan, Canada Technical Report Summary Belle Plaine Potash Facility Technical Report Summary Effective December 31, 2021 Date: December 31, 2021 ii CONTENTS 1.0 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. 1-2 1.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 1-2 1.2 Property Location ..................................................................................................................................... 1-2 1.3 Ownership and Status ............................................................................................................................... 1-2 1.4 Mineral Tenure, Surface Rights, Water Rights, Royalties and Agreements ............................................ 1-2 1.5 Geology and Mineralization ..................................................................................................................... 1-3 1.6 Mineral Resource Estimate ...................................................................................................................... 1-3 1.7 Mineral Reserve Estimate ........................................................................................................................ 1-6 1.8 Mining Method ........................................................................................................................................ 1-6 1.9 Recovery Methods ................................................................................................................................... 1-7 1.10 Infrastructure ............................................................................................................................................ 1-7 1.11 Markets and Contracts .............................................................................................................................. 1-8 1.12 Environmental, Permitting and Social Considerations ............................................................................. 1-8 1.13 Capital Cost and Operating Cost Estimates.............................................................................................. 1-8 1.14 Economic Analysis................................................................................................................................... 1-9 1.15 Interpretations and Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 1-9 1.16 Recommendations .................................................................................................................................... 1-9 2.0 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 Registrant ................................................................................................................................................. 2-1 2.2 Purpose and Terms of Reference ............................................................................................................. 2-1 2.3 Abbreviations and Units ........................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.4 Qualified Persons (QP) ............................................................................................................................ 2-3 2.5 Effective Dates ......................................................................................................................................... 2-3 2.6 Information Sources and References ........................................................................................................ 2-4 2.7 Previous Technical Report Summaries .................................................................................................... 2-4 3.0 Property Description ................................................................................................................................ 3-1 3.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 3-1 3.2 Property and Title ..................................................................................................................................... 3-2 3.2.1 Mineral Title ........................................................................................................................................ 3-2 3.2.2 Surface Rights ...................................................................................................................................... 3-6 3.2.3 Water Rights ........................................................................................................................................ 3-6 3.2.4 Royalties .............................................................................................................................................. 3-6 3.3 Encumbrances .......................................................................................................................................... 3-6 3.4 Significant Factors and Risks That May Affect Access, Title or Work Programs ................................... 3-6 4.0 Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography ............................................. 4-1 4.1 Physiography ............................................................................................................................................ 4-1 4.1.1 Topography, Elevation and Vegetation ............................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Accessibility ............................................................................................................................................. 4-1 4.3 Climate ..................................................................................................................................................... 4-3 4.3.1 Climate ................................................................................................................................................. 4-3 4.3.2 Length of Operating Season ................................................................................................................ 4-3 4.4 Infrastructure/Local Resources ................................................................................................................ 4-3 Date: December 31, 2021 iii 4.4.1 Water ................................................................................................................................................... 4-3 4.4.2 Power and Electricity ........................................................................................................................... 4-3 4.4.3 Natural Gas .......................................................................................................................................... 4-3 4.4.4 Roads and Logistics ............................................................................................................................. 4-3 4.4.5 Personnel ............................................................................................................................................. 4-4 4.4.6 Supplies ............................................................................................................................................... 4-4 5.0 History ...................................................................................................................................................... 5-1 6.0 Geological Setting, Mineralization and Deposit ...................................................................................... 6-1 6.1 Deposit Type ............................................................................................................................................ 6-1 6.2 Regional Geology..................................................................................................................................... 6-1 6.3 Local Geology .......................................................................................................................................... 6-7 6.3.1 Stratigraphy ......................................................................................................................................... 6-7 6.3.2 Stratigraphic Anomalies ...................................................................................................................... 6-8 6.4 Property Geology ................................................................................................................................... 6-11 6.4.1 Belle Plaine Potash Deposit ............................................................................................................... 6-11 7.0 Exploration ............................................................................................................................................... 7-1 7.1 Exploration ............................................................................................................................................... 7-1 7.1.1 Grids and Surveys ................................................................................................................................ 7-1 7.1.2 Geological Mapping ............................................................................................................................ 7-1 7.1.3 Geochemistry ....................................................................................................................................... 7-1 7.1.4 Seismic Survey Geophysics ................................................................................................................. 7-1 7.1.5 Petrology, Mineralogy, and Research Studies ..................................................................................... 7-2 7.1.6 Exploration Potential ........................................................................................................................... 7-2 7.2 Drilling ..................................................................................................................................................... 7-2 7.2.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................................. 7-2 7.2.2 Drilling on Property ............................................................................................................................. 7-3 7.2.3 Drilling Supporting Mineral Resource Estimates ................................................................................ 7-6 7.2.4 Drilling Excluded for Estimation Purposes ......................................................................................... 7-6 7.2.5 Drill Methods ....................................................................................................................................... 7-7 7.2.6 Geological Logging ............................................................................................................................. 7-7 7.2.7 Recovery .............................................................................................................................................. 7-9 7.2.8 Collar Surveys ..................................................................................................................................... 7-9 7.3 QP Interpretation of the Exploration Information .................................................................................... 7-9 8.0 Sample Preparation, Analyses and Security ............................................................................................. 8-1 8.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 8-1 8.2 Core Sampling Method ............................................................................................................................ 8-1 8.2.1 Procedures ........................................................................................................................................... 8-1 8.2.2 Quality Control .................................................................................................................................... 8-2 8.3 Sample Preparation .................................................................................................................................. 8-2 8.3.1 Process ................................................................................................................................................. 8-2 8.3.2 Quality Control .................................................................................................................................... 8-2 8.4 Assaying and Analytical Procedures ........................................................................................................ 8-3 8.4.1 Procedures ........................................................................................................................................... 8-3 8.4.2 Density Determination ......................................................................................................................... 8-3 8.4.3 Quality Assurance and Quality Control ............................................................................................... 8-3 8.5 Sample Security ....................................................................................................................................... 8-4 Date: December 31, 2021 iv 8.6 Database ................................................................................................................................................... 8-4 8.7 QP Opinion on Sample Preparation, Security, and Analytical Procedures .............................................. 8-4 9.0 Data Verification ...................................................................................................................................... 9-1 9.1 QP and Internal Data Verification ............................................................................................................ 9-1 9.2 External Data Verification ....................................................................................................................... 9-1 9.3 QP Opinion on Data Adequacy ................................................................................................................ 9-2 10.0 Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing ....................................................................................... 10-1 10.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 10-1 10.2 On-Site Laboratory ................................................................................................................................. 10-1 10.3 Quality Control ...................................................................................................................................... 10-3 10.4 Database and Records ............................................................................................................................ 10-4 10.5 Metallurgical Test Work ........................................................................................................................ 10-5 10.6 Recovery Estimates ................................................................................................................................ 10-5 10.7 Metallurgical Variability ........................................................................................................................ 10-5 10.8 Deleterious Elements ............................................................................................................................. 10-5 10.9 QP Opinion on Data Adequacy .............................................................................................................. 10-6 11.0 Mineral Resource Estimates ................................................................................................................... 11-7 11.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 11-7 11.2 Key Assumptions ................................................................................................................................... 11-7 11.3 Estimation Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 11-7 11.4 Exploratory Data Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 11-8 11.5 Validation ............................................................................................................................................... 11-9 11.6 Confidence Classification of Mineral Resource Estimate .................................................................... 11-10 11.7 Reasonable Prospects of Economic Extraction .................................................................................... 11-11 11.8 Mineral Resource Statement ................................................................................................................ 11-11 11.9 Uncertainties (Factors) That May Affect the Mineral Resource Estimate ........................................... 11-13 12.0 Mineral Reserve Estimates ..................................................................................................................... 12-1 12.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 12-1 12.2 Key Assumptions ................................................................................................................................... 12-1 12.3 Estimation Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 12-1 12.4 Mineral Reserve Statement .................................................................................................................... 12-2 12.5 Uncertainties (Factors) That May Affect the Mineral Reserve Estimate ............................................... 12-4 13.0 Mining Methods ..................................................................................................................................... 13-1 13.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 13-1 13.2 Solution Mining Process ........................................................................................................................ 13-1 13.2.1 Geotechnical Considerations ............................................................................................................. 13-3 13.2.2 Hydrogeological Considerations ........................................................................................................ 13-4 13.3 Mine Design and Operations .................................................................................................................. 13-5 13.3.1 Production Plan/Life of Mine Plan .................................................................................................... 13-5 13.3.2 Planning Assumptions/Design Criteria .............................................................................................. 13-9 13.3.3 Mining Sequence and Cluster Planning ........................................................................................... 13-10 13.3.4 Cluster Site Design .......................................................................................................................... 13-12 13.3.5 Operational Cut-off Grades ............................................................................................................. 13-13 13.3.6 Mine Production Monitoring ........................................................................................................... 13-13 13.3.7 Equipment ........................................................................................................................................ 13-13 13.3.8 Personnel ......................................................................................................................................... 13-14


 
Date: December 31, 2021 v 14.0 Recovery Methods ................................................................................................................................. 14-1 14.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 14-1 14.2 Flowsheet ............................................................................................................................................... 14-1 14.3 Equipment Characteristics and Specifications ....................................................................................... 14-5 14.4 Water and Energy Requirements ............................................................................................................ 14-6 14.5 Personnel ................................................................................................................................................ 14-7 14.6 Key Metrics ............................................................................................................................................ 14-8 15.0 Infrastructure .......................................................................................................................................... 15-1 15.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 15-1 15.2 Roads and Logistics ............................................................................................................................... 15-3 15.3 Tailings Storage Facilities ...................................................................................................................... 15-4 15.4 Brine Management Structures ................................................................................................................ 15-5 15.5 Built Infrastructure ................................................................................................................................. 15-5 15.6 Power and Electrical .............................................................................................................................. 15-5 15.7 Natural Gas ............................................................................................................................................ 15-6 15.8 Water Supply .......................................................................................................................................... 15-6 16.0 Market Studies and Contracts ................................................................................................................ 16-1 16.1 Markets .................................................................................................................................................. 16-1 16.2 Commodity Price and Exchange Rate Forecasts .................................................................................... 16-1 16.3 Contracts ................................................................................................................................................ 16-2 17.0 Environmental Studies, Permitting and Plans, Negotiations or Agreements with Local Individuals or Groups ................................................................................................................................................................ 17-1 17.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 17-1 17.2 Baseline and Supporting Studies ............................................................................................................ 17-1 17.3 Environmental Considerations/Monitoring Programs ............................................................................ 17-2 17.3.1 Environmental Considerations ........................................................................................................... 17-2 17.3.2 Environmental Monitoring ................................................................................................................ 17-3 17.3.3 Incidents and Releases ....................................................................................................................... 17-5 17.4 Stockpiles ............................................................................................................................................... 17-5 17.4.1 General Waste Management .............................................................................................................. 17-5 17.5 Waste Rock Storage Facilities ................................................................................................................ 17-6 17.6 Tailings Storage Facility ........................................................................................................................ 17-6 17.6.1 Tailings Pile ....................................................................................................................................... 17-6 17.6.2 Brine Pond and Flood Containment Pond.......................................................................................... 17-6 17.6.3 Solids and Surface Brine Control ...................................................................................................... 17-6 17.6.4 Deep Well Injection ........................................................................................................................... 17-7 17.7 Water Management ................................................................................................................................ 17-7 17.7.1 Freshwater ......................................................................................................................................... 17-7 17.7.2 Runoff ................................................................................................................................................ 17-7 17.7.3 Waste Water....................................................................................................................................... 17-8 17.8 Closure and Reclamation Considerations ............................................................................................... 17-8 17.8.1 Decommissioning and Reclamation Guidelines ................................................................................ 17-8 17.8.2 Site Investigation and Reclamation Plan ........................................................................................... 17-9 17.9 Permitting ............................................................................................................................................. 17-12 17.10 Social Considerations, Plans, Negotiations and Agreements ............................................................... 17-12 17.11 Qualified Person’s Opinion on Adequacy of Current Plans to Address Issues .................................... 17-12 Date: December 31, 2021 vi 18.0 Capital and Operating Costs ................................................................................................................... 18-1 18.1 Capital Cost Estimates ........................................................................................................................... 18-1 18.1.1 Basis of Estimate ............................................................................................................................... 18-1 18.1.2 Exclusions for the Capital Cost Estimate ........................................................................................... 18-2 18.1.3 Capital Cost Estimate......................................................................................................................... 18-2 18.2 Operating Cost Estimates ....................................................................................................................... 18-3 18.2.1 Basis of Estimate ............................................................................................................................... 18-3 18.2.2 Mine Operating Costs ........................................................................................................................ 18-3 19.0 Economic Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 19-1 19.1 Methodology Used ................................................................................................................................. 19-1 19.2 Financial Model Inputs, Parameters and Assumptions .......................................................................... 19-1 19.3 Economic Analysis................................................................................................................................. 19-2 19.4 Sensitivity Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 19-4 20.0 Adjacent Properties ................................................................................................................................ 20-1 21.0 Other Relevant Data and Information .................................................................................................... 21-1 22.0 Interpretation and Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 22-1 22.1 Mineral Resources .................................................................................................................................. 22-1 22.2 Mineral Reserves .................................................................................................................................... 22-2 23.0 Recommendations .................................................................................................................................. 23-1 24.0 References .............................................................................................................................................. 24-1 25.0 Reliance on Information Provided by the Registrant ............................................................................. 25-1 TABLES Table 1-1: 2021 Mineral Resources ........................................................................................................................... 1-3 Table 1-2: 2021 Mineral Reserves ............................................................................................................................. 1-6 Table 2-1: List of Units and Abbreviations ............................................................................................................... 2-1 Table 2-2: Qualified Persons ..................................................................................................................................... 2-3 Table 2-3 Reliance on Other Experts ......................................................................................................................... 2-4 Table 3-1: Mineral Lease ........................................................................................................................................... 3-4 Table 3-2: Sections and Acreages Owned by the Crown ........................................................................................... 3-4 Table 3-3: Sections and Acreages of Mosaic Owned Mineral Rights ....................................................................... 3-4 Table 3-4: Partial Mineral Rights Area ...................................................................................................................... 3-4 Table 5-1: History ...................................................................................................................................................... 5-1 Table 5-2: Production History ................................................................................................................................... 5-2 Table 6-1: Potash Horizons ..................................................................................................................................... 6-12 Table 7-1: Exploration Drilling Summary ................................................................................................................. 7-4 Table 7-2: Drill Summary Table Supporting Mineral Resource Estimates ............................................................... 7-6 Table 7-3: Drill Summary Table Excluded for Estimation Purposes ........................................................................ 7-7 Table 8-1: Digital Photograph Records ..................................................................................................................... 8-2 Table 10-1: Regular On-Site Laboratory Testing .................................................................................................... 10-2 Table 10-2: Notable Frequency of Samples............................................................................................................. 10-3 Table 10-3: Sample Accuracy and Precision ........................................................................................................... 10-4 Table 11-1: Assays and RESPEC/Mosaic GREC Comparison for Hole 41092 Mining Intervals by Member ....... 11-9 Table 11-2: 2021 Mineral Resources ..................................................................................................................... 11-11 Date: December 31, 2021 vii Table 12-1: 2021 Mineral Reserves ......................................................................................................................... 12-2 Table 13-1: Life of Mine Production Plan ............................................................................................................... 13-6 Table 13-2: Major Mining Area Equipment .......................................................................................................... 13-14 Table 13-3: Mining Area Personnel Requirements................................................................................................ 13-14 Table 14-1: Process Plant Equipment ...................................................................................................................... 14-5 Table 14-2: Water and Energy Requirements .......................................................................................................... 14-7 Table 14-3: Processing Plant Personnel ................................................................................................................... 14-7 Table 14-4: Key Processing Plant Metrics .............................................................................................................. 14-8 Table 15-1: Infrastructure Maintained by Third Parties .......................................................................................... 15-1 Table 16-1: Commodity Prices and Exchange Rates ............................................................................................... 16-1 Table 19-1: Economic Analysis Summary .............................................................................................................. 19-2 Table 19-2: Cash Flow Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 19-3 Table 25-1: Information Provided by the Registrant ............................................................................................... 25-1 FIGURES Figure 1-1: Location and Distribution of Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves ................................................ 1-5 Figure 3-1: Location Map .......................................................................................................................................... 3-1 Figure 3-2: KL 106-R Lease Boundary ..................................................................................................................... 3-3 Figure 3-3: 2021 Mineral Rights Location and Status ............................................................................................... 3-5 Figure 4-1: Location and Accessibility ...................................................................................................................... 4-2 Figure 6-1: Regional Geology Plan of the Elk Point Basin (RESPEC, 2021) ........................................................... 6-2 Figure 6-2: Regional Central Saskatchewan Stratigraphy ......................................................................................... 6-4 Figure 6-3: Regional Cross Section Illustrating the Stratigraphic Relationships of the Prairie Evaporite Formation (RESPEC, 2021) ........................................................................................................................................................ 6-6 Figure 6-4: Local Stratigraphy (RESPEC, 2021) ...................................................................................................... 6-8 Figure 6-5 Types of Stratigraphic Anomalies (RESPEC, 2021) ................................................................................ 6-9 Figure 6-6: Wash-out Anomaly ............................................................................................................................... 6-10 Figure 6-7: Leach Anomaly ..................................................................................................................................... 6-11 Figure 6-8: Deposit Stratigraphy with Corresponding Gamma Results .................................................................. 6-13 Figure 7-1: Seismic Surveys ...................................................................................................................................... 7-2 Figure 7-2: Exploration Drill Hole Locations ............................................................................................................ 7-5 Figure 11-1: Assays and RESPEC/Mosaic GREC Comparison for Hole 41092 Mining Intervals by Bed (RESPEC, 2020) ........................................................................................................................................................................ 11-9 Figure 11-2: Location and Distribution of Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves........................................... 11-12 Figure 12-1: Location and Distribution of Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves............................................. 12-3 Figure 13-1: Mining Process and Cavern Life Cycle .............................................................................................. 13-1 Figure 13-2: Mining Area Flow Inputs and Outputs................................................................................................ 13-3 Figure 13-3: 2021 LOM Plan .................................................................................................................................. 13-9 Figure 13-4: Mining Sequence and Cluster Planning ............................................................................................ 13-11 Figure 13-5: Typical Cluster Site Layout .............................................................................................................. 13-13 Figure 14-1: Processing Plant Flow Sheet ............................................................................................................... 14-2 Figure 15-1: Major Infrastructure ............................................................................................................................ 15-2 Figure 15-2: Detailed Plant and Tailings Area Infrastructure .................................................................................. 15-3 Figure 15-3: Simplified Stratigraphy of the TMA Area .......................................................................................... 15-4 Figure 15-4: Typical Cross Section of TMA Pile with Current and Future States .................................................. 15-4 Date: December 31, 2021 viii Figure 19-1: Sensitivity Results on NPV ................................................................................................................. 19-4 Figure 20-1: Adjacent Properties ............................................................................................................................. 20-2


 
Date: December 31, 2021 1-1 FORWARD LOOKING INFORMATION CAUTION All statements, other than statements of historical fact, appearing in this report constitute “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Statements regarding results depend on inputs that are subject to both known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause actual results to differ materially from those presented in this Report. Information that is forward-looking includes, but is not limited to, the following: • Mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates. • Assumed commodity prices and exchange rates. • Assumed freight charges • Proposed and scheduled mine production plan. • Projected mining and processing recovery rates. • Capital cost estimates and schedule. • Operating cost estimates. • Closure costs estimates and closure requirements assumptions. • Environmental, permitting and social risk assumptions. Additional risks to the forward-looking information include: • Changes to costs of production from what is assumed. • Unrecognized environmental risks. • Unanticipated reclamation expenses. • Unexpected variations in production tonnage, grade or recovery rates. • Failure of plant, equipment or processes to operate as anticipated. • Accidents, labor disputes and other risks of the mining industry. • Changes to tax rates. Date: December 31, 2021 1-2 Executive Summary 1.1 Introduction Potash is the generic term used to describe potassium chloride, also known as muriate of potash. It is one of the three primary crop nutrients required for plant growth and is not substitutable. Potash (and other fertilizer products derived from it) provides the overwhelming majority of potassium nutrient worldwide. Potash is mined globally with the most significant mineral reserves and mineral resources deposited in Saskatchewan, Canada. Most potash deposits are a mixture of potassium chloride (KCl), sodium chloride (NaCl) and clay. The Mosaic Company is a leading producer of Canadian potash utilizing underground and solution mining methods. The Belle Plaine Potash Facility, located in Saskatchewan, Canada started production in 1964 and was the first, and is the largest potash solution mining facility in the world. It consists of a Mining Area and a Processing Plant and has an expected mine life based on mineral reserves of 63 years. In addition, there are significant inferred mineral resources that may extend the mine life beyond that, pending additional exploration work. The 2021 Belle Plaine Potash Facility Technical Report Summary has been prepared by the Belle Plaine Qualified Persons and supports the mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates for the year ending December 31, 2021. The Belle Plaine mineral resources and mineral reserves are reported in accordance with SEC Regulation S-K, Subpart 1300. 1.2 Property Location The Belle Plaine Potash Facility is located in the Rural Municipality of Pense in the Province of Saskatchewan, Canada, just north of the TransCanada Highway (Hwy 1) approximately 32 miles (51 km) by road west of Regina, Saskatchewan. It is the oldest and largest potash solution mine in the world. 1.3 Ownership and Status The Belle Plaine Potash Facility is 100% owned by Mosaic Canada ULC, a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of The Mosaic Company. For the purposes of this Report, unless otherwise noted, The Mosaic Company and Mosaic Canada ULC will each be referred to interchangeably as Mosaic, as the context requires. 1.4 Mineral Tenure, Surface Rights, Water Rights, Royalties and Agreements Mosaic, through its wholly-owned subsidiary Mosaic Canada ULC leases approximately 53,131 acres of mineral rights for the Belle Plaine Potash Facility from the Crown under Subsurface Mineral Lease KL 106-R. The Belle Plaine Crown lease term is for a period of 21 years from July 2012, with renewals at Mosaic’s option for additional 21-year lease periods. In addition, Mosaic owns approximately 19,284.25 acres of mineral rights within the Belle Plaine area. All mineral properties owned or leased by Mosaic are for the “subsurface mineral” commodity as defined in The Subsurface Mineral Tenure Regulations (Saskatchewan). Mosaic owns approximately 6,333 acres of surface rights in the Belle Plaine area. All infrastructure including the processing plant, TMA (Tailings Management Area), cluster sites, and pipeline right of ways are located on Mosaic- owned land. Mosaic-owned land not used for infrastructure is leased out for agricultural use. Mosaic holds a Water Rights License issued by the Saskatchewan Water Security Agency for the Belle Plaine site. This License is subject to review by April 1, 2031 and covers the water rights from Buffalo Pound Lake and makes references to the Approval to Operate Works associated with the pipeline and associated infrastructure connecting Belle Plaine to the SaskWater intake on Buffalo Pound Lake. The Potash Crown Royalty is payable under The Subsurface Mineral Royalty Regulations, 2017 (Saskatchewan). Mosaic pays royalties that are based on a royalty rate of 3% on the value of the potash produced from Crown mineral Date: December 31, 2021 1-3 lands. Value is determined as the average price realized by the producer in the year, as determined by revenues and sales under The Potash Production Tax Regulations, 1990 (Saskatchewan). 1.5 Geology and Mineralization The intracratonic Elk Point Basin is a major sedimentary geological feature in western Canada and the northwest USA. It contains one of the world’s largest stratabound potash resources. The nature of this type of deposition is largely continuous with predictable depths and thickness. It is estimated to host >5 billion tonnes of ore (Orris, 2014) and is mined at a number of locations, including Mosaic’s Belle Plaine, Esterhazy and Colonsay potash facilities. Saskatchewan potash represents almost 25% of the global potash production due to its relatively low-cost, bulk tonnage mining methods. (Orris, 2014). The Prairie Evaporite hosts rich deposits of evaporite minerals including halite (NaCl), sylvite (KCl) and locally, carnallite. There are a number of insoluble clay-rich zones that are not recovered in the solution mining process. The potash deposit at Belle Plaine is uniform and laterally continuous. Solution mining methods can more easily accommodate any local variations in geological condition due to the non-selective concentrate mining process. Three potash deposits of economic importance occur in Saskatchewan: the Esterhazy, Belle Plaine and Patience Lake Members. The Belle Plaine Potash Facility is a solution mine that recovers potash from each of the Esterhazy, Belle Plaine and Patience Lake Members. The following is a summary of the key stratigraphic units for the Belle Plaine Potash Facility: • Patience Lake Member: The uppermost member of the Prairie Evaporite Formation with potash production potential. Between the top of the Prairie Evaporite Formation and the top of the Patience Lake Member is a 0 to 45 ft. (0 to 14 m) thick unit of halite with clay bands called the salt back. The sylvite-rich horizons within the Patience Lake Member are mined using conventional underground mining techniques in the Saskatoon, Saskatchewan area and by solution mining techniques at Belle Plaine. • Belle Plaine Member: The Belle Plaine Member underlies the Patience Lake Member and is separated from it by a zone of low grade sylvinite. The Belle Plaine Member is mined using solution mining techniques at Belle Plaine. • Esterhazy Member: The Esterhazy Member is separated from the Belle Plaine Member by the White Bear Marker Beds, a sequence of clay seams, low-grade sylvinite, and halite. The Esterhazy Member is mined using conventional underground techniques at Mosaic’s Esterhazy Potash Facility in southeastern Saskatchewan and by solution mining techniques at Belle Plaine. 1.6 Mineral Resource Estimate The mineral resource estimates for the Belle Plaine Potash Facility are listed in Table 1-1. Mineral resources are reported exclusive of the mineral reserves. Figure 1-1 shows the distribution of the mineral resources and mineral reserves on the Belle Plaine property. Table 1-1: 2021 Mineral Resources Inferred Mineral Resources Location Tons (M) Tonnes (M) Grade %KCl Grade %K2O Belle Plaine 5,124 4,647 31 19 Notes to accompany mineral resource table: 1. Mineral resource estimates were prepared by QP M. Tochor, a Mosaic employee. 2. The mineral resources are reported as in-situ mineralization. 3. Mineral resources have an effective date of December 31, 2021. 4. Mineral resources are reported exclusive of those mineral resources that have been converted to mineral reserves. Date: December 31, 2021 1-4 5. Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not meet the threshold for mineral reserve modifying factors, such as estimated economic viability, that would allow for conversion to mineral reserves. There is no certainty that any part of the mineral resources estimated will be converted into mineral reserves. 6. Mineral resources assume solution mining. 7. Mineral resources amenable to a solution mining method are contained within a conceptual cluster and cavern design using the same technical parameters as used for mineral reserves. 8. No cut-off grade is used to estimate mineral resources. This is because the solution mining method used at Belle Plaine is not selective. At no point in the cavern development and mining process can a decision be made to mine or not mine the potash mineralization that is in contact with the mining solution. There is no control on what potash grade the mining solution dissolves to make a concentrate that is pumped to surface from the mining caverns for processing (Section 11.2). 9. Tonnages are in US Customary and metric units and are rounded to the nearest million tonnes. 10. Rounding as required by reporting guidelines may result in apparent summation differences.


 
Date: December 31, 2021 1-5 Figure 1-1: Location and Distribution of Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves Date: December 31, 2021 1-6 1.7 Mineral Reserve Estimate The mineral reserve estimate for the Belle Plaine Potash Facility is listed in Table 1-2. Figure 1-1 shows the distribution of the Belle Plaine mineral resources and mineral reserves. Mineral reserves are sub-divided into two confidence categories in Regulation S-K 1300, proven and probable. Table 1-2: 2021 Mineral Reserves Category Tons (M) Tonnes (M) Grade %KCl Grade %K2O Mining Recovery % % Dilution Proven 304 275 30.6 19.3 21.5% 0% Probable 434 394 30.6 19.3 21.5% 0% Proven + Probable 738 669 30.6 19.3 21.5% 0% Notes to accompany mineral reserves table: 1. Mineral reserve estimates were prepared by QP M. Tochor, a Mosaic employee. 2. Mineral reserves have an effective date of December 31, 2021. 3. Mineral reserves are based on measured and indicated mineral resources only. 4. All mineral reserves are mined by a solution mining method. 5. No cut-off grade is used to estimate mineral reserves. This is because the solution mining method used at Belle Plaine is not selective. At no point in the cavern development and mining process can a decision be made to mine or not mine the potash mineralization that is in contact with the mining solution. There is no control on what potash grade the mining solution dissolves to make a concentrate that is pumped to surface from the mining cavities for processing (Section 11.2). 6. Mine designs based on a solution mining method and design criteria are used to constrain measured and indicated mineral resources within mineable shapes. 7. Only after a positive economic test and inclusion in the LOM plan is the mineral reserve estimate included as a mineral reserve. 8. Tonnages are in US Customary and metric units and are rounded to the nearest million tonnes. The grades are rounded to one decimal place. 9. Rounding as required by reporting guidelines may result in apparent summation differences. 10. The following KCl commodity prices were used to assess economic viability for the mineral reserves, but were not used for cut-off purposes, 2022-$271/tonne, 2023-$231/tonne, 2024-$219/tonne, 2025-$185/tonne, 2026-$188/tonne and for the LOM $219/tonne. 11. A US$/C$ exchange rate of 1.31 was used to assess economic viability for the mineral reserves but were not used for cut- off purposes. 1.8 Mining Method The Belle Plaine Potash Facility utilizes a solution mining process where paired wells are directionally drilled, cased, and cemented to the base of the potash beds. Solution mining techniques are used to target mining of the potash (KCl) bedding while minimizing mining of the halite salts (NaCl). Current mining practices allow for all three potash beds in the formation to be mined. During the mining process, the two wells are mined to connect with each other underground forming a cavern, allowing one well to become the feed well and the other well to become the return well. Water or a weaker brine, is injected into the cavern to return a salt saturated and potash rich brine. This fluid is pumped through pipelines from the Mining Area and sent to the Refinery complex as raw feed for further processing. The total life cycle of each cavern is approximately 25 years. Once the potash recovery is exhausted, each cavern will be decommissioned. The Mining Area capability is scheduled to ramp up to support a finished tonnage projection of 3.30 M tons (3.00 M tonnes) per year and will do so until drilling is completed in the year 2066 at which point there is a ramp down in production until 2084. Date: December 31, 2021 1-7 The 2021 Belle Plaine Life of Mine Plan (LOM plan) based on mineral reserves has an expected total mine life of 63 years, ending in 2084 and yielding an estimated total of 183.9 M tons (166.8 M tonnes) of final product KCl. 1.9 Recovery Methods The Belle Plaine Potash Facility processing plant receives KCl-NaCl rich brine, known as raw feed, from the Mining Area and achieves KCl recovery through the Refinery and Cooling Pond areas. Well-established solubility curves of H2O-NaCl-KCl systems are utilized to monitor the selective dropout of products in the process. The Refinery Area subjects the raw feed brine from the Mining Area to changing temperatures and pressures that selectively precipitates the NaCl and then the KCl out of solution in different stages of the process. Selective drop out of NaCl is achieved through two parallel lines of evaporators that heat the brine with steam, that is generated on-site through natural gas fired boilers. The heating of the raw feed brine results in water liberation, causing NaCl to concentrate in the brine and then precipitate out of solution. After the brine is conditioned in the Evaporator Circuit, it is pumped to the Thickener Area for clarification and then pumped into a Crystallizer Circuit for KCl recovery. The Crystallizer Circuit subjects the process brine to a vacuum that allows further boiling, creating a cooling effect on the brine. As the brine cools, the KCl is forced to precipitate out of solution. The solid KCl is withdrawn from the Crystallizer vessel as a slurry and pumped to the Dewatering and Drying Area. The brine that overflows the Crystallizer Circuit, that still contains some dissolved KCl and NaCl, is fed to the Cooling Pond Area for further KCl recovery. The Cooling Pond Area consists of multiple ponds that are fed with brine from the Refinery and with raw feed brine from the Mining Area. The ponds facilitate atmospheric cooling, that allows KCl to preferentially precipitate out of the brine and then settle to the bottom of the ponds. The Cooling Pond Area contains several KCl dredges that are comprised of a cutter wheel that fluidizes the deposited KCl from the bottom of a cooling pond and a slurry pump that moves the KCl slurry toward the Dewatering and Drying areas. The Dewatering and Drying Area removes the bulk of the brine in the slurry through process equipment and then conveys the KCl product into natural gas fired industrial dryers. The dried KCl product is then fed into the Sizing Area and/or Compaction Area for compacting, crushing, and screening processes to achieve product size specifications. Finished product is then conveyed to the on-site Storage Area, where it is held until being reclaimed, rescreened and shipped off site, primarily through rail. Site production is expected to increase to a stabilized 3.3 M tons/year (3.0 M tonnes/year) until the year 2066, when the Belle Plaine Potash Facility expects to stop drilling new cavities and ramp down production to 2084. the Belle Plaine Potash Facility’s ability to produce at a sustained 3.3 M tons/year (3.0 M tonnes/year) in future years was validated through a “proving run” completed in 2016/2017, whereby the Belle Plaine Potash Facility achieved a proven nameplate capacity of 4.3 M tons/year (3.9 M tonnes/year). The total site processing recovery is expected to average 79% throughout the remaining life of the mine and is dependent on sustained drilling activities. Future projects are modeled with mass and energy balance software to predict the future production and recovery capabilities. 1.10 Infrastructure The Belle Plaine Potash Facility is purposely situated in close proximity to relevant existing infrastructure. The TransCanada Pipeline passes through the Mining Area, a large body of water is located less than 12.5 miles (20 km) away, there is easy access to rail, and two significant population centers are located within 30 miles (48 km) of the Belle Plaine Potash Facility. The Belle Plaine Potash Facility has the infrastructure in place to meet the current production goals LOM plan. The current infrastructure includes major road and highway access, railway support from Canadian National and Canadian Pacific railways, SaskPower supplied electricity, TransGas supplied natural gas and potable and non-potable water supplied from a local fresh water source. The current Tailings Management Area (TMA) footprint is expected to meet the maximum volume and deposition rates from the 2021 LOM plan. Date: December 31, 2021 1-8 Infrastructure may be added to increase reliability of the existing product lines or to provide production flexibility. The assets currently in place are maintained through a robust workflow process that focuses on proactive inspections and preventative maintenance while trying to minimize reactive maintenance. The site is projected to be well positioned to operate effectively by continuing to maintain the built infrastructure and renewing the long-term agreements for the site’s water, electricity, natural gas, and logistics needs. A long-term Tailings Management Area Plan is in place to support the production at the levels indicated in the 2021 LOM plan. It is expected that some infrastructure will need to be replaced as some infrastructure reaches end of life. This has been factored into the capital cost requirements and will be planned and executed, accordingly. A focus on precision maintenance and reliability centered maintenance will extend the life of the majority of assets to align with the 2021 LOM plan. 1.11 Markets and Contracts The Belle Plaine Potash Facility produces several potash products that are sold into the crop nutrient (to be utilized as fertilizer) and industrial markets, domestically, defined here as the U.S. and Canada, as well as export markets. Due to the solution mining nature of the Belle Plaine Potash Facility, the potash produced contains fewer impurities and has a higher content of potassium (i.e., a K2O content of ~62% versus the more common 60% associated with the majority of potash products). The higher-grade results in a modestly higher market price for Belle Plaine potash. The Belle Plaine Potash Facility produces granular, standard grade and industrial products. The global market for potash is estimated to be approximately 77 M tons (70 M tonnes) in 2021 and has grown at a compound annual growth rate of around 2.5% over the prior three decades. Going forward, global potash demand growth is expected to continue this trend, with Mosaic and independent analysts typically projecting a growth rate of 2 to 3% per annum. This projected growth ensures sufficient market demand for continued production at the Belle Plaine Potash Facility and across the industry. The projected demand growth will necessitate some combination of new mining capacity or higher operating rates at existing facilities to meet the growing demand in the near and long term. 1.12 Environmental, Permitting and Social Considerations All potash facilities and processing plants operate pursuant to federal, provincial and local environmental regulations. Accordingly, permits, licenses and approvals are obtained specific to each site, based on project specific requirements. Mosaic also has routine interactions with government officials and agencies related to agency inspections, permitting and other environmental matters. The information as supplied regarding the management of all environmental aspects, permitting and social considerations at Mosaic facilities is guided by Mosaic’s Environmental, Health and Safety Policy, the Mosaic Management System Program and Procedures, and current regulatory requirements. 1.13 Capital Cost and Operating Cost Estimates The capital cost estimates include mine, processing plant, loading, maintenance, mobile equipment, land management and regulatory capital. The total capital is for the 2021 LOM plan (2022 to 2084) and 2021 mineral reserves is estimated at US$3,595 M. The Belle Plaine mining cash costs, processing cash costs, Central and Functional Overhead indirect allocated costs, selling, general and administrative costs and taxes and other non-production costs include Canadian Resource Taxes, Canadian Income Taxes and any other non-production costs are estimated at US$15,968 M for the 2021 mineral reserves and LOM plan. The operating cost forecasts are based on a combination of historical performance and calculations from first principles to consider variation in production rates and expected process improvements.


 
Date: December 31, 2021 1-9 1.14 Economic Analysis The financial model that supports the mineral reserve and mineral resource declaration is a standalone model that calculates annual cash flows based on scheduled ore production, assumed processing recoveries, commodity sale prices and US$/C$ exchange rates, projected operating and capital costs, estimated taxes along with anticipated closure and reclamation costs. The net present value analysis indicates that there is significant economic value associated with mining, refining and selling the potash mineral reserves at Belle Plaine, given the economic assumptions and operating parameters considered. The financial model reflects an after tax net present value of approximately US$2.5 B utilizing a discount rate of 9.4%. A sensitivity analysis of the financial model by varying product price, total operating cost, total capital cost and foreign exchange projects that the financial results for the Belle Plaine are robust and considered low risk. 1.15 Interpretations and Conclusions Under the assumptions and technical data included in this Technical Report Summary, the Belle Plaine Potash Facility LOM plan utilizing mineral reserves only, yields a positive cash flow and NPV. This supports the 2021 SEC Regulation S-K, Subpart 1300 disclosure of the Belle Plaine Potash Facility mineral reserve estimates. 1.16 Recommendations The following recommendations for additional work are focused on improving and maintaining important processes and ensuring execution of the 2021 LOM plan. • The Land and Minerals Strategy will continue to develop and align with the LOM plan to ensure timely acquisition of Mineral Rights to support the mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates and LOM plan. • Mosaic will continue to investigate and consider new innovations in mining and processing technology. • Additional density information will be obtained from future core drilling campaigns. • Additional 3D seismic data should be collected and processed in strategic areas to ensure the continuity of available data for mine planning. • Continue to update and maintain the geological databases. • A thorough production reconciliation process will be considered to further improve and support the mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates. • A comparison of company owned gamma ray tools with full suite log data collected by a third party well logging company is recommended to provide additional review of the GREC calculation applied at Belle Plaine. All future coring should be assayed to confirm that the GREC calculation applied at Belle Plaine is sufficient to estimate the mineral reserves and mineral resources. • The seismic model supporting the mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates will continue to be developed and improved as seismic data collection and interpretation improves. Date: December 31, 2021 2-1 Introduction 2.1 Registrant The 2021 Belle Plaine Potash Facility Technical Report Summary has been prepared by the Belle Plaine Qualified Persons for The Mosaic Company, headquartered in Tampa Florida, USA. 2.2 Purpose and Terms of Reference The Report was prepared to support the mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates for the year ending December 31, 2021. The mineral resources and mineral reserves are reported in accordance with SEC Regulation S-K, Subpart 1300. For the purposes of this Report, unless otherwise noted, The Mosaic Company and Mosaic Canada ULC will each be referred to interchangeably as Mosaic, as the context requires. Where practicable, measurement units used are U.S. Customary units with metric unit conversions included. U.S. Customary units are used in this Report when discussing the mining and processing facilities, including equipment capacities, pumping rates and equipment capacities. Some analytical results are also reported using U.S. Customary units. Unless otherwise noted, monetary units are in United States dollars (US$). 2.3 Abbreviations and Units Table 2-1: List of Units and Abbreviations 3D Three dimensional AER Annual Environmental Report AFIA American Feed Industry Association AOI areas of interest ATO Approval to Operate Pollutant Control Facilities Avg average API An API unit is a unit of radioactivity used for measuring natural gamma rays in the ground BOL Bill of Lading °C degree Celsius C$ Canadian dollar(s) CBL Cement Bond Log) CFIA Canadian Food Inspection Association cm centimeter CNSC Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission COPC constituents of potential concern CRF Combined Return Flow Crown The Province of Saskatchewan CS cluster sites D & R Decommissioning and Reclamation DDR Discharge Reporting EA Environmental Assessment EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement El elevation EM electromagnetic EPA Environmental Protection Agency EPCM Engineering, Procurement and Construction Management EPP Environmental Protection Plan °F degree Fahrenheit Fcast. forecast FOS Factor of Safety ft. foot, feet ft2 square feet, foot ft3 Cubic foot g/L grams per litre gal US gallon GJ giga joules gm gram(s) US gpm US gallon per minute GREC Gamma Ray Equivalent Calculation Ha hectare hp horse power hr hour(s) HREM High resolution electromagnetic IEC International Electrotechnical Commission Date: December 31, 2021 2-2 ISO International Standards Organization K2O Potassium Oxide, K2O = 0.6317 x KCl. KCl Potassium Chloride kg kilogram km kilometer(s) kV kilovolt kVA kilovolt x amps kW kilowatt kWh kilowatt hour kWh/t kilowatt hour per ton lbs. pound(s) LOM Life of Mine m meters M million(s) MCC Motor Control Center MD Measured Depth MER Ministry of Energy & Resources MOE Ministry of Environment MVA mega volt amp MW mega watt NPV net present value OCHL Original Cased Hole Log PCB Polychlorinated biphenyls P. Eng. Professional Engineer P. Geo. Professional Geoscientist PLS Product Loading System ppm parts per million Psi pounds per square inch psi, g Pounds per square inch gauge pressure QA Quality assurance QC Quality control QCL Quality Control Lab QP Qualified Person SAP Enterprise software to manage business operations and customer relations SEC U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission SGS Inspection, verification, testing and certification company TMA Tailings Management Area tonnes metric tonnes (2,204 lbs.) tons US Customary short tons (2,000 lbs.) tons/hour tons per hour (US) tons/year tons per year (US) tpd tons per day (US) TVD True Vertical Depth US$ United States dollar(s) V volt(s) W watt(s) wt.% weight percent Yr. year(s) Date: December 31, 2021 2-3 2.4 Qualified Persons (QP) Table 2-2 outlines the people that served as Qualified Persons (QPs) for the Belle Plaine Potash Facility Technical Report Summary as defined in SEC Reg. S-K, Subpart 1300. Table 2-1: Qualified Persons QP Name Company Qualification Position/Title Site Visit/ Inspection Dates Section of Responsibility Signature Monica Tochor Mosaic Company P. Geo. Senior Geologist December 14, 2021 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 /s/Monica Tochor Monica Tochor Tyler Howard Mosaic Company P. Eng. Process Engineer Lead Full time Belle Plaine employee 10, 14 /s/Tyler Howard Tyler Howard Sheldon Rinas Mosaic Company P. Eng. Senior Mine Manager Full time Belle Plaine employee 13, 16, 18, 19 /s/Sheldon Rinas Sheldon Rinas Josh Howe Mosaic Company P. Eng. Senior Manager Maintenance and Engineering Full time Belle Plaine employee 15 /s/Josh Howe Josh Howe Jessica Theriault Mosaic Company P. Eng. Director, Government & Public Affairs October 19, 2021 17.3.1,17.3.2 (Air Emission Monitoring, Subsidence Monitoring and General Waste Management sections), 17.3.3, 17.4, 17.8, 17.9, 17.10 /s/Jessica Theriault Jessica Theriault Greg Potter Damian Carmichael SNC-Lavalin P. Geo. And P. Eng. P. Eng. Director, Hydrogeology and Earth Sciences Director, Geoscience & Infrastructure, Prairies Long term Consultant for Mosaic 17.2, 17.3.2 (Groundwater Quality Monitoring, Horizontal Pathway Monitoring, Vertical Pathway Monitoring, Surface Water Quality Monitoring, Soils Monitoring, Brine Pond Monitoring, Dyke Instrumentation and Monitoring, Tailings Pile Instrumentation and Monitoring), 17.5, 17.6, 17.7 SNC-Lavalin /s/Damian Carmichael By: Damian Carmichael Title: Director, Industrial/Mining, Prairies & NWT 2.5 Effective Dates There are a number of effective dates: • Date of the mineral resource estimates: December 31, 2021. • Date of the mineral reserve estimates: December 31, 2021. • Date of supply of the last information on mineral tenure and permitting: December 2021. • Date of capital estimation: April 2021. • Date of operating cost estimation: October 2021.


 
Date: December 31, 2021 2-4 • Date of reclamation cost estimate: December 2021. • Date of market analysis: February 2021. • Date of economic analysis: December 31, 2021. The overall effective date of the Report is taken to be the date of the mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates and is December 31, 2021. 2.6 Information Sources and References The reports and documents listed in Table 2-3 and Section 24.0 (References) of this Report were used to support the preparation of this Report. Table 2-3 Reliance on Other Experts Expert Title Topic Supporting Section Date Received RESPEC Mosaic Belle Plaine Regional Geology Lateral Continuity of Ore Body Sections 6, 11 and 12 February 2021 RESPEC Mosaic BP Local Geology Lateral Continuity of Ore Body Sections 6, 11 and 12 April 2021 RESPEC Gamma Ray Equivalent Calculations Grade from gamma Section 11 and 12 November 2020 RESPEC Density of the Prairie Evaporite Confirm historic density value Section 11 and 12 April 2021 SRC Core Analysis Standard Lab Process Section 8 June 2020 SRC Density Analysis Standard Lab Process Section 8 March 2021 RESPEC Core Logging Standard Data collection process Section 8 June 2020 Boyd Exploration Consultants Ltd. 2001 Belle Plaine 3D - Final Report Seismic Survey Section 7 March 2003 Boyd Exploration Consultants Ltd. 2005 Belle Plaine 3D - Final Report Seismic Survey Section 7 February 2008 Boyd Exploration Consultants Ltd. 2008 Belle Plaine 3D – Final Report Seismic Survey Section 7 April 2010 RPS Energy Canada Ltd. 2010 Pense 3D – Final Report Seismic Survey Section 7 August 2013 SNC-Lavalin 2017 TMA Development Plan Update commissioned by Mosaic Potash Belle Plaine Tailings Storage Facilities information Section 15 2017 2.7 Previous Technical Report Summaries There have been no prior Technical Report Summaries for the Belle Plaine Potash Facility. Date: December 31, 2021 3-1 Property Description 3.1 Introduction The Belle Plaine Potash Facility is located in the Rural Municipality of Pense (No. 160) in the province of Saskatchewan, Canada. It is just north of the TransCanada Highway (Hwy 1) and approximately 32 miles (51 km) west of Regina (Figure 3-1). It is the oldest and largest potash solution mine in the world. Coordinates for the Belle Plaine facility are +50° 25' 39.57", -105° 11' 53.87" +50° 25' 39.57", -105° 11' 53.87". Figure 3-1: Location Map Date: December 31, 2021 3-2 3.2 Property and Title 3.2.1 Mineral Title In Saskatchewan, the Dominion Land Survey is the method used to divide the province into 1 sq mile (2.6 km2) sections for land grid purposes. Township lines are established 6 miles (9.7 km) apart from south to north starting at the U.S. border, and range lines are established 6 miles (9.7 km) apart east to west starting at key meridians aligned with lines of longitude. This frames a 6 by 6 mile (9.7 by 9.7 km) township grid, containing 36 one square mile (approximately 640 acre) sections. Sections are further subdivided into 160 acre quarter sections, and can be again subdivided into 40 acre legal subdivisions (LSD). In Saskatchewan, ISC, a registry and information management services company, provides land titles management services for all surface and mineral properties on behalf of the Province of Saskatchewan. The Saskatchewan land titles registry can be accessed at www.isc.ca. Subsurface mineral rights are subject to separate ownership and title from surface mineral rights. Mosaic, through its wholly-owned subsidiary Mosaic Canada ULC leases 53,131.66 acres of mineral rights from the Crown under Subsurface Mineral Lease KL 106-R Figure 3-2. Table 3-1 outlines additional information regarding KL 106-R. Table 3-2 outlines the Lease KL 106-R split by township and section. The KL 106- R lease term is for a period of 21 years from July 2012, with renewals at the Company’s option for additional 21-year periods. In addition, Mosaic owns 19,284.25 acres of mineral rights (Figure 3-3) within the Belle Plaine area (Table 3-3). All mineral titles owned or leased by Mosaic include “subsurface minerals”, which under The Subsurface Mineral Tenure Regulations, 2015 (Saskatchewan) means “all-natural mineral salts of boron, calcium, lithium, magnesium, potassium, sodium, bromine, chlorine, fluorine, iodine, nitrogen, phosphorus and sulfur, and their compounds, occurring more than 197 ft. (60 m) below the surface of the land”. Other commodities (e.g., petroleum and natural gas, coal, etc.) may be included within mineral rights Mosaic leases or owns, but are not specifically sought after when acquired. Within the total acreage leased from the Crown or owned by Mosaic are parcels of land where Mosaic owns or leases less than a 100% share of the mineral rights. In order to potentially mine these properties, Mosaic would need to acquire 100% control ether by lease or ownership. Acreages currently not mineable due to less than 100% control (partial control) are listed in Table 3-4. Date: December 31, 2021 3-3 Figure 3-2: KL 106-R Lease Boundary


 
Date: December 31, 2021 3-4 Table 3-1: Mineral Lease Crown Lease Number Type Area (Ha) Expiration Date KL 106-R Subsurface Mineral Lease 21,501.62 July 1, 2033 Table 3-2: Sections and Acreages Owned by the Crown Township/ Range Sections of Mineral Rights Owned by Crown* Area of Mineral Rights Owned by Crown (acres) 18/21 2/100 12.00 19/21 4-13/16 3,086.71 17/22 4-14/16 3,118.13 18/22 9-10/16 6,166.10 19/22 9-6/16 5,991.27 17/23 9-11/16 6,200.58 18/23 14-13/16 9,475.37 17/24 7-1/16 4,500.22 18/24 18-7/16 11,812.79 18/25 4-5/16 2,768.49 Total 83-2/100 53,131.66 *Full sections range from 640 acres to 644 acres; total acreage shown above is based on 640 acres per section where actual survey acreage is not available. Table 3-3: Sections and Acreages of Mosaic Owned Mineral Rights Township/ Range Sections of Mineral Rights Owned by Mosaic* Area of Mineral Rights Owned by Mosaic (acres) Area of Full Quarter Sections Owned by Mosaic (acres) 17/23 10-14/16 6,961.81 5,909.61 18/23 6-11/16 4,274.82 3,816.83 17/24 7-7/16 4,762.01 3,526.34 18/24 5-2/16 3,285.60 2,871.12 Total 30-2/16 19,284.25 16,123.90 *Full sections range from 640 acres to 644 acres; total acreage shown above is based on 640 acres per section where actual survey acreage is not available. Table 3-4: Partial Mineral Rights Area Township/ Range Sections of Crown Mineral Rights Leased by Mosaic, Currently Not Mineable * Crown Mineral Rights Leased by Mosaic, Currently Not Mineable (acres) 18/22 1-2/100 652.08 19/22 1-7/100 682.26 18/23 38/100 240.50 18/24 48/100 306.72 Total 2-94/100 1,881.56 *Full sections range from 640 acres to 644 acres; total acreage shown above is based on 640 acres per section where actual survey acreage is not available. Date: December 31, 2021 3-5 Figure 3-3: 2021 Mineral Rights Location and Status Date: December 31, 2021 3-6 3.2.2 Surface Rights Surface rights are subject to separate ownership and title from subsurface mineral rights. At Belle Plaine, Mosaic owns 6,332.88 acres of surface rights. All infrastructure including the processing plant, TMA (tailings management area), cluster sites, and pipeline rights of way are located on Mosaic-owned land. Mosaic-owned land not used for infrastructure is leased out for agricultural use. 3.2.3 Water Rights Water Rights License issued by the Saskatchewan Water Security Agency is in place for the Belle Plaine Potash Facility and is subject to review on April 1, 2031. This license covers the water rights from Buffalo Pound Lake and makes references to the Approval to Operate Works associated with the pipeline and associated infrastructure connecting the Site to the SaskWater intake on Buffalo Pound Lake. 3.2.4 Royalties Mosaic pays the Potash Crown Royalty under The Subsurface Mineral Royalty Regulations, 2017 (Saskatchewan) on all potash produced from Esterhazy Crown mineral lands. Royalties are based on a royalty rate of 3% on the value of potash produced from Crown mineral lands. Value is determined as the average price realized by the producer in the year, as determined by revenues and sales under The Potash Production Tax Regulations, 1990 (Saskatchewan). Non-crown royalties are also paid based on each individual freeholder ownership at a rate of 3% of the value of potash produced. Value is determined as the average price realized by the producer in the year, as determined by revenues and sales under The Potash Production Tax Regulations, 1990 (Saskatchewan). 3.3 Encumbrances There are no significant environmental permitting encumbrances (existing or anticipated in the future) associated with the Belle Plaine Potash Facility. Except for royalties, Mosaic does not anticipate any future encumbrances based on current known regulations and existing permitting processes. There are no outstanding violations and fines. 3.4 Significant Factors and Risks That May Affect Access, Title or Work Programs Surface rights and mineral rights acquisition are important for the continued operation of the Belle Plaine Potash Facility. Since all surface rights are privately owned, Mosaic is required to negotiate land purchases for continued expansion of the cluster site operations. In the event that Mosaic is unable to procure key plots of land, pipeline and cluster site layouts may be affected and an alternative plan may have to be considered. Similarly, any freehold mineral rights Mosaic wishes to mine must be acquired by purchase or lease agreement. This is not always possible due to landowner reluctance to sell or lease, or title deficiency that is not resolvable (e.g., estate issues, unknown beneficiaries, etc.). Due to the large area of the Crown lease and broad lateral extents of the potash deposit, alternate locations for mining caverns and related infrastructure are generally available. The 2021 LOM plan includes mining only mineral rights that are controlled (Mosaic owned, or Crown leased). Mosaic will continue to acquire uncontrolled mineral rights and incorporate them into the LOM plan. Any acquisition of uncontrolled mineral rights has the potential to increase the mine life at Belle Plaine. Date: December 31, 2021 4-1 Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography 4.1 Physiography 4.1.1 Topography, Elevation and Vegetation Overall, the Belle Plaine area consist of flat, cleared farmland with a knob-and kettle topography and occasional rows of trees planted to serve as windbreaks. The area was settled by farmers beginning in the late 1880s after the arrival of the Canadian Pacific Railway (CP) and is primarily crop land used to grow wheat, canola, canary seed and flax, although there are scattered pastures and grazing lands. The ground surface at the Processing Plant is at an elevation of 1,900 ft. (589 m) above Mean Sea Level (MSL). 4.2 Accessibility The Belle Plaine Potash Facility is accessible by a network of “grid” section gravel and paved roads, including four major paved highways and three secondary highways. Figure 4-1 shows the Belle Plaine area railways and major roadways. The main road access to the site is via Kalium Road that provides access from the main corridor between Moose Jaw and Regina, TransCanada Highway #1. Alternate access to the Mining Area via the East/West Highway SK 730 or North/South Highway 642.


 
Date: December 31, 2021 4-2 Figure 4-1: Location and Accessibility Date: December 31, 2021 4-3 4.3 Climate 4.3.1 Climate The climate is typical of the Canadian prairies and consists of a winter period (November–March) of snow with a mean temperature of –11°C and a warm 15° to 35°C summer period (June to early September) with moderate precipitation. The spring (April–May) and autumn (late September to October) are cool with precipitation in the form of rain and occasional snow. Exploration activities and construction of the processing plant and other surface facilities are limited by weather conditions during the spring and fall periods when soft ground conditions due to thawing and/or precipitation create difficulties in moving heavy machinery. During the winter and summer months, access is largely restricted only by local conditions, periodic rains or snowfalls, or environmentally sensitive ground conditions. 4.3.2 Length of Operating Season The length of the operating season for the Belle Plaine Potash Facility is the full year. Belle Plaine operates for an average 365 days per year. 4.4 Infrastructure/Local Resources 4.4.1 Water The main source of water (non-potable) required for production is provided by SaskWater from the Buffalo Pound Lake, that is 18 miles (29 km) long and 0.6 miles (1 km) wide with an average depth of 10 ft. (3 m), located northwest of the mine. The water source also supplies potable water for the cities of Regina, Moose Jaw and surrounding regions. Water levels are controlled by the Saskatchewan Water Security Agency and managed through the Lake Diefenbaker Dam. 4.4.2 Power and Electricity SaskPower provides a portion of the power required to run the Belle Plaine Potash Facility. This power comes in off the main SaskPower grid that could be fed from any number of SaskPower plants, along the highline running north and south along Kalium Road. A total of 138 kV comes into the Belle Plaine substation where it is then stepped down to 13.8 kV using two transformers (28 MVA and 33.3 MVA). Belle Plaine owns and manages a substation where there is also a 138 kV grounding transformer and a 138 kVA gas insulated breaker lineup. The Belle Plaine Potash Facility generates power from the Powerhouse from two turbine generators. 4.4.3 Natural Gas TransGas supplies natural gas to the Belle Plaine Potash Facility. In support of this, Belle Plaine has a regulator station for the natural gas, situated just north of the Administration Building and Powerhouse. 4.4.4 Roads and Logistics There are a variety of site roads maintained and Rural Municipality of Pense (No. 160) maintained roads on the Belle Plaine property. These are typically gravel roads. Roads around the processing plant are paved and maintained regularly. Canadian National and Canadian Pacific Railways are available to Belle Plaine to move final product to port. The majority of finished product leaves site by rail. Belle Plaine is party to a Tri-Party Joint Operating Agreement with Date: December 31, 2021 4-4 Canadian Pacific (CP) and Canadian National Railways (CN), dated July 20, 1967 that governs the joint operation and interaction of all parties for freight services at the Belle Plaine Potash Facility. Mosaic owns a portion of the tracks on site that are operated by Cando, a third-party switching provider. The remainder of the tracks are owned by CN and CP, but Mosaic has running rights and lease agreements to operate on the tracks. Product is then moved via the CP Rail to port or south into the USA. Since Belle Plaine is located between the CN and CP rail lines, the loadout tracks are tied into the CN Lead and CP Spur. 4.4.5 Personnel The Belle Plaine Potash Facility is located between the cities of Moose Jaw and Regina. Moose Jaw has a population of approx. 34,000 people and is located 17 miles (28 km) west of the Belle Plaine Potash Facility. It is Saskatchewan’s fourth largest city and home to one of the four Saskatchewan Polytechnic campuses. Regina, located 27 miles (44 km) east of Belle Plaine has a population of approx. 214,000 people. It is Saskatchewan’s second largest city and home to the University of Regina as well as a Saskatchewan Polytechnic campus. The Belle Plaine workforce lives nearly evenly split between Regina and Moose Jaw. Belle Plaine personnel are typically trained through a variety of trades programs offered at the Saskatchewan Polytechnic campuses, the University of Regina or the University of Saskatchewan. 4.4.6 Supplies The province of Saskatchewan offers a large variety of suppliers for the potash mine operators. The potash industry in Saskatchewan is very mature. This makes it easier to attract vendors to support the needs of the various mine sites throughout the province. Trade associations, notably the Saskatchewan Mining Association, the Saskatchewan Ministry of Trade and Export Development and the Saskatchewan Industrial and Mining Suppliers Association, put on an annual Supply Chain Forum for vendors and potash producers. Saskatoon and Regina both have large industrial sectors with a variety of machine shops and industrial support services. Some specialty services are provided from Alberta or Manitoba. The Mosaic Company procurement team focuses on setting up longer term contracts with vendors to ensure an uninterrupted supply of required resources for the site is maintained. New pumps and motors for operations are provided either locally or from the foundries located in larger centers in Canada and the USA. Pumps and electrical motors are rebuilt locally at a variety of shops providing that service in Saskatoon, Regina and Moose Jaw. Date: December 31, 2021 5-1 History The Belle Plaine Potash Facility started production in 1964 after a period of significant research into solution mining, potash recovery and processing plant construction. Table 5-1 summarizes the important historical dates and events for Belle Plaine. Table 5-1: History Date Event/Activity 1928 Discovery of evaporites in the sedimentary sequence in Saskatchewan. 1956 to 1966 Pittsburgh Plate Glass completed significant research and development over a decade and published several research papers concerning solution mining and potash recovery. 1960 A pilot solution mining project located at the current site was constructed, convincing Pittsburgh Plate Glass to develop the first commercial potash solution mining operation in the world based on the pilot plant results. The first exploration well drilled at the Belle Plaine property was Standard Chemical Stony Beach #1 in August 1960. Fourteen additional exploration wells were drilled from August 1960 to June 1968. 1963 Kalium Chemicals, Ltd, a joint subsidiary of Pittsburgh Plate Glass and Armour and Co. started construction of the original processing plant for a capacity of 0.600 M tons (0.544 M tonnes) annually. The main plant construction consisted of the North and South evaporators (all 8), Crystallizers #1 to #4, #1 and #2 Compactor systems, #1 to #5 Beehive warehouses, Loadout building and the Office and maintenance buildings. 1964 Mine and processing plant construction completed and production commences. The first rail car of potash was produced and shipped in August. 1968 Capacity expansion to 1.0 M tons (0.9 M tonnes) per year. Main assets added included three more crystallizers (#5, #6 and #7), a third cooling tower, a sixth beehive warehouse and a barn style warehouse #7, a fluid bed dryer and filter table and a third boiler. 1980 to 1984 Two capacity expansions, first to 1.2 M tons (1.1 M tonnes) and the second to 1.6 M tons (1.5 M tonnes) per year. The major assets added included bucket elevators for each product, the fine fluid bed dryer, #4 Compactor, reheat system barometric, additional galleries and conveyors to the warehouse (1A), cooling ponds, scrubbers and the Cold Leach Area. 1989 Sullivan & Proops (Vigoro) purchased Belle Plaine from Pittsburgh Plate Glass (PPG). 1990s Capacity expansion to 2.2 M tons (2.0 M tonnes) per year. Assets added included the K-Life System, #4 Turbo Generator, dual conveyors, conversion of the compaction system and additional compactors installed. 1995 IMC bought Belle Plaine. 1998 The first 2D seismic survey at the Belle Plaine mine site was completed. A total of 160 line km was completed covering an area of approximately 14 sq. km. 2000 The first 3D seismic survey at the Belle Plaine Potash Facility was completed, providing critical geological information about the geology of the potash members. This has become a critical tool used to provide confidence in the interpretation of the potash mineralization. 2001 The 2001 Belle Plaine 3D seismic survey was completed. The survey covered approximately 13 sq. km. and was adjacent to and merged with the 2000 survey. This survey program utilized 56 km of source lines and 72 km of receiver lines. 2004 Mosaic Company was formed from a merger between IMC Global and the Cargill Crop Nutrition. 2005 The 2005 Belle Plaine 3D seismic survey was completed. The survey covered approximately 11 sq. km and was adjacent to and merged with previous 3D surveys. This survey program utilized 47 km of source lines and 55 km. of receiver lines. 2008 The 2008 3D seismic survey covered approximately 72 sq. km and was adjacent to and merged with previous 3D surveys. This survey program utilized 385 km. of source lines and 378 km of receiver lines.


 
Date: December 31, 2021 5-2 2008 to 2012 Capacity expansion to 3.2 M tons (2.9 M tonnes) per year. Assets added the Injection wells 3 and 4, Reclaim Brine system, #4 Boiler, Process Water Building, Cold Leach Motor Control Center room, #5 Compaction system, #8 Warehouse building, #2 Reclaim, reclaim losses system, Pond return slurry tank and centrifuge upgrades, Rotary dryer #3, #2 Loadout system, 60 km of new mine field pipelines, a drilling rig, new substation and replacement of the #4 crystallizer. 2010 The Pense 3D seismic survey was completed that covered approximately 40 sq. km and was adjacent to and merged with the previous 3D surveys. This survey program consisted of 219 km of source lines and 208 km of receiver lines. 2014 Plant upgrades included the adding and commissioning of Compaction #6. 2016/2017 The site’s ability to produce at a sustained 3.3 M tons (3.0 M tonnes) per year in future years was validated through a “proving run” completed in 2016 when the Belle Plaine Potash Facility achieved a proven nameplate capacity of 4.3 M tons/year (3.9 M tonnes/year). 2019 Plant upgrades were completed, consisting of adding the East thickener and advanced dewatering techniques. 2020 Two production wells were cored in 2020 to support the grade interpretation and calibration of the gamma geophysical logging system. The recent calibration check has been evaluated by a third- party consultant to ensure applicability of the method regarding sample quality grade estimation. The Belle Plaine Potash Facility started production in 1964. Table 5-2 outlines the KCl production history from 2003 to the end of 2021. The 2021 production includes actual data for months January to October inclusive and a forecast for November and December. Table 5-2: Production History Year Total Mineral Reserves Mined Total Product Tons M Tonnes M % K2O Tons M Tonnes M 1964 to 1984 79.8 72.4 18.0% 20.4 18.5 1985 to 2010 226.1 205.1 18.0% 55.4 50.3 2011 11.6 10.5 18.0% 2.6 2.4 2012 12.5 11.3 18.0% 2.3 2.1 2013 10.5 9.5 18.0% 2.4 2.2 2014 11.5 10.4 18.0% 2.4 2.2 2015 13.0 11.8 18.0% 2.3 2.1 2016 13.5 12.2 18.0% 2.6 2.4 2017 12.0 10.9 18.0% 2.9 2.7 2018 12.3 11.2 18.0% 3.1 2.8 2019 12.5 11.4 18.0% 3.0 2.7 2020 11.7 10.7 18.0% 3.1 2.8 2021 12.1 11.0 19.3% 3.0 2.8 Total 439.2 398.4 18.0% 105.7 95.9 Date: December 31, 2021 6-1 Geological Setting, Mineralization and Deposit 6.1 Deposit Type Potash at the Belle Plaine Potash Facility area occurs conformably within Middle Devonian-age sedimentary rocks and is found in total thicknesses ranging from approximately 100 to 131 ft. (30 to 40 m) at a depth of approximately 5,345 to 5,740 ft. (1,630 to 1,750 m). Evaporites are generally formed by seawater flowing into landlocked basins, followed by the evaporation of the seawater and precipitation of the dissolved salts. Progressive solar distillation of these salt-rich brines results in sequentially precipitated beds of limestone (CaCO3), dolomite (CaCO3·MgCO3), anhydrite (CaSO4), halite (NaCl), carnallite (KCl·MgCl2·6H2O), sylvite (KCl), kieserite (MgSO4.H2O), and other calcium and magnesium salts. The term potash is the common name for various compounds that contain the element potassium. Potash is expressed and reported in K2O equivalents. Since commercial potash minerals include chlorides and sulfates containing varying quantities of potassium, potassium-bearing minerals are compared on the basis of their K2O contents. The term muriate of potash (MOP), is used for commercial grade fertilizer containing potassium chloride. The product mined and sold is KCl. A tonne of KCl contains an equivalent of 0.6963 tons (0.6317 tonnes) of K2O. Sylvinite is a rock comprising a mixture of sylvite and halite that is the source of potash. The Prairie Evaporites may also contain carnallite and insoluble materials such as clay, anhydrite, and dolomite crystals. The widespread consistency of the potash-bearing Prairie Evaporite Formation sub-members and the flat lying, bedded nature of the sylvinite intervals result in highly mechanized conventional underground mining operations. Where underground operations are not economically viable due to depth of deposition, solution mining has been safely and productively developed with an efficient process for recovering otherwise inaccessible minerals. Potash mineralogy in Saskatchewan locally includes high concentrations of carnallite. Carnallite is considered an impurity because it can negatively impact the effective recovery of potash in the milling process. Carnallite dissolves preferentially to sylvinite which can reduce the concentration of sylvite in suspension in solution mining efforts. There is currently no remote sensing application that effectively identifies the presence of carnallite in the Prairie Evaporite. Fuzesy (1982) and others have shown areas of high carnallite grade on regional maps based on interpretations of downhole gamma and neutron geophysical logs and assay records maintained for historical drill holes by Saskatchewan Ministry of Energy and Resources. 6.2 Regional Geology The intracratonic Elk Point Basin is a major sedimentary geological feature in western Canada and the northwest USA (Figure 6-1). It contains one of the world’s largest stratabound potash resources. The nature of this type of deposition is largely continuous with predictable depths and thickness. It is estimated to host >5 billion tonnes of ore (Orris, 2014) and is mined at a number of locations, including the Mosaic’s Belle Plaine, Esterhazy and Colonsay potash facilities. Saskatchewan potash represents almost 25% of the global potash production due to its relatively low-cost, bulk tonnage mining methods. (Orris, 2014). Date: December 31, 2021 6-2 Figure 6-1: Regional Geology Plan of the Elk Point Basin (RESPEC, 2021) Date: December 31, 2021 6-3 The regional subsurface stratigraphic column of central Saskatchewan is presented in Figure 6-2. The geological column may be subdivided into three broad intervals. 1. An uppermost sequence extending from surface to an approximate depth of 575 to 650 ft. (175 to 200 m) and consisting of Quaternary glacial tills, gravels, and clays and containing freshwater aquifers. 2. A medial sequence extending from the base of the glacial sediments to an approximate depth of 3,215 ft. (980 m) and consisting of Triassic to Cretaceous shales, siltstones, and sandstones with limited aquifers of brackish water. 3. A lowermost sequence extending from the Triassic/Mississippian Unconformity to below 6,900 ft. (2,100 m) depth and consisting of Cambrian to Mississippian carbonates, evaporites, and basal shales and sandstones.


 
Date: December 31, 2021 6-4 Figure 6-2: Regional Central Saskatchewan Stratigraphy The Deadwood Formation sandstone that lies immediately above the Precambrian basement is used for disposal of salt brines from preproduction cavern sump development and excess brines from the processing plant. The above strata are underlain by gneisses and granites of the Precambrian basement. Laterally extensive, evaporite beds containing deposits of halite, sylvite, and carnallite are found within the Middle Devonian Elk Point Group, whose top ranges from a depth of 8,200 ft. (2,500 m) in southern Saskatchewan to surface outcrop in northwestern Manitoba. The Elk Point Group lies unconformably on the Silurian-age Interlake Formation and is overlain unconformably by carbonate deposits of the Middle Devonian-age Dawson Bay Formation. The evaporite beds are contained within the Prairie Evaporite Formation, overly the Winnipegosis Formation within the Elk Point Group. The basal contact between the Prairie Evaporite and the Winnipegosis Formation is marked by a sharp transition from halite of the Prairie Evaporite Formation to mixed limestone, dolomite, and anhydrite of the Date: December 31, 2021 6-5 Winnipegosis Formation. The uppermost contact between the Prairie Evaporite and the Dawson Bay formations consists of shale and poorly consolidated silty detrital deposits named the “Second Red Beds.” Regionally, the underlying Winnipegosis forms a broad flat basin to platform deposit with local development of limestone/dolomite “reefs.” The Elk Point Group was deposited within a broad mid-continental basin extending from North Dakota and northeastern Montana at its southern extent in a northwest direction through southwestern Manitoba, southern and central Saskatchewan, to eastern and northern Alberta. The evaporite strata in the basin are restricted to the southern third of the Elk Point Basin in south-central Saskatchewan, southwestern Manitoba, northeastern Montana, and northwestern North Dakota (Holter 1969). The Manitoba Group that overlies the Elk Point Basin consists of the Dawson Bay Formation and overlying Souris River Formation. Present within this sequence are two halite beds: 1. The Hubbard Salt, is the uppermost bed of the Dawson Bay Formation. 2. The Davidson Evaporite, overlies the First Red Beds within the Souris River Formation. These halite beds are important from an underground mining viewpoint as they form a flood protection zone that separates the Prairie Evaporite Formation mining horizon from the overlying water and brine aquifers present within the Cretaceous sands, especially the Mannville Group (formerly known as the Blairmore Formation). The Prairie Evaporite Formation is divided into a basal “Lower Salt” and an overlying unnamed unit containing three potash-bearing units and one unit containing thin “marker beds.” In ascending order, the potash horizons in the upper unit are the Esterhazy Member, White Bear Marker Beds, Belle Plaine Member, and Patience Lake Member. Mineralogically, these Members consist of sylvite and halite with minor amounts of carnallite (KCl MgCl2 6H2O). Small amounts of carnallitic ores can be handled by the evaporator/crystallizer processing circuits used at solution mines, however, to purge the magnesium, some KCl is lost as well. Carnallitic brines can be blended with non- carnallitic brines from other wells to make the resulting carnallite grade acceptable. The White Bear Marker Beds are typically of insufficient thickness and grade to be economically mineable. Figure 6-3 shows a regional cross section showing the potash bearing members across Saskatchewan. The Belle Plaine Potash Facility mines the Patience Lake, Belle Plane and Esterhazy Members, and the Esterhazy Potash Facility mines the White Bear and Esterhazy Members. Date: December 31, 2021 6-6 Figure 6-3: Regional Cross Section Illustrating the Stratigraphic Relationships of the Prairie Evaporite Formation (RESPEC, 2021) Date: December 31, 2021 6-7 6.3 Local Geology 6.3.1 Stratigraphy In the Belle Plaine area, the Esterhazy, Belle Plaine, and Patience Lake Members are present (Figure 6-4). Also, present are the White Bear Formation marker beds that occur between the Belle Plaine and Esterhazy Members, but are of insufficient thickness to be minable. The following is a summary of the key stratigraphic units for the Belle Plaine Potash Facility area: • Patience Lake Member: The uppermost member of the Prairie Evaporite Formation with potash production potential. Between the top of the Prairie Evaporite and the top of the Patience Lake Member is a 0 to 45 ft. (0 to 14 m) thick unit of halite with clay bands called the Salt Back. The sylvite-rich horizons within the Patience Lake Member are mined using conventional underground mining techniques along a trend from Vanscoy to Lanigan in the Saskatoon area and by solution mining techniques at Belle Plaine. • Belle Plaine Member: The Belle Plaine Member underlies the Patience Lake Member and is separated from it by a zone of low grade sylvinite. The Belle Plaine Member is mined using solution mining techniques at the Belle Plaine Potash Facility. • White Bear Formation: The White Bear Formation consists of marker beds that are a distinctive unit of thin interbedded clay, halite, and sylvinite horizons that are not minable due to insufficient thickness 4 to 5 ft. (1.2 to 1.5 m). • Esterhazy Member: The Esterhazy Member is separated from the Belle Plaine Member by the White Bear Formation marker beds, a sequence of clay seams, low-grade sylvinite, and halite. The Esterhazy Member is mined using conventional underground techniques at the Esterhazy Potash Facility in southeastern Saskatchewan, and by solution mining techniques at the Belle Plaine Potash Facility.


 
Date: December 31, 2021 6-8 Figure 6-4: Local Stratigraphy (RESPEC, 2021) The typical sylvinite intervals within the Prairie Evaporite Formation consists of a mass of interlocked sylvite crystals that range from pink to translucent, and may be rimmed by greenish-grey clay or bright red iron insolubles, with minor halite randomly disseminated throughout the mineralized zones. Local large 1 inch (2.5 cm) cubic translucent to cloudy halite crystals may be present within the sylvite groundmass, and overall, the sylvinite ranges from a dusky brownish red color (lower grade, 23% to 27% K2O with an increase in the amount of insolubles) to a bright, almost translucent pinkish orange color (high grade, 30%+ K2O). Carnallite is also present locally in the Prairie Evaporite Formation as a mineral fraction of the depositional sequence. The intervening barren salt beds typically consist of brownish red, vitreous to translucent halite with minor sylvite, carnallite and increased insoluble materials content. 6.3.2 Stratigraphic Anomalies Potash-bearing horizons may be affected by three general types of anomalies. In general, any disturbance that affects the normal mineability of the sylvinite-bearing horizons is considered an “anomaly”. Figure 6-5 illustrates the typical disturbances that create anomalous altered zones within the main sylvinite-bearing horizons at Saskatchewan potash mining properties. These anomalies range from localized features less than a square kilometer in extent to disturbances that are regional (i.e., several square kilometers in extent) and can result in local disruptions to the grade of the ore body (either leaching or in some cases, enrichment). Date: December 31, 2021 6-9 Figure 6-5 Types of Stratigraphic Anomalies (RESPEC, 2021) Dissolution and collapse anomalies, or simply “collapse” anomalies, are those formed by the absence of a portion or the entire mass of evaporite salts. In the case of these anomalies, the overlying beds typically slump down into the void thus formed, creating a rubble pile or “breccia chimney” where normally the evaporite beds would be expected. In contrast to the leach or washout anomaly, the collapse anomaly can be identified by means of seismic reflection surveys and can thus be avoided through mine design by defining exclusion zones. Collapse anomalies are considered high risk to conventional underground potash mining operations as they typically breach all overlying aquitards and aquicludes, thus forming conduits for overlying brines and freshwaters to flow downward into potential mine workings. Date: December 31, 2021 6-10 Although the risk to life and mine makes identification of collapse anomalies critical for a conventional underground operation, there is limited risk to solution mining where access to the orebody is remote through boreholes only. Individual collapse occurrences are reviewed and categorized based on their potential impact to the potash deposit. A “washout anomaly” is an anomaly wherein the typical sylvinite horizon has been replaced or altered to a halite mass that consists of medium to large ½ inch (1 cm) halite crystals within a groundmass of smaller intermixed halite and clay insolubles. Clay intrusions up to ½ inch (1 cm) long may be present and, typically, there is a concentration of clay at the top and base of the altered zone. Mackintosh and McVittie (1983) describe these disturbances as “salt-filled V- or U-shaped structures (Figure 6-6), that transect the normal bedded sequence and obliterate the stratigraphy.” Washouts may extend laterally for considerable distances, but generally appear over short intervals. These features are easily identified in conventional mining operations through visual inspection, but are not detectable using seismic. Their occurrence would not be known in a solution cavity due to the style of mining. Intersection with this type of feature would have imperceptible impact on overall cavity performance. Figure 6-6: Wash-out Anomaly A “leach anomaly” is an anomaly wherein the typical sylvinite bed has been altered in such a manner that the sylvite mineral has been removed and replaced by halite (Figure 6-7). Such anomalies are also colloquially termed “salt horses” or “salt horsts” by mine operators. If the altered zone crosses any stratigraphic boundaries, these boundaries are commonly unaltered. This type of disturbance is generally considered post depositional (i.e., formed after deposition of the primary sylvinite). These anomalies are commonly associated with underlying Winnipegosis reefs, that may have some formative influence upon the anomaly. There are many examples at the Esterhazy Potash Facility where a leach anomaly is encountered and there is partial or complete remineralization of the insitu sylvite. These anomalies are local in extent ranging in diameter from a few meters to as much as 400m. Date: December 31, 2021 6-11 Figure 6-7: Leach Anomaly The above-described anomalies can impact mining operations by potentially reducing the insitu grade of the potash ore. Identification of any disruption to normal continuous deposition requires evaluation prior to developing a mine plan. Surface seismic reflection surveys (2D and 3D) can be used to identify and, in the case of 3D seismic, delineate large scale collapse zones. Careful examination of core or logged data from surface drill holes can identify anomalous grade conditions if they are intersected, but provide no information on their shape or extent. 6.4 Property Geology The Belle Plaine property is underlain by the Esterhazy, Belle Plaine, and Patience Lake Members described in Section 6.3.1. The mineable potash mineralization at Belle Plaine occurs in the three major potash bearing members, all of which are included in the solution mining. The key mining horizons are delineated using information gathered during production drilling using geophysical logging technology. These logs are compared to physical core to evaluate the quality of the mineralization. 6.4.1 Belle Plaine Potash Deposit The potash mined at Belle Plaine is a mixture of halite and sylvite and in some parts of the Mining Area, small amounts of carnallite. There are a number of clay-rich zones that are not recovered in the solution mining process that recovers a concentrate from a portion of the minerals rather than the entire bed. There are distinct features that are correlated between core and geophysical logging and applied to indicate relative ore quality. The key characteristics that are interpreted using remote data include KCl grade, bedding identification, and carnallite presence. The potash deposit at Belle Plaine is uniform and laterally continuous. When properly calibrated, the gamma response can be converted to indicate the amount of potash in the geological unit as %KCl. The neutron-density log is used to indicate the presence of carnallite. These correlations are possible based on understanding from examination of core. The three mineable potash-bearing members underlying the Belle Plaine property are, in ascending stratigraphic order, the Esterhazy Member, the Belle Plaine Member and the Patience Lake Member. The White Bear Formation marker beds occur between the Belle Plaine and Esterhazy Members. Deposit Dimensions Table 6-1 outlines the average thickness and grades of the potash horizons intersected by drilling at Belle Plaine.


 
Date: December 31, 2021 6-12 Table 6-1: Potash Horizons Potash Member Average Mineable Thickness (ft.) Average Mineable Thickness (m) Average Grade %KCl Average Grade %K2O Local Naming Convention Patience Lake 67.6 20.6 28.4 18.0 30 Beds Belle Plaine 19.2 5.9 32.8 20.7 20 Beds Esterhazy 16.7 5.1 35.7 22.5 10 Beds Lithologies The Prairie Evaporite Formation includes all the beds between the Dawson Bay and Winnipegosis formations. The geological interpretation of the Prairie Evaporite for the Belle Plaine Potash Facility is completed by evaluating the geophysical logs. The three individual potash members can be easily identified by looking for typical marker features in the logging traces as seen in the sample in Figure 6-5. The density of drilling allows for good correlation of these beds providing a clear picture of the elevation, grade and thickness of the mining zones. The Esterhazy Member is easily identifiable in geophysical logs by the sharp increase in gamma at the top and decrease at the base (Figure 6-8), consisting of bedded halite, sylvite, with local carnallite. The potential mining zone in the Esterhazy Member is generally thin, with low potash grade, and is separated from the bottom of the Belle Plaine Member by approximately 60 ft. (18.2 m) of halite and clays. There are interbedded clay seams and some interstitial clays within the different salt beds. The naming convention at site refers to the beds in the Esterhazy Member as beds 11, 12 and 13 (in ascending depth). The highest grade potash is hosted in Bed 12 that has an average thickness of 20 ft. (6.1 m). The Esterhazy Member is separated from the Belle Plaine Member by interbedded low grade sylvite, halite and clay seams called the Whitebear Formation. This interzonal salt is approximately 20 ft. (6.1 m) thick and is locally referred to as Bed 20. It is not a specific mining target at Belle Plaine because it is too thin to be economically mined. The Belle Plaine Member includes three distinct beds separated by clay rich zones. These beds are notable in the gamma logs and distinguished as the 20 beds (beds 21, 22 and 23). The potash in the Belle Plaine Member is comprised of hematite-rimmed halite and sylvite and interstitial (non-planar) clays. A thin salt stringer interrupts the potash between the Belle Plaine and Patience Lake Members. This 10 ft. (3 m) barren salt is easily identified in the logs. The Patience Lake Member is a ~60 ft. (18.2 m) thick unit of sylvite, halite and interstitial clays. It is the thickest and youngest and highest grade horizon in the sequence. There are a number of clay seams that are identified in the logs for differentiation between the beds in this potash horizon. The beds are considered the 30 Series and are identified as beds 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36. Separating the Patience Lake mining zones from the Second Redbed is a unit referred to as the Salt Back. Its presence is important to the stability of a cavern in the late stages of production. The Salt Back includes low grade interbedded halite and sylvite and is usually 25 to 30 ft. (7.6 to 9.1 m) thick at Belle Plaine. It is possible to encounter variation in the thickness and grade of these beds, but usually, the normal stratigraphy is present. Solution mining methods can more easily accommodate any local variations in geological condition due to the non-selective concentrate mining process. Mosaic has extensive experience acquired from the conventionally mined sites that provides opportunity to visualize the impact of dissolution on the ore at Belle Plaine. When considering the sequence of mining at Belle Plaine, the following terminology is applied to the beds. This describes the geology in a way that best summarizes the grades that are available for solution mining. • The Upper Mining Zone consists of beds 38 to 31 of the Patience Lake Member and beds 23 to 21 of the Belle Plaine Member. The Upper Mining Zone is about 90 ft. (27.4 m) thick. • The Salt Stringer is a thin bed of salt located between Beds 31 and 23 in the Upper Mining Zone. The Salt Stringer is approximately 10 ft. (3 m) thick. Date: December 31, 2021 6-13 • The Interzonal Salt is a thick bed of salt located between the Lower and Upper Mining Zones. • The Marker Bed is a small, very rich potash bed located midway through the Interzonal Salt. • The Lower Mining Zone consists of beds 13, 12 and 11 of the Esterhazy Member. The Lower Mining Zone is approximately 20 ft. (6.1 m) thick. Figure 6-8: Deposit Stratigraphy with Corresponding Gamma Results Structure The Prairie Evaporite is a relatively flat-lying deposit with uniform bedding across the property. The 3D seismic interpretation is used to describe the structure within the mining zone. Evaluation of Winnipegosis mounds, collapse features and the total salt isopach supports mine planning activities at Belle Plaine. The underlying Winnipegosis Formation locally affects the elevation topography of the mining horizon. These local inflections result from compaction on the reef/mound structures found in the Winnipegosis carbonates and can affect the potash zones. There is limited impact to mining based on the occurrence of these mounds, which are well defined by 3D seismic interpretation. Geological expertise at Mosaic potash mines in Saskatchewan has resulted in an evolved internal registry of mound encounters. Appropriate operational strategy and mine planning controls are effective in limiting the impact of the local bed dip inflections and mineralogical variance associated with mound encounters in the conventional and solution environments. Collapse features are locally identified and impact the mineralization partially or entirely. They are classified based on the impacts of the feature with respect to size, vertical extent and Prairie Evaporite loss. At Belle Plaine, collapse features are considered, but do not pose mining risk to the operation outside of the impacts associated with potash bed loss. Mineralization Potash mineralization contains sylvinite; a mixture of the iron oxide stained halite, sylvite and locally, carnallite. When present interstitially or as massive pods, carnallite can deteriorate rapidly or be preferentially dissolved. The color of the potash can vary from light orange to deep red rimmed crystals. The mineralization can be locally bedded or massive. The halite and sylvite crystals can range from small to more typically coarse to large. This can be attributed to the conditions during deposition as there has been no alteration. Date: December 31, 2021 6-14 Carnallite is considered an impurity in solution mining and can result in dilution of the potash grade. The mineralogy of carnallite results in liberation of magnesium into the brine that is not removed through processing. Because the magnesium remains in suspension, there is reduced carrying capacity for KCl. Date: December 31, 2021 7-1 Exploration The following section outlines and describes the exploration and geological information that has been collected and used to provide the basis for the mineral resource and mineral reserves estimates for Belle Plaine. 7.1 Exploration 7.1.1 Grids and Surveys The UTM grid (NAD83 Zone 13N) is used for all exploration and production drilling as well as all seismic surveys. 7.1.2 Geological Mapping Since there is no bedrock exposed on surface on the Belle Plaine property, no geological mapping has been completed. All subsurface bedrock geology is based on drilling. 7.1.3 Geochemistry No significant surface geological geochemistry surveys have been completed at Belle Plaine. 7.1.4 Seismic Survey Geophysics Over the past 30 years, the surface seismic method has gained widespread recognition in the potash industry, as a valuable mine planning tool and as an analytical tool for anomalous underground encounters at the mining level. Today, problems such as analysis of site-specific solution collapse anomalies, void space mapping, and brine inflow site identification are being solved through the use of surface seismic investigations. 2D seismic surveying has been done in the Belle Plaine Potash Facility as far back as the 1950’s, generally for oil and gas exploration. Initially four of these 2D lines in proximity to the proposed mine site were used for exploration purposes. As they were not specifically designed for delineation of the potash-bearing horizons, they could only be used for regional stratigraphy purposes. Over time, advancement of seismic technology has evolved from 2D to 3D methodology. This is now the primary exploration tool at Belle Plaine. The first 2D seismic survey at the Belle Plaine Potash Facility was completed in 1998. This was followed by the first 3D seismic survey in 2000. Seismic coverage was expanded with surveys in 2001, 2005, 2008, and 2010. Seismic coverage is shown in Figure 7-1. Mosaic contracts all seismic work including surveys, interpretation, and maintenance of the seismic model to a qualified third party.


 
Date: December 31, 2021 7-2 Figure 7-1: Seismic Surveys 7.1.5 Petrology, Mineralogy, and Research Studies Any studies that may have been done in the exploration stage and early production years (1960s) are no longer available for review. There have been no recent petrology and mineralogy studies completed. In 2021, a density study was completed by RESPEC to provide additional density information to support the Belle Plaine mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates. 7.1.6 Exploration Potential Due to the lateral continuity of the potash mineralization in the Belle Plaine area, the potential to increase mineral resources is good. There is a reasonable expectation that the majority of inferred mineral resources could be upgraded to indicated or measured mineral resources with continued exploration. 7.2 Drilling 7.2.1 Overview The first potash exploration hole drilled at the Belle Plaine property was Standard Chemical Stony Beach #1 in August 1960. Fourteen additional exploration holes were drilled from August 1960 to June 1968. From that point on, selected Date: December 31, 2021 7-3 production wells were identified as exploration wells and registered with the Saskatchewan government well drilling authority. The potash mineralization in most early wells was cored and the potash bearing zones were analyzed. These wells were also logged with a calibrated gamma ray tool. Calibration charts were constructed, quantitatively relating potash grade to the gamma ray readings. All current production wells are evaluated using these gamma ray logging techniques. 7.2.2 Drilling on Property The exploration drilling completed on the Belle Plaine property is listed in Table 7-1. The location of the bottom of the exploration holes is shown on Figure 7-2. In addition to exploration drilling, 719 production wells totaling 4,224,844 ft. (1,287,732 m) of additional drilling has been completed and supports the mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates. These holes represent drilled wells that are used for solution mining for each of the planned caverns. Each of these holes is gamma logged for KCl grade information. Date: December 31, 2021 7-4 Table 7-1: Exploration Drilling Summary Well Identifier Legal Subdivision Section Township Range Year Drilled Total Depth (ft.) Total Depth (m) Comments 60H039 16 22 17 24 1960 5,594 1,705 Stan Chem SB No 1 61C023 12 11 17 24 1961 5,704 1,739 Kalium Belle Plaine SB No 2 61C037 12 16 18 24 1961 5,451 1,661 Stony Beach No 3 61D025 12 11 17 24 1961 5,641 1,719 Kalium Belle Plaine SB No 4 61E037 5 16 18 23 1961 5,440 1,658 Stony Beach No 5 63A011 16 26 17 24 1963 5,503 1,677 Stony Beach SB No 6 63A042 6 30 17 23 1963 5,512 1,680 Stony Beach SB No 7 63A042 6 30 17 23 1963 5,544 1,690 Stony Beach SB No 7A 63C018 4 19 17 23 1963 5,600 1,707 Stony Beach SB No 8 63L063 9 23 17 23 1963 5,539 1,688 Kalium Belle Plaine 9 65F123 9 26 17 24 1965 5,587 1,703 Kalium Belle Plaine SB No 9 65E090 5 25 17 24 1965 5,604 1,708 Kalium Stony Beach No 10 65G136 3 26 17 24 1965 5,622 1,714 Kalium Belle Plaine SB No 11 65H067 1 25 17 24 1965 5,533 1,686 Kalium Belle Plaine SB No 12 68E096 9 24 17 24 1968 5,513 1,680 Kalium Belle Plaine SB No 15 84I206 13 18 17 23 1984 6,120 1,865 Kalium Belle Plaine BP17012 85J340 15 12 17 24 1985 5,525 1,684 Kalium Belle Plaine BP19051 86A341 1 13 17 24 1986 5,684 1,732 Kalium Belle Plaine BP19072 92A040 6 17 17 23 1992 6,190 1,887 Kalium Belle Plaine BP23032 94G140 5 20 17 23 1994 6,008 1,831 Kalium Belle Plaine BP25061 98B163 4 30 17 23 1998 5,615 1,711 Kalium Belle Plaine BP27042 99L144 1 31 17 23 1999 5,860 1,786 Kalium Belle Plaine BP29041 99L145 5 31 17 23 1999 5,861 1,786 Kalium Belle Plaine BP29061 01L100 5 05 17 23 2001 5,955 1,815 IMC Belle Plaine BP31072 01L101 8 05 17 23 2001 5,723 1,744 IMC Belle Plaine BP31052 08B136 3 21 17 23 2008 5,610 1,710 Mosaic Belle Plaine BP35082 09E128 2 21 17 23 2009 6,037 1,840 Mosaic Belle Plaine BP36111 10K106 2 22 17 23 2010 5,676 1,730 Mosaic Belle Plaine BP38102 12B405 4 22 17 23 2012 5,994 1,827 Mosaic Belle Plaine BP39032 148132 14 26 17 23 2020 6,022 1,836 Mosaic Belle Plaine BP41101 Total 171,267 52,202 Date: December 31, 2021 7-5 Figure 7-2: Exploration Drill Hole Locations


 
Date: December 31, 2021 7-6 7.2.3 Drilling Supporting Mineral Resource Estimates The exploration drilling used to support the Belle Plaine mineral resource estimates are listed in Table 7-2. Core analysis methods were included to indicate whether the hole core samples were assayed or grade was estimated from downhole gamma logging. It is important to note that the average zone thickness and grade defined by the exploration drilling is 100.48 ft. (30.63 m) at an average grade of 29.21% KCl. These support the thickness and grade assumptions used to estimate mineral resources. Table 7-2: Drill Summary Table Supporting Mineral Resource Estimates Well Identifier Legal Subdivision Section Township Range Total Zone Thickness (ft.) Total Zone Thickness (m) Total Mining Zone Grade (%KCl) Core Analysis Method 60H039 16 22 17 24 111.50 34.0 27.4 Assay 61C023 12 11 17 24 107.26 32.7 26.2 Assay 61C037 12 16 18 24 110.50 33.7 24.8 Assay 61D025 12 11 17 24 94.00 28.7 23.7 Assay 61E037 5 16 18 23 107.20 32.7 26.1 Gamma 63A011 16 26 17 24 114.92 35.0 30.1 Assay 63A042 6 30 17 23 102.55 31.3 29.2 Assay 63C018 4 19 17 23 110.78 33.8 29.0 Assay 65G136 3 26 17 24 81.66 24.9 25.5 Assay 85J340 15 12 17 24 77.00 23.5 37.4 Gamma 86A341 1 13 17 24 74.00 22.6 39.7 Gamma 92A040 6 17 17 23 89.00 27.1 18.1 Gamma 94G140 5 20 17 23 92.00 28.0 35.3 Gamma 98B163 4 30 17 23 117.20 35.7 26.6 Gamma 99L144 1 31 17 23 97.50 29.7 30.5 Gamma 99L145 5 31 17 23 104.00 31.7 31.1 Gamma 01L100 5 05 17 23 99.00 30.2 32.1 Gamma 01L101 8 05 17 23 106.00 32.3 36.6 Gamma 08B136 3 21 17 23 102.00 31.1 35.3 Gamma 09E128 2 21 17 23 111.00 33.8 31.3 Gamma 10K106 2 22 17 23 74.50 22.7 35.2 Gamma 12B405 4 22 17 23 119.50 36.4 23.6 Gamma 148132 14 26 17 23 107.98 32.9 23.7 Assay Average 100.48 30.63 29.21 7.2.4 Drilling Excluded for Estimation Purposes Table 7-3 outlines the drilling that was excluded for mineral resource estimation purposes. The reason that these holes were excluded is that they occur within the mined out area. Date: December 31, 2021 7-7 Table 7-3: Drill Summary Table Excluded for Estimation Purposes Well Identifier Legal Subdivision Section Township Range Total Depth (ft.) Total Depth (m) Comments Reason for Exclusion 63L063 9 23 17 23 5,539 1,688 Kalium Belle Plaine 9 Within mined out area 65F123 9 26 17 24 5,587 1,703 Kalium Belle Plaine SB No 9 Within mined out area 65E090 5 25 17 24 5,604 1,708 Kalium Stony Beach No 10 Within mined out area 65H067 1 25 17 24 5,533 1,686 Kalium Belle Plaine SB No 12 Within mined out area 68E096 9 24 17 24 5,513 1,680 Kalium Belle Plaine SB No 15 Within mined out area 84I206 13 18 17 23 6,120 1,865 Kalium Belle Plaine BP17012 Within mined out area 7.2.5 Drill Methods All historical exploration wells were drilled vertically using standard oil and gas well drilling techniques available at that time. Modern drilling uses standard rotary techniques combined with directional drilling utilizing mud motors and MWD (Measurement While Drilling) equipment. Single shot, multi shot, and MWD directional surveys are run during the drilling process. A final multi-shot directional survey is completed when total depth is reached. In the first three exploration wells hydrogeology was evaluated by drill stem tests run primarily on the Mannville Formation. Testing has also been done on the Dawson Bay Formation to evaluate for the presence of formational water immediately above the Prairie Evaporite. As all production wells are cased and cemented to surface, any presence of formational water is isolated from the ore body, other formations, and access to surface. Any geotechnical studies completed on core from the original exploration wells are no longer available for review. Production drilling in the past 50 years has identified areas of concern such as lost circulation issues encountered during drilling and casing issues that develop during production mining of a cavern. Standard operating procedures have been developed to mitigate all geotechnically related issues that could affect production. 7.2.6 Geological Logging Core Logging Core was retrieved from nine of the original fifteen exploration wells at Belle Plaine. A grade estimation process using gamma logs was developed in the past, and that combined with geological information from production wells and the known continuity of the mineralization, resulted in justifying that very limited coring would be completed in subsequent years. In 2020, core was retrieved from two planned production wells to support the grade interpretation and calibration of the gamma geophysical logging system and to establish core handling protocols. The field team included Mosaic drilling personnel and geological support as well as third-party core recovery professionals and a field projects management team. The following procedure was used in the overall process: • The field recovery of the core was technically managed by a core retrieval specialist. Initial core review and handling was supervised by the geologist to ensure a high-quality physical record was maintained. All standard procedures and quality control measures were adhered to for this drilling campaign. • The drill core was secured for shipping with the appropriate chain of custody documents and delivered from the site to the laboratory facility where it was received, inspected and sorted. Date: December 31, 2021 7-8 • The SRC (Saskatchewan Resource Counsel) laboratory is equipped with an alarm system to ensure the security and integrity of the core when the laboratory is not under direct surveillance. SRC’s laboratory is temperature and humidity controlled to prevent core from rapidly deteriorating. • The core was then cleaned and arranged sequentially on the facility’s logging tables. • All core segments were re-fitted together in the best possible manner to restore the core to its original condition and length. • The core is remeasured and labeled. All field measurements are retained for cross-referencing. Each core box has its own unique information, including depths corrected using available geophysical wirelines. • Depth correcting is a quality assurance quality control (QA/QC) measure undertaken by the geologists to ensure that accurate depths are recorded for critical elements observed in core. Depth correcting must be performed prior to any geological analysis of the core and all depth corrections must be peer reviewed. Where appropriate, a correction factor could be applied to the measured depth (MD) to calculate the true vertical depth (TVD) over the cored interval. • Once the initial assessment has been performed, the next step is for the geologist to begin the detailed description. Core descriptions are entered directly into the geological logging database. The geologist is expected to adhere to the following format and sequence of elements where applicable. o Lithology (major), then minor lithology (if applicable) o Rock color o Rock texture o Rock hardness and competency o Structural deformation o Mineralogy and fossils o Other special features o Porosity and permeability o Basal contact Geophysical Logging Gamma ray and neutron logs have been collected for every exploration and production well at the Belle Plaine Potash Facility. Open hole logging is completed when a well reaches planned total depth and the logs are used to interpret the thickness and grade of the ore body at that location. Logged data is also used to confirm stratigraphic elevations required for production casing installation. Cased hole logs and cement bond logs are completed prior to the well being put into production. In compliance with MRO 291/21, one drill hole per section is registered with a complete geological data submission provided to The Subsurface Geological Laboratory. Geophysical logs are collected from the open hole from total depth to surface by a logging contractor. The suite usually consists of CNL (Compensated Neutron Log), LDT (Litho- Density Tool), STI (Simultaneous Triple Induction), BHC (Borehole Compensated Sonic), and GR (Gamma Ray). For these registered wells, drill cuttings are collected every 16.4 ft. (5 m) from the Second White Specks Formation down to the bottom of the hole. Grade estimation utilizing gamma logs has been done at the Belle Plaine Potash Facility since the early days of exploration through the present. The early gamma grade to assay comparison work is no longer available for review. It appears that the original methodology has been adjusted over the years to adapt with industry down hole gamma ray tools. Two production wells were cored in 2020 to support the grade interpretation and calibration of the gamma geophysical logging system. The recent calibration check has been evaluated by a third party potash consultant (RESPEC) to ensure applicability of the method with respect to sample quality grade estimation. Date: December 31, 2021 7-9 Two methods of correlating gamma ray API units and % K2O were reviewed. The first, described as the “Alger and Crain method” (Alger and Crain, 1966) uses the following data to determine the correlation between gamma ray API and % K2O: • Borehole diameter at depth of interest • Mud weight • Downhole logging speed • Centralization or decentralization of gamma tool downhole • Calipers – hole condition, shape of hole (washouts, etc.) The second, described at the “Bannatyne method” (Bannatyne, 1983) uses a linear relationship between gamma ray API and % K2O and does not consider borehole diameter, mud weight or other downhole parameters. An analysis was completed using a combination of the Bannatyne and Alger-Crain methods that provided better results than the either of the methods alone for the mining intervals. This method, described as Gamma Ray Equivalent Calculation (GREC) is capable of estimating K2O values, as indicated by an assay and GREC difference ranging from a minimum 0.1% to maximum 2% K2O. 7.2.7 Recovery The average core recovery from 11 historical cored wells (1960 to 1965) is 98%. More recently, the recovery estimated from the 2020 core drilling is 99.5%. 7.2.8 Collar Surveys Historical exploration wells were originally surveyed by a Land Surveyor registered in the Province of Saskatchewan. Current standard operating procedure is for the production well collars to be surveyed by a third party licensed survey contractor using GPS. 7.3 QP Interpretation of the Exploration Information In the opinion of the QP for this section of the Technical Report Summary the scientific and technical information contained in this section has been interpreted in a professional manner, and has been properly disclosed. In addition, the quantity and quality of the lithological, collar and drilling data collected in the exploration program prior to 1968 and the production drilling completed after 1964 are sufficient to support mineral resource and mineral reserve estimation. The reasons for this are as follows: • The core logging meets industry standards for this type of deposit. • The collar surveys have been performed using industry-standard instrumentation. • Down-hole surveys were performed using industry-standard instrumentation. • Drill orientations are appropriate for the mineralization style and have been drilled at orientations that are acceptable for the orientation of mineralization for the bulk of the deposit area. • Drill orientations appropriately test the mineralization. • Core recovery data indicates that the representative sampling from the core drilling programs has been achieved. • The drilling pattern and density are consistent with industry standard. • The recorded data and classification of core constituents are in line with industry practice. • The drilling process and equipment are consistent with industry standards for this type of deposit.


 
Date: December 31, 2021 7-10 • Data that is determined to be inadequate is not used in the estimation process. Date: December 31, 2021 8-1 Sample Preparation, Analyses and Security 8.1 Introduction The potash horizon at Belle Plaine was evaluated based on core samples collected from 8 historic exploration drill holes. The data from this interpretation has served as the basis of understanding, and until 2020 was the only physical core analysis that was performed on the property to support the grade estimation. Although it is not possible to audit the assay results for portions of the core that are no longer retained, the QP considers the data collection processes to be acceptable based on the historical standard practice. The QP is confident that the included results are suitable for consideration in the mineral reserves and mineral resources estimations. In 2020, two production wells were selected for core analysis to complete calibration checks on the geophysical logging process used at site. This section outlines the standard processes that are in place regarding the sampling, assay, and data collection methods. The entire coring process was supervised by Mosaic personnel. Sampling, assay, and data collection and the standards practices followed were supplied by consulting experts. The 2020 geochemical sampling activities were undertaken by RESPEC staff at the Saskatchewan Research Council (SRC) Core Lab Facility. Sample preparation, analysis and security was performed by Geoanalytical Laboratories – Saskatchewan Research Council (SRC). This lab is based in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan at 125, 15 Innovation Blvd. Future core processing and analyses will align with these 2020 processes and standards. 8.2 Core Sampling Method 8.2.1 Procedures Determining individual sample locations was based on visually inspecting the core and consulting the respective wireline logs. This information was used by RESPEC geologists to assess changes in mineralogy, lithology, and grade. Individual samples were selected according to the following process: • Changes in lithology, mineralogy, K2O grade, crystal size, or insoluble content warranted a new sample. • Clay seams were broken out as their own samples, with approximately 0.4 inches (1 cm) overlap on either side of the seam. • Samples were limited to a range of 12 to 20 inches (30 to 50 cm). Within barren intervals, sampling limits did not exceed 30 inches (75 cm) and the minimum sample length was no less than 12 inches (30 cm). • For the sampling the Prairie Evaporite, the RESPEC quality standard was for each drill hole to be sampled from one sample above the 2nd Red Beds / Prairie Evaporite contact continuously down to 30 ft. (10 m) below the Esterhazy Member. • Once the sample interval to be assayed was chosen, the core was slabbed lengthwise into halves with the use of a guide to ensure a straight cut across the diameter of the core. The core was cut with the dry, 2 Hp band saw equipped with a dust collection system at SRC. Only one piece of core was removed from the core box at any one time and slabbed down the vertical orientation lines marked on the core. Once slabbed, the two complimentary core halves were placed back into their respective box, with cut surfaces facing up, prior to the next piece being taken to ensure proper stratigraphic order. This process was repeated until the cored interval was slabbed. The cutting process was supervised by a RESPEC geologist. • Prior to sample cutting, the core was divided into individually marked samples with straight lines perpendicular to core axis, by a RESPEC geologist. The upper half of the core with the marked sample intervals was cut with the band saw, where no natural breaks occur. Only one piece of core was removed from the core box at any one time and cut across the marked sample lines. This cutting process was repeated throughout the assay interval. Date: December 31, 2021 8-2 8.2.2 Quality Control The following quality control practices support the core sampling process. • The SRC laboratory is temperature and humidity controlled to prevent core from rapidly deteriorating. • Depth correcting is a quality assurance quality control (QA/QC) measure undertaken by the RESPEC geologists to ensure that accurate depths are recorded for critical elements observed in core. Depth correcting must be performed prior to any further geological analysis of the core and all depth corrections must be peer reviewed. Where appropriate, a correction factor is applied to the measured depth to calculate the true vertical depth over the cored interval. • Digital photographic records of the core and sample intervals are systematically collected and compiled by RESPEC (Table 8-1) to ensure sample location and depth intervals are accurate. Table 8-1: Digital Photograph Records Photo Series Interval Location Core Condition Moisture Content Primary Cored Interval Field / Lab Whole Wet / Dry Assayed Assayed Interval Lab Slabbed Dry (Brine) Assayed-Tagged Assayed Interval Lab Slabbed Dry (Brine) 8.3 Sample Preparation 8.3.1 Process Samples were prepared for assaying and analytical procedures following the process outlined in SRC’s Method Summary 62.3: Assay Potash Analysis: • All samples are kept in their original bags throughout all preparation procedures. • Samples are dried in their original bags. • The entire dried sample was crushed to 95% minus 2 mm. • A representative subsample was taken by passing the samples through a riffle splitter to riffle out an aliquot for mill grinding. The riffle has 10 riffle banks per side with ½ inch (1.3 cm) openings. All crushed “rejects” were vacuum sealed and returned to the original pails. The lab places coarse rejects into storage until requested by the customer. • Homogenization of the subsample was achieved by mild steel grind to 95% minus 0.106 mm. • Transfer a portion of the homogenized aliquot to a barcode labeled plastic snap top vial. The remaining ground material (pulp) was sealed in the pulp bag. 8.3.2 Quality Control Quality control performed during the sample preparation process at the SRC lab includes: • Screen size analysis on 5% of samples is performed, after crushing to minus 2 mm and after pulverization to minus 0.106 mm, 95% passing. All data is tracked and available to the client. • Loss of mass monitoring on 5% of samples is performed after crushing to minus 2 mm and after pulverization to minus 0.106 mm, 95% passing. All data is tracked and available to the client. Date: December 31, 2021 8-3 • Silica sand was used at the start of every group to clean the grinding mills. Silica sand was used to clean grinding mills between samples as required (sticky samples). Sample blanks (quintus quartz) were inserted at a rate of 5% per group. All data is available to the client. • A quintus quartz sand blank is inserted at a rate of 1 per 20 samples or 1 per group in the case there are less than 20 samples. • A pulp repeat (R) is included with every set of 36 samples and 1 split sample repeat (SSR) with every group. • Results include 1 reagent blank per group being processed. 8.4 Assaying and Analytical Procedures 8.4.1 Procedures The basic Potash Exploration Package (ICP 2 Geo Chem) offered by SRC is used. The assaying and analytical procedures performed at the SRC lab for the Belle Plaine core involved soluble and insoluble digestion and ICP-OES analysis. An aliquot of the sample pulp was weighed and placed in a volumetric flask. Deionized water from a thermostatically controlled system was added to the flask then shaken and placed in an agitated thermostatically controlled water bath. The volumetric flask was allowed to cool then topped to volume with deionized water and shaken. The solution was then vacuumed filtered. The reweighed filter paper was dried overnight cooled in a desiccator and weighed. The weight percent of insolubles is estimated. The detection limit for this method is 0.1 wt.%. Only calibrated glassware is used as per ISO 17025 requirements. A moisture determination is also completed. An aliquot pulp is placed into a pre-weighed crucible and heated. The sample is weighed again and the moisture is estimated as wt.% with a detection limit 0.1 wt.%. Assay standards are labeled with the sample number in which they were inserted after with a corresponding A to denote no thickness is given to the standard sample. 8.4.2 Density Determination Density is estimated at the SRC lab using whole dry cores. The samples are dried and weighed, then coated with an impermeable layer of wax and re-weighed. The samples are then weighed while submersed in water. All weights are entered into a database and the rock density estimated for each sample. The temperature of the water is recorded at the time of all measurements and included in the calculations. The detection limit is 0.01 g/cc. The associated QA/QC consists of one of every 40 samples is analyzed in duplicate with all QC results required to be within specified limit of 0.01% g/cc, otherwise corrective action is taken. The corrective action is to redigest and analyze the samples. 8.4.3 Quality Assurance and Quality Control Selection of the correct insertion of standards is completed by the Qualified Person (QP). To ensure that the standards are inserted at different intervals than the assaying labs standards, RESPEC inserts POT004B and POT003B every twenty samples, aligning with the prescribed sequence that SRC uses for insertion of their own standards. Inserted QA/QC samples include: • Reference materials POT004B (higher grade) and POT003B (lower grade) were developed by SRC and are alternately inserted by SRC every twenty samples. • Blanks (QQ) are inserted after high gamma readings shown on the wireline. Typically, 1 blank sample is inserted for each potash formation. All SRC instruments are calibrated using commercial standards.


 
Date: December 31, 2021 8-4 Quality control samples from the Lab are prepared and analyzed with each batch of submitted samples. One in every 40 samples is analyzed in duplicate. All Lab quality control results must be within specified limits, otherwise action is taken. The corrective action is to redigest and analyze the samples. 8.5 Sample Security Sample security is important to maintaining the integrity of the analytical results and interpretation and use of the results for mineral resource estimation. Chain of custody documentation is prepared for tracking of the core from the field to the logging facility. The logging facility has designated areas where Mosaic core is isolated from other projects. Sample preparation is completed in the same facility as core logging to eliminate contamination risk. The SRC laboratory is equipped with an alarm system to ensure the security and integrity of the core when the laboratory is not under direct surveillance. Digital photographic records of the core are systematically collected and compiled by RESPEC as listed in Table 8-1. 8.6 Database All the assayed intervals are compiled into the drilling database for further evaluation and compositing. The data is managed in a geological database management system called GeoSequel. The historic details have been verified by the QP and digitized to be included with recent drilling information. The geological database includes all available exploration drilling and is a combination of assayed core data and interpreted geophysical log data. Available geophysical log interpretations have been compiled from production drilling in the Mining Area. This information has been audited by the QP with respect to the ore zone interval selected and associated grade interpretation. Pertinent geological details are included in the database including elevation, formation tops, and grade interpretation to allow for confirmation of the average global grade and deposit dimensions used for the mineral reserves and mineral resources estimates. 8.7 QP Opinion on Sample Preparation, Security, and Analytical Procedures It is the opinion of the Section 8 QP that the historical pre-1965 and 2020 sample preparation, security, and analytical procedures are suitable to support mineral resource and mineral reserve estimation. The rational for this is as follows: • The 2020 core sampling, sample preparation, security and analytical procedures were conducted using industry standard procedures by RESPEC and SRC. • It is assumed, based on a review of existing documents and compilation reporting, that the historical core sampling, sample preparation, security and assaying processes were appropriate for the time of data collection. The majority of the historical drilling areas have been mined and through production records, the QP has gained confidence that these estimations reconcile with realized mining expectations. Date: December 31, 2021 9-1 Data Verification 9.1 QP and Internal Data Verification The Section 9 QP and the Belle Plaine Logging Supervisor perform the following regular internal data validation: • Well logs are collected during production drilling. These logs are generated under the supervision of site Logging Technicians in accordance with the Mosaic standard data collection procedure. Calibration checks are completed in the field and on the well logging tools as specified by the manufacturer. A record of the specific logging tool and deployment parameters is retained with each record. • The geophysical logs are reviewed by the Logging Technicians and provided to the Logging Supervisor and Geologist for additional interpretation including bed presence, elevation, thickness and quality. These interpretations are peer reviewed by the Geologist, and the Logging Supervisor prior to inclusion in the database. • The logged interpretations are compared to the predicted elevations generated in the 3D seismic model. All new elevation information is provided to the third-party seismic consulting team for inclusion in the 3D seismic model to maintain current interpretation for mine planning. The production drilling data generally agrees with the seismic interpretation and is reviewed as new information when it becomes available. • All new grade and thickness information is included in the drilling database. Average thickness and grade are recalculated to ensure that the most accurate estimate is applied to the mineral reserve and mineral resource estimates. • The QP has reviewed the existing copies of the analytical lab results for the historic drilling data used in the mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates. There is no historic core remaining from the original drilling campaigns, but the logged results and assays are available and included in the grade and thickness estimation. • A review and audit of the production drilling database has been completed to ensure alignment with the current data requirements. Additional details have been included to allow for a refined evaluation of the three individual potash-bearing members mined at Belle Plaine. • A review and audit of the internal GREC (Gamma Ray Equivalent Calculation) applied at Mosaic was completed by the external consulting team at RESPEC. The conclusion of the study is that the grades estimated for the mining zones at Belle Plaine using GREC are sufficient for use in the mineral resource and mineral reserve estimation process. • Drill core recovered from the mineralized zone in 2020 was examined by the QP. Assay intervals and stratigraphic markers were correlated to gamma ray logs to confirm application of the GREC (Gamma Ray Equivalent Calculation). The drill core has been analysed and is preserved in the sample repository of the Saskatchewan Subsurface Geological Laboratory as a permanent record. • The QP has conducted discussions with past professionals and original site experts regarding historic data. Numerous academic reviews of the application of logging processes and the internally generated research have been performed to validate the data included in the mineral resource and mineral reserve estimation process. 9.2 External Data Verification The following external data verifications have been completed supporting the Belle Plaine mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates. • Two production wells were cored in 2020 to support the grade interpretation and calibration of the logging system. The recent calibration check has been evaluated by a third party potash consultant (RESPEC) to ensure applicability of the method regarding sample quality. Current calibration standards for geophysical logging tools are considered adequate, however the initial review of the conversion from the gamma response Date: December 31, 2021 9-2 to %KCl indicates that there may be an opportunity to further refine the calculation in the future to ensure the best estimation of grade possible from this data. For the intended purposes, the grade data reported from production drilling is deemed suitable for consideration in the ore reserves and resources estimation. • All new drilling results are tabulated and provided to the third-party geophysical consultants. This geological data is used to ground-truth the 3D seismic model and refine the interpretation used for mine planning. • The density has been verified by a third party potash consultant (RESPEC) to ensure applicability in the mineral reserves and mineral resources estimate. 9.3 QP Opinion on Data Adequacy It is the opinion of the QP that the data being used and relied upon in the Technical Report Summary is adequate to support mineral resource and mineral reserve estimation. The rational for this is as follows: • The data quality and quantity are aligned with industry standards. • There is adequate drilling information to produce accurate mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates. • The verification process is adequate to validate the data used as part of the mineral resource and mineral reserve estimation process. • The historical assay information is adequately supported by the reconciliation to actual mining results and activity. Mining recoveries and expectations are supported by 57 years of production records. • The exploration results have been reviewed and there is confidence in the interpretations. The QP has not completed duplicate analysis based on the condition and limited availability of original core samples. • During the preparation of the report, the QP has reviewed the historical data set used to confirm the potash intervals included in the mineral resource estimates, however there is no formal documentation regarding the quality control measures and data verification procedures applied by the initial assayer. • Recent calibration of the geophysical logs to the assayed values serves to verify the grade interpretation used to describe the active Mining Area. The level of confidence in this analysis supports this modified grade interpretation for solution mining. It is the QP’s opinion that the grade interpretation generated through Mosaic’s conversion of API to K2O is accurate for the MRMR estimates required for solution mining. • Through the existing 3D seismic interpretation, combined with the regional geology interpretation, the QP is able to verify that potash is present with a level confidence that supports the mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates. • The QP has reviewed select internal reports and memos prepared by Mosaic staff and notes that those reports and memos have not identified any material deficiencies with the adequacy of the data at the time the Technical Report Summary was prepared. Date: December 31, 2021 10-1 Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing 10.1 Introduction Metallurgical testing and quality control are crucial to Belle Plaine mining and processing. Offline (laboratory) testing is a necessity to support the solution mining process because of inherent limitations of online measurement of specific fluid streams or solid product streams. Some of the limitations of online measurement in solution mining, stem from the properties of solid and liquid flow streams. These flow streams are highly corrosive, abrasive and tend to plug instrumentation because of the precipitating nature of the solution mining process discussed in Section 14. Other noted limitations of online measurement technology also include the accuracy and repeatability of results. As such, the Belle Plaine on-site laboratory is utilized to ensure operating targets are being met throughout the process and to confirm final product purity/quality. 10.2 On-Site Laboratory The Belle Plaine on-site QC laboratory (QCL) functions as a metallurgical lab for analyzing process conditions, as well as a Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) lab for confirming product quality to customer specifications. The lab operates 24 hours/day, seven days a week to meet site needs and is currently staffed by approximately 12 employees. The QC Supervisor and QC Specialist are responsible for training and onboarding new employees. One-on-one training is provided until competency has been demonstrated in required job duties and proficiency examinations for each training area are conducted and maintained in Mosaic’s training database. A review of the quality manual is done on an annual basis by the QCL Supervisor, where any updates must go through a formal controlled document change procedure, Changes must be approved by the QA/QC Manager. Changes to the lab’s standard operating procedures are under the control of the QCL Supervisor and the QC Specialist. Quality control worksheets are filed and records are maintained for a minimum of one year. The lab is located within site’s administrative building, making it central to the many groups accessing their services. The lab consists of numerous types of industry standard benchtop lab equipment, as well as some notably larger footprint analytical equipment. The lab is well equipped with fume hoods, chemical storage, and PPE to safely perform analyses. Lab analyses are employed throughout the entire solution mining process (mining to shipping). Samples are primarily collected by operations personnel and brought to the lab for analysis on a set routine. These routines have been established by site engineering and operations personnel, based on the criticality and variability of each specific stream, noted over the site’s decades of operation. The lab receives solid and liquid samples, each analyzed following well-defined procedures that are subject to the Mosaic Document Control Standards. Major analyses utilized on-site are summarized in Table 10-1 and the frequency of the analyses is listed in Table 10-2. Processing related lab results are imported into a Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS), that feeds the site’s larger reporting-based database. Shipping related lab results are entered into a PLS (Product Loading System) system, that creates a history of the values and provides a certificate of analysis to customers through the Mosaic SAP billing system.


 
Date: December 31, 2021 10-2 Table 10-1: Regular On-Site Laboratory Testing Analysis/ Equipment Sample Type Available Measurement Application XRF (X-Ray Fluorescence) Liquid/Brine/Slurry NaCl (g/L) KCl (g/L) MgCl2 (g/L) Br- (g/L) CaCl2 (g/L) SO4 -2 (g/L) • Individual Cavity Streams • Mining Area Streams • Refinery Streams • Cooling Pond Streams Solid NaCl (wt.%) Br- (ppm) • Refinery Streams • Cooling Pond Streams • Shipping Area Streams Flame Photometer Solid KCl (wt.%) NaCl (wt.%) • Evaporator Streams • Refinery Streams • Shipping Area Streams ICP (Inductively Coupled Plasma) Spectroscopy Liquid/Brine/Slurry Ca+2 (ppm) Mg+2 (ppm) Fe +2/+3 (ppm) Al+3 (ppm) SO4 -2 (ppm) • Refinery Streams Solids Ca+2 (ppm) Mg+2 (ppm) Fe +2/+3 (ppm) Al+3 (ppm) SO4 -2 (ppm) • Refinery Streams • Cooling Pond Streams • Shipping Area Streams Manual Sieves/ Cam Sizer Solids Size Distribution over broad mesh sizes • Crystallizer Body Samples • Intermediate Dry End Streams • Shipping Area Streams Date: December 31, 2021 10-3 Table 10-2: Notable Frequency of Samples Sample Name Frequency of Samples Analysis Type Mining Area Individual Cavity Returns x 2 per week Chemistry Mining Area Main Raw Feed Lines x 1 per day Chemistry Mining Area Feed Stream x 1 per day Chemistry Evaporator Circuit Streams x 2 per 12 hour shift Chemistry Crystallizer Area Streams x 2 per 12 hour shift x 1 per day x 1 per week x 1 per month Chemistry Size Cooling Pond Area Streams x 2 per 12 hour shift x 1 per week Chemistry Dryer and Dewatering Streams x 2 per 12 hour shift Chemistry Sizing Area x 4 per 12 hour shift x 1 per shift Chemistry Size Compaction Area x 4 per 12 hour shift Chemistry Size Shipping Every rail car Every bulk truck K-life – Composite over shift Paper Bagging/Tote – Composite over shift Per Customer Requirements: Chemistry • K2O Equivalent Content • Impurity Concentrations Size 10.3 Quality Control Instrument calibration is performed with standards prior to each sample run on the ICP and Flame photometer. Standards of known concentration are purchased and run to verify calibration curves for the ICP. In addition to this, controls are used to confirm the validity of the in-house preparation, prior to running the XRF and ICP equipment. Control samples are prepared in the same manner as product samples to ensure accurate sample preparation. Known control samples are purchased for ICP, while XRF liquid controls are prepared internally by QCL Technologists and run as unknowns with each run of samples. Statistical Quality Control (SQC) practices are in place in the Belle Plaine Quality Control Laboratory, where control sample values are plotted on SQC charts and maintained in Mosaic’s document control database. SQC charts are created for analytical methods and reviewed by the QCL Technologists, QC Supervisor or QC Specialist. Table 10-3 summarizes each analytical procedure used at Belle Plaine with method accuracy and precision, as determined by the Six Sigma Measurement Systems Analysis. QC Laboratory audits are completed yearly by Mosaic’s Quality Assurance team. The audit findings are given to the QC Supervisor and tracked in a software package. The Mosaic Potash Belle Plaine also participates in the Canpotex Producer Sample Exchange Program, where samples are analyzed by each of the Canpotex Producer QC Labs using standardized instrument calibration methods, including the Sodium Tetraphenylborate (STPB) method of measuring KCl. The round robin analysis performed by all producers verifies the methods as standardized methods. As per the International Fertilizer Association Method Harmonization Working Group’s evaluation of analytical methods, used globally for the quality testing of potassium content in Potassium Chloride Fertilizer, the STPB method is the preferred method or best practice methodology for use in international fertilizer trade for measuring KCl. Belle Plaine’s instrument calibration curves for KCl are based off of STBP methods. Date: December 31, 2021 10-4 Table 10-3: Sample Accuracy and Precision Equipment Descriptor Accuracy XRF Liquids – In house control +/- 1.5 Standard deviation of the mean Solids – In house control +/- 3.0 Standard deviation of the mean ICP Certified Control +/- 10% from control value In house control +/- 3.0 Standard deviation of the mean Flame Photometer Certified Control +/-0.045 from control value The ICP and XRF used to analyze samples have service agreements with the manufacturer, that include two preventative maintenance visits per year and emergency visits to troubleshoot instrument issues. Routine instrument maintenance is carried out by QCL Technologists and instrument specific log books document daily maintenance. Maintenance procedures for QCL equipment and instrument troubleshooting procedures and are stored in Mosaic’s document control database. Heavy Metal analysis is conducted on a quarterly basis on all major streams/final products. This analysis is conducted by SRC. 10.4 Database and Records Composite samples are collected for each rail car, truck and bagged product lot number loaded at Mosaic Potash Belle Plaine. They are stored by QCL personnel in the shipment and truck storage rooms. Unit train composite samples are created by QCL personnel for customers as instructed in the QCL Shipment standard operating procedure. Unit train composite samples are retained on-site. Certificates of analysis are prepared and issued by the Quality Control Laboratory (QCL) and are double signed by QCL Technologists prior to issuance to customers. Customers can obtain their Certificate of analysis from Mosaic Online, while certificates of analysis are filed and records maintained in Mosaic’s document management system for a minimum of three years. The American Feed Industry Association (AFIA) requires that BOL’s must contain the guaranteed product grade information as required by Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), AFIA and US State Regulations. Changes to BOL information are under the control of the QA Specialists or QA/QC Manager. As product is unloaded at ports for international shipment, it is sampled and analyzed by a third-party laboratory. This analysis is compared to the analysis on the product as the train was loaded to ensure accuracy. This provides third- party confirmation of final product purity by a company that has ISO/IEC 17025:2005 accreditation using industry standard methods of analysis. Composite samples and certificates of analysis are linked using the following methods: Material Identification (ID) • Unique SAP Material ID numbers have been created for each grade of product produced. • The Material IDs for bagged product identify the product grade and the bag/tote size loaded. • Rail car product labels are required by several states including Washington, California and Oregon. • Shipment load-lists identify when labels are required. Loadout personnel are responsible for the addition of specific labels to each car. • Railcar product labels abide by the rules set forth by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), American Feed Industry Association (AFIA), and US State Regulations. • Changes to rail car labels are under the control of the QA Specialists or QA/QC Manager. Rail and Truck • Unique Scale Ticket numbers are generated from PLS for each rail car and truck loaded. Date: December 31, 2021 10-5 • Scale Ticket Number can be traced to the rail car ID, SAP order number, Date of Loading, Material ID, retained composite sample and QCL generated analytical values. Bagged Product • Identified with a lot number, consisting of Material ID, the year of bagging and the bagging date using the Julien calendar. • Destination of all bagged product lot numbers can be traced through PLS. • Bagged product labels abide by the rules set forth by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), American Feed Industry Association (AFIA), and US State Regulations. Changes to bag labels are under the control of the QA Specialists or QA/QC Manager. 10.5 Metallurgical Test Work Metallurgical analysis is performed throughout Belle Plaine mining and processing. Samples are typically taken by operations personnel and brought to the combined Metallurgical and QA/QC lab for analysis. This metallurgical analysis is subjected to the rigor discussed in the above section. Sampling locations and frequencies are also noted above. Mining Area and cavity specific flow streams are subjected to metallurgical testing on a weekly schedule. Flows feeding and returning from each cavity are analyzed on a set frequency, with information from the lab feeding back into site’s data historian. Metallurgical data is combined with in-field flow measurement to track total KCl tons mined and KCl tonnage removal rates from each cavity over the entire life of the cavity. KCl tonnage withdrawal is tracked during development and production phases. As previously discussed, a gamma log is collected from each borehole to identify the presence of KCl beds and the grade of KCl in each of those beds. This gamma log serves as a reference point throughout the development activities of a cavity and confirms the presence of KCl in the cavity that is to be developed. During the development of a cavity, which lasts approximately 5 years, the return concentrations from each cavity are also recorded and tracked, further proving the presence and grade of KCl present in the mineralization. 10.6 Recovery Estimates The total processing KCl recovery at Belle Plaine is dependent on the operation of the Belle Plaine Refinery and Cooling Pond areas, and the number of developing caverns that drive fresh water intake flow and deep well brine disposal flow. The demonstrated processing recoveries of KCl to date, discussed in Section 14, are estimated using third party verification of inventories, government regulated scales, industry standard field measurement instruments, and metallurgical testing on each individual cavity on a weekly schedule. 10.7 Metallurgical Variability The combination of drill core sampling, gamma logs, 3D Seismic, and historically proven consistency of the ore grade surrounding the Belle Plaine site provides confidence to the Belle Plaine metallurgical consistency. Gamma logs and neutron logs have also proven a repeatability of KCl rich and non- KCl rich beds in the area mined below the Dawson Bay Formation, providing further confidence on the consistency of the potash bearing units. 10.8 Deleterious Elements The sylvanite ore mined at Belle Plaine contains some deleterious elements that are monitored in several brine streams, solid stream, and finished products. The major elements of this group include sodium chloride (NaCl) and magnesium chloride (MgCl2).


 
Date: December 31, 2021 10-6 NaCl NaCl is dissolved in underground caverns and precipitated in the Evaporator Area. The presence of NaCl precipitation in the Evaporator is integral to the site’s performance. NaCl is either sold, disposed of, or reused in critical process flow streams that are fed back to the Mining Area. Trace amounts of NaCl are found in the Belle Plaine final product as a result of co-precipitation in the Belle Plaine processing. MgCl2 This compound is found in high carnallite regions of the Mining Area. The presence of high MgCl2 in a cavity is observed as above average MgCl2 concentrations in that cavity's return borehole stream. Once brought to surface, the mass of MgCl2 stays within the recirculating streams between the Refinery and Mining Area until it is disposed of through site’s brine injection wells. A small fraction of the mined MgCl2 will co-precipitate with KCl and washes in the Drying and Dewatering circuits allow a large fraction of the MgCl2 to be washed off of the KCl crystal to meet customer specifications. In 2020, the Belle Plaine Potash Facility performed an analysis to determine projections on MgCl2 concentrations in the raw feed that feeds the Cooling Pond and Refinery circuits. The analysis concluded that current and future projections of MgCl2 are manageable with the site’s existing assets. Other Deleterious Elements Additional elements are noted in the mining and processing streams and final product. These elements/compounds are in trace concentrations and have shown no notable accumulations within the process or final products. These elements/compounds include calcium, aluminum, bromide, iron, and sulfate. 10.9 QP Opinion on Data Adequacy It is the opinion of the QP that the mineral processing, metallurgical testing and analytical procedures used and relied upon in the Technical Report Summary is adequate to support mineral resource and mineral reserve estimation. The rational for this is as follows: • The metallurgical and QA/QC procedures used in the QCL lab are conventional and are aligned with industry practice, meeting domestic and international requirements. • The data quality and quantity are aligned with industry standards and are reasonably practicable. • Test work programs, internal and external, continue to be performed to support current operations and potential improvements. • The QA/QC processes for analyzing product and confirming accuracy is adequate. • The metallurgical analyses and their respective analysis frequencies are appropriate for optimizing processing conditions and informing site personnel of anomalous conditions. • Processing recovery projections are based on appropriate metallurgical test work and compared against historical production data for validity. Date: December 31, 2021 11-7 Mineral Resource Estimates 11.1 Introduction Potash in Saskatchewan, including the mineralization at Belle Plaine, has been described as having “remarkable consistency of grade and thickness over many tens of kilometers” (CIM Council November, 2003). This regional interpretation is used to interpolate the quality of the potash between data points used at Belle Plaine for mineral resource estimation. The geological information used to estimate the potash mineral resources at Belle Plaine includes core drilling, gamma-ray logging, and 3D seismic modeling. The Belle Plaine mineral resources are reported as in-situ mineralization and are exclusive of mineral reserves. The mineral resources occur in the Esterhazy, Belle Plaine, and Patience Lake Members. Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves have not demonstrated economic viability utilizing the criteria and assumptions required at Belle Plaine. A total of 57 years of solution mining history from ~350 caverns and 719 production wells at Belle Plaine was considered when developing the criteria and methodology for the estimation of the mineral resources. 11.2 Key Assumptions The following outlines the key assumptions used for the estimation of mineral resources at Belle Plaine. • The mineral resources are estimated and reported as in-situ mineralization. • The mineralization is assumed to be laterally continuous and consistent based on Mosaic’s knowledge of the regional and local geology. Local seismic studies are used to refine the property geology for mineral resource consideration. Areas where mineralization is not present are geologically excluded from the mineral resource estimation. • The average KCl grade based on all production drilling for the three potash members combined is 30.6% KCl (19.3% K2O). The drilling database used includes interpreted grade from gamma logs from production drilling. No local grades derived from drilling are estimated or incorporated in the mineral resource estimation process, though they are used to update and verify the average global grade used. • K2O (Potassium Oxide) is the common unit to compare concentrations between different types of potash. At Belle Plaine, the potash mined is commonly known as Muriate of Potash (MOP) or potassium chloride (KCl). The conversion from KCl to K2O is K2O = 0.6317 x KCl. • The average composited total thickness of the potash mineralization amenable to solution mining is 102.2 ft. (31.2 m). This is applied to all mineral resource estimates. • A tonnage factor of 15.6 ft3/ton is used to estimate the tonnage (2,054 kilograms per cubic meter). • No grade capping or restricting of grade outliers is applied. • No cut-off grade or value based on commodity price is used to estimate mineral resources. This is because the solution mining method used at Belle Plaine is not grade selective. At no point in the cavern development and mining process can a decision be made to mine or not mine the potash mineralization that is in contact with the mining solution. There is no control on what potash grade the mining solution dissolves to make a concentrate that is pumped to surface from the mining caverns for processing. 11.3 Estimation Methodology The methodology for estimating mineral resources at Belle Plaine is described as follows: 1. The spatial location, continuity and thickness of the potash mineralization is interpreted in plan view using AutoCAD 2020 software. This interpretation is based on drill holes, 3D seismic geophysical surveys and regional geological studies. Date: December 31, 2021 11-8 The 3D seismic survey interpretation serves as the geologic model and provides the highest resolution detail of the potash horizon. The seismic surveys provide information regarding the possible location of structural disturbances and geologic anomalies (dissolution or non-deposition) of the potash horizons. Mosaic has thoroughly compared survey results and predicted interpretations to actual locations (drill hole intersections) and characteristics of the potash horizons at the conventional underground mining operations. The understanding gained from comparing predicted to actual geological conditions allows for increased confidence in areas covered by 3D seismic surveys across all Mosaic potash properties. 2. The property map is updated as follows: • To show the current mineral rights status. • To show the limits of the current mining footprint. New drilled intersections and caverns are combined to indicate the active Mining Area. • To outline areas such as geological anomalies, town sites and other known surface features that are excluded from the mineral resource estimation process. 3. Areas that contain mineral resource are further defined by applying a minimum spatial area requirement for cluster development (mining footprint). Areas large enough for a cluster design to be applied are considered as areas that support a mineral resource estimate. 4. An average mineralization thickness and density are applied to the mineral resource areas to estimate the mineral resource tonnage. 5. The mineral resource is categorized as measured, indicated or inferred based on the amount and quality of the supporting data. 6. An average grade is estimated and applied to the mineral resource tonnages. 11.4 Exploratory Data Analysis At the Belle Plaine Potash Facility, 719 production wells have been drilled in the last 57 years. This data serves to verify the quality and continuity of the deposit. The mineralization in most early wells was cored and the potash bearing zones were analyzed internally. These wells were also logged with a calibrated gamma ray tool. A Gamma Ray Equivalent Calculation (GREC) was developed to quantitatively relate potash grade to the gamma ray readings. All current production wells are evaluated using these gamma ray logging techniques and have this grade calculation applied. In 2020, a two-hole core logging program was completed to confirm the agreement between grades from Mosaic’s current well logging process with the physical assayed results. The holes were drilled in a strategic location supporting future mineral resource estimates. The variation between assay values and gamma interpretation for each potash member is listed in Table 11-1 and by individual potash bed within these members in Figure 11-1. This information graphically displays the agreement between the different methods of grade interpretation used at Belle Plaine in determining the average grade of the mineralization. The closest agreement is shown in the Belle Plaine Member with <1% variation from assay to GREC. The Esterhazy Member is interpreted with the widest variability with 2.3% difference between calculation methods. The overall difference between the assay results and the GREC interpretation for potash mineralization is a ~1.5%. The QPs are confident in the interpretation of grade using the Mosaic GREC for the mineralized zone and deem it sufficient for use in the mineral resource estimation process. Date: December 31, 2021 11-9 Table 11-1: Assays and RESPEC/Mosaic GREC Comparison for Hole 41092 Mining Intervals by Member Mining Intervals RESPEC GREC Assays Assays/GREC Difference (KCl%) Unit Thickness (ft.) Thickness (m) Total K2O% Total KCl% Total K2O% Total KCl% RESPEC GREC Mosaic GREC Patience Lake 69.5 21.1 16.2 25.6 16.4 26.0 -0.4 1.3 Belle Plaine (Upper) 18.5 5.6 18.7 29.6 18.2 28.8 0.8 -0.1 Patience Lake and Belle Plaine (Combined) 88.0 26.8 16.7 26.5 16.8 26.6 -0.1 1.0 Esterhazy Member (Bed 12) 13.5 4.1 13.7 21.7 11.5 18.2 3.5 5.8 Total Mining Zone 102.5 31.2 16.2 25.6 15.9 25.2 0.4 1.9 Figure 11-1: Assays and RESPEC/Mosaic GREC Comparison for Hole 41092 Mining Intervals by Bed (RESPEC, 2020) 11.5 Validation The workflow to generate the mineral resource estimate includes multiple checkpoints to ensure the validity of the work. Key validations include: • An annual potash mineral resource and mineral reserve review forum is held internally at Mosaic for the QPs from each site to align and review the potash mineral resources and reserves estimates and processes. This includes a review of proposed workflow, source data inputs and industry best-practices. • The Belle Plaine QP reviews the lease area with the Land and Mineral team to ensure alignment on property limits, mineral control and ownership.


 
Date: December 31, 2021 11-10 • Ensuring the active Mining Area limits are accurate, there is a review completed of all producing and sterilized areas for inclusion in the updated property map. • A review to ensure the mineral resource estimates align with the established definitions for each mineral resource category. • Peer review of potash mineral resources estimates by an alternate potash site QP. • A review of the mineral resource estimates by the Manager, Lands and Minerals, Senior Mine Engineering Manager and the site Senior Management. 11.6 Confidence Classification of Mineral Resource Estimate The classification of mineral resource is fully defined in SEC Regulation S-K, Subpart 1300. Mosaic follows these definitions when categories to their mineral resource estimates. The SEC Regulation S-K, Subpart 1300 definitions of measure, indicated and inferred mineral resources are as follows. Measured Mineral Resource A measured mineral resource is that part of a mineral resource for which quantity and grade or quality are estimated based on conclusive geological evidence and sampling. The level of geological certainty associated with a measured mineral resource is sufficient to allow a qualified person to apply modifying factors, as defined in this section, in sufficient detail to support detailed mine planning and final evaluation of the economic viability of the deposit. Because a measured mineral resource has a higher level of confidence than the level of confidence of either an indicated mineral resource or an inferred mineral resource, a measured mineral resource may be converted to a proven mineral reserve or to a probable mineral reserve. At Belle Plaine, a measured mineral resource is defined as mineralization that is confirmed by a 2D or 3D seismic interpretation and is within ½ mile (0.8 km) of a drill hole or active mining. Indicated Mineral Resource An Indicated mineral resource is that part of a mineral resource for which quantity and grade or quality are estimated based on adequate geological evidence and sampling. The level of geological certainty associated with an indicated mineral resource is sufficient to allow a qualified person to apply modifying factors in sufficient detail to support mine planning and evaluation of the economic viability of the deposit. Because an indicated mineral resource has a lower level of confidence than the level of confidence of a measured mineral resource, an indicated mineral resource may only be converted to a probable mineral reserve. At Belle Plaine, an indicated mineral resource is defined as mineralization that is confirmed by a 2D or 3D seismic interpretation or is within 1 mile (1.6 km) of a drill hole or active mining. Inferred Mineral Resource An inferred mineral resource is that part of a mineral resource for which quantity and grade or quality are estimated based on limited geological evidence and sampling. The level of geological uncertainty associated with an inferred mineral resource is too high to apply relevant technical and economic factors likely to influence the prospects of economic extraction in a manner useful for evaluation of economic viability. Because an inferred mineral resource has the lowest level of geological confidence of all mineral resources, which prevents the application of the modifying factors in a manner useful for evaluation of economic viability, an inferred mineral resource may not be considered when assessing the economic viability of a mining project and may not be converted to a mineral reserve. At Belle Plaine, an inferred mineral resource is defined as mineralization that has been investigated through regional geological study with limited exploration drilling and no 3D seismic interpretation. The inferred mineral resources will require additional exploration drilling and seismic interpretation prior to possible future mining. Date: December 31, 2021 11-11 11.7 Reasonable Prospects of Economic Extraction Regulation S-K, Subpart 1300 requires that an evaluation be conducted to support the prospect of eventual economic extraction for measured and indicated mineral resources. The mineral resources at Belle Plaine that are classified as inferred are not subject to this requirement. 11.8 Mineral Resource Statement The mineral resource estimates for the Belle Plaine Potash Facility are listed in Table 11-2. The inferred mineral resources are reported exclusive of the mineral reserves. Figure 11-2 shows the distribution of the mineral resources and mineral reserves on the Belle Plaine property. Table 11-2: 2021 Mineral Resources Inferred Mineral Resources Location Tons (M) Tonnes (M) Grade %KCl Grade %K2O Belle Plaine 5,124 4,647 31 19 Notes to accompany mineral resource table: 1. Mineral resource estimates were prepared by QP M. Tochor, a Mosaic employee. 2. Mineral resources have an effective date of December 31, 2021. 3. Mineral resources are reported exclusive of those mineral resources that have been converted to mineral reserves. 4. Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not meet the threshold for mineral reserve modifying factors, such as estimated economic viability, that would allow for conversion to mineral reserves. There is no certainty that any part of the mineral resources estimated will be converted into mineral reserves. 5. Mineral resources assume solution mining. 6. Mineral resources amenable to a solution mining method are contained within a conceptual cluster and cavern design using the same technical parameters as used for mineral reserves. 7. No cut-off grade is used to estimate mineral resources. This is because the solution mining method used at Belle Plaine is not selective. At no point in the cavern development and mining process can a decision be made to mine or not mine the potash mineralization that is in contact with the mining solution. There is no control on what potash grade the mining solution dissolves to make a concentrate that is pumped to surface from the mining caverns for processing (Section 11.2). 8. Tonnage are in US Customary and metric units and are rounded to the nearest million tonnes. 9. Rounding as required by reporting guidelines may result in apparent summation differences. Date: December 31, 2021 11-12 Figure 11-2: Location and Distribution of Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves Date: December 31, 2021 11-13 11.9 Uncertainties (Factors) That May Affect the Mineral Resource Estimate The reader is cautioned that a mineral resource is an estimate and not a precise and completely accurate calculation, that is based on the interpretation of limited sampling results. Actual mineralization can be more or less than estimated, depending upon geological conditions. The mineral resource statement includes inferred mineral resources that have the lowest level of geological confidence and there is a reasonable expectation that most of inferred mineral resources could be upgraded to indicated or measured mineral resources with continued exploration. The following uncertainties at Belle Plaine could impact the mineral resource estimates. • Local grade, density and thickness variations. • The potash grade may not remain within historical averages for all subsequent clusters that are developed. • Local variations of the Salt Back thickness across the Belle Plaine property. • Local uncertainty related to density estimate. There may be variation from the global estimate being used in the grade and tonnage estimates. • The internal GREC (Gamma Ray Equivalent Calculation) applied at Mosaic. Audits are completed to verify the process relied upon at Belle Plaine. • Surface access limitations could result in revision of the planned mining activity. • Mineral acquisitions that could increase the mineral resources for the Belle Plaine Potash Facility. • Cavern planning is based on current 3D seismic interpretation. The average cavern layout is planned to include a minimum of 16.5 caverns per cluster. The sequence of drilling can result in changes to the mineral resource estimates.


 
Date: December 31, 2021 12-1 Mineral Reserve Estimates 12.1 Introduction The Belle Plaine mineral reserves are reported as in-situ mineralization accounting for all applicable modifying factors. Mineral reserves meet all the mining criteria required at Belle Plaine including, but not limited to mining, processing, metallurgical, infrastructure, economic, marketing, legal, environmental, social and governmental factors. 12.2 Key Assumptions The following outlines the key assumptions used for the estimation of mineral reserves at Belle Plaine. • The mineral resources are assumed to be laterally continuous and consistent based on locally available geological information collected from production records. Local seismic studies are used to plan the details for solution mining. • No dilution is applied converting the grade of the mineral resources to mineral reserves. • Mine planning is based on arrangement and planning of solution mining targets called caverns. A collection of 16.5 caverns is the average number of production caverns planned per cluster with the minimum mine planning size being ½ cluster. • The average mineral reserves per cavern is 1.63 M tons (1.48 M tonnes). This equates to 27 M tons (24 M tonnes) per cluster. This correlates to an average mining recovery of approximately 21.5%. • No cut-off grade is used to estimate mineral reserves. The solution mining method used at Belle Plaine is not selective. At no point in the cavern development and mining process can a decision be made to mine or not mine the potash mineralization that is in contact with the mining solution. There is no control on what potash grade the mining solution dissolves to make a concentrate that is pumped to surface from the mining caverns for processing. 12.3 Estimation Methodology The following outlines the methodology used for the estimation of the Belle Plaine mineral reserves and development of a mining plan to support the mineral reserve estimates. • The current 3D seismic interpretation and all drilling information is used to generate an interpreted mining surface for cavern planning. The lateral continuity of the ore quality has been proven by production drilling. • A standard cluster size and shape is applied to the available mineral resource area on the AutoCAD plan map. This standard size accurately represents the production limit for current mining practice and includes an average of 16.5 caverns per cluster within the limits. A minimum ½ cluster size is assumed for mineral reserve estimation. • Production drilling is planned using elevations interpreted from seismic modeling to delineate appropriate mining targets within the cluster to maximize the number of caverns available for solution mining. • The mineral reserve tonnage is estimated for each cluster based on the number of caverns planned and are categorized as proven mineral reserves or probable mineral reserves based the mineral resource category. • For mine planning and scheduling purposes, cluster tonnages and grades are converted to mineable KCl tons based on the average deposit grade of 30.6% KCl (19.3% K2O). Date: December 31, 2021 12-2 12.4 Mineral Reserve Statement The mineral reserves estimate for the Belle Plaine Potash Facility are listed in Table 12-1. Figure 12-1 shows the distribution of the mineral resources and mineral reserves on the Belle Plaine property. Mineral reserves are sub- divided into two confidence categories in Regulation S-K 1300, proven and probable. Proven Mineral Reserve A Proven mineral reserve is the economically mineable part of a measured mineral resource and can only result from conversion of a measured mineral resource.” Regulation S-K 1300 provides additional guidance that to be classified as a proven mineral reserve, the qualified person must have a high degree of confidence in the results obtained from the application of the modifying factors and in the estimates of tonnage and grade or quality. At Belle Plaine, a proven mineral reserve is described as the mineable portion of a measured mineral resource. Probable Mineral Reserve A probable mineral reserve is the economically mineable part of an indicated and, in some cases, a measured mineral resource.” Regulation S-K 1300 provides additional guidance that to be classified as a probable mineral reserve, the qualified person’s confidence in the results obtained from the application of the modifying factors and in the estimates of tonnage and grade or quality is lower than what is sufficient for a classification as a proven mineral reserve, but is still sufficient to demonstrate that, at the time of reporting, extraction of the mineral reserve is economically viable under reasonable investment and market assumptions. The lower level of confidence is due to higher geologic uncertainty when the qualified person converts an indicated mineral resource to a probable reserve or higher risk in the results of the application of modifying factors at the time when the qualified person converts a measured mineral resource to a probable mineral reserve. At Belle Plaine, a probable mineral reserve is described as the mineable portion of an indicated mineral resource. Table 12-1: 2021 Mineral Reserves Category Tons (M) Tonnes (M) Grade %KCl Grade %K2O Mining Recovery % % Dilution Proven 304 275 30.6 19.3 21.5% 0% Probable 434 394 30.6 19.3 21.5% 0% Proven + Probable 738 669 30.6 19.3 21.5% 0% Notes to accompany mineral reserves table: 1. Mineral reserve estimates were prepared by QP M. Tochor, a Mosaic employee. 2. Mineral reserves have an effective date of December 31, 2021. 3. Mineral reserves are based on measured and indicated mineral resources only. 4. All mineral reserves are mined by a solution mining method. 5. No cut-off grade is used to estimate mineral reserves. This is because the solution mining method used at Belle Plaine is not selective. At no point in the cavern development and mining process can a decision be made to mine or not mine the potash mineralization that is in contact with the mining solution. There is no control on what potash grade the mining solution dissolves to make a concentrate that is pumped to surface from the mining caverns for processing (Section 11.2). 6. Mine designs based on a solution mining method and design criteria are used to constrain measured and indicated mineral resources within mineable shapes. 7. Only after a positive economic test and inclusion in the LOM plan is the mineral reserve estimate included as a mineral reserve. 8. Tonnages are in US Customary and metric units and are rounded to the nearest million tonnes. The grades are rounded to one decimal place. 9. Rounding as required by reporting guidelines may result in apparent summation differences. 10. The following KCl commodity prices were used to assess economic viability for the mineral reserves, but were not used for cut-off purposes, 2022-$271/tonne, 2023-$231/tonne, 2024-$219/tonne, 2025-$185/tonne, 2026-$188/tonne and for the LOM $219/tonne. 11. A US$/C$ exchange rate of 1.31 was used to assess economic viability for the mineral reserves, but were not used for cut-off purposes. Date: December 31, 2021 12-3 Figure 12-1: Location and Distribution of Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves Date: December 31, 2021 12-4 12.5 Uncertainties (Factors) That May Affect the Mineral Reserve Estimate The reader is cautioned that a mineral reserve is an estimate only. It is based on applying modifying factors to the resources determined to be measured and indicated. Actual mineralization can be more or less than estimated depending upon actual geological conditions. The following outlines uncertainties that exist at Belle Plaine that could impact the mineral reserve estimates. • The potash grade may not remain within historical averages for all subsequent clusters that are developed. • There is some uncertainty about the local density estimates and variance. There may be variation from the global estimate being used in the estimates. • The shape of the mineral reserve boundary may change as additional properties are acquired, and as additional data is added. Estimates will vary as drilling is added and as additional properties are acquired. • Production performance is described by an average performance factor. A particular part of the Mining Area may be slightly higher or lower from the designed production expectations. • Surface access limitations could result in revision of the planned mining activity. • Extension of 3D seismic interpretation can result in the conversion of mineral resources to mineral reserves by increasing confidence in the geological interpretation. • There are potential mineral acquisitions that could increase the mineral reserves for the Belle Plaine Potash Facility. • Cavern planning is based on current 3D seismic interpretation. The average cavern layout is planned to include a minimum of 16.5 caverns per cluster. The sequence of drilling can result in changes to the mineral reserve estimates.


 
Date: December 31, 2021 13-1 Mining Methods 13.1 Introduction The solution mining method at the Belle Plaine Potash Facility accesses three different potash members; Esterhazy, Belle Plaine and Patience Lake Members. The Esterhazy Member makes up the “Lower Mining Zone” and is mined with injection water during the cavern development phase. The Belle Plaine and Patience Lake Members are considered the “Upper Mining Zones.” The Belle Plaine Member is mined with injection water during the cavern development phase and the Patience Lake Member is mined during the “Production phase” of the cavern lifecycle using a hot, salt saturated “recycle brine.” 13.2 Solution Mining Process Solution mining involves directionally drilling boreholes to the base of the potash beds in the Prairie Evaporite Formation. These boreholes are used to transport fluid that dissolves halite (sodium chloride) and sylvite (potassium chloride) within the evaporite. The brine is returned to surface and transported to the Belle Plaine Processing Plant via buried pipelines for processing. The solution mining process and the cavern life cycle at Belle Plaine is illustrated in Figure 13-1. The total life cycle period for mining of a solution cavern is approximately 25 years. Cavern development takes up to five years to achieve, primary mining lasts for six years, and secondary mining lasts 14 years. Following secondary mining, potassium chloride (KCl) recovery is exhausted and the cavern will be plugged and decommissioned. Figure 13-1: Mining Process and Cavern Life Cycle Drilling The solution mining process at Belle Plaine begins by drilling a pair of boreholes 550 to 600 ft. (168 to 183 m) below surface to install a surface casing that provides flow isolation and groundwater protection. The boreholes are then directionally drilled to their downhole location at the base of the Esterhazy Member and are spaced to optimize mineral extraction. Production casing is cemented into each borehole to isolate the various geological formations from each other and from the cavern. The cementing also serves to isolate the cavern from the porous overlying Dawson Bay Formation that ensures pressure integrity for all mining operations. The logging group will produce an Original Cased Hole Log (OCHL) as a reference log used for all future mining operations and a Cement Bond Log (CBL), that evaluates the integrity of the production cementing operation, before turning the well over so cavern development can begin. Date: December 31, 2021 13-2 Cavern Development During the cavern development stages, a fluid that is less dense than the brine in the cavern is injected to control the vertical growth of the mining face. This forces the cavern to grow outwards along the desired mining horizon. Cavern development begins by creating sumps surrounding each of the two wells below the target potash horizon in the underlying halite. Once sump development is complete, mining of the Esterhazy Member begins. The caverns are operated as single boreholes by injecting water through the annulus into the targeted mining zone and returning the tubing until the caverns are large enough to connect. Once connected, one borehole is used as the injection side of the cavern and the other borehole functions as the return. The feed and return sides of the cavern are alternated until mining of the Esterhazy Member is complete. The thick interburden between the Esterhazy Member and the bottom of the Belle Plaine Member is characterized as halite interbedded with a thin marker bed (the White Bear Marker Bed) that contains low-grade potash. The White Bear Marker Bed is generally too thin and low-grade of potash to be economically mined. Connection of the two boreholes is re-established at the base of the Belle Plaine Member. The Belle Plaine Member is mined similarly to the Esterhazy Member as previously described. Once cavern development is complete, the cavern will be prepared for production mining. Cavern development takes approximately five years. Primary Production Mining Upon completion of cavern development, the well is moved into production. The feed fluid is changed from injection water to “recycle” which is a hot, salt saturated brine. The salt saturated feed brine allows for selective dissolution of KCl and results in a high concentration return to the Refinery. The cavern is pressure tight (no interaction with the porous Dawson Bay Formation above) so the recycle feed that is pumped from the Refinery enters and then returns from the cavern without the requirement of any other pumping mechanism. Primary production caverns are continuously fed and returned without “resting” the cavern. The primary mining phase lasts approximately six years. Secondary Production Mining Once the majority of the Patience Lake Member has been dissolved, the cavern is deemed to be in its secondary mining phase of its lifecycle. Typically, this phase will coincide with the cavern connecting to the porous Dawson Bay Formation that causes the cavern to lose its pressure integrity. Once a cavern is no longer pressure tight, an electric submersible pump is installed on the return side of the cavern and the feed stream is changed from recycle to “development brine”. Development brine is the fluid that returns out of an injection fed cavern in development before being reinjected into a secondary cavern. Caverns in secondary mining are mostly mining the KCl from the cavern walls and as such are typically mined intermittently until the KCl grade appreciates to a high enough concentration that is suitable to send to the Refinery. The secondary mining phase will last approximately 14 years. Cavern Decommissioning After a cavern is no longer productive, or it is no longer economical to perform a workover to bring the cavern back online, it is plugged and decommissioned in accordance with applicable regulations. The typical decommissioning procedure involves placing a bridge plug or retainer in the thick anhydrite unit above the Davidson Evaporate of the Upper Souris River Formation (Harris/Hatfield is preferential) and then filling the casing to surface with cement. This process provides cement coverage over all geological units to ensure that adequate stratigraphic isolation exists to prevent brine migration into freshwater formations and to isolate the cavern from surface. Mining Process Fluid Flows There are two main fluid flow inputs into the Mining Area: injection water and recycle (Figure13-2). Both feed streams ultimately contribute to the brine streams (Combined Return Flow or CRF) that are sent to the Cooling Ponds and Refinery. Date: December 31, 2021 13-3 Figure 13-2: Mining Area Flow Inputs and Outputs Injection water is the primary source of fresh flow into the Belle Plaine Mining Area and is used as the feed into developing caverns for dissolution of KCl and NaCl. Injection water is also used as dilution for cavern fluid returns to prevent the KCl from crystallizing during transport to the Refinery. The origin of the fresh water is a local lake called Buffalo Pound. The water from Buffalo Pound is pumped to storage tanks in the Refinery. The water is combined with recovered low concentration brines and heat from various sources in the Refinery, before being pumped to the Mining Area via the Powerhouse and Process Water Building. The injection water is low in KCl and NaCl, so it is suitable for dissolving both minerals. The flow requirements for this stream are primarily dictated by the number of caverns being developed at a given time in the Mining Area. Caverns under development generally return a low saturated brine (typically called development brine) that is used as a feed for caverns in the secondary production phase of their life cycle. These caverns are usually connected to the Dawson Bay Formation and utilize a submersible pump to return fluid to the Refinery. Any excess brine originating from development that is not required as a cavern feed (if the sum of injection water and recycle is greater than the requirement for feed into the Refinery and cooling ponds) is sent to the tailing management area for disposal. The recycle brine is a hot, salt saturated brine that is used as a feed for production caverns during their primary production mining phase. The source of the brine is overflow from the Belle Plaine cooling ponds. The cooling pond overflow brine is sent through the Refinery reheat system to pick up heat, then sent to a surge tank where NaCl solids are added to the brine before being pumped back to the Mining Area. Since the recycle fluid is at or near NaCl saturation and lower in KCl saturation, it allows for selective dissolution of KCl in the cavern and a deposition of NaCl into the cavern as the KCl is mined. The high NaCl concentration of recycle minimizes the mining of the salt bed between the Patience Lake Member and the Dawson Bay Formation. Combined Return Flow (CRF), is an NaCl saturated and KCl rich brine that is a collection of the return brines out of the production caverns. This fluid is the raw feed sent from the Mining Area to the Refinery for further processing. 13.2.1 Geotechnical Considerations Similar to conventional underground mines, the control of stresses and subsequent rock deformation are paramount for successful recovery of potash using the solution mining method. These key factors directly influence cavern stability and the rates of surface subsidence. Date: December 31, 2021 13-4 Since cavern development and production occurs in multiple stages, the magnitude and distribution of stresses will differ throughout the process. The in-situ vertical stresses prior to cavern development are a function of depth. As mining commences, these gradually migrate to the pillar areas found between caverns and increase in magnitude as caverns are enlarged. Excessive levels of vertical stress in these pillars will impact their stability and can eventually result in development issues or even pillar failure. As pillars shorten and widen in response to the added vertical loads, increased horizontal stresses within the cavern roof may develop and result in some displacement along natural planes of weakness such as bedding contacts or clay seams. Other stress derivatives, such as effective stress and damage potential are also considered as these have been shown to impact rock behavior. To minimize the risks associated with ground stresses, mine planning must not only consider cavern design, but also the material properties of the ore and surrounding rock formations. At Belle Plaine, this is accomplished through the geomechanical testing of core and the use of numerical modeling to optimize cavern design and development criteria. Subsidence, or the deformation of overlying strata, is another important consideration. Subsidence results from the gradual closure of cavities as adjacent potash and salt units creep into the mined openings. Aside from vertical surface displacement, other modes of ground movement can occur including extensional and compressional strains as well as tilt. When excessive, these can compromise rock strata above the caverns, result in damage to structures such a buildings or pipelines, and even change surface drainage patterns. As with cavern stresses, subsidence is controlled by cavern design and layout. Similarly, numerical models are used to analyze expected subsidence in response to mining and can be compared against data acquired during surface subsidence surveys for reconciliation and model improvement. 13.2.2 Hydrogeological Considerations The Belle Plaine Potash Facility relies on third party contractors to develop and execute the drilling program for each borehole. The mud program that is specifically designed for the Belle Plaine production drilling is closely followed to minimize potential loss and in-flow zones. Loss Circulation Material additives are run to help control minor losses. If at any point a loss zone become unmanageable, the hole will be displaced to straight brine (to avoid pumping the mud system directly into formation) and drilling will continue without returns while monitoring rig and hole conditions closely. The loss zone would then be isolated using a hydraulic stage tool and two-stage cement job after casing and logging operations have been completed. In an underbalanced scenario (flow from the formation entering the borehole being drilled), the crew will work to regain control typically by use of a heavy weight fluid to “kill” the well. The contractors work to avoid scenarios by balancing fluid properties to expected formation pressures during drilling activities. Both the surface and production casings are cemented into each borehole to isolate the various geological formations from each other and from the cavern. The cementing also serves to isolate the cavern from the permeable overlying Dawson Bay Formation. This is completed and reported in accordance with applicable regulations. At some point in the lifecycle of each cavern, it will lose its pressure integrity when it connects with the Dawson Bay Formation. This occasionally occurs earlier in its lifecycle (prior to the secondary/wall mining phase) and is generally due to the salt bedding that exists between the Patience Lake Member and the Dawson Day Formation being much thinner than typical. Early connection to the Dawson Bay Formation may result in slower recovery of KCl, or lower KCl concentration brine returns, due to cavern dissolution mechanics. The return brine is brought to surface utilizing an electric submersible pump as is the case with any cavern that has lost pressure integrity due to interaction with the Dawson Bay Formation. At the end of a cavern’s lifecycle, it will be plugged and decommissioned. The typical decommissioning procedure involves placing a bridge plug or retainer in the thick anhydrite member above the Davidson Evaporate of the Upper Souris River Formation (Harris/Hatfield is preferential) and then filling the casing to surface with cement. This process provides cement coverage over all formations to ensure adequate stratigraphic isolation exists to prevent brine migration into freshwater formations and to isolate the cavern from surface.


 
Date: December 31, 2021 13-5 13.3 Mine Design and Operations 13.3.1 Production Plan/Life of Mine Plan The 2021 Belle Plaine Life of Mine (LOM) plan is tabulated in Table 13-1 and has a total mine life of 63 years, ending in 2084. The Mining Area capability is scheduled to ramp up to support a finished tonnage projection of 3.30 M tons (3.00 M tonnes) per year and will do so until drilling is completed in the year 2066 at which point there is a ramp down in production until 2084. The Mining Area KCl production capability in the LOM plan is estimated as net mined KCl tons multiplied by total site KCl processing recovery. The difference between Mining Area KCl production capability and total shipped tons is the change in cooling pond inventory and warehouse inventory that occurs between production years. In years where the Mining Area KCl production capability is higher than shipped tons, the cooling pond and/or warehouse inventories will rise which provides surge capacity for future years. This means that any surplus of unharvested inventory in the cooling ponds can be produced into finished product in subsequent years through the refinery complex, provided the Refinery has capacity to do so. Figure 13-3 is a graphical presentation of the Mining Area KCl production and the Total KCl tons shipped by year from Table 13-1. After drilling has been completed in the Year 2066, the ramp down period will begin. At this point, it is assumed that the Mining Area will have an inventory of 225 caverns (25-year cavern life multiplied by an average of 9 caverns drilled per year) in the following stages of their lifecycle, 45 in development, 54 in primary production mining, and 126 in secondary production mining. Progression of cavern lifecycle has been maintained in this plan along with the cavern abandonment rate. Mining area capability will decline as cavern inventory declines. The overall system hydraulic balance will be maintained throughout the ramp down period. The Refinery will be switched over to a single line evaporation operation in the years 2070 to 2084 to accommodate declining flow capability. The final year of production at Belle Plaine has been projected to occur in 2084 and was determined by two main factors. First, flow from the Mining Area in successive years was insufficient to support the Belle Plaine current single line evaporation mode (Belle Plaine runs what is known as “partial evaporation”, a switch to “total evaporation” was not explored in this plan). Second, it was assumed that an operation the size of Belle Plaine is not economical below a KCl production rate of 1.0 M tons (907,000 tonnes) per year. At the conclusion of the LOM plan, 14.07 M tons (12.79 M tonnes) of KCl are left unrecoverable in the caverns. This has been removed from the 2021 mineral reserve estimate disclosed in this report. The LOM plan planning exercise was completed using a mass and energy balance software package that has been programmed to simulate the Belle Plaine process. Date: December 31, 2021 13-6 Table 13-1: Life of Mine Production Plan Year Mineral Reserves Mined M tons Net Mined KCl M tons Mining Area KCl Production Capability M tons Total Shipped Tons @ 98 weight% KCl Purity M tons Change in Cooling Pond KCl Inventory M tons Change in Warehouse KCl Inventory M tons Total Site KCl Processing Recovery % Mineral Reserve Grade %KCl 2022 12.76 3.905 3.256 3.168 0.088 0.000 83.4 30.6% 2023 13.16 4.026 3.287 3.200 0.087 0.000 81.7 30.6% 2024 14.35 4.391 3.368 3.251 0.117 0.000 76.7 30.6% 2025 13.74 4.205 3.328 3.300 0.028 0.000 79.1 30.6% 2026 13.25 4.054 3.268 3.300 -0.032 0.000 80.6 30.6% 2027 12.88 3.942 3.239 3.300 -0.061 0.000 82.2 30.6% 2028 13.29 4.066 3.277 3.300 -0.023 0.000 80.6 30.6% 2029 13.63 4.170 3.307 3.300 0.008 0.000 79.3 30.6% 2030 13.76 4.209 3.319 3.300 0.019 0.000 78.8 30.6% 2031 13.60 4.163 3.302 3.300 0.002 0.000 79.3 30.6% 2032 13.73 4.201 3.315 3.300 0.015 0.000 78.9 30.6% 2033 13.74 4.205 3.317 3.300 0.017 0.000 78.9 30.6% 2034 13.85 4.237 3.326 3.300 0.026 0.000 78.5 30.6% 2035 13.71 4.195 3.303 3.300 0.003 0.000 78.7 30.6% 2036 13.71 4.195 3.303 3.300 0.003 0.000 78.7 30.6% 2037 13.71 4.195 3.303 3.300 0.003 0.000 78.7 30.6% 2038 13.71 4.195 3.303 3.300 0.003 0.000 78.7 30.6% 2039 13.71 4.195 3.303 3.300 0.003 0.000 78.7 30.6% 2040 13.76 4.209 3.301 3.300 0.001 0.000 78.4 30.6% 2041 13.76 4.209 3.301 3.300 0.001 0.000 78.4 30.6% 2042 13.76 4.209 3.301 3.300 0.001 0.000 78.4 30.6% 2043 13.76 4.209 3.301 3.300 0.001 0.000 78.4 30.6% 2044 13.75 4.207 3.300 3.300 0.000 0.000 78.4 30.6% 2045 13.75 4.207 3.300 3.300 0.000 0.000 78.4 30.6% 2046 13.75 4.207 3.300 3.300 0.000 0.000 78.4 30.6% 2047 13.75 4.207 3.300 3.300 0.000 0.000 78.4 30.6% 2048 13.77 4.213 3.303 3.300 0.004 0.000 78.4 30.6% Date: December 31, 2021 13-7 Year Mineral Reserves Mined M tons Net Mined KCl M tons Mining Area KCl Production Capability M tons Total Shipped Tons @ 98 weight% KCl Purity M tons Change in Cooling Pond KCl Inventory M tons Change in Warehouse KCl Inventory M tons Total Site KCl Processing Recovery % Mineral Reserve Grade %KCl 2049 13.77 4.213 3.303 3.300 0.004 0.000 78.4 30.6% 2050 13.77 4.213 3.303 3.300 0.004 0.000 78.4 30.6% 2051 13.77 4.213 3.303 3.300 0.004 0.000 78.4 30.6% 2052 13.71 4.195 3.303 3.300 0.003 0.000 78.7 30.6% 2053 13.71 4.195 3.303 3.300 0.003 0.000 78.7 30.6% 2054 13.71 4.195 3.303 3.300 0.003 0.000 78.7 30.6% 2055 13.71 4.195 3.303 3.300 0.003 0.000 78.7 30.6% 2056 13.76 4.211 3.302 3.300 0.003 0.000 78.4 30.6% 2057 13.76 4.211 3.302 3.300 0.003 0.000 78.4 30.6% 2058 13.76 4.211 3.302 3.300 0.003 0.000 78.4 30.6% 2059 13.76 4.211 3.302 3.300 0.003 0.000 78.4 30.6% 2060 13.75 4.207 3.300 3.300 0.000 0.000 78.4 30.6% 2061 13.75 4.207 3.300 3.300 0.000 0.000 78.4 30.6% 2062 13.75 4.207 3.300 3.300 0.000 0.000 78.4 30.6% 2063 13.75 4.207 3.300 3.300 0.000 0.000 78.4 30.6% 2064 13.71 4.195 3.303 3.300 0.003 0.000 78.7 30.6% 2065 13.71 4.195 3.303 3.300 0.003 0.000 78.7 30.6% 2066 13.71 4.195 3.303 3.300 0.003 0.000 78.7 30.6% 2067 13.47 4.122 3.292 3.300 -0.008 0.000 79.9 30.6% 2068 12.16 3.721 3.195 3.300 -0.105 0.000 85.9 30.6% 2069 9.89 3.026 2.980 3.300 -0.320 0.000 98.5 30.6% 2070 7.05 2.156 2.031 2.077 -0.046 0.000 94.2 30.6% 2071 6.37 1.950 1.872 1.872 0.000 0.000 96.0 30.6% 2072 6.37 1.949 1.856 1.856 0.000 0.000 95.3 30.6% 2073 6.37 1.949 1.856 1.856 0.000 0.000 95.3 30.6% 2074 6.37 1.949 1.856 1.856 0.000 0.000 95.3 30.6% 2075 6.37 1.949 1.856 1.856 0.000 0.000 95.3 30.6% Date: December 31, 2021 13-8 Year Mineral Reserves Mined M tons Net Mined KCl M tons Mining Area KCl Production Capability M tons Total Shipped Tons @ 98 weight% KCl Purity M tons Change in Cooling Pond KCl Inventory M tons Change in Warehouse KCl Inventory M tons Total Site KCl Processing Recovery % Mineral Reserve Grade %KCl 2076 6.37 1.949 1.856 1.856 0.000 0.000 95.3 30.6% 2077 6.30 1.929 1.845 1.845 0.000 0.000 95.6 30.6% 2078 6.02 1.841 1.758 1.858 -0.100 0.000 95.5 30.6% 2079 5.66 1.733 1.669 1.769 -0.100 0.000 96.3 30.6% 2080 5.29 1.619 1.558 1.658 -0.100 0.000 96.2 30.6% 2081 5.04 1.544 1.473 1.573 -0.100 0.000 95.4 30.6% 2082 4.74 1.451 1.373 1.448 -0.075 0.000 94.6 30.6% 2083 4.57 1.398 1.267 1.267 0.000 0.000 90.6 30.6% 2084 4.16 1.273 1.164 1.164 0.000 0.000 91.5 30.6% Total LOM Plan 738.0* 225.810 183.326 183.921 -0.588 0.000 81.2 30.6 * Equivalent to approximately 669 million tonnes


 
Date: December 31, 2021 13-9 Figure 13-3: 2021 LOM Plan 13.3.2 Planning Assumptions/Design Criteria The following outlines the planning assumptions incorporated into the Belle Plaine 2021 LOM plan. • For mine planning and scheduling purposes, the mineral reserves are converted to mineable KCl tons based on the average deposit grade. • A cluster site (well site) layout is based on between 16 and 18 caverns (32 to 36 boreholes) being drilled and developed from a single pad. Directional drilling makes it possible to support up to 18 caverns from one cluster pad. The cluster site is generally split into an “A side” and a “B side”, each with eight to nine caverns. Typically, either an “A side” or “B side” is turned over to production each year. The cluster sites in the LOM plan will assume a 16.5 cavern/cluster average which is consistent with recent history. The mining footprint of a typical cluster site is approximately 1,200 by 1,400 m. Belle Plaine’s required drilling rate to sustain a production level of 3.3 M finished tons/year (3.0 M finished tonnes/year) is nine caverns drilled per year. Therefore, it will occasionally be necessary to drill two half clusters in a single year to maintain the nine caverns per year average requirement. These caverns will be drilled in such a timeframe that the Mining Area will never be in a deficit of caverns and injection water flow can be smoothed to match requirements. • A cluster site consists of a cluster building, an oil separation pond, a brine pond, a rig pad with a sump that drains to the oil pond, and wellheads along the rig pad. The entire cluster site is surrounded by a berm, or dyke, to manage any environmental impacts and 100-year rainwater events. • Potash ore grade will remain within historical averages for all subsequent clusters that are developed. • The average time required to develop a cavern will not change from current averages. • Production cavern performance will not change from historical averages. • Notable inputs such as feed temperature and concentrations will remain consistent with recent historical averages. Date: December 31, 2021 13-10 • Caverns will continue to provide approximately 500,000 mined tons of KCl (453,000 tonnes) over the course of their life cycle as per historical averages. With an estimated processing recovery of 79% recovery from mined net KCl tons to shipped tons, each cavern will provide approximately 395,000 net tons (358,000 net tonnes) of saleable KCl. • An average of nine caverns (18 boreholes) will be drilled and turned over to operations personnel in November each year. The estimated sustaining drilling rate requires approximately 8.5 caverns to be drilled each year to match the finished production rate of 3.3 M finished tons/year (3.0 M finished tonnes/year). An estimated drilling rate of nine caverns per year are required to offset any unforeseen complications over the life of a cavern. • Production splits between the Cooling Ponds and Refinery will stay consistent with current day projections. 13.3.3 Mining Sequence and Cluster Planning The Belle Plaine mining sequence is presented in Figure 13-4. The planned mining covers the extent of the current mineral reserves. Uncontrolled mineralization is not included in the LOM plan; however, they would be added in future years as Belle Plaine acquires them. Date: December 31, 2021 13-11 Figure 13-4: Mining Sequence and Cluster Planning Date: December 31, 2021 13-12 The mining sequence and cluster planning considers the following points. • There will be no mining adjacent to previously mined out areas for stress distribution and rock mechanics considerations as per historical work completed in conjunction with RESPEC. • The closer the cluster is to the Processing Plant, the less piping and pumping pressure is required to be maintained. Preliminary flow modeling has shown that a booster pumping station is not required for the duration of this LOM plan for sufficient flow to the more distant clusters. Further detailed work will be completed in the future to make a final determination as to the necessity of booster pumping stations. Other considerations that may influence this decision are deviations from cluster placement, fluid specific gravity, pipeline sizes and configurations, pumping performance of the current systems, etc. To ensure that minefield recycle flows are met, funding for two booster stations has been allocated in this plan as a cautionary measure. • Due to the complexities related to the calculation of the payment of royalties, Mosaic has not, and does not currently plan to mine caverns that straddle over boundaries between Mosaic-owned and Crown lease mineral properties. This consideration may impact the cavern layout of future clusters that have not yet been fully planned. • Half a cluster (8 to 9 caverns) has been used as the smallest mining unit (SMU) for planning of mining. • Caverns are placed according to geological contouring from the seismic interpretation to minimize bed dip between boreholes. • Cluster and cavern placements are planned to optimize ore extraction while maintaining a minimum of a 300 ft. (100 m) buffer between caverns as required to minimize subsidence. • Populated areas such as farmhouses, townships, etc. are typically avoided in the cluster and cavern placement plan. Areas of note are the Hamlet of Keystown in Section 36 of 17-23-W2 and the Belle Plaine Hutterite Colony located in Section 7 of 18-23-W2. • If Mosaic is unable to procure key plots of land, pipeline and cluster building layouts may be affected and would have to be re-planned. • The LOM plan includes mining only minerals that are Controlled (Mosaic owned, or Crown owned) as of December 31, 2021. No uncontrolled (privately owned by a third party) minerals are included as tons mined in the LOM plan. Mosaic will plan to acquire the uncontrolled minerals and incorporate them into the LOM plan as mining approaches an area where uncontrolled minerals are located. Any purchase of uncontrolled minerals has the potential to increase the mine life at Belle Plaine. If Mosaic is unable to procure mineral rights for any uncontrolled minerals, it is possible that those minerals may be stranded if it is determined that Mosaic will mine around them. This would in effect leave a pillar in the middle of a mined-out area and it may not be advisable to return to that area due to stress distribution and rock mechanics considerations. Further geotechnical work would need to be completed on a case-by-case basis. • Surface property and mineral rights acquisitions have been built into an extended Capital project plan to account for the time needed to approach third parties before construction can begin on a cluster. 13.3.4 Cluster Site Design A cluster site (well site) layout is based on between 16 and 18 caverns (32 to 36 boreholes) being drilled and developed from a single pad. Directional drilling makes it possible to support up to 18 caverns from one cluster pad. The cluster site is generally split into an “A side” and a “B side” each with 8 to 9 caverns. Typically, either an “A side” or “B side” is turned over to production each year. The cluster sites in the LOM plan will assume a 16.5 cavern/cluster average which is consistent with recent history. The mining footprint of a typical cluster site is approximately 1,200 by 1,400 m. A cluster site consists of a cluster building, an oil separation pond, a brine pond, a rig pad with a sump that drains to the oil pond, and wellheads along the rig pad. The entire lease is surrounded by a berm, or dyke, to manage any environmental impacts and 100-year rainwater events. A typical cluster site layout is shown in Figure 13- 5.


 
Date: December 31, 2021 13-13 Figure 13-5: Typical Cluster Site Layout 13.3.5 Operational Cut-off Grades There is no operation cut-off grade applied at Belle Plaine. This is because the solution mining method used at Belle Plaine is not selective to KCl grade variability in the mineralization. At no point in the cavern development and mining process can a decision be made to mine or not mine the potash mineralization that is in contact with the mining solution. There is no control on what potash grade the mining solution dissolves to make a concentrate that is pumped to surface from the mining caverns for processing. 13.3.6 Mine Production Monitoring Mine production monitoring is completed on multiple streams that are both inputs and returns to the Processing Plant. Individual caverns are monitored throughout their lifecycle. The process of monitoring production is discussed in the Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing section of this report. 13.3.7 Equipment The Belle Plaine Potash Facility owns all the equipment necessary to execute the primary operational functions in the Mining Area. Some additional support equipment is provided and operated by contractors as necessary to provide secondary functions such as road maintenance, earth moving, etc. Table 13-2 outlines the amount of major Mining Date: December 31, 2021 13-14 Area equipment and their associated estimated useful life. The capital cost associated with the replacement of this equipment is included in the cash flow analysis. Table 13-2: Major Mining Area Equipment Major Assets in Current Equipment Fleet Quantity Estimated Useful Life (Years) Drilling Rig 1 30 Service Rigs 6 30 Automated Service Rig 1 30 Wireline Logging Unit 3 20 Service and Support Equipment As needed Varies The drilling rig is first scheduled to be replaced in 2040. Each service rig will have an automated retrofit performed over the next 12 years. The retrofit along with major regulatory workovers will replace many of the major components of the service rigs and is projected to extend the asset life of each service rig by 25 years. The service rigs will then be replaced in the following years; 2049, 2050, 2052, 2053, 2055, and 2057. The automated service rig is scheduled to be replaced in 2049 and the wireline logging units will be replaced in 2021, 2024, and 2031. Most of the support equipment in the fleet consists of various trucks and trailers, though it also contains forklifts, personnel lifts, loaders, etc. 13.3.8 Personnel Table 13-3 outlines the Mining Area current and forecasted personnel requirements. It excludes personnel who may report to a centralized support function offsite. The Contract Headcount is stated as a Full Time Equivalent (FTE) of 2,000 hours/year/person of time tracked through the site’s safety performance metrics. The bulk of the Mining Area Mosaic workforce is positioned as operational workforce, including supervisory roles. The total Mining Area headcount has stayed relatively flat since 2018 and is expected to stay relatively flat until production ramp down begins after the final year of drilling. Movement within the sub-categories can be a result of converting contractors to Mosaic personnel. Where contracted employees are in an embedded contractor relationship, supervision is provided by the contractor with an assigned liaison for oversight who is a Mosaic employee. Table 13-3: Mining Area Personnel Requirements Employer Area 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 to 2070 2071 to 2077 2078 to 2084 Actual Actual Actual Actual Fcast. Plan Plan Plan Mosaic Maintenance 12 17 15 13 14 13 10 7 Operations 75 74 75 72 67 72 64 61 Other 5 6 5 4 4 4 2 1 Total 92 97 95 89 85 89 76 69 Contractors Maintenance 41 36 38 38 39 38 19 10 Operations 25 1 4 8 12 8 8 8 Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 66 37 42 46 51 46 27 18 Mining Area Total 158 134 137 135 136 135 103 87 Date: December 31, 2021 14-1 Recovery Methods 14.1 Introduction The Belle Plaine Potash Facility Processing Plant consists of a Refinery Area and a Cooling Pond Area. The Refinery Area subjects the raw feed brine to changing temperatures that selectively precipitates NaCl and then KCl out of solution in different stages of the process. This selective precipitation occurs because of the differences in solubilities of NaCl and KCl at varying temperatures. The Refinery utilizes an Evaporator circuit to condition the raw feed prior to being fed into a Crystallizer Circuit. Both circuits promote boiling of the brine, that allows for energy capture by process flow streams that need to be heated before being sent back to the Mining Area. The Cooling Pond area consists of multiple ponds that are fed with brine from the Refinery and with raw feed brine from the Mining Area. The ponds facilitate atmospheric cooling, that allows KCl to preferentially precipitate out of the brine. These ponds represent a very efficient method of KCl recovery, as minimal additional energy is required to facilitate the KCl recovered in this area of the operating process plant. Well established solubility curves of H20-NaCl-KCl systems are utilized to monitor the selective dropout of products in the process. Field samples are regularly taken and processed by the Belle Plaine metallurgical lab to confirm proper operational conditions in the Processing Plant. 14.2 Flowsheet The flowsheet for the Belle Plaine Processing Plant is outlined in Figure 14-1. Date: December 31, 2021 14-2 Figure 14-1: Processing Plant Flow Sheet Injection water for mining is a combination of heated water and recovered brines that are heated in the Processing Plant and used for active development in the Mining Area. Water is supplied to site from a third-party vendor that draws from the local Buffalo Pound Lake and is pumped into two distinct Injection Water systems. These systems contain a combination of heat recovery and exchange equipment that heats up the water, prior to being pumped into the Mining Area Injection pipeline network. Energy is recovered from the site’s Evaporator circuit and from a third- party industrial facility that is in close proximity to the Belle Plaine Potash Facility through heat recovery piping loops. Solution Storage Tanks Raw feed from the Mining Area first enters the Processing Plant in the Solution Storage Tanks or it can be fed directly to the Cooling Pond Area. The Solution Storage Tanks feed the Refinery Area’s Evaporator Circuit. Powerhouse The Belle Plaine Powerhouse contains several natural gas fired, water tube boilers that generate the steam required to run the Belle Plaine Solution Mining process. The on-site boilers are fed with natural gas and boiler feed water. The natural gas is supplied by a third-party company and the boiler feed water is condensate that has been recovered from


 
Date: December 31, 2021 14-3 several steam fed heat exchangers within the process. The majority of the steam energy produced from the boilers is fed into: • Turbo Generators for on-site electrical generation • Steam driven equipment (example: turbine driven pumps) • Evaporator Circuit heat exchangers (see Evaporator Circuit description) • Process Heat Exchangers • Pressure reducing valves for steam use at a lower operating pressure The Powerhouse also utilizes power from Saskatchewan Power Corporation (SPC), that supplements on-site power generation and can provide backup to on-site power generation. Evaporator Circuit The Evaporator Circuit contains the equipment necessary to condition the NaCl and KCl containing brine for efficient KCl recovery. The Evaporator Circuit contains two lines of evaporators that operate in parallel. Each line contains four evaporators in series that are surrounded by circulation heaters with dedicated pumps. Raw feed from the Solution Storage Tanks is pumped into each evaporator line, while steam from the Powerhouse Area is supplied to each of the evaporator lines. In this process, the energy and process brine flow counter-current to one another. As such, the process brine is heated and brought to a boil as the steam’s energy is transferred to the brine. When the NaCl and KCl containing brine is heated and boiled in this process, it achieves a state that encourages efficient KCl precipitation in the downstream Crystallizer circuit. As water is boiled off in the Evaporator Circuit, it concentrates the constituents in solution to a point where NaCl is forced to precipitate. NaCl that precipitates in each evaporator is collected, dewatered, and then sent to one of the following locations: • Re-slurried and pumped to a third party to be sold as a saleable co-product. • Re-slurried and pumped to the Tailing Management Area. • Re-dissolved in site’s Reheat System (See Reheat section below). Thickener Area Brine that has been conditioned in the Evaporator Circuit is fed into the Thickener Area to drop out impurities. This area consists of thickener vessels and associated pumps. Brine exiting the Evaporator Circuit is fed into the top of the thickener and is blended with a flocculent additive to assist in the dropout of impurities. The dropout of impurities is also mechanically assisted with an internal thickener rake, that further directs the impurities to the bottom cone of the Thickener vessel. Impurities are pumped from the bottom of the thickener to the Tailings Management Area, while clarified brine overflows from the thickener and is pumped into the Crystallizer Circuit for KCl recovery. Crystallizer Circuit The Crystallizer Circuit is fed with process brine that has been conditioned in the upstream Evaporator Circuit and clarified in the upstream thickener. The Crystallizer Circuit is designed to cool process brine through vacuum assisted evaporative cooling, that forces KCl to precipitate out of solution. The Crystallizer Circuit consists of multiple crystallizers in series that reduce the temperature of the brine through boiling. Boiling is achieved through the use of barometric condensers and ejectors, that results in the preferential precipitation of KCl from solution. KCl solids are withdrawn from each crystallizer vessel as a KCl slurry and pumped to the Dewatering and Dryer Area for processing. At the end of the Crystallizer Circuit, the cooled process brine is pumped to the Cooling Pond Area for further atmospheric cooling of the brine. Cooling Ponds The Belle Plaine Cooling Pond Area is used to cool brine through atmospheric cooling for the purposes of precipitating KCl out of solution. The Cooling Pond Area consists of 11 interconnected ponds and feeds into this area include a portion of the raw feed that is generated from the Mining Area, Crystallizer Circuit brine overflows, and several other Date: December 31, 2021 14-4 process slipstreams. As the brine flows through this area, it is gradually cooled because of the temperature difference between the brine and atmospheric temperature. As the brine cools, KCl is precipitated out of solution and deposits on the bottom of the cooling ponds through natural settling. When the brine reaches the end of the Cooling Pond Area, it is pumped back into the Refinery as “Pond Overflow/Reheat Brine” in the Reheat System or pumped to the Tailings Management Area. The Cooling Pond Area contains several KCl dredges that are used to reclaim the settled KCl solids from the bottom of the Cooling Ponds. The dredges use a cutter wheel and slurry pump to send the solid KCl into a series of tanks that allow for impurity leaching and surge capacity for the Dewatering and Dryer Area. Reheat Circuit The Reheat System uses Cooling Pond Overflow brine to recover energy from Refinery Area vessels before the brine is pumped back to the Mining Area. Cooling Pond Overflow brine is pumped into the Reheat System through several pumps that are located at the end of the Cooling Pond Area and is relabeled as “Reheat Brine” once it enters the Refinery Area. The Reheat Brine is then fed into several barometric condensers and heat exchangers that increase the temperature of the brine. The barometric condensers facilitate efficient energy recovery by allowing direct contact between the Reheat Brine and the vapours being liberated from process vessels. After the reheat, brine has achieved an appropriate temperature, it is pumped to a large surge tank where NaCl solids are added and re-dissolved back into solution. At this point, the brine is rebranded as “Recycle” and is pumped into the Mining Area as a feed stream. Dewatering and Drying Circuits The Belle Plaine Processing Plant contains several dewatering and dryer circuits that are fed with KCl slurry withdrawn from the Crystallizer and Cooling Pond circuits. Dewatering, or removal of process brine from the KCl solids as a filtrate, is achieved using hydrocyclones, a filter table, and several centrifuges. Filtrate brine is returned to the circuit that is was pumped from, while the KCl solids are fed into natural gas fired industrial dryers. Each dryer is equipped with its own burner to produce high temperature combustion gas that comes into direct contact with the KCl solids to remove surface and internal moisture. Every dryer is also equipped with a wet scrubber or baghouse system to comply with local government emissions regulations. Testing is performed by a third-party annually and submitted to the Ministry of Environment as proof of compliance. Dried product exiting each dryer is then conveyed into an elevator that lifts the product into the Sizing Area or directly into the Compaction Area for further processing. Sizing Area The Sizing Area is comprised of screens and gates that are used to split the product by size and product purity. Some of the product exiting the KCl dryers is fed into an elevator that feeds a bank of screens. These screens separate product as “on-size” or “oversized” product. Oversized product reports to a crusher and is recycled back to the Sizing Area screens to be screened again. A portion of on-size product is sent to product storage warehouses, while the rest is sent to the Compaction Area. On-size product that is not fed to the Compaction Area is treated and cooled in an industrial cooler. The product is then weighed and conveyed to the proper warehouse using belt conveyors. The Sizing Area is connected into a wet scrubber system that helps minimize area dust. It should be noted that a small portion of on-size product can be pulled from the Sizing Area screens and transferred directly to the Loadout Area through a belt conveyor, where it can be packaged as 55 lb. (25 kg) capacity paper bags or 2,204 lbs. (1,000 kg) capacity totes. Compaction Area The Compaction Area is used to compress a portion of site’s dry KCl particles into larger flake so that it can be crushed and screened to product grade size. The Compaction Area contains several compaction circuits, each containing its own set of elevators, conveyors, compactors, crushers and screens. Each compaction circuit is configured to produce a specific size of product, based on the typical feed purity. As such, compaction circuits are generally isolated from Date: December 31, 2021 14-5 one another to maintain product purity. Compacted products produced at Belle Plaine include Industrial products and a Pegasus Granular product. Individual compactors are composed of two large diameter rolls that are spinning in opposite directions via an electrical motor and gearbox. Pressure is applied to the compactor rolls, while product is continually fed between the spinning rolls. This process mechanically compresses smaller KCl particles into a larger solid flake. The flake is gravity fed into a crusher that creates a distribution of particle sizes, which then feeds an elevator and bank of screens for sizing. Typical operation of compaction circuit screens allow the screen undersized product to be sent back to the compactors, the screen oversized product to be sent to another crusher in the system that discharges back into the screen’s feed, and the screen on-size product to move forward in the process. On-size compaction circuit products are then cooled, weighed, and belt conveyed to the proper warehouse, based on purity and size requirements. It should be noted that a slip stream of product is pulled off the Compaction Area and is fed into the K-Life Bagging area. This area bags, weighs, and palletizes KCl product for sale as a consumer based KCl water softener in 40 lb. (18 kg) bags. Palletized bags of product are then forklifted into semi-trucks for distribution. Storage and Shipping Area Product is weighed and conveyed into the Belle Plaine warehouses through the use of belt conveyors and is distributed to the appropriate warehouse through the use of trippers or chutes that allow the product to freefall and land atop existing product in the warehouse. Product that is produced, stored and shipped offsite must meet customer grade. Product purity shipped from the site must contain a K2O equivalent content of 62.0%, that equates to a product purity of approximately 98 wt.%. The site product warehouses are configured such that each product has its own dedicated warehouse(s) to avoid product contamination. When required, product in a warehouse is reclaimed through one of the two reclaim systems. Bucket loaders feed the reclaim systems that convey product back into the Refinery building for its final screening before it is sent to the site’s shipping facility. During the screening process, “losses” are produced because of initial product breakdown that occurs in the Warehouse and through product conveyance. These “losses” are smaller KCl particles that have broken away from the compacted and sized KCl product and are primarily fed back into the Compaction Area for reprocessing. These losses will work their way through the Compaction Area and will return to a warehouse as on-grade product. Product that is screened to size reports to a belt conveyor that transfers the product to the Shipping Area surge bins. These surge bins feed shipping systems that are filling semi-trucks or rail cars. Product entering a rail car or truck is weighed by government regulated scales. Some of the products being conveyed to the Shipping Area can be transferred to the paper bagging/tote area, that is contained in the Shipping Area building. In this process, product is reclaimed to a product storage bin and then pulled out of the bin with a screw conveyor that feeds the bagging/tote system. 14.3 Equipment Characteristics and Specifications Table 14-1 outlines and summarizes the Process Plant main equipment characteristics and specifications. Table 14-1: Process Plant Equipment Circuit/Area Equipment Name Powerhouse Area Boilers Steam Turbine Generators Mining Area Feed Streams Injection Pumps Process Heat Exchanger Recycle Pumps Raw Feed Tanks Date: December 31, 2021 14-6 Circuit/Area Equipment Name Evaporator Circuit Evaporators Barometric Condensers Cooling Towers Thickener Area Thickener Vessel Thickener Pumps Crystallizer Circuit Crystallizer Vessels Barometric Condensers Cooling Ponds Cooling Ponds KCl Dredges Cooling Pond Overflow Pumps Dewatering and Drying Hydrocyclones Filter Table KCl Centrifuges Industrial Dryers Reheat System Barometric Condensers Heat Exchangers Sizing Area Sizing Area Screens Sizing Area Product Coolers Compaction Area KCl Compactors Product Crushers Compaction Area Screens Compaction Area Coolers Storage and Shipping Product Warehouses Reclaim System Conveyance and Screens Rail/Truck Loading Tracks 14.4 Water and Energy Requirements The Belle Plaine process is an energy and water intensive process. Over the many years of production, upgrades have been implemented to increase the efficiency of the overall process. The historical and the future water and energy requirements to meet production requirements are listed in Table 14-2.


 
Date: December 31, 2021 14-7 Table 14-2: Water and Energy Requirements Year 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 to 2026 2027 to 2066 2067 to 2070 2071 to 2080 2081 to 2084 Actual Actual Actual Actual Fcast. Plan Plan Plan Plan Plan Natural Gas Energy Purchased, GJ/day 36,417 37,160 37,229 35,786 37,379 40,001 40,257 36,657 25,633 22,622 Energy Recovery from Third-Party, GJ/day 2,039 1,818 1,873 985 1,281 2,433 2,433 1,532 794 794 Average Import Power from SPC, MW 3.25 4.46 4.79 2.95 3.94 1.07 0.86 1.53 3.67 6.29 Average Water Usage, US gallon/min 5,126 5,465 5,707 3,369 4,960 7,655 8,219 5,402 2,787 2,795 Future water and energy requirements are estimated using a mass and energy balance software package that has been programmed to simulate the Belle Plaine process. Table 14-2 outlines that there are varying levels of energy and water consumption over historical and future years. Total water and energy consumption required in each year is largely influenced by the number of caverns in development. As discussed in Section 13, developing caverns requires heated water (Injection Water) to efficiently develop an underground cavity. As the Belle Plaine production tonnage increases to a sustained 3.30 M tons/year (3.0 M tonnes/year) output, a sustainable amount of caverns will need to be drilled each year, followed by several years of development. The predicted water and energy requirements reflect this progression towards a sustained nine caverns drilled per year between 2027 to 2066. Inputs into site then decrease over the site’s ramp down that occurs between 2067 and 2084. 14.5 Personnel The Belle Plaine Processing Plant workforce consists of Mosaic personnel and contractors. The breakdown of Mosaic and Contract headcount for the Processing Plant is listed in Table 14-3. It excludes personnel who may report to a centralized support function offsite. The Contract headcount is stated as a Full Time Equivalent (FTE) of 2,000 hours/year/person of time tracked through the Belle Plaine safety performance metrics. Table 14-3: Processing Plant Personnel Employer Year 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 to 2066 2067 to 2070 2071 to 2080 2081 to 2084 Actual Actual Actual Actual Fcast. Plan Plan Plan Plan Mosaic Maintenance 77 88 92 74 71 74 74 53 37 Operations 108 117 112 111 112 111 111 99 91 Other 7 7 5 4 4 4 4 4 3 Total 192 212 208 189 187 189 189 155 131 Contractors (FTE) Maintenance 156 143 146 156 166 156 156 111 78 Operations 35 28 16 18 18 18 18 9 9 Other 10 10 9 11 4 11 11 6 7 Total 201 181 172 185 188 185 185 127 94 Processing Plant Total 393 393 380 373 375 373 373 282 225 The majority of the Processing Plant’s Mosaic workforce is positioned as operational workforce, including supervisory roles. The total Mosaic personnel count has maintained a relatively consistent trend and this trend is expected to continue throughout the remaining life of the Belle Plaine site until the site’s ramp down that begins in 2067. The majority of the contractor workforce is utilized in maintenance activities through common industrial trades (Pipefitters, Millwrights, Carpenters, etc.). A portion of the trade skills required is sourced through a third-party contractor. This facilitates the increased flexibility in resources that may be required for maintenance shutdowns. Where contracted employees are in an embedded contractor relationship, supervision is provided by the contractor with an assigned liaison for oversight who is a Mosaic employee. The Processing Plant’s total contractor headcount has stayed relatively constant in recent years and this trend is expected to continue until the site’s ramp down. Date: December 31, 2021 14-8 14.6 Key Metrics The historical and future key metrics for the Belle Plaine Processing Plant have been tabulated in Table 14-4. It should be noted that historical values listed in Table 14-4 have been estimated from field level measurement, on-site metallurgical analysis, on-site Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) analysis, and third-party inventory assessments. Metallurgical and QA/QC testing information is outlined in Section 10 of this report. Future tonnage recoveries are estimated using a mass and energy balance software package that has been programmed to simulate the Belle Plaine process. Table 14-4: Key Processing Plant Metrics Area/ Location Year 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 to 2026 2027 to 2066 2067 to 2070 2071 to 2080 2081 to 2084 Actual Actual Actual Actual Fcast. Plan Plan Plan Plan Plan Total Site Processing Recovery Net Mined KCl, M tons 3.431 3.516 3.573 3.346 3.695 4.116 4.193 3.256 1.882 1.417 Change in Cooling Pond KCl Inventory, M tons -0.152 0.059 -0.051 -0.096 0.088 0.058 0.002 -0.108 -0.030 -0.044 Change in Warehouse KCl Inventory, M tons -0.005 -0.068 0.023 -0.075 -0.021 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Total Shipped KCl, M tons @ 98 weight% KCl Purity 2.942 3.122 2.931 3.195 3.065 3.244 3.300 2.983 1.828 1.363 Total Site KCl Processing Recovery, % 81 89 81 90 85 80 79 90 96 93 Refinery Area Total Refinery KCl Input, M tons 3.852 3.996 3.717 3.800 3.831 3.849 3.834 3.440 2.201 2.173 Crystallizer KCl Production to Warehouse, M tons 1.606 1.669 1.599 1.692 1.668 1.641 1.668 1.461 0.811 0.797 Refinery KCl Recovery, % 42 42 43 45 44 43 44 42 37 37 Cooling Pond Area Total Cooling Pond KCl Input, M tons 4.077 4.528 4.615 4.301 4.996 5.499 5.519 4.789 3.401 1.749 Change in Cooling Pond Inventory, M tons -0.152 0.059 -0.051 -0.096 0.088 0.058 0.002 -0.108 -0.030 -0.044 Cooling Pond KCl Production to Warehouse, M tons 1.368 1.431 1.477 1.569 1.510 1.603 1.632 1.305 0.957 0.479 Cooling Pond KCl Recovery, % 30 33 31 34 32 30 30 25 27 26 It should be noted that Table 14-2 includes a relatively steady state operation between 2027 to 2066. During this time, Mining Area caverns are drilled at a rate closely equal to their consumption and site achieves very consistent year over year performance. This table also includes a Belle Plaine ramp down period between 2067 to 2084. During the ramp down, drilling is no longer completed, and only one of the two evaporator lines is run to maintain an overall system hydraulic balance. The Mining Area continues to feed the Refinery and Cooling Pond Areas until cavity inventory is pulled down to an insufficient state, that was found to occur after 2084. Date: December 31, 2021 14-9 The historical Refinery Area and Cooling Pond Area recoveries have proven to be relatively constant and this trend is expected to continue in the life of mine plan, until a progressive ramp down of the site occurs in 2067. On the other hand, historical and future total processing recoveries do change over time. This is because the total site balance is influenced by the total number of cavities that are developing and the fresh water input required to facilitate their development. As the fresh water flow increases to site, the total deep well brine disposal flow out of the Belle Plaine process will also increase as a result of site’s overall hydraulic balance. Deep well brine disposal represents a loss of KCl mass and reduces the site’s total processing recovery. As the total number of cavities in development has varied over historical years and as the site moves towards a sustainable drilling rate to sustain a 3.30 M tons/year production rate, the predicted total KCl process recoveries are expected to trend and stabilize accordingly. The ability of the operation to produce at a sustained 3.30 M tons/year in future years is also backed by a Canpotex proving run in 2016/2017, when the Belle Plaine site achieved a proven nameplate of 4.3 M tons/year (3.9 M tonnes/year), and achieved a maximum demonstrated rate of 550 tons/hour (499 tonnes/hour) across the Dryer, Sizing, and Compaction areas over a four day period. The site also achieved a daily shipping record of 19,319 tons (17,526 tonnes) over this proving run. Date: December 31, 2021 15-1 Infrastructure 15.1 Introduction The Belle Plaine Potash Facility is situated in close proximity to relevant existing infrastructure. The TransCanada Pipeline passes through the Mining Area, a large body of water is located less than 12.5 miles (20 km) away, there is easy access to rail, and two significant population centers are located within 30 miles (48 km) of the Belle Plaine Potash Facility. The Belle Plaine Potash Facility has the infrastructure in place to meet the current production goals and LOM plan. Additional infrastructure may be added to increase reliability of the existing product lines or provide production flexibility. The assets currently in place are maintained through a robust workflow process that focuses on proactive inspections and preventative maintenance while trying to minimize reactive maintenance. Belle Plaine uses qualitative and quantitative inspections to identify the current condition and remaining life of the assets. The assets are inspected using a risk-based approach following the American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice - API RP 580 and there is a dedicated mechanical integrity team on-site that is focused on inspections and creating remediation plans when deficiencies are identified. The major structural assets at Belle Plaine are inspected by third party professional engineers, and models of the main structures are available to quickly and accurately determine member by member fitness for service. Belle Plaine uses a data management tool for inspected assets and to prioritize maintenance based on risk. This tool also makes it easy to communicate the risk of any asset and to update following repairs or follow up inspections. Belle Plaine also relies on some infrastructure that is maintained by third parties. These are listed in Table 15-1. Figure 15-1 shows the location of the major Belle Plaine infrastructure. Figure 15-2 is a detailed view of the plant and Tailings Area infrastructure. Table 15-1: Infrastructure Maintained by Third Parties Infrastructure Supplied and Maintained by Rail Network Canadian Pacific Railway (agreement to access Canadian National Rail) Road Network Rural Municipality of Pense (No. 160) and Saskatchewan Highways Process Water SaskWater Power SaskPower Natural Gas TransGas and SaskEnergy Communications SaskTel


 
Date: December 31, 2021 15-2 Figure 15-1: Major Infrastructure Date: December 31, 2021 15-3 Figure 15-2: Detailed Plant and Tailings Area Infrastructure 15.2 Roads and Logistics The main road access to the site is via Kalum Road that provides access from the main corridor between Moose Jaw and Regina, TransCanada Highway #1 (Figure 15-1). Alternate access to the Mining Area via the East/West Highway SK 730 or North/South Highway 642. Access to site is maintained throughout the year with snow clearing and grading being a normal routine practiced. There are a variety of site-maintained and Rural Municipality of Pense (No. 160) maintained roads through the mine area. These are typically gravel roads. Roads around the processing plant are paved and maintained regularly. Canadian National and Canadian Pacific Railways are available to Belle Plaine to move final product to port. The majority of finished product leaves site by rail. Belle Plaine is party to a Tri-Party Joint Operating Agreement with Canadian Pacific (CP) and Canadian National Railways (CN), dated July 20, 1967 that governs the joint operation and interaction of all parties for freight services at the Belle Plaine Potash Facility. Mosaic owns the tracks on site that are operated by Cando, a third party. Product is then moved via the CP Rail to port or south into the USA. Since Belle Plaine is located between the CN and CP rail lines, the loadout tracks are tied into the CN Lead and CP Spur. Date: December 31, 2021 15-4 15.3 Tailings Storage Facilities The TMA (Tailings Management Area), consisting of a salt pile, brine pond and the surrounding containment dykes, was first constructed in 1964 on low hydraulic conductivity foundation soils (Regina Clay and glacial till). A generalized cross section (Figure 15-3) from top to bottom includes Regina Clay overlaying glacial till, followed by disturbed Bearpaw Shale overlying the basal intact Bearpaw Shale. More detail is outlined in Section 17.6.3. A composite French drain system surrounds the entire TMA and has been shown to be effective at reducing porewater pressures in foundation materials and thus reducing brine migration from the mine site. The tailings management area (TMA) at Belle Plaine is regulated by the Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment (MOE). Figure 15-3: Simplified Stratigraphy of the TMA Area The TMA is located northeast of the general Refinery and is used to store the tailings produced from the solution mining process. The TMA area is approximately 217 hectares in size. Tailings are discharged through two separate spigots onto the tailings pile, at which point the salt is allowed to settle onto the tailings pile and the brine is decanted to the brine pond. Heavy equipment is used to create berms to direct the flow of the discharges and help with strategic tailings placement. A plan is in place to raise the height of the current TMA salt pile in a staged approach with benches set back to preserve the stability of the overall pile. A cross section of the current and future state is shown in Figure 15-4. Figure 15-4: Typical Cross Section of TMA Pile with Current and Future States Brine injection wells at the facility reduce the net deposition to the tailings area. A composite French drain system, constructed between 2005 and 2015 is located around the north, east and south perimeters of the TMA. The French drain is used to collect seepage from the TMA pond, that is pumped back into the pond via dewatering wells. Mosaic has committed to the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) to raise the TMA dykes by 2024 as per the Saskatchewan Potash Industry Brine Pond Freeboard Guidelines and Reporting Requirements within the ATO. Monitoring of the TMA includes, but is not limited to: • Site visits and review by operations personnel twice a day. • Monthly inspections of the TMA dyke. • Quarterly monitoring performed by a Mosaic environmental consultant. Date: December 31, 2021 15-5 • An annual inspection completed in the fall by a Mosaic environmental consultant, focusing on the TMA dykes. • Real time instrumentation monitoring of portions of the TMA dykes and tailings pile. The instrumentation includes vibrating wire piezometers, and slope inclinometers, that monitor and measure any movement and provide alarms. Refer to Section 17 for additional information about the TMA. 15.4 Brine Management Structures The cooling ponds occupy approximately a space of 85 hectares and are similar in construction to the TMA, using local Regina Clay to build up the dykes. Cooling ponds were built in 1984 as an alternative refining technique to the evaporation/crystallization process, greatly reducing the natural gas needed to refine potash. The pond dykes are monitored in a manner similar to that outlined for the TMA. 15.5 Built Infrastructure The infrastructure built at the Belle Plaine Potash Facility includes: • A sewage digester for the main refinery and maintenance/office buildings. • A fire water system with backup generators for the processing plant. Belle Plaine has agreements with the local Rural Municipality of Pense and the Yara Belle Plaine Inc. (that operates a nitrogen fertilizer production facility across Kalium road) to support each other in emergency situations. • The Mining Area consists of hundreds of kilometers of buried pipeline that supports the mining process and transports brine and water to the mine and raw feed for the recovery of potash back to the Refinery and Cooling Ponds. • Tanks and pumping systems to support the mining and get the Refinery raw feed are a part of the mechanical integrity program. • Belle Plaine has a number of Refinery workshops and buildings for the storage of parts and spares. • Belle Plaine has a fiber mesh system in place in the mine area to support instrumentation. For communications on-site there is a radio system in place as well as a portable cellular tower provided by SaskTel that boosts cell reception for the site. 15.6 Power and Electrical SaskPower provides a portion of the power required to run the Belle Plaine Potash Facility. This power comes in off their main grid that could be fed from any number of power plants, along the highline running north and south along Kalum Road (Figure 15-1). A total of 138 kV comes into the Belle Plaine substation through over head lines where it is then stepped down to 13.8 kV using two transformers (28 MVA and 33.3 MVA). Belle Plaine owns and manages their substation where there is also a 138 kVA grounding transformer and a 138 kVA gas insulated breaker lineup. The Belle Plaine Potash Facility generates power from the site powerhouse from two turbine generators. Typically, the total required Belle Plaine power requirement is 90% in-house generated power with the remaining being 10% fed from SaskPower. Belle Plaine does not have the option to send power back to the SaskPower grid. From the on-site substation, 13.8 kVA transformer secondary wires are fed to 13.8 kVA breakers in the Powerhouse to MCC rooms throughout the plant area and mine area. Belle Plaine uses overhead and buried cables throughout the mine area and cable trays in the Refinery for the 13.8 kVA wires. Belle Plaine owns a 138 kVA air disconnect that is tied into SaskPower.


 
Date: December 31, 2021 15-6 The existing powerhouse at Mosaic Belle Plaine consists of three boilers installed between 1964 to 1968 which are industrial water-tube boilers, and one newer water-tube boiler installed in 2010. Steam produced by the boilers is supplied to two turbines to generate electricity, as well as to the brine injection pumps, and evaporator heat exchangers used to produce potash. The existing 1960s era boilers must be modified or replaced to meet new MSAPR (Multi-Sector Air Pollutants Regulations) set by the Canadian Government. These regulations set air pollution emission standards across Canada and limit the amount of nitrogen oxides (NOx) allowed to be emitted from gaseous fuel-fired non-utility boilers. Belle Plaine will replace one of the existing 1960s boilers with a new boiler installed south of the existing powerhouse, and retrofit the other two 1960s boilers with new Low-NOx burners to reduce emissions. Removal of the boiler air preheaters, and installation of economizers and low-temperature process heat exchangers will improve boiler efficiency. The boiler built in 2010 meets the 2026 standard and will not require retrofitting or replacement. 15.7 Natural Gas TransGas supplies natural gas to the Belle Plaine Potash Facility. The gas flows from the main lines into a local regulator station situated just north of the administration building and powerhouse. This station takes the high pressure feed from the main lines and cuts it down through on-site filtration and also does some pre-heating to provide low pressure gas directly to the facility. 15.8 Water Supply The main source of water (non-potable) required for production is provided by SaskWater from Buffalo Pound Lake, an 18 mile (29 km) long, 0.6 mile (1 km) wide lake with an average depth of 10 ft. (3 m), located northwest of the mine (Figure 15-1). Buffalo Pound Lake also supplies potable water for the cities of Regina, Moose Jaw and surrounding regions. Water levels are controlled by the SaskWater Security Agency and managed through the Lake Diefenbaker Dam. Belle Plaine operates a dedicated pumping station located on the south shore of Buffalo Pound Lake near the eastern edge of the lake with capacity of approximately 13,000 US gallons per minute. There are three on duty pumps and a fourth on standby to ensure steady supply. Belle Plaine typically runs two pumps to meet the water current needs with the other pumps providing peaking capacity for future mining. Potable water is supplied for the site from the Buffalo Pound Water Treatment facility that is operated by SaskWater. Belle Plaine also has a tie-in to the potable water line that feeds the City of Regina. Date: December 31, 2021 16-1 Market Studies and Contracts 16.1 Markets Potassium is one of the three primary crop nutrients required for plant growth and is not substitutable. Potassium chloride, otherwise referred to as muriate of potash (MOP), as well as other fertilizer products derived from it, provides the overwhelming majority of potassium nutrient worldwide. While the term potash can be used to refer to a number of salts that contain potassium in a water-soluble form, it is common practice to refer to MOP as potash. Relatively small volumes of potash are also utilized in industrial applications and as a mineral supplement for livestock. The global market for potash is estimated to be approximately 70 M tonnes in 2021 and has grown at a compound annual rate of around 2.5% over the past three decades. The overall trend is linear with significant year-to-year variability. Global potash demand growth is expected to continue this trend, with Mosaic and independent analysts projecting a growth rate of >2% per annum. This growth ensures sufficient market demand for continued production at the Belle Plaine Potash Facility. This growth will necessitate new mining capacity or higher operating rates at existing mines to meet the demand. Belle Plaine produces several specifications of potash that are sold into the crop nutrient (to be utilized as fertilizer) and industrial markets, domestically, defined as the U.S. and Canada, as well as export markets. Mosaic’s sales of potash are split about evenly between domestic and offshore markets. Due to the solution mining nature of the Belle Plaine operation, the potash produced contains fewer impurities and has a higher content of potassium (i.e., a K2O content of ~62% versus the more common 60% associated with the majority of potash products). The higher-grade results in a modestly higher market price for Belle Plaine potash. Potash prices may also vary due to the physical sizing of the product. For example, there is generally a price premium for granular (blend) grade product versus standard grade product. Belle Plaine produces a combination of granular, standard grade and industrial products. For the purposes of this analysis, no market premium for Belle Plaine product is assumed. A simpler and more conservative approach is to assume that the Belle Plaine production is representative of the FOB Vancouver price benchmark published by an independent third party that includes standard and granular potash sales. 16.2 Commodity Price and Exchange Rate Forecasts The commodity price forecasts utilized in the analysis are derived from an independent third party, CRU, a reputable supplier of market forecasts across a range of commodities including potash. Specifically, CRU publishes a regular forecast of potash pricing on an FOB Vancouver basis that incorporates prices for a blend of various grades of potash. The CRU also publishes historical and forecast potash production cost estimates for most mines around the world, including Belle Plaine. These cost estimates include figures on an FOB port of Vancouver basis as well a site cost (ex- works) basis at Belle Plaine. The difference provides an estimate of the handling and transport cost from the mine to port. For the 2021 LOM plan, the arithmetic average of the forecast values from 2022 to 2026 have been used (Table 16-1). The price forecast is conservative, as the price reflects export sales (FOB Vancouver) and does not account for the higher mine netbacks that are achieved with domestic market sales. The U.S. dollar / Canadian dollar exchange rate utilized in the analysis is derived as the arithmetic average of the five years 2017 to 2021, with the actuals sourced from Bloomberg. Table 16-1: Commodity Prices and Exchange Rates 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 LOM Actual Actual Actual Actual Fcast. Fcast. Fcast. Fcast. Fcast. Fcast. Fcast. Foreign Exchange (US$/C$) 1.30 1.30 1.33 1.34 1.27 1.31 1.31 1.31 1.31 1.31 1.31 Potash KCl (US$/tonne) 169 203 225 178 222 271 231 219 185 188 219 Date: December 31, 2021 16-2 Sources: 1. FX rate: (Actual) Bloomberg – arithmetic average of the end-of-day spot rate; (Forecast) Arithmetic average of the five years 2017 to 2021. 2. Potash: CRU Potassium Chloride Market Outlook February 2021, FOB, Vancouver minus an estimate of the cost of freight/handling from mine to port via the CRU Potash Cost Service October 2020 (FOB cost minus cost ex-works at realized production). 16.3 Contracts Potash sales from Belle Plaine can be split into two general categories: domestic and export. Export sales occur through Canpotex Limited, a joint venture between potash producers Mosaic and Nutrien Ltd. Canpotex undertakes all sales of the member producers’ potash outside of the U.S. and Canada. All Belle Plaine export sales are made to Canpotex. Canpotex then moves the product to offshore markets and sells the product. The Canpotex sales are a combination of spot and contract sales (with contract duration typically one year or less) to longstanding customers. Domestic sales are managed internally by Mosaic. Over half of these sales are made on a spot basis, with the remainder of sales under longer-term contracts (with prices that adjust to reflect market conditions). Date: December 31, 2021 17-1 Environmental Studies, Permitting and Plans, Negotiations or Agreements with Local Individuals or Groups 17.1 Introduction Mosaic commissioned SNC-Lavalin Inc. (SNC-Lavalin) to compile Section 17 of the S-K 1300 Disclosure for the Belle Plaine Potash Facility (the Site). 17.2 Baseline and Supporting Studies Groundwater Studies Investigation of groundwater at the Site has been a continual process since mining began with many boreholes and wells installed over the operational history. To date there have been over 1,200 boreholes drilled for various environmental monitoring purposes and over 600 installations completed including monitoring wells, dewatering wells, vibrating wire piezometers, pneumatic piezometers, slope inclinometers, EM39 ports, etc. The drilling, instrumentation and testing programs, coupled with ongoing groundwater level and chemistry monitoring and periodic electromagnetic (EM) surveys have characterized the hydrogeology and are used for environmental monitoring purposes. The following discussion provides supporting groundwater studies that have been instrumental in environmental investigations and permitting to date. To assist with site characterization, a High Resolution Electromagnetic (HREM) survey has been completed for the site. Apparent resistivity maps identified strong anomalies north and east of the existing TMA, in areas largely devoid of shallow stratigraphic information. Confirmatory field investigations indicated predominantly tills and stratified deposits infilling topographic lows created by channel structures identified in the HREM surveys. Groundwater assessments completed to date include mapping of aquifer limits, potentiometric, and chloride concentrations for the site. Chloride concentration and potentiometric trends have also been assessed in conjunction with EM data to evaluate potential migration, impacts and the groundwater monitoring network itself. Risk to the closest third-party groundwater users in the vicinity of the site appeared to be minimal at the time of the last assessment. A 100 year, 3D groundwater flow and solute transport modeling study was completed to identify potential sub-surface brine migration issues and evaluate a potential horizontal brine mitigation system. The modeling and monitoring to date shows that groundwater flow and solute transport is downward and then radially away from the ponds and the TMA in the higher hydraulic conductivity sediments. Lateral groundwater flow is in a north-easterly direction in the Quaternary-aged sediments and fractured Bearpaw Formation shale, except to the west and south of the Tailings Management Area (TMA), where groundwater flow is interpreted to be in a westerly and southerly direction from the TMA. Air Baseline and Supporting Studies Air dispersion modeling (AERMOD) has been completed as part of the Mosaic Belle Plaine Expansion Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). (MDH 2009a; SRC 2008). This model examined the relative impact of the proposed expansion on the air shed by assessing current emissions and post-expansion emissions of pollutants. Pollution emissions from nearby industrial facilities were included in the model. The Mosaic Potash Belle Plaine 2020 Annual Environmental Report (AER) includes air management commitments and strategies. The report also contains the results of a dryer compliance stack sampling program at the Belle Plaine mine site. This sampling program included the results of testing of dryer exhaust stacks that demonstrated particulate emissions complied with the Ministry of Environment (MOE) Saskatchewan Environmental Quality Guidelines. Biophysical Baseline and Supporting Studies Baseline biophysical studies were completed as part of the Belle Plaine Expansion EIA (MDH 2009a), as well as the TPs for Cluster Site 40, Cluster Site 41, and Cluster Site 42 developments. These studies included both field and


 
Date: December 31, 2021 17-2 desktop assessments of the terrain and soils, terrestrial and wetland vegetation, wildlife and wildlife habitat, species of conservation concern, and land cover mapping exercises. The studies also included a summary of expected impacts and mitigation measures on the biophysical environment that related to development of the cluster sites. A Wildlife Management Plan is also in place for the Belle Plaine Potash Facility. The management plan includes general guidance for management of wildlife commonly encountered on the site including a description of the wildlife and wildlife habitat in the area, wildlife management protocols, and mitigation and protective measures for wildlife in the area. Mosaic has also developed additional management plans specifically for Canada goose nest management, migratory bird nest management and deterrence, and burrowing mammal assessments. Surface Water Baseline and Supporting Studies A regional hydrology assessment was completed as part of the Belle Plaine Expansion Environmental Impact Assessment (MDH 2009a and 2009b). This assessment included a study and description of the dominant hydrological processes, topography, hydrological features, soils, and land use within the proposed expansion area. It also identified potential project impacts on hydrological processes and water features in the area and evaluates post-expansion flood storage capacity at the Belle Plaine mine site. A predictive subsidence analysis update was completed for Belle Plaine to evaluate the potential impact of subsidence on the existing and future regional surface water and mining infrastructure at the Belle Plaine site. This analysis was used to support the Cluster Site 42 TP and included a hydrology assessment to quantify the effect the predictive subsidence would have on the regional surface water features associated with the Cluster Site 42 development and mining infrastructure. Wetland delineation programs were conducted at the Belle Plaine Mining Area to provide a reference for future mine site activities. These programs used desktop and field-based methods to delineate and classify (where applicable) wetlands within the mine site area. They also provided mitigation recommendations for work within or near wetlands to avoid or minimize potential impacts from future activities, including relevant permitting requirements. The 2020 AER includes surface water management commitments and strategies, field-level monitoring procedures, and monitoring results for the Belle Plaine mine site. Heritage Assessments When undertaking a new development, Mosaic adheres to provisions of The Heritage Property Act to protect any heritage resources, in alignment with requirements set forth by the Government of Saskatchewan. The heritage screening process within a project area includes partnering with a third-party expert and consulting with the Saskatchewan Heritage Conservation Branch of the Government of Saskatchewan. This information is included in a comprehensive report that is subsequently provided to the Saskatchewan Ministry of the Environment for review and approval prior to development. 17.3 Environmental Considerations/Monitoring Programs 17.3.1 Environmental Considerations Legacy Information Constituents of potential concern (COPC), existing assessment data, known and/or potential contamination and exposure pathways, assessment needs and risks, required actions, etc. associated with areas of interest (AOI) have been documented by Mosaic. Any remaining COPCs will be addressed at the final decommissioning & reclamation phase. Permitting Approval to Operate Pollutant Control Facilities No. PO18-107 Mosaic holds an Approval to Operate Pollutant Control Facilities No. PO18-107 (ATO) for the Mosaic Belle Plaine Facility, which is issued by the MOE under The Environmental Management and Protection Act, 2010 (Saskatchewan). The ATO expires on July 1, 2028. Note that it is expected to be renewed on or before the expiry date. This permit provides the terms and conditions for operation of the site with respect to: Date: December 31, 2021 17-3 • tailings and brine management • materials, storage, handling, and transportation • waste management, transportation and disposal • air quality management • pipelines • inspections, monitoring and reporting • decommissioning and reclamation • contingency planning and reporting • alterations • other site-specific conditions Approval for Hazardous Substances and/or Waste Dangerous Goods Approval no. PO18-106 provides the Approval to Construct, Alter, Expand, Operate, and Decommission a Hazardous Substances and/or Waste Dangerous Goods Storage Facility, pursuant to The Hazardous Substances and Waste Dangerous Goods Regulations; Chapter E-10.2 Reg 3, issued by the MOE. 17.3.2 Environmental Monitoring Groundwater Quality Monitoring There are over 400 standpipe groundwater monitoring wells at site. These locations are generally monitored for potentiometric elevation (i.e., groundwater level) and/or routine water chemistry analysis (i.e., electrical Cl, Na, K, Ca, Mg, CO3, SO4, HCO3, sum of ions, conductivity and ionic balance) annually to every five years depending on the location and assessment of results as per the ATO. Baseline testing of new monitoring wells typically includes routine, trace metals and petroleum hydrocarbon water chemistry analyses for at least four sampling events. The 2020 Annual Environmental Report (AER) provides the most recent groundwater monitoring data. Horizontal Pathway Monitoring Water chemistry data is used in conjunction with EM31 and EM34 surveys to monitor for horizontal brine migration. Horizontal migration in and around the mine facility is slow due to the confining properties associated with the native soils and operation of the composite drain system. These EM surveys are scheduled every five years with the next one for the main site scheduled for 2022 according to the ATO. Upon review of the AER, it is recommended that EM34 surveys at the site generally be conducted at a 20 m coil separation in the horizontal and vertical dipole positions to investigation depth where impacts are typically observed. Alternative coil separation and dipole positions can be used if targeting deeper or shallower targets. EM31 and EM34 surveys in the vicinity of CS 31 to 41 are also collected on a five year schedule with the next one scheduled for 2025 according to the ATO. The most recent EM31 and EM34 monitoring for the Site can be found in the AER. Vertical Pathway Monitoring Water chemistry data is used in conjunction with EM39 surveys to gauge vertical brine migration within selected on- site monitoring casings. Monitoring is completed on a recurring five-year schedule with the next planned for 2021. The most resent EM39 results can be found in the 2016 annual environmental report. Surface Water Quality Monitoring There are very few surface water bodies in the vicinity of the Site. According to the ATO, Mosaic presently monitors six wetlands located north and east of the Site. Monitoring is completed semi-annually to every two years. Surface water is analyzed for routine, trace metals and petroleum hydrocarbon parameters. The AER provides surface water monitoring results. Soils Monitoring Soil sampling is completed as part of an on-going assessment program to gauge the impacts associated with saturated brines on native soils. Plume delineation through conventional drilling is completed on an as-required basis, which is Date: December 31, 2021 17-4 typically implemented after the completion of a geo-physical survey. Soil sampling and associated testing is completed on an as required basis. Air Emission Monitoring Annual air emission tests are conducted for the processing plant dryer stacks in compliance with the Saskatchewan Industrial Source (Air Quality) Chapter and the results are submitted to the MOE. The results indicated that all stacks were within the allowable emission limits, the maximum allowable dryer stack emission is 570 milligrams per dry reference cubic meter (mg/drm3). More detail is provided in the AER. Subsidence Monitoring Monitoring of surface subsidence is conducted as per the regulatory requirements to determine surface subsidence induced by mining. These surveys assist in identifying any subsidence issues, prior to problems arising. Subsidence has not, nor is expected to significantly alter drainage patterns on surface, impact groundwater, or structurally impact any surface facilities in the Mining Area according to Mosaic. Brine Pond Monitoring TMA brine pond levels are monitored to confirm that freeboard levels are maintained as per the ATO and readings are provided on an annual basis to the MOE as part of the AER. Under the current pond configuration, the Belle Plaine mine site is at Notification Level 1 (Normal Freeboard or Maximum Operating Level exceeded) as per the new Saskatchewan Potash Industry Brine Pond Freeboard Guidelines and Reporting Requirements within the ATO. Mosaic has been submitting weekly Notification Level 1 communications to the MOE. Mosaic is currently in the design phase of a dyke improvement project which will achieve the new freeboard requirements and various progress updates have been provided to the MOE. This project is anticipated to be completed by the end of 2024. Because the pond is operating at Notification Level 1 (above the maximum operating level), it is anticipated to exceed the maximum flood storage level and enter Notification Level 2 in the event that a design storm event occurs in advance of completion of the planned dyke improvement projects. The AER also provides the daily Production Pond freeboard readings. Dyke Instrumentation and Monitoring Visual inspections of the TMA dykes and ditches are completed as per the ATO. On an annual basis, an independent engineering firm is contracted to conduct a comprehensive annual visual dyke inspection (AVDI) which is provided in the AER. Dyke instrumentation consists of slope inclinometers, vibrating wire piezometers, standpipe piezometers and/or in- place inclinometers. As per the ATO, a minimum calculated Factor of Safety (FOS) equal to 1.5 is required for containment dykes. The FOS for one segment of the TMA dyke was evaluated to be at 1.44 under typical operating conditions. The dyke improvement project is scheduled for completion by the end of 2024 and anticipated to achieve the required FOS for all dyke segments. Tailings Pile Instrumentation and Monitoring Tailings pile stability monitoring is conducted as per the ATO utilizing a variety of geotechnical instruments installed within and around the perimeter of the existing TMA. The instrumentation network is reviewed and inspected on an annual basis and recommendations for replacement, maintenance, or expansion are provided. Results of the monitoring are reviewed quarterly by a qualified third party and included in the annual TMA report that is provided in the AER submitted to the MOE. As per the ATO, a minimum calculated Factor of Safety (FOS) equal to 1.3 is required for all segments of the tailings pile. The calculated FOS for two segments of the tailings pile is below 1.3. Work to increase the FOS in these segments relies on operational factors and future tailings deposition. Mosaic has ceased spigotting within the areas which is Date: December 31, 2021 17-5 thereby lowering the porewater pressures and improving the FOS over time. The Ministry of Environment has been updated through the AER. A summary of the calculated FOS for the tailings pile segments is provided in AER. The geotechnical instrumentation network has experienced functional fluctuations over time, primarily due to periodic instrument malfunction. Maintenance and replacement of instrumentation is a routine and expected activity. Additional instrumentation has been recommended in the AER for the few areas of the tailings pile that are not currently monitored and/or replacement of failed instrumentation. Mosaic is developing implementation plans to address the AER instrumentation recommendations. General Waste Management Mosaic’s operations generate a variety of nonhazardous solid wastes, including domestic refuse, construction and demolition debris, and waste lubricants. Mosaic’s waste management program provides assurance that all locations have a process in place to minimize waste generation, maximize recycling, and to ensure that waste management practices do not adversely affect the environment or health and safety of employees and the public. The AER provides a general summary of the site waste management program for the 2020 calendar year. All hazardous substances and waste dangerous goods in the storage facilities listed in Appendix C of ATO are stored in accordance with The Hazardous Substances Waste Dangerous Goods Regulations according to the 2020 Annual Environmental Report. Generated wastes appear to be managed in compliance with applicable environmental legislation through facility inspections conducted by MOE, as well as monitoring and documentation policies instituted by Mosaic and internal/external audits. 17.3.3 Incidents and Releases The AER provides a summary of releases, incidents, and reclamation activities along with a map for reportable incidents (releases to secondary containment over a reportable regulatory quantity) and reportable spills (releases to the environment over the reportable regulatory quantity). There were no reportable spills at Belle Plaine in 2020. There were four reportable incidents in 2020. All reporting for these events was completed as required by site ATO. 17.4 Stockpiles 17.4.1 General Waste Management The Site generates a variety of nonhazardous solid wastes, including domestic refuse, construction and demolition debris, and waste lubricants. The Site waste management program provides assurance a process in place to minimize waste generation, maximize recycling, and to ensure that waste management practices do not adversely affect the environment or health and safety of employees and the public. Chemicals Current Hazardous Substances and Waste Dangerous Goods stored on-site are listed in the ATO and discussed in the Mosaic AER. Storage of these substances are reported to and approved by MOE annually. Fuels and Lubricants The plant site is licensed by MOE to receive and store various fuels as identified in the ATO. Polychlorinated Biphenyls The Site is a PCB-free facility. Asbestos The primary sources of on-site asbestos containing materials includes insulation material, mostly associated with steam piping and asbestos-cement siding/roofing. These materials are gradually being removed and replaced with non- asbestos containing material, as required by general maintenance. New building additions do not contain any asbestos containing materials.


 
Date: December 31, 2021 17-6 Initially, the asbestos materials were buried in three approved (by the MOE) land-fill areas on-site. However, for the last 35 years, all asbestos contaminated materials have been removed, bagged and disposed of utilizing an approved off-site landfill, in accordance with applicable regulations. Radioactive Sources Radioactive sources are used for various instrumentation in the processing plant and borehole and cavern logging. When these sources require replacement, they are disposed according to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) Guidelines. Ohmart density meters, which are sealed Cs137 sources, are used in the processing plant and mining area operations and are also disposed according to CNSC Guidelines. Metals Specific metals, such as Ni alloys and copper cables, are collected and stored in large recycle containers and periodically collected by a recycling company. Scrap steel is stored in recycle containers or in the lay down area. When enough material is accumulated, a scrap metal salvage company is contracted to pick up the scrap metal. Sewage Belle Plaine operates a sewage digestion system and effluent is managed as per the site ATO. There is no release of the generated effluent at any point in the process. Wood, Paper and Miscellaneous Wastes Waste paper is stored in recycle bins and is periodically collected by a local paper recycling contractor. Other on-site, non-hazardous, waste is placed in bins and transported to an off-site licensed landfill. Used tires and batteries are also recycled utilizing an off-site licensed recycling company. 17.5 Waste Rock Storage Facilities Waste rock is not produced at the Site. 17.6 Tailings Storage Facility 17.6.1 Tailings Pile Salt tailings are hydraulically transported (via brine slurry) to the TMA. The TMA consists of a salt pile, brine pond and control structures that limit migration of process brines from the TMA. The tailings placement on the pile utilizes spigots and loaders to form the pile. The brine used to transport the tailings is allowed to run off the tailings pile and pond within the TMA. Brine is produced primarily by tailings dissolution during processing and, to a lesser extent, by precipitation falling on the salt tailings pile. The brine is stored in the northwest corner of the TMA, and in brine return channels along the toe of the tailings pile used to collect brine discharge from the tailings pile. Excess brine is disposed of by deep well injection into the Winnipeg and Deadwood formations in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements. Heavy construction equipment is used to move the salt tailings to maintain the desired tailings pile geometry. The configuration of the tailings pile is not anticipated to change significantly into the near future. 17.6.2 Brine Pond and Flood Containment Pond The mining operation makes extensive use of ditches, concrete trenches, floor drains, and collection ponds to capture process fluids and site runoff for re-use in the process. The overall drainage collection is operated as a closed loop system. The brine pond is impounded by the perimeter dykes of the TMA. Brine pond levels or freeboard in the TMA are monitored as per the ATO. 17.6.3 Solids and Surface Brine Control The primary brine and tailings control structures at the mine are the perimeter containment dykes. The TMA is surrounded by approximately 3 miles (5 km) of containment dykes. A system of open ditches has been constructed around the perimeter of the TMA to collect seepage. The seepage water collected in the ditches flows by gravity into various brine collection ponds. The dyke toe and ditches are maintained to ensure ditch flow. Date: December 31, 2021 17-7 The stratigraphy at the site, generalized herein as approximately 15 ft. (5 m) of Regina Clay underlain by 50 ft. (15 m) of glacial till, is reasonably consistent. Directly beneath the till is the Bearpaw Shale. The top layers of the shale have been significantly weathered and disturbed by glacial activity. The disturbed or fractured shale has a hydraulic conductivity that is approximately three orders of magnitude higher than the confining clayey layers. This unit represents the primary conduit for subsurface brine migration from the site, as confirmed by numerous site-specific studies. The disturbed layer thickness varies considerably from location to location, but is typically 23 to 33 ft. (7 to 10 m). However, the level of disturbance typically decreases with depth until intact shale is encountered. In 2006, a modified containment strategy was developed, which combined relief wells and a French drain (referred to as the Composite Drain) to form an integrated control structure. The relief wells were installed into the disturbed shale to facilitate the reduction in pore water pressure, which was driving subsurface brine migration. Brine is allowed to flow up from the disturbed shale (due to artesian conditions), through 2 inch diameter slotted PVC, and into the composite drain, where the brine is recovered and pumped back to the TMA. The composite drain design combines relief wells and French drain technology to significantly reduce porewater pressures in the foundation soils. Composite drains are operated on the north, east and south side of the TMA. 17.6.4 Deep Well Injection In 2020, the Site had three brine injection wells for disposal of excess brine into the Deadwood and Winnipeg formations (the deepest possible disposal horizon in Saskatchewan). The amount of brine injected is controlled to maintain brine levels in the TMA, provide sufficient flood storage, and provide brine for mining and production requirements. The total brine injection required per year varies with precipitation, evaporation, cavern development, and potash production. Injection wells are operated and permitted as per the Oil and Gas Conservation Act (Saskatchewan) regulations thereunder, and applicable orders issued by the Minister of Energy and Resources. Minister’s order MRO 852/95 and MRO 369/09 provides the licensing and conditions for SWD 20 and SWD 3 and 4, respectively, specifically to maintain well injection pressures below 19,300 kPa and 19,150 kPa (respectively). 17.7 Water Management 17.7.1 Freshwater Mosaic recognizes that water is a critical natural resource that is essential to the sustainability of operations, as well as the communities and ecosystems in which they operate. The Belle Plaine monitors and evaluates water use to confirm it is minimized, and water recycling and reuse are being maximized according to Mosaic. Water use, including source and allocated volumes, are subject to site-specific regulations and permits. Belle Plaine is subject to two licenses: E2-17155 and E2-9408 issued on May 1, 2012 for the operation of surface water works and pursuant to The Saskatchewan Watershed Authority Act, 2005 (Saskatchewan). License No. E2-17155 is for the intake at Buffalo Pound Lake, pump station and pipelines to supply freshwater owned and operated by Saskatchewan Water Corporation (SaskWater) while E2-9408 is for pipeline, booster pump station and reservoir tie-in issued to and operated by Mosaic. The Water Security Agency issued a water rights license (File no. E2/17155-I-001) for Mosaic to use up to a maximum of 23,500,000 m3 annually from these systems; this license was issued on July 8, 2013 and is subject for review on April 1, 2031. General and specific conditions are provided in this license. Annual water usage is reported in the AER. 17.7.2 Runoff The AER states that the “plant site surface water runoff is collected in drainage ditch systems and ponds which are equipped to pump water into the TMA pond or into the processing plant where it can be reused in the solution mining Date: December 31, 2021 17-8 process, excess brine is disposed of via the deep well disposal system. Cluster site drainage is designed so that runoff is collected in the brine and separation ponds to be used in the mining process.” 17.7.3 Waste Water The Site sewage is disposed of into the sewage digester facility. The treated sewage effluent is returned to the mining process. 17.8 Closure and Reclamation Considerations The Site maintains a Decommissioning and Reclamation (D&R) Plan that is updated every five years. An updated D&R Plan was submitted to the MOE in June 2021. Mosaic actively participates in the D&R Potash Technical Working Group which drives the plan updates and incorporation of best management practices across the potash industry in Saskatchewan. Mosaic maintains financial assurance to support its D & R obligations as required by The Mineral Industry Environmental Protection Regulations 1996 (Saskatchewan). This financial assurance is in the form of a trust fund which was established by way of a trust agreement between Mosaic and the Province of Saskatchewan. The C$25 M trust fund is intended to cover Mosaic’s financial assurance requirements for all Mosaic Saskatchewan potash facilities. The evaluation of the performance of the fund to date will be undertaken as part of the 2026 reporting cycle, and the review will address any new liabilities that may affect the fund and the growth potential of the fund over the 100-year time frame. 17.8.1 Decommissioning and Reclamation Guidelines Mosaic acknowledges responsibility for all aspects of its operations and works with the Province of Saskatchewan to address and resolve environmental issues. The objective of the most recent decommissioning and reclamation plan was to meet the requirements of Section 16 of The Mineral Industry Environmental Protection Regulations 1996 (Saskatchewan), with respect to review and resubmission of the D&R Plan and financial assurance fund once every five years. In addition to meeting all applicable regulatory requirements, Mosaic is committed to the following Decommissioning and Reclamation (D&R) principles: • Protect the environment. • Return the mining area and processing plant areas to a state environment compatible with the surrounding land use (safe and stable environment) and tailings management area to an engineered saline wetland environment. • Establish a means of measuring the effectiveness of the D&R plan. • Provide an action plan with costs for the determination of a suitable Financial Assurance. Assumptions The development of the decommissioning, demolition, remediation and reclamation plan was based on the following: • Decommissioning and demolition of all existing structures currently on the site, • Decommissioning and reclamation of the mining area and processing plant to a stable environment compatible with the surrounding land use following mine closure, and • Reclamation of the TMA to an engineered saline wetland environment following TMA decommissioning. Date: December 31, 2021 17-9 Monitoring, Inspections, Evaluation and Reporting Monitoring is expected to be conducted during the course of the decommissioning and reclamation, with monitoring results provided on an agreed upon timeline with the MOE. Inspections of tailings pile dissolution and dyke integrity are expected to be conducted by Mosaic on an agreed upon schedule and scope with the MOE. Soils, surface water and groundwater monitoring and acceptance criteria are expected to be developed through discussions with the MOE. 17.8.2 Site Investigation and Reclamation Plan Mining Area A total of 42 cluster sites have been constructed or are under development in the mining area. As of December 31, 2021, Cluster Sites 1 through 21 were in various stages of decommissioning, remediation or investigation. Twenty sites (Cluster Sites 22 through 41) are operational. The proposed number of cluster sites for future operations will be based on the number of existing production wells and the number of production wells to be installed at the future cluster sites. Environmental site assessments will be conducted to assess the soil and groundwater impacts associated with the current and historical operations at each cluster site. A sampling rationale plan is expected to be developed based on the historical use of the site to determine substances of potential concern. Primary substances of potential concern will include petroleum hydrocarbons and chlorides. Corrective action plans will follow the environmental site assessment to reclaim the site to a stable environment compatible with the surrounding land use. Following the corrective actions, Mosaic is then expected to seek to be released from additional environmental responsibility at the site. An environmental monitoring program approved by the MOE is expected to be conducted during the course of reclamation to determine the effectiveness of the reclamation process. Processing Plant Site On-Site Landfill It’s assumed that an on-site landfill will be designed, constructed and used for the disposal of materials during the demolition activities. Under the assumption the landfill is a non-engineered facility, waste disposal and will be limited to inert non-recyclable, non-hazardous materials. A recycle station is also projected to be established during demolition activities to recover recyclable materials (i.e., metal and corrugated metals panels, jacketed cable, etc.). Processing Plant / Other Buildings Facilities associated with the processing plant site and ancillary buildings are expected to be decommissioned. Prior to commencing demolition, the site will be secured. Hazardous materials including fuels, lubricants, hydraulic oil, reagents, chemicals, etc., are expected to be inventoried and removed by an environmental contractor licensed in the management and disposal of these materials. Asbestos containing materials encountered during demolition are expected to be managed in accordance with standard industry practices under the direction of a licensed asbestos abatement contractor. Asbestos waste is expected to be hauled to an approved off-site landfill facility for disposal. Buildings are expected to be demolished using a combination of mechanical demolition, hydraulic shearing of structural steel and felling demolition techniques. Deconstruction or controlled demolition may be required during the early stages of demolition to remove salvageable equipment and to remove remaining asbestos containing materials and recyclable materials. The steel structures may be sheared and recycled as scrap. Miscellaneous building debris including fiberglass panels, masonry, wood, insulation, electrical cable, equipment and instrumentation, etc. is expected to be removed and hauled to the designated recycle station with all non- recyclable non-hazardous materials hauled to an on-site landfill for disposal. Slab-on-grade and below-grade concrete floors are expected to be perforated or cracked to ensure permeability and left in-place. Where applicable, foundation walls may be folded into basements, sumps and/or tunnels and left in-


 
Date: December 31, 2021 17-10 place. Excavations are expected to be backfilled with fill soils from the site and compacted to ensure that voids in the backfill do not occur. Miscellaneous Surface Infrastructure Mine site owned near-surface pipelines not required during the reclamation activities are expected to be purged and capped at their existing depths. Buried power and communication lines are expected to be de-energized, isolated and left in place. Third party utilities are expected to remain in service during the decommissioning and reclamation activities to support electrical power, heating and communication needs during this time. Where applicable, water utilities will be disconnected at the property line. Following completion of the saline wetland development, a component of the reclamation activities, it is anticipated that the remaining third-party utilities will be disconnected by the appropriate utility provider at the mine site property line and left in place. Reservoir and Lagoon The Site does not operate either a reservoir or wastewater lagoon; however, there is a storm water pond and evaporation pond. The storm water pond is expected to be decommissioned by pumping water from the pond to the TMA, excavating the upper 1.0 m of the side slopes and floor, hauling the excavated soil to the TMA and backfilling to grade. The ponds are expected to be graded and seeded as part of the mine site’s reclamation activities. The evaporation ponds are projected to naturally develop as a wetland. Regulated Storage Vessels & Materials An application to decommission the vessels is expected to be submitted to the MOE prior to any decommissioning activities. Upon approval, any remaining products in the vessels may be removed and the vessels purged, cleaned and made inert. Any residual product will likely either be recycled or disposed of in accordance with the applicable regulations by an appropriate qualified person or contractor. The vessels may be reused or destroyed and recycled as scrap under the direction of an approved environmental contractor. Waste Management Systems A hazardous materials storage compound is located on the site. Domestic and hazardous waste is expected to be hauled off-site to an approved disposal site. The existing facility is expected to be assessed as part of the environmental site assessment to determine the presence or absence of impacts. The processing plant site reclamation plan may include actions to remediate the areas to the applicable guidelines. Scrap yard areas are located at the processing plant site. Existing materials may either be recycled or returned to the appropriate suppliers. These areas are expected to be assessed as part of the processing plant site investigation in order to determine the presence or absence of impacts. The processing plant site reclamation plan may include actions to remediate the areas to the applicable guidelines. Roads, Rail, Grounds and Supporting Infrastructure Roads, including access, operations and parking lots not required for post-decommissioning site activities, are expected to be removed and contoured to meet site grades as part of processing plant site reclamation activities. Topsoil is expected to be placed where required to support vegetation. Mine owned rail is expected to be recycled as scrap and railway ties recycled. The remaining roadbed may be graded and contoured to meet site grades as part of processing plant site reclamation activities. The remaining rail facilities are expected to be decommissioned by the owner of the facilities. Brine Injection Wells The mine site operates three brine injection wells and pump houses to dispose of excess brine. One well and pump house is expected to be decommissioned as part of the processing plant demolition and decommissioning. Two injection wells and associated pump houses are expected to remain operational during the dissolution of the tailings pile and early stages of the TMA reclamation. Once all brine disposal is considered complete, the wells are expected Date: December 31, 2021 17-11 to be decommissioned in accordance with the Saskatchewan Ministry of Energy and Resources and the pump houses demolished in accordance with the D&R Plan. The Technical Working Group will continue to work with the Saskatchewan Ministry of Energy and Resources on licensing brine injection wells, reporting, monitoring, maintenance and well replacement. Environmental Monitoring Wells The mine site currently maintains 446 environmental monitoring wells. The environmental monitoring well system is expected to be modified on an ongoing basis to reflect changing conditions encountered during the processing plant site reclamation, dissolution of the tailings pile and reclamation of the TMA as an engineered saline wetland environment. Fifty new environmental monitoring wells are expected to be installed across the processing plant site as part of the processing plant environmental site assessment. The monitoring wells is expected to be incorporated into the overall mine site monitoring program. The wells will be decommissioned after 15 years, assuming that the processing plant site meets applicable reclamation criteria established by the MOE. It is assumed that 70% of the wells associated with the TMA will be decommissioned at processing plant closure with the remaining wells repurposed to track the effectiveness of the decommissioning and reclamation strategies. The remaining 30% of the wells are projected to be decommissioned after mine site closure following approval from the MOE that the reclamation criterion for the engineered saline wetland has been achieved. The wells will be decommissioned in accordance with applicable MOE guidelines. Tailings Management Area Decommissioning Sequence The general decommissioning sequence prior to the development of the TMA as an engineered saline wetland is expected to be as follows: • Production ceases • Dissolution of tailings continues • Brine injection continues • Subsurface seepage control operation and maintenance continues • Dyke maintenance continues • Tailing salts all dissolve • Seepage/run-off collected/injected • Salinity reduced – injection discontinued • Injection pumphouse demolished and wells decommissioned • Cooling/reclaim brine pumphouse decommissioned • Drainage ditches and seepage control systems decommissioned Tailings Pile The Belle Plaine TMA consists of a tailings pile and a brine pond and covers an area of 217 hectares. The salt inventory in the Belle Plaine TMA is 56,400,000 tonnes of salt based on the 31 December 2021 mass salt balance. The average annual salt addition to the TMA is projected to equal 527,104 tonnes per year for use in estimating the final pile configuration at end of mine life. At mine closure, both active and passive dissolution strategies will be used to dissolve the salt pile. The duration associated with salt dissolution is based on pile configuration and inventory at time of closure. Following dissolution of the TMA, an engineered saline wetland will be constructed. The Cooling Ponds covers an area of 94 hectares and will be included as part of the TMA at mine closure, to assist with the catchment of freshwater for acceleration of pile dissolution. Date: December 31, 2021 17-12 17.9 Permitting All Mosaic mines and processing plants operate pursuant to federal, provincial and local environmental regulations. Accordingly, permits, licenses and approvals are obtained specific to each site, based on project specific requirements. Mosaic also has routine interactions with government officials and agencies related to agency inspections, permitting and other environmental matters. 17.10 Social Considerations, Plans, Negotiations and Agreements Mosaic understands the sustainability of their business and communities are indelibly linked. Mosaic strives to be a thoughtful and engaged neighbor who invests carefully and generously and seeks long-term partnerships with organizations that are making a difference. Mosaic is also committed to building strong relationships with the communities that surround their operations. On an annual basis, Mosaic’s Sustainability Report is released, providing additional insight and information on the commitments, engagement and progressive leadership on sustainability issues. When undertaking a new development, Mosaic also adheres to provisions of the provincial and federal environmental assessment regulatory requirements, which include a review of socio-economic considerations. This information is included in a comprehensive report that is subsequently provided to the appropriate levels of government for review and approval prior to development. 17.11 Qualified Person’s Opinion on Adequacy of Current Plans to Address Issues Based on information referenced in Section 17, SNC-Lavalin’s opinion is that Mosaic has monitoring plans in place to evaluate environmental performance to standards applicable to the Site as prescribed by applicable law and permit conditions. These monitoring plans are designed to minimize the risks of environmental incidents in the near future, subject to the following exceptions described above based on available information at the time of writing Section 17: the FOS of one dyke segment and two tailings pile monitoring sections are currently below the requirements of the ATO; and Brine Pond is at Freeboard Notification Level 1 and expected to exceed Notification Level 2 or Minimum Freeboard in the event of a Design storm event. SNC-Lavalin is unable to provide an opinion regarding the adequacy of the Permitting (Section 17.3.1), Air Emissions Monitoring (Section 17.3.2), Subsidence Monitoring (Section 17.3.2), Brine Pond Monitoring (17.3.2), General Waste Management (Section 17.3.2), Incidents and Releases (Section 17.3.3), Stockpiles (Section 17.4), Closure and Reclamation Considerations (Section 17.8), Permitting (Section 17.9) or the Social Considerations, Plans, Negotiations and Agreements (Section 17.10) portions of this report. For those sections Mosaic will be the QP. Date: December 31, 2021 18-1 Capital and Operating Costs 18.1 Capital Cost Estimates 18.1.1 Basis of Estimate The basis of estimate used to estimate the Belle Plaine Potash Facility capital expenditures is as follows: • The target accuracy level is at a pre-feasibility level, -25% to +25%. • The estimate was prepared in C$ and converted to US$ at an exchange rate of 1 US$ = 1.30 C$ or 1 C$ = 0.77 US$. • The estimates have been compiled and organized by asset and aligned with re-build/replacement schedules and fixed asset replacement and refurbishment schedules. • Mine capital costs include only capital expenditures related to the extraction of mineral reserves. Expenditures are classified as mine capital if they relate to physical assets, exceed C$10,000 or have a minimum expected useful life of two years. • The mine capital costs are broken into two major categories: Sustaining and Expansion. Sustaining capital is defined as “ongoing” capital expenditures required for maintaining current production levels while project capital expands production capacity. • Sustaining capital cost forecasts are based on forecasted mine development and construction needs, mobile equipment re-build/replacement schedules and fixed asset replacement and refurbishment schedules. • Processing plant sustaining capital estimates have been based on historical costs. Projects that fall under this category are based on scheduled maintenance and rebuilds and the Asset Management Framework system, that is used to assess the condition and associated risks of fixed assets. • Ongoing Mine Area capital costs for the Belle Plaine site are based on the sustaining mine development plan to maintain the facility at its current capacity. These costs are a makeup of routine infrastructure such as pipelines, cluster sites and cavern development. These costs are included in the LOM Plan at its current capacity. • Expansion capital is based on a FEL 3 engineering study completed in 2013 for a full-scale plant expansion. This study was conducted using the Mosaic capital process management system (CPM) and estimated using an engineering–procurement–construction-management (EPCM) approach and team. The estimate is inclusive of all project indirects and owner costs as these costs are captured in the historical cost analysis used to prepare the estimate. • Mobile equipment that is leased is included in operating costs. Lease periods typically range from two to five years. Lease costs are charged to capital while the equipment is doing capital work. Purchased equipment is allotted for in the capital plan. Mobile equipment costs are based on supplier quotations and/or historical costs. • The Regulatory capital forecast includes capital for a TMA dyke raise and the Refinery NOx boiler emission modifications. The boiler project is scheduled for completion in 2026. • An annual rate of 2% inflation was used to bring historical cost to current dollars (2021). • Provincial Sales Tax (PST) has been included. • Freight and installation were included. • Contingency has not been included.


 
Date: December 31, 2021 18-2 18.1.2 Exclusions for the Capital Cost Estimate The following has not been included in the Belle Plaine Potash Facility capital cost estimate. • Goods and Services Tax (GST). • Foreign currency exchange fluctuations. • Schedule delays and associated costs, such as those caused by unexpected conditions and labor disputes. • Inflation and escalation. • Capital expenditures related fire, flood and severe weather events. • General and Administrative are not allocated to capital projects at Mosaic and have not been included in this cost estimate. 18.1.3 Capital Cost Estimate The capital cost estimates for the Belle Plaine LOM plan are summarized by category in Table 18-1. The total capital for the 2021 LOM plan (2022 to 2084) is estimated at US$3,595 M. Historic costs from 2017 to 2020 and a forecast for 2021 are included. Table 18-1: Historical and LOM Plan Sustaining and Project Capital Year Status Mine Area M US$ Processing Plant M US$ Other M US$ Total M US$ 2017 Actual 12.5 18.7 6.0 37.2 2018 Actual 20.6 23.4 9.0 52.9 2019 Actual 17.7 24.9 11.0 53.5 2020 Actual 32.6 25.1 17.8 75.5 2021 Fcast. 32.0 27.3 11.1 70.3 2022 Plan 25.5 26.0 36.6 88.1 2023 Plan 31.6 21.3 29.0 82.0 2024 Plan 35.8 17.4 19.6 72.9 2025 Plan 30.95 21.5 14.6 66.9 2026 Plan 74.2 37.2 6.6 118.0 2027 to 2084 Plan 1,711.0 1,125.1 331.0 3,167.1 LOM Total Plan 1,909.0 1,248.5 437.4 3,594.8 Date: December 31, 2021 18-3 18.2 Operating Cost Estimates 18.2.1 Basis of Estimate The basis of estimate used for the Belle Plaine Potash Facility operating costs are as follows: • The estimate was prepared in Canadian dollars and converted to USA dollars at an exchange rate of 1 US$ = 1.31 C$. • Operating costs do not include inflation and are in today’s dollars over the LOM plan. • Historical costs are used as the basis for mining operating forecasts and adjustments are made by using a variable cost per tonne. The accuracy of the operating costs is within the required parameters for a pre- feasibility level estimate, -25% to +25%. • The latest sales and market prices are estimated for the next five years and then projected over the remaining LOM plan for royalties, natural gas, and other goods and services. • Royalties are tied to sales prices as indicated in Section 16. • Natural gas prices are based off short and long-term natural gas market price projections. • Mosaic and contractor labor headcount complement are assumed to remain relatively constant and fixed in total over the LOM plan. • Other operating costs consist of functional and administrative and plant costs. These costs are assumed to remain relatively constant compared to the 2021 forecast. • Depreciation, depletion and accretion are excluded from the operating cost estimates listed below. • Freight charges are excluded from the operating costs and are shown net of the sales price. • Contingency has not been included. 18.2.2 Mine Operating Costs Historical costs are used as the basis for mine operating cost forecasts, estimated using a long-term cost model. This model accounts for the impact of varying production rates and labor components. The Belle Plaine costs are grouped in the following categories: • Mining cash costs include the mining area operating, maintenance and direct overhead costs and transportation to the Refinery but exclude the mine development costs such as pipeline infrastructure, cluster sites and cavern development costs, that are considered capital. • Processing cash costs include the Refinery and loading cash costs applied to the mineral reserves mined throughout the life of mine plan. The cash costs include variable operating and fixed maintenance and direct overhead costs that directly relate processing the ore to its finished product and storing it in the Belle Plaine warehouse. • Other Operating Costs are central and functional overhead allocated costs, that include site warehousing, purchasing, accounting, information technology, environmental and safety, mechanical integrity and asset reliability, and quality control labs. • Resource taxes, royalties and other Government levies or interests include Crown and Freehold royalty payments, mineral lease payments and Canadian resource taxes. Income taxes are excluded. Date: December 31, 2021 18-4 The total operating costs supporting the 2021 LOM plan are estimated for 2022 to 2084 at US$15,968 M (Table 18- 2). Table 18-2: Historical and LOM Plan Cash Costs Year Status Production M tonnes Mining Cash Costs M US$ Processing Cash Costs M US$ Other Operating Costs M US$ Resource Taxes, Royalties and Other Government Levies or Interests M US$ Total Site Cash Costs of Production M US$ 2017 Actual 2.7 22 88 27 91 227 2018 Actual 2.8 22 101 26 106 255 2019 Actual 2.7 23 99 24 133 279 2020 Actual 2.8 22 97 23 100 242 2021 Fcast. 2.9 23 103 25 107 259 2022 Plan 2.9 23 113 14 162 312 2023 Plan 2.9 23 116 14 125 279 2024 Plan 2.9 23 119 14 115 271 2025 Plan 3.0 23 123 14 86 246 2026 Plan 3.0 23 123 14 83 243 2027 to 2084 Plan 152.1 1,238 6,568 804 6,006 14,617 Total LOM Plan 166.9 1,354 7,162 874 6,578 15,968 Date: December 31, 2021 19-1 Economic Analysis 19.1 Methodology Used The financial model that supports the mineral reserve and mineral resource declaration is a standalone model that calculates annual cash flows based on scheduled ore production, assumed processing recoveries, commodity sale prices and C$/US$ exchange rates, projected operating and capital costs, estimated taxes along with anticipated closure and reclamation costs. This economic analysis includes sensitivities to variations in operating parameters to assist the reader in understanding the sensitivities that the life of mine net present value (NPV) has with respect to changes in material economic assumptions and drivers. NPV results are based on end-of-year discounting. All monetary amounts are presented in United States dollars (US$) and were converted using a foreign exchange rate assumption of 1 US$ = 1.31 that is based on the average historical rate 2017 to 2021. 19.2 Financial Model Inputs, Parameters and Assumptions The financial model treats 2022 as the base year cash flows and does not discount these results. The model projects the cashflows generated from the Belle Plaine Potash Facility from the base year to the end of assumed mineral reserve mine life in 2084. The sum of the discounted cashflows reflects the discounted value as of December 31, 2022. The following outlines the input, parameters and assumptions used in the financial model. • The mineral reserves included in the financial model is 738 M tons (669 M tonnes). The mineral reserve life is estimated to extend to Year 2084 based on the 2021 LOM plan. The LOM plan assumes that the Mining area begins a production ramp down approximately 20 years prior to end of mine life whereby Mining area production drilling will cease. The refinery will move to single line evaporation as flow capability from the Mining area declines, and production tonnes will reduce accordingly. • The planned production life based on mineral reserves is from 2022 to 2084. • The LOM plan potash prices and exchange rates are discussed in Section 16 and applied in the financial model. • Total capital and sustaining costs for the LOM plan is estimated as US$3,595 M (Table 18-1). This includes all the sustaining capital required to maintain the equipment and infrastructure and to support continuing operations through to 2084. • The operating costs reflect costs for mining, refining and processing, sales, general and administrative costs as outlined in Section 18. (Table 18-2) • Royalties are estimated using the royalty structure discussed in Section 3.2.4. They are impacted by the quantity of tonnes produced as well as the assumed sales price in each period. The 2022 to 2084 royalty cost assumptions use 3% of the average sales price per the cashflow analysis divided by 62.59%, the K2O factor, times the K2O production tonnes times the percentage of crown land assumed to be produced and mined over the LOM plan. • Changes in working capital investment were estimated within the model using assumed balances based on the below assumptions. Since the levels of sales and volumes were relatively stable across most of the analysis period, the changes in working capital investment assumed in the model were immaterial to the cashflow analysis. o Accounts Receivable = 35 days sales outstanding o Inventory = 15 days on hand o Accounts Payable = 50 days on hand.


 
Date: December 31, 2021 19-2 • The taxes in the cash flow model include the following: o Mosaic pays Canadian resource taxes consisting of the Potash Production Tax and resource surcharge. The Potash Production Tax is a Saskatchewan provincial tax on potash production and consists of a base payment and a profits tax. Mosaic also pays a resource surcharge equal to 3% of the value of resource sales from the Saskatchewan potash facilities. o Belle Plaine is subject to income tax at the federal and provincial level on its taxable income. The total tax rate is 27% and consists of 15% federal tax rate, and 12% provincial tax rate. o Belle Plaine is treated as a Foreign Branch in the U.S. Consolidated Tax Return that means Belle Plaine is taxed in the local jurisdiction (Canada) and then also taxed on the U.S. Tax Return. To avoid double taxation, the U.S. tax system allows a company to claim a Foreign Tax Credit to offset U.S. taxes payable. o A 6% Saskatchewan provincial sales tax (PST) applies to most goods and services acquired by Belle Plaine. The PST is not a recoverable tax and is charged to the corresponding expense account of the good or service acquired. The economic cash flows over the LOM plan assumes the Belle Plaine operating, maintenance supplies and contract service costs that are normally charged PST will continue. 19.3 Economic Analysis The net present value analysis reflects that there is significant economic value associated with mining, refining and selling the potash mineral reserves at Belle Plaine, given the economic assumptions and operating parameters considered. The financial model reflects an after tax net present value of approximately US$2,455 M, utilizing a discount rate of 9.4%. Table 19-1 outlines the results of the economic analysis of the mineral reserves in the LOM plan. Table 19-2 shows the annualized cash flow for the 2021 LOM plan. Table 19-1: Economic Analysis Summary Economic Feasibility Summary 2022 - 2084 Production 000's Tonnes 166,858 Capex 000's $USD 3,594,837 Projected Cash Flow excluding Capital 15,417,614 Cash Flow 11,822,777 NPV Discount Rate 9.4% 2,454,724 Date: December 31, 2021 19-3 Table 19-2: Cash Flow Analysis 2022-2084 LOM Sales Price ($USD / Tonne) 271$ 231$ 219$ 185$ 188$ 219$ 219$ 219$ 219$ 219$ 219$ 219$ Mined Tonnes (000's M Tonnes) 11,576 11,938 13,018 12,465 12,020 123,286 124,665 124,674 124,656 73,291 37,902 669,490 Finished Production Volume (000's M Tonnes) 2,874 2,903 2,949 2,994 2,994 29,937 29,937 29,937 29,937 20,982 11,414 166,858 FX Rate (CAD to USD) 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 Discount Rate 9.4% 9.4% 9.4% 9.4% 9.4% 9.4% 9.4% 9.4% 9.4% 9.4% 9.4% 9.4% Potash Revenue 778 670 645 553 562 6,543 6,543 6,543 6,543 4,586 2,495 36,459 Sales Revenue (FOB Mine) 778 670 645 553 562 6,543 6,543 6,543 6,543 4,586 2,495 36,459 Mining 23 23 23 23 23 232 232 232 232 182 127 1,354 Processing 113 116 119 123 123 1,230 1,230 1,230 1,230 986 661 7,162 Other Operating Costs 14 14 14 14 14 139 139 139 139 139 111 874 Resource Taxes, Royalties and Other Government Levies or Interests 162 125 115 86 83 1,147 1,137 1,139 1,137 911 535 6,578 Cash Costs of Production 312 279 271 246 243 2,748 2,738 2,741 2,739 2,218 1,434 15,968 Allocated Costs Other Costs 18 19 19 19 19 190 189 189 189 165 104 1,120 Income Taxes Income Tax 94 75 70 54 57 688 728 754 758 424 200 3,902 ARO Reclamation and Closure 1 2 2 3 2 21 23 21 10 11 (8) 89 Capital Expenditures Capital Expenditures 88 82 73 67 118 674 732 719 741 247 54 3,595 Working Capital Net Change in Working Capital (10) 9 2 7 (1) (5) (2) (0) (0) 25 12 36 Cash Flow Annual Net Cash Flow 255 222 212 171 122 2,216 2,131 2,119 2,106 1,546 723 11,823 Economic Viability Net Present Value 2,455 Revenue Costs of Production S-K 1300 - Belle Plaine 00 0' s $U SD Assumptions 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2067 - 2076 2077 - 2084 2027 - 2036 2037 - 2046 2047 - 2056 2057 - 2066 Date: December 31, 2021 19-4 19.4 Sensitivity Analysis A sensitivity analysis is shown in the Figure 19-1 utilizing the following factors. • Potash commodity price • Foreign exchange rate • Total operating cost • Total capital cost The sensitivity analysis of the 2021 LOM plan is presented in Figure 19-1. The 2021 LOM plan NPV is most sensitive to the potash price followed by foreign exchange rate, operating costs and capital costs. • The commodity price sensitivity tests the impact that a 20% change would have on sales revenue along with the resulting expense impacts of royalties, resource taxes and income taxes. A 20% decrease in commodity price will generate a significant positive NPV. • The exchange rate sensitivity indicates that a +-20% variation in the exchange rate will yield a positive NPV. • If the operating costs were to increase 20% from those currently estimated, the Facility will remain viable, yielding a positive NPV. • The capital spending sensitivity assumes a 20% change to annual capital spending requirements each year. If the capital costs were to increase 20% from those currently estimated, the Facility will remain viable, yielding a positive NPV. Figure 19-1: Sensitivity Results on NPV Date: December 31, 2021 20-1 Adjacent Properties No information from adjacent properties has been included in the preceding sections of this Report. All information used and included in this report is the result of geology, engineering, mining, environmental and processing etc. activities completed on the Belle Plaine property. The following information regarding the K+S Potash Canada Bethune Potash mine was obtained from a Mining Technology e-Newsletter at the following link and the K+S 2020 Annual Report. https://www.mining-technology.com/projects/legacy-potash-project-saskatchewan/ The K+S Potash Canada Bethune Potash mine (formerly the Legacy Potash Project) is located adjacent to the Belle Plaine Potash Facility (Figure 20-1). This is the first solution mine to be built in Saskatchewan in approximately 40 years. Construction of the potash mine began in June 2012. The mine opened in May 2017 and produced the first tonnes of marketable potash in June 2017. The Bethune potash mine has an estimated mine life of more than 55 years and creates more than 400 permanent jobs. Estimates are reported in the 2020 K+S Annual Report in finished product tons. The Bethune Potash mine estimates 220 M tons (200 M tonnes) of mineral reserves and 992 M tons (900 M tonnes) of indicated and inferred mineral resource at an average grade of 26% KCl (16.4% K2O). In 2020, 1.9 M tonnes of finished product was produced for sale. The processing plant is expected to reach full capacity of 2.86 M tons/year (2.59 M tonnes/year) by 2023. Further expansion to 4.0 M tons/year (3.6 M tonnes/year) of potassium chloride is expected after an initial ten-year period. Potash products from the mine are transported by Canadian Pacific rail to the bulk handling terminal in Port Moody, British Columbia. Pacific Coast Terminals is responsible for the handling and storage of the potash products.


 
Date: December 31, 2021 20-2 Figure 20-1: Adjacent Properties Date: December 31, 2021 21-1 Other Relevant Data and Information All data relevant to the estimation of the Belle Plaine mineral resources and mineral reserves has been included in the sections of this Technical Report Summary. Date: December 31, 2021 22-1 Interpretation and Conclusions 22.1 Mineral Resources The following is a summary of the key interpretations and conclusions relating to the Belle Plaine mineral resource estimates: • The geologist has a strong understanding of the lithology, stratigraphy and potash mineralization and deems the available data appropriate to support the geological interpretation for this style of mineralization. • The geology and deposit related knowledge has been considered and applied in support of exploration, interpretation, and mineral resource estimation processes used. • Exploration data collection methods follow industry standard practices that were in place at the time of the various past and current exploration campaigns. • Data that does not meet the standards for reliability are removed from the mineral resource estimation process. • The geologist has conducted appropriate internal data verification and data validation work on historical and recent exploration data to ensure the geological information is reliable, representative, and free of material errors or omissions. • The sample preparation, security, and analytical procedures that have been applied are suitable to support mineral resource and mineral reserve estimation. • The validated geological information is considered reliable, representative and fit for purpose in developing a geological model and for mineral resource estimates, as well as for use in other modifying factors studies including mine design, scheduling and mineral reserve estimation. • The mining history of the Belle Plaine Potash Facility combined with the understanding of the continuity of the potash mineralization, supports the establishment of reasonable prospects for economic extraction for the mineral resource estimates. • The Belle Plaine Potash Facility is a well-established operation that has been in production since 1964. There are no issues that require further work relating to relevant technical and economic factors that are likely to influence the prospect of economic extraction. • The classification of mineral resources into confidence classes measured, indicated, and inferred considers geological confidence, uncertainty and data distribution. Risks or uncertainties associated with the Belle Plaine mineral resource estimates are: • There are a number of uncertainties (Section 11.9) that exist at Belle Plaine that could impact the mineral resource estimates. They have been identified as areas of future process improvements. • The information supporting the mineral resources and mineral reserves consists of drilling data from 1960 through to as recent as 2020, core and geophysical logging results and seismic surveys. This data includes historical information that was collected prior to current standards. However, the uncertainty and risk associated with this historic data has been mitigated through the addition of modern drilling that has been subjected to strict QA/QC protocols that met or exceeded the industry best practices at the time. • The exploration data collection methods and results are documented. A fully updated potash database to include all historical and recent exploration campaigns is recommended to allow for improved data retention standards. • Historically, there has not been external third-party data verification and mineral resource estimation audits completed. Date: December 31, 2021 22-2 22.2 Mineral Reserves The following is a summary of the key interpretations and conclusions relating to the mineral reserve estimates and supporting modifying factors. • The Belle Plaine Potash Facility is a well-established operation. The mineralization, mining, processing, and environmental aspects of the facility are very well understood. The operational and technical knowledge has been appropriately used in the development of the LOM plan and mineral reserve estimates. • Historical operational data and observations have been adequately documented. • The mineral reserve estimate has been prepared to comply with all disclosure standards for mineral reserves under S-K 1300 reporting requirements. • The mineral reserve estimates are based on a 2021 LOM plan, employing practical methods of solution mining applicable to the type of mineralization and are demonstrated to be economic through a supporting economic evaluation. • Belle Plaine has the appropriate equipment for solution mining and has identified and scheduled the capital spending required to provide the required equipment and capacity, and labor staffing to support the mineral reserves. • Process recovery relies upon standardized metallurgical and analytical testing. The metallurgical and analytical testing and historical data is adequate for the estimation of recovery factors supporting the mineral reserves. • There is currently sufficient infrastructure in place to support the mining and processing activities and mineral reserves at Belle Plaine. • The management of all environmental aspects, permitting and social considerations at all Mosaic facilities is guided by Mosaic’s Environmental, Health and Safety Policy, the Mosaic Management System Program and Procedures, and current regulatory requirements. Mosaic understands the sustainability of their business and communities are indelibly linked and strives to be a thoughtful and engaged neighbor who invests carefully and generously and seeks long-term partnerships with organizations that are making a difference. • Mosaic has monitoring plans in place to evaluate the environmental performance to standards as prescribed by applicable law and permit conditions. • Closure plans are completed, representing current land disturbance conditions and anticipated land disturbance conditions at the end of the LOM plan. • The economic results and sensitivity analysis for the mineral reserves indicates that the Belle Plaine Potash Facility is a robust potash producing facility that can withstand 20% variations in the key cash flow components. • The potential new technology and innovations that could come to bear on this facility are difficult to conceptualize. The technological and process efficiencies that are being targeted by the site have not been factored into this analysis. The benefit of achieving these targets along with the operational efficiencies that will be enabled by new technologies in the years that follow, create potential for significant upside to the cashflows presented. Risks or uncertainties associated with the Belle Plaine mineral reserve estimates are: • There are a number of uncertainties (Section 12.5) that exist at Belle Plaine that could impact the mineral reserve estimates. They have been identified as areas of future process improvements. • A possible future uncertainty to the economic analysis is the unknown impact that the carbon tax policy will have on the Belle Plaine Potash Facility. At the present time, the future direct and indirect impacts of carbon taxation in Canada are still evolving and subject to further discussion and review before accurate long-term forecasts are possible.


 
Date: December 31, 2021 22-3 • There is a risk and opportunity associated with the variation of pricing on product sale prices and the prices of operational and capital materials and services. The sensitivity analysis is provided to help the reader understand the impact that this risk could have on net present value. • Over the lengthy time span there is risk that the amount of annually invested capital required to sustain the plant could fluctuate above the levels estimated. Date: December 31, 2021 23-1 Recommendations The following recommendations for additional work are focused on improving and maintaining important processes and ensuring execution of the 2021 LOM plan. • The Land and Minerals Strategy will continue to develop and align with the LOM plan to ensure timely acquisition of Mineral Rights to support the mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates and LOM plan. • Mosaic will continue to investigate and consider new innovations in mining and processing technology. • Additional density information will be obtained from future core drilling campaigns. • Additional 3D seismic data should be collected and processed in strategic areas to ensure the continuity of available data for mine planning. • Mosaic will continue to update and maintain the geological databases. • A thorough production reconciliation process will be considered to further improve and support the mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates. • A comparison of company owned gamma ray tools with full suite log data collected by a third party well logging company is recommended to provide additional review of the GREC calculation applied at Belle Plaine. All future coring should be assayed to confirm that the GREC calculation applied at Belle Plaine is sufficient to estimate the mineral reserves and mineral resources. • The seismic model supporting the mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates will continue to be developed and improved as seismic data collection and interpretation improves. Date: December 31, 2021 24-1 References Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP), 2014a. Alberta Tier 1 Soil and Groundwater Remediation Guidelines. Land and Forestry Policy Branch, Policy Division. pp. 195. AEP, 2014b. Alberta Tier 2 Soil and Groundwater Remediation Guidelines. Land and Forestry Policy Branch, Policy Division. pp. 151. Alger, R.P. and Crain, E.R., 1966. Defining evaporite deposits with electrical well logs. In: L.L. Raymer, W.R. Hoyle and M.P. Tixier (Editors), Second Symposium on Salt. North Ohio Geol. Soc., pp. 116-130. Bannatyne, B.B. (1983), Devonian Potash Deposits in Manitoba, Manitoba Department of Energy and Mines: Mineral Resources Division - Open File Report of 83-3. CIM Council, 2003. Estimation of Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves Best Practice Guidelines – Guidelines Specific to Particular Commodities, p.36-37. Crain, E.R. and Anderson, W.B. (1966), Quantitative Log Evaluation of the Prairie Evaporite Formation in Saskatchewan, 17th Annual Technical Meeting, The Petroleum Society of C.I.M. Danyluk, T. K., G. D. Phillips, A. F. Prugger and M. S. Pesowski (1999), “Geophysical Analysis of an Unusual Collapse Structure at PCS Potash, Lanigan Division,” Mining: Catalyst for Social and Economic Growth, 101st Annual General Meeting of CIM, May 2–5. Fuzesy, A. (1982). Potash in Saskatchewan, Saskatchewan Industry and Resources Report 181, pp. 44. Holter, M. E. (1969), The Middle Devonian Prairie Evaporite of Saskatchewan, Report No. 123, Department of Mineral Resources, Regina, Saskatchewan, pp. 133. K+S 2020 Annual Report. Mackintosh, A. D. and G. A. McVittie (1983), “Geological Anomalies Observed at the Cominco, Ltd., Saskatchewan Potash Mine,” Potash 83 Potash Technology—Mining, Processing, Maintenance, Transportation, Occupational Health and Safety, Environment, Pergamon Press, Toronto, pp. 59–64. MDH, 2009a. Mosaic Potash Belle Plaine Expansion Environmental Impact Statement. Internal Reference File No. R1620-1500208. MDH, 2009b. Surface Water Hydrology Assessment for the Mosaic Potash Belle Plaine Expansion. File No. R1544- 1500208. Orris, G. J., Cocker, M. D., Dunlap, P., Wynn, J. Spanski, G. T., Briggs, D. A., and Gass, L. with contributions from Bliss, J. D., Bolm, K. S., Yang, C., Lipin, B. R., Ludington, S., Miller, R. J., and Slowakiewicz, M. (2014) Potash— A Global Overview of Evaporite-Related Potash Resources, Including Spatial Databases of Deposits, Occurrences, and Permissive Tracts, Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5090–S. Saskatchewan Research Council (SRC), 2012. Method Summary 29.4 Potash by ICP-OES Saskatchewan Research Council (SRC), 2012. Method Summary 62.3 Assay Potash Analysis Saskatchewan Research Council (SRC), 2008. Mosaic Potash Belle Plaine Air Dispersion Modelling for TSP, PM2.5, NOx, and CO. SRC Publication No. 12089-11C08. The Oil and Gas Conservation Act. Minister’s Order 291/21, Interim Requirements for Potash Wells. Yang, C., G. Jensen, and Berenyi, J,2009. “The Stratigraphic Framework of the Potash-rich Members of the Middle Devonian Upper Prairie Evaporite Formation, Saskatchewan,” Summary of Investigations 2009, Volume 1, Saskatchewan Geological Survey, Sask. Ministry of Energy and Resources, Misc. Rep. 2009-4. 1, CD-ROM, Paper A-4, pp. 28. Date: December 31, 2021 25-1 Reliance on Information Provided by the Registrant Table 25-1 outlines the information provided from the Registrant (Mosaic) for use by the QPs in the writing of the Belle Plaine Potash Facility TRS. Table 25-1: Information Provided by the Registrant QP Name TRS Section Subjects Sheldon Rinas 16. Market Studies Marketing information including commodity price and exchange rates Sheldon Rinas 18. Capital and Operating Costs 19. Economic Analysis Royalties and other accommodations; Taxes and other governmental factors; Mine closure


 
REPORT SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Mosaic Fertilizantes: Complexo Mineração de Tapira Submitted to: The Mosaic Company Submitted by: Golder Associates USA Inc. 701 Emerson Road, Suite 250, Creve Coeur, Missouri, USA 63141 +1 314 984-8800 20446248-R-Rev1 Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 Complexo Mineração de Tapira i Table of Contents DATE AND SIGNATURE PAGE ............................................................................................................................ IX 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Property Description and Ownership ................................................................................................ 1-1 1.2 Geology and Mineralization ............................................................................................................... 1-1 1.3 Status of Exploration ......................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.4 Development and Operations ........................................................................................................... 1-1 1.5 Mineral Resource Estimate ............................................................................................................... 1-2 1.6 Mineral Reserve Estimate ................................................................................................................. 1-3 1.7 Capital and Operating Costs ............................................................................................................. 1-3 1.8 Economic Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 1-4 1.9 Permitting Requirements ................................................................................................................... 1-4 1.10 Qualified Person’s Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................................. 1-5 2.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Registrant Information ....................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Terms of Reference and Purpose ..................................................................................................... 2-1 2.3 Sources of Information ...................................................................................................................... 2-4 2.4 Personal Inspection Summary .......................................................................................................... 2-4 2.5 Previously Filed Technical Report Summary Reports ...................................................................... 2-5 3.0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................................ 3-1 3.1 Property Location .............................................................................................................................. 3-1 3.2 Mineral Rights ................................................................................................................................... 3-3 3.3 Description of Property Rights .......................................................................................................... 3-3 3.4 Royalty Payments ............................................................................................................................. 3-3 3.5 Significant Encumbrances to the Property ........................................................................................ 3-4 3.6 Other Significant Factors and Risks Affecting Access ...................................................................... 3-4 4.0 ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND PHYSIOGRAPHY ...... 4-1 ii 4.1 Topography and Land Description .................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Access to the Property ...................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.3 Climate Description ........................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.4 Availability of Required Infrastructure ............................................................................................... 4-1 5.0 HISTORY ...................................................................................................................................................... 5-1 6.0 GEOLOGICAL SETTING, MINERALIZATION, AND DEPOSIT ................................................................. 6-1 6.1 Regional Geology .............................................................................................................................. 6-1 6.2 Local and Property Geology .............................................................................................................. 6-1 6.3 Mineralization .................................................................................................................................... 6-3 7.0 EXPLORATION ............................................................................................................................................ 7-1 7.1 Exploration Work ............................................................................................................................... 7-1 7.2 Geological Exploration Drilling .......................................................................................................... 7-1 7.3 Hydrological Sampling and Hydrogeological Drilling ........................................................................ 7-5 7.4 Geotechnical Drilling ....................................................................................................................... 7-10 8.0 SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES, AND SECURITY ........................................................................ 8-1 8.1 Site Sample Preparation Methods and Security ............................................................................... 8-1 8.2 Laboratory Sample Preparation Methods and Analytical Procedures .............................................. 8-2 8.3 Quality Control and Quality Assurance (QA/QC) Programs ............................................................. 8-3 8.4 Qualified Person’s Opinion ................................................................................................................ 8-5 9.0 DATA VERIFICATION ................................................................................................................................. 9-1 9.1 Site Visit Data Verification ................................................................................................................. 9-1 9.2 Mineral Resources ............................................................................................................................ 9-5 9.3 Mine Plan, Cost Model, and Mineral Reserves Review .................................................................... 9-6 10.0 MINERAL BENEFICIATION AND METALLURGICAL TESTING ............................................................ 10-1 10.1 Metallurgical Testing and Analytical Procedures ............................................................................ 10-1 10.2 Representativeness of Metallurgical Testing .................................................................................. 10-2 10.3 Laboratory Used for Metallurgical Testing ...................................................................................... 10-2 10.4 Recovery Estimates ........................................................................................................................ 10-3 Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira iii 10.5 Qualified Person’s Opinion .............................................................................................................. 10-5 11.0 MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES ........................................................................................................ 11-1 11.1 Key Assumptions, Parameters, and Methods ................................................................................. 11-1 11.2 Mineral Resource Estimate ........................................................................................................... 11-15 11.3 Basis for Establishing the Prospects of Economic Extraction for Mineral Resources .................. 11-16 11.4 Mineral Resource Classification .................................................................................................... 11-17 11.5 Mineral Resource Uncertainty Discussion .................................................................................... 11-19 11.6 Assumptions for Multiple Commodity Resource Estimate ............................................................ 11-21 11.7 Qualified Person’s Opinion on Factors that are Likely to Influence the Prospect of Economic Extraction ...................................................................................................................................... 11-21 12.0 MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES ........................................................................................................... 12-1 12.1 Key Assumptions, Parameters, and Methods ................................................................................. 12-1 12.2 Modifying Factors ............................................................................................................................ 12-3 12.3 Mineral Reserve Classification ...................................................................................................... 12-15 12.4 Mineral Reserve Estimate ............................................................................................................. 12-15 12.5 Qualified Person’s Opinion on Risk Factors that could Materially Affect the Mineral Reserve Estimates ....................................................................................................................................... 12-16 13.0 MINING METHODS .................................................................................................................................... 13-1 13.1 Production Tasks ............................................................................................................................ 13-1 13.2 Parameters Relative to the Mine Design and Plans ....................................................................... 13-2 13.3 Mine Design Factors ....................................................................................................................... 13-5 13.4 Stripping and Backfilling Requirements ........................................................................................ 13-14 13.5 Mining Fleet, Machinery, and Personnel Requirements ............................................................... 13-15 14.0 BENEFICIATION AND RECOVERY METHODS ...................................................................................... 14-1 14.1 Beneficiation Plant .......................................................................................................................... 14-1 14.2 Beneficiation Plant Throughput and Design, Equipment Characteristics, and Specifications ........ 14-6 14.3 Projected Requirements for Energy, Water, Process Materials, and Personnel .......................... 14-11 15.0 INFRASTRUCTURE .................................................................................................................................. 15-1 Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira


 
iv 16.0 MARKET STUDIES .................................................................................................................................... 16-1 16.1 Markets ............................................................................................................................................ 16-1 16.2 Commodity Price Forecasts ............................................................................................................ 16-1 16.3 Contracts ......................................................................................................................................... 16-3 17.0 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, PERMITTING, AND PLANS, NEGOTIATIONS, OR AGREEMENTS WITH LOCAL INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS .............................................................................................. 17-1 17.1 Environmental Studies .................................................................................................................... 17-1 17.2 Requirements and Plans for Waste and Tailings Disposal, Site Monitoring, and Water Management during Operations and After Mine Closure ............................................................... 17-3 17.3 Permitting Requirements ................................................................................................................. 17-9 17.4 Plans, Negotiations, or Agreements with Local Individuals, or Groups ........................................ 17-11 17.5 Descriptions of any Commitments to Ensure Local Procurement and Hiring ............................... 17-12 17.6 Mine Closure Plans ....................................................................................................................... 17-12 17.7 Qualified Person’s Opinion on the Adequacy of Current Plans to Address Any Issues Related to Environmental Compliance, Permitting, and Local Individuals, or Groups ............................... 17-14 18.0 CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS ....................................................................................................... 18-1 18.1 Risks Associated with Estimation Methods ..................................................................................... 18-2 19.0 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................ 19-1 19.1 Principal Assumptions ..................................................................................................................... 19-1 19.2 Cashflow Forecast .......................................................................................................................... 19-1 19.3 Sensitivity Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 19-5 20.0 ADJACENT PROPERTIES ........................................................................................................................ 20-1 21.0 OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION .................................................................................... 21-1 22.0 INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................... 22-1 22.1 Mineral Resources .......................................................................................................................... 22-1 22.2 Mineral Reserves ............................................................................................................................ 22-3 23.0 RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................................................. 23-1 23.1 Mineral Resources .......................................................................................................................... 23-1 23.2 Mineral Reserves ............................................................................................................................ 23-1 Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira v 24.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................... 24-1 25.0 RELIANCE ON INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE REGISTRANT ..................................................... 25-1 Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira vi TABLES Table 2.1: Abbreviations and Acronyms Table 3.1: List of Mining Permits for CMT Table 5.1: Historical Production for CMT (Last 10 Years) Table 7.1: Summary of Exploration Core Drilling Campaigns Table 7.2: Hydraulic Conductivity and Storage Values Obtained from the Calibration of the years 2008, 2012, 2014, and 2016 Table 7.3: Compilation of Data from the Geotechnical Analysis Campaigns at CMT Table 7.4: Material Geotechnical Properties Table 8.1: Specifications of Certified Reference Materials used by Mosaic for Tapira Table 9.1: CMT Site Visit Drill Hole Collar Coordinates Verification Table 10.1: Main Lithotypes Table 10.2: Annual Concentrate Quality Table 11.1: Summary of Drillholes Used for the Models Table 11.2: Diamond Core Drillhole Campaigns by Year and by Use in Mineral Resource Evaluation Activities Table 11.3: CMT Raw Data Statistics for the Main Geological Domains including all Core Drilling Data (1967-2019) Table 11.4: Variogram Model Parameters – Resource Domains Table 11.5: Block Model Dimensions Table 11.6: Block Model Variables Table 11.7: Block Model Estimation Domains Table 11.8: Dry Density OK Parameters for Resource Domain Estimation Table 11.9: Variables Estimated by Ordinary Kriging Table 11.10: P2O5 OK Parameters for Resource Domain Estimation Table 11.11: In-Situ Mineral Resource Estimate as of December 31, 2021 Table 11.12: Mineral Resource Optimization Pit Limit Parameters Table 11.13: CMT Mineral Resource Classification Table 11.14: Mineral Resources Uncertainty Table 12.1: Block Model Estimation Domains Table 12.2: Mining Concessions Used as a Mineral Reserves Estimate Constraint Table 12.3: COG Calculations Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira vii Table 12.4: Tapira Pit Optimization Mining Concessions and Their Impact on Pit Optimization Table 12.5: Tapira Pit Optimization Economic Inputs Table 12.6: CMT - Summary of ROM and Concentrate Mineral Reserves at December 31,2021 Based on a Fixed Net-Back Price of Concentrate Table 13.1: Geotechnical Parameters used in the Stability Analysis Table 13.2: Proposed Geometric Parameters for Tapira Pit Design Table 13.3: Recommended Design Parameters for Tapira Final Pit Table 13.4: Mining Quantities by Phase through 2057 Table 13.5: Tapira LOM Plan Production Statistics Table 13.6: OSF Design Specifications Table 13.7: LOM Plan Average Waste Haul Distances - km Table 14.1: Plant Availability and Throughput Table 14.2: Tapira Consumptive Use 2018 through 2021 Table 16.1: CRU CFR MAP Pricing Table 17.1: Tailings Parameters Table 17.2: Tailings Volume from the Production Plan (WBH122-17-MOSC058-RTE-0002, GEOCONSULTORIA, 2019) Table 17.3: Elevation x Volume x Area Curve of the BL-1 Dam Reservoir for the Initial and Final Occupancy Condition (WBH122-17-MOSC058-RTE-0002, GEOCONSULTORIA, 2019) Table 17.4: Environmental Authorizations for Tapira Table 18.1: Total LOM Capital, Operating, and Other Costs (R$ Millions) Table 19.1: Cashflow (real 2021 R$ terms) Table 19.2: Cashflow (real 2021 USD terms) Table 19.3: Tax Rate Table 19.4: Sensitivity Analysis (Millions of Reais) Table 19.5: Sensitivity Analysis (Millions of US Dollars) Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira


 
viii FIGURES Figure 3.1: Project Location Map Figure 6.1: Local Geological Map Figure 6.2: Vertical Cross Section – Weathering and Lithology Models Figure 7.1: Exploration Drill Hole Locations – Geological Figure 7.2: Drill Hole Locations – Hydrogeological Figure 9.1: QP Drill Hole Collar Verfication Figure 11.1: Histogram of Raw Sample Length for Resource Domains Figure 11.2: Histogram of Composite Sample Length for Resource Domains Figure 11.3: P2O5 Variograms Figure 12.1: Ore Block Surrounded by Waste Blocks Figure 12.2: Dilution of the Blocks Located on the Edge of the Mine/Waste Interface Due to the Influence of the Face Angle Figure 12.3: Trigonometry to Calculate the Mass of the Upper and Lower Prisms Figure 12.4: Mass Recovery Regression Equation Figure 12.5: Tapira Grade-Tonnage Curve Figure 12.6: Summary of Tapira Nested Pit Analysis Figure 12.7: CMT Ultimate Pit Design and Extents Figure 13.1: Tapira Typical Mining Configuration Figure 13.2: Mining Phases Figure 13.3: Annual Ore Plant Feed and Grade with Mass Recovery Figure 13.4: Annual Concentrate Production Figure 13.5: LOM Plan Annual Production (ROM) Figure 13.6: Annual Excavator Fleet Size Figure 13.7: Annual Haul Truck Fleet Size Figure 13.8: Tapira Workforce Life-of-Mine Plan Figure 14.1: Fine Crushing Circuit Block Flow Diagram Figure 14.2: Granular Ore Milling and Flotation Block Flow Diagram Figure 14.3: Friable Ore Milling and Flotation Block Flow Diagram Figure 14.4: Conventional Concentrate Preparation Circuit Figure 14.5: Microfines Separation Circuit Figure 15.1: Infrastructure Layout Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira ix DATE AND SIGNATURE PAGE The effective date of the content in this TRS is as of December 31, 2021. Author Section(s) Signature Jerry DeWolfe (Golder) 1.1-1.5, 1.10, 2-6, 7.1-7.2, 8-9.2, 11, 20-23.1, 24-25 Terry Kremmel (Golder) 1.6-1.10, 2.4, 7.3-7.4, 9.1, 9.3, 10, 12-15, 17-22, 23.2-25 The qualifications and relevant experience of each QP are shown below.  Jerry DeWolfe:  Education: − Is a geoscientist with a Master of Science (M.Sc.) in Exploration Geology from Laurentian University, Sudbury, Canada, and a Bachelor of Science in Geology from Saint Mary’s University, Halifax, Canada.  Years of Experience: − Has 21 years of relevant experience in mineral exploration, mine production geology, mineral resource estimation, and mineral resource public disclosure work that is relevant to his qualifications as a Qualified Person (QP) for this TRS.  Relevant Experience: − Has developed multiple Scoping through FS-level studies and mineral resource technical reports on phosphate projects in North America, South America, and Africa. − Has supervised or developed numerous exploration programs, data verification and validation programs, mineral resource models and due diligence studies on numerous surface and open pit projects throughout the world of similar ore types, geological characteristics and type of operations as the deposits and operations which is the subject matter of this mineral Project and TRS.  Professional Association: − Is in good standing with Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA), Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia (APEGBC) and Professional Geoscientists Ontario (PGO), all three of which are professional associations, or recognized overseas professional organizations. Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira x  Terry Kremmel:  Education: − Has a degree in Mining Engineering, BS from the University of Missouri – Rolla.  Years of Experience: − Has over 41 years of relevant experience in mine operations, planning, development and cost estimation, feasibility (FS) and PFS mine studies, and mine due diligence as well as geologic resource modeling, that is relevant to qualifications to be a QP for this TRS.  Relevant Experience: − Has developed multiple FS-level studies and resource/reserve technical reports on phosphate projects in North America, South America, and Africa. − Has developed resource models, life-of-mine plans, capital expansion plans, economic evaluations, operations improvements and evaluations and due diligence on numerous surface and open pit projects throughout the world of similar ore types, geological characteristics and type of operations as the deposits and operations which is the subject matter of this mineral Project and TRS.  Professional Association: − Is in good standing as a Registered Member with the Society for Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration (SME), a professional association. Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 1-1 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 Property Description and Ownership Complexo Mineração de Tapira (CMT) is located in the western portion of the state of Minas Gerais, in the southeast of Brazil to the north of the town of Tapira and approximately 35 km south-southeast of the city of Araxá. The mine is 420 km by road to the Minas Gerais state capital of Belo Horizonte, via the BR-262 highway to Araxá and then the BR-146 highway to Tapira. CMT complex consists of a mine and a phosphate beneficiation plant. The beneficiation plant produces phosphate conventional and ultrafine concentrate which is sent by pipeline (conventional) and truck (ultrafine) to a local Mosaic chemical plant for finished product production. The Tapira mining complex has been in operation since 1978 and has produced more than 70 million tonnes (Mt) of phosphate concentrate. The current capacity of the beneficiation plant is 2 million tonnes per year (Mtpy). CMT is owned by Mosaic Fertilizantes P&K S.A. (Mosaic Fertilizantes), which is a subsidiary of The Mosaic Company, who acquired the asset from Vale S.A. (Vale) in January 2018. Mosaic currently holds a total of eight Mining Concessions and one Mining Concession Application that encompass CMT. 1.2 Geology and Mineralization The Tapira phosphate deposit is part of a series of Late-Cretaceous, carbonatite-bearing alkaline ultramafic plutonic complexes belong to the Alto Paranaiba Igneous Province. The Tapira igneous rocks intrude the phyllites, schists, and quartzites of the Late-Proterozoic Brasília mobile belt. The Tapira igneous complex is roughly elliptical, 35 square kilometers (km2) in area and consists predominantly of alkaline pyroxenite rocks with subordinate carbonatite, serpentinite (dunite), glimmerite, syenite, and ultramafic potassic dikes. The tropical weathering regime prevailing in the region and the inward drainage patterns developed from the weathering-resistant quartzite margins of the dome structures resulted in the development of an extremely thick soil cover in most of the complexes. The extreme weathering process was responsible for the residual concentration of apatite. The main geological types identified in the deposit are a combination of the igneous protoliths (bebedourites, phoscorites, and carbonatites) and the products of the weathering process. 1.3 Status of Exploration The geological structure of the alkaline complex of Tapira was first recognized in 1953, through magnetometric and radiometric investigations carried out by the Brazil-Germany Project. Extensive exploration works were undertaken between 1971 and 1973, with particular focus on the occurrences of titanium. From 1973 to 1977, the exploration priorities changed to occurrences of phosphate, with the aim of replacing the massive imports of fertilizers in the agricultural sector which was then undergoing a period of expansion in Brazil. Exploration drilling started in 1966 and is currently continuing. Through the 2019 drilling program that Mosaic completed, a total of 1,766 drill holes were completed. Exploration has continued through 2020 and 2021 at CMT. 1.4 Development and Operations The Tapira mine has been in operation for almost 43 years. Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira


 
1-2 All required fixed and permanent infrastructure of power, pipelines and primary roadways, and Project access are established. Drainage, water controls, and mine access roads and ramps are established for current operations and will be expanded and continued as the pit progresses through its planned life of operations. The ore at Tapira is recovered using open-pit conventional truck and shovel mining methods, due to the proximity of the ore to the surface and the physical characteristics of the deposit. Since this is a well-established operation, the deposit, mining, beneficiation, and environmental aspects of the Project are very well understood. The knowledge for CMT is based on the collective experience of personnel from Mosaic site operations and technical disciplines gained during years of phosphate mining and ore beneficiation. This knowledge is supported by years of production data and observations from CMT. A life-of-mine (LOM) plan and pit design are established for 2021 to 2057. LOM plan pit design is based on current geotechnical and hydrology designs, and extraction limits, which are dictated by mining recovery and dilution factors, cutoff grade (COG) estimation, and economic pit optimization analysis. Pit design includes detailed design factors for wall slopes, berm widths, pit bottom, and access ramp grades and widths. The LOM plan includes annual forecasts of waste removal and transportation and ore extraction. Waste is placed in one of 6 designated and designed Overburden Storage Facilities (OSF). Two of the OSFs are designated for higher grade titanium overburden. Ore is transported to a single concentrator plant destination. The mine plan life is approximately 36 years, as of January 1, 2022, with Run-of-Mine (ROM) ore tonnages delivered to the beneficiation plant ranging from 13.4 to 15.8 Million tonnes per year (Mtpy) on a dry basis, resulting in the production of approximately 2.0 Mtpy of concentrated phosphate. The mining equipment fleet planned includes a range of 5 to 11 hydraulic excavators, 25 to 68 end-dump haul trucks, and mine support equipment to support the mine plan production requirements. Hourly workforce will range from 249 to 457 workers supported by approximately 30 operational and technical staff. 1.5 Mineral Resource Estimate This sub-section contains forward-looking information related to Mineral Resource estimates for the Project. The material factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the conclusions, estimates, designs, forecasts or projections in the forward-looking information include any significant differences from one or more of the material factors or assumptions that were set forth in this sub-section including geological and grade interpretations and controls and assumptions and forecasts associated with establishing the prospects for economic extraction. The Mineral Resources were estimated based on the long-standing exploration drilling and sampling completed at CMT since 1967. The drilling results were loaded into the geological database, verified, and vetted for errors, and then used in the geological model to create the lithology and weathering surfaces. The geological model was used in creating the block model, where geological domains based on the lithology and weathering surfaces were utilized to interpret grade, density, and mass recovery in a geologically appropriate manner. EDA and geostatistical analysis were completed on the raw and composite data sets to help define interpolation parameters and Mineral Resource classifications. The Mineral Resources were restricted based on an optimized pit limit that took into account COG, price, mining costs, infrastructure limitations, and mineral licenses. The Mineral Resources are exclusive of Mineral Reserves and include approximately 129.8 Mt of Measured and Indicated Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 1-3 Mineral Resources with a P2O5ap grade of 7.9%. There are an additional 112.8 Mt of Inferred Mineral Resources with a P2O5ap grade of 8.6%. 1.6 Mineral Reserve Estimate This sub-section contains forward-looking information related to Mineral Reserve estimates for the Project. The material factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the conclusions, estimates, designs, forecasts or projections in the forward-looking information include any significant differences from one or more of the material factors or assumptions that were set forth in this sub-section including Mineral Resource model tonnes and grade, modifying factors including mining and recovery factors, production rate and schedule, mining equipment productivity, commodity market and prices and projected operating and capital costs. A Mineral Reserve estimate has been prepared for CMT. Reserves are limited by the CMT property boundary and the ultimate pit designed for the LOM plan, which was limited with an economic optimized pit analysis. The reserve estimate includes mining modifying adjustments for mining ore recovery, mining dilution, and ore concentration recovery factors. The reserve estimate is limited to a COG of 5.0% P2O5ap, as well as certain geometallurgical beneficiation criteria, including:  Diluted CaO to P2O5 ratio between 0.9 and 3.0  Within one of four mineralized domains characterized by lithology and alteration The beneficiation plant generates conventional (coarse) and ultrafine concentrates from the CMT ore. The mass recovery of coarse concentrate is forecast based on the results of laboratory flotation tests performed on drill core samples. The mass recovery of coarse concentrate is predicted based on a mass recovery regression equation as a function of the ROM Fe2O3, CaO and P2O5 chemical compositions. The metallurgical recovery is calculated from the mass recovery, the concentrate % P2O5, and the ROM % P2O5 according to the following equation: Metallurgical recovery = 100 x Mass recovery x Concentrate % P2O5 / ROM % P2O5 The CMT mineral reserve, as of December 31, 2021, is estimated at 469.3 Mt ROM (dry) with a grade of 9.7% P2O5 and a grade of 9.4% P2O5ap delivered to the concentrator plant and 74.7 Mt (dry) concentrated phosphate tonnes at 35.0% P2O5 post concentration process plant. This includes:  193.7 Mt of Proven reserve at a 9.6% P2O5ap grade, resulting in 30.0 Mt of concentrate with a 35.0% P2O5 post beneficiation plant; and  275.6 Mt of Probable reserve with a 9.3% P2O5ap grade, resulting in 44.7 Mt of concentrate at 35.0% P2O5. 1.7 Capital and Operating Costs This section contains forward-looking information related to capital and operating cost estimates for the Project. The material factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the conclusions, estimates, designs, forecasts or projections in the forward-looking information include any significant differences from one or more of the material factors or assumptions that were set forth in this section including prevailing economic conditions Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 1-4 continue such that unit costs are as estimated in constant (or real) dollar terms, projected labor and equipment productivity levels and that contingency is sufficient to account for changes in material factors or assumptions. The annual production estimates were used to determine annual estimates of capital and operating costs. All cost estimates were in real 2021 Brazilian Reais (R$) terms. Total capital costs included R$3.8 B of sustaining capital and opportunity costs. Annual operating costs were based predominantly on historical consumption factors and unit costs. They included costs for ongoing, final reclamation, and closure. Annual total cost of rock production varied from R$458 per tonne to R$604 per tonne, with an average total cost of production for a tonne of phosphate rock concentrate at R$530. 1.8 Economic Analysis This section contains forward-looking information related to economic analysis for the Project. The material factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the conclusions, estimates, designs, forecasts or projections in the forward-looking information include any significant differences from one or more of the material factors or assumptions that were set forth in this sub-section including estimated capital and operating costs, project schedule and approvals timing, availability of funding, projected commodities markets and prices. For the purpose of reporting for Mosaic’s total financial statistics, the discounted Cash Flow was converted from Reais to US Dollars at an exchange rate of R$4.69 = U$1.00. For the economic analysis, a Discounted Cashflow (DCF) model was developed. Because Tapira is a captive operation supplying rock to other Mosaic-owned chemical plants, there is no transparent mined phosphate rock commodities price market in Brazil. Mineral reserves for Tapira were estimated based on an internal transfer price. This internal transfer price was set as a constant number of $71.64 per tonne (R$336.00 per tonne). The QP considers the accuracy of cost estimates to be well within a Prefeasibility Study (PFS) standard and sufficient for the economic analysis supporting the Mineral Reserve estimate for CMT. 1.9 Permitting Requirements This section contains forward-looking information related to economic analysis for the Project. The material factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the conclusions, estimates, designs, forecasts or projections in the forward-looking information include any significant differences from one or more of the material factors or assumptions that were set forth in this sub-section including estimated capital and operating costs, project schedule and approvals timing, availability of funding, projected commodities markets and prices. Most mining permits have transferred from Vale S.A to Mosaic Fertilizantes P&K S.A. One mining permit is pending formal transfer. In addition, there is a mining research request in progress associated with CMT. All environmental licenses were still valid at the time this report was prepared or had its renewal application filed in the Environmental Agency within the legal deadline. According to Mosaic, there are action plans in progress to comply with the environmental conditions that are not met yet within the environmental licenses. CMT’s environmental controls are related to monitoring the quality of wastewater, surface and groundwater and air, as well as waste management. Additional environmental controls are in place for air emissions, air quality and noise. A hydrotechnical study concluded in 2019 for the Mosaic (POTAMOS, 2019) presented as a general diagnosis of water use that the CMT mining operation does not present a potential risk related to water supply. However, this Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 1-5 study presented recommendations for improvements related to water management. Although water supply is not considered a risk for the CMT operation, the impacts of the existing water management practices on the surrounding areas can be considered a water supply risk to communities around the mine area. The Project site has an Emergency Action Program for Mining Dams. Plans for expansion of tailings dams will be required to support the LOM and reserves. Additional permits will be required and may involve a study on different technological alternatives for tailings disposal. CMT’s Closure Plan was updated in 2020/2021 and includes: Closure plan based on the current configuration of CMT (end of 2020), and Site closure plan based on the mine final configuration. In the Conceptual Closure Plan (2021), the closure cost for current configuration (Volume 1) was estimated at R$ 310.7M, (current value - base 2020). The closure cost for final configuration (Volume 2) was not available at the time this report was prepared. In 2020, an Asset Retirement Obligation (ARO) was prepared by ERM. In the report the total estimated cost to address ARO at CMT was R$ 292.2M. 1.10 Qualified Person’s Conclusions and Recommendations In the Qualified Person’s (QP) opinion, the geological data, sampling, modeling, and estimate are carried out in a manner that both represents the data well and mitigates the likelihood of material misrepresentations for the statements of Mineral Resources. Recommendations for the Mineral Resources are focused on improving local variability for short range planning purposes that could be completed by site teams to provide improvements to short-term recovery and grade control. They are not seen as having an impact on the prospect of economic extraction. In the QP’s opinion, the operational and mine planning data, process recovery testing and modeling, LOM Plan, and estimation are carried out in a manner that both represents the data and operational experience and methodology well and mitigates the likelihood of material misrepresentations for the statements of Mineral Reserves. Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira


 
2-1 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.1 Registrant Information This Technical Report Summary (TRS) for the CMT mine site, located near the city of Tapira, Minas Gerais State in central Brazil was prepared by Golder Associates Inc. (Golder), member of WSP, and The Mosaic Company (Mosaic). CMT is owned by Mosaic Fertilizantes P&K S.A. (Mosaic Fertilizantes), which is a subsidiary of The Mosaic Company, who acquired the asset from Vale S.A (Vale) in January 2018. CMT complex consists of a mine and a phosphate concentration plant. The beneficiation plant produces phosphate conventional and ultrafine concentrate which is sent by pipeline (conventional) and truck (ultrafine) to a local Mosaic chemical plant for finished product production. 2.2 Terms of Reference and Purpose The terms of reference for this TRS include:  The date of this TRS Report was February 9, 2022, while the effective date of the resource and reserve estimate was December 31, 2021. It is the Qualified Person’s opinion that there are no known material changes impacting resources and reserves between December 31, 2021 and February 9, 2022.  United States English spelling  Metric units of measure  Grades are presented in weight percent (wt. %)  Coordinate system is presented in metric units using Corrego Alegre 1961, UTM Zone 23 South  Constant US Dollars and Brazilian Reais as of June 2020  The purpose of this TRS is to report Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves for CMT Key acronyms and abbreviations for this TRS include those items included in Table 2.1. Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 2-2 Table 2.1: Abbreviations and Acronyms Abbreviation/Acronym Definition amsl Above mean sea level °C Degrees Celsius 3D Three-dimensional Al2O3 Aluminum oxide ANM Agência Nacional de Mineração, Brazilian National Mining Agency ARO Asset Retirement Obligation B billion BaO Barium oxide CaO Calcium oxide CAPEX Capital Expenditure CAT Caterpillar CFEM Financial Compensation for the Exploitation of Mineral Resources CMT Complexo Mineração de Tapira COG cutoff grade CRM Certified reference material DCF Discounted Cashflow DNPM National Department of Mineral Production EDA Exploratory Data Analysis ESIA or EIA Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Fe2O3 Iron oxide FOS Factor of Safety g/cm3 gram per cubic centimeter GEOSOL SGS GEOSOL – Geologia e Sondagens Golder Golder Associates USA Inc. ha hectare IRR Internal Rate of Return IT Information Technology K2O Potassium oxide kg/m3 kilogram per cubic meter kg/t kilogram per tonne km kilometer km2 square kilometer L/s liter per second LI Installation License - Licença de Instalação LO Operation License - Licença de Operação LOI Loss on ignition LOM Life-of-Mine LP Preliminary License - Licença Previa Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 2-3 Abbreviation/Acronym Definition m meter M Million m/s meter per second m³/h cubic meters per hour MgO Magnesium oxide mm millimeter mm3 cubic millimeter MMA Ministry of the Environment - Ministério do Meio Ambiente MnO Manganese oxide Mosaic The Mosaic Company Mosaic Fertilizantes Mosaic Fertilizantes P&K S.A. MR Mass Recovery Mrec Mass Reconciliation Mt Million tonnes (Metric) Mtpy Million tonnes per year MWh Megawatt hour Na2O Sodium oxide NPV Net Present Value OK Ordinary Kriging OPEX Operating Expenditure OSF Overburden Storage Facility P2O5 Phosphorus pentoxide PFS Preliminary Feasibility Study QA/QC Quality Assurance / Quality Control QP Qualified Person R$ Brazilian Reais RCP CaO to P2O5 Ratio R&D Research and Development RISR Regular Safety Inspection Report ROM Run-of-mine RSA Fresh Rock RSI Semi-weathered Rock S Sulfur SG&A Selling, General, and Administrative SiO2 Silicon dioxide S-K 1300 United States Security and Exchange Commission’s regulation Subpart S-K 1300 SO3 Sulfur trioxide SrO Strontium oxide t tonne Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 2-4 Abbreviation/Acronym Definition t/m3 tonnes per cubic meter TiO2 Titanium dioxide TRS Technical Report Summary TSF Tailings Storage Facility V volts Vale Vale S.A. Vale Fertilizantes Vale Fertilizantes S.A. wt.% weight percent 2.3 Sources of Information The compilation and estimation of Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves used public and private data sources. The supply of the private data sources from Mosaic included a drill hole database, geological model, internal documentation, laboratory certificates, pit optimizations, mine plans and other mine planning files. A detailed list of cited reports is noted in Section 24.0 of this TRS. 2.4 Personal Inspection Summary Golder QPs travelled to site on November 8th and 9th, 2021. The areas visited by the Golder QPs are noted in the below sub-sections. Prior to the site visit, the Golder QPs participated in multiple conference calls and meetings to discuss the Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves at CMT. 2.4.1 Jerry DeWolfe The QP, as defined in S-K 1300, responsible for the preparation of the Mineral Resources for the Project is Mr. Jerry DeWolfe, P. Geo., Senior Geological Consultant at Golder. Mr. DeWolfe visited CMT from November 8th to 9th, 2021. During the site visit, Mr. DeWolfe reviewed the regional and deposit geology with senior personnel from the CMT geology and mining teams. Mr. DeWolfe visited the CMT core shed to review the deposit geology, core logging, sampling, analytical quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC), and core/sample chain of custody and archiving processes. Mr. DeWolfe also visited the CMT on-site sample preparation facilities and observed the sample preparation process. Mr. DeWolfe visited the operating mine and surrounding area and observed active long-term (exploration), short- term (pre-production) and grade control (production) drilling, logging, and sampling process. This visit included verification of drill hole locations for drill holes that were used in the modelling process as discussed in Section 9 of this TRS. During the site visit Mr. DeWolfe interviewed site personnel regarding drilling, logging, sampling, and chain of custody procedures to evaluate the appropriateness of the data to be used to develop a geological model and to estimate the Mineral Resources for the Project. Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira


 
2-5 Mr. DeWolfe also held discussions with the CMT Short Range Geology and Mine Planning team to better understand how the short and intermediate grade control sampling, modelling and estimation procedures and results for the mine and stockpiles were prepared in support of the mine planning and operations teams. 2.4.2 Terry Kremmel The QP, as defined in S-K 1300, responsible for the preparation of this Mineral Reserve estimates provided in this TRS is Mr. Terry Kremmel, PE, Associate and Mining Practice Leader at Golder. Mr. Kremmel visited CMT from November 8, 2021, to November 9, 2021. During the site visit, Mr. Kremmel reviewed the general geology of the Resources with the Resource QP, including inspecting drill core samples at the Tapira Core Shed. Mr. Kremmel visited and observed the Primary and Secondary Crushing/Sizing operations and ROM ore stockpile including the Stacker/Reclaimer Blending System. Mr. Kremmel also visited the Tapira on-site laboratory facilities and observed procedures for sample preparation as well as the Physical laboratory and Chemical Assay laboratory. Mr. Kremmel visited the beneficiation plant and observed the primary stages of ore beneficiation, including milling, sizing/classification, fines separation and flotation stages. Mr. Kremmel visited and inspected the operating mine and observed conditions of the haul roads and ramps, highwall conditions, operational benches, equipment, overburden and ore extraction, loading and haulage, pit and surface drainage, overburden storage facilities (OSFs), beneficiation tailings storage facilities (TSFs) and associated impoundment dams, impoundment stability monitoring systems, surface water (stormwater) drainage systems, and site support infrastructure (workshops and maintenance facilities, warehouses, explosive magazines, site access fuel storage and power supply). Mr. Kremmel also held discussions with Short Range Mine Planning team to better understand how the short and intermediate mine plans were developed and interrelations between planning and operations teams. 2.5 Previously Filed Technical Report Summary Reports This is the first TRS filed for the CMT mine site. Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 3-1 3.0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 3.1 Property Location CMT is located in the western portion of the state of Minas Gerais, in the southeast of Brazil (Figure 3.1) to the north of the town of Tapira and approximately 35 km south-southeast of the city of Araxá. The mine is 420 km by road to the Minas Gerais state capital of Belo Horizonte, via the BR-262 highway to Araxá and then the MGC 146 highway to Tapira. The Property extends from approximately UTM 7,805,000 N to 7,799,500 N, and from 304,000 E to 310,000 E (Corrego Alegre 1961, UTM Zone 23 South), and is centered approximately at 19º52'S/46º51'W. Elevations at the Property range from 1,100 meters (m) to 1,350 m above mean sea level (amsl). The total surface area for the CMT is 10,143 hectares (ha). Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira D BL-1 BD-2 BL-3 BA-3 BD-5 BR Beneficiation Plant BR-146 300000 300000 305000 305000 310000 310000 315000 315000 77 95 00 0 77 95 00 0 78 00 00 0 78 00 00 0 78 05 00 0 78 05 00 0 78 10 00 0 78 10 00 0 LEGEND Tapira Phosphate Property Igneous Complex Boundary Road [ City Tapira Mining Requirement 833476/2012 Tapira Search Permit 830200/2009 830408/2011 Tapira Mining Concession 803387/1974 810330/1968 810331/1968 812362/1968 816066/1970 821674/1969 827081/1972 831405/1997 1 in 0 P:\Projects\Mosaic\Tapira\99_PROJ\20446248_MF_SK_1300_Phase2\0001_TRS\40_PROD\20446248-0001-HS-0001.mxd [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ M inas Gera is Goiás C a t a lã o Araxá Catalão Ibiá Patrocínio Perdizes Sacramento Uberaba Uberlândia Tapira Minas GeraisGoiás IF T H IS M EA SU R EM EN T D O ES N O T M AT C H W H AT IS S H O W N , T H E SH EE T H AS B EE N M O D IF IE D F R O M : A N SI AMAP AREA 20446248 - - 3.1 DW TBH - CONSULTANT PROJECT NO. CONTROL REV. FIGURE YYYY-MM-DD DESIGNED PREPARED REVIEWED APPROVED REFERENCE(S) COORDINATE SYSTEM: UTM ZONE 23S IMAGERY SOURCES: ESRI, HERE, DELORME, INCREMENT P CORP., NPS, NRCAN, ORDNANCE SURVEY, © OPENSTREETMAP CONTRIBUTORS, USGS, NGA, NASA, CGIAR, N ROBINSON, NCEAS, NLS, OS, NMA, GEODATASTYRELSEN, RIJKSWATERSTAAT, GSA, GEOLAND, FEMA, INTERMAP AND THE GIS USER COMMUNITY 2021-10-28 CLIENT THE MOSAIC COMPANY PROJECT SEC S-K 1300 TECHNICAL REPORT SUMMARY MOSAIC FERTILIZANTES: COMPLEXO MINERACAO DE TAPIRA TITLE PROJECT LOCATION MAP - 0 2.5 5 Kilometers1 " = 2.5 km MAP AREA 3-3 3.2 Mineral Rights 3.2.1 Name and Number of Mineral Rights The CMT mineral assets are part of a Consortium named “Consórcio Vale Fosfértil Tapira” (CVFT) created by Decree number 98.962 (February 16, 1990), process number 930.785/1988 (4,355.76 ha) granted to Vale S.A. (previously Vale do Rio Doce S.A.) and Vale Fertilizantes Fosfatados S.A. – Fosfértil. The consortium includes the mining permits listed in Table 3.1. The mining permits are generally managed through the consortium, but there are instances where the individual permits are referenced. CMT operates via the Tapira Mining Consortium, created by the decree nº98.962 on February 16, 1990, using the mining right ANM 930.785/1988. Therefore, the transfer process of mining right ANM 803.387/1974 does not affect the continuity of the mining operations. Most mining permits have transferred from Vale S.A to Mosaic Fertilizantes P&K S.A. One mining permit is pending formal transfer, 803.387/1974. Table 3.1: List of Mining Permits for CMT 3.2.2 Description on Acquisition of Mineral Rights Mining rights in Brazil are governed by the Mining Code, Decree 227, dated February 27, 1967, and further regulation enacted by ANM. This governmental agency, which controls the mining activities throughout Brazil, was recently created as a replacement of the former National Department of Mineral Production (DNPM). All sub-soil situated within Brazilian territory is deemed state property, with the mining activities subject to specific permits granted by the ANM. 3.3 Description of Property Rights CMT has an overall surface rights area of 8,008 ha distributed in 18 different property registrations. The surface area within the ultimate pit is currently mostly controlled by Mosaic. There is a small area near the Bom Jardim Settlement that is not within the current property rights. The relocation of the Bom Jardim Settlement will be necessary to fully realize the LOM tonnages, see Section 3.6. 3.4 Royalty Payments Mosaic pays the Brazilian mining royalties (Compensação Financeira pela Exploração de Recursos Minerais - CFEM) in an amount of 2% of the net sales revenue with respect to the extraction of ore. There are no royalty payments to property owners. Mining Permits Granted to Area (ha) 810.330/1968 Mosaic Fertilizantes P&K Ltda 483.12 810.331/1968 Mosaic Fertilizantes P&K Ltda 500.13 812.362/1968 Mosaic Fertilizantes P&K Ltda 464.04 821.674/1969 Mosaic Fertilizantes P&K Ltda 20.01 816.066/1970 Mosaic Fertilizantes P&K Ltda 47.83 827.081/1972 Mosaic Fertilizantes P&K Ltda 339.39 803.387/1974 Transfer in process to Mosaic Fertilizantes P&K Ltda 947.34 831.405/1997 Mosaic Fertilizantes P&K Ltda 1040.31 Total 3,842.17 Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira


 
3-4 3.5 Significant Encumbrances to the Property There are no known significant encumbrances to CMT at the time of this report. 3.6 Other Significant Factors and Risks Affecting Access The relocation of state highway MG-146 includes re-locating the Fazenda Nova Bom Jardim Settlement (local village), which is located to the west of the Mosaic currently controlled surface area. Risks include social risk during settlement relocation negotiations and an economic risk since Mosaic has not yet acquired the surface rights. This area is included in the currently controlled mining permits; and is therefore, not seen as a significant encumbrance to CMT. The capacity requirements are not currently in place for all tailings disposal for total LOM capacity requirements. However, CMT has an ongoing permitting and development plan to support the mining operations that will continue through the LOM requirements. Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 4-1 4.0 ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND PHYSIOGRAPHY 4.1 Topography and Land Description The CMT area is marked by gently undulating relief modified by the elevation of the Tapira dome, which forms a plateau with a dome structure with principal axes of 7.4 km by 6 km and elevations around 1,300 m amsl. The preservation of the lateritic plateau is due to the existence of a quartzite ring that surrounds the igneous bodies. The Tapira region is drained by the water bodies of the Prata Basin, more precisely by tributaries that flow from the Paraná River. The regional drainage pattern is dendritic, with slight tendency towards greater drainage in the SW/NE direction. Locally, however, considering the intrusion, the drainage pattern has an annular radial shape, emphasizing the dome shape of the area. The area west of Minas Gerais is composed of a particular type of savanna known as the cerrado. Remnants of riparian forest are found near spring areas. 4.2 Access to the Property The CMT property is located 3 km north of the town of Tapira and approximately 35 km south-southeast of the city of Araxá, in the southeast of Brazil in Minas Gerais State. The town of Tapira can be accessed by road from Belo Horizonte via the BR-262 and MGC-146 state highways travelling west-northwest for approximately 420 km. The MGC-146 highway is a well-maintained, asphalt road with a speed limit of 80 kilometers per hour (km/hr) and a weight limit of 45.0 tonnes. The maximum height allowed is 4.40 m due to a power line running above the access road. There is currently no rail or airport access at Tapira. The closest rail and airport access is in the city of Araxá. 4.3 Climate Description The local climate is temperate, and the annual rainfall varies between 1,300 millimeters (mm) and 1,800 mm. The maximum monthly rainfall of approximately 300 mm occurs in December and January. Temperatures vary from a summer maximum of 28 degrees Celsius (°C) in February to a winter minimum of 12°C in July. The climate does not have a significant impact on mining operations, and mining normally take place all year, with minor effects during the rainy season. 4.4 Availability of Required Infrastructure CMT is located in a highly developed region known as Alto Parnaíba. This region is known for its excellent, modern infrastructure with high standards of living compared with other regions in Brazil. The local infrastructure available to the CMT is excellent, as it is situated within a well-established mining area, 35km from the well- developed city of Araxá and within 25km of two other mining operations. The supply of electricity to CMT occurs via a 138 kiloVolt (kV) transmission line that is operated by CEMIG and Vale Energia Concessionaires. CMT has a total receipt of 40 megawatts (MW) and an annual power usage around 305 GW. The main substation receives 138 kV in 3 oil-type transformers which is transferred to secondary substations. From the secondary substations, power is distributed to the end-use areas at 110 volts (V), 220 V, 280 V, 440 V, or 4,160 V. Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 4-2 Water intake comes from the Ribeirão do Inferno and artesian wells, as well as recovered water from the taillings dams. Additionally, there are 4 artesian wells at the Tapira plant. The industrial reuse system used to recover water from the dams includes 10 pumps (4 operating and 6 on stand-by) and 36” pipes covering varying distances to the different dam areas. The distance from BR1 dam is approximately 9 km with a rated capacity of 4,400 cubic meters per hour (m3/hr). The distance from BL1 dam is approximately 3 km with a rated capacity of 10,400 m3/hr. The distance from BR dam is apprxoimately 4 km with a rated capacity of 4,900 m3/hr. Mine buildings in the CMT complex are connected to a corporate wide area network through a 10 megabits per second (Mbps) MPLS link and a 100 Mbps internet connection. The unit has a telephone system with coverage in all locations of the Mining Unit. The unit’s radio system includes a base station and control rooms from which all mining equipment and transport trucks are dispatched and controlled and a control room for the beneficiation plant. It is used for better quality and more efficient communication, with signal repeaters covering all operations of the complex. Three stations provide cover for the operations in the whole site. Additionaly, all vehicles in the mine area are equipped with radios and the personnel of the operational areas have portable radios. Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 5-1 5.0 HISTORY CMT has been in operation since 1978 and has produced more than 70 million tonnes (Mt) of phosphate concentrate. Since 1978, Titanium Dioxide (TiO2) bearing material, mainly in the form of anatase, has been stockpiled, with more than 200,000 tonnes awaiting the implementation of an economical beneficiation method. The geological structure of the alkaline complex of Tapira was first recognized in 1953, through magnetometric and radiometric investigations carried out by the Brazil-Germany Project. There was an agreement between the two countries to carry out regional geophysical aero-survey programs, performed by the Geological Survey of Brazil in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. In 1968, three major private groups – Pedro Maciel, Companhia Meridional de Mineração (CMM), and Companhia Brasileira de Metalurgia e Mineração (CBMM) – had exploration research requests granted by DNPM. In early1971, Vale (previously known as Companhia Vale do Rio Doce) joined Pedro Maciel to create the company Titan International S.A., which changed its name to Rio Doce Titânio in later years. Vale acquired the rights of Pedro Maciel at the end of 1971, with the mining rights incorporated into the company Mineração Rio Paranaíba (VALEP). At the time, a series of intensive and detailed systematic works were undertaken, and important occurrences of phosphate, titanium, niobium, rare earths, and vermiculite were identified. Extensive exploration works were undertaken between 1971 and 1973, with particular focus on the occurrences of titanium. From 1973 to 1977, the exploration priorities changed to occurrences of phosphate, with the aim of replacing the massive imports of fertilizers in the agricultural sector which was then undergoing a period of expansion in Brazil. In 1977, the Fosfértil (Fertilizantes Fosfatados S.A.) company as created under the administration of Petrofértil (a subsidiary of Petrobras, the Brazilian state oil company). In 1992, Fosfértil was privatized, and a pool of investors held the company shares. In 2010, Vale S.A. acquired complete control of Fósfertil and after created a new company, Vale Fertilizantes S.A. which included other fertilizer assets. At the start of 2018, Mosaic Fertilizantes P&K S.A. acquired the assets of Vale Fertilizers, including the Tapira mineral deposit. Details on the various historical through to recent exploration campaigns in the CMP area are presented in Table 5.1 shows the historical production of CMT from 2012 to 2021. Table 5.1: Historical Production for CMT (Last 10 Years) Tapira Complex Units 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Ore Mined Mt (wet) 17.9 15.3 17.3 15.7 16.1 17.2 14.5 10.3 16.1 15.5 P2O5 ap Feed Content % 8.1 8.0 8.3 8.5 8.6 8.5 8.4 8.7 8.9 8.5 Titanium Mt (wet) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.8 9.6 4.7 7.2 Waste Mt (wet) 28.2 25.4 32.9 17.2 37.2 41.8 27.0 27.2 31.8 38.4 Total Waste Mt (wet) 28.2 25.4 32.9 17.2 37.2 41.8 33.9 36.8 36.6 45.6 Average Haul Distance - Ore km 2.49 2.08 2.62 2.94 3.54 3.38 2.28 2.5 2.6 2.4 Average Haul Distance - Waste km 2.40 2.18 2.67 3.14 3.19 3.06 2.52 2.9 2.6 2.4 Average Haul Distance - Total km 2.4 2.1 2.7 3.0 3.3 3.2 2.4 2.8 2.6 2.4 Stripping Ratio t/t 1.6 1.7 1.9 1.1 2.3 2.4 2.3 3.6 2.3 2.9 Total Movement Mt (wet) 46.0 40.6 50.1 32.9 53.2 59.0 48.4 47.0 52.6 61.1 Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira


 
6-1 6.0 GEOLOGICAL SETTING, MINERALIZATION, AND DEPOSIT 6.1 Regional Geology The Tapira phosphate deposit is part of a series of Late-Cretaceous, carbonatite-bearing alkaline ultramafic plutonic complexes belong to the Alto Paranaiba Igneous Province. The Tapira igneous rocks intrude the phyllites, schists, and quartzites of the Late-Proterozoic Brasília mobile belt. During the Late Cretaceous, the western portion of Minas Gerais State and the adjacent portion of southern Goiás State were the site of the emplacement of many mafic to ultramafic, ultrapotassic alkaline rocks, collectively known as the Alto Paranaiba Igneous Province (PIAP). This intense magmatic activity was represented by various types of intrusive (dikes, pipes, vents, diatremes, plutonic complexes) and extrusive (lavas and pyroclastics) bodies. The igneous rock types that occur in the PIAP include kimberlites, olivine-lamprolites, and kamafugites, in addition to large intrusive complexes composed of ultramafic plutonic rocks (mainly dunites and alkali- pyroxenites), phlogopite-picrite dikes and carbonatites. The ultrapotassic magmatism in the PIAP mainly occurred along the Alto Paranaiba Arch, a NW-SE trending structure which separates the Paraná and Sanfranciscana basins. Carbonatite complexes occur in several of the alkaline igneous provinces surrounding the Paraná Basin. 6.2 Local and Property Geology The Tapira igneous complex is roughly elliptical, 35 square kilometers (km2) in area and consists predominantly of alkaline pyroxenite rocks with subordinate carbonatite, serpentinite (dunite), glimmerite, syenite, and ultramafic potassic dikes. Locally, the pyroxenites are divided into: 1. Bebedourites: a local name for a variety of biotite pyroxenite composed essentially of aegirine-augite, and biotite with perovskite and opaques. 2. Phoscorites: plutonic ultramafic rocks, containing magnetite, apatite, and one of the silicates, forsterite, diopside, or phlogopite. Phoscorites almost always occur in close association with carbonatites. The tropical weathering regime prevailing in the region and the inward drainage patterns developed from the weathering-resistant quartzite margins of the dome structures resulted in the development of an extremely thick soil cover in most of the complexes. Surface outcrops are very rare and the best samples for geochemical studies are restricted to drill cores. Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira BR-146 BR-146 305000 305000 310000 310000 78 00 00 0 78 00 00 0 78 05 00 0 78 05 00 0 LEGEND Tapira Phosphate Property Igneous Complex Boundary Road Mining Concession Mining Application Lithology Bebedourito I Bebedourito II Carbonatito Sienito 1 in 0 P:\Projects\Mosaic\Tapira\99_PROJ\20446248_MF_SK_1300_Phase2\0001_TRS\40_PROD\20446248-0001-HS-0002.mxd IF T H IS M EA SU R EM EN T D O ES N O T M AT C H W H AT IS S H O W N , T H E SH EE T H AS B EE N M O D IF IE D F R O M : A N SI A 20446248 - - 6.1 DW TBH - CONSULTANT PROJECT NO. CONTROL REV. FIGURE YYYY-MM-DD DESIGNED PREPARED REVIEWED APPROVED REFERENCE(S) COORDINATE SYSTEM: IMAGERY SOURCES: ESRI, HERE, GARMIN, INTERMAP, INCREMENT P CORP., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GEOBASE, IGN, KADASTER NL, ORDNANCE SURVEY, ESRI JAPAN, METI, ESRI CHINA (HONG KONG), (C) OPENSTREETMAP CONTRIBUTORS, AND THE GIS USER COMMUNITY 2021-11-03 CLIENT THE MOSAIC COMPANY PROJECT SEC S-K 1300 TECHNICAL REPORT SUMMARY MOSAIC FERTILIZANTES: COMPLEXO MINERACAO DE TAPIRA TITLE LOCAL GEOLOGY MAP - 0 1.5 3 Kilometers1 " = 1.5 km MAP AREA 6-3 6.3 Mineralization The Tapira phosphate deposit was formed by the supergenic alteration of bebedourites, phoscorites, and carbonatites rich in apatite. The extreme weathering process was responsible for the residual concentration of apatite. The weathering processes are typically related to the partial hydrolysis of silicate rocks and the dissolution of carbonates, with a general loss of calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), potassium (K), and silica (Si), and the accumulation of aluminum (Al), iron (Fe), and titanium (Ti), from the base to the top. The main geological types identified in the deposit are a combination of the igneous protoliths (bebedourites, phoscorites, and carbonatites) and the products of the weathering process. According to the level of weathering, the products are:  Alloterite: The top layer consisting of intense reddish autochthonous soils.  Top isalterite (saprolite): Profile with an average depth of 25 m with clayish-sandy material that can be yellow to reddish. Homogenization of mineral phases does not allow the rock structures to be identified.  Bottom isalterite (saprolite): Profile with an average depth of 25 m, resulting from the advanced weathering of the altered rock horizon. Some primary rock structures can still be observed, but the overall appearance is that of homogenous altered soil. This is the mainly phosphate mineralized horizon.  Semi-weathered rock: Weathered horizon in which the rock structure is mostly preserved.  Fresh rock: Mainly bebedourites and phoscorites intruded by carbonatite veins. The combination of the weathering types with the rock types resulted in the following mining typologies:  ALO (alloterite): a residual autochthonous reddish soil derived from the intensive weathering process of the ultramafic alkaline rocks, with high grades of Al and Fe, and a complete absence of Ca and Mg.  ISAT (top isalterites): Saprolites derived from the alkali-peridotites (bebedourites and phoscorites.) With the evolution of the weathering process, at the top of the profile the apatite begins to be destroyed and the formation of minerals of the Crandalite group (aluminum and iron phosphates, of no economic interest) appeared. The Perovskite alteration gives rise to Anatase (TiO2) in high concentrations and defines the Titanium Horizon. These are located at the top of the isalterite profile and a more intensively altered product of weathering. Primary rock structures are rarely seen and the levels of CaO and P2O5 are much lower than the lower ISAB-BEB. The amount of TiO2 (anatase and ilmenite) is remarkably high and this layer has been stockpiled and has the potential for titanium production in the future.  ISAB-BEB (bottom isalterite/bebedourite): Saprolites formed by intense weathering of bebedourites, leaching of Ca and Mg with a residual concentration of P, Ti, Al, Fe, and the generation of a phosphate ore horizon with a high concentration of apatite and low grade of perovskite located below the ISAT layer, as well as being rich in phosphate (apatite). Contact with the upper layer is clearly marked by the sharp reduction in CaO levels. It represents (with ISAB-FCR) the main phosphorous mineralized units.  ISAB-FCR (bottom isalterite/phoscorite): Saprolites located on the same level as the ISAB-BEB layer and formed by the intense weathering of phoscorite dikes and carbonatites intruding in bebedourites. The phosphorous grade is a little higher than in the ISAB-BEB. Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 6-4  RSI-BEB (semi-weathered rock/bebedourite): Semi-weathered layer formed by moderate alteration of the bebedourites. Many primary structures and the mineralogy of the bebedourites are still preserved. CaO grades are higher than ISAB-BEB and the P2O5 grades are normally lower.  RSI-FCR (semi-weathered rock/phoscorite): Semi-weathered layer formed by the non-intense alteration of the phoscorites mixed with bebedourites. Many primary structures and mineralogy are still preserved. These rocks are rich in apatite but the total phosphorous grades are lower than in the ISAB-FCR.  RSA-BEB: Fresh rock, the original bebedourites (a variety of alkali-peridotites) rock with an anomalous grade of perovskite (CaTiO3) and apatite (Ca5(PO4)3(OH, F, Cl)), normally green due to the high presence of pyroxenites.  RSA-FCR: Fresh rock, the original phoscorite mixed with bebedourites (a variety of alkali peridoties) rock with an anomalous grade of perovskite (CaTiO3) and apatite (Ca5(PO4)3(OH, F, Cl)), normally green due to the high presence of pyroxenites. Figure 6.2 shows a typical vertical section of the Tapira phosphate deposit showing weathering (upper section) and lithology (lower section) domains. This deposit is thought to be an igneous intrusion where the lithologies are intermixed and subject to heavy weathering. For that reason, a geological stratigraphic column does not adequately reflect the vertical and lateral domaining of the intrusive rock types and the overprinting weathering horizons. Golder instead has provided a local geological map, Figure 6.1, and cross section, Figure 6.2, which, in the opinion of the QP, depicts the geological setting of the deposit well. Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira


 
6-5 Figure 6.2: Vertical Cross Section – Weathering and Lithology Models Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 7-1 7.0 EXPLORATION 7.1 Exploration Work The Tapira alkaline dome was discovered by the geologists of the Brazilian government during studies carried out in 1953-1954. Geophysical programs were developed in 1953 by the Geological Service of Brazil and consisted of aeromagnetic and aeroradiometric surveys. Between 1966 and 1969, the National Department of Mineral Production (DNPM, now ANM) performed a detailed mapping of the regional dome structures and started the first drilling program. This exploration work was the first regional information about the regional mineral potential for phosphate, niobium, and titanium. Afterwards, many drilling campaigns were conducted by the Brazilian government and private companies. Detailed petrological, geochemical, and isotropic studies were carried out by Brod in 1999, describing the Tapira complex as a plutonic series, consisting of wehrlites, pyroxenites (bebedourites) and syenite, and a carbonatite series, composed of calcitic, calcitic-dolomitic, and dolomitic types. Based on mineral chemistry data, Brod has suggested that part of the wehrlite could be cumulates formed from a phoscoritic magma. 7.1.1 Topographic Survey Between 2008 and 2011, Vale executed geological mapping containing the main lithological units of the Tapira mine, on a scale of 1:1,000. In 2013, Vale contracted a laser topographic survey covering an area of approximately 98 km2. The work was performed by the Geoid Laser Mapping Company and resulted in orthophotographs and digital models on a scale of 1:5,000. 7.2 Geological Exploration Drilling Drilling campaigns at the CMT were carried out under the supervision of the following companies:  DNPM – Departamento Nacional de Produção Mineral (1966 – 1969)  DOCEGEO – Companhia vale do Rio Doce (now Vale S.A.) (1971 – 1978)  CMM – Companhia Meridioonal de Mineração (1974 – 1977)  MVL – Mineração Vargem da Lapa (1987)  VALEP – (1978 – 1982)  Fosfértil (1982 – 2009)  Vale S.A. / Vale Fertilizantes S.A. (2010 – 2017)  Mosaic Fertilizantes P&K S.A. (2018 – current) A total of 1,766 core drill holes were executed from 1967 to 2019 and 11,103 percussive drill holes have been completed at CMT by Vale/Mosaic since 2014. Table 7.1 summarizes the core drilling campaigns performed at the Tapira phosphate mine. All the data were taken from the Mosaic database and the existing physical records of the Tapira mine. Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 7-2 Figure 7.1 shows a map with the drilling locations for CMT. Table 7.1: Summary of Exploration Core Drilling Campaigns The initial DNPM drilling grid was 800 m x 800 m. The DOCEGEO campaign reduced it to 200 m x 200 m in some areas and to 400 m x 400 m in others. The CMM campaign repeated the grid of 800 m x 800 m and later moved to 400 m x 400 m, with drill holes reaching the fresh rock. The purpose of the VALEP campaigns was to carry out infill drilling over the pre-existing grid. The Fosfértil and Vale campaigns were designed mainly in a 50 m x 50 m infill drilling grid. Fosfértil utilized NX (54 mm core diameter) and NW (57.2 mm core diameter) drill core sizes from 1998 to 2005 and HQ (63.5 mm core diameter) and HW (76 mm core diameter) drill core sizes from 2005 to 2006. Vale used HQ and HQ2 (67.2 mm core diameter) drill core sizes for all its drilling campaigns from 2010 to 2019. Although 641 drill holes have depths of over 120 m, only 80 drill holes were surveyed. The sampling procedures between the drilling contractors were not uniform:  DNPM campaign: sampled every 2 m.  DOCEGEO campaign: sampled every meter.  CMM campaign: the drill holes were initially sampled every 1 m and posteriorly every 2 m.  VALEP campaign: sampling was performed at irregular lengths, with a mean of 6 m.  MVL: the drill holes were sampled every 2 m.  Fosfértil campaigns: sampling was performed at irregular lengths, with a mean of 5 m. Year Owner Company Executor Company No. of Holes Total Length 1967 - 1969 DNPM Geosol 45 3,439 1973 - 1978 DOCEGEO Geosol and T. Janer 171 12,100 1974 - 1978 CMM Geosol 104 5,329 1978 - 1982 VALEP Geosol 101 6,567 1987 MVL Geosol 8 903 1983 - 1997 Fosfértil T. Janer e Fosfértil 129 11,808 1998 - 2001 Fosfértil Hidropoços 115 13,647 2002 - 2006 Fosfértil Hidrigel and Hidropoços 286 32,050 2007 Fosfértil Hidrigel 24 2,773 2010 Vale Fertilizantes Hidrigel 19 1,747 2011-2012 Vale Fertilizantes Geosol 121 15,086 2013-2016 Vale Fertilizantes Rede 422 52,566 2017 Vale Fertilizantes Geosol 79 8,035 2018 Mosaic Geosol 61 7,576 2019 Mosaic Geosol 81 9,726 Total 1,766 183,353 Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 7-3  Vale campaigns: drill holes executed from 2010 to May 2012 were sampled with a standard length of 5 m, whereas the drill holes performed from the second semester of 2012 to 2017 used a standard sampling length of 3 m.  Mosaic campaigns: samples are carried out with a standard length of 5m, though can vary by up to 50% of the sample support size in the extremities of the lithological contacts and/or the weathering horizon 7.2.1 Qualified Persons Statement on Exploration Drilling The QP has reviewed the available exploration data and procedures. The data are well documented via original digital and hard copy records and were collected using industry standard practices in place at the time. All data has been organized into a current and secure spatial relational database. The data has undergone thorough internal and third-party data verification reviews, as described in Section 9.0 of this TRS. The QP is not aware of any drilling, sampling, or recovery factors that could materially affect the accuracy and reliability of the results of the historical or recent exploration drilling. Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira


 
7-5 7.3 Hydrological Sampling and Hydrogeological Drilling Figure 7.2 shows the hydrogeological sampling and drill hole locations. 7.3.1 Hydrological Sampling Córrego da Mata is the main watercourse present in the CMT region, its tributaries are corrego de la cascade, Córrego Pilões and Córrego Canjarana. Other watercourses in the area are córrego Canoas, Capao Escuro and Palotzinho. There are spillways that monitor these main watercourses. All points have a seasonal regime, with flows that follow rainfall, which are higher in rainy periods and lower in dry seasons. It is reinforced that the flows observed in the dry period are called base flow of the watercourse, that is, they are basically composed of underground flow. Mosaic monitors surface water quality at CMT in 24 locations with a frequency ranging from ranging from monthly to biannual. The hydrogeological sampling does not undergo any QA/QC program with its testing. 7.3.2 Hydrogeological Sampling and Drilling The presence of underground water in the CMT occurs through two types of aquifers: 1. Granular aquifers: associated with the weathering horizon in the interior of the dome, the alloterite, isalterite, and semi-weathered rock horizons. The behavior of these aquifers is that of a porous medium. 2. Fissural aquifers: associated with compact rocks, due to the presence of discontinuities both in the ultramafic-alkaline carbonatitic rock (the mineralization source rock) and in the schist and quartzite host rocks of the Precambrian period of the Canastra Group. The groundwater flow pattern within the complex is generally to the south toward the outlet of the Córrego da Mata Basin. Flow inversions sometimes occur in the northern portion (with natural flow in the Northeast direction toward the BR-01 tailings dam) and in the north sector of the pit where the natural flow towards the Córrego da Mata is reversed in the direction of the Córrego Paiolzinho due to the mining operations. In the region of Front 2/Bigorna, the current water level is between 1,220 and 1,135 amsl and is influenced by the mining operations and pumping of wells. In the northeast region of the pit (Fronts 4, 5, and 6) the water level is predominantly between 1,280 and 1,220 m amsl and is influenced by the lowering of water level from the mining advance (without pumping). In the region of the dams, the underground water level and consequently its flow is influenced by the formation of lakes along drainage channels. Around the BL-01 dam the water level is between 1,280 and 1,160 meters where the underground flow is northwest towards the Retiro Stream. The groundwater flow in the region around the BR-01 tailings dam converges into the lake. Tubular wells were installed around the pit for lowering the water level, and daily static and dynamic readings of the water level are collected for inclusion into the hydrogeological model. Another type of monitoring is the water level in the complex which aims to measure variation over time and is performed by the reading of piezometers and water level indicators. A total of 24 piezometers and 80 water level indicators were installed around the pit. Conceptual hydrogeological models consist of the study of the hydraulic parameters of the aquifers in the region, which delimit the mining complex and include hydraulic conductivity (horizontal and vertical), transmissivity, and storage. This data was provided by the MDGEO company in 2008, 2012, and 2014. To obtain the hydrodynamic Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 7-6 parameters, in 2001 the Água Consultores company carried out permeability tests – infiltration of the variable load in the clay and turf coverings and alluvial deposits. In accordance with the Brazilian Association of Technical Standards (or ABNT) the tests carried out complied with NBR-12545. In these tests, the mean hydraulic conductivity values obtained were around 0.05 meters per day (m/day; 10-5 centimeters per second [cm/s]) in the valley bottoms and 0.20 m/day (10-4 cm/s) at higher elevations (over 1,300 m amsl). The transmissivity and storage values of the aquifers were obtained through the pumping tests carried out in the observation wells in compliance with regulation NBR-15495, entitled “Monitoring Wells in Granular Aquifers”. The result showed transmissivity values of between 60 and 70 cubic meters per day (m²/day) in the Bigorna region, due to the upper aquifers located in the weathering horizon. The horizontal and vertical hydraulic conductivity values (Kh and Kv) and the storage values for the confined and free aquifers (Ss and Sy) were obtained from the calibration of the numerical model developed by MDGEO, in 2008, 2012 to 2014 and 2016. The compilation of these results is summarized in Table 7.2. Table 7.2: Hydraulic Conductivity and Storage Values Obtained from the Calibration of the years 2008, 2012, 2014, and 2016 Mosaic monitors groundwater quality at CMT in 12 locations with a frequency ranging from quarterly to annually. The hydrogeological sampling does not undergo any QA/QC program with its testing. Year Lithology Kh (kx e kv) (m/day) Kv (kz) (m/day) Ss (1/m) Sy (-) Compact phosphate 0.01 0.005 0.0005 0.005 Friable phosphate + semi- compact (ore P2O5) 0.4 0.04 0.007 0.11 Titanium (Ti ore) 0.75 0.075 0.008 0.13 Clayey overlying layers (red. yellow and peat) 0.15 0.015 0.002 0.002 Kaolinite (constrained occurrence) 0.15 0.015 0.002 0.002 Fresh Rock 0.008 0.008 0.00001 0.001 Fractured Rock 0.3 0.2 0.0003 0.03 Isalterite 0.5 0.33 0.0011 0.11 Isalterite (magnetite pockets) 1.5 0.75 0.0022 0.22 Aloterite 0.2 0.1 0.0004 0.04 Fresh Rock 0.008 0.008 0.00001 0.001 Fractured Rock 0.05 0.025 0.0002 0.02 Isalterite (undivided) 0.3 0.1 0.0008 0.08 Aloterite 0.1 0.05 0.0003 0.03 Isalterite (magnetite-titanium) 1.8 0.9 0.003 0.3 Isalterite - Silexite 0.5 0.33 0.00001 0.001 Isalterite - Fenite 0.15 0.1 0.0008 0.08 Isalterite - Fenite 1.4 1 0.0012 0.12 Isalterite - Carbonatite 1.2 0.8 0.0011 0.11 2008 2012 to 2014 2016 Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 7-7 7.3.3 Hydrogeological Modeling The numerical modeling of the groundwater flow of CMT was developed in Visual Modflow software, version 2011, based on the mathematical method of finite differences. The methodology used consisted of the integration of the increment of the modeled area and the revision of the geological model, recalibration in a transient discharge state, simulation of the advance of the mining, and assessment of the alterations in water availability. The assembly and calibration stages of the model seek to numerically represent the conceptual hydrogeological model. They mainly involve the definition of the physical limits of the model, the definition and allocation of the contour conditions, the distribution of the geology and respective hydrodynamic properties, and the representation of the tubular wells and the other drainage structures of the cave, as well as the hydrogeological monitoring. The description of the numeric model is produced using data to simulate the natural conditions of the subsurface environment of the modelled area. It begins with the limits of the model and the grid, with an area of around 223 km² and a depth of 420 m. The groundwater flow is represented by a steady state and a transient state. The numeric elements inserted into the model are the contour conditions and determine the relationships between the hydraulic loads and the ground water flow of the area. These physical/hydrogeological elements consider inactive cells (null flow); recharge, a mean multi-year rainfall in the Tapira region over an 11-year period of 1,591 millimeters per year (mm/year), of which 20% was attributed to precipitation and 80% to evapotranspiration and surface runoff; specified potential and drainage. The modeled area is approximately 162 km², covering the entire Alkaline Complex of Tapira (Domo) and the Córrego da Mata basin, as well as other sub-basins around the complex. The model covers a rectangular area 13,300 meters long by 12,200 meters wide and 400 meters deep. The grid has 100x100 meter cells, and for detail Bigorne region, the grid was refined to 20 x 20 m cells in this region. The vertical axis (Z) was divided into a series of 20 intervals of 20 m from 1,330 to 930 m amsl, totaling 400 m in depth. The description of the hydrogeological units in the model was essentially based on the lithostructural (physical) characteristics of each mapped unit. Hydraulic conductivity (K), storage (Ss and Sy) and porosities (Peffetiva, Ptotal) values were assigned. The model was based on the description of the hydrogeological units using, in an intrinsic manner, the litho-structural characteristics of each unit mapped, while the assembly and the calibration also considered the water level, piezometer and vertical draining indicators. The balance zones calculated the water balance in pre-determined cells and correspond to the volume of water that flows into and out of said cell. These zones were attributed to the cells located along the streams in the interior of the boundaries, which receive the outflow of the drains, and for which there exists monitoring data, through spillways or measurement apparatuses. Drain-type conditions were applied to streams and drainage structures in the pit. This property was assigned to cells along the tracing of all streams within the modeled boundary. The drains applied in the previous work, under the mine pit, simulating the pit drainage channels, were kept in the present model. Steady and transient state calibrations were performed. For the calibration of the model in steady state, May 2007 was considered as a reference before the continued operation of the first tubular well. A transient calibration was Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira


 
7-8 performed to adjust the storage values of the hydrogeological units. This was carried out from June 2007 to July 2020 with a division of 53 stress periods. The water levels calculated by the model show a good approximation with the water levels monitored by the instruments. The normalized mean square error - normalized root mean square, used as a calibration parameter for all instruments, presented a value of 6.0%. The multi-year average of precipitation in the Tapira region for the last 32 years is 1,628 mm/year. Considering recharge as the percentage of precipitation that infiltrates the land and feeds aquifers, a rate of 20% of precipitation (326 mm/year) was initially assigned, corresponding to a base value adopted for recharge in crystalline terrains under humid climate (Bertachini, 1987). In this case, the remaining 80% (1,303 mm/year) correspond mainly to evapotranspiration and runoff. The recharge percentages that provided the best water level calibration in the modeled area were 25% (407 mm) of the total precipitation in natural ground, 37% (602 mm) in mine pit and 13% (212 mm) in area outside the Dome. Constant head condition was applied to the active cells of Dams BL (elevation 1,215 m amsl) and BR (elevation 1,195 m amsl), to the northwest and northeast of the model, respectively. The hydraulic conductivity varies between 8x10E-3 and 1.8 m / d, for the healthy rock and Titanio zone. For the transient case, the values of storage coefficients from 1x10e-05 to 2.5x10e-03 were estimated. Considering the instruments and the available water level database and the results obtained in the model, it can be said that a good calibration of the groundwater level was achieved in the model, especially in the instruments in the Bigorna region. From the hydrogeological, recalibrated numeric model, the MDGEO company finalized a study that carried out simulations of the advance of the mining and the lowering of the water level until the year 2032 in the area delimited by the CMT. Additional monitoring includes measurement of the flow rates of the streams to monitor surface discharges and possible impacts caused by the project on the water availability of the region. This monitoring is performed through spillways and micro-pulleys, with a total of 26 spillways, Parshall and Sump channels, which aim to monitor the flow produced inside the mine. 7.3.4 Qualified Person’s Opinion It is the QP’s opinion that monitoring methodologies applied to surface water, groundwater, and the drilling and pumping test activities to obtain hydraulic parameters are appropriate and have been completed by qualified companies inside the normative, which allows for the data’s appropriate use in the hydrogeological model. Furthermore, the hydrogeological model complies with good calibration and has an adequate representation. With respect to the hydrochemical samples, these were taken and reported according to the authority’s requirements. All these activities are appropriate for establishing a Mineral Reserves estimate as summarized in this TRS. The QP is not aware of any hydrological and hydrogeological drilling, sampling, testing and modelling factors that could materially affect the accuracy and reliability of the results of the hydrological and hydrogeological studies. Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira BR-146 BR-146 305000 305000 310000 310000 78 00 00 0 78 00 00 0 78 05 00 0 78 05 00 0 LEGEND Hydrogeological Drill Holes Complementary Flow Deep Horizon Drain Drawdown Lowering Well Piezometer Spillway Water Level Indicator Tapira Phosphate Property Igneous Complex Boundary Road Mining Concession Mining Application 1 in 0 P:\Projects\Mosaic\Tapira\99_PROJ\20446248_MF_SK_1300_Phase2\0001_TRS\40_PROD\20446248-0001-HS-0004.mxd IF T H IS M EA SU R EM EN T D O ES N O T M AT C H W H AT IS S H O W N , T H E SH EE T H AS B EE N M O D IF IE D F R O M : A N SI A 20446248 - - 7.2 DW TBH - CONSULTANT PROJECT NO. CONTROL REV. FIGURE YYYY-MM-DD DESIGNED PREPARED REVIEWED APPROVED REFERENCE(S) COORDINATE SYSTEM: UTM ZONE 23S IMAGERY SOURCES: ESRI, HERE, GARMIN, INTERMAP, INCREMENT P CORP., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GEOBASE, IGN, KADASTER NL, ORDNANCE SURVEY, ESRI JAPAN, METI, ESRI CHINA (HONG KONG), (C) OPENSTREETMAP CONTRIBUTORS, AND THE GIS USER COMMUNITY 2021-10-28 CLIENT THE MOSAIC COMPANY PROJECT SEC S-K 1300 TECHNICAL REPORT SUMMARY MOSAIC FERTILIZANTES: COMPLEXO MINERACAO DE TAPIRA TITLE EXPLORATION DRILL HOLE LOCATIONS - HYDROGEOLOGICAL - 0 1.5 3 Kilometers1 " = 1.5 km MAP AREA 7-10 7.4 Geotechnical Drilling Several geotechnical investigation campaigns have been conducted at CMT since 1999. The geotechnical campaigns have been executed following the guidelines included in the standards developed by the Brazilian Association of Technical Standards (or ABNT), particularly:  NBR 8044 “Geotechnical Project – Procedures”: establishes the procedures to be observed in geotechnical studies and projects; and  NBR 13029 “Development and Presentation of Plans for the Disposal of Waste Rock Heaps”: establishes the minimum requirements for the development and presentation of the plan of the heaps to be used for the disposal of waste rock in order to comply with safety, operational, economic, and decommissioning conditions. The geotechnical investigation campaigns executed to date include site investigation and laboratory testing. The site investigation includes:  Standard penetration test (SPT)  Test pits with collection of non-deformed samples  Exploratory drilling and collection of non-deformed samples and field analyses, for the determination of density by the sand bottle or drive-cylinder method. These actions follow the recommended procedures set out in Directives ABNT/NBR-6484, NBR-9604, NBR-9820, NBR-7185 (sand bottle test), and NBR-9813 (drive-cylinder test). The geotechnical testing does not undergo any QA/QC program with its testing.  There are water level indicators and piezometers installed on the slopes as well as surface benchmarks on the benches of the mine, in accordance with directive ABNT/NBR-13895 (Figure 7.2). A series of laboratory testing campaigns have been executed to characterize the type and strength of the materials found at CMT. The laboratory testing programs included:  Atterberg limits (NBR-6459 and NBR-7180)  Soil samples - Preparation for compaction and characterization tests (NBR-6457)  Soil - Grain size analysis (NBR-7181)  Specific mass of the solids (NBR-6508)  Soil - Compaction test (NBR-7182)  Los Angeles abrasion test (NBR - NM51)  Soil - Determination of the coefficient of permeability from granular soils at constant head (NBR-13292)  Determination of void ratio (NBR-12004 and 12051) In 2019, WALM prepared a report summarizing the geotechnical investigation campaigns carried out by Mosaic Fertilizantes at CMT between 1995 and 2015. A summary of the geotechnical investigation campaigns can be seen in Table 7.3. Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 7-11 Table 7.3: Compilation of Data from the Geotechnical Analysis Campaigns at CMT Note: CIU – Consolidated Isotropic Undrained Strength parameters of the different materials found at CMT were determined based on the results of the laboratory tests. The properties of the different units are presented in Table 7.4. Table 7.4: Material Geotechnical Properties 7.4.1 Qualified Person’s Opinion The QP has reviewed the available geotechnical data and procedures. The data are well documented via original digital and hard copy records and were collected using industry standard practices in place at the time. The data has undergone thorough internal and third-party data verification reviews, as described in Section 9.0 of this TRS. The QP is not aware of any geotechnical drilling, sampling, or recovery factors that could materially affect the accuracy and reliability of the results of the historical or recent geotechnical drilling. Year Drill holes Laboratory tests Material 1999 - Triaxial CIU Kaolinized Soil 2005-2006 10 test wells Triaxial CIU (natural and saturated) Yellow clay, Titanium and Friable Phosphate 2008 50 test wells (20 samples) Specific weight of grains Natural specific weight Triaxial CIU (natural and saturated) Yellow Clay, Titanium and Friable Phosphate 2013 15 drill holes (13 samples) Triaxial CIU (natural and saturated) Isalterite, Friable Phosphate, Titanium, Syenite, Yellow Clay and Isalterite/Kaolin 2015 12 test wells Triaxial CIU (natural and saturated) Syenite, Friable Phosphate, Titanium and Clays c’ (kPa) f' (°) c’ (kPa) f' (°) Soil 18 20 50 29 42 32 Titanium 20 21 40 31 30 33 Friable phosphate 22 22 23 29 21 32 Kaolinized materials 22 22 37 31 35 29 Triaxial CIU nat Triaxial CIU sat Material γ wet (kN/m³) γ sat (kN/m³) Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira


 
8-1 8.0 SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES, AND SECURITY 8.1 Site Sample Preparation Methods and Security Sample preparation and analysis for two time periods, 1988-2009 and 2010-Present, are detailed in the subsections below. 8.1.1 Drilling Campaigns from 1983 to 2009 (Fosfértil) From 1983 to 2009, samples were collected by Fosfértil staff and contractors. Drilling logs were prepared by geologists in relation to the geological and geotechnical characteristics and uploaded in the Datamine Studio software. A sampling plan was executed using intervals with a length of 5.0 m, considering the geological and weathering contacts. The minimal accepted sample length was 0.5 m and the maximum was 7.0 m. Half-core samples were taken with a special sampling spoon for friable materials or cut using a diamond saw for compact materials. Samples were stored in large plastic bags, weighed, and tagged. The mean weight of each sample was 9.5 kg. One-half of the sample was sent to the Fosfértil analytical laboratory; the other was archived in a core storage facility on site. Sampling and tagging were carried out by SRJ Geologia e Serviços Ltda (a local contractor) at the mine preparation facility and were assayed at the Fosfértil laboratory. The preparation protocol consisted of drying and crushing to 100%-½", Jones-splitting of 250 gram (g) to 300 g aliquots, and pulverization to 100%-150 microns (μm; 100 mesh). Pulp rejects were returned and are currently stored at the Tapira storage facility. Current sample preparation was conducted by Fosfértil geology personnel at the lab. The mine laboratory has been used to assay the exploration samples since 1998. From 2002 onwards, pulverized samples were assayed by pressed pellet x- ray fluorescence (XRF) for total P2O5, CaO, SiO2, MgO, Al2O3, Fe2O3, and TiO2 grades. Assay results were reported on signed, printed certificates, and Digital certificates in Word format, including Excel tables, were submitted to the geologists via e-mail. 8.1.2 Drilling Campaigns from 2010 to Present (Vale and Mosaic) After the acquisition of the CMT Property by Vale in 2010 and Mosaic in 2018, the procedures for sampling and assaying did not change significantly. The main guidelines for sampling and assaying were:  Drilling before May 2012: Intervals with a length of 5.0 m broken by geology and weathering. The collected samples had a minimum length of 2.5 m and a maximum of 7.5 m. Geological units shorter than 2.5 m were incorporated into a larger sample.  Drilling from May 2012 onwards: Intervals with a length of 3.0 m broken by geology and weathering. The collected samples should have a minimum length of 1.5 m and a maximum of 4.5 m.  Since 2018, the protocol used prior to 2012 has been adopted: the collected samples should have a minimum length of 2.5 m and a maximum of 7.5 m. Geological units shorter than 2.5 m were incorporated into a bigger sample.  The sample intervals were marked on the core boxes with sequential numbering.  After 2012: Intervals with less than 60% core recovery were not sampled and are marked with the code NS in the database. Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 8-2  All sample information was directly filed by the geologist in the DHLogger_GDMS system.  Half-core samples were taken with a special sampling spoon for friable materials or cut using a diamond saw for compact materials. Samples were stored in large plastic bags, weighed, and tagged.  Logging was performed by Mosaic (previously Vale) geologists and sampling and tagging were prepared by the contractors.  After sampling the remaining material was kept in the box and stored in the core shed.  Sample submission forms were prepared for dispatch to the physical and chemical analysis laboratories.  Analyses were performed in internal laboratories between 2010 and 2011. In 2012 the analyses were performed by the SGS Laboratory, located in the town of Vespasiano, in the state of Minas Gerais, Brazil. From 2013 all samples were analyzed by the ALS Laboratory, located in the city of Lima, Peru.  The analytical laboratories hold the following certifications:  SGS Laboratory, Vespasiano city, Brazil: ISO 9001, ISO 14001, Brazil Certificate of Accreditation (Environmental Laboratory), Regional Chemical Council (2nd Region Minas Gerais) Company Certificate.  ALS Laboratory, Lima Peru: ISO 17025 - Standards Council of Canada Certificate of Accreditation. Chemical analyses were performed for the following major elements: P2O5, CaO, MgO, Al2O3, Fe2O3, SiO2, BaO, K2O, MnO, Na2O, TiO2, and loss on ignition (LOI). Other minor elements were also analyzed. SGS used the ICP method while the CMT internal laboratory and ALS used the XRF method for the major elements. All samples analyzed in 2012 by SGS were discarded and re-assayed by ALS using the XRF method in 2013. 8.2 Laboratory Sample Preparation Methods and Analytical Procedures 8.2.1 Density The density measurements used for Mineral Resource evaluation were performed by Vale S.A. after 2010. Density data collected prior to 2010 was discarded due the lack of details of the methods and procedures used. A total of 6,173 density determinations were carried out using the following methods: 8.2.1.1 Archimedes Principle Hydrostatic Balance (drill hole samples) The drill core samples were weighed before packaging in thin plastic (natural weight) and weighted again after being sealed (natural weight plus packaging). The samples were placed in a container filled with water and the weight of the sample in water was measured with the aid of a bespoke tool that is attached to the hydrostatic scale. After weighing the samples in water, the samples were unpackaged and dried for 24 hours. After drying, they were weighed again to obtain the dry weight. Density was then calculated as follows: Density_natural = natural weight / {[(nat weight + pack) – (nat weight + pack in water)] – [(nat weight + pack) – (nat weight)]} Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 Complexo Mineração de Tapira 8-3 8.2.1.2 Excavation with Sand Fill (in-situ samples) The basic principle of the sand replacement method was to measure the in-situ volume of the hole from which the material was excavated, based on the weight of the sand of known density that fills the hole. The in-situ density of the material was given by the weight of the excavated material divided by the in-situ volume. 8.2.1.3 Core Cutter (in-situ samples) The core cutter method was used to determine the field density. A core of known volume was dug into the surface and then weighed, first empty and secondly with the material collected. Density was calculated by dividing mass by volume. 8.3 Quality Control and Quality Assurance (QA/QC) Programs Vale initialized the analytical quality control program in the Tapira phosphate mineral deposit in 2010. The program includes the generation of reference materials certified with their own matrixes, or in other words, each unit has its own certified reference material (CRM), leading to greater adherence of the results. From 2012, a specialist team was created to guarantee the effective control of these processes. 8.3.1 Historical Analytical Quality Control at CMT Considering the absence of analytical quality control programs before 2010, in 2011 Vale carried out a core borehole re-sampling of previous drilling campaigns to verify the information quality of the database. This re- sampling was conducted under the supervision of the AMEC Minproc consultancy company. Vale collected crushed samples from core boreholes drilled from 1981 to 2007. The re-sampling was performed by the Vale technical team and the sample physical preparation was conducted by the Tapira internal laboratory. The samples were analyzed in the SGS Geosol laboratory in Vespasiano, Brazil; 20 percent of all samples were also analyzed in the ALS laboratory in the city of Lima, Peru and 10 percent of all samples were also analyzed in the CMT internal laboratory. In general, the analytical accuracy and precision in relation to the elements analyzed were considered within acceptable limits. No significant contamination was found for the elements analyzed during preparation and analysis. 8.3.2 Analytical Quality Control (2010 to Present) Vale/Mosaic relied partly on the internal analytical quality control measures implemented by the SGS, ALS and CMT internal laboratories. In addition, they implemented external analytical control measures consisting of inserting CRM samples, blank material, and coarse and pulverized duplicate assays) in all sample batches submitted for assaying. Control samples are inserted at a minimum rate of 15 percent per batch. Pulverized and coarse duplicates were analyzed by the CMT internal laboratory (January 2010 to July 2012), the SGS Geosol laboratory in the town of Vespasiano, Brazil (Oct 2012 to February 2013) and the ALS Minerals laboratory in the city of Lima, Peru (October 2013 to present). The blank material is a not a certified commercial product and was not specifically prepared for Mosaic. Ten chemical analyses for each purchased blank were prepared by Mosaic for validation. From October 2011 three different reference materials were created from Tapira samples and certified for Al2O3, BaO, CaO, Fe2O3, MgO, P2O5, SiO2, and TiO2 grades. Besides those certificates, reference material created from 8-4 Araxá phosphate mineral deposit has also been used in CMT analytical QA/QC programs since November 2013. All the CMT CRM standards were recertified by the ILUKA RESOURCES LTD company in October 2015. In 2018/2019 the CRMs were recertified by KYMI LTDA of Belo Horizonte, Brazil. KYMI performed statistical calculations and subsequent evaluations to redefine the acceptance limits. P2O5 grades of the reference material range from 4.94 to 12.11 percent. Table 8.1 shows the specifications of the CMRs used by Mosaic in the Tapira phosphate mineral deposit. In addition, since May 2016 pulverized samples originally assayed at ALS have been sent to SGS for umpire laboratory testing. The controls of the chemical laboratory generally consist of the monitoring of CRMs, using the same principles to validate the results in terms of accuracy proposed by international methods of chemical analysis. The equation used in these guidelines for the evaluation of the results of the analysis of the standards or CRM is: |Vc – Vm ≤ 3 √[(std.Error)2 + α2]| Where: Vc = Certified value Vm = Value obtained from the analysis of the CRM 3 = Parameter of quality assurance of the action Std.Error = Standard error in the certified material statistics α =Sampling process error of primary laboratory Table 8.1: Specifications of Certified Reference Materials used by Mosaic for Tapira To control the precision, duplicates were used. Each type of duplicate controls a separate stage of the process. Field duplicates control the accuracy of the measurement process, from the sampling stage to sample preparation and analysis. Crushed duplicates, meanwhile, allow for the monitoring of sample preparation, while pulverized samples can be used to monitor only the analytical process. There are two types of control of pulverized samples: reproducibility and repeatability. For the control of reproducibility, a certain quantity of pulverized samples is duplicated and sent to the secondary laboratory. The differences found in these pairs are a measure of analytical reproducibility, made flexible by the fact that laboratories do not strictly follow the same analytical routines. The control of repeatability, meanwhile, is not strictly necessary in geological testing, as the conditions of the laboratory vary between the batches received (analysts, reagents, equipment, calibration curves and other elements may change). What is controlled in such cases is the precision of the laboratory, defined in ISO 5725-3 as an intermediate measure of precision. For quality assurance and precision verification, crushed and pulverized duplicates were used. These are referred to in the company's internal terminology as CDP and PDS, respectively. All the samples are currently validated as Certified Reference Material Certified Value (P2O5%) Standard Deviation Lab Deviation Source CMA03-10 4.936 0.0324 0.1126 KYMI LTDA CMT01-19 12.105 0.0599 0.1194 KYMI LTDA CMT02-19 11.385 0.0479 0.144 KYMI LTDA CMT03-19 8.369 0.0383 0.109 KYMI LTDA Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira


 
8-5 being within the acceptable limits and liberation parameters of their pre-defined batches, established in accordance with the internal procedures set out in the requirements listed above. 8.4 Qualified Person’s Opinion The QP has reviewed the available sampling preparation, analytical and sample security (chain of custody) procedures, and validations applied to the CMT data after 1984, as well as the quality control program implemented since 2010. The data and methods are well documented via original digital and hard copy records and were collected using industry standard practices in place at the time. All data has been organized into a current and secure spatial relational database. The data has undergone thorough internal and third-party data verification reviews, as described in Section 9.0 of this TRS. The QP is not aware of any sampling, analytical, or sample security factors that could materially affect the accuracy and reliability of the results of the historical or recent exploration drilling. The QP considers that the sampling and analytical data collected after 1984 are of sufficient quality to support Mineral Resource evaluation. Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 9-1 9.0 DATA VERIFICATION 9.1 Site Visit Data Verification As part of the data and methodology verification process, the Golder QPs performed a personal inspection site visit at CMT during November 8 and 9, 2021. The site visit was completed in fulfilment of the requirement that the Mineral Resource or Mineral Reserves QP(s) perform a current site visit to the project in support of preparation of any S-K 1300 Mineral Resource and/or Mineral Reserve statements, or TRS. The purpose of the site visit was to allow the QPs to observe key aspects of the project site and operations including deposit geology, current and previous exploration programs, mining operations, mineral beneficiation operations and site infrastructure. Key members of the CMT geology and mining operations teams and senior management teams were engaged with the Golder QPs throughout the site visit to allow for in depth discussion and verification of current and historical methods and results and to discuss any concerns and recommendations. Activities performed by the QPs during the site visit included the following:  General overview of the deposit geology, exploration, and mining operations history with the CMT mining operations and senior management teams.  Observed several active drill rigs completing exploration core drilling as part of the annual CMT long-term (exploration) drilling program. The drill site review included a review of the drill hole location and final surveying methods, drilling methods, core recovery, and boxing methodology and drill core chain of custody.  Performed collar location checks on seven exploration drill holes that were included in the current geological model (see further discussion below).  Visited the CMT core shed and reviewed drill core from two long-term core drill holes. This review included a discussion on core handling and security, drill core logging, sample identification and selection, field (blind) analytical QA/QC sample insertion, drill core storage and sample reject (coarse and pulp) storage.  Reviewed geological data collection, data management, interpretation, geology and grade modelling and Mineral Resource estimation procedures with the CMT geology team.  Observed several active drill rigs completing grade control and blast hole drilling as part of the current mining operations grade control and drill and blast processes. The grade control process review included observation of the manual quartering and sample selection process used to select the grade control and metallurgical samples for analysis at the onsite laboratory.  Visited the on-site sample preparation, chemical laboratory, and metallurgical laboratory to review grade control and metallurgical sample receiving, sample preparation, analysis, QA/QC procedures and sample and reject storage procedures for the CMT short-term sampling.  Visited the ore handling system including primary and secondary crushing, belt conveying and homogenization stockpile with stacker/reclaimer system  Visited the mining operation and observed current conditions for the haul roads, pit ramps and access, pit wall stability, mining equipment, mine operations, blasting procedures, pit and surface water management and overburden storage facilities and operations. Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 9-2  Visited the process tailings storage facilities, observed conditions and operations, and discussed planned expansions of the impoundments with the site team  Visited the CMT process plant operations, including the milling operations (rod-and-ball mills, and low intensity magnetic separation), hydrocyclone (fines separation and classification), and the coarse, fine and ultrafine flotation process (rougher and fine bed flotation and fine columnar flotation), as well as product storage facilities.  Visited the various support infrastructure facilities used to support the operation, including the power station, product loadout, workshops and warehouses, service facilities and explosives storage facilities.  Met with the permitting and environmental team to discuss any environmental/permitting issues and status of planned permitting activities.  Met with the site short term planning team to discuss current resource update methodologies for updating the resource model, and methods for updating current short-range mine plans. It should be noted that both historical and current long-term (exploration) samples at CMT were submitted to offsite, third-party commercial laboratories for analyses; the third-party laboratories were not visited as part of the QP site visit. As presented in the bullets above, the QP visited collar locations for seven exploration drill holes that were included in the current geological model database; one additional drill hole that was completed after the modelling database was finalized was also visited. Given the current pit limits, many of the CMT exploration drill holes used to develop the geological model now fall within the current pit limits; as a result, drill holes available for verification purposes during the site visit were limited to the resource area outside of the current mining operations limits. Figure 9.1 presents the locations of the drill holes verified during the site visit. The drill hole collar locations were typically marked by a cement slab with a short section of PVC pipe sticking up from the slab serving as a monument for the drill collar. The drill hole collar monuments had a metal drill hole identification tag recording the drill hole name, completion date, total depth, azimuth, dip, and collar coordinates. The drill hole collar positions were verified by the QP using a handheld non-differential GPS. Table 9.1 presents a summary of the drill hole collar coordinates recorded during the site visit along with the comparison against the drill hole collar coordinates recorded in the geological database. In general, the drill hole collar positions were found to be within the allowable tolerances given the relative precision of the original drill hole collar survey and the handheld GPS coordinates collected by the QP during the site visit. Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 9-3 Table 9.1: CMT Site Visit Drill Hole Collar Coordinates Verification Easting (m) Northing (m) Elevation (m) Easting (m) Northing (m) Elevation (m) Easting (m) Northing (m) Elevation (m) CMT MTP DH 413 308,990 7,801,384 1,337 308,988 7,801,381 1,331 -1 -4 -6 CMT MTP DH 435 309,255 7,800,944 1,327 309,221 7,800,974 1,325 -34 30 -2 No collar found CMT MTP DH 348 310,121 7,801,309 1,336 310,119 7,801,308 1,330 -3 -1 -6 CMT MTP DH 405 309,486 7,801,968 1,305 309,487 7,801,965 1,303 1 -3 -2 CMT MTP DH 0439 308,841 7,800,811 1,272 308,844 7,800,810 1,269 3 -1 -3 CMT MTP DH 0438 308,863 7,800,611 1,278 308,864 7,800,609 1,276 1 -1 -2 CMT MTP DH 0510 308,416 7,800,206 1,321 308,416 7,800,204 1,321 0 -2 0 -5 3 -3 DHID GPS CMT Database Difference Notes Average Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira


 
!( !( !( !( !( !( !( BR-146 BR-146 305000 305000 310000 310000 78 00 00 0 78 00 00 0 78 05 00 0 78 05 00 0 1 in 0 P:\Projects\Mosaic\Tapira\99_PROJ\20446248_MF_SK_1300_Phase2\0001_TRS\40_PROD\20446248-0001-HS-0003_mod.mxd IF T H IS M E A S U R E M E N T D O E S N O T M AT C H W H AT IS S H O W N , T H E S H E E T H A S B E E N M O D IF IE D F R O M : A N S I A 20446248 - - .1 DW DTD - CONSULTANT PROJECT NO. CONTROL REV. FIGURE YYYY-MM-DD DESIGNED PREPARED REVIEWED APPROVED REFERENCE(S) COORDINATE SYSTEM: UTM ZONE 23S IMAGERY SOURCES: ESRI, HERE, GARMIN, INTERMAP, INCREMENT P CORP., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GEOBASE, IGN, KADASTER NL, ORDNANCE SURVEY, ESRI JAPAN, METI, ESRI CHINA (HONG KONG), (C) OPENSTREETMAP CONTRIBUTORS, AND THE GIS USER COMMUNITY 2022-02-08 CLIENT THE MOSAIC COMPANY PROJECT SEC S-K 1300 TECHNICAL REPORT SUMMARY MOSAIC FERTILIZANTES: COMPLEXO MINERACAO DE TAPIRA TITLE - 0 1.5 3 Kilometers1 " = 1.5 km MAP AREA LEGEND Drill Holes !( Visited Drill Holes Tapira Phosphate Property Igneous Complex Boundary Road Mining Concession Mining Application 9-5 9.2 Mineral Resources Golder reviewed the following items, as discussed in the sub-sections below, as part of its geological data, modeling, and Mineral Resource estimation verification. 9.2.1 Assay Certificates The modeling database includes a total of 51,870 assay samples with P2O5 values. Signed PDF assay certificates for 25,220 of those samples were provided for review. All the available certificates were compared against the assay database records and only 75 samples had different values in the database than those in the assay certificates. Of the 51,870 samples in the assay database, 22,579 were included in the four resource domains with P2O5 values. Assay certificates were provided for 10,271 of these samples (45%) and only 36 samples had different values in the database than in the assay certificates (0.35%). 9.2.2 Quality Assurance and Quality Control Programs Golder reviewed Mosaic’s documentation relating to the QA/QC programs that were completed in the post-mortem phase as well as the current exploration phases. This review included an evaluation of the amount of CRM standards, duplicates, and blanks that were incorporated into the sampling plans as well as an evaluation of the CRM composition and suitability for use relative to the style and grade range of the mineralization. 9.2.3 Block Model Golder reviewed in detail the modeling inputs, procedures, parameters and results for the lithological, weathering and grade modeling. The interpolation of the grade parameters was justified with Golder’s independent analysis and comparison of additional modeling techniques. The results of the comparison showed that the grade interpolation on a global scale did not materially change with different interpolation techniques. 9.2.4 Variography Golder reviewed in detail the assumptions and data that went into the P2O5 variogram analysis. This was completed by re-creating the variograms using the data provided and analyzing the variograms to determine if the same results could be read from the graphs. Overall, Golder did not find material errors in the assumptions or interpretation of the variograms. 9.2.5 Resource Tonnage Estimate Golder reviewed the constraints and assumptions that were made in establishing the Mineral Resource pit shell. The Mineral Resource pit shell was also validated visually based on cross section review of the pit shell and the block model coded for resource definition criteria for domain and COGs. 9.2.6 Limitations on Data Verification The Golder QP was not directly involved in the exploration drilling and sampling programs that formed the basis for collecting the data used in the geological modeling and Mineral Resource estimates for CMT. As a result, the Golder QP was not able to observe the drilling, sampling or sample preparation while in progress; and therefore, Golder has had to rely upon forensic review of the exploration program data, documentation, and standard database validation checks to ensure the resultant geological database is representative and reliable for use in geological modeling and Mineral Resource and Reserve estimation. Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 9-6 The Golder QP is not aware of any other limitations on nor failure to conduct appropriate data verification. 9.2.7 Statement on Adequacy of Data The Golder QP responsible for the estimation of CMT Mineral Resources has verified the data used in the preparation of the geological model and resultant Mineral Resource estimate, including collar survey, downhole geological data and observations, sampling, analytical, and other test data underlying the information or opinions contained in the written disclosure presented in this TRS. The Mineral Resource QP, by way of the data verification process described in this Section, has used only that data, which were deemed by the QP to have been generated with proper industry standard procedures, were accurately transcribed from the original source and were suitable to be used for the purpose of preparing geological models and Mineral Resource estimates. Data that could not be verified to this standard were reviewed for information purposes only but were not used in the development of the geological models, or Mineral Resource estimates, presented in this TRS. 9.3 Mine Plan, Cost Model, and Mineral Reserves Review Golder reviewed the following items, as discussed in the sub-sections below, as part of its mine planning, cost model, and Mineral Reserves data verification. 9.3.1 Geotechnical Golder reviewed the 2021 geotechnical report summarizing the stability analysis of the Final Pit. Stability analyses were performed in multiple locations in the final pit, resulting in segregation of the mining area into seven geotechnical zones and 4 geotechnical sectors with varying face angles and berm widths. The resulting mine design meets the standards dictated by Mosaic to have a minimum safety factor of 1.3. 9.3.2 Mining Methods The proximity of the mineralized ore to the surface results in the use of surface mining methods to extract the material. The shape of the mineralized zone further defined the surface mining design as an open-pit mine using excavators and trucks as the primary mining equipment. The drill-and-blast work was contracted to Enaex Britante with both ANFO and emulsion used as blasting agents to fracture the rock to a manageable size. The rock was then hauled to the beneficiation plant (ore), or to the ex-pit storage facilities (waste). 9.3.3 Cutoff Grade and Modifying Factors Golder reviewed the calculations used to establish the COG of 4.5% P2O5 referred to in Section 12.2.5. These calculations summarize the amount of apatite concentrate produced per wet tonne of ore, at about a 1.58 (55.4% / 35.0%) multiple of the assayed P2O5 grade. Therefore, the mass recovery of an assayed 4.5% P2O5 grade becomes 7.1%, which computes to about 61.1 kilograms of concentrate for 865.7 kilograms of dry ore. At this COG, the block is amenable to beneficiation, but further block valuation calculations determine whether the block will have a positive cashflow. CMT has historically used a 5.0% COG. CMT applies modifying factors to the ore blocks by examining lithological and weathering boundaries, the portion of a block which will come into contact with a neighboring waste block and what the grade of that neighboring waste block is. The CMT mine does not apply any additional mining recovery factors to the ore extraction, assuming their equipment is selective enough to be able to mine to the boundary of the ore and the waste as defined by the interpolated rock unit triangulations. Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 9-7 9.3.4 Pit Optimization Golder reviewed the pit optimization inputs and assumptions provided by Mosaic by conducting an independent pit optimization exercise using the same input values, beginning topography, and permit boundaries. The pit optimization is based on a script used to place a value on the blocks after looking at the mining and beneficiation costs. Golder concluded that the ultimate pit shell and waste/ore quantities provided by Mosaic were reasonable given the pit optimization inputs and that this ultimate pit shell provides a positive economic value. 9.3.5 Mine Design The ultimate pit shell selected from the pit optimization exercise was refined to yield the final pit shell by integrating operational design characteristics, including ramp locations and grades, OSF locations, mining width and height, and other practical mining considerations, given pit geometry. The mine is divided into 4 different fronts: Bigorna, Front 2, Front 5 and Front 6. Access ramps are designed with a maximum slope of 8%. Benches are designed to have a 12-m to 15-m width and a 10-m height, with varying face angles depending upon the mine area, the lithology, and weathering. 9.3.6 Production Schedule Production sequencing was carried out using the Deswik interactive scheduler which allows the user to visually plan multiple ongoing mining faces simultaneously. Ore blocks were selected using the “digline” functionality in Deswik, while waste blocks were placed into the nearest OSF with available capacity. Golder reviewed the phase delineations and quantities provided by Mosaic and verified that the mining sequence was reasonable and will support the planned production for the LOM Plan. 9.3.7 Labor and Equipment Golder reviewed the productivity calculations used for equipment fleet size estimations, including equipment capacity, availability and utilization percentages, equipment operating hours, and haul distances. The truck fleet is adequately sized for the requirements of the mine and matches well with the selected excavators. The operational plan of CMT includes the use of four teams on 12-hour shifts, operating 24 hours per day, 365 days per year, with a staff of approximately 270 hourly employees. To calculate the required personnel, the annual count of loading/transportation equipment is multiplied by the number of teams (4), and the equipment availability and then increased by a factor 10% to account for the 75th percentile of availability and 13.3% for absenteeism. 9.3.8 Limitations on Data Verification The Golder QP is not aware of any other limitations on nor failure to conduct appropriate data verification. 9.3.9 Statement on Adequacy of Data The Golder QP responsible for Mine Planning and Mineral Reserve estimates has verified the data used in the preparation of the mine design and resultant Mineral Reserve estimate, including geotechnical design criteria, COG calculations, mine modifying factors, production schedule, labor and equipment estimates, and other test data underlying the information, or opinions, contained in the written disclosure presented in this TRS. Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira


 
9-8 The QP has used only that data which was deemed by the QP to have been generated with proper industry standard procedures, was accurately transcribed from the original source and was suitable to be used for the purpose of preparing the mine design and Mineral Reserve estimates. Data that could not be verified to this standard was reviewed for information purposes only but was not used in the development of the mine design, or Mineral Reserve estimates, presented in this TRS. Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 10-1 10.0 MINERAL BENEFICIATION AND METALLURGICAL TESTING 10.1 Metallurgical Testing and Analytical Procedures 10.1.1 Test Work and Program History The Tapira beneficiation plant has been operating since 1978 and during that time the ownership has changed three times. Vale S.A. acquired the Tapira operations in 2010 and in early 2018 Mosaic Fertilizantes P&K S.A. acquired Vale Fertilizers assets, including the Tapira operations. The test programs performed for the original owner more than 43 years ago to develop process design criteria are not available to Mosaic. 10.1.2 Historical Test Work Results The results of the historical tests that were used in the development of the beneficiation plant are not available to Mosaic. Mosaic has eleven standard procedures covering core drilling, core logging, core sampling, preparation of samples for chemical analysis and for characterization testing. Currently, drill core samples are used for density determinations (whole cores) and for chemically analysis (prepared cores). Also, samples of cuttings from percussion drills are tested. The samples containing at least 5% P2O5 are considered potential ore and are subjected to routine characterization tests consisting of milling to a P80 of 104 μm, low intensity magnetic separation to reject magnetite, and size classification to reject <37 μm fines. The >37 μm (400 mesh) fraction is attritioned at 60% solids and pH 8.6 for 10 minutes and then fines separated at 37 um. The <37 μm fraction is rejected, while the >37 μm fraction is subjected to three or more flotation tests to examine the grade recovery relationship at different reagent dosages. The magnetic reject, the -37 μm rejects, the flotation tailings, and the flotation concentrate are dried, weighed, and chemically analyzed. The results of geometallurgical testing, including reagent dosages are made available to the mine planning team. The laboratory process does not investigate ultra-fine flotation. Ultra-fine concentrate is predicted as a percentage of conventional concentrate. Additional characterization tests, as listed below, are performed on core samples selected by the mine planning team.  Chemical composition of the run-of-mine: Chemical analysis of the global sample including P2O5, CaO, Al2O3, Fe2O3, SiO2, TiO2, MgO, BaO, Nb2O5, S, CO2, and LOI.  Size by size chemical composition of the crushed sample (<3 mm) and of the ground sample (<0.208mm). The wet screened size fractions are analyzed for the same elements as the global sample.  Cation-exchange capacity determination  Analysis of mineral liberation and associations  Mineralogical analysis  Bond Work Index (WI) Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 10-2  Flotation tests with different typologies and different grades for process optimization. The core samples subjected to routine characterization tests provide geometallurgical data for long-term planning. The samples from percussion drilling subjected to routine characterization tests provide data for short-term planning. Selected samples, representing four main lithotypes as identified in Table 10.1, are examined. Domains 6 and 7, which have a higher ratio of CaO:P2O5, are more problematic than Domains 3 and 4. Table 10.1: Main Lithotypes 10.2 Representativeness of Metallurgical Testing The short-term data base, established from testing 8,246 samples from percussion drilling, indicated that the average ROM grade was 9.21% P2O5 and that the average mass and metallurgical recoveries were 14.88% and 55.80% respectively. The long-term data base, established from 2,714 drill core samples, indicated that the average ROM grade was 9.35% P2O5 and that the average mass and metallurgical recoveries were 13.77% and 49.94%, respectively. The number of samples is large enough to represent the four main ore domains. 10.3 Laboratory Used for Metallurgical Testing The geometallurgical testing and chemical analyses of the geometallurgical samples are performed by the Tapira internal laboratory. Certified laboratories (ALS in Lima, Peru and SGS in Vespasiano – MG) are also used. The SGS lab analyzes the drill core samples and is also used as a check laboratory. All samples analyzed in 2012 by SGS were discarded and re- assayed in 2013 by ALS using XRF method. Paired data from the Tapira Internal Laboratory, SGS and ALS were validated by Mosaic staff through bias charts, quantile-quantile, and relative precision plots for the following elements: P2O5, CaO, MgO, Fe2O3, SiO2 and Al2O3. The data examined showed that the assay results can be reproduced by SGS and ALS from coarse and pulp duplicates with high confidence. The Tapira Internal Laboratory also presented results with high confidence. In addition, for the three laboratories, all duplicate pairs have a correlation coefficient of at least 0.99. The analytical laboratories hold the following certifications:  SGS Laboratory, Vespasiano city, Brazil: ISO 9001, ISO 14001, Brazil Certificate of Accreditation (Environmental Laboratory), Regional Chemical Council (2nd Region Minas Gerais) Company Certificate  ALS Laboratory, Lima Peru: ISO 17025: Standards Council of Canada Certificate of Accreditation Domain Lithotype 3 Isalterite/BEB-FCR 4 Isalterite/BEB 6 Semi-weathered/BEB-FCR 7 Semi-weathered/BEB Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 10-3 10.4 Recovery Estimates 10.4.1 Mass Recovery This sub-section contains forward-looking information related to mass recovery for the Project. The material factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the conclusions, estimates, designs, forecasts or projections in the forward-looking information include any significant differences from one or more of the material factors or assumptions that were set forth in this sub-section including actual plant feed characteristics that are different from the historical operations or from samples tested to date, and, equipment and operational performance that yield different results from the historical operations and historical and current test work results. The density and chemical analyses of ore samples were used for kriging the grades of blocks of ore. The interpolated mean values of P2O5, CaO, and Fe2O3 were used for each for the weathering domains. Mass recovery, an important parameter impacting the operating cost, is determined by the following relationship: Mass Recovery = 100 x concentrate mass / ROM mass The geometallurgical test data are evaluated periodically to establish an equation for predicting mass recovery as a function of ROM chemical composition. The current equation for predicting the mass recovery of conventional phosphate concentrate from Tapira ore is presented below. Section 11.1.9 of this Report provides more information on the block model interpolation of the mass recovery regression equation. Mass Recovery = (1.591393*Weathering Factor) – (0.1674649 * Fe2O3_ROM) + (0.8591265 * CaO_ROM) - (0.03270338 * (CaO_ROM)2) + (0.02173657 * (P2O5_ROM * Fe2O3_ROM)) + (0.05172623 * (P2O5_ROM * CaO_ROM)) Weathering Factor = Indicator for the type of weathering horizon, 1 for weathered Isalterite domains (03 and 04) and 0 for the semi-weathered domains (06 and 07) Fe2O3 = Iron Oxide CaO = Calcium Oxide P2O5 = Phosphate ROM = Run-of-Mine The predicted mass recovery is for conventional concentrate because the laboratory testing does not include preparation and flotation of the ultrafine flotation feed. The ultrafine concentrate is typically about 8% of the total concentrate. From 2016 through 2020, the actual mass recovery of total concentrate (conventional plus ultrafine concentrates) averaged 14.21% The QP is not aware of any other beneficiation factors or deleterious elements, than those discussed previously, that could have a significant effect on potential economic extraction. Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira


 
10-4 10.4.2 Metallurgical Recovery This sub-section contains forward-looking information related to metallurgical recovery for the Project. The material factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the conclusions, estimates, designs, forecasts or projections in the forward-looking information include any significant differences from one or more of the material factors or assumptions that were set forth in this sub-section including actual plant feed characteristics that are different from the historical operations or from samples tested to date, , equipment and operational performance that yield different results from the historical operations and historical and current test work results. The metallurgical recovery is calculated from the mass recovery, the concentrate % P2O5, and the ROM % P2O5 according to the following equation: Metallurgical recovery = 100 x Mass recovery x Concentrate % P2O5 / ROM % P2O5 In the three-year period of 2017 through 2019 the actual metallurgical recovery of conventional concentrate was about 99% of the predicted metallurgical recovery. From 2016 through 2020, the actual metallurgical recovery based on total concentrate tonnes and % P2O5 averaged 58.41% and had an annual maximum of 62.4%. 10.4.3 Concentrate Quality The monthly concentrate quality during 2018, 2019, and 2020 are summarized in Table 10.2. The minimum and maximum values for each year are monthly averages. The coarse concentrate typically contains slightly higher %P2O5 and slightly lower %Fe2O3 than the fine concentrate. The total (combined coarse and fine) concentrate consistently averages more than 35% P2O5 and less than 2.9% Fe2O3. Table 10.2: Annual Concentrate Quality Notes: 1) Conventional concentrate from monthly average data 2) Ultrafine concentrate from monthly average data 3) Combined conventional and ultrafine concentrates from monthly average data For forecasting purposes Mosaic assumes that both the conventional and ultrafine concentrates will contain 35% P2O5 by weight. As shown by Table 10.2, this assumption is slightly conservative. Min Avg Max Min Avg Max Min Avg Max Min Avg Max P2O5% 35.15 35.49 36.36 35.11 35.30 35.59 35.10 35.32 35.57 35.03 35.15 35.43 Fe2O3% 1.84 2.20 2.42 1.86 2.31 2.81 2.29 2.58 2.73 2.04 2.28 2.74 Al2O3% 0.24 0.36 0.44 0.34 0.36 0.47 0.28 0.37 0.48 0.29 0.35 0.47 MgO% 0.27 0.35 0.47 0.18 0.35 0.52 - 0.41 0.64 0.42 0.55 0.74 CaO% 48.96 49.51 50.37 47.91 49.02 50.17 47.43 48.28 48.93 47.71 48.95 49.73 P2O5% 35.17 35.41 35.68 34.73 35.11 35.67 34.06 34.86 35.26 34.64 35.05 35.32 Fe2O3% 1.65 2.28 3.09 1.51 2.43 3.68 2.11 2.73 3.62 1.79 2.34 3.44 P2O5% 35.18 35.49 36.30 35.14 35.28 35.55 35.02 35.28 35.53 35.03 35.14 35.39 Fe2O3% 1.83 2.21 2.48 1.83 2.32 2.89 2.31 2.59 2.79 2.07 2.30 2.79 Total3 2020 Coarse 1 2018 2019 2021 Fine2 Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 10-5 Mass recoveries are forecast by a regression equation developed from geometallurgical test data and ore chemical analyses. Typically, mining activity causes the ore grade to be diluted and Mosaic takes dilution into account before applying the predictive equation. The forecast metallurgical recovery is calculated from the forecasts of mass recovery and concentrate % P2O5 and the diluted ROM %P2O5. 10.5 Qualified Person’s Opinion The metallurgical and analytical testing and historical data is adequate for the estimation of mass and metallurgical recovery estimation factors and estimation of Mineral Reserves. Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 11-1 11.0 MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES 11.1 Key Assumptions, Parameters, and Methods 11.1.1 Geological Database The CMT database contains 1,766 diamond core drill holes 11,104 percussive drill holes. All validated data were used to prepare the 3D geological model of the deposit, but only the diamond core drill holes performed after the year of 1984 with linear core recovery >60% were used to perform the Mineral Resource grade estimations. The core drill holes from 1967-1980 did not include any QA/QC; and therefore, are not used in the Mineral Resource grade estimations. Core drilling from 1981-2007 are supported by a “post-mortem” QA/QC data validation process and core drill holes from 2010 onward are supported by a full QA/QC program. Core drilling from 1981-1983 was excluded from the Mineral Resource grade estimations due to poor survey and core recovery records. Table 11.1 and Table 11.2 summarize the drill hole data used. Table 11.1: Summary of Drillholes Used for the Models Model Drill Hole Type Year Number Total Length (m) Assayed Samples DDH 1967-2017 1,766 183,353 51,871 Percussive 2014-2019 11,104 111,614 10,893 12,870 294,967 62,764 Resource Grade Estimation DDH 1984-2019 1,180 136,756 39,124 Geological Total Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 11-2 Table 11.2: Diamond Core Drillhole Campaigns by Year and by Use in Mineral Resource Evaluation Activities 11.1.2 Core Recovery The mean recovery of the drill core samples for the four domains was 93.38% (see discussion of domains below). For compositing, only samples with more than 60% recovery were used. Samples with a recovery rate below 60% were excluded before the compositing process, along with samples with a final chemical balance of over 102%. The number of samples with core sample recovery below 60% represents 1.39% of the total sample population while the number of samples with core sample recovery greater than 102% represents 0.10% of the total sample population. While such samples exhibit only small differences in their mean grade values, they were excluded from the Mineral Resource estimation and categorization processes. Year Number of Boreholes Length (m) Year Number of Boreholes Length (m) Year Number of Boreholes Length (m) 1967 15 1,470 1981 19 1,563 2010 19 1,747 1968 22 1,316 1982 18 1,619 2011 14 1,521 1969 8 653 1983 15 838 2012 107 13,565 1973 1 27 1984 27 2,094 2013 105 13,446 1974 77 4,431 1985 14 1,142 2014 156 19,336 1975 107 8,718 1986 13 1,140 2015 105 13,766 1976 68 3,272 1987 17 1,978 2016 56 6,018 1977 22 981 1988 7 668 2017 79 8,035 1979 28 1,577 1989 7 742 2018 61 7,576 1980 36 1,807 1990 7 703 2019 81 9,727 Total 384 24,253 1991 6 636 Total 783 94,736 1992 4 437 1993 2 255 1994 2 290 1995 5 568 1996 7 762 1997 4 459 1998 17 1,789 1999 25 2,709 2000 29 3,453 2001 44 5,696 2002 49 5,692 2003 30 3,572 2004 65 6,907 2005 102 11,716 2006 40 4,163 2007 24 2,773 Total 599 64,364 Geological Interpretation + Resource Estimation - QA/QC program g p Resource Estimation - No QA/QC but post-mortem validation Geological Interpretation Only - No QA/QC validation Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira


 
11-3 11.1.3 Domain Classification The geological interpretation for CMT considered the lithologies and the weathering, accordingly. The rocks and the products of the weathering characteristics are described in Section 6.3. Two models were built for the Tapira mineral deposit: a weathering model and a lithological model. A combination of both models was used to define the domains used for Mineral Resource estimation. The weathering model consisted of the following rock types:  Alloterite (ALO)  Top Isalterite (ISAT)  Bottom Isalterite (ISAB)  Semi-weathered Rock (RSI)  Fresh Rock (RSA) The geological model consisted of the following rock types:  Soil (COB)  Phoscorite + Bebedourite (FCR)  Bebedourite (BEB)  Carbonatite (CBN)  Syenite (SIE)  Fenite (FEN)  High Titanium Zone (ZTI)  Enclosing Rocks (ENC) The database included codes for 10 different logged geological domains, which represent a combination of lithologies and weathering horizons. Only four have significant phosphorous grades and are included in the Mineral Resource statement:  Domain 3: ISAB-FCR (Bottom Isalterite-Phoscorite)  Domain 4: ISAB-BEB (Bottom Isalaterite Bebedourite)  Domain 6: RSI-FCR (Semi-weathered Phoscorite)  Domain 7: RSI-BEB (Semi-weathered Bebedourite). Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 11-4 Correlation coefficients were completed to help define the domains. Except for the strong correlation of P2O5 and CaO in the isalterites, the linear correlations between variables in the mineralized domains tend to be moderate to weak. In general, Fe2O3 shows moderate negative correlations with CaO, MgO, and SiO2. Table 11.3 summarizes the key grade parameter statistics of the four main geological domains for all the core drilling campaigns. In general, the most weathered types (ISAB-FCR and ISAB-BEB) were richer in P2O5, Al2O3, and Fe2O3 and poorer in CaO, SiO2, and MgO, evidencing the lateritic supergenic process. Compared with the BEB types, the FCR types were slightly higher in P2O5 and CaO, though the differences were not clearly marked. Table 11.3: CMT Raw Data Statistics for the Main Geological Domains including all Core Drilling Data (1967-2019) 11.1.4 Geological Modeling Leapfrog® Geo software was used to construct the solids for both the lithological and weathering models. The topography that was used to constrain the model included an unmined topographic surface as well as the CMT mined topography surface as of December 31, 2020. The unmined topography surface was sourced from a low-resolution historical survey and a laser aerial survey. The low-resolution survey was only used in areas where un-mined surfaces were not available due to mining activities at the time of the laser aerial survey. 11.1.5 Assay Compositing The CMT database contained samples that were collected at irregular length intervals according to the changes in the visual and physical properties of the drill core. Since 2018, and during the Fosfértil campaigns, sampling was performed on 5 m intervals. During the period from 2012 to 2017 (Vale Fertilizantes Campaigns) sampling was performed on 3 m intervals. In all cases, the geological contacts and weathered profile were used to limit the sample intervals (samples honored geological and weathering boundaries). Domain Variable No. Samples Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Dev. Variance Var. Coeff. Q1 Median Q3 P2O5 6,442 0.45 34.99 10.58 3.90 15.22 0.37 8.02 10.20 12.70 CaO 6,415 0.34 45.60 14.47 5.48 30.06 0.38 11.05 14.25 17.55 MgO 5,845 0.07 17.80 3.94 2.95 8.72 0.75 1.44 3.44 5.68 Fe2O3 5,854 6.09 74.93 27.46 8.24 67.91 0.30 22.16 26.25 31.47 SiO2 5,167 0.33 73.70 21.43 8.45 71.42 0.39 15.80 21.85 26.81 Al2O3 5,167 0.04 30.20 4.46 2.31 5.35 0.52 3.03 4.20 5.50 P2O5 7,069 0.19 32.60 8.38 3.33 11.15 0.39 6.11 8.07 10.17 CaO 6,944 0.13 48.27 11.72 4.74 22.53 0.40 8.59 11.51 14.40 MgO 5,208 0.10 21.57 4.74 2.96 8.79 0.63 2.54 4.32 6.35 Fe2O3 5,426 4.57 63.25 25.61 8.03 65.14 0.32 20.43 24.79 30.07 SiO2 2,208 1.46 62.29 24.02 8.57 73.61 0.36 19.12 24.47 28.81 Al2O3 2,208 0.14 28.87 5.08 2.65 6.99 0.53 3.56 4.67 6.00 P2O5 4,080 0.13 29.90 5.84 2.55 6.48 0.44 4.29 5.55 6.97 CaO 4,065 0.35 52.71 19.65 5.42 29.39 0.28 16.66 19.85 22.50 MgO 3,626 0.08 21.60 10.19 2.99 8.91 0.29 8.36 10.30 12.15 Fe2O3 3,629 1.02 55.01 17.97 5.44 29.56 0.30 14.83 16.85 19.75 SiO2 3,294 1.05 65.20 25.94 7.20 51.80 0.28 21.60 26.30 30.70 Al2O3 3,294 0.01 15.65 2.33 1.32 1.74 0.57 1.56 2.19 2.86 P2O5 5,107 0.13 22.57 4.97 2.30 5.31 0.46 3.58 4.72 6.04 CaO 4,956 0.51 54.02 16.89 5.77 33.23 0.35 12.50 17.27 21.20 MgO 3,957 0.85 25.08 8.30 2.53 6.48 0.31 6.75 8.34 9.72 Fe2O3 4,024 1.64 67.56 17.28 5.61 31.68 0.32 13.89 16.29 19.65 SiO2 2,107 3.54 63.83 28.86 6.94 48.11 0.24 24.76 29.84 33.29 Al2O3 2,107 0.13 11.69 2.68 1.40 2.01 0.52 1.76 2.47 3.28 ISAB-FCR (03) ISAB-BEB (04) RSI-FCR (06) RSI_BEB (07) Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 11-5 Figure 11.1 shows the distribution of raw sample lengths for the four mineralized horizons. The large counts of 3 m and 5 m lengths represent the procedures adopted by Mosaic and the previous asset owners. Figure 11.1: Histogram of Raw Sample Length for Resource Domains The procedure used to prepare the composite database was: 1. Samples shorter than 2.5 m from the same mineralized horizon were grouped in 5 m length composites. 2. Samples equal to or longer than 2.5 m were not composited. 3. Composites shorter than 2.5 m as well as those longer than 7.5 m were removed from the final composite dataset. 4. Samples with a core recovery rate below 60% were excluded before the compositing process, along with samples with a final chemical balance of over 102%. Figure 11.2 shows the distribution of the sample lengths after compositing. The composite lengths intervals that were less than 2.5 m and more than 7.5 m were removed to mitigate the problem of statistical support during block grade estimation. Additionally, the samples without QA/QC validation were removed from the final composite data. Rock Codes 2203 (part of Domain 4) and 303 (part of Domain 7) have been excluded from the compositing and grade estimation. Future modeling efforts should include an evaluation of the data for these Rock Codes. Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 11-6 Figure 11.2: Histogram of Composite Sample Length for Resource Domains Histograms were used to evaluate the grade distributions after the compositing process and showed that there was no significant difference between the two sizes of composites (3 m and 5 m). Future modeling efforts should include a simplified, uniform compositing basis. This will likely have changes to local estimates, but will likely not have material changes to the global estimate. The number of samples excluded during the compositing process was approximately 6% of the total sample count, being lower in the isalterite horizon at 5% and approximately 8% in the semi-weathered rock horizon. 11.1.6 Evaluation of Outliers An outlier is a data measurement that differs significantly from other observations, whether due to variability in the measurement or experimental error. Outliers sometimes distort the results of an estimation by altering the means of the population. An evaluation of outliers for P2O5, SiO2, and Fe2O3 grades for the mineralized domains was performed as part of the data evaluation and modelling process. The anomalous grades were treated separately during the estimation process. Outliers were defined as the 98-99th percentile of the data range depending on the domain. During the grade estimation, outliers were limited spatially to only influence the model by one block. No capping or cutting was applied. Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira


 
11-7 11.1.7 Variography Variography is used to model the continuity of spatial phenomena such as the distribution of grades in a mineralized body. At CMT variography was used to establish the principal directions and ranges of anisotropy for the various grade parameters, by domain, in support of grade modelling and Mineral Resource estimation. ISATIS ® software was used for the preparation of experimental variograms and variogram models. Key parameters of the by domain and grade parameter variogram model are shown in Table 11.4. The model variograms are shown in Figure 11.3. Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 11-8 Table 11.4: Variogram Model Parameters – Resource Domains Major Semi Minor 1 Spherical 90 80 20 2 Spherical 500 350 50 1 Spherical 60 50 12 2 Spherical 400 420 60 1 Spherical 100 50 25 2 Spherical 450 380 35 1 Spherical 60 60 20 2 Spherical 500 500 60 1 Spherical 200 8 15 2 Spherical 1500 700 40 1 Spherical 60 60 15 2 Spherical 350 200 70 1 Spherical 100 100 15 2 Spherical 600 500 60 1 Spherical 100 80 12 2 Spherical 700 500 60 1 Spherical 120 100 10 2 Spherical 900 800 50 1 Spherical 150 120 20 2 Spherical 950 650 35 1 Spherical 120 120 15 2 Spherical 850 400 25 1 Spherical 150 120 15 2 Spherical 650 600 20 1 Spherical 110 100 15 2 Spherical 600 500 30 1 Spherical 100 100 15 2 Spherical 600 350 25 1 Spherical 120 120 10 2 Spherical 400 600 50 1 Spherical 180 160 15 2 Spherical 500 300 40 1 Spherical 100 100 15 2 Spherical 1100 750 180 1 Spherical 130 160 15 2 Spherical 1100 800 50 1 Spherical 60 100 10 2 Spherical 800 700 120 1 Spherical 100 100 12 2 Spherical 450 250 80 1 Spherical 150 100 8 2 Spherical 700 450 60 1 Spherical 100 100 5 2 Spherical 700 500 35 1 Spherical 100 120 20 2 Spherical 800 800 50 1 Spherical 180 180 20 2 Spherical 1200 800 35 1 Spherical 200 100 10 2 Spherical 1000 1000 40 1 Spherical 120 220 20 2 Spherical 900 650 30 1 Spherical 100 100 10 2 Spherical 1000 800 60 1 Spherical 110 80 20 2 Spherical 900 800 35 Fe2O3 68 0 0 7 Fe2O3 45 0 0 5.5 ISAB-FCR (03) P2O5 140 0 0 1.5 Domain Variable Rotation Azimuth Plunge Dip MgO 140 0 0 CaO 140 0 0 2.5 Density (Dry) 45 0 0 Al2O3 140 0 0 SiO2 68 0 0 CaO 158 0 0 1.8 ISAB-BEB (04) P2O5 158 0 0 MgO 45 0 0 Density (Dry) 158 0 0 Al2O3 135 0 0 0.6 SiO2 158 0 0 CaO 50 0 0 SiO2 158 0 0RSI-FCR (06) P2O5 50 0 0 MgO 50 0 0 Density (Dry) 135 0 0 Al2O3 140 0 0 Fe2O3 113 0 0 RSI_BEB (07) P2O5 68 0 MgO 68 0 0 Fe2O3 0 0 0 Variogram Model 0.56 0.6 0.85 0.007 0.2 Density (Dry) 130 0 0 Al2O3 110 0 0 0.55 SiO2 50 0 0 4 CaO 68 0 0 7 0.7 0.02 0.6 0.45 0.01 0.3 0.006 Range (metre)Nugget Effect Str. No. Type 2.3 0.85 6.9 0.03 4.8 3 2.5 Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 11-9 Figure 11.3: P2O5 Variograms Note: - Red: Direction of greatest continuity. - Green: Direction of intermediate continuity. - Purple: Direction of least continuity. Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 11-10 11.1.8 Block Model Parameters, Density, and Grade Estimation This sub-section contains forward-looking information related to density and grade for the Project. The material factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the conclusions, estimates, designs, forecasts or projections in the forward-looking information include any significant differences from one or more of the material factors or assumptions that were set forth in this sub-section including actual in-situ characteristics that are different from the samples collected and tested to date, equipment and operational performance that yield different results from current test work results. 11.1.8.1 Block Model Parameters and Domaining The ISATIS® software package was used to create a grid of regular blocks of 25m x 25m x 5m. The dimensions of the block model are presented in Table 11.5 and the variables of the block model are presented in Table 11.6. Table 11.5: Block Model Dimensions Table 11.6: Block Model Variables Dimension Block Size (m) Origin (m) Vulcan Rotation Offset (m) X 25 304,700 90 7,400 Y 25 7,796,400 0 7,850 Z 5 1,000 0 500 Variable Description Variable Description topo variable used to create model survey reference umi_bs moisture dry base lito alphanumeric lithology umi_bu moisture wet base intem alphanumeric weathered p2o5ap content of apatitic phosphate id_lito numeric lithology mine flag used to reference survey id_intem numeric weathered class Resource classification id_li_in weathering + lithology rcp Ratio CaO / P2O5 al2o3 aluminum oxide rend_cv mass recovery conventional concentrate (coarse circuit) bao barium oxide rend_uf mass recovery ultra thin concentrate (fine circuit) cao calcium rend_t total mass recovery fe2o3 iron oxide p2o5cf P2O5 grade in the phosphate rock k2o potassium oxide fe2o3cf Fe2O3 grade in the phosphate rock loi loss of ignition type Mineral Resource with cut off mgo magnesium oxide rock total mass of block mno manganese oxide drymass total mass dry base na2o sodium oxide minesup mine top landfill areas p2o5 phosphate oxide mineinf mine bottom landfill areas sio2 silica setatr flag landfill blocks tio2 titanium oxide rmet_cv metallurgical recovery conventional circuit dens_bs dry density rlama mud recovery dens_bu wet density Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira


 
11-11 Two key calculated field equations used in the block modeling were RCP and P2O5ap; these calculated fields were defined as follows: 1. RCP was the ratio between the CaO and P2O5 of the block. 2. P2O5ap was the P2O5 associated with apatite and calculated by the evaluation of the CaO / P2O5 ratio. If the CaO / P2O5 ratio was greater than or equal to 1.34, P2O5ap was equal to the total of P2O5; if the CaO / P2O5 ratio was less than 1.35, P2O5ap was equal to the CaO / 1.35 ratio. Hard boundaries were used for the grade estimation of the four main domains defined in the geological interpretation: ISAB-FCR (Domain 03); ISAB-BEB (Domain 04); RSI-FCR (Domain 06); and RSI-BEB (Domain 07). Table 11.7 shows the domains flagged in the block model. Those highlighted in grey are the phosphorous rich domains that are included in the Mineral Resource statement. Table 11.7: Block Model Estimation Domains Note: Highlighted fields are Mineral Resource domains. Grade contact analysis was undertaken between the defined weathering horizons of the same rock types and found that the P2O5 grade averages present a disruption close to the geological contact, justifying the use of the geological domains as hard boundaries for resource estimation, even though the contact is not hard for all elements. The volumes of the solids of the geological model were compared to the volumes of the blocks and no significant differences were found. Rock_Type Rock_Code (Id_li_in) Estimation Domain ALO-COB 107 1 ISAT-ZTI 1208 2 ISAB-FCR 2201 3 2202 4 2203 4 ISAB-SIE 2206 5 RSI-FCR 301 6 302 7 303 7 RSI-CBN 305 8 RSI-SIE 306 9 RSA-ALL 401 10 RSI-BEB ISAB-BEB Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 11-12 11.1.8.2 Density Dry density interpolation for the Mineral Resource domains was carried out using the Ordinary Kriging (OK) method in ISATIS. Mean dry density values were applied to the waste rock domains. Kriging was carried out with two estimation passes with progressively relaxed search ellipsoids and data requirements (see Table 11.8). In all cases, the ellipsoid orientations are based on the variogram model. The search neighborhood sizes for the first and second estimation passes did not exceed the full variogram ranges of the Dens_bs (dry density). For the blocks that were not estimated in the second OK estimation pass, the nearest neighbor (NN) interpolated value was adopted. Domains 3 and 4 were analyzed through variography independently and domains 6 and 7 were analyzed through variography together, though estimated separately. Table 11.8: Dry Density OK Parameters for Resource Domain Estimation 11.1.8.3 Estimation of Grades Grade interpolation was performed using the OK method in ISATIS. The variables are listed in Table 11.9. Table 11.9: Variables Estimated by Ordinary Kriging Min Max Max samples per oct Azim Plunge Dip Major Semi Minor 1 4 16 2 45 0 0 300 250 30 2 2 16 2 45 0 0 600 500 60 1 4 16 2 158 0 0 300 250 30 2 2 16 2 158 0 0 600 500 60 1 4 16 2 135 0 0 300 280 25 2 2 16 2 135 0 0 500 450 45 1 4 16 2 135 0 0 300 280 25 2 2 16 2 135 0 0 500 450 45 Pass Nº. samples Search orientation Search ranges (m) RSI_BEB (07) ISAB-FCR (03) ISAB-BEB (04) RSI-FCR (06) Domain Variable Description P2O5 phosphate oxide Al2O3 aluminium oxide BaO barium oxide CaO calcium Fe2O3 iron oxide K2O potassium oxide LOI loss of ignition MgO magnesium oxide MnO manganese oxide Na2O sodium oxide SiO2 silica TiO2 titanium oxide Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 11-13 For all the elements, three estimation passes were used with progressively relaxed search ellipsoids and data requirements (Table 11.10). In all cases, the ellipsoid orientations were based on the appropriate variogram model. The same ranges were used for all variables and are based on the P2O5 variogram. The search neighborhood sizes for the first and second estimation passes did not exceed the full variogram ranges of the P2O5. The third and final estimation run was approximately twice the variogram ranges of the P2O5. The blocks near the samples with anomalous values were estimated with a spatial constraint of one block in X and Y and two blocks in Z, or 25 m x 25 m x 10 m. Table 11.10: P2O5 OK Parameters for Resource Domain Estimation 11.1.9 Mass and Metallurgical Recovery This sub-section contains forward-looking information related to mass and metallurgical recovery for the Project. The material factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the conclusions, estimates, designs, forecasts or projections in the forward-looking information include any significant differences from one or more of the material factors or assumptions that were set forth in this sub-section including actual plant feed characteristics that are different from the historical operations or from samples tested to date, equipment and operational performance that yield different results from the historical operations and historical and current test work results. The Mass Recovery (REND_CV) variable represents the amount of concentrate recovered by the beneficiation plant. It is an important variable used to define the productivity and cost of a mined block. Mosaic estimated the Mass Recovery by using a regression equation that uses a combination of grades and indicators for weathered products. Min Max Max samples per oct Azim Plunge Dip Major Semi Minor 1 8 24 3 140 0 0 250 150 20 2 6 16 2 140 0 0 500 350 40 3 2 8 1 140 0 0 1350 900 100 1 8 24 3 158 0 0 250 150 20 2 6 16 2 158 0 0 500 350 40 3 2 8 1 158 0 0 1350 900 100 1 8 24 3 50 0 0 250 150 20 2 6 16 2 50 0 0 500 350 40 3 2 8 1 50 0 0 1350 900 100 1 8 24 3 68 0 0 250 150 20 2 6 16 2 68 0 0 500 350 40 3 2 8 1 68 0 0 1350 900 100 Pass Nº. samples Search orientation Search ranges (m) RSI_BEB (07) RSI-FCR (06) ISAB-BEB (04) ISAB-FCR (03) Domain Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 11-14 Mass Recovery = (1.591393*Weathering Factor) – (0.1674649 * Fe2O3_ROM) + (0.8591265 * CaO_ROM) - (0.03270338 * (CaO_ROM)2) + (0.02173657 * (P2O5_ROM * Fe2O3_ROM)) + (0.05172623 * (P2O5_ROM * CaO_ROM)) Weathering Factor = Indicator for the type of weathering horizon, 1 for weathered Isalterite domains (domains 03 and 04) and 0 for the semi-weathered domains (domains 06 and 07) Fe2O3 = Iron Oxide CaO = Calcium Oxide P2O5 = Phosphate ROM = Run-of-Mine This regression generates a coefficient of determination (R2) equal to 94.69%, and a Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) of 3.698%, which is the mean error in the database adjustment. When compared to the RMSE of the duplicates from the geometallurgical tests, the RMSE dup is 2.338%, meaning equivalence can be observed between the two error measures, that of the regression and that from the laboratory. Several geometallurgical tests were carried out by the mine staff using samples collected from the percussive and core drilling. To validate the regression equation a reconciliation study was conducted. This consisted of comparing the local declusterized mean value for Mass Recovery from the technological tests, with the REND_CV value predicted by the regression equation. A NN approach was used for the declusterization of data. 11.1.10 Model Validation The validation of the grade estimation was performed using the following approaches:  Verification of global statistical comparison:  Estimated grades of P2O5, CaO, MgO, SiO2, Al2O3, Fe2O3, and density were validated against the declustered and non-declustered composite grades, for the four resource domains.  Drift analysis using the NN estimate for declustering of composites:  Swath plots were produced for the P2O5, CaO, SiO2, Al2O3, Fe2O3, and density grades for each domain, comparing the kriged block model grades with NN declustered composite grades. In general, the kriging grades matched the nearest neighbor values, and no significant bias was identified.  Sensitivity Analysis changing the neighborhood estimation parameters and treatment of outliers:  Sensitivity analysis was carried out with variations in both the search range and the number of composites used in the first and second pass of the estimate.  Reconciliation:  Annual reconciliations between the long-term resource model and the beneficiation plant reports were carried out from 2017 to 2019. In general, the reconciliation demonstrates that the Tapira Mineral Resource model exhibits strong adherence in the estimation of grades, metallurgy, and mass. Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira


 
11-15 11.2 Mineral Resource Estimate This sub-section contains forward-looking information related to Mineral Resource estimates for the Project. The material factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the conclusions, estimates, designs, forecasts or projections in the forward-looking information include any significant differences from one or more of the material factors or assumptions that were set forth in this sub-section including geological and grade interpretations and controls and assumptions and forecasts associated with establishing the prospects for economic extraction. For estimating the Mineral Resources for CMT, the following definition as set forth in the S-K 1300 Definition Standards adopted December 26, 2018 was applied. Under S-K 1300, a Mineral Resource is defined as: “…is a concentration or occurrence of material of economic interest in or on the Earth’s crust in such form, grade or quality, and quantity that there are reasonable prospects for economic extraction. A mineral resource is a reasonable estimate of mineralization, taking into account relevant factors such as cutoff grade, likely mining dimensions, location or continuity, that, with the assumed and justifiable technical and economic conditions, is likely to, in whole or in part, become economically extractable. It is not merely an inventory of all mineralization drilled or sampled.” Based on the geological model, grade model, parameters for establishing prospects for economic extraction, and the Mineral Resource classification discussed in this Section, the CMT in-situ Mineral Resources are summarized in Table 11.11. The Mineral Resources include approximately 129.8 Mt of Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources with a P2O5ap grade of 7.9%. There are an additional 112.8 Mt of Inferred Mineral Resources with a P2O5ap grade of 8.6%. Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 11-16 Table 11.11: In-Situ Mineral Resource Estimate as of December 31, 2021 Notes: 1. Reference topography of December 31, 2021 2. COG of P2O5ap ≥ 5.0% and 0.9 ≤ RCP ≤ 3.0 3. Mineral Resource tonnages are exclusive of Mineral Reserve Tonnages A detailed discussion on selection of the of COGs is presented in Section 12.2.5 of this TRS. 11.3 Basis for Establishing the Prospects of Economic Extraction for Mineral Resources This sub-section contains forward-looking information related to establishing the prospects of economic extraction for Mineral Resources for the Project. The material factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the conclusions, estimates, designs, forecasts or projections in the forward-looking information include any significant differences from one or more of the material factors or assumptions that were set forth in this sub- section including COG assumptions, costing forecasts and product pricing forecasts. Geological Domain Category In Situ Tonnage, Dry Basis (Mtonnes) In Situ P2O5 In Situ P2O5 ap Total Concentrate Mass Recovery (%) Total Concentrate Metallurgical Recovery (% P2O5) 3: ISAB-FCR Measured 28.9 9.7 9.1 13.1 53.7 4: ISAB-BEB Measured 23.0 7.5 7.2 10.0 52.6 6: RSI-FCR Measured 9.3 6.9 6.9 11.1 49.8 7: RSI-BEB Measured 1.6 6.4 6.4 10.2 53.1 Measured 62.8 8.4 8.0 11.5 52.7 3: ISAB-FCR Indicated 11.6 11.2 10.5 12.3 57.1 4: ISAB-BEB Indicated 39.7 7.8 7.5 9.3 51.4 6: RSI-FCR Indicated 9.2 6.5 6.5 11.0 56.8 7: RSI-BEB Indicated 6.4 6.1 6.1 8.9 55.3 Indicated 67.0 8.0 7.8 9.9 53.2 3: ISAB-FCR Measured + Indicated 40.4 10.2 9.5 12.9 54.7 4: ISAB-BEB Measured + Indicated 62.8 7.7 7.4 9.5 51.8 6: RSI-FCR Measured + Indicated 18.5 6.7 6.7 11.0 53.2 7: RSI-BEB Measured + Indicated 8.1 6.2 6.2 9.2 54.9 Measured + Indicated 129.8 8.2 7.9 10.6 53.0 3: ISAB-FCR Inferred 24.3 11.2 10.9 18.0 53.1 4: ISAB-BEB Inferred 66.8 8.5 8.5 13.8 52.0 6: RSI-FCR Inferred 8.0 6.4 6.4 11.4 50.3 7: RSI-BEB Inferred 13.7 6.3 6.3 10.8 54.4 Inferred 112.8 8.7 8.6 14.1 52.4 Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 11-17 The requirement of “reasonable prospects for economic extraction” generally implies that quantity and grade estimates meet certain economic limits and that Mineral Resources are reported at an appropriate cutoff level, considering extraction scenarios and beneficiation recoveries.” To determine the quantities of material that offer “reasonable prospects for economical extraction” in an open pit, the Datamine NPV Scheduler® software package was used to evaluate the profitability of each resource block based on its value. The following restrictions were used for the generation of the Mineral Resource pit:  Measured, indicated and inferred blocks inside mining concessions and exploration permits with a final report approved by ANM, but excluding physical structures such as crusher and waste piles.  Revenue factor of 1.0 with sales price of R$1,492.92 per tonne of phosphatic concentrate.  P2O5ap ≥ 5% and 0.9 ≤ RCP ≤ 3. The cost parameters are summarized in Table 11.12: and the Mineral Resource pit shell is shown in Table 11.12:. Table 11.12: Mineral Resource Optimization Pit Limit Parameters The results of the Mineral Resource pit optimization were used only for the purpose of testing “reasonable prospects for economic extraction” and do not represent an attempt to estimate Mineral Reserves. Mineral Reserves can only be estimated after the application of all modifying factors. 11.4 Mineral Resource Classification This sub-section contains forward-looking information related to Mineral Resource classification for the Project. The material factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the conclusions, estimates, designs, forecasts or projections in the forward-looking information include any significant differences from one or more of the material factors or assumptions that were set forth in this sub-section including geological and grade continuity analysis and assumptions. Parameters Mining Cost DMT Fixed to Ore BRL/tmov 2.94 DMT Variable to Ore BRL/tmov/km 0.98 DMT Fixed to Waste BRL/tmov 2.98 DMT Variable to Waste BRL/tmov/km 1.11 Beneficiation Cost Fixed BRL/t RoM 4.76 Variable BRL/t RoM 7.81 Concentrate Grade P2O5 % 35% Sales Cost Process (Chemical Plant) BRL/tconc 822.43 SG&A BRL/tconc 21.53 R&D BRL/tconc 17.63 Sustaining BRL/tconc 17.63 Unit Value Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 11-18 According to the S-K 1300 regulations, to reflect geological confidence, Mineral Resources are subdivided into the following categories based on increased geological confidence: Inferred, Indicated, and Measured, which are defined under S-K 1300 as: “Inferred Mineral Resource is that part of a mineral resource for which quantity and grade or quality are estimated on the basis of limited geological evidence and sampling. The level of geological uncertainty associated with an inferred mineral resource is too high to apply relevant technical and economic factors likely to influence the prospects of economic extraction in a manner useful for evaluation of economic viability. Because an inferred mineral resource has the lowest level of geological confidence of all mineral resources, which prevents the application of the modifying factors in a manner useful for evaluation of economic viability, an inferred mineral resource may not be considered when assessing the economic viability of a mining project, and may not be converted to a mineral reserve.” “Indicated Mineral Resource is that part of a mineral resource for which quantity and grade or quality are estimated on the basis of adequate geological evidence and sampling. The level of geological certainty associated with an indicated mineral resource is sufficient to allow a qualified person to apply modifying factors in sufficient detail to support mine planning and evaluation of the economic viability of the deposit. Because an indicated mineral resource has a lower level of confidence than the level of confidence of a measured mineral resource, an indicated mineral resource may only be converted to a probable mineral reserve.” “Measured Mineral Resource is that part of a mineral resource for which quantity and grade or quality are estimated on the basis of conclusive geological evidence and sampling. The level of geological certainty associated with a measured mineral resource is sufficient to allow a qualified person to apply modifying factors, as defined in this section, in sufficient detail to support detailed mine planning and final evaluation of the economic viability of the deposit. Because a measured mineral resource has a higher level of confidence than the level of confidence of either an indicated mineral resource or an inferred mineral resource, a measured mineral resource may be converted to a proven mineral reserve or to a probable mineral reserve.” The Mineral Resource classification process was defined through the relationship between the variogram range and 95% of data variance (D95) considering the analysis of the P2O5 variable for the ISAB-BEB domain. The Mineral Resource classification also considers the quality of the data that were used. As a result, to complete the Mineral Resource classification, only drill holes covered by the post-mortem QA/QC program (1990 to 2007) and drill holes that were submitted to a formal QA/QC program (starting in 2010) were utilized. To classify the Mineral Resources the following steps were used:  Measured Resources: D95/2 into the first search ellipsoid with a minimum of eight samples and at least five samples from drill holes after 2010.  Indicated Resources: blocks estimated in the first search ellipsoid with a minimum of 8 samples and less than 5 samples from drill holes after 2010, or blocks estimated in the second search ellipsoid within a range less than D95 and with a minimum of 6 samples. Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira


 
11-19  Inferred Resources: blocks estimated in the third search ellipsoid with a minimum of 4 samples and a maximum range equal to twice the total range (1,350 m). Table 11.13 summarizes the parameters used in the Mineral Resource classification. Table 11.13: CMT Mineral Resource Classification A post-processing procedure was performed to reduce the number of isolated blocks of one Mineral Resource classification inside another predominate classification. This procedure re-flagged the blocks with a rolling average and constructed solids around them. The final Mineral Resource classification reflects the most accurate vision of the geological continuity and confidence of the existing information. 11.5 Mineral Resource Uncertainty Discussion The sources of uncertainty for the Mineral Resources evaluation include the following topics, along with their location in this report:  Sampling or drilling methods – Section 7.2 and 8.0  Data processing and handling – Section 11.0  Geologic modeling – Section 11.1.4  Block modeling – Section 11.1.8  Tonnage estimation – Section 11.2 The sampling and drilling methods present a low source of uncertainty based on the current standards that are in place with Mosaic and those that have been in place for the recent exploration history. The items that help reduce uncertainty with the sampling and drilling methods include the fact that drill holes were cored with HQ2 size core. The core was then measured and logged and sampled with guidance from the CMT geological team. A specification of 60% linear core recovery was used to limit samples that were used in the modelling process. The core was then sent to accredited laboratories where QA/QC programs were implemented and were actively monitored for laboratory performance. Once the assay results were received from the laboratories, the data was input into the geological database along with the collar, drill hole information, lithology records and weathering records. The lithology and weathering records from the core logging was validated based on the assay results by the CMT geological team to adhere with known trends for the various domains. The data handling was secure in the geological database and this process also demonstrated a low level of uncertainty for the Mineral Resource estimate. Min Max Max Samples per Oct Azim Plunge Dip Major Semi Minor Measured 8 24 3 * 0 0 250 150 20 Indicated 6 18 2 * 0 0 500 350 40 Inferred 4 12 1 * 0 0 1350 900 100 Classification No. Samples Search Orientation Search Ranges (m) Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 11-20 The validated database was loaded into the geological modeling software, where surfaces for lithology and weathering were modelled and validated based on drill holes, geological trends and operational experience. The current geological model appears to define the Measured and Indicated Mineral Resource areas of the pit well. Uncertainty for these areas can be classified as low for a global estimate; however, there will likely be minor local variability when the area is mined and compared back to the model. This is common as the geological model is just that, a model that is used to estimate tonnages. The model for the measured and indicated portions of the deposit is appropriate to use for conversion to Mineral Reserves. Areas of the geological model in the Inferred Mineral Resource portion of the deposit will require future drilling and exploration to better define and understand the lithological variation before they can be upgraded to Measured or Indicated Mineral Resources. The level of uncertainty for the lithological model is moderate for the Inferred Mineral Resource areas due to the type of geological deposit that is being modelled. The weathering model is simpler since weathering originates from the surface and generally follows the topography. For this reason, the uncertainty of the weathering profiles are low-moderate for the Inferred Mineral Resource areas. As with the Measured and Indicated Mineral Resource areas, the global uncertainty is lower than the local uncertainty due to the ability to average over the areas when estimating globally. The geological model was then imported into the block model where the lithology and weathering surfaces were utilized to domain the deposit into geological domains to support the grade estimation. This step was completed with care and diligence by the CMT geologists who are very well versed in the geological environment of CMT and, therefore, the uncertainty is low. The drill hole data was then composited, and a geostatistical analysis was completed to better understand the variability of the grades by domain. There were appropriate data counts and understanding of the geostatistical processes for this analysis to be completed by the CMT geologists. However, this type of analysis is only a tool to help predict the grades through block modeling. With more drilling and data in the geostatistical analysis, the geostatistical results could change if an area of the deposit has significantly different variability in grade. Based on the understanding of the current deposit, this is unlikely, but could occur in the inferred areas where drill spacing is greater. The geostatistical results were used to interpret grades and densities into the block model. The results were verified by CMT geologists through global statistics, drift analysis, and reconciliations. Like the geological modeling, uncertainty for areas classified as Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources are low globally, but low- moderate for local variability. For Inferred Mineral Resources, the uncertainty is higher based on a larger drill spacing and is low-moderate for global variability and moderate for local variability. The block model for the measured and indicated portions of the deposit is appropriate to use for conversion to Mineral Reserves. The Mineral Resource tonnages were limited with the use of an optimized pit shell where reasonable prices and COGs were used. Additionally, areas with significant infrastructure such as the primary crusher and conveyor were excluded from the estimate. The estimate was completed by utilizing the block model with the resource categorization and the resource pit limit. Areas of uncertainty for the resource estimate include:  A substantial change in price that would affect the resource pit shell limit  Changes in grade based on additional drilling that would influence the amount of tonnages that would be excluded with the COG Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 11-21 In summary, given all the considerations in this Section and report, the uncertainty in the tonnage estimate for the Measured Mineral Resources, is low, Indicated Mineral Resources estimates is low to moderate, and Inferred Mineral Resources is moderate, as shown in Table 11.14. Table 11.14: Mineral Resources Uncertainty Uncertainty Item Measured Uncertainty Indicated Uncertainty Inferred Uncertainty Sampling and Drilling Methods Low Low Low Data Processing and Handling Low Low Low Geological Modeling – Globally/Locally Low/Low Low/Low-Moderate Low-Moderate/Moderate Geologic Domaining Low Low Low Geostatistical Analysis Low Low Moderate Block Modeling – Globally/Locally Low/Low Low/Low-Moderate Low-Moderate/Moderate Tonnage Estimate Low Low-Moderate Moderate 11.6 Assumptions for Multiple Commodity Resource Estimate This does not apply to the Mineral Resource estimate for CMT. 11.7 Qualified Person’s Opinion on Factors that are Likely to Influence the Prospect of Economic Extraction As CMT is an operation with more than 40 years of operational experience and data, it is the QP’s opinion that the relevant technical and economic factors necessary to support economic extraction of the Mineral Resource have been appropriately accounted for at CMT. The QP is not aware of any issues that require further work that are likely to influence the prospect of economic extraction for the Mineral Resources stated in this TRS. Recommendations that are detailed in Section 23.1 are related to improving local variability for short range planning purposes that could be completed by site teams to provide improvements to short-term recovery and grade control. They are not seen as having an impact on the prospect of economic extraction. Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 12-1 12.0 MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES 12.1 Key Assumptions, Parameters, and Methods This sub-section contains forward-looking information related to the key assumptions, parameters and methods for the Mineral Reserve estimates for the Project. The material factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the conclusions, estimates, designs, forecasts or projections in the forward-looking information include any significant differences from one or more of the material factors or assumptions that were set forth in this sub-section including Mineral Resource model tonnes and grade and mine design parameters. 12.1.1 Geologic Resource Model The geological model previously described in Section 11.0 and used to estimate Mineral Resources was the basis for the estimate of Mineral Reserves. The geological model is based on core drilling from 1983 to 2019. A Mineral Resource pit was developed to define and limit the estimation of mineral resources to the “reasonable prospects for economic extraction.” The Tapira geological model is a sub-blocked model detailing lithological and weathering contacts. As such, two models were built for the Tapira mineral deposit: 1. Lithological model composed of 8 identified rock types. 2. Weathering model composed of 5 identified rock units Four lithologies were defied presenting significant phosphorous content and are included in the Mineral Resource Statement: 1. ISAB-FCR: Bottom Isalterite/Phoscorite 2. ISAB-BEB: Bottom Isalterite/Bebedourite 3. RSI-FCR: Semi-weathered Rock/Phoscorite 4. RSI-BEB: Semi-weathered Rock/Bebedourite A combination of both models was used to define geologic domains for Mineral Resource estimation. The geological domains were used as grade estimation zones in the resource model. Table 12.1 summarizes the modeled domains and highlighted resource domains in the isalterite and semi-weathered rock zones. Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira


 
12-2 Table 12.1: Block Model Estimation Domains Each block within the resource block model was normalized to 25 m by 25 m by 5 m in the XYZ dimensions. Each block within the resource block model contained over 200 variables describing the block contents for lithological and weathering codes, metallurgical grades, density, moisture, mass and metallurgical recovery, concentrate grades, volumes, and in-situ and recovered tonnages. 12.1.2 Mine Design Criteria The general mine design criteria used to estimate mineral reserves are listed below: 1. Surface, open-pit mining approach 2. Haul road design width of 15 m 3. Berm width of 12 m or 15 m and bench height of 10 m 4. Typical ramp width of 27 m 5. Maximum ramp grade 8% 6. Effective wall angles by geotechnical design sector are summarized in Section 13.2.1. Mosaic currently holds a total of 8 mining permits within the Tapira Complex, with easement areas in place for the purposes of tailings disposal, electrical transmission lines, and ore beneficiation infrastructure. The MG-146 highway is currently located within the final pit extents; funds have been included in the projected capital costs to acquire the necessary property and relocate the road. The potential mining area was limited to the permitted area, with appropriate offsets applied. After applying all boundaries and appropriate offsets, the ultimate mining pit designs were constructed based on this boundary using the following pit parameters:  COG of 5.0% P2O5 ap (diluted) – Described further in Section 12.2.5  RCP (ratio between CaO and P2O5 in a block) between 0.9 and 3.0 Rock_Type Rock_Code (Id_li_in) Estimation Domain ALO-COB 107 1 ISAT-ZTI 1208 2 ISAB-FCR 2201 3 2202 4 2203 4 ISAB-SIE 2206 5 RSI-FCR 301 6 302 7 303 7 RSI-CBN 305 8 RSI-SIE 306 9 RSA-ALL 401 10 RSI-BEB ISAB-BEB Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 12-3  Within one of the four mineralized domains shown in Table 12.1 (highlighted domains)  Loss and dilution based on parameters of neighboring blocks, as described in Section 12.2.1.  General mine design criteria listed above.  Geotechnical parameters, as described in Section 13.2.1.  Process recovery methodology and factors described in Section 10.4. Using these designs and the parameters mentioned above, an ultimate mining pit design was developed, the potential reserves were calculated and limited within the pit design, and an economic analysis was performed (see Section 19.0). The point of reference of the Mineral Reserves estimate is:  ROM ore delivered to the process plant.  The Concentrate Reserve Estimate is the reserve produced and recovered in the beneficiation plant (post benefication). All reserves are as of December 31, 2021. 12.2 Modifying Factors This sub-section contains forward-looking information related to the modifying factors for the Mineral Reserve estimates for the Project. The material factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the conclusions, estimates, designs, forecasts or projections in the forward-looking information include any significant differences from one or more of the material factors or assumptions that were set forth in this sub-section including modifying factors including dilution and mining and recovery factors, beneficiation assumptions, property limits, commodity price, cut off grades, pit optimization assumptions and the ultimate pit design. Modifying factors are applied to mineralized material within the measured and indicated resource classifications to establish the economic viability of Mineral Reserves. A summary of modifying factors applied to the CMT mine Mineral Reserve estimate is provided below. 12.2.1 Dilution, Loss, and Mine Recovery Dilution in mining can be defined as the addition of waste material to the ore during the mining process and can be due to a lack of selectivity, or in some cases, inadequate operational configuration. The process considers the neighborhood relationship between an ore block with the adjacent blocks, weighting the grades by a predetermined distance, and by the density of the blocks. The dilution effects result in a reduction of the in-situ P2O5 grade for the mining model as well as a reduction in mass recovery. The factors that cause dilution are diverse and include:  Nature of ore contacts and boundaries  Pit boundary zones  Block size and position Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 12-4  Sample density  Geological complexity  Selectivity of mining and equipment size  Mining method and type of crushing Dilution can be internal (caused by intrinsic deposit factors) or external (caused by operational errors). Dilution cannot be fully eliminated as it is impossible to have the exact accuracy of the mining limits; however, it can be estimated and considered, thus minimizing the differences between the mine plan and the actual operations. A script was developed by the Mosaic Long-Term Mine Planning team to calculate the diluted grades of the ore blocks based upon the information found in the block model, specifically the contacts between and grades of the ore and waste blocks and the geotechnical design parameters. Dilution is calculated only for the ore blocks that have at least one adjacent waste block using a contact dilution approach, which occurs through contact of the ore and waste layers, as well as operational dilution which occurs through both ore/waste contact and the face angle of the benches. Contact dilution occurs in the regions between the ore and waste zones. The portion of the ore mined in this contact region will be diluted by the waste, since it is impossible to completely segment these two layers during mining. This difficulty in segmenting the ore and waste also occurs with operational dilution, because it is not possible to mine block by block due to the size of the mining equipment and the mining geometry that must be followed. Figure 12.1 shows an example of an ore block surrounded by five blocks of waste. In three of the five blocks, dashed lines represent the part of the contact blocks that will be extracted together with the ore during mining. The dilution is calculated by the equation: Figure 12.1: Ore Block Surrounded by Waste Blocks Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 12-5 The pit design requires additional geotechnical considerations such as the overall angle, the face angle, and the berm size. With this information, it is possible to calculate the masses of the triangular prisms formed by the influence of the face angle as shown in Figure 12.2 and Figure 12.3. These two prisms are located exactly in the transition zone between ore and waste blocks and indicate the amount of waste to be added to the ore mined (upper prism) and amount of ore lost or unmined indicated by the lower prism. In these two cases, calculations are obtained by: Figure 12.2: Dilution of the Blocks Located on the Edge of the Mine/Waste Interface Due to the Influence of the Face Angle Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira


 
12-6 Figure 12.3: Trigonometry to Calculate the Mass of the Upper and Lower Prisms To calculate the diluted grade, the mass of the triangular prism designated as diluted will be added to the block mass, and the mass of the triangular prism designated as loss will be subtracted from it. The equations below present the steps to calculate the loss, dilution, final mass of the block, and diluted grade given the influence of the face angle: Mining Loss = Mass of Lower Block * Grade of Ore Block Mining Dilution = Mass of Upper Block * Grade of Contact Block Final Mass of Block = Mass of Ore Block + Mass of Upper Block – Mass of Lower Block Diluted Grade = (Mass of Ore Block * Grade of Ore Block) - Mining Loss + Mining Dilution Final Mass of Block Geological dilution is based on mineralized contacts, modeled weathering, and lithology. In the case of Tapira, the ISAB-FCR, ISAB-BEB, RSI-FCR, and RSI-BEB were considered ore for the purposes of dilution estimation. The contaminant grade comes from the neighboring waste blocks, and the ore grade is weighted by the percentage of waste in the ore block. The Tapira Mine does not apply any additional mining recovery factors to the ore extraction, assuming their equipment is selective enough to be able to mine the boundary of the ore and waste as defined by the interpolated rock unit triangulations. The portion of overburden outside the geological modeling envelope is incorporated into the waste. For simplicity, densities and moistures were not weighted, so there is no change in the original ore mass, only in the ore grade. An evaluation was carried out and it was determined that this difference is immaterial. Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 12-7 12.2.2 Beneficiation Mass recovery, an important parameter impacting the operating cost, is determined by the following relationship: Mass Recovery = 100 x concentrate mass / ROM mass The geometallurgical test data are evaluated periodically to establish an equation for predicting mass recovery as a function of ROM chemical composition. The current equation for predicting the mass recovery of conventional phosphate concentrate from Tapira ore is presented in Figure 12.4. Figure 12.4: Mass Recovery Regression Equation Mass Recovery = (1.591393*Weathering Factor) – (0.1674649 * Fe2O3_ROM) + (0.8591265 * CaO_ROM) - (0.03270338 * (CaO_ROM)2) + (0.02173657 * (P2O5_ROM * Fe2O3_ROM)) + (0.05172623 * (P2O5_ROM * CaO_ROM)) Weathering Factor = Indicator for the type of weathering horizon, 1 for weathered Isalterite domains (03 and 04) and 0 for the semi-weathered domains (06 and 07) Fe2O3 = Iron Oxide CaO = Calcium Oxide P2O5 = Phosphate ROM = Run-of-Mine The predicted mass recovery is for conventional concentrate because the laboratory testing does not include preparation and flotation of the ultrafine flotation feed. The ultrafine concentrate is typically about 8% of the total concentrate. The metallurgical recovery is calculated from the mass recovery, the concentrate % P2O5, and the ROM % P2O5 according to the following equation: Metallurgical recovery = 100 x Mass recovery x Concentrate % P2O5 / ROM % P2O5 12.2.3 Property Limits The December 31, 2021, Mineral Reserve estimate for Tapira has been constrained by an ultimate pit design developed from a nested pit optimization exercise and bound by Mosaic’s mining concessions shown in Table 12.2. Additional information on the pit optimization process used to define the economic limits of the ultimate pit design is provided in Section 12.2.6. Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 12-8 Table 12.2: Mining Concessions Used as a Mineral Reserves Estimate Constraint 12.2.4 Commodity Price Used The commodity price of R$ 1,492.92 that was used for the COG assessment, pit optimization, and Mineral Reserve estimate is based on a composite value of all Fertilizantes product sales and was provided by Mosaic for Golder to rely upon. The time frame of the price is December 31, 2020. 12.2.5 Cutoff Grade Estimate Per the definitions in S-K 1300, “For the purposes of establishing ‘prospects of economic extraction’, the COG is the grade that distinguishes material deemed to have no economic value from material deemed to have economic value.” In simpler terms, the COG is the grade at which revenue generated by a block is equal to its total cost resulting in a net value of zero. For material to be processed as ore at the CMT beneficiation facilities, not only must the material generate enough revenue to cover costs in order to be treated as ore, but it must also meet certain geometallurgical beneficiation criteria, including:  Diluted P2O5ap grade greater than 5%  Diluted RCP greater than or equal to 0.9 and less than 3.0  Within one of the four mineralized domains shown in Table 12.1 Mosaic has used a break-even COG approach, as shown below, to define the minimum grade that must be met for an ore block to generate enough revenue to cover the total cost of mining ore and any increment of waste that must be mined to recover the ore (i.e., strip ratio). Mining Permits Granted to Area (ha) 810.330/1968 Mosaic Fertilizantes P&K Ltda 483.12 810.331/1968 Mosaic Fertilizantes P&K Ltda 500.13 812.362/1968 Mosaic Fertilizantes P&K Ltda 464.04 821.674/1969 Mosaic Fertilizantes P&K Ltda 20.01 816.066/1970 Mosaic Fertilizantes P&K Ltda 47.83 827.081/1972 Mosaic Fertilizantes P&K Ltda 339.39 803.387/1974 Transfer in process to Mosaic Fertilizantes P&K Ltda 947.34 831.405/1997 Mosaic Fertilizantes P&K Ltda 1040.31 Total 3,842.17 Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 12-9 The mass recovery of ore material which defines the amount of concentrate recovered from a tonne of plant feed is a function of ROM P2O5, Fe2O3, and CaO grade on a dry basis. For vertically integrated companies such as Mosaic, the product sold is not the concentrate generated by the beneficiation plant, but one of numerous performance, phosphate, feed, and industrial products generated by a chemical plant, each of which has different specifications and prices. The calculation of a concentrate “selling price”, therefore, requires that the value added by the additional treatment that the phosphate concentrate undergoes at the chemical plant be “net-backed” to the mines. Net-back pricing is a complicated process that requires a complete understanding of the business and markets. The Mineral Reserves QP has, therefore, relied on Mosaic’s calculation of net-back pricing in the determination of COG. Using an anticipated net-back price of concentrate, the historical costs of mining, beneficiation, and selling, and the historical metallurgical recovery of P2O5 at CMT, a break-even ROM COG 4.5% P2O5ap was estimated to delineate ore from waste (Table 12.3). This COG was assumed at a constant value of R$ 1,492.92 per tonne of concentrate for 2021 and beyond and does not consider fluctuations in pricing. As previously noted, the break- even COG calculated by Mosaic includes not only the cost to mine ore, but the cost to mine an increment of waste required to access ore. While 4.5% P2O5ap was calculated as the break-even COG, Mosaic has applied a cutoff of 5% P2O5ap for life-of-mine planning and Mineral Reserve estimation purposes. This 5% P2O5ap cutoff is, therefore, considered conservative. Table 12.3: COG Calculations Notes: 1. Total cost includes cost of mining waste and ore 2. As required to result in a block value of zero. 3. Mass Recovery = ROM P2O5 x Metallurgical Recovery / P2O5 Concentrate. 4. Concentrate = Mass Recovery x ROM Ore (dry basis). Breakeven COG Marginal COG Tonnes wet (t) 1 1 Tonnes dry (t) 0.87 0.87 Grade 4.5% 1.8% P2O5 grade ROM2 3.9% 1.5% Metallurgical Recovery (%) 55.4% 55.4% P2O5 Concentrate Grade (%) 35.0% 35.0% P2O5 content conc. (t) 0.02 0.01 Mass recovery (%)3 7.1% 2.8% Concentrate (t)4 0.06 0.02 Total Cost1 91.3 36.4 Selling Price 1,492.9 1,492.9 Profit R$/t 0.0 0.0 Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira


 
12-10 The calculations in Table 12.3 summarize the amount of apatite concentrate produced per wet tonne of ore. The grade tonnage curve shown in Figure 12.5 highlights about 480 Mt of ore within the block model that are at or above a 4.5% P2O5ap break-even COG. While 4.5% is the COG, Mosaic continues to use a standard operational 5% P2O5ap COG to remain consistent with existing mine planning and reserve estimation. Figure 12.5: Tapira Grade-Tonnage Curve 12.2.6 Pit Optimization Methodology and Ultimate Pit Selection The Tapira operation utilizes standard pit optimization methodology in Datamine NPV Scheduler to determine the extent of economically mineable reserves. The value of individual blocks is calculated in Maptek Vulcan using a script which assigns costs and, in the case of ore blocks, revenue. The script, which is based on a set of profit function parameters, assigns fixed and variable costs for the following: 1) Ore Mining 2) Waste Mining 3) Ore beneficiation The script assigns value to the ore blocks based on the average revenue generated from a tonne of beneficiated phosphate rock. The value per tonne is calculated as revenue from the sale of fertilizer products minus the costs downstream of the beneficiation plant, i.e., the chemical plant costs to produce the saleable products. The pit optimization is based on the script used to place a value on the blocks. 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 G ra de (% ) O re (t on ne s) Cut-off Grade (%) Ore tonnes Diluted P2O5 Grade from Apatite (p2o5ap_d) Diluted P2O5 Grade (p2o5_d) Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 12-11 The average transportation distance is estimated block by block from the Haulage Profile module of the Vulcan software from fixed and variable distance definitions. The tool calculates the centroid distance of each block within a given area to its position within the overburden storage facility. Distance calculations account for the gradient of ramps and are prorated by a factor of either 1.05 or 1.10, depending upon the assigned waste location to account for curves. The total area available to be mined is 3,774 hectares. As shown in Table 12.4, multiple mining concessions were used to constrain the pit optimization so that mining would not occur outside these limits. Additionally, two areas known as the East and West property and the INCRA Settlement were applied “obstacle limits” such that a minimum Net Present Value (NPV) must be achieved to mine in these areas. Table 12.4: Tapira Pit Optimization Mining Concessions and Their Impact on Pit Optimization A nested pit analysis was performed in NPV scheduler using the economic inputs shown in Table 12.5. A series of profit factors were applied to the selling price at R$1,492.92 per tonne of concentrate to determine the highest and lowest value ore within the deposit. A summary of the resultant pit tonnages, best case NPV, and worst case NPV at profit factors ranging from 1% to 100% of the base ore block value is provided as Figure 12.6. Based on this nested pit analysis, Mosaic chose the pit with a profit factor of 35% (i.e., Pit 35) as the basis of the ultimate pit design described in Section 12.2.7. Table 12.5: Tapira Pit Optimization Economic Inputs Description Units Basis Value Mining Cost Waste Fixed R$/t wet 2.981 Variable R$/t-km wet 1.11 Ore Fixed R$/t wet 2.935 Variable R$/t-km wet 0.98 Processing Cost R$/t wet 12.56 Selling Costs Cost of Chemical Plant R$/t Concentrate dry 822.43 SG&A R$/t Concentrate dry 21.53 R&D R$/t Concentrate dry 17.63 Sustaining R$/t Concentrate dry 115.61 Total R$/t Concentrate dry 977.20 Selling Price R$/t Concentrate dry 1,492.92 Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 12-12 Figure 12.6: Summary of Tapira Nested Pit Analysis Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 12-13 12.2.7 Ultimate Pit Design The ultimate pit design that forms the basis of the CMT Mineral Reserve estimate was based on Pit 35 selected from the nested pit analysis described in Section 12.2.6. The ultimate pit design considers geotechnical and hydrological factors that are described in Section 13.2. A map showing the design and extents of the ultimate pit is provided as Figure 12.7. Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira


 
D !( !( Beneficiation Plant 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 BR-146 BR-146 305000 305000 310000 310000 78 00 00 0 78 00 00 0 78 05 00 0 78 05 00 0 LEGEND !( Sump Location Tapira Phosphate Property Igneous Complex Boundary Road Ultimate Pit Contours (10 m) Dump Geotech Sectors Mining Concession Mining Application Ultimate Pit Extent 1 in 0 P:\Projects\Mosaic\Tapira\99_PROJ\20446248_MF_SK_1300_Phase2\0001_TRS\40_PROD\20446248-0001-HS-0005.mxd IF T H IS M EA SU R EM EN T D O ES N O T M AT C H W H AT IS S H O W N , T H E SH EE T H AS B EE N M O D IF IE D F R O M : A N SI A 20446248 - - 12.7 DW TBH - CONSULTANT PROJECT NO. CONTROL REV. FIGURE YYYY-MM-DD DESIGNED PREPARED REVIEWED APPROVED REFERENCE(S) COORDINATE SYSTEM: IMAGERY SOURCES: ESRI, HERE, GARMIN, INTERMAP, INCREMENT P CORP., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GEOBASE, IGN, KADASTER NL, ORDNANCE SURVEY, ESRI JAPAN, METI, ESRI CHINA (HONG KONG), (C) OPENSTREETMAP CONTRIBUTORS, AND THE GIS USER COMMUNITY 2021-11-03 CLIENT THE MOSAIC COMPANY PROJECT SEC S-K 1300 TECHNICAL REPORT SUMMARY MOSAIC FERTILIZANTES: COMPLEXO MINERACAO DE TAPIRA TITLE ULTIMATE PIT DESIGNS AND EXTENTS - 0 1.5 3 Kilometers1 " = 1.5 km MAP AREA 12-15 12.3 Mineral Reserve Classification This sub-section contains forward-looking information related to the Mineral Reserve classification for the Project. The material factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the conclusions, estimates, designs, forecasts or projections in the forward-looking information include any significant differences from one or more of the material factors or assumptions that were set forth in this sub-section including Mineral Resource model tonnes, grade, and classification. For estimating the Mineral Reserves for Tapira, the following definition as set forth in the S-K 1300 Definition Standards adopted December 26, 2018, was applied. Under S-K 1300, a Mineral Reserve is defined as: “… an estimate of tonnage and grade or quality of indicated and measured mineral resources that, in the opinion of the qualified person, can be the basis of an economically viable project. More specifically, it is the economically mineable part of a measured or indicated mineral resource, which includes diluting materials and allowances for losses that may occur when the material is mined or extracted.” Mineral Reserves are subdivided into classes of Probable Mineral Reserves and Proven Mineral Reserves, which correspond to Indicated and Measured Mineral Resources, respectively, with the level of confidence reducing with each class. Mineral Reserves are always reported as the economically mineable portion of a Measured and/or Indicated Mineral Resource, and take into consideration the mining, beneficiation, metallurgical, economic, marketing, legal, environmental, infrastructure, social, and governmental factors (the “Modifying Factors”) that may be applicable to the deposit. 12.4 Mineral Reserve Estimate This sub-section contains forward-looking information related to Mineral Reserve estimates for the Project. The material factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the conclusions, estimates, designs, forecasts or projections in the forward-looking information include any significant differences from one or more of the material factors or assumptions that were set forth in this sub-section including Mineral Resource model tonnes and grade, modifying factors including mining and recovery factors, production rate and schedule, mining equipment productivity, commodity market and prices and projected operating and capital costs. Based on the mining boundaries and modifying factors discussed above, the beneficiation plant recovery methods and factors discussed in Section 13.0, and the Economic Assessment, discussed in Section 19.0, the Mosaic Tapira Project contains the economically minable Mineral Reserves listed in Table 12.6. The Mineral Reserves include approximately 469.3 Mt of ROM ore with a P2O5ap grade of 9.4%, that is expected to yield 74.7 Mt of Concentrate with a P2O5ap grade of 35.0%. The point of reference for Mineral Reserves is as delivered to the beneficiation plant as of December 31, 2021. Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 12-16 Table 12.6: CMT - Summary of ROM and Concentrate Mineral Reserves at December 31,2021 Based on a Fixed Net- Back Price of Concentrate Note: The reference point for COG and pit optimization analysis is tonnes of concentrate at a price of R$1,492.92/tonne concentrate (2020 price evaluation). COG of P2O5ap ≥ 5.0% and 0.9 ≤ RCP ≤ 3.0 was applied to Mineral Reserves. Mineral Reserves are stated ROM as of December 31, 2021. 12.5 Qualified Person’s Opinion on Risk Factors that could Materially Affect the Mineral Reserve Estimates The Tapira mine has been in operation for over 40 years. Since this is a well-established operation, the deposit, mining, beneficiation, and environmental aspects of the Project are very well understood. The knowledge for CMT is based on the collective experience of personnel from Mosaic site operations and technical disciplines gained during years of phosphate mining and ore beneficiation. This knowledge is supported by years of production data and observations from CMT. The primary risks, that could materially affect the Mineral Reserve estimate, would include:  A long-term, global material decrease in fertilizer product prices for sales that are not protected under long- term sales agreements  Inflation rates with corresponding changes in capital and operating costs  Production rates  Exchange rates  Tax rates  Changing environmental regulations  Change in political climate ROM Tonnage, dry basis (Mt) ROM P2O5 Grade (%) ROM P2O5_d Grade (%) ROM P2O5ap Grade ROM P2O5ap_d Grade Concentrate Tonnage, dry basis (Mt) Total Concentrate P2O5 Grade (%) Total Concentrate Mass Recovery (%) Total Concentrate Metallurgical Recovery (%) Proven 193.7 9.9 9.8 9.6 9.4 30.0 35.0 15.5 57.4 Probable 275.6 9.5 9.4 9.3 9.1 44.7 35.0 16.2 62.6 Grand Total 469.3 9.7 9.5 9.4 9.2 74.7 35.0 15.9 60.4 Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 13-1 13.0 MINING METHODS 13.1 Production Tasks The Tapira mine has been in operation for over 40 years. Since this is an established operation, the deposit, mining, beneficiation, and environmental aspects of the Project are very well understood. The geological knowledge for CMT is based on the collective experience of personnel from Mosaic site operations geology, mining, metallurgy, and other technical disciplines gained during years of phosphate mining in Brazil and within the PIAP. This knowledge is supported by years of production data and observations from CMT and other Mosaic surface mining operations in Brazil. The ore at Tapira is recovered using open-pit conventional truck and shovel mining methods due to the proximity of the ore to the surface and the physical characteristics of the deposit. Mining operations progress in a four-step process, which includes clear and grub, drilling and blasting, overburden removal, and ore production. In the development phase, drainage and water control are established, and then the required infrastructure consisting of power, pipelines, and roadways is established. 13.1.1 Clear and Grub Surface areas to be disturbed during the mining process are progressively cleared of vegetation using track dozers, as necessary. 13.1.2 Drilling and Blasting Blasting at Tapira is conducted by Enaex Britante. The main explosive in use is emulsion and the blast design includes 4.5 to 5-inch diameter holes, in a 10-meter bench with a burden of 2.1 to 3.8 m and a spacing from 2.5 m up to 4.4 m. Typical powder factors range from 200 g/t up to around 330 g/t.st. 13.1.3 Overburden Removal and Storage Waste is hauled to one of the 6 ex-pit overburden storage facilities, serving different areas and types of waste from the mine. Waste containing notably higher grades of titanium is hauled to one of the two titanium stockpiles. Overburden material is loaded by a Hitachi EX1200 or Hitachi EX2500 bucket-class hydraulic mining excavator loading CAT 777 90-tonne haul trucks or Komatsu 730E 180-tonne haul trucks. Dozers assist the loading fleet with general clean-up and material removal, as necessary. Overburden material is hauled to one of the ex-pit OSFs and dozers are used to push overburden down the sides of the OSFs on an as-needed basis. Total waste haulage routes using mine access ramps will vary over the life of the operation but generally range from about 3 km to 8 km. 13.1.4 Ore Production Primary ore loading operations use bucket-class hydraulic mining excavators loading CAT 777 end-dump haul trucks of 90-t capacity. The excavators are supplemented by dozers. Ore material is hauled up the active mining face and ex-pit to the beneficiation plant. Total ore haulage routes using mine access ramps will vary over the life of the operation but range from about 2.7 km to 7.8 km. Ore material is unloaded at a stockpile at the beneficiation plant where is it further handled by beneficiation plant front-end loaders. After it is dropped at the beneficiation plant, the ore material is crushed, sized, and stockpiled for further beneficiation. Figure 13.1 demonstrates a typical open-pit operation utilizing excavators in backhoe configuration and haul trucks to remove both ore and overburden. The general sizing and depth of the mine at most stages of the Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira


 
13-2 operation requires multiple working benches on the advancing faces. This will allow consistent mine development with a continued pushback and assist with continuous ore deliveries to the beneficiation plant. Figure 13.1: Tapira Typical Mining Configuration 13.2 Parameters Relative to the Mine Design and Plans This sub-section contains forward-looking information related to mine design for the Project. The material factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the conclusions, estimates, designs, forecasts or projections in the forward-looking information include any significant differences from one or more of the material factors or assumptions that were set forth in this sub-section including geotechnical and hydrogeological. 13.2.1 Geotechnical The geotechnical units at Tapira are defined by the lithology and weathering models. The geotechnical units found at Tapira are predominantly friable, without control of discontinuities or anisotropy in the mechanical behavior of these materials. The stability of the final pit slopes was analyzed in 2D using limit equilibrium methods and considered a rotational mode of failure, which is appropriate for the characteristics of the materials found in Tapira. The resistance parameters used in the stability analysis are summarized in Table 13.1. Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 13-3 Table 13.1: Geotechnical Parameters used in the Stability Analysis Note: ƴ nat – Natural Density ƴ sat – Saturated Density CIU – Consolidated Isotropic Undrained c’ – cohesion φ – friction angle The results of the stability analysis indicate that at an inter-ramp and global scale the slopes are stable, with factors of safety exceeding the acceptance criteria. At a local scale, benches in saturated condition are unstable and dewatering will be required to locally lowering the phreatic surface by 5 m to obtain a factor of safety greater than 1.3 at a bench scale. The design parameters for the Tapira pit are shown in Table 13.2. Table 13.2: Proposed Geometric Parameters for Tapira Pit Design The Tapira geotechnical model is divided into 7 different zones, with the possibility of further subdivision into 4 geotechnical sectors. The divisions are based upon the unique combination of lithology and weathering in each area, with recommended design parameters as shown in Table 13.3. ƴ nat ƴ sat (kN/m3) (kN/m3) c' (kPa) φ' (°) c' (kPa) φ' (°) Waste Dump / PDE 19 - 10 32 - - Cover Alloterite 18 20 50 29 42 32 Titanium Isalterite Topo 20 21 40 30 30 33 Bebedourite / Phoscrete Friable Phosphate (bottom isalterite) 22 22 23 29 21 32 Bebedourite / Phoscrete Semi-compact Phosphate (Semi- weathered Rock) 24 22 100 35 50 35 Bebedourite / Phoscrete Compact Phosphate (Fresh Rock) 24 24 200 35 100 35 Syenite / Kaolinized Soils 22 22 37 31 35 29 Fenite 17 - 31 25 - - Triaxial CIU SatLithology Weathering Triaxial CIU Nat Typologies and Lithologies Face Angle Berm Width Berm Height Cover 59° 12 m 10 m Titanium 40 - 45° 15 m 10 m Friable Phosphate 30 - 45° 15 m 10 m Semi-Compact Phosphate 55° 15 m 10 m Compact Phosphate 55° 15 m 10 m Fenite 45° 15 m 10 m Syenite 35° 15 m 10 m Carbonatite 35° 15 m 10 m Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 13-4 Table 13.3: Recommended Design Parameters for Tapira Final Pit 13.2.2 Hydrogeological Hydrological and Hydrogeological drilling, sampling, and characterizations are described in Section 7.3 of this TRS. The groundwater flow pattern within the complex is generally to the south toward the outlet of the Córrego da Mata Basin. Flow inversions sometimes occur in the northern portion (with natural flow in the Northeast direction toward the BR-01 tailings dam) and in the north sector of the pit where the natural flow towards the Córrego da Mata is reversed in the direction of the Córrego Paiolzinho due to the mining operations. In the region of Front 2/Bigorna, the current water level is between 1,220 and 1,135 meters influenced by the mining operations and pumping of wells. In the northeast region of the pit (Fronts 4, 5, and 6) the water level is predominantly between 1,280 and 1,220 meters influenced by the lowering of water level from the mining advance (without pumping). In the region of the dams, the underground water level and consequently its flow is influenced by the formation of lakes along drainage channels. Around the BL-01 dam the water level is between 1,280 and 1,160 meters where the underground flow is northwest towards the Retiro Stream. The groundwater flow in the region around the BR-01 tailings dam converges into the lake. The mine’s dewatering system consists of 16 deep tubular wells, with water levels monitored daily. Additionally, there are 27 spillways with flow rate monitoring, 10 of which lie within the Alkaline Complex. Historical flow information used in the model development and calibration indicates that the average flow pumped by month throughout the monitoring period from May 2010 to July 2020 was around 143 m3/hr. Dewatering flow rates are anticipated to be approximately 200 to 400 m3/hr in the region of Front 2/Bigorna, approximately 50 to 100 m3/hr in the region of Fronts 5 and 6 (until 2024 when rates increase up to 200 m3/hr), and less than 200 m3/hr in the F2/CL region with higher flow rates associated with moment of greater mining advance. The projected dewatering flow rates must be produced by dewatering wells, sump pumping, and surface drainage. For a large portion of the mining area, dewatering should occur predominantly by gravity. Water above elevation 1,220 is drained by gravity while below this level, the water drains to a sump and requires pumping for removal. Surface water runoff from the yards and service locations is collected by open-air drainage systems (channels). Mining Area Description Bench Height (m) Face Angle (°) Berm (m) Inter-ramp Angle (°) ZONE I Aloterite 10 59 12 29 Top Isalterite - General Top Isalterite - Green Sector Top Isalterite - Red Sector Base Isalterite - General Base Isalterite - Blue Sector Host Rock and Fenite Top Isalterite - Blue Sector Top Isalterite - Orange Sector Base Isalterite - Orange Sector Base Isalterite - Green Sector Base Isalterite - Red Sector Sienite Lithology Carbonitite Semi-Weathered Rock (RSI) Fresh Rock (RSA) ZONE VII Dumps 10 27 15 16 ZONE VI 10 55 15 24 ZONE V 10 35 15 19 ZONE IV 10 30 15 17 22 ZONE III 10 40 15 20 ZONE II 10 45 15 Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 13-5 Storm contact water collected from the overburden storage facility collector channels as well as other mine contact water is drained to the BL1 impoundment. Water discharges from the BL1 impoundment to the BA3 impoundment for water solids settlement and clarification and then discharged to the BRI impoundment. The BR impoundment receives the beneficiation plant fines tailings and provides make-up water back to the beneficiation plant while collecting and storing the fines. Overflow water discharges to the BD5 impoundment for solids settling and water clarification. Mine dewatering and mine sediment collection pond water is discharged to the BD2 collector impoundment and then also discharged to BD5 for clarification. Clarified water is discharged to the BRI impoundment. All water discharged off the property is through the BRI overflow into the nearby river. 13.3 Mine Design Factors This sub-section contains forward-looking information related to mine design and production plans for the Project. The material factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the conclusions, estimates, designs, forecasts or projections in the forward-looking information include any significant differences from one or more of the material factors or assumptions that were set forth in this sub-section including mining strategy and production rates, expected mine life and mining unit dimensions. Mine planning at CMT follows the typical standards for open-pit mining. The processes involved include: 1. Application of dilution and recovery factors 2. Development of a value for each of the blocks in the model 3. Estimation of COG 4. Pit optimization and select optimal pit shell to be used for the basis of the ultimate pit design 5. NPV scheduler runs to provide guidance on phase designs and mine development 6. Ultimate pit design 7. Development of phase designs 8. Development of mine planning targets and constraints 9. Preparing Deswik based LOM plan Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira


 
13-6 The unconstrained theoretical ultimate pit shell derived from the pit optimization process was modified to incorporate more detailed design specifications to transform the pit shell into a functional open-pit mine. The resulting pit design was referred to as the Operational Pit. The operational pit was also limited by the following constraints: 1. Mining restrictions, including legal and environmental impacts 2. Overall slope angle 3. Operational design characteristics, including ramp locations and grades, OSF locations, mining width and height, and other practical mining considerations, given pit geometry. The design road width of 15 m is approximately 2.5 times the width of the largest truck, the CAT 777. This allows for two-way traffic with an adequate separation distance along main haulage routes. Access ramps are designed with a maximum slope of 8%. Benches are designed to have a 12 m to 15 m width and a 10-m height, with varying face angles depending upon the mine area, the lithology, and weathering as noted in Table 13.3. Given the ultimate pit limits, annual waste and ore tonnages were generated for the CMT mine plan periods with corresponding mining production sequences. The mine design was split into 26 phases. Figure 13.2 shows where the phases are located within the ultimate pit boundaries and Table 13.4 shows the corresponding tonnages produced by each phase over the LOM. Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 13-7 Table 13.4: Mining Quantities by Phase through 2057 Ore Titanium Waste MTonnes - Wet MTonnes - Wet MTonnes - Wet 00A 1.96 0.03 0.53 00B 1.97 0.69 0.61 00C 0.55 0.16 0.03 01A 2.30 0.37 0.87 01B 7.16 4.85 11.14 01C 9.05 3.92 23.66 02A 2.09 0.43 10.65 02B 2.75 0.00 4.86 02C 1.22 0.00 1.76 3 16.44 6.60 22.59 4 12.95 5.51 12.11 5 12.85 2.54 35.70 6 32.06 8.66 47.30 7 17.66 8.86 22.40 8 38.86 5.25 74.23 9 21.57 14.25 29.95 10 44.15 7.63 58.86 11 32.34 12.37 16.95 14A 18.16 13.12 38.78 14B 62.96 29.93 47.05 16 77.35 9.28 61.56 17 86.10 9.19 61.84 19 19.90 26.86 6.27 20 13.59 0.42 7.67 21 3.87 1.37 3.64 22 16.46 12.68 22.79 556.33 184.96 623.78 Group Name/Phase Total Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira D Beneficiation PlantBR-146 BR-146 305000 305000 310000 310000 78 00 00 0 78 00 00 0 78 05 00 0 78 05 00 0 LEGEND Tapira Phosphate Property Igneous Complex Boundary Road Mining Concession Mining Application Ultimate Pit Extent Mining Phases 00A 00B 00C 01A 01B 01C 02B 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 14A 14B 16 17 19 20 21 22 1 in 0 P:\Projects\Mosaic\Tapira\99_PROJ\20446248_MF_SK_1300_Phase2\0001_TRS\40_PROD\20446248-0001-HS-0006.mxd IF T H IS M EA SU R EM EN T D O ES N O T M AT C H W H AT IS S H O W N , T H E SH EE T H AS B EE N M O D IF IE D F R O M : A N SI A 20446248 - - 13. DW TBH - CONSULTANT PROJECT NO. CONTROL REV. FIGURE YYYY-MM-DD DESIGNED PREPARED REVIEWED APPROVED REFERENCE(S) COORDINATE SYSTEM: IMAGERY SOURCES: ESRI, HERE, GARMIN, INTERMAP, INCREMENT P CORP., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GEOBASE, IGN, KADASTER NL, ORDNANCE SURVEY, ESRI JAPAN, METI, ESRI CHINA (HONG KONG), (C) OPENSTREETMAP CONTRIBUTORS, AND THE GIS USER COMMUNITY 2021-10-28 CLIENT THE MOSAIC COMPANY PROJECT SEC S-K 1300 TECHNICAL REPORT SUMMARY MOSAIC FERTILIZANTES: COMPLEXO MINERACAO DE TAPIRA TITLE MINING PHASES - 0 1.5 3 Kilometers1 " = 1.5 km MAP AREA 13-9 13.3.1 Mining Strategy and Production Rates The mining strategy employs the use of phases each of which have independent in-pit haul roads that specifically target the ore in that phase and connect to the as-built surface haul roads created by mining the previous phase. The phasing drives the schedule in part by scheduling the ore to progress from lower phases to higher phases. The scheduling logic is rounded out by blending, where uncovered ore blocks may be taken out of phase, if needed, to meet the phosphate grade demanded by the annual production targets. Production sequencing was carried out using the Deswik interactive scheduler which allows the user to visually plan multiple ongoing mining faces simultaneously. The Tapira mine used the functionality of “diglines” which are polylines that instruct the schedule which block to mine first, which block to mine last and how to mine between those blocks. The Deswik scheduling tool the converts the digline into a progression of blocks which are assigned a mining rate and populated within a Gantt chart which is linked to the interactive scheduler. The diglines have been designed to move along the highwall on a single bench until an appropriate amount of the next bench down is exposed. The diglines are generally designed to take one small pushback at a time from the free face to balance stripping production with ore production over time to the extent possible. On an annual basis, the schedule has targeted mining a few specific areas to save on the expenses of moving equipment and services around. The OSFs and Internal Overburden backfill (IOB) have been scheduled to accumulate waste from the nearest pits and the maps show how much of a lift is placed on the OSFs and IOB each year. The schedule does not define precisely where each waste block stripped will be placed, but it accumulates the waste produced in the year and generates the appropriate number of waste blocks stacked according to the OSF/IOB design parameters. This process leaves some flexibility in the short-term plans as to how waste can be placed. The annual LOM plan production summary statistics are shown on Table 13.5. Annual plant feed, mass recovery, and plant feed grade are shown in Figure 13.3, annual concentrate production is shown in Figure 13.4, and annual waste and ore quantities are shown in Figure 13.5. Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira


 
SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 Complexo Mineração de Tapira 13-10 Table 13.5: Tapira LOM Plan Production Statistics Description Unit Total '22-33 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 Plant Feed Total Mt (wet) 559.23 182.03 15.83 15.76 15.52 15.72 15.71 15.34 15.01 14.51 14.47 14.46 15.03 14.66 Ore Mined Mt (wet) 556.51 180.36 15.16 14.76 15.52 15.72 15.71 15.34 15.01 14.51 14.47 14.46 15.03 14.66 Plant Feed Stockpile Mt (wet) 2.72 1.67 0.67 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Plant Feed Total Mt (dry) 482.65 155.48 13.39 13.35 13.12 13.35 13.35 13.09 13.20 12.49 12.31 12.40 12.85 12.58 Concentrate Mt (dry) 91.81 24.20 1.91 2.00 2.03 2.03 2.04 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.10 2.10 2.00 Mass Recovery % 19.02 15.57 14.27 14.95 15.47 15.17 15.31 15.27 15.15 16.01 16.25 16.94 16.35 15.89 Al2O3 % 4.32 4.50 4.46 4.35 5.14 4.94 5.60 4.86 4.36 4.52 4.07 3.72 4.19 3.64 CaO % 14.76 14.33 13.28 13.07 14.04 14.09 14.29 13.92 15.79 14.37 14.02 15.05 15.33 14.86 Fe2O3 % 25.99 28.11 26.32 28.34 28.58 27.87 28.51 28.94 27.18 28.11 29.47 29.06 27.72 27.36 MgO % 5.21 4.20 4.71 3.98 3.59 3.92 4.23 3.88 4.25 4.16 3.62 4.55 4.63 4.84 P2O5 % 9.53 9.87 9.21 9.32 10.18 9.88 9.82 9.84 9.45 10.01 10.44 10.54 9.98 9.86 P2O5ap % 9.21 9.45 8.79 8.84 9.50 9.36 9.50 9.50 9.20 9.50 9.80 10.12 9.79 9.60 RCP % 1.62 1.50 1.48 1.44 1.40 1.46 1.49 1.45 1.77 1.50 1.37 1.47 1.56 1.56 SiO2 % 23.05 21.18 24.06 22.45 20.28 21.12 19.18 19.56 20.80 21.04 21.72 20.83 21.01 22.10 TiO2 % 7.97 9.08 7.94 9.87 9.67 9.57 10.93 10.14 10.11 8.19 7.37 7.36 8.90 8.65 Waste Mined Mt (wet) 804.45 424.18 42.36 40.00 40.00 37.91 37.00 37.00 36.61 37.00 35.56 26.75 27.00 27.00 Titanium Mt (wet) 184.96 80.57 6.29 9.01 5.68 10.80 9.69 8.36 4.13 6.02 2.36 8.88 5.54 3.81 Waste Mt (wet) 619.49 343.62 36.07 30.99 34.32 27.12 27.31 28.64 32.48 30.98 33.20 17.87 21.46 23.19 Stripping Ratio t/t 1.11 1.91 2.38 2.10 2.21 1.72 1.74 1.87 2.16 2.14 2.29 1.24 1.43 1.58 Total Movement Mt (wet) 1,362.53 605.55 58.52 54.76 55.52 53.64 52.71 52.34 51.62 51.51 50.02 41.21 42.03 41.66 Description Unit Total '34-45 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 Plant Feed Total Mt (wet) 559.23 181.95 15.00 15.00 14.99 15.47 15.19 15.20 15.14 15.15 15.46 14.72 15.12 15.51 Ore Mined Mt (wet) 556.51 181.95 15.00 15.00 14.99 15.47 15.19 15.20 15.14 15.15 15.46 14.72 15.12 15.51 Plant Feed Stockpile Mt (wet) 2.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Plant Feed Total Mt (dry) 482.65 157.22 12.83 13.02 12.83 13.35 13.29 13.35 13.35 13.29 13.19 12.53 12.92 13.27 Concentrate Mt (dry) 91.81 24.73 2.00 2.10 2.02 2.09 2.10 2.06 2.06 2.10 2.06 1.97 2.10 2.06 Mass Recovery % 19.02 15.73 15.59 16.13 15.76 15.66 15.79 15.47 15.46 15.81 15.58 15.75 16.25 15.55 Al2O3 % 4.32 4.04 3.99 3.62 4.63 3.86 3.14 2.75 2.99 4.00 4.49 5.09 5.11 4.91 CaO % 14.76 15.04 14.50 15.44 14.20 14.25 15.98 16.19 16.55 16.30 14.33 13.95 14.48 14.23 Fe2O3 % 25.99 26.16 31.03 27.56 28.60 26.84 25.38 25.06 23.94 25.10 25.24 26.45 24.07 24.89 MgO % 5.21 5.27 3.72 5.31 3.99 5.23 6.71 6.02 6.32 5.73 4.04 4.71 5.84 5.44 P2O5 % 9.53 9.75 9.89 10.05 9.94 9.52 9.67 9.52 9.76 9.85 9.90 9.75 9.64 9.50 P2O5ap % 9.21 9.46 9.60 9.63 9.44 9.13 9.40 9.40 9.60 9.60 9.60 9.40 9.40 9.30 RCP % 1.62 1.61 1.51 1.61 1.47 1.56 1.76 1.82 1.79 1.77 1.48 1.47 1.54 1.53 SiO2 % 23.05 21.80 18.10 20.31 20.21 21.84 22.41 20.53 22.11 22.67 23.04 21.82 24.54 23.90 TiO2 % 7.97 8.08 10.29 7.26 8.51 8.85 7.79 9.44 8.38 6.21 8.51 7.99 6.89 6.91 Waste Mined Mt (wet) 804.45 236.00 22.00 22.00 22.00 21.83 22.00 21.58 22.00 21.97 21.63 13.00 13.00 13.00 Titanium Mt (wet) 184.96 64.21 8.42 7.24 4.01 4.48 12.26 5.06 1.83 4.58 6.28 2.91 3.23 3.93 Waste Mt (wet) 619.49 171.79 13.58 14.76 17.99 17.35 9.74 16.52 20.17 17.39 15.35 10.09 9.77 9.07 Stripping Ratio t/t 1.11 0.94 0.91 0.98 1.20 1.12 0.64 1.09 1.33 1.15 0.99 0.69 0.65 0.58 Total Movement Mt (wet) 1,362.53 417.95 37.00 37.00 36.99 37.30 37.19 36.78 37.14 37.12 37.08 27.72 28.12 28.51 Description Unit Total '46-57 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 Plant Feed Total Mt (wet) 559.23 179.76 15.35 15.50 15.77 14.72 15.12 14.80 15.18 14.99 15.00 15.01 13.40 14.92 Ore Mined Mt (wet) 556.51 179.76 15.35 15.50 15.77 14.72 15.12 14.80 15.18 14.99 15.00 15.01 13.40 14.92 Plant Feed Stockpile Mt (wet) 2.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Plant Feed Total Mt (dry) 482.65 156.65 12.96 13.34 13.30 12.51 12.78 12.85 13.22 13.35 13.04 13.32 11.77 14.20 Concentrate Mt (dry) 91.81 40.88 2.10 2.00 2.10 2.09 2.00 2.05 2.05 2.07 2.00 2.00 1.79 18.63 Mass Recovery % 19.02 26.10 16.21 14.99 15.79 16.68 15.65 15.95 15.50 15.49 15.34 15.03 15.22 13.10 Al2O3 % 4.32 4.40 5.20 5.07 5.03 4.48 4.60 4.41 4.13 3.97 4.11 4.28 4.38 3.22 CaO % 14.76 15.09 13.33 14.17 12.79 14.30 13.81 15.23 15.63 15.79 14.30 16.07 15.60 19.62 Fe2O3 % 25.99 23.46 26.59 22.77 26.66 24.96 23.37 22.13 22.87 24.50 27.13 23.52 22.73 14.99 MgO % 5.21 6.33 4.92 6.53 5.38 5.48 6.06 6.65 6.32 6.24 4.65 5.73 6.09 11.42 P2O5 % 9.53 8.98 9.74 8.80 9.40 9.63 9.10 9.16 8.87 9.08 9.13 8.83 8.84 7.34 P2O5ap % 9.21 8.75 9.30 8.70 9.00 9.17 8.99 9.00 8.70 8.70 8.70 8.70 8.70 7.45 RCP % 1.62 1.77 1.38 1.64 1.38 1.56 1.54 1.75 1.89 1.90 1.66 1.93 1.85 2.67 SiO2 % 23.05 26.26 22.55 27.73 24.17 25.56 27.69 27.71 27.60 25.36 22.76 26.06 25.20 32.09 TiO2 % 7.97 6.59 7.39 5.56 6.73 6.62 5.70 5.50 5.90 7.32 10.39 7.24 7.58 3.44 Waste Mined Mt (wet) 804.45 101.77 12.77 13.04 12.98 8.00 7.85 8.00 8.00 5.10 7.67 7.73 6.50 4.13 Titanium Mt (wet) 184.96 33.72 3.76 6.08 2.85 3.59 0.22 2.48 3.72 3.95 5.84 0.56 0.68 0.00 Waste Mt (wet) 619.49 68.05 9.01 6.96 10.13 4.41 7.63 5.52 4.28 1.15 1.83 7.17 5.81 4.13 Stripping Ratio t/t 1.113171 0.38 0.59 0.45 0.64 0.30 0.50 0.37 0.28 0.08 0.12 0.48 0.43 0.28 Total Movement Mt (wet) 1,362.53 281.52 28.13 28.54 28.75 22.72 22.96 22.80 23.18 20.09 22.67 22.75 19.90 19.06 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 Complexo Mineração de Tapira 13-11 Figure 13.3: Annual Ore Plant Feed and Grade with Mass Recovery 15 .8 15 .8 15 .5 15 .7 15 .7 15 .3 15 .0 14 .5 14 .5 14 .5 15 .0 14 .7 15 .0 15 .0 15 .0 15 .5 15 .2 15 .2 14.3 15.0 15.5 15.2 15.3 15.3 15.2 16.0 16.3 16.9 16.4 15.9 15.6 16.1 15.8 15.7 15.8 15.5 9.2 9.3 10.2 9.9 9.8 9.8 9.5 10.0 10.4 10.5 10.0 9.9 9.9 10.1 9.9 9.5 9.7 9.5 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 20 23 20 24 20 25 20 26 20 27 20 28 20 29 20 30 20 31 20 32 20 33 20 34 20 35 20 36 20 37 20 38 20 39 G ra de /R ec ov er y (% ) Pl an t F ee d (M t), w et b as is Plant Feed Total (tonne, wet basis) Mass Recovery (%) P2O5 Grade (%) 15 .1 15 .2 15 .5 14 .7 15 .1 15 .5 15 .4 15 .5 15 .8 14 .7 15 .1 14 .8 15 .2 15 .0 15 .0 15 .0 13 .4 14 .9 15.5 15.8 15.6 15.8 16.3 15.6 16.2 15.0 15.8 16.7 15.7 16.0 15.5 15.5 15.3 15.0 15.2 13.1 9.8 9.9 9.9 9.8 9.6 9.5 9.7 8.8 9.4 9.6 9.1 9.2 8.9 9.1 9.1 8.8 8.8 7.4 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 40 20 41 20 42 20 43 20 44 20 45 20 46 20 47 20 48 20 49 20 50 20 51 20 52 20 53 20 54 20 55 20 56 20 57 G ra de /R ec ov er y (% ) Pl an t F ee d (M t), w et b as is Plant Feed Total (tonne, wet basis) Mass Recovery (%) P2O5 Grade (%) 13-12 Figure 13.4: Annual Concentrate Production 1. 76 1. 89 1. 93 1. 92 1. 94 1. 90 1. 90 1. 90 1. 91 2. 01 2. 00 1. 90 1. 90 2. 00 1. 92 1. 99 2. 00 1. 96 0. 15 0. 11 0. 10 0. 11 0. 11 0. 10 0. 10 0. 10 0. 09 0. 09 0. 10 0. 10 0. 10 0. 10 0. 10 0. 10 0. 10 0. 10 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 20 22 20 23 20 24 20 25 20 26 20 27 20 28 20 29 20 30 20 31 20 32 20 33 20 34 20 35 20 36 20 37 20 38 20 39 C on ce nt ra te P ro du ct io n (M t, dr y ba si s) Conventional Concentrate Ultrafine Concentrate 1. 96 2. 00 1. 95 1. 87 2. 00 1. 96 2. 00 1. 89 2. 00 1. 99 1. 90 1. 95 1. 95 1. 96 1. 90 1. 90 1. 70 1. 70 0. 10 0. 10 0. 10 0. 10 0. 10 0. 10 0. 10 0. 11 0. 10 0. 09 0. 10 0. 10 0. 10 0. 10 0. 10 0. 11 0. 09 0. 16 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 20 40 20 41 20 42 20 43 20 44 20 45 20 46 20 47 20 48 20 49 20 50 20 51 20 52 20 53 20 54 20 55 20 56 20 57 C on ce nt ra te P ro du ct io n (M t, dr y ba si s) Conventional Concentrate Ultrafine Concentrate Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 13-13 Figure 13.5: LOM Plan Annual Production (ROM) 15 .2 14 .8 15 .5 15 .7 15 .7 15 .3 15 .0 14 .5 14 .5 14 .5 15 .0 14 .7 15 .0 15 .0 15 .0 15 .5 15 .2 15 .2 42 .4 40 .0 40 .0 37 .9 37 .0 37 .0 36 .6 37 .0 35 .6 26 .7 27 .0 27 .0 22 .0 22 .0 22 .0 21 .8 22 .0 21 .6 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00 20 22 20 23 20 24 20 25 20 26 20 27 20 28 20 29 20 30 20 31 20 32 20 33 20 34 20 35 20 36 20 37 20 38 20 39 Q ua nt ity M in ed (M to nn es - w et ) Ore Mined Waste Mined 15 .1 15 .2 15 .5 14 .7 15 .1 15 .5 15 .4 15 .5 15 .8 14 .7 15 .1 14 .8 15 .2 15 .0 15 .0 15 .0 13 .4 13 .2 22 .0 22 .0 21 .6 13 .0 13 .0 13 .0 12 .8 13 .0 13 .0 8. 0 7. 8 8. 0 8. 0 5. 1 7. 7 7. 7 6. 5 1. 8 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 20 40 20 41 20 42 20 43 20 44 20 45 20 46 20 47 20 48 20 49 20 50 20 51 20 52 20 53 20 54 20 55 20 56 20 57 Q ua nt ity M in ed (M to nn es - w et ) Ore Mined Waste Mined Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira


 
13-14 13.3.2 Expected Mine Life Current Tapira Mine life is approximately 36 years, ending in 2057, with an average ROM ore production rate of 13.0 Mtpy (dry) resulting in annual concentrate production of about 2.0 Mtpy. 13.3.3 Mining Unit Dimensions The operational pit will have benches that are 12-15 m wide by 10 m high to match the digging profiles of the selected excavators. Split benches are also incorporated into the mine design at a height of 5 m, and decoupling berms are incorporated into the mine design for geotechnical stability, as needed. The face angles and overall slope angles vary by geotechnical sector and are laid out in Table 13.3. Haul roads will have a minimum width of 15 m and a maximum ramp grade of 8%. 13.4 Stripping and Backfilling Requirements Phosphate ore at the Tapira Mine is hauled to the primary crusher while titanium ore is hauled to a stockpile for storage and possible future beneficiation. Waste is hauled to one of six ex-pit OSFs. As the mine progresses, the main haul roads are planned to be moved over time to stay near the edge of the ultimate pit. The design specifications of each OSF are listed in Table 13.6. Table 13.6: OSF Design Specifications Average annual one-way haulage distances for the LOM Plan are estimated in Deswik using the Landfill and Haulage Simulator (LHS) module for the defined waste and ore haulage routes and considering the operations schedules of the OSFs. A summary of average one-way haulage distances for the waste and titanium for the LOM Plan is provided in Table 13.7. Capacity Bench Height Berm Width Mm³ m m E03 1 7.31 10 15 1V : 1.5H E04 1 8.94 10 11 1V : 1.5H 1 38.33 10 8 1V : 2H 2 127.00 10 8 1V : 2H 1 9.34 10 11 1V : 1.5H 2 20.81 10 11 1V : 1.5H 3 24.86 10 9 1V : 2H E07 E09 1 64.44 10 10 1V : 2H 1 5.50 10 20 1V : 2H 2 4.55 10 9 1V : 2H 3 7.39 10 9 1V : 2H 4 7.71 10 8 1V : 2H 1 17.25 10 11 1V : 1.5H 2 10.53 10 8 1V : 2H 1 10.46 10 11 1V : 1.5H 2 5.41 10 11 1V : 1.5H 3 22.24 10 11 1V : 1.5H 4 70.24 10 11 1V : 1.5H 1 4.88 10 8 - 14 - 20 1V : 2H 2 23.26 10 8 - 14 - 20 1V : 2H 3 24.69 10 8 - 14 - 20 1V : 2H T06 1 86.22 10 10 1V : 2H E8 5ª ampliação E07 E08 T4 Slope Face AnglePhaseWaste Dump E06 E09 Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 13-15 Table 13.7: LOM Plan Average Waste Haul Distances - km 13.5 Mining Fleet, Machinery, and Personnel Requirements This sub-section contains forward-looking information related to equipment selection for the Project. The material factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the conclusions, estimates, designs, forecasts or projections in the forward-looking information include any significant differences from one or more of the material factors or assumptions that were set forth in this sub-section including labor and equipment availability and productivity. The mine uses a combination of equipment for material extraction and transportation. The production equipment is leased. Currently the largest haul truck on site has a capacity of approximately 180 tonnes. Fleet sizing is estimated based on historical performance. Historical loading times and delays by equipment fleets are tracked and used to estimate loading productivity. The maximum hourly truck productivity is calculated by dividing the truck capacity by the cycle time. The capacity is then multiplied by the utilization factor and the availability factor and is then derated by a factor of 3% to 10% to account for non-productive engine hours to get an effective hourly Deposit 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 PDE E04 9.2 - - - - - 4.8 5.3 4.7 5.6 5.8 6.6 6.7 PDE E06 - 2.7 3.6 2.5 2.2 3.7 5.4 4.2 3.1 2.9 3.8 4.8 5.6 PDE E07 4.1 6.1 7.6 - - - 7.4 - - - - - - PDE E07/E09 - 6.0 6.2 4.3 5.5 4.9 4.8 4.5 5.1 5.2 4.8 - - PDE E08 7.4 - - - - - - - - - - - - PDE E09 - 5.5 5.7 6.0 5.5 4.9 4.5 - - PDE E11 - - - 4.6 4.7 2.3 2.9 2.8 - Waste Average 5.9 5.5 4.8 3.0 4.1 4.6 4.9 4.4 4.3 3.7 4.6 4.9 5.7 E07 (Above El. 1290) - - - - - - - - - - - - - T04 7.7 9.1 8.9 9.9 6.4 6.9 6.0 4.4 4.1 4.6 4.0 3.9 4.0 T06 4.3 3.7 1.3 2.4 2.1 2.7 Titanium Average 7.7 9.1 8.9 9.9 6.4 6.9 6.0 4.3 3.8 1.4 2.8 2.2 3.0 Deposit 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 PDE E04 7.1 8.0 8.4 8.1 - - - 9.1 8.3 - - 8.5 PDE E06 5.0 4.3 3.9 3.8 4.1 - - 4.1 - - - - PDE E07 - - - - - - - - - - - - PDE E07/E09 - - - - - - - - - - - - PDE E08 - - - - - - - - - - - - PDE E09 PDE E11 2.6 4.4 4.2 5.6 6.1 5.1 5.2 5.8 5.7 5.1 4.9 Waste Average 5.3 3.1 4.3 4.1 5.6 6.1 5.1 5.2 5.9 5.7 5.1 4.9 E07 (Above El. 1290) - - - - - - - - - - - - T04 4.2 4.1 5.5 5.8 6.0 7.3 6.6 5.9 6.6 5.5 6.2 5.6 T06 2.3 2.8 2.1 2.2 2.5 2.8 4.0 3.9 3.2 3.4 3.8 3.9 Titanium Average 2.9 3.4 3.4 2.5 5.0 4.0 4.7 4.3 5.0 3.7 3.8 3.9 Deposit 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 Total PDE E04 - - - - - - - - - - - 8.1 PDE E06 - 4.8 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.2 4.5 4.6 - 4.4 3.9 PDE E07 - - - - - - - - - - - 4.0 PDE E07/E09 - - - - - - - - - - - 5.0 PDE E08 - - - - - - - - - - - 7.4 PDE E09 5.1 PDE E11 5.5 5.4 5.0 6.6 4.5 5.4 5.7 6.8 7.3 7.7 5.2 5.2 Waste Average 5.5 5.1 4.9 4.8 4.4 4.7 5.4 6.0 6.9 7.7 5.2 4.8 E07 (Above El. 1290) - - - - - - - - - - - 3.6 T04 5.3 - 5.2 5.1 4.7 4.9 5.0 6.4 7.4 7.8 - 7.1 T06 3.8 3.9 5.2 3.1 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.7 - - 2.9 Titanium Average 4.1 3.9 5.2 4.5 2.8 2.9 3.9 3.4 7.1 7.8 - 4.8 Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 13-16 productivity per unit. The total material movement required is divided by the effective hourly productivity to yield the minimum required fleet size. The availability for the leased mining equipment is required to be at least 85%, and utilization ranges from 63% to 73%. Excavator productivity estimates include dividing the associated truck capacity by the truck loading and maneuvering time and incorporate an over-capacity factor and idle time. The current fleet consists of approximately 44 trucks and will increase to a maximum of 68 in 2024. The fleet size decreases in the following years and generally remains around 30-46 for the remainder of the mine plan. The excavator fleet size is generally between 6 and 10 excavators, with 3 excavators assigned to ore and a variable amount of excavators used for waste removal depending on the overburden removal requirements. Annual fleet sizes for excavators and haul trucks are shown in Figure 13.6 and Figure 13.7, respectively. For the support equipment, the fleet size is maintained throughout the LOM with the support equipment specified below:  CAT 416E – Backhoe Loader  CAT 420E – Backhoe Loader  CAT 140K – Motor Grader  CAT 320 - Excavator  CAT 950H – Wheel Loader  CAT 966H – Wheel Loader  CAT D6 – Dozer  Volvo EC700 – Excavator The operational plan of the Tapira Mine includes the use of 4 teams on 12-hour shifts, operating 24 hours per day, 365 days per year with a staff of approximately 270 hourly employees. To calculate the required personnel, the annual count of loading/transportation equipment is multiplied by the number of teams (4), and the equipment availability, and then increased by a factor 10% to account for the 75th percentile of availability and 13.3% for absenteeism. The annual estimate of the required workforce size is shown in Figure 13.8. The operational management structure includes a General Manager that is over the whole complex and is assisted by the Mine Manager, Plant Manager, Maintenance Manager, ADM Supervisor, TO Leader, Site Secretary, and Performance Analyst. The Mine Manager oversees mining operations including the Production and infrastructure supervisors, mining technicians and engineers, and any interns on site. Production supervisors on each shift are responsible for mining technicians and the Level I, Level II, and Level III equipment operators on each shift. The Beneficiation Plant Manager oversees beneficiation plant production supervisors for each shift, as well as a development/control supervisor and a beneficiation plant mining engineer. Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 13-17 Figure 13.6: Annual Excavator Fleet Size 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 8 7 7 7 7 7 7 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 4 4 4 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 Ore - EX 1200 Waste - EX 1200 Waste - EX 2500 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 5 5 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 0.5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 Ore - EX 1200 Waste - EX 1200 Waste - EX 2500 Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira


 
13-18 Figure 13.7: Annual Haul Truck Fleet Size 17 13 21 22 22 20 20 19 20 18 18 17 19 19 21 17 18 18 32 30 47 42 40 42 41 37 35 20 26 28 23 23 18 21 18 26 12 12 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 Ore - CAT 777 Waste - CAT 777 Waste - KM 730E 18 18 22 19 21 24 24 25 25 25 22 23 23 24 21 18 23 23 21 26 28 24 24 16 15 14 14 14 14 9 9 8 8 5 7 11 11 2 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 Ore - CAT 777 Waste - CAT 777 Waste - KM 730E Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 13-19 Figure 13.8: Tapira Workforce Life-of-Mine Plan 28 27 33 30 30 30 30 30 30 23 22 22 21 21 17 20 21 17 202 195 198 176 166 178 174 155 147 80 110 118 97 95 71 90 72 113 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 58 40 92 97 98 86 85 83 87 82 78 74 82 84 96 73 82 75 11 12 14 13 13 13 13 13 13 12 13 13 14 14 13 15 14 13 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 20 22 20 23 20 24 20 25 20 26 20 27 20 28 20 29 20 30 20 31 20 32 20 33 20 34 20 35 20 36 20 37 20 38 20 39 Waste Loading Waste Transport Support Administrative Ore Transport Ore Loading 21 21 17 12 12 11 11 11 11 7 7 7 7 5 7 7 7 3 122 101 101 70 63 57 55 57 57 38 37 29 30 21 31 48 45 10 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 74 95 82 88 103 105 111 109 109 95 100 103 106 91 76 97 100 91 14 14 13 14 14 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 13 15 15 15 13 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 20 40 20 41 20 42 20 43 20 44 20 45 20 46 20 47 20 48 20 49 20 50 20 51 20 52 20 53 20 54 20 55 20 56 20 57 Waste Loading Waste Transport Support Administrative Ore Transport Ore Loading Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 14-1 14.0 BENEFICIATION AND RECOVERY METHODS 14.1 Beneficiation Plant 14.1.1 Crushing and Blending Coarse crushing reduces the ROM ore to pass 4 inches and places the crushed ore on one of two blending storage piles. Mine haul trucks unload the ROM ore into the primary gyratory crusher. The primary discharge is conveyed to the secondary toothed roll crusher. The secondary discharge is conveyed to a stacker that places the ore on one of two longitudinal blending piles. The piles are nominally 700 m long and 13 m high. Fine crushing reclaims ore from the blending piles and reduces the particle size to granular ore (19/7 mm) and friable ore (<7 mm) by screening and a 3rd and 4th stage of crushing using cone crushers. The granular ore is conveyed to the granular milling and flotation circuit. The friable ore is slurried with water and pumped to the friable ore milling and flotation circuit. A block flow diagram of the fine crushing circuit is presented in Figure 14.1. Figure 14.1: Fine Crushing Circuit Block Flow Diagram 14.1.2 Granular Ore Milling and Flotation This circuit comprises an open circuit rod mill, a closed-circuit ball mill, low intensity magnetic separation (LIMS), three stages of fines separation, two sets of parallel conditioning tanks, and four stages of flotation using mechanical flotation cells. The rod mill reduces the particle size to about 80% <1200 µm, which is fine enough to liberate phosphate from magnetite (Fe3O4). The LIMS removes magnetite from the rod mill discharge. The LIMS nonmagnetic product is fed to the closed-circuit ball mill and the overflow from the classification cyclone is about 80% passing 270 µm, which is fine enough to liberate the phosphate from the gangue minerals. Before the flotation reagents are added, Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 14-2 the ground feed is fines separated, attrition scrubbed, and fines separated again. The fines separation cyclone overflows are classified by smaller diameter cyclones to recover additional flotation feed from the rejected granular fines. The coarser and finer feed fractions are separately conditioned with flotation reagents and then combined for rougher flotation. The rougher tailing is treated by scavenger flotation to recover additional phosphate. The scavenger tailing is rejected, and the scavenger concentrate is recycled to rougher flotation. The rougher concentrate is upgraded by the 1st cleaner flotation cells and the 1st cleaner tailings are recycled to rougher flotation. The 1st cleaner concentrate is upgraded to final granular concentrate by the 2nd cleaner flotation cells. The tailings from the 2nd cleaner flotation are also recycled to rougher flotation. The four stages of flotation produce two final products – scavenger tailings and granular component of conventional concentrate. Figure 14.2 illustrates the granular milling and flotation circuit. Figure 14.2: Granular Ore Milling and Flotation Block Flow Diagram 14.1.3 Friable Ore Milling and Flotation This circuit comprises closed-circuit ball mills, two-stage low intensity magnetic separation (LIMS), several stages of fines separation, coarse and fine feed conditioning tanks, and four stages of flotation using mechanical flotation cells for coarse feed and a column cell and mechanical cell scavenger for fine feed. The friable ore is pre-classified by a cyclone. The cyclone overflow is fines separated to recover fine phosphate and reject natural fines (<40 µm). The pre-classification cyclone underflow feeds the ball mills, which grind the ore to about 80% passing 470 µm. Magnetite is rejected from the ball mill discharge by a rougher and scavenger stage of LIMS. The magnetic product is rejected, and the nonmagnetic product is pumped to the closed-circuit classification cyclone. The cyclone overflow is about 80% passing 240 µm. The classification cyclone overflow is fines separated, attrition scrubbed, and fines separated again to recover coarse flotation feed. The fines separation cyclone overflows are combined and fines separated a third time to Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira


 
14-3 recover fine phosphate, which is attrition scrubbed and fines separated a fourth time. The overflows from the 3rd and 4th fines separation cyclones are rejected as friable fines. The fine feed is conditioned with flotation reagents and then floated in a column cell. The column cell tailings are refloated (scavenged) in mechanical cells. The scavenger cell tailings are the fine tailing. The concentrates (froth products) from the column cell and scavenger machine are combined and pumped to the coarse feed rougher mechanical flotation cells. The coarse feed is conditioned with flotation reagents and then floated in rougher mechanical flotation cells. The rougher tailings are scavenged in mechanical flotation cells and the scavenger tailings are the coarse circuit tailings. The scavenger concentrate is recycled to rougher flotation. The rougher concentrate is densified by cyclones. The dilute cyclone overflow is treated by cleaner flotation in mechanical cells. The cleaner concentrate is combined with the cyclone underflow and treated by the final cleaner flotation cells. The final cleaner tailings are recycled to the rougher concentrate cyclone and the final cleaner concentrate is the friable circuit concentrate. The coarse and fine flotation circuits (six circuits combined) produce three final products to include fine tailings, coarse tailings, and the friable component of conventional concentrate Friable ore milling and flotation are illustrated in Figure 14.3. Figure 14.3: Friable Ore Milling and Flotation Block Flow Diagram 14.1.4 Granular and Friable (Conventional) Concentrate Preparation This circuit removes paramagnetic minerals from the granular and friable flotation concentrates and then grinds the final concentrate to a particles size suitable for slurry pipeline transport to the Uberaba Chemical Complex. Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 14-4 The granular and friable concentrates are combined and treated by wet high intensity magnetic separators (WHIMS) that reject paramagnetic minerals. The nonmagnetic product is ground by two closed-circuit ball mills. The ground slurry (cyclone overflows) is dewatered to about 60% solids by a combination of cyclones and thickeners and pumped into agitated storage tanks. The conventional concentrate preparation circuit is illustrated in Figure 14.4. Figure 14.4: Conventional Concentrate Preparation Circuit 14.1.5 Microfines Separation This circuit recovers ultrafine phosphate from the granular and friable fines. The granular and friable fines are subjected to several stages of fines separation in 2-inch diameter cyclones to recover feed for the ultrafine flotation circuit. This circuit, shown in Figure 14.5, and the subsequent ultrafine flotation circuit allow the metallurgical recovery to be increased by about 5%. Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 14-5 Figure 14.5: Microfines Separation Circuit 14.1.6 Ultrafine Flotation This circuit upgrades the ultrafine feed to ultrafine concentrate. The ultrafine feed is conditioned with flotation reagents and then subjected to rougher and cleaner flotation in two column cells. The froth product from the cleaner column cell is the ultrafine concentrate. The cleaner column tailings are recycled to the rougher column cell. The rougher column tailings are scavenged by mechanical flotation cells. The scavenger flotation tailings are the ultrafine tailings, and the scavenger cell concentrate is recycled to the rougher column cell. The three stages of flotation yield two final products to include ultrafine tailings and ultrafine concentrate. The ultrafine concentrate is dewatered by a belt filter and placed on a storage pile. 14.1.7 Product Storage and Transportation The nonmagnetic product from the WHIMS is reground by two parallel ball mills operating in closed circuit with 15- inch diameter cyclones to produce material suitable for transport by a slurry pipeline (about 94% passing 150 µm). The ground coarse concentrate is dewatered to about 60% solids by cyclones and a thickener. The solids in the cyclone overflow are recovered by the thickener and combined with the cyclone underflow and are placed into one of four agitated storage tanks. The concentrate slurry is withdrawn from the agitated storage tanks by centrifugal pumps that can recirculate the slurry or feed the pumping station. The pumping station has parallel piston pumps that develop sufficient pressure to force the slurry through a 124-km pipeline to the Uberaba Chemical Complex. The fine concentrate filter cake is reclaimed from storage piles by a frontend loader and placed in highway haul trucks that transport the fine concentrate to Mosaic’s Uberaba Chemical Complex. Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 14-6 14.2 Beneficiation Plant Throughput and Design, Equipment Characteristics, and Specifications This sub-section contains forward-looking information related to the beneficiation plant throughput and design, equipment characteristics, and specifications for the Project. The material factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the conclusions, estimates, designs, forecasts or projections in the forward-looking information include any significant differences from one or more of the material factors or assumptions that were set forth in this sub-section including actual plant feed characteristics that are different from the historical operations or from samples tested to date, equipment and operational performance that yield different results from the historical operations, historical and current test work results, and beneficiation recovery factors. Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira


 
14-7 The major process equipment and some material handling equipment are described in the following ten equipment lists. The description includes capacities, dimensions, model number, motor Hp, and equipment tag number.  Coarse crushing:  Plate feeders – 2  Vibrating grizzly screens – 2  Primary crusher – 1  Secondary Crusher – 2  Stacker – 1  Ore receiving silos – 6  Belt conveyors – 10  Fine crushing:  Bucket wheel reclaimer – 2  Belt conveyors – 13  Single deck vibrating screen -2  Double deck vibrating screen – 7  Tertiary cone crusher – 1  Quaternary cone crusher – 1  Quaternary impact crusher – 1  Milling and Magnetic Separation:  Belt conveyors – 5  Rod mills – 2  Ball Mills – 5  Friable pre-classification feed pumps - 4  Friable pre-classification distributors – 4  Friable pre-classification cyclones – 32 (4 x 8)  Friable classification feed pumps – 4  Friable classification distributors – 4  Friable classification cyclones – 20 (4 x 5)  Friable 2 pre-classification feed pumps - 4  Friable 2 pre-classification distributors – 4  Friable 2 pre-classification cyclones – 32 (4 x 5)  Granular classification feed pump – 1  Granular classification cyclones – 5  Granular rougher LIMS - 4  Friable rougher LIMS – 12  Friable cleaner LIMS – 4  Fines separation, Attrition, and Conditioning:  1st Friable fines separation feed pump – 2  1st Friable fines separation feed distributor – 2  1st Friable fines separation cyclones – 12 (2 x 6)  2nd Friable fines separation feed pump – 2 Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 14-8  2nd Friable fines separation feed distributor – 4  2nd Friable fines separation cyclones – 24 (4 x 6)  3rd Friable fines separation feed pump – 2  3rd Friable fines separation feed distributor – 2  3rd Friable fines separation cyclones – 8 (2 x 4)  4th Friable fines separation feed pump – 2  4th Friable fines separation feed distributor – 6  4th Friable fines separation cyclones – 72 (6 x 12)  6th Friable fines separation feed pump – 1  6th Friable fines separation feed distributor – 4  6th Friable fines separation cyclones – 48 (4 x 12)  1st Granular fines separation feed pump – 1  1st Granular fines separation feed distributor – 1  1st Granular fines separation cyclones – 5 (1 x 5)  2nd Granular fines separation feed pump – 1  2nd Granular fines separation feed distributor – 1  2nd Granular fines separation cyclones – 9 (1 x 9)  3rd Friable fines separation feed pump – 1  3rd Friable fines separation feed distributor – 1  3rd Friable fines separation cyclones – 2 (1 x 2)  3rd Friable standby fines separation feed pump – 1  3rd Friable standby fines separation feed distributor – 1  3rd Friable standby fines separation cyclones – 6 (1 x 6)  Friable attrition cells – 12 (4 x 3)  Granular attrition cells – 4 (2 x 2)  Friable attrition cells - 4  Granular fine feed conditioners - 2  Granular coarse feed conditioners - 2  Friable fine feed conditioners - 2  Friable coarse feed conditioners – 3  Flotation:  Friable coarse feed 4-way rotary distributors – 2  Friable coarse rougher flotation cells - 32 (4 x 8)  Friable coarse scavenger flotation cells - 32 (4 x 8)  Friable coarse cleaner flotation cells - 15 (3 x 5)  Friable coarse recleaner flotation cells - 12 (3 x 4)  Friable fine rougher column cells – 2  Friable fine scavenger flotation cells – 8 (1 x 8)  Granular coarse rougher flotation cells - 8 (1 x 8)  Granular coarse scavenger flotation cells - 16 (2 x 8)  Granular coarse cleaner flotation cells - 4 (1 x 4)  Granular coarse recleaner flotation cells - 3 (1 x 3)  Granular fine rougher column cell – 1  Friable coarse rougher cyclones Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 14-9  Ultrafine Circuit:  Trash screen – 1  1st stage cyclones – 896  2nd stage cyclones – 336  3rd stage cyclones – 112  Ultrafine feed conditioning tanks – 2  Ultrafine rougher flotation column – 1  Ultrafine cleaner flotation column – 1  Ultrafine scavenger flotation cells – 4  Ultrafine concentrate thickener – 1  Ultrafine drum filter – 1  Belt conveyors – 3  Reagents:  Starch dosing feeders – 3  Starch dilution tanks – 2  Starch causticizing tanks – 2  Ultrafine soap holding tanks - 4  Ultrafine saponification tanks – 4  Ultrafine starch dilution tank – 1  Ultrafine starch causticizing tank – 1  Ultrafine starch holding tank – 1  Caustic soda dilution tank – 2  Synthetic collector preparation tank – 1  Starch pneumatic feeders – 4  Vegetable oil collector storage tank – 2  Hidrocol storage tank – 1  Caustic soda storage tanks – 2  Synthetic collector storage tanks – 2  WHIMS:  Wet high intensity magnetic separators – 6  Regrinding:  Conventional concentrate regrind ball mills – 2  Classification cyclones – 4  Concentrate Thickening:  Conventional concentrate thickener – 2  Concentrate dewatering cyclones – 4  Concentrate storage tanks – 4  Concentrate piston pumps – 4 Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 14-10 Minimum, average, and maximum annual data for 2017 through 2021 are presented in Table 14.1. Table 14.1: Plant Availability and Throughput The five-year averages in the above table are pulled down by the below par performance during 2019. The four- year averages indicate annual ROM tonnages of 15.6 Mt (wet) and 13.0 Mt (dry). Similarly, the four-year average for annual operating operation was 8,287 hours. The production plan through 2057 averages 8,262 operating hours annually, which should be possible if there are no marketing constraints or major unexpected operating problems. Similarly, the planned maximum annual ore throughput is 15.8 Mt (wet) and 13.4 Mt (dry), which should be possible also. The forecast mass recoveries range from 13.3% to 17.3% and average 15.9%, which seems optimistic compared to the last five years; however, the average ROM %P2O5 over the next 37 years exceeds the average ROM %P2O5 (8.61%) during the last five years. The variation in ROM %P2O5 explains about 58% of the variation in mass recovery. Item Units Minimum Average Maximum ROM, wet basis Mtpy, wet 11.15 14.68 15.70 ROM, dry basis Mtpy, dry 9.16 12.23 13.27 Operating hours/yr. hr/yr 6,111 7,852 8,351 Conventional concentrate Mtpy 1.19 1.63 1.78 Ultrafine concentrate Mtpy 0.11 0.14 0.16 Total concentrate Mtpy 1.30 1.77 1.94 Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira


 
14-11 14.3 Projected Requirements for Energy, Water, Process Materials, and Personnel This sub-section contains forward-looking information related to the projected requirements for energy, water, process materials and personnel for the Project. The material factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the conclusions, estimates, designs, forecasts or projections in the forward-looking information include any significant differences from one or more of the material factors or assumptions that were set forth in this sub-section including actual plant requirements that yield different results from the historical operations. The consumption of flotation reagents, grinding media, electric power, and water per tonne of concentrate are summarized in Table 14.2. Table 14.2: Tapira Consumptive Use 2018 through 2021 Notes: 1. Per tonne of total concentrate 2. Vegetable and synthetic collectors combined 3. Rods and balls 4. Makeup water 14.3.1 Water Water is supplied to the administrative and production sectors of the mine site by the Ribeirão do Inferno and artesian wells, as well as from the taillings dams. The industrial reuse system used to recover water from the dams includes 10 pumps (4 operating and 6 on stand-by) and 36” pipes covering varying distances to the different dam areas. The rated capacity of the pipes is 4,400 m3/hr from the BR1 dam, 10,400 m3/hr from the BL1 dam, and 4,900 m3/hr from the BR dam. The tailings from the Tapira plant are disposed of in the BR dam (coarse tailings) and the BL1 dam (fine talings/sludge). Approximately 10.9 million m3/yr are deposited in the dams and are subjected to natural sedimentation. 14.3.2 Electricity The Tapira Plant is powered by CEMIG and Vale Energia Concessionaires, with a total receipt of 40 MW. Annually, the beneficiation plant uses around 305 GW and the contract between Mosaic and the power suppliers establishes the minimum required off-take along with a 3% charge for line losses. Item Units 1 2018 2019 2020 2021 Collectors 2 kg/t 3.05 3.23 3.21 2.43 Corn Starch kg/t 2.13 2.57 2.54 2.58 Caustic Soda kg/t 1.31 1.64 1.67 1.46 Grinding Media 3 kg/t 1.08 1.04 1.07 1.14 Diesel Oil L/t 0.17 0.37 0.28 0.48 Electricity kWh/t 157.49 172.45 156.68 156.50 Water 4 m3/t 5.76 8.76 6.27 6.72 Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 14-12 14.3.3 Reagents Four flotation reagents are used at Tapira: a pH modifier (caustic soda), a depressant (corn starch), and two fatty acid type collectors (vegetable & synthetic). The flotation feed pulps are first conditioned with pH modifier and depressant. Next the flotation feed pulps are conditioned with the collectors. The collectors adsorb on the surfaces of the apatite particles and make the apatite particles hydrophobic. 14.3.3.1 Caustic Soda Caustic soda (NaOH) is received as a 50% strength solution by tanker truck. The 50% solution is pumped into a storage tank and then transferred as needed to use tanks where it is diluted to a 10% solution with water. The 10% solution is used to:  Adjust the pH of the flotation feed slurry in the conditioning tanks  To causticize the corn starch  To saponify the vegetable collector 14.3.3.2 Corn Starch Corn starch is received as a powder by tanker truck and pneumatically transferred into a storage silo. Batches of powder are agitated with water and the 10% solution of caustic soda to obtain a 3% solution of causticized starch. The 3% solution is used to precondition the flotation feed slurry to depress gangue minerals during flotation. 14.3.3.3 Vegetable Collector The fatty (carboxylic) acid is received by tanker truck and pumped into a storage tank. Batches of fatty acid are agitated with water and the 10% solution of caustic soda to prepare a 5% solution of saponified collector. The 5% solution is used to condition the flotation feed slurry and render the surface of the apatite particles hydrophobic. 14.3.3.4 Synthetic Collector The synthetic collector is also received by tanker truck and pumped into a dedicated storage tank. Batches of synthetic collector are agitated with water to prepare a 30% solution. The 30% solution is used to augment the collection of apatite. 14.3.4 Personnel Beneficiation plant operations are overseen by a plant manager, with a Production Officer, Development and Control Supervisor, and Mining Engineer beneath him. Each shift has a production supervisor and Mineral Operators classified as Level 1, Level 2, Level 3 with each shift having 22-23 operators. Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 15-1 15.0 INFRASTRUCTURE This section contains forward-looking information related to locations and designs of facilities comprising infrastructure for the Project. The material factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the conclusions, estimates, designs, forecasts or projections in the forward-looking information include any significant differences from one or more of the material factors or assumptions that were set forth in this sub-section including Project development plan and schedule, available routes and facilities sites with the characteristics described, facilities design criteria, access and approvals timing. The CMT property is located 3 km north of the town of Tapira and approximately 35 km south-southeast of the city of Araxá, in the southeast of Brazil in Minas Gerais State. The town of Tapira can be accessed by road from Belo Horizonte via the BR-262 and BR-146 state highways travelling west-northwest for over 420 km. Figure 15.1 includes an overview map of the infrastructure at CTV. The tailings from Tapira’s beneficiation plant are disposed of in the BR (coarse tailings) and BL1 (fine tailings/sludge) dams at a rate of approximately 10.9 million m3 per year. Overburden is stored in one of six separate ex-pit overburden storage facilities (OSFs), and the material high in Titanium is placed in one of two titanium storage facilities for possible future beneficiation. There are 12 administrative buildings in the Tapira complex including laboratories, offices, restaurants, and changing rooms. There is one warehouse at Tapira which consists of a shed and a patio for storage. The Tapira Plant has a central maintenance workshop with an area of 6,626 m2 and auxiliary workshops with 428.04 m2 of area. The Tapira beneficiation plant is powered by CEMIG and Vale Energia Concessionaires, with a total receipt of 40 MW. The main substation receives 138 kV in 3 oil-type transformers which transfer 138 kV to secondary substation. From the secondary substations, power is distributed to the end-use areas at 110 V, 220 V, 380 V, 440 V, or 4,160 V. There is approximately 1 km of distribution line mounted on metallic structures from the concessionaires to the beneficiation plant. There are also overhead lines from the main substation to serve remote areas of the beneficiation plant, such as the primary crusher, mining face, dams, secondary crusher, and pump houses. There are two fuel stations at Tapira, one in the administrative area with a capacity of 240 m3 and one in the mine area with a capacity of 270 m3. The 270 m3 fueling station at the Mine has 6 - 15 m3 tanks, 3 – 20 m3 tanks, and 4 – 30 m3 tanks. There is a spilled oil collection system, as well as a water and oil separator box connected to the drainage network. The fuel storage tanks have containment basins/dikes which can contain any leakage or spills resulting from damage to the tanks. There is also infrastructure in place to allow for transfer of material out of the tanks if necessary. Tapira’s water intake comes from the Ribeirão do Inferno and artesian wells, as well as recovered water from the taillings dams. There are 4 artesian wells at the Tapira plant: the Mine well, the well at the Outpatient Facility, the well at the Caixa Central, and the well at the water treatment station. The industrial reuse system used to recover water from the dams includes 10 pumps (4 operating and 6 on stand-by) and 36” pipes covering varying distances to the different dam areas. The distance from BR1 dam is approximately 9 km with a rated capacity of 4,400 m3/hr. The distance from BL1 dam is approximately 3 km with a rated capacity of 10,400 m3/hr. The distance from BR dam is approximately 4 km with a rated capacity of 4,900 m3/hr. Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 15-2 Tapira’s fire protection includes a mobile fire-fighting system, fire extinguishers, signaling boards, and fire hydrants. There is a sufficient amount of fire extinguishers located around the beneficiation plant that are inspected monthly and hydrostatically tested every five years. There are two 80 m3 water reservoirs in the mine and a 54 m3 reservoir in the administrative area to be used for firefighting. The hose shelters contain all the equipment in working condition and undergo frequent inspections. The primary customers of CMT are Mosaic’s Uberaba Chemical Complex, and the Araxá Chemical Plant, with an annual production of approximately 2,000,000 tonnes of material. CMT has a shipping capacity of 6,000 tpd of conventional phosphate concentrate and 1,000 tpd of ultrafine phosphate concentrate. Ultrafine phosphate concentrate is stored in open yards and is manually loaded into trailers and the filling time of each truck is approximately 15 minutes. The CMT beneficiation plant has a total storage capacity of about 47,800 tonnes, which corresponds to 7 days of typical production. There are three explosives magazines on site: one with explosives, one with the accessories (boosters, and fuses), and an emulsion tank. The explosives depots are located on firm, dry, flood-free ground with a clearing of at least 20 m around the buildings and fencing installed to control access. Conventional phosphate concentrate is shipped directly by pipeline to Mosaic’s Uberaba Chemical Complex. There is approximately 123 km of piping from Tapira to Uberaba in a 9.625” pipe with 4 pumps of 125 m3/hr, 2 of which are operational and 2 of which are on standby. The conventional concentrate has pulp characteristics of 61% solids and P2O5 content of 35%, in addition to having a moisture content of 61%. The conventional concentrate is prepared in batches using 4 preparation tanks. Ultrafine phosphate concentrate is transported via highway trucks to the Araxá Chemical Plant or the Uberaba Chemical Complex. The average time of the shipping process is estimated at 1 day, either from Tapira to Uberaba which is about 170 km away, or to Araxá which is 45 km away from CMT. Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira


 
[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ M inas Gera is Goiás C a t a lã o Araxá Catalão Ibiá Patrocínio Perdizes Sacramento Uberaba Uberlândia Tapira Minas GeraisGoiás d d d d d d d D Frente 2 Frente 3 Frente 4 Frente 5 BR1 Tailings Pond BL1 Tailings Pond T04 E04 E08 E11 E09 E07 E07/E09 E06 T06 Beneficiation PlantBR-146 B R -146 305000 305000 310000 310000 78 00 00 0 78 00 00 0 78 05 00 0 78 05 00 0 LEGEND Tapira Phosphate Property Conveyor Belt Discharge Pipeline Pipeline P Powerline Road Ultimate Pit Contours (10 m) Dumps Explosives Storage Homogenization Pile Maintenance Building Office Buildings Processing Facilities Substation Warehouse Yard Water Reservoir Tailings Pond Pits Ultimate Pit Extent 1 in 0 P:\Projects\Mosaic\Tapira\99_PROJ\20446248_MF_SK_1300_Phase2\0001_TRS\40_PROD\20446248-0001-HS-0007.mxd IF T H IS M EA SU R EM EN T D O ES N O T M AT C H W H AT IS S H O W N , T H E SH EE T H AS B EE N M O D IF IE D F R O M : A N SI A 20446248 - - 1 .1 DW TBH - CONSULTANT PROJECT NO. CONTROL REV. FIGURE YYYY-MM-DD DESIGNED PREPARED REVIEWED APPROVED REFERENCE(S) COORDINATE SYSTEM: IMAGERY SOURCES: ESRI, HERE, DELORME, INCREMENT P CORP., NPS, NRCAN, ORDNANCE SURVEY, © OPENSTREETMAP CONTRIBUTORS, USGS, NGA, NASA, CGIAR, N ROBINSON, NCEAS, NLS, OS, NMA, GEODATASTYRELSEN, RIJKSWATERSTAAT, GSA, GEOLAND, FEMA, INTERMAP AND THE GIS USER COMMUNITY 2021-12-10 CLIENT THE MOSAIC COMPANY PROJECT SEC S-K 1300 TECHNICAL REPORT SUMMARY MOSAIC FERTILIZANTES: COMPLEXO MINERACAO DE TAPIRA TITLE INFRASTRUCTURE MAP - 0 1.5 3 Kilometers1 " = 1.5 km MAP AREA dd Beneficiation Plant Inset Map Primary Crusher Secondary Crusher Recrushing Main Gate Substation Fuel Station 16-1 16.0 MARKET STUDIES This section contains forward-looking information related to commodity demand and prices for the Project. The material factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the conclusions, estimates, designs, forecasts or projections in the forward-looking information include any significant differences from one or more of the material factors or assumptions that were set forth in this section including prevailing economic conditions, commodity demand and prices are as forecasted over the LOM period. 16.1 Markets Phosphorus is one of the three primary crop nutrients required for plant growth and is not substitutable. Phosphate rock1 is the raw material feedstock utilized to produce virtually all phosphate fertilizers worldwide, as well as being the phosphate feedstock for animal feed ingredients and industrial and food products. Production of phosphate end-products is most commonly achieved by reacting the phosphate rock with sulphuric acid to produce intermediate phosphoric acid, which is then used as the precursor for nearly all high-analysis granular phosphate fertilizers (e.g., ammonium phosphates) as well as most animal feed and industrial/food phosphates. A less common process route involves reacting phosphate rock with sulphuric acid to produce single superphosphate, a low-analysis phosphate fertilizer. The global market for phosphate rock is estimated to be approximately 210 million metric tonnes in 2021 and has grown at a compound annual growth rate of around 2% over the past two decades, though has slowed modestly in the past several years (CRU Phosphate Rock Database, 2021). Going forward, global phosphate rock demand growth is expected to continue to grow, with Mosaic and independent analysts typically projecting a growth rate of 1-2% per annum. This growth ensures sufficient market demand for continued production at Mosaic’s Brazil phosphate rock mines2. In fact, such demand growth will necessitate some combination of new mining capacity globally or higher operating rates at existing mines to meet the growing demand. Global phosphate rock trade has been rangebound at around 30 million tonnes for the past two decades. Mosaic’s Brazil phosphate rock mines produce circa 4 million tonnes of phosphate rock concentrate per annum which is further processed into finished products at Mosaic’s downstream phosphate production facilities in the country – i.e. phosphoric acid intermediate product – then phosphate fertilizers and animal feed phosphates – or single superphosphate (SSP). The open pit mining and beneficiation practices at the Brazil mines results in a phosphate rock product with a grade of ~76% BPL (~35% P2O5) and is amendable as feedstock for phosphoric acid or SSP. The circa 2 million tonnes of phosphate rock produced at the Tapira mine annually (grading >35% P2O5) is utilized as feedstock for the Uberaba downstream phosphates plant. 16.2 Commodity Price Forecasts The commodity price forecasts utilized in the analysis are derived from an independent third party, CRU, which is a reputable supplier of market forecasts across a range of commodities including phosphate rock. CRU’s market 1 Phosphate rock is the term utilized to describe phosphate ore that has been mined and/or beneficiated to produce a material that is suitable for further processing into downstream products such as fertilizer. 2 Mosaic currently operates four phosphate rock mines in Brazil – Catalão, Tapira, Araxá/Patrocínio and Cajati. Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 16-2 studies cover the entire supply chain, focusing on supply, demand, trade and prices by country and product. However, there is no quoted benchmark for phosphate rock in Brazil, as the rock produced is almost exclusively consumed by captive downstream operations. As such, an internal transfer price forecast was constructed by deducting mining and beneficiation costs as well as chemical plant related costs. To do so, CRU’s benchmark forecast for downstream products – into which Mosaic’s Brazil phosphate rock is processed – were utilized. The phosphate fertilizer price forecast from CRU utilized in this report is MAP CFR Brazil, from CRU’s Phosphate Fertilizer Market Outlook dated August 2021. This price was then adjusted for freight based on Mosaic’s freight standards to derive a FOB plant netback, then a weighted adjustment is applied to reflect the historical pricing differential for the various phosphate end-products other than MAP that are produced with Tapira phosphate rock, in order to arrive at an average annual fertilizer price for the years 2022-2024, a price which was held constant thereafter. Table 16.1 shows the average CRU CFR MAP price forecast price for the years 2022-24 averaged $397 (R$1,862) per metric tonne. Table 16.1: CRU CFR MAP Pricing Item 2022 2023 2024 Average MAP CFR Brazil (US$) 377 403 412 397 MAP CFR Brazil (R$) 1,768 1,890 1,932 1,862 Note: An exchange rate of R$4.69 = US$1.00 was applied Source: CRU’s Phosphate Fertilizer Market Outlook dated August 2021 The pricing of the non-MAP products produced with the Tapira phosphate rock – e.g., SSP, TSP, and DCP – tend to track closely to the price of MAP over time, and the typical pricing differential was then applied to the forecast. The CRU CFR MAP price forecast was used to predict the Tapira product combination and was an average revenue of R$1,551 per metric tonne, which was used for all years of the LOM plan. The Tapira revenue price differs from the price used in the Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve pit optimization price of R$1,492.92 since it is based on an updated analysis of product pricing from 2021. The Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve pit optimization price was applicable at the time that the pit optimization analysis was completed (2020). This forecast finished product price was utilized as the basis to then calculate a gross margin available to fund the upstream mining and processing of phosphate rock. The gross margin available for Tapira was calculated as R$751 per metric tonne. Under this approach, the internal transfer phosphate rock price cannot exceed the gross margin available. The discounted cash flow (DCF) in Section 19.0 was calculated using an internal transfer phosphate rock price to show a Net Present Value of zero. The internal transfer price per tonne in the DCF is R$336 which is less than the gross margin available. This analysis demonstrates that the margin available for phosphate rock exceeds the total costs of phosphate rock production. Refer to the economic section of the report for further detail on this methodology. The exchange rate utilized in the analysis was derived internally utilizing a consensus view of forecasts from several third parties and is based on a June 2020 analysis. A forecast of 4.69 real per dollar was utilized for the forecast period. Based on the current fluctuation in the Brazilian Real, this forecast is considered conservative and Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 16-3 appropriate for this TRS report. Although a higher exchange rate existed at the effective date of the TRS, Mosaic does not view the current exchange rate as a long-term sustainable rate, and therefore the more conservative June 2020 exchange rate (4.69:1) was used. 16.3 Contracts Effectively all phosphate rock produced at Mosaic’s Brazil mines is consumed at Mosaic’s downstream facilities. Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira


 
17-1 17.0 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, PERMITTING, AND PLANS, NEGOTIATIONS, OR AGREEMENTS WITH LOCAL INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS 17.1 Environmental Studies The main activities carried out at CMT include apatite mining and beneficiation. CMT includes one mine, six waste rock piles, three titanium piles, three sediment retention dikes, one water dam, a crushing plant, a beneficiation plant, three tailings storage facilities (BR, BL-1 and magnetite dike) and ore pipeline, that connects CMT to the Uberaba Chemical Complex. 17.1.1 Environmental and Social Impact Assessment An Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA, EIA in the Portuguese acronym) was prepared by in 2016 (MULTIGEO, 2016) for CMT. The Area of Direct Influence (AID in the Portuguese acronym) considered in the ESIA for the biotic and physical environments was defined by the head of the drainage basin of the Potreiro, Paiolzinho, Boa Vista, Areia and da Mata streams, as well as the rest of its hydrographic basin, which encompasses the structures of CMT. The AID for the socioeconomic component defined in this ESIA comprised the municipalities of Tapira and Araxá, both in Minas Gerais state. 17.1.2 Biodiversity Regarding the floristic diversity of the region where CMT is located, a floristic survey carried out as part of the ESIA for tailings dam BL-1 (MULTIGEO, 2017b) identified 243 botanical species, belonging to 69 families, of the which Fabaceae was the most representative. Among the species recorded, four stand out for falling into categories of vulnerable or endangered at the national or state level, namely: Araucaria angustifolia (Araucári), Euterpe edulis (Juçara), Ocotea odorífera (Canela- sassafrás) and Cedrela fissilis (Acaiacá). In addition, one species of peki (Caryocar Brasiliense) and two species of ipe (Handroanthus ochraceus and Handroanthus serratifolius) are declared as of common interest, permanent preservation and immune to cutting in the state of Minas Gerais by State Law No. 9,743/1988. At CMT an area of 4,290 ha (60.6% of the total CMT area: 7,080 ha) has some type of vegetation cover. This amount includes approximately 331 ha of eucalyptus reforestation (corresponding to 4.7% of the CMT area) and 1,307 ha of native vegetation (corresponding to 18.4% of the CMT area). Approximately 2,794 ha (39.5%%) correspond to areas occupied by infrastructure dedicated to mining and mineral beneficiation (GOLDER, 2021). A fauna survey carried out as part of the ESIA for tailings dam BL-1 (MULTIGEO, 2017b) presented conclusions that include:  Birdlife: The study indicated the occurrence of 121 species in the region where CMT is located. These species are distributed in 42 families. Three species fall into some category of extinction threat in Brazil and/or Minas Gerais, according to the MMA (2014b) and COPAM (2010), namely: Taoniscus nanus (inhambu-carapé), Crax fasciolata (curassow) and Jabiru mycteria (tuiuiú).  Mammalian fauna: The study identified 42 species of mammals belonging to 16 families. Five species fall into some category of extinction threat in Brazil and/or Minas Gerais, according to the MMA (2014b) and Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 17-2 COPAM (2010): Mymercophaga tridactyla (giant anteater), Chrysocyon brachyurus (Guara wolf), Puma yagouarondia (Moorish cat), Puma concolor (Puma), Pecari tajacu (Cateto / Caititu).  Herpetofauna: The study identified 16 species of amphibians distributed in 5 families and 3 species of reptiles distributed in 3 families. No endemic or endangered species were observed.  Ichthyofauna: The study identified 17 species belonging to 9 families. The order Characiformes was the most abundant in the region, with 46.8% of the individuals captured in the survey. One of the species identified in the survey (Brycon nattereri - Pirapitinga) is considered threatened at the federal and state level. 17.1.3 Archaeological and Speleological Studies In a survey that was part of the Environmental Impact Assessment (MULTIGEO, 2016) an archaeological site named “Valter Dentista” was identified at CMT. It was detailed in the Preliminary Report of Archeology and in the Archaeological Management Program, both presented to Instituto do Patrimônio Histórico e Artístico Nacional, IPHAN (The National Historic and Artistic Heritage Institute) to comply with a requirement of the process of renewing the environmental operation permit. In response, IPHAN issued a consent regarding the management proposal, indicating compensatory actions such as the possibility of transferring archaeological collections to an Archaeological Museum in the municipality and the creation of a Foundation, responsible for the administration of the museum. The compensatory action refers to the publication of a book and that was completed whiting the deadline indicated in the consent issued by IPHAN. The ESIA for rising the tailings dam BL-1 (MULTIGEO, 2017b) included a speleological survey that concluded that there are no caves at CMT. One of the reasons for that is the presence of a weathering layer about 160 m thick with a soil that is predominantly clayey, making the development of caves impossible (MULTIGEO, 2017b). 17.1.4 Socio-Economic Study According to Multigeo (2016) the area of indirect influence of CMT for the socioeconomic context consisted of the municipalities of Tapira and Araxá. In July 2020 CMT had a total of 839 direct employees and approximately 2,000 contractors. Approximately 78.5% of the direct employees lived in Araxá (93,672 inhabitants in 2010) and 14.8% in Tapira (2,744 inhabitants in 2010), in the state of Minas Gerais (GOLDER, 2021). In 2010 the Gini index, that measures concentration of wealth in a scale of 0 (complete equality) to 1 (complete inequality) was 0.48 in Araxá and 0.54 in Tapira, below the average in Minas Gerai state (0.56) and Brazil (0.60). In 2010 the HDI (Human Development Index) was 0.772 in Araxá and 0.712 in Tapira (both considered high), above (Araxá) and blow (Tapira) the average in Minas Gerais state (0.731) and Brazil (0.727), both classified as high. According to Golder (2021) no references were found about the existence of Quilombolas (communities with slave descendants) or indigenous population in the region where CMT is located in the official database consulted: Palmares Foundation (for Quilombolas) and FUNAI (for indigenous population). The closest Quilombola community identified was located approximately 76 km north of CMT. 17.1.5 Baseline Water Quality and Water Quantity Study Multigeo (2011) carried out a confirmatory investigation at CMT in seven areas previously classified as suspicious of contamination, with a total of 35 boreholes drilled for sampling surface and subsurface soil. The results indicated the following parameters with concentrations above soil quality standards: barium (11 boreholes), cobalt Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 17-3 (1 borehole at a workshop) and nickel (1 borehole at a subcontractor area). The study indicated that barium occurred uniformly in all areas studied, as result of the lithology of the region, and the concentrations above soil quality standards were not resulting from the CMT operation. Multigeo (2017a) carried out a confirmatory investigation at CMT in four areas corresponding to fuel stations, with a total of 10 boreholes drilled for sampling soil and analysis of BTEX, PAH e TPH. No concentrations above soil quality standards were identified in this investigation. Ramboll (2018) prepared a conceptual site model indicating 25 areas of interest (AOI) related to soil and groundwater quality based on previous investigation works (as above) and characteristics of the areas / operations. No further confirmatory investigations were conducted at these areas. Mosaic is planning to carry out an additional investigation in in these areas in 2022, which consist of a voluntary action (i.e., not demanded by the environmental regulator). Golder (2021) reviewed groundwater quality monitoring results from 2016 to 2019, corresponding to 12 locations at CMT that are monitored with a frequency ranging from quarterly to annual. In general, the results indicated compliance with groundwater quality standards, with exception of few barium results, that presented concentrations above the soil quality standard. As indicated above, the barium results may be related to the local geology. Mosaic monitors surface water quality in 24 locations with a frequency ranging from monthly to biannually. According to Mosaic (2020), in a compilation of data from 2016 to 2020, some sporadic noncompliance with water quality standards were observed in some monitoring locations, including: pH, dissolved oxygen, coliforms, BOD, turbidity, aluminum, dissolved iron, manganese, phosphorus, nitrate, total phenols. 17.2 Requirements and Plans for Waste and Tailings Disposal, Site Monitoring, and Water Management during Operations and After Mine Closure This sub-section contains forward-looking information related to waste and tailings disposal, site monitoring and water management for the Project. The material factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the conclusions, estimates, designs, forecasts or projections in the forward-looking information include any significant differences from one or more of the material factors or assumptions that were set forth in this sub-section including waste disposal volumes increase from historical values and predicted values, that regulatory framework is unchanged during the Study period, and no unforeseen environmental, social or community events disrupt timely approvals. CMT’s environmental controls are related to monitoring the quality of wastewater, surface and groundwater and air, as well as waste management. 17.2.1 Effluents Wastewater from Site operations is discharged into the tailings dams. Sewage and oily effluents are treated in specific systems before being discharged into the tailings dams. Mosaic monitors wastewater quality at CMT in the following locations:  Oil/water separators / oily water treatment plants: 9 locations. Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 17-4  Sanitary sewage (septic tanks): 9 locations.  Outlet of tailing dams and dikes: 11 locations. Monitoring results from June 2014 to November 2021 were available for review (file: Gerenciador_Monitoramentos_Ambientais-CMT (1).xlsm) for 7 locations corresponding to wastewater discharge from tailings dams and 1 location corresponding to the discharge of an oil/water separator. Results from 2020 and 2021 indicated in general compliance with the applicable wastewater discharge standards. 17.2.2 Waste Management Mosaic has a Solid Waste Management Plan at CMT that defines procedures for collection, temporary storage and final destination of wastes. Structures for temporary storage of wastes at CMT include a deposit (warehouse) for hazardous wastes including cover, masonry walls, concrete floor and drainage system directed to a sump. (MOSAIC, 2020). The Reserve Audit carried out in 2014 considered the need to develop a more detailed waste (overburden) management plan, because the waste management plan did not indicate a clear direction for waste capacity after 2030. According to information provided by Mosaic, CMT is developing studies to address this issue. 17.2.3 Air Quality Mosaic monitors black smoke from equipment at CMT. In case of concentrations above the air quality standard, the equipment is sent for maintenance, and it is authorized to restart operation only after complying with standard. Air quality monitoring in the CMT region is not currently part of its environmental monitoring programs and is not a condition established in the operating permits issued to CMT. Steps are being taken to improve air quality monitoring. 17.2.4 Surface and Groundwater Quality Mosaic monitors surface water quality at CMT in 444 locations with a frequency ranging from weekly to annual (1 location weekly, 10 locations monthly, 8 locations quarterly; 20 locations biannual and 5 locations annual). Regarding the content of phosphorus in surface waters around CMT, a background study supports the establishment of a concentration of 0.344 mg/L as the maximum permissible concentration for phosphorus in surface waters. Monitoring results from January 2016 to November 2021 were available for review (file: Gerenciador_Monitoramentos_Ambientais-CMT (1).xlsm). Monitoring results from 2021 and 2022 indicated in general compliance with the applicable surface water quality standards. Mosaic monitors groundwater quality at CMT in 41 locations with a frequency ranging from weekly to annually (1 location weekly, 4 locations monthly, 34 locations biannually and 2 locations annually). These locations include piezometers, groundwater abstraction wells and wells used for lowering the water table in the mine. Monitoring results from 2021 were available for review (file: Gerenciador_Monitoramentos_Ambientais-CMT (1).xlsm; Note: the file did not include results for some locations) and indicated in general compliance with the applicable groundwater quality standards. 17.2.5 Tailings Management and Monitoring CMT has six tailings dams: Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira


 
17-5  Dam BA3: The BA-3 Dam was built in 1980 in order to contain any solids that may be spilled by the BL-1 dam, controlling its reservoir and preventing the emission of suspended solids into the Potreiro stream, located downstream.  Dam BD2: It was built in 1979 by Fosfértil, former owner of the Tapira Mining Complex, using local soil compacted by traffic, with the purpose of containing solids carried by the beneficiation plant's discharges.  Dam BD5: It is a structure designed to contain the solids carried from the beneficiation plant and mine area and the solids that may not eventually be contained in the BR dam area, located upstream of this structure. It was built in 1987, with the risings in 1995, 1999, and 2012.  Dam BR: It was built in 1980 and it is located at the head of the Boa Vista stream and upstream from the BD5 dam. The coordinates of the structure are 308,051.7005E and 7,805,242.3100N (datum SIRGAS 2000). The BR Dam was conceived with the purpose of containing tailings. The reservoir occupies a considerable portion of the basin's drainage area, being sectioned in half by the tailings thrown at its left abutment.  Dam BL-1: According to document No. BL1 43-70-2020 April 1977, the initial project of the BL1 Dam was prepared by the companies Paulo Abib Eng. and WA Waler & Associates, in 1977, with the purpose of storing of the phosphate plant's tailings, owned by the company Mineração Vale do Paranaíba SA According to this document, an initial dike was designed, in compacted soil, and with a crest at El. 1,160.0 m. A rockfill dike was also built, located about 237 m downstream of the initial dike, with a crest at an elevation of 1,145.0 m. It was bult in 1977, with risings concluded in 2008, 2015, 2019 and a reinforcement and rising concluded in 2021.  Dam BRI: It was built in a single stage in 1978, with the purpose of storing and capturing water for use in the Phosphate ore beneficiation process. 17.2.5.1 Corporate Policy and Guidelines All documentation regarding the tailings dams is included in the Dam Safety Plan (PSB) of each structure on the SGPSB - Management System for Dam Safety Plan platform. The existing documentation is consistent with the requirements of Brazilian dam safety legislation: Law 12,334 of September 20, 2010; ANM Ordinance No. 70,389, of May 17, 2017, Resolution 4, of February 2019, and Resolution 32, of May 2020, both established by National Mining Agency (ANM in the Portuguese acronym). 17.2.5.2 Tailings Characterization The ore beneficiation in Tapira’s unit generates slurry, ultrafine and conventional tailings, in addition to magnetite. Conventional tailings and magnetite are stored in the BR dam, while the ultrafine tailings and slurry are pumped into the BL1 dam. The system also includes dams for containing solids and capturing water. The BD2 dam aims to contain solids from the beneficiation plant; however, its reservoir is silted up; therefore, the mine solids pass through a channel directly to the BD-5 dam reservoir, located downstream. The BD5 dam contains the solids from the beneficiation plant, mine area and the solids that may not be contained in the BR dam, located upstream. Finally, BA3 contains solids that can be poured through the BL-1 dam, avoiding the emission of suspended solids into the Potreiro stream, located downstream. Table 17.1 considers the parameters of solids density and dry density of the types of tailings produced. Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 17-6 Table 17.1: Tailings Parameters Material Solids density (t/m³) Dry density (t/m³) Magnetite 4.4 2.5 Slurry + ultrafine tailings 2.8 1.1 Conventional Tailings 3.2 1.5 17.2.5.3 Operations and monitoring for compliance The BA3, BD2, BD5, BR, BL-1, and BRI Operating Manual was updated in 2019. The geotechnical monitoring of Tapira’s tailings dams includes field inspections and measurements of the installed instrumentation equipment. Field visual inspections are performed every two weeks by traversing the structures looking for anomalies that may impact the dam integrity and its associated structures, while the readings of the instruments follow a specific frequency for each type of instrument installed. Both activities are executed by the Mosaic technical team, as requested in the current Brazilian legislation. The data obtained during field inspections are recorded on a Regular Inspection Sheet (FIR) every two weeks, which is inserted in the SIGBAR Monitoring Plan. A monthly assessment is done by Geoconsultoria (owner of the SIGBAR Monitoring System) with the issuance of a technical report containing the readings performed and the instruments interpretation. All documentation generated by the information obtained through routine and regular inspections is inserted in the Dam Safety Plan (PSB) of each dam, located on the platform SGPSB - Management System for Dam Safety Plan. The Tapira site includes a dedicated monitoring room from which all Fertilizantes site impoundments are monitored via remote sensing devices and cameras. 17.2.5.4 Engineer of Record and Inspection Report Reviews The latest regular safety inspection reports available for the first semester of 2021 for the structures BA3 (WA12217211-1-GT-RTE-0019), BD2 (WA12217211-1-GT-RTE-0017), BD5 (WA12217211-1-GT-RTE-0018), BR (WA12217211-1-GT-RTE-0014), BL-1 (WA12217211-1-GT-RTE-0015) and BRI (WA12217211-1-GT-RTE- 0016) identified no issues that directly interfere with the stability of the structures. The Dam Regular Safety Inspection Report (RISR) is carried out with biannual frequency and a Periodic Security Review must occur every 3 years for structures classified with high potential damage associated (BR Dam) and 5 years for structures classified with medium potential damage associated (BM Dam). 17.2.5.5 Compliance Monitoring and Report Documentation The monitoring and control system for geotechnical parameters consists of monitoring the behavior of the structure in comparison to the expected behavior using data on pore pressures in the foundation and embankment, the reservoir’s water level, the drained flow, the movement and settlement of the foundation and embankment. For this purpose, in the currently operating structures, monitoring instruments were installed, using the SIGBAR management system, which is divided into modules, each covering an aspect related to the safety of dams. For all the structures there are documents that indicate levels to represent a normal, attention, alert or emergency situation for the installed instrumentation control. These documents were issued in 2016 for the structures BR, BL1, BRI, BD2, BD5, respectively, FF44CR05, 04, 06, 02, 03, and in 2004 for structure BA3 (FF42CR01). Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 17-7 The readings periodicity of the instruments was established in the operating manuals of the structures, all prepared by Mosaic itself between 2017 and 2019. The minimum frequency of readings of survey monuments is monthly, water level indicators, piezometers and flow meters are every two weeks, although it can be weekly in rainy seasons. The reservoir water level is read weekly. The pluviometry was not reported. All documentation regarding the tailings dams are included in the Dam Safety Plan (PSB) of each structure on the SGPSB - Management System for Dam Safety Plan platform. 17.2.5.6 Design Capacity A tailings disposal plan was prepared for BL1 considering the crest in EL. 1225 m, prepared by Walm in 2019 (WBH122-17-MOSC058-RTE-0002), which considered the generation of tailings between the years 2019 and 2054 detailed in Table 17.2. Table 17.2: Tailings Volume from the Production Plan (WBH122-17-MOSC058-RTE-0002, GEOCONSULTORIA, 2019) Period Slurry + Ultrafine Tailings (Mm³) Coarse Tailings (Mm³) Period Slurry + Ultrafine Tailings (Mm³) Coarse Tailings (Mm³) Jul-2019 149.70 111.88 2035 4,639.52 3,467.87 Aug-2019 276.71 206.80 2036 4,678.58 3,497.13 Sep-2019 246.69 184.38 2037 4,722.74 3,529.92 Oct-2019 414.50 309.81 2038 4,765.44 3,561.67 Nov-2019 400.20 299.13 2039 4,773.84 3,568.24 Dec-2019 413.60 309.13 2040 4,740.80 3,543.61 2020 4,576.10 3,420.27 2041 4,830.05 3,610.22 2021 4,584.40 3,426.62 2042 4,800.12 3,587.95 2022 4,570.17 3,416.04 2043 4,813.26 3,597.44 2023 4,547.90 3,399.25 2044 4,922.70 3,679.40 2024 4,599.52 3,437.84 2045 4,722.37 3,529.55 2025 4,798.66 3,586.49 2046 4,797.20 3,585.76 2026 4,718.36 3,526.63 2047 4,799.39 3,587.22 2027 4,702.66 3,514.95 2048 4,850.23 3,625.23 2028 4,759.10 3,557.15 2049 4,867.64 3,638.32 2029 4,762.89 3,559.85 2050 4,821.29 3,603.65 2030 4,819.46 3,602.19 2051 4,754.86 3,554.01 2031 4,837.71 3,616.06 2052 4,753.97 3,553.13 2032 4,921.24 3,678.30 2053 4,790.63 3,580.65 2033 4,819.83 3,602.55 2054 5,159.28 3,856.23 2034 4,673.10 3,492.69 Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 17-8 The document indicated that:  Coarse tailings: Launched by points distributed along the crest of the BL-1 Dam up to El. 1,225.00m, with a 1.0% emerged slope and 0.80% submerged, with a total launched volume of approximately 18,150,828 m³ .  Slurry + Ultrafine tailings: Launched by a single point located at the bottom of the reservoir of BL-1 dam up to El. 1225.36 m, with a 0.1% emerged and 0.80% submerged slope. The total volume launched was approximately 24,093,875 m³.  The total volume launched was approximately 42,244,703 m³. The dimension x area x volume curve from the beginning to the end of the layout is highlighted in Table 17.3. Table 17.3: Elevation x Volume x Area Curve of the BL-1 Dam Reservoir for the Initial and Final Occupancy Condition (WBH122-17-MOSC058-RTE-0002, GEOCONSULTORIA, 2019) Elevation (m) Initial area (10³ m²) Initial volume (10³ m²) Final area (10³ m²) Final volume (10³ m²) 1995 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1200 0.20 0.34 0.20 0.34 1205 12.05 26.14 12.05 26.14 1210 48.78 155.59 48.78 155.59 1215 1,359.01 3,236.40 100.86 506.99 1220 6,437.05 25,987.75 724.06 2,071.58 17.2.6 Water Management A hydrotechnical study concluded in 2019 for Mosaic (POTAMOS, 2019) presented as a general diagnosis of water use that CMT does not present a potential risk related to water supply. However, this study presented recommendations for improvements related to water management, such as the need to rectify the water use permits of the dams by changing the minimum flow rate, developing and implementing a water resources management system, conducting studies to assess the impact of mining operations on watercourses adjacent to the mine area, defining correct replacement flows; and improvements related to the monitoring system such as the daily reading of the residual flow in all dams as a necessary measure to meet the demands of the Water Management Agency (IGAM) that has intensified the inspection due to the critical period of hydrological recession in recent years in the State of Minas Gerais. The study also highlights the need to update the water balance of the industrial unit annually due to the frequent changes in the hydrological regime and the review of studies on water supply and availability in the basins in which CMT is located. The recommendations relating to piping facilities and flow meters are in progress to be implemented at CMT through Capex improvements over the next few years. Although water supply is not considered a risk for the CMT operation, the impacts of the existing water management practices on the surrounding areas can be considered a risk. Communities around the mine area have limited access to water resources and that access is directly influenced by CMT’s operations. There are already conflicts generally related to water availability in the area and CMT has a flow replacement system in three streams. Conflicts related to water use tend to increase in a context of changes in the hydrological regime due to climate change and greater control by the agencies responsible for the management of water resources. Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira


 
17-9 Near the CMT area there is a rural settlement called “Assentamento Fazenda Nova Bom Jardim” (Fazenda Nova Bom Jardim Settlement), an agrarian reform project of the Instituto Nacional de Colonização e Reforma Agrária - INCRA (National Institute of Colonization and Agrarian Reform). The settlement, adjacent to the CMT mine area, has 10 (ten) settled families that collect water from springs and local streams. Due to changes in water availability caused by lowering the water table within the mine pit, CMT provides the replacement of flows in Canoas, Cachoeira and Bálsamo streams. 17.3 Permitting Requirements This sub-section contains forward-looking information related to permitting requirements for the Project. The material factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the conclusions, estimates, designs, forecasts or projections in the forward-looking information include any significant differences from one or more of the material factors or assumptions that were set forth in this sub-section including regulatory framework is unchanged for Study period and no unforeseen environmental, social or community events disrupt timely approvals. The current Brazilian legislation generally includes the following steps in the environmental permitting process:  Preliminary License (Licença Previa – LP): authorizes the permitting process based on the assessment of the environmental feasibility of an activity. In the case of mining operations usually requires the presentation of an ESIA.  Installation License (Licença de Instalação – LI): authorizes the installation of the structures that will be used for the activity.  Operation License (Licença de Operação - LO: authorizes the operation of the activity. Table 17.4 presents environmental licenses and other permits for CMT. All environmental permits were still valid at the time this report was prepared or had its renewal application filed in the Environmental Agency within the legal deadline; according to the Brazilian legislation, in the latter case the permits are still valid until a final decision of the Environmental Agency is provided. Table 17.4: Environmental Authorizations for Tapira Authorization(a) Number Description Issued on Validity Preliminary and Installation License 098/2017 Raising tailings dam BL-1 to elevation 1225 m. August 11, 2017 August 11, 2023 Preliminary, Installation and Operation License 4683/2020 Deposits T2 and T4 October 30, 2020 October 30, 2030 Preliminary, Installation and Operation License 076/2021 Deposit E6 July 30, 2021 July 30, 2031 Preliminary, Installation and Operation License 083/2021 First expansion of the deposit T4 August 27, 2021 August 27, 2031 Operation License 194/2010 (135/2020) Operation of CMT, including exploitation of phosphate ore, ultrafine unit, tailings dam and ore pipeline. November 12, 2010 November 12, 2016(c) Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 17-10 Authorization(a) Number Description Issued on Validity Operation License 138/2017 Operation of CMT: open pit mine, beneficiation plant November 14, 2017 February 10, 2018 (d) Operation License 072/2015 Fuel stations at the mine and near the central office December 13, 2013 December 13, 2019(e) Operation License 118/2011 Operation of expansion of waste rock pile E1 August 12, 2011 August 12, 2015(f) Operation License 055/2018 Tailings dam BL-1 up to the elevation 1220 m. May 10, 2018 May 10, 2028 Corrective Operation License 097/2017 Raising tailings dam BL-1 from 1215.0 m to 1217.5 m August 11, 2017 August 11, 2027 Simplified Environmental License 182/2018 Expansion of the fuel station at the mine October 3, 2018 October 3, 2028 Water grant 00997/2010 Lowering water table at the mine: 720 m³/h; 24 h/day; 12 months/year December 12, 2013 December 12, 2015 (g) Water grant 1906074/2019 Groundwater abstraction at the mine area: 7 m³/h; 18 h/day, 365 days/year. August 31, 2019 August 31, 2024 Water grant 1904333/2019 Groundwater abstraction near the water treatment plant 6.6 m³/h; 10 h/day; 365 days/year. June 14, 2019 June 14, 2024 Water grant 1905254/2019 Groundwater abstraction near the water tank (tower): 11.82 m³/h; 18 h/day, 365 days/year. July 30, 2019 July 30, 2024 Water grant 01376/2009 Water dam with abstraction – Ribeirão do Inferno: 917 L/s (3301 m³/h); 24 h/day; 12 months/year. Maximum monthly volumes allowed: 245,609 m³ in January, Marco, May, July, August, October and December, 221,840 m³ in February and 237,686 in April, June, September and November. BR. Requires to maintain residual flow of 70% of Q7,10.(b) December 12, 2013 June 6, 2014(h) Water grant 01375/2010 Tailings dam BR. Requires to maintain residual flow of 70% of Q7,10. December 12, 2013 May 19, 2015(i) Water grant 03380/2017 Tailings dam BL-1. Requires to maintain residual flow of 100% of Q7,10. October 10, 2017 December 11, 2023 Water grant 01376/2010 Sediment retention dike DB5. Requires to maintain residual flow of 70% of Q7,10. December 12, 2013 May 19, 2015(j) Water grant 1904383/2019 Channeling tributary to Boa Vista stream. June 19, 2019 June 19, 2024 Water grant 1904693/2019 Water dam in the Protreiro stream with no abstraction July 18, 2019 July 18, 2024 Water grant 1906017/2019 Groundwater abstraction near the October 26, 2019 October 26, 2029 Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 17-11 Authorization(a) Number Description Issued on Validity medical clinic: 1.2 m³/h; 18 h/day, 365 days/year. Certification on insignificant water use 275078/2021 Dike at the mine – T4 deposit July 23, 2021 July 23, 2024 Authorization for environmental intervention LO 135/2020 APU- 433750/2020 Removal of vegetation for increasing the safety buffer around TC3 November 28, 2020 November 28, 2021 Authorization for environmental intervention LO 135/2020 APU- 119890/2021 Removal of vegetation for expansion of the mine: fronts 4 and 5 May 14, 2021 May 14, 2023 Authorization for environmental intervention 138/2017 APU- 1972601/2013 Removal of vegetation for drilling works February 20, 2012 February 10, 2018(k) Authorization for environmental intervention 138/2017 APU- 1168053/2017 Removal of vegetation for expansion of the mine: fronts 2, 4 and 4 November 14, 2017 February 10, 2018(l) Notes: (a) Licenses, autorizations and water grants issued by SEMAD (Secretaria de Estado de Meio Ambiente e Desenvolvimento Sustentável – Minas Gerais State Environment Regulator). (b) Q7,10: average flow rate of seven days and ten years of recurrence (c) Renewal request was filed on April 28, 2014, within the deadline required in the license. (d) Renewal request was filed on April 28, 2014, within the deadline required in the license. (e) Renewal request was filed on August 12, 2019, within the deadline required in the license. (f) Renewal request was filed on April 28, 2014, within the deadline required in the license. (g) Renewal request was filed on December 8, 2014, within the deadline required in the license. (h) Renewal request was filed on April 16, 2014, within the deadline required in the license. (i) Renewal request was filed on October 28, 2014, within the deadline required in the license. (j) Renewal request was filed on October 28, 2014, within the deadline required in the license. (k) Renewal request was filed on February 9, 2018, within the deadline required in the license. (l) Renewal request was filed on February 5, 2018, within the deadline required in the license. 17.4 Plans, Negotiations, or Agreements with Local Individuals, or Groups This sub-section contains forward-looking information related to plans, negotiations or agreements with local individuals or groups for the Project. The material factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the conclusions, estimates, designs, forecasts or projections in the forward-looking information include any significant differences from one or more of the material factors or assumptions that were set forth in this sub- section including that regulatory framework is unchanged for Study period; no unforeseen environmental, social or community events disrupt timely approvals. The Mosaic Institute is the social pillar of Mosaic Fertilizantes whose objectives are to promote mutual, sustainable development in the surrounding communities based on regional reality, operational activity, social indices, propensities, and the needs and wants of the inhabitants. The Institute's activities are based on four platforms: Water, Food, Education, and Local Development. The programs developed by the Mosaic Institute at CMT include (GOLDER, 2021):  Food: The actions aim, among others, to promote training in healthy eating, food safety and combating waste. Food donations, implementation of school gardens, lectures and training on topics related to healthy Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 17-12 eating, food safety, combating waste, as well as other mobilization and social engagement actions are carried out. In 2019 the program involved 290 direct beneficiaries in Tapira and 1,160 indirect beneficiaries.  Water: The Water Notice is a project that launches social competition notices for the selection of projects that seek to value and encourage water resource management practices, and preservation actions capable of ensuring the availability of water for present and future generations. In 2020, the second edition of the project was launched, which included twelve initiatives spread across several cities where Mosaic operates. The projects included are developed by civil society organizations and higher education and research institutions; each project will receive up to R$ 45,000 during the implementation of the proposal.  Education:  The School Project is developed through the Public Management program, through the elaboration of a socioeconomic diagnosis and proposition of actions together with local public managers. Among the actions carried out in Tapira, the program involved the elaboration of actions that have an impact on education, with the mapping of potential sites and receiving educational institutions. Through the mobilization and articulation with local leaders and public authorities, a solution laboratory is proposed. In Tapira, the program carried out actions on two fronts, involving 20 municipal employees.  The “Mosaic Educa” Program has as its main objective the strengthening of basic education through the improvement and reorganization of structures, concomitant with the training of educational managers and students, in school management and in encouraging reading. The program already has actions in the municipalities of Paranaguá, Catalão, Uberaba and Candeias. With four schools involved, the Mosaic Educa Program has 4,800 benefited students, in addition to 350 trained professionals, who benefit around 200 schools. Indirectly, 2,200 families are served through the program to strengthen basic education. In Tapira, it will be implemented after the completion of the construction works for the Municipal Children's Education Center in the municipality. 17.5 Descriptions of any Commitments to Ensure Local Procurement and Hiring In addition to the Mosaic Institute initiatives, the Environmental Education and Citizenship Program (PEAC in the Portuguese acronym) includes a series of actions to meet the local residents’ needs and works to promote educational actions with a focus on environmental education for both internal and external audiences. It also plays a role in publicizing environmental legislation and being responsible for creating opportunities for discussions on the local realities of related topics. 17.6 Mine Closure Plans This sub-section contains forward-looking information related to mine closure for the Project. The material factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the conclusions, estimates, designs, forecasts or projections in the forward-looking information include any significant differences from one or more of the material factors or assumptions that were set forth in this sub-section including prevailing economic conditions continue such that unit costs are as estimated in constant (or real) dollar terms, projected labor and equipment productivity levels are appropriate at time of closure and estimated infrastructure and mining facilities are appropriate at the time of closure. Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira


 
17-13 CMT’s Closure Plan was updated in 2020/2021 (GOLDER, 2021) and it was split into two volumes, as follows: 1. Volume I: Closure plan based on the current configuration of CMT (end of 2020). 2. Volume II: Supplementary information related to CMT closure based on its final configuration (2060). Based on a qualitative analysis of post-closure land use alternatives, rehabilitation / revegetation with native species was selected as CMT. The closure actions included:  Open pits: erosion control, surface drainage, revegetation.  Waste rock piles: erosion control, surface drainage, and revegetation.  Waste rock piles E1, E2, T1, and T2 were considered as already closed and no addition actions were proposed for the closure of these structures.  Sediment retention dikes:  BA3: Removal of the dike and sediments, grading, surface drainage and revegetation.  BD2: Grading, surface drainage and revegetation.  BD5: Water removal, lowering the crest of the dike, filling up the reservoir with material from the embankment, grading, surface drainage, revegetation.  Industrial and administrative areas: dismantling and demolition, surface grading, surface drainage and revegetation.  Storage yards: Demolition of concrete floor (where exists), grading and revegetation.  Ponds: Grading and revegetation.  Tailings storage facilities:  Tailings dam BL1: Water removal, grading the reservoir surface, replacement of the concrete spillway by a rock filled spillway, surface drainage, revegetation.  Tailings dam BR: Water removal, lowering the crest of the embankment, filling up the reservoir with material from the embankment, grading, replacement of the concrete spillway by a rock filled spillway, surface drainage, revegetation. Lake 3 on the reservoir will be maintained and the water level will be controlled by surface drainage system to be implemented.  Magnetite pile: Grading, surface drainage, cover with soil and overburden, revegetation.  Water dam: Dismantling and removal of equipment and structures, water removal, removal of the dike, geomorphic adjustment of the reservoir to restore the former river channel, revegetation.  Ore pipeline: Removal of all aerial pipeline and its support structures (underground pipeline would not be removed), revegetation of areas with exposed soil after removal of the pipeline. Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 17-14 In the Conceptual Closure Plan (2021), the closure cost for current configuration (Volume 1) was estimated at R$ 310.7 M, (current value - base 2020). The closure cost for final configuration (Volume 2) as not available at the time this report was prepared. In 2020, an Asset Retirement Obligation (ARO) was prepared by ERM. In the report the total estimated cost to address ARO at CMT was R$ 292.2 M. 17.7 Qualified Person’s Opinion on the Adequacy of Current Plans to Address Any Issues Related to Environmental Compliance, Permitting, and Local Individuals, or Groups It is the Golder QP’s opinion that the current Mosaic’s actions and plans are appropriate to address the identified issues related to environmental compliance, permitting, relationship with local individuals or groups, and tailings management. Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 18-1 18.0 CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS This section contains forward-looking information related to capital and operating cost estimates for the Project. The material factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the conclusions, estimates, designs, forecasts or projections in the forward-looking information include any significant differences from one or more of the material factors or assumptions that were set forth in this section including prevailing economic conditions continue such that unit costs are as estimated in constant (or real) dollar terms, projected labor and equipment productivity levels and that contingency is sufficient to account for changes in material factors or assumptions. Capital costs includes sustaining and expansion costs and were estimated using available current costs, historical averages, engineering studies and budgetary allocations. Therefore, the capital expenditures have been estimated to a PFS level and its attendant accuracy and contingency levels. Operating costs included compensation for haulage effort as haulage distance varied throughout the mine life. Fixed and variable costs were developed for the following cost centers:  Mining  Beneficiation The operating cost approach allows for the application of well-known historical consumption rates for consumables along with the ability to use current quotes or estimates for the unit costs for consumables, which results in the ability to project operating cost to a PFS level for the cost centers noted above. Primary mine equipment was leased; and therefore, their costs are included in the mine operating cost estimate. The LOM operating cost estimates for the Tapira operation are summarized in Table 18.1 which includes costs for Sales, General and Administrative (SG&A) and expenses related to Costs of Goods Sold (COGS). Table 18.1: Total LOM Capital, Operating, and Other Costs (R$ Millions) Note: Costs are rounded to the nearest million R$. Rounding as required by the reporting guidelines may result in apparent summation differences. Other Operating Costs includes legal expenses, Instituto Mosaic (community relations), health insurance for retirees, legal contingency, and others. Other costs, include SG&A fixed cost, and other COGS (Facilities Idling, R&D, turnaround, inventory, etc.). LOM Total Capital 3,804 Operating 16,477 Mining 8,356 Processing 8,121 Other Operating Costs 426 Other Costs (SG&A and CoGS) 1,261 Total 21,968 Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 18-2 18.1 Risks Associated with Estimation Methods It should be noted that at the time that the capital costs were prepared when Brazil was experiencing high inflation rates and is, therefore, considered a risk to the capital cost estimates. Beneficiation plant improvement capital will be subject to engineering uncertainty. The capital estimates are done to a PFS level, which is sufficient to support Mineral Reserve estimation. Beneficiation sustaining capital would be replacement of major components and is expected to have minimal risk as the equipment being replaced is well known for cost, productivity, and application and is based on Mosaic historical purchase prices. Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira


 
19-1 19.0 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS This section contains forward-looking information related to economic analysis for the Project. The material factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the conclusions, estimates, designs, forecasts or projections in the forward-looking information include any significant differences from one or more of the material factors or assumptions that were set forth in this sub-section including estimated capital and operating costs, project schedule and approvals timing, availability of funding, projected commodities markets and prices. 19.1 Principal Assumptions  Sales price: The price and value of phosphate rock produced by Tapira was developed based on a comparison of available gross margin compared to the cost of phosphate rock production at CMT. See Section 16.0 for additional information on pricing methodology.  Production: The total phosphate ore production schedule for Tapira is based on supplying about 69.3 M tonnes of conventional concentrate, and 5.4 M tonnes of Ultrafine concentrate over the LOM.  FX Rate: Golder converted the DCF from Brazilian Reais to US Dollars, at an exchange rate of R$4.69 = US$1.00.  Inflation: No inflation was applied to costs or revenues.  Diesel Prices: The prices range from R$2.55/L for S-500, and R$2.58/L for S-10.  Discount Rate: A discount rate of 11.69% was used to account for cost of capital and project risk. 19.2 Cashflow Forecast The cashflow for production from the Tapira Mine is shown in Table 19.1 in R$. Table 19.2 represents the cashflow in US$. An exchange rate of R$4.69 = US$1.00 was applied. Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 Complexo Mineração de Tapira 19-2 Table 19.1: Cashflow (real 2021 R$ terms) Note: Costs are rounded to the nearest thousand R$. Rounding as required by the reporting guidelines may result in apparent summation differences. 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 Sales Price (R$ / Tonne) 336.00 336.00 336.00 336.00 336.00 336.00 336.00 336.00 336.00 336.00 336.00 336.00 Production (000's Tonnes) 1,910 2,042 2,078 2,073 2,092 2,047 2,047 2,048 2,047 2,150 2,150 2,047 FX Rate (BRL to USD) 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 Inflation (0%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diesel Price: S-500 (R$/L) 2.55 2.55 2.55 2.55 2.55 2.55 2.55 2.55 2.55 2.55 2.55 2.55 Diesel Price: S-10 (R$/L) 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 Discount Rate 11.69% 11.69% 11.69% 11.69% 11.69% 11.69% 11.69% 11.69% 11.69% 11.69% 11.69% 11.69% Concentrate 641,791 686,233 698,156 696,629 702,960 687,913 687,902 687,972 687,852 722,442 722,398 687,963 Other Revenue Sales Revenue (Tapira Mine) 641,791 686,233 698,156 696,629 702,960 687,913 687,902 687,972 687,852 722,442 722,398 687,963 Mining 312,466 299,454 304,558 293,535 289,529 288,782 286,464 281,316 277,270 237,089 245,588 245,280 Processing 214,639 223,198 225,493 225,200 226,419 223,520 223,518 223,528 223,504 230,166 230,160 223,527 Other Operating Costs 11,833 11,833 11,833 11,833 11,833 11,833 11,833 11,833 11,833 11,833 11,833 11,833 Resource Taxes, Royalties and Other Government Levies or Interests 10,542 10,453 10,601 10,375 10,319 10,246 10,200 10,097 10,015 9,345 9,515 9,376 Cash Costs of Production (Excluding Taxes) 538,938 534,485 541,884 530,568 527,781 524,135 521,815 516,677 512,607 479,088 487,581 480,640 Allocated Costs Other Costs 35,018 35,018 35,018 35,018 35,018 35,018 35,018 35,018 35,018 35,018 35,018 35,018 Income Taxes Income Tax 8,228 15,177 16,678 16,067 19,487 15,362 15,480 15,403 15,911 29,860 27,676 21,741 ARO Reclamation and Closure 13,630 10,083 101 76 1 - 2,886 5,365 7,627 34,362 10,581 575 Capital Expenditures Capital Expenditures 190,326 154,846 161,843 160,258 138,269 53,682 164,671 45,224 41,250 44,032 43,262 44,710 Working Capital Net Change in Working Capital (22,706) 3,463 (128) 1,291 758 (539) 285 636 493 6,391 (1,047) (1,406) Cash Flow Annual Net Cash Flow (132,184) (77,293) (67,841) (57,024) (28,673) 50,010 (62,452) 59,552 64,931 84,346 109,812 97,309 Tapira 00 0' s R$ Revenue Costs of Production Assumptions 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 Sales Price (R$ / Tonne) 336.00 336.00 336.00 336.00 336.00 336.00 336.00 336.00 336.00 336.00 336.00 336.00 Production (000's Tonnes) 2,047 2,150 2,070 2,140 2,149 2,114 2,113 2,150 2,104 2,019 2,150 2,112 FX Rate (BRL to USD) 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 Inflation (0%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diesel Price: S-500 (R$/L) 2.55 2.55 2.55 2.55 2.55 2.55 2.55 2.55 2.55 2.55 2.55 2.55 Diesel Price: S-10 (R$/L) 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 Discount Rate 11.69% 11.69% 11.69% 11.69% 11.69% 11.69% 11.69% 11.69% 11.69% 11.69% 11.69% 11.69% Concentrate 687,939 722,380 695,384 718,916 722,024 710,244 709,883 722,354 706,912 678,377 722,390 709,577 Other Revenue Sales Revenue (Tapira Mine) 687,939 722,380 695,384 718,916 722,024 710,244 709,883 722,354 706,912 678,377 722,390 709,577 Mining 230,117 230,552 228,298 228,720 225,597 230,998 235,314 235,235 231,096 201,896 205,241 205,835 Processing 223,523 230,157 224,957 229,492 230,090 227,822 227,752 230,154 227,179 221,680 230,159 227,693 Other Operating Costs 11,833 11,833 11,833 11,833 11,833 11,833 11,833 11,833 11,833 11,833 11,833 11,833 Resource Taxes, Royalties and Other Government Levies or Interests 9,073 9,214 9,065 9,164 9,114 9,176 9,261 9,308 9,166 8,472 8,708 8,671 Cash Costs of Production (Excluding Taxes) 465,474 472,542 465,089 470,046 467,520 470,653 474,899 477,222 470,109 435,410 447,233 445,361 Allocated Costs Other Costs 35,018 35,018 35,018 35,018 35,018 35,018 35,018 35,018 35,018 35,018 35,018 35,018 Income Taxes Income Tax 24,594 28,792 23,683 26,876 26,985 22,740 20,563 21,347 18,347 18,463 23,377 18,312 ARO Reclamation and Closure - - - - - - - - - - - - Capital Expenditures Capital Expenditures 147,565 122,802 56,890 101,778 104,876 102,326 103,176 103,493 104,844 104,986 175,778 101,813 Working Capital Net Change in Working Capital 1,863 1,391 (855) 934 514 (1,158) (546) 533 (138) 2,395 1,434 (610) Cash Flow Annual Net Cash Flow 4,353 52,622 106,494 75,101 77,998 71,490 67,512 75,434 69,567 73,635 30,842 101,014 Tapira 00 0' s R$ Revenue Costs of Production Assumptions 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 Total/ Average Sales Price (R$ / Tonne) 336.00 336.00 336.00 336.00 336.00 336.00 336.00 336.00 336.00 336.00 336.00 336.00 336.00 Production (000's Tonnes) 2,150 2,047 2,150 2,137 2,047 2,099 2,099 2,117 2,048 2,050 1,834 1,863 74,689 FX Rate (BRL to USD) 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 Inflation (0%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diesel Price: S-500 (R$/L) 2.55 2.55 2.55 2.55 2.55 2.55 2.55 2.55 2.55 2.55 2.55 2.55 2.55 Diesel Price: S-10 (R$/L) 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 Discount Rate 11.69% 11.69% 11.69% 11.69% 11.69% 11.69% 11.69% 11.69% 11.69% 11.69% 11.69% 11.69% 11.69% Concentrate 722,387 687,683 722,353 718,021 687,944 705,167 705,130 711,275 688,127 688,773 616,270 625,985 25,095,705 Other Revenue Sales Revenue (Tapira Mine) 722,387 687,683 722,353 718,021 687,944 705,167 705,130 711,275 688,127 688,773 616,270 625,985 25,095,705 Mining 205,744 206,852 208,039 184,238 186,583 185,004 187,112 173,913 179,239 187,308 178,558 223,571 8,356,391 Processing 230,158 223,477 230,153 229,315 223,524 226,841 226,836 228,020 223,561 223,687 209,715 221,812 8,120,631 Other Operating Costs 11,833 11,833 11,833 11,833 11,833 11,833 11,833 11,833 11,833 11,833 11,833 11,833 425,991 Resource Taxes, Royalties and Other Government Levies or Interests 8,718 8,607 8,764 8,271 8,202 8,237 8,279 8,039 8,056 8,220 7,765 8,908 329,540 Cash Costs of Production (Excluding Taxes) 447,735 442,163 450,025 425,386 421,940 423,679 425,782 413,766 414,633 422,828 400,107 457,216 16,903,013 Allocated Costs Other Costs 35,018 35,018 35,018 35,018 35,018 35,018 35,018 35,018 35,018 35,018 35,018 35,018 1,260,638 Income Taxes Income Tax 18,647 10,781 14,093 15,995 7,780 7,750 3,724 3,374 - - - - 573,292 ARO Reclamation and Closure - - - - - - - - - 140 9,844 254,564 600,723 Capital Expenditures Capital Expenditures 101,964 100,506 106,593 106,224 106,256 101,950 99,607 100,767 102,922 101,222 103,770 99,915 (3,804,393) Working Capital Net Change in Working Capital 549 (1,592) 1,308 2,745 (1,550) 916 (261) 1,881 (1,625) (965) (1,963) 7,310 - Cash Flow Annual Net Cash Flow 109,756 92,201 106,552 124,381 110,297 127,617 132,982 148,431 129,125 122,311 61,729 (236,946) 1,874,994 Tapira 00 0' s R$ Revenue Costs of Production Assumptions SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 Complexo Mineração de Tapira 19-3 Table 19.2: Cashflow (real 2021 USD terms) Note: Costs are rounded to the nearest thousand US$. Rounding as required by the reporting guidelines may result in apparent summation differences. 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 Sales Price (USD / Tonne) 71.64 71.64 71.64 71.64 71.64 71.64 71.64 71.64 71.64 71.64 71.64 71.64 Production (000's Tonnes) 1,910 2,042 2,078 2,073 2,092 2,047 2,047 2,048 2,047 2,150 2,150 2,047 FX Rate (BRL to USD) 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 Inflation (0%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diesel Price: S-500 (USD/gal) 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06 Diesel Price: S-10 (USD/gal) 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 Discount Rate 11.69% 11.69% 11.69% 11.69% 11.69% 11.69% 11.69% 11.69% 11.69% 11.69% 11.69% 11.69% Concentrate 136,842 146,318 148,860 148,535 149,885 146,676 146,674 146,689 146,664 154,039 154,029 146,687 Other Revenue Sales Revenue (Tapira Mine) 136,842 146,318 148,860 148,535 149,885 146,676 146,674 146,689 146,664 154,039 154,029 146,687 Mining 66,624 63,849 64,938 62,587 61,733 61,574 61,080 59,982 59,119 50,552 52,364 52,298 Processing 45,765 47,590 48,079 48,017 48,277 47,659 47,659 47,661 47,655 49,076 49,075 47,660 Other Operating Costs 2,523 2,523 2,523 2,523 2,523 2,523 2,523 2,523 2,523 2,523 2,523 2,523 Resource Taxes, Royalties and Other Government Levies or Interests 2,248 2,229 2,260 2,212 2,200 2,185 2,175 2,153 2,135 1,993 2,029 1,999 Cash Costs of Production (Excluding Taxes) 114,912 113,963 115,540 113,128 112,533 111,756 111,261 110,166 109,298 102,151 103,962 102,482 Allocated Costs Other Costs 7,466 7,466 7,466 7,466 7,466 7,466 7,466 7,466 7,466 7,466 7,466 7,466 Income Taxes Income Tax 1,754 3,236 3,556 3,426 4,155 3,275 3,301 3,284 3,393 6,367 5,901 4,636 ARO Reclamation and Closure 2,906 2,150 21 16 0 - 615 1,144 1,626 7,327 2,256 123 Capital Expenditures Capital Expenditures 40,581 33,016 34,508 34,170 29,482 11,446 35,111 9,643 8,795 9,388 9,224 9,533 Working Capital Net Change in Working Capital (4,841) 738 (27) 275 162 (115) 61 136 105 1,363 (223) (300) Cash Flow Annual Net Cash Flow (28,184) (16,480) (14,465) (12,159) (6,114) 10,663 (13,316) 12,698 13,844 17,984 23,414 20,748 Tapira 00 0' s US D Revenue Costs of Production Assumptions 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 Sales Price (USD / Tonne) 71.64 71.64 71.64 71.64 71.64 71.64 71.64 71.64 71.64 71.64 71.64 71.64 Production (000's Tonnes) 2,047 2,150 2,070 2,140 2,149 2,114 2,113 2,150 2,104 2,019 2,150 2,112 FX Rate (BRL to USD) 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 Inflation (0%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diesel Price: S-500 (USD/gal) 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06 Diesel Price: S-10 (USD/gal) 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 Discount Rate 11.69% 11.69% 11.69% 11.69% 11.69% 11.69% 11.69% 11.69% 11.69% 11.69% 11.69% 11.69% Concentrate 146,682 154,026 148,269 153,287 153,950 151,438 151,361 154,020 150,727 144,643 154,028 151,296 Other Revenue Sales Revenue (Tapira Mine) 146,682 154,026 148,269 153,287 153,950 151,438 151,361 154,020 150,727 144,643 154,028 151,296 Mining 49,066 49,158 48,678 48,768 48,102 49,253 50,173 50,157 49,274 43,048 43,761 43,888 Processing 47,660 49,074 47,965 48,932 49,060 48,576 48,561 49,073 48,439 47,267 49,074 48,549 Other Operating Costs 2,523 2,523 2,523 2,523 2,523 2,523 2,523 2,523 2,523 2,523 2,523 2,523 Resource Taxes, Royalties and Other Government Levies or Interests 1,935 1,965 1,933 1,954 1,943 1,957 1,975 1,985 1,954 1,806 1,857 1,849 Cash Costs of Production (Excluding Taxes) 99,248 100,755 99,166 100,223 99,684 100,352 101,258 101,753 100,236 92,838 95,359 94,960 Allocated Costs Other Costs 7,466 7,466 7,466 7,466 7,466 7,466 7,466 7,466 7,466 7,466 7,466 7,466 Income Taxes Income Tax 5,244 6,139 5,050 5,730 5,754 4,849 4,384 4,552 3,912 3,937 4,984 3,904 ARO Reclamation and Closure - - - - - - - - - - - - Capital Expenditures Capital Expenditures 31,464 26,184 12,130 21,701 22,362 21,818 21,999 22,067 22,355 22,385 37,479 21,708 Working Capital Net Change in Working Capital 397 296 (182) 199 110 (247) (116) 114 (30) 511 306 (130) Cash Flow Annual Net Cash Flow 928 11,220 22,707 16,013 16,631 15,243 14,395 16,084 14,833 15,700 6,576 21,538 Tapira 00 0' s US D Revenue Costs of Production Assumptions 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 Total/ Average Sales Price (USD / Tonne) 71.64 71.64 71.64 71.64 71.64 71.64 71.64 71.64 71.64 71.64 71.64 71.64 71.64 Production (000's Tonnes) 2,150 2,047 2,150 2,137 2,047 2,099 2,099 2,117 2,048 2,050 1,834 1,863 74,689 FX Rate (BRL to USD) 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 Inflation (0%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diesel Price: S-500 (USD/gal) 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06 Diesel Price: S-10 (USD/gal) 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 Discount Rate 11.69% 11.69% 11.69% 11.69% 11.69% 11.69% 11.69% 11.69% 11.69% 11.69% 11.69% 11.69% 11.69% Concentrate 154,027 146,628 154,020 153,096 146,683 150,355 150,348 151,658 146,722 146,860 131,401 133,472 5,350,897 Other Revenue Sales Revenue (Tapira Mine) 154,027 146,628 154,020 153,096 146,683 150,355 150,348 151,658 146,722 146,860 131,401 133,472 5,350,897 Mining 43,869 44,105 44,358 39,283 39,783 39,447 39,896 37,082 38,217 39,938 38,072 47,670 1,781,747 Processing 49,074 47,650 49,073 48,894 47,660 48,367 48,366 48,618 47,668 47,694 44,715 47,295 1,731,478 Other Operating Costs 2,523 2,523 2,523 2,523 2,523 2,523 2,523 2,523 2,523 2,523 2,523 2,523 90,830 Resource Taxes, Royalties and Other Government Levies or Interests 1,859 1,835 1,869 1,764 1,749 1,756 1,765 1,714 1,718 1,753 1,656 1,899 70,264 Cash Costs of Production (Excluding Taxes) 95,466 94,278 95,954 90,701 89,966 90,337 90,785 88,223 88,408 90,155 85,311 97,487 3,604,054 Allocated Costs Other Costs 7,466 7,466 7,466 7,466 7,466 7,466 7,466 7,466 7,466 7,466 7,466 7,466 268,793 Income Taxes Income Tax 3,976 2,299 3,005 3,411 1,659 1,653 794 719 - - - - 122,237 ARO Reclamation and Closure - - - - - - - - - 30 2,099 54,278 128,086 Capital Expenditures Capital Expenditures 21,741 21,430 22,728 22,649 22,656 21,738 21,238 21,486 21,945 21,582 22,126 21,304 (811,171) Working Capital Net Change in Working Capital 117 (339) 279 585 (330) 195 (56) 401 (347) (206) (419) 1,559 - Cash Flow Annual Net Cash Flow 23,402 19,659 22,719 26,521 23,518 27,210 28,354 31,648 27,532 26,079 13,162 (50,521) 399,785 Tapira 00 0' s US D Revenue Costs of Production Assumptions 19-4 As shown in Table 19.1 and Table 19.2, the following parameters were calculated or generated.  Sales Revenue: The total sales revenue of $5.35 B (R$25.1 B) only includes the concentrate sales. Other revenues do not apply for the Tapira mine. The LOM Internal Transfer Price of $71.64 (R$336.00) is calculated by setting the NPV to zero at the targeted discount rate of 11.69%.  Mining and Beneficiation Cost: The total mining and beneficiation cost were $1.8 B (R$8.3 B) and $1.7 B (R$8.1 B) respectively. See Section 18.0 for more details.  Other Operating Costs: The total other operating costs of $90.8 M (R$426 M) is a LOM sum of a fixed annual cost of $2.52 M (R$11.8 M), which includes legal expenses, Instituto Mosaic (community relations), health insurance for retirees, legal contingency, and others.  Royalties and other government Levies or Interests: For the Tapira property, there are no royalties for mining operations on site. CFEM (2%) is calculated based on the costs of rock production.  Cash Costs of Production: The total cash cost of production, excluding taxes, is $3.6 B (R$16.9 B).  Other costs: The other costs include a total cost of $125 M (R$587 M) for SG&A, which is an annual fixed cost of $3.48 M (R$16.3 M), and a total cost of $143.7 M (R$674 M) for Other COGs (Facilities Idling, R&D, turnaround, inventory, etc.), which is an annual fixed cost of $4.0 M (R$18.7 M).  Taxes: The tax rate varies, as shown in Table 19.3. Table 19.3: Tax Rate  Reclamation and Closure: The ARO costs continued until 2058. For simplicity, the cash flow is presented through the final year of mining with the ARO costs beyond the final year of mining accumulated, discounted (at the 11.69% discount rate) and included in the ARO cost in year 2057. The total discounted LOM cost of ARO outlays is $128.1 M (R$600.7 M).  Capital Expenditures: The total capital expenditures include sustaining and opportunity capital and is $811.2 M (R$3.8 B). See Section 18.0 for more details.  Net Change in Working Capital: The working capital is calculated by using total annual days, accounts receivable, accounts payable, and inventory. It is assumed that the remaining working capital is recovered in the final year which makes the sum of all calculated working capital equal to zero.  Cash Flow: The cashflow is calculated by subtracting all operating, taxes, capital costs, and ARO outlays from the total revenue.  Net Present Value: The NPV was set to zero, by setting the Internal Transfer Price to a constant value of $71.64 (R$336.00). Year 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027-2057 Tax Rate 22% 19% 21% 19% 22% 21% Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira


 
19-5 19.3 Sensitivity Analysis The sensitivity analysis was carried out by independently varying the price, operating cost, and capital cost. The results of the sensitivity analysis are shown in Table 19.4 and Table 19.5. Table 19.4: Sensitivity Analysis (Millions of Reais) Note: Costs are rounded to the nearest million R$. Rounding as required by the reporting guidelines may result in apparent summation differences. Table 19.5: Sensitivity Analysis (Millions of US Dollars) Note: Costs are rounded to the nearest million R$. Rounding as required by the reporting guidelines may result in apparent summation differences. Because the Mosaic phosphate mines are captive suppliers of phosphate concentrate to Mosaic Chemical Plant(s), market demand risk is negligible. Market price risk is dependent on the ability of Mosaic to pay the mining, beneficiation, and transport costs of the run-of-mine phosphate ore over the study period. Mosaic’s ability to cover the mining and beneficiation costs is dependent upon sales of fertilizer products produced from the Chemical Plant(s) and the Gross Margin Available (Total Revenue - Chemical Plant Operating Costs). Phosphate ore is economical if the price of concentrate is lower than the Gross Margin Available. Item -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% Price (1,007) (464) - 457 914 Operating Cost 662 331 - (335) (703) Capital 197 99 - (99) (197) Item -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% Price (215) (99) - 97 195 Operating Cost 141 71 - (71) (150) Capital 42 21 - (21) (42) Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 20-1 20.0 ADJACENT PROPERTIES There is no information used in this TRS that has been sourced from adjacent properties. The phosphate mineralization for this deposit is limited to the igneous complex, which is fully enclosed within the CMT mining permits. Due to this, material changes to the Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve estimates are not likely if adjacent property information is included in future estimates. Adjacent property mining occurs within the region, however within different igneous complexes. Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 Complexo Mineração de Tapira 21-1 21.0 OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION It is the opinion of the QPs that all material information has been stated in the above sections of this TRS. SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 Complexo Mineração de Tapira 22-1 22.0 INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS This section contains forward-looking information related to Mineral Resources and the LOM plan for the Project. The material factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the conclusions, estimates, designs, forecasts or projections in the forward-looking information include any significant differences from one or more of the material factors or assumptions that were forth in this sub-section including geological and grade interpretations and controls and assumptions and forecasts associated with establishing the prospects for economic extraction, grade continuity analysis and assumptions, Mineral Resource model tonnes and grade and mine design parameters, actual plant feed characteristics that are different from the historical operations or from samples tested to date, equipment and operational performance that yield different results from the historical operations and historical and current test work results, mining strategy and production rates, expected mine life and mining unit dimensions, prevailing economic conditions, commodity demand and prices are as forecast over the LOM period, waste disposal volumes increase from historical values and predicted values, that regulatory framework is unchanged during the Study period, and no unforeseen environmental, social or community events disrupt timely approvals, regulatory framework is unchanged for Study period and no unforeseen environmental, social or community events disrupt timely approvals, and estimated capital and operating costs, project schedule and approvals timing, availability of funding, projected commodities markets and prices. Based on current project status, the QP’s are not recommending additional work at this time. However, the following recommendations have been identified to further enhance internal processes and planning. 22.1 Mineral Resources The following is a summary of the key interpretations and conclusions relating to geology and Mineral Resource estimation:  The CMT geology team has a clear understanding of the interaction of lithology and weather as it related to controlling the phosphate mineralization of interest.  The geological and deposit related knowledge has been appropriately used to develop and guide the exploration, modeling and estimation processes used by the CMT geology team.  Exploration data collection methods and results were well documented for both historical and recent exploration campaigns. The exploration data collection methods followed industry standard practices that were in place at the time of the various exploration campaigns.  CMT has conducted appropriate internal and external third-party data verification and data validation work on both historical and recent exploration data to ensure the geological database is reliable, representative, and free of material errors or omissions.  Data that did not meet the standards for reliability were removed entirely from the modeling database or were used in a limited capacity (i.e., lithology modeling, but not grade interpolation).  The resultant validated geological database is considered reliable, representative and it is the QPs view that it is fit for purpose in developing a geological model and for the preparation of Mineral Resource estimates as well as for use in other modifying factors studies, including mine design and scheduling and Mineral Reserve estimation.


 
22-2  The geological interpretation and modeling methodology is appropriate for the style of mineralization and data available for CMT. The modeling methodology followed current industry standard practices.  Modeling of the lithology and weathering domains and interpolation of the grade parameters was guided by sound geological interpretation and detailed geological, statistical, and geostatistical analysis and interpretation of the validated geological data.  The mature nature of the operation and a solid understanding of the confidence of continuity of the geological domains of interest has supported the establishment of Reasonable Prospects for Economic Extraction for the CMT phosphate Mineral Resources reported in this TRS.  The classification of Mineral Resources into confidence classes Measured, Indicated, and Inferred considered spatial variability of geological domains (both lithology and weathering) and grade parameters as well as geological confidence and uncertainty in the various methods and results used to develop the estimate, spanning exploration through estimation.  The impact of geological uncertainty and risk has been evaluated across various key stages of the data collection, modeling and estimation process. A high-level summary of the assessment of geological uncertainty is as follows:  Measured Mineral Resources are considered to have a low degree of geological uncertainty across all elements evaluated.  Indicated Mineral Resources are also considered to have a low degree of geological uncertainty across most items, except for local scale variability in geological and grade modeling, where broader spatial distribution and confidence of continuity (relative to Measured category) may result in low-moderate uncertainty in these elements. This is not seen as a risk to the global estimate of Mineral Resources for CMT, but could have local short range impact on future mining operations if not addressed via infill/production drilling and so forth.  Inferred Mineral Resources are considered to have a mix of low to moderate degree of geological uncertainty across all elements evaluated. As with the low-moderate risks identified in the Indicated Mineral Resource category above, the risks in the Inferred Mineral Resource category are primarily relating to spatial distribution of data and confidence of continuity, and again are seen as potential impacts on local rather than global estimates. Geological uncertainty in the Inferred Mineral Resource category can likely be reduced via future infill and production drilling.  As CMT is an operation with almost 43 years of operational experience and data, the QP does not see any issues that require further work relating to relevant technical and economic factors that are likely to influence the prospect of economic extraction.  Geological and Mineral Resource recommendations for CMT relate to improving confidence/understanding of the local variability for short range planning purposes that could be completed by site teams to provide improvements to short-term recovery and grade control. These are not seen as having an impact on the prospect of economic extraction. Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 22-3 The QP for the Mineral Resource estimates does not believe that there are significant risks or uncertainties associated with the Mineral Resource estimate, as discussed in Section 11.5 and Section 11.7. 22.2 Mineral Reserves The following is a summary of the key interpretations and conclusions relating to the mine plan components and Mineral Reserve estimation:  The Tapira mine is a well-established operation. The deposit, mining, beneficiation, and environmental aspects of the Project are very well understood. The operational and technical knowledge has been appropriately used in the development of the LOM Plan and Mineral Reserve estimation.  Years of historical operational data and observations have been well documented.  The Mineral Reserve estimate summarized in Section 12.4 is based on a PFS level LOM plan, employing proven industry and practical methods of mining applicable to the type of ore deposit, demonstrated to be economic through a companion OPEX/CAPEX costing estimate.  The Mineral Reserve estimate has been prepared to comply with all disclosure standards for Mineral Reserves under S-K 1300 reporting requirements, including:  Consideration of the economically mineable part of Measured and Indicated Mineral Resource estimates  Proper application of modifying factors to the Mineral Resources, including: − Estimation/modeling of allowances for mining loss and inclusion of mining diluting materials − Pit optimization − COG estimation − Process mass and metallurgical recovery estimates based on industry standardized testing  Consideration of: − Mining and beneficiation practices and requirements − Metallurgical factors − Infrastructure requirements − Economic and marketing factors − Legal, government, environmental, and social obligations  Classification of the estimated Mineral Reserves as Proven and Probable  Mining of phosphate ore at CMT relies on typical open-pit type of unit operations to remove, transport and store overburden and other non-ore bearing material, and extraction and transportation of ore to the beneficiation plant. The CMT operation has equipment for open-pit mining of the appropriate fleet size and capacity, and labor staffing to support the LOM production plan. Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 22-4  Process recovery relies upon standardized metallurgical and analytical testing. The metallurgical and analytical testing and historical data is adequate for the estimation of mass and metallurgical recovery estimation factors and estimation of Mineral Reserves.  Process mass recovery estimations are based on linear regression equations based on laboratory flotation testing and have historically provided a good estimation of predictive values of phosphate recovery.  The Tapira beneficiation process is similar to other processes treating Brazilian igneous phosphate ores. The capacity of the beneficiation plant is sufficient to support the LOM production plan.  Sufficient infrastructure is in-place to support the Tapira mining and beneficiation operations with planned expansion as necessary to support the LOM Plan, including:  Project rail and road access  OSFs  Process TSFs  Water and pipelines  Power supply and local electric distribution lines  Mine and beneficiation maintenance and support facilities  Critical environmental studies have been completed, including a 2016 ESIA. Critical community issues which have been identified include potential impacts on impoundment dam failures.  All requirements for environmental monitoring for effluents, air quality and surface/groundwater quality are in place. A waste management plan is in place. Currently, 27 environmental permits in place.  Mine closure plans and ARO estimates are completed, representing current land disturbance conditions and anticipated land disturbance conditions at the end of the LOM. Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 22-5 The primary risks, that could materially affect the Mineral Reserve estimate, would include:  A long-term, global material decrease in fertilizer product prices for sales that are not protected under long- term sales agreements  Inflation rates with corresponding changes in capital and operating costs  Production rates  Exchange rates  Tax rates  Changing environmental regulations  Change in political climate The relocation of state highway MG-146 includes re-locating the Fazenda Nova Bom Jardim Settlement, which is located to the west of the Mosaic currently controlled surface area. Risks include social risk during negotiations and an economic risk since Mosaic has not yet acquired the surface rights. This area is included in the currently controlled mining permits; and is therefore, not seen as a significant encumbrance to CMT. The capacity requirements are not currently in place for all tailings disposal for total LOM capacity requirements. However, CMT has an ongoing permitting and development plan to support the mining operations that will continue through the LOM requirements. Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira


 
23-1 23.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 23.1 Mineral Resources The recommendations listed below are focused on improving local variability for short-range planning purposes that could be completed by site teams to provide improvements to short-term recovery and grade control. They are not seen as having an impact on the prospect of economic extraction.  Further investigation on the impacts of alternative grade interpolation methods (i.e., surface normal, dynamic anisotrophy, and so forth.  Consider further interpretive controls on the leapfrog lithological domain modeling to improve geological reasonableness of the domain modeling.  Future modeling efforts should include a simplified, uniform compositing basis. This will likely have changes to local estimates, but will likely not have material changes to the global estimate.  Rock Codes 2203 (part of Domain 4) and 303 (part of Domain 7) have been excluded from the compositing and grade estimation. Future modelling efforts should include an evaluation of the data for these Rock Codes. 23.2 Mineral Reserves The recommendations listed below are focused on supporting the LOM Plan requirements and to ensure maximum recovery of stated reserves. These recommendations will have an economic impact on economic extraction:  Continue design and permitting efforts to ensure the re-route of the MG-146.  Continue and complete negotiations (technical, financial and social aspects) to successfully relocate Fazenda Nova Bom Jardim Settlement.  Continue with design and permitting efforts required to expand tailings facility capacity as necessary to support the long-term extraction of reserves. Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 24-1 24.0 REFERENCES CRU International Ltd., Phosphate Rock Database, August 2021. CRU International Ltd., Phosphate Fertilizer Market Outlook, August 2021. ERM, 2020. 2020 Asset Retirement Obligation (ARO) – Tapira (CMT) (file: 0550355 MOSAIC TAPIRA ARO 17NOV20 RLF 02.pdf). GOLDER, 2021. Plano Conceitual de Fechamento do Complexo de Mineração de Tapira. MOSAIC, 2020. Resultados Automonitoramento – 2020 – Atendimento a Condicionante nº 5 da Licença de Operação nº 028/2012 Substituído pelo Nº 138/2017. (file: Relatório Automonitoramento 2019.pdf) MULTIGEO, 2017a. Investigação Ambiental da Qualidade do Solo nos Quatro Postos de Abastecimento de Combustíveis. MULTIGEO, 2017b. Estudo de Impacto Ambiental. Alteamento da Barragem BL-1. MULTIGEO, 2016. Estudo de Impacto Ambiental - Complexo de Mineração de Tapira. MULTIGEO, 2011. Investigação Confirmatória de Passivo Ambiental em Áreas Industriais. PÓTAMOS, 2019. Diagnóstico do uso da água nas unidades industriais Araxá – Tapira, Tapira – Cajati. (file: CAJ - CAJATI - POTMOS0001-1-TC-APT-0004.pdf) RAMBOLL, 2018. Conceptual Site Model - Areas Of Interest. Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira 25-1 25.0 RELIANCE ON INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE REGISTRANT The Qualified Persons for Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves have relied upon the registrant to supply information that was used in the following Sections:  Description of mineral and property rights  Section 11.3 – Resource pit shell costs and pricing for Mineral Resources  Section 12.2.4 and 12.2.5 – COG costs and pricing for Mineral Reserves  Section 12.2.6 – Pit Optimization costs and pricing for Mineral Reserves  Section 16.0 – Market Studies  Section 19.0 – Economic Analysis For the information relating to mineral and property rights in this TRS, Golder relied on Mosaic’s permitting and environmental team. Golder has not researched property or mineral rights for CMT as we consider it to be reasonable to rely on Mosaic’s permitting and environmental team who is responsible for maintaining this information. Golder has also relied on Mosaic’s finance team for details regarding applicable taxes, royalties, exchange rates, product pricing, and market studies as noted in the COG and pit optimization for Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves, Market Studies, and the Economic Analysis. It is Golder’s opinion that it is reasonable to rely on Mosaic for this information as Mosaic has been operating CMT since 2018. Report Date: February 9, 2022 Effective Date: December 31, 2021 SEC S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary Complexo Mineração de Tapira golder.com