FALSE00018013682021FYMP Materials Corp. / DEP5DP5DP5D0.02258610.0285714P1Yhttp://fasb.org/us-gaap/2021-01-31#OtherAssetsNoncurrenthttp://fasb.org/us-gaap/2021-01-31#OtherAssetsNoncurrenthttp://fasb.org/us-gaap/2021-01-31#OtherLiabilitiesCurrenthttp://fasb.org/us-gaap/2021-01-31#OtherLiabilitiesCurrenthttp://fasb.org/us-gaap/2021-01-31#OtherLiabilitiesNoncurrenthttp://fasb.org/us-gaap/2021-01-31#OtherLiabilitiesNoncurrent00018013682021-01-012021-12-3100018013682021-06-30iso4217:USD00018013682022-02-17xbrli:shares00018013682021-12-3100018013682020-12-31iso4217:USDxbrli:shares00018013682020-01-012020-12-3100018013682019-01-012019-12-310001801368us-gaap:PreferredStockMember2018-12-310001801368us-gaap:CommonStockMember2018-12-310001801368us-gaap:WarrantMember2018-12-310001801368us-gaap:AdditionalPaidInCapitalMember2018-12-310001801368us-gaap:RetainedEarningsMember2018-12-3100018013682018-12-310001801368us-gaap:PreferredStockMembersrt:RestatementAdjustmentMember2018-12-310001801368us-gaap:CommonStockMembersrt:RestatementAdjustmentMember2018-12-310001801368us-gaap:AdditionalPaidInCapitalMembersrt:RestatementAdjustmentMember2018-12-310001801368us-gaap:RetainedEarningsMember2019-01-012019-12-310001801368us-gaap:PreferredStockMember2019-12-310001801368us-gaap:CommonStockMember2019-12-310001801368us-gaap:WarrantMember2019-12-310001801368us-gaap:AdditionalPaidInCapitalMember2019-12-310001801368us-gaap:RetainedEarningsMember2019-12-3100018013682019-12-310001801368us-gaap:WarrantMember2020-01-012020-12-310001801368us-gaap:CommonStockMember2020-01-012020-12-310001801368us-gaap:AdditionalPaidInCapitalMember2020-01-012020-12-310001801368us-gaap:RetainedEarningsMember2020-01-012020-12-310001801368us-gaap:PreferredStockMember2020-12-310001801368us-gaap:CommonStockMember2020-12-310001801368us-gaap:WarrantMember2020-12-310001801368us-gaap:AdditionalPaidInCapitalMember2020-12-310001801368us-gaap:RetainedEarningsMember2020-12-310001801368us-gaap:CommonStockMember2021-01-012021-12-310001801368us-gaap:AdditionalPaidInCapitalMember2021-01-012021-12-310001801368us-gaap:RetainedEarningsMember2021-01-012021-12-310001801368us-gaap:PreferredStockMember2021-12-310001801368us-gaap:CommonStockMember2021-12-310001801368us-gaap:WarrantMember2021-12-310001801368us-gaap:AdditionalPaidInCapitalMember2021-12-310001801368us-gaap:RetainedEarningsMember2021-12-31mp:segment0001801368srt:AffiliatedEntityMemberus-gaap:SalesRevenueNetMembermp:ShengheResourcesSingaporeInternationalTradingPteLtdMemberus-gaap:CustomerConcentrationRiskMember2021-01-012021-12-31xbrli:pure0001801368us-gaap:LandImprovementsMember2021-01-012021-12-310001801368us-gaap:BuildingMember2021-01-012021-12-310001801368srt:MinimumMemberus-gaap:MachineryAndEquipmentMember2021-01-012021-12-310001801368srt:MaximumMemberus-gaap:MachineryAndEquipmentMember2021-01-012021-12-310001801368us-gaap:MiningPropertiesAndMineralRightsMember2021-01-012021-12-310001801368mp:MPMineOperationsLLCMemberus-gaap:MiningPropertiesAndMineralRightsMember2017-04-300001801368mp:MPMineOperationsLLCMember2019-12-310001801368mp:MPMineOperationsLLCMember2020-11-162020-11-160001801368mp:MPMineOperationsLLCMember2020-11-1600018013682020-11-172020-11-1700018013682020-11-170001801368mp:MPMineOperationsLLCMembermp:ConversionOfCommonAndPreferredUnitsIntoCommonStockMember2020-11-172020-11-170001801368mp:SecureNaturalResourcesLLCMember2020-11-172020-11-170001801368mp:FortressAcquisitionSponsorLLCMember2020-07-152020-07-150001801368us-gaap:PrivatePlacementMember2020-11-172020-11-170001801368us-gaap:PrivatePlacementMember2020-07-152020-07-150001801368mp:FortressValueAcquisitionCorpPublicStockholdersMember2020-11-170001801368mp:PrivatePlacementWarrantsMember2020-11-170001801368mp:MPMineOperationsLLCUnitholdersMember2020-11-170001801368mp:SecureNaturalResourcesLLCUnitholdersMember2020-11-170001801368mp:PIPEFinancingMember2020-11-170001801368mp:RestrictedStockMPMineOperationsLLCExecutivesMember2020-11-170001801368mp:FortressValueAcquisitionCorpPublicStockholdersMember2020-11-172020-11-170001801368mp:LeshanShengheRareEarthCoLtdMember2020-11-172020-11-170001801368mp:FortressValueAcquisitionCorpMembermp:EarnoutSharesMember2020-11-170001801368mp:MPMOEarnoutSharesMembermp:FortressValueAcquisitionCorpMember2020-11-170001801368mp:SNREarnoutSharesMembermp:FortressValueAcquisitionCorpMember2020-11-170001801368mp:VestingSharesMember2020-12-012020-12-310001801368mp:EarnoutSharesMember2020-12-012020-12-310001801368mp:SecureNaturalResourcesLLCMemberus-gaap:MiningPropertiesAndMineralRightsMember2020-11-172020-11-170001801368mp:MPMineOperationsLLCMembermp:SecureNaturalResourcesLLCMember2020-11-1600018013682017-05-220001801368srt:AffiliatedEntityMembermp:OriginalOfftakeAgreementInitialPrepaymentAmountMember2017-05-012017-05-310001801368srt:AffiliatedEntityMembermp:OriginalOfftakeAgreementFirstAdditionalAdvanceMember2017-06-202017-06-200001801368srt:AffiliatedEntityMembermp:OriginalOfftakeAgreementInitialPrepaymentAmountMember2017-06-202017-06-200001801368srt:AffiliatedEntityMembermp:AmendedAndRestatedOfftakeAgreementMembermp:MPMineOperationsLLCMembermp:ShengheWarrantMembermp:ShengheResourcesSingaporeInternationalTradingPteLtdMember2020-06-020001801368srt:AffiliatedEntityMembermp:AmendedAndRestatedOfftakeAgreementMembermp:MPMineOperationsLLCMembermp:ShengheWarrantMembermp:ShengheResourcesSingaporeInternationalTradingPteLtdMember2020-06-022020-06-020001801368srt:AffiliatedEntityMembermp:OriginalOfftakeAgreementSecondAdditionalAdvanceMembermp:ShengheResourcesSingaporeInternationalTradingPteLtdMember2020-06-052020-06-050001801368srt:AffiliatedEntityMembermp:OriginalOfftakeAgreementInitialPrepaymentAmountMembermp:ShengheResourcesSingaporeInternationalTradingPteLtdMember2020-06-052020-06-050001801368srt:AffiliatedEntityMembermp:OriginalOfftakeAgreementFirstAdditionalAdvanceMembermp:ShengheResourcesSingaporeInternationalTradingPteLtdMember2017-06-202017-06-200001801368srt:AffiliatedEntityMembermp:OriginalOfftakeAgreementInitialPrepaymentAmountMembermp:ShengheResourcesSingaporeInternationalTradingPteLtdMember2017-06-202017-06-200001801368srt:AffiliatedEntityMembermp:OriginalOfftakeAgreementFirstAdditionalAdvanceMembermp:ShengheResourcesSingaporeInternationalTradingPteLtdMember2017-06-200001801368srt:AffiliatedEntityMembermp:ShengheImpliedDiscountMembermp:ShengheResourcesSingaporeInternationalTradingPteLtdMember2017-06-202017-06-200001801368srt:AffiliatedEntityMembermp:StageIIOptimizationProjectMembermp:ShengheResourcesSingaporeInternationalTradingPteLtdMember2020-06-052020-06-050001801368srt:AffiliatedEntityMembermp:ShengheResourcesSingaporeInternationalTradingPteLtdMember2020-06-052020-06-050001801368srt:AffiliatedEntityMembermp:ShengheResourcesSingaporeInternationalTradingPteLtdMember2017-06-202017-06-200001801368srt:AffiliatedEntityMembersrt:MinimumMembermp:ShengeSalesDiscountMembermp:ShengheResourcesSingaporeInternationalTradingPteLtdMember2019-07-012020-06-050001801368srt:AffiliatedEntityMembersrt:MaximumMembermp:ShengeSalesDiscountMembermp:ShengheResourcesSingaporeInternationalTradingPteLtdMember2019-07-012020-06-050001801368srt:AffiliatedEntityMembermp:OriginalOfftakeAgreementInitialPrepaymentAmountMembermp:ShengheResourcesSingaporeInternationalTradingPteLtdMember2019-01-012019-12-310001801368srt:AffiliatedEntityMembermp:ShengheResourcesSingaporeInternationalTradingPteLtdMember2020-05-012020-05-310001801368srt:AffiliatedEntityMembermp:OfftakeAdvancesMembermp:ShengheResourcesSingaporeInternationalTradingPteLtdMember2021-01-012021-12-310001801368srt:AffiliatedEntityMembermp:OfftakeAdvancesMembermp:ShengheResourcesSingaporeInternationalTradingPteLtdMember2020-01-012020-12-310001801368srt:AffiliatedEntityMembermp:ShengheResourcesSingaporeInternationalTradingPteLtdMember2019-12-310001801368srt:AffiliatedEntityMembermp:ShengheResourcesSingaporeInternationalTradingPteLtdMember2019-01-012019-12-310001801368srt:AffiliatedEntityMembermp:ShengheResourcesSingaporeInternationalTradingPteLtdMember2020-01-012020-12-3100018013682021-04-012021-06-300001801368us-gaap:LandAndLandImprovementsMember2021-12-310001801368us-gaap:LandAndLandImprovementsMember2020-12-310001801368us-gaap:BuildingMember2021-12-310001801368us-gaap:BuildingMember2020-12-310001801368us-gaap:MachineryAndEquipmentMember2021-12-310001801368us-gaap:MachineryAndEquipmentMember2020-12-310001801368us-gaap:ConstructionInProgressMember2021-12-310001801368us-gaap:ConstructionInProgressMember2020-12-310001801368us-gaap:MiningPropertiesAndMineralRightsMember2021-12-310001801368us-gaap:MiningPropertiesAndMineralRightsMember2020-12-3100018013682021-02-012021-02-280001801368mp:BuildingAndMachineryAndEquipmentMember2021-12-012021-12-310001801368us-gaap:ConstructionInProgressMember2021-12-012021-12-310001801368us-gaap:BuildingMember2021-12-012021-12-310001801368us-gaap:MachineryAndEquipmentMember2021-12-012021-12-3100018013682020-11-012020-11-3000018013682021-10-012021-12-310001801368us-gaap:BuildingMember2021-10-012021-12-310001801368us-gaap:MachineryAndEquipmentMember2021-10-012021-12-310001801368us-gaap:ConstructionInProgressMember2021-10-012021-12-310001801368us-gaap:MiningPropertiesAndMineralRightsMember2021-10-012021-12-310001801368us-gaap:MiningPropertiesAndMineralRightsMember2020-01-012020-12-310001801368us-gaap:ConvertibleDebtMembermp:ConvertibleNotesDue2026Member2021-12-310001801368us-gaap:ConvertibleDebtMembermp:ConvertibleNotesDue2026Member2020-12-310001801368us-gaap:NotesPayableToBanksMembermp:PaycheckProtectionProgramLoanMember2021-12-310001801368us-gaap:NotesPayableToBanksMembermp:PaycheckProtectionProgramLoanMember2020-12-310001801368mp:OfftakeAdvancesMembermp:RelatedPartyDebtMember2021-12-310001801368mp:OfftakeAdvancesMembermp:RelatedPartyDebtMember2020-12-310001801368mp:RelatedPartyDebtMember2021-12-310001801368mp:RelatedPartyDebtMember2020-12-310001801368us-gaap:ConvertibleDebtMembermp:ConvertibleNotesDue2026Member2021-03-260001801368us-gaap:ConvertibleDebtMembermp:ConvertibleNotesDue2026Member2021-01-012021-12-310001801368us-gaap:ConvertibleDebtMemberus-gaap:DebtInstrumentRedemptionPeriodOneMembermp:ConvertibleNotesDue2026Member2021-03-262021-03-26utr:D0001801368us-gaap:DebtInstrumentRedemptionPeriodTwoMemberus-gaap:ConvertibleDebtMembermp:ConvertibleNotesDue2026Member2021-03-262021-03-260001801368us-gaap:ConvertibleDebtMembermp:ConvertibleNotesDue2026Member2021-03-262021-03-260001801368us-gaap:NotesPayableToBanksMembermp:PaycheckProtectionProgramLoanMember2020-04-012020-04-300001801368us-gaap:NotesPayableToBanksMembermp:PaycheckProtectionProgramLoanMember2020-04-150001801368us-gaap:NotesPayableToBanksMembermp:PaycheckProtectionProgramLoanMember2021-01-012021-12-310001801368mp:OfftakeAdvancesMembermp:RelatedPartyDebtSecondAdditionalOfftakeAdvanceMember2020-06-300001801368mp:OfftakeAdvancesMembermp:RelatedPartyDebtMember2020-06-012020-06-300001801368mp:OfftakeAdvancesMembermp:RelatedPartyDebtMember2021-01-012021-12-310001801368mp:OfftakeAdvancesMembermp:RelatedPartyDebtMember2020-01-012020-12-310001801368mp:OfftakeAdvancesMembermp:RelatedPartyDebtMember2020-06-300001801368srt:MinimumMembermp:OfftakeAdvancesMembermp:RelatedPartyDebtMember2021-12-310001801368mp:OfftakeAdvancesMembermp:RelatedPartyDebtMembersrt:MaximumMember2021-12-310001801368mp:ShengheResourcesSingaporeInternationalTradingPteLtdMember2021-01-012021-01-310001801368mp:ShengheResourcesSingaporeInternationalTradingPteLtdMember2020-08-012020-08-310001801368mp:ShengheResourcesSingaporeInternationalTradingPteLtdMember2020-01-012020-12-310001801368srt:MinimumMembermp:EquipmentNotesMember2021-01-012021-12-310001801368srt:MaximumMembermp:EquipmentNotesMember2021-01-012021-12-310001801368srt:MinimumMembermp:EquipmentNotesMember2021-12-310001801368srt:MaximumMembermp:EquipmentNotesMember2021-12-310001801368mp:EquipmentNotesMembermp:February2021EquipmentNotesMember2021-02-280001801368mp:EquipmentNotesMember2021-02-280001801368mp:EquipmentNotesMembermp:February2021EquipmentNotesMember2021-02-012021-02-280001801368mp:EquipmentNotesMember2021-12-310001801368mp:EquipmentNotesMember2020-12-310001801368us-gaap:ConvertibleDebtMembermp:ConvertibleNotesDue2026Member2020-01-012020-12-310001801368us-gaap:ConvertibleDebtMembermp:ConvertibleNotesDue2026Member2019-01-012019-12-310001801368us-gaap:ConvertibleDebtMembersrt:MaximumMembermp:ConvertibleNotesDue2026Member2021-03-262021-03-260001801368srt:MinimumMember2021-01-012021-12-310001801368srt:MaximumMember2021-01-012021-12-3100018013682021-12-012021-12-31mp:renewalOption0001801368srt:MaximumMember2020-01-012020-12-310001801368mp:RestrictedCashForSuretyBondsMember2020-12-310001801368mp:RestrictedCashForSuretyBondsMember2019-12-310001801368mp:RestrictedCashForSuretyBondsMember2021-01-012021-12-310001801368mp:RestrictedCashForSuretyBondsMember2020-01-012020-12-310001801368mp:RestrictedCashForSuretyBondsMember2021-12-310001801368us-gaap:DomesticCountryMember2021-12-310001801368us-gaap:DomesticCountryMember2020-12-310001801368us-gaap:StateAndLocalJurisdictionMember2020-12-310001801368us-gaap:StateAndLocalJurisdictionMember2021-12-310001801368us-gaap:DomesticCountryMembermp:TaxYear2037Member2021-12-310001801368us-gaap:DomesticCountryMembermp:TaxYear2043Member2021-12-310001801368us-gaap:CaliforniaFranchiseTaxBoardMember2021-12-310001801368us-gaap:CaliforniaFranchiseTaxBoardMember2021-10-012021-12-3100018013682020-11-160001801368mp:PublicWarrantMember2020-05-040001801368mp:PublicWarrantMember2021-05-040001801368mp:PublicWarrantMember2021-12-310001801368mp:CashlessExerciseOfPublicWarrantsMember2021-12-310001801368mp:PublicWarrantMember2021-01-012021-12-310001801368mp:A2020IncentivePlanMember2020-11-300001801368mp:A2020IncentivePlanMember2020-11-172020-11-170001801368mp:A2020IncentivePlanMember2021-12-310001801368us-gaap:RestrictedStockUnitsRSUMembermp:NonEmployeeDirectorsMember2021-01-012021-12-310001801368us-gaap:RestrictedStockUnitsRSUMembermp:NonEmployeeDirectorsMember2020-01-012020-12-310001801368mp:A2021DirectorDeferredCompensationPlanMemberus-gaap:RestrictedStockUnitsRSUMembermp:NonEmployeeDirectorsMember2021-01-012021-12-310001801368us-gaap:RestrictedStockMember2020-01-012020-12-310001801368us-gaap:RestrictedStockMember2021-01-012021-12-310001801368us-gaap:RestrictedStockUnitsRSUMember2021-01-012021-12-310001801368us-gaap:RestrictedStockUnitsRSUMember2020-01-012020-12-310001801368us-gaap:CarryingReportedAmountFairValueDisclosureMember2021-12-310001801368us-gaap:EstimateOfFairValueFairValueDisclosureMember2021-12-310001801368us-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel1Member2021-12-310001801368us-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel2Member2021-12-310001801368us-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel3Member2021-12-310001801368us-gaap:CarryingReportedAmountFairValueDisclosureMemberus-gaap:ConvertibleDebtMember2021-12-310001801368us-gaap:ConvertibleDebtMemberus-gaap:EstimateOfFairValueFairValueDisclosureMember2021-12-310001801368us-gaap:ConvertibleDebtMemberus-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel1Member2021-12-310001801368us-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel2Memberus-gaap:ConvertibleDebtMember2021-12-310001801368us-gaap:ConvertibleDebtMemberus-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel3Member2021-12-310001801368mp:OfftakeAdvancesMemberus-gaap:CarryingReportedAmountFairValueDisclosureMember2021-12-310001801368mp:OfftakeAdvancesMemberus-gaap:EstimateOfFairValueFairValueDisclosureMember2021-12-310001801368mp:OfftakeAdvancesMemberus-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel1Member2021-12-310001801368mp:OfftakeAdvancesMemberus-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel2Member2021-12-310001801368mp:OfftakeAdvancesMemberus-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel3Member2021-12-310001801368us-gaap:CarryingReportedAmountFairValueDisclosureMembermp:EquipmentNotesMember2021-12-310001801368us-gaap:EstimateOfFairValueFairValueDisclosureMembermp:EquipmentNotesMember2021-12-310001801368mp:EquipmentNotesMemberus-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel1Member2021-12-310001801368us-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel2Membermp:EquipmentNotesMember2021-12-310001801368us-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel3Membermp:EquipmentNotesMember2021-12-310001801368us-gaap:CarryingReportedAmountFairValueDisclosureMember2020-12-310001801368us-gaap:EstimateOfFairValueFairValueDisclosureMember2020-12-310001801368us-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel1Member2020-12-310001801368us-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel2Member2020-12-310001801368us-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel3Member2020-12-310001801368mp:OfftakeAdvancesMemberus-gaap:CarryingReportedAmountFairValueDisclosureMember2020-12-310001801368mp:OfftakeAdvancesMemberus-gaap:EstimateOfFairValueFairValueDisclosureMember2020-12-310001801368mp:OfftakeAdvancesMemberus-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel1Member2020-12-310001801368mp:OfftakeAdvancesMemberus-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel2Member2020-12-310001801368mp:OfftakeAdvancesMemberus-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel3Member2020-12-310001801368us-gaap:CarryingReportedAmountFairValueDisclosureMembermp:EquipmentNotesMember2020-12-310001801368us-gaap:EstimateOfFairValueFairValueDisclosureMembermp:EquipmentNotesMember2020-12-310001801368mp:EquipmentNotesMemberus-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel1Member2020-12-310001801368us-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel2Membermp:EquipmentNotesMember2020-12-310001801368us-gaap:FairValueInputsLevel3Membermp:EquipmentNotesMember2020-12-310001801368us-gaap:RestrictedStockMember2019-01-012019-12-310001801368us-gaap:RestrictedStockUnitsRSUMember2019-01-012019-12-310001801368us-gaap:WarrantMember2021-01-012021-12-310001801368us-gaap:WarrantMember2020-01-012020-12-310001801368us-gaap:WarrantMember2019-01-012019-12-310001801368us-gaap:RestrictedStockMember2021-01-012021-12-310001801368us-gaap:RestrictedStockMember2020-01-012020-12-310001801368us-gaap:RestrictedStockMember2019-01-012019-12-310001801368us-gaap:RestrictedStockUnitsRSUMember2021-01-012021-12-310001801368us-gaap:RestrictedStockUnitsRSUMember2020-01-012020-12-310001801368us-gaap:RestrictedStockUnitsRSUMember2019-01-012019-12-310001801368srt:AffiliatedEntityMember2021-01-012021-12-310001801368srt:AffiliatedEntityMember2020-01-012020-12-310001801368srt:AffiliatedEntityMember2019-01-012019-12-310001801368srt:AffiliatedEntityMembermp:ShippingAndFreightRelatedAgreementsWithShengheMember2021-01-012021-12-310001801368srt:AffiliatedEntityMembermp:ShippingAndFreightRelatedAgreementsWithShengheMember2020-01-012020-12-310001801368srt:AffiliatedEntityMembermp:ShippingAndFreightRelatedAgreementsWithShengheMember2019-01-012019-12-310001801368mp:MPMineOperationsLLCMembermp:RoyaltyAgreementWithSNRMember2017-04-012017-04-300001801368mp:MPMineOperationsLLCMembermp:RoyaltyAgreementWithSNRMember2017-04-300001801368mp:MPMineOperationsLLCMembermp:RoyaltyAgreementWithSNRMember2020-01-012020-12-310001801368mp:MPMineOperationsLLCMembermp:RoyaltyAgreementWithSNRMember2019-01-012019-12-310001801368srt:AffiliatedEntityMember2021-12-310001801368srt:AffiliatedEntityMember2020-12-310001801368us-gaap:SubsequentEventMember2022-02-012022-02-28
Table of Contents
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM 10-K
(Mark One)
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021
or
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 001-39277
mp-20211231_g1.jpg
MP MATERIALS CORP.
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
Delaware84-4465489
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)
(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)
6720 Via Austi Parkway, Suite 450
Las Vegas, Nevada 89119
(702) 844-6111
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
Title of each classTrading Symbol(s)Name of each exchange on which registered
Common Stock, par value of $0.0001 per shareMPNew 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.
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 Act). Yes ☐ No ☑
As of June 30, 2021, the aggregate market value of the voting common stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant was approximately $3.4 billion. Such aggregate market value was computed by reference to the closing price of the common stock as reported on the New York Stock Exchange on June 30, 2021. As of February 17, 2022, the number of shares of the registrant’s common stock outstanding was 177,524,993.
DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
Portions of the registrant’s definitive 2022 proxy statement, anticipated to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission within 120 days after the end of the registrant’s fiscal year, are incorporated by reference into Part III of this Form 10-K.


Table of Contents

MP MATERIALS CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

i

Table of Contents

References herein to the “Company,” “MP Materials,” “we,” “our,” and “us,” refer to MP Materials Corp. and its subsidiaries.
CAUTIONARY NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS
Certain statements included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021 (this “Annual Report”), that are not historical facts are forward-looking statements under Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended and Section 21E of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Forward-looking statements may be identified by the use of the words such as “estimate,” “plan,” “shall,” “may,” “project,” “forecast,” “intend,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “believe,” “seek,” “target,” or similar expressions that predict or indicate future events or trends or that are not statements of historical matters. These forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements regarding estimates and forecasts of other financial and performance metrics and projections of market opportunity. These statements are based on various assumptions, whether or not identified in this Annual Report, and on the current expectations of our management and are not predictions of actual performance. These forward-looking statements are provided for illustrative purposes only and are not intended to serve as, and must not be relied on by any investor as, a guarantee, an assurance, a prediction or a definitive statement of fact or probability. Actual events and circumstances are difficult or impossible to predict and will differ from assumptions. Many actual events and circumstances are beyond our control.
These forward-looking statements are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties, including:
fluctuations and uncertainties related to demand for and pricing of rare earth products;
uncertainties regarding the growth of existing and emerging uses for rare earth products and ability to compete with substitutions for rare earth minerals;
the intense competition within the rare earth mining and processing industry;
uncertainties relating to our commercial arrangements with Shenghe Resources (Singapore) International Trading Pte. Ltd., an affiliate of Shenghe Resources Holding Co., Ltd., a global rare earth company listed on the Shanghai Stock Exchange;
potential changes in China’s political environment and policies;
unanticipated costs or delays associated with our Stage II optimization project;
unanticipated costs or delays associated with our Stage III project;
risks associated with our intellectual property rights, including uncertainties related to the Company’s ability to obtain the intellectual property rights or licenses of intellectual property rights to produce NdFeB alloy and magnets;
uncertainties related to the Company’s ability to produce and supply NdFeB alloy and magnets;
the ability to convert current commercial discussions with customers for the sale of rare earth oxide products, NdFeB alloy and magnets into contracts;
uncertainties related to the Company entering into a definitive long-term supply agreement with General Motors Company that includes all necessary terms and conditions, which may or may not occur;
uncertainties relating to the COVID-19 pandemic, including the Delta and Omicron variants or other variants;
potential power shortages at Mountain Pass;
increasing costs or limited access to raw materials that may adversely affect our profitability;
fluctuations in transportation costs or disruptions in transportation services;
inability to meet individual customer specifications;
diminished access to water;
uncertainty in our estimates of rare earth oxide reserves;
risks associated with work stoppages;
a shortage of skilled technicians and engineers;
ii

Table of Contents

loss of key personnel;
risks associated with the inherent dangers involved in mining activity and metal and alloy manufacturing;
risks associated with events outside of our control, such as natural disasters, climate change, wars or health epidemics or pandemics;
risks related to technology systems and security breaches;
ability to maintain satisfactory labor relations;
ability to comply with various government regulations that are applicable to our business;
ability to maintain our governmental licenses, registrations, permits, and approvals necessary for us to operate our business;
risks relating to extensive and costly environmental regulatory requirements;
risks associated with the terms of our convertible notes; and
those factors discussed within “Part I, Item 1A. Risk Factors” of this Annual Report.
If any of these risks materialize or our assumptions prove incorrect, actual results could differ materially from the results implied by these forward-looking statements.
These and other factors that could cause actual results to differ from those implied by the forward-looking statements in this Annual Report are more fully described within “Part I, Item 1A. Risk Factors.” The risks described within “Part I, Item 1A. Risk Factors” of this Annual Report are not exhaustive. Other sections of this Annual Report describe additional factors that could adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of operations. New risk factors emerge from time to time, and it is not possible to predict all such risk factors, nor can we assess the impact of all such risk factors on our business or the extent to which any factor or combination of factors may cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in any forward-looking statements. All forward-looking statements attributable to us or persons acting on our behalf are expressly qualified in their entirety by the foregoing cautionary statements. We undertake no obligations to update or revise publicly any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by law.
In addition, statements of belief and similar statements reflect our beliefs and opinions on the relevant subject. These statements are based upon information available to us, as applicable, as of the date of this Annual Report, and while we believe such information forms a reasonable basis for such statements, such information may be limited or incomplete, and statements should not be read to indicate that we have conducted an exhaustive inquiry into, or review of, all potentially available relevant information. These statements are inherently uncertain, and you are cautioned not to unduly rely upon these statements.
iii

Table of Contents

PART I
ITEM 1.    BUSINESS
Overview
MP Materials Corp. is the largest producer of rare earth materials in the Western Hemisphere. The Company owns and operates the Mountain Pass Rare Earth Mine and Processing Facility (“Mountain Pass”), the only rare earth mining and processing site of scale in North America. We estimate the rare earth concentrate we produced and sold in 2021 represented approximately 15% of the rare earth content consumed in the global market. Separated rare earth elements (“REE”) are critical inputs for the magnets that enable the mobility of electric vehicles (“EVs”), drones, defense systems, wind turbines, robotics and many other high-growth, advanced technologies. Our integrated operations at Mountain Pass combine low production costs with high environmental standards, thereby restoring American leadership to a critical industry with a strong commitment to sustainability.
We currently produce a rare earth concentrate that we sell pursuant to the A&R Offtake Agreement (as defined in Note 4, “Relationship and Agreements with Shenghe,” in the notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements) to Shenghe Resources (Singapore) International Trading Pte. Ltd. (“Shenghe”), an affiliate of Shenghe Resources Holding Co., Ltd., a leading global rare earth company that is publicly listed in China, that, in turn, typically sells that product to refiners in China. These refiners separate the constituent REE contained in our concentrate and sell the separated products to their customers. Upon completion of our Stage II optimization project (“Stage II”), we anticipate producing separated rare earth oxides (“REO”), including neodymium-praseodymium (“NdPr”) oxide, and selling these products directly to end users, at which time we may no longer sell our concentrate. Stage II is discussed further in the “Our Process” section below.
In December 2021, we announced (i) that we will build our initial rare earth, metal, alloy and magnet manufacturing facility in Fort Worth, Texas (the “Fort Worth Facility”), and (ii) that we entered into a long-term agreement with General Motors Company (NYSE: GM) (“GM”) to supply U.S.-sourced and manufactured rare earth materials, alloy and finished magnets for the electric motors in more than a dozen models using GM’s Ultium Platform, with a gradual production ramp that begins in 2023. These developments are a part of our Stage III downstream expansion strategy (“Stage III”), which is discussed further in the “Our Process” section below.
As electrification drives significant global growth in demand for REE, we believe global economic trends, geopolitical realities and sustainability mandates are coalescing to further our opportunity to create shareholder value. We believe businesses are increasingly prioritizing diversification and security of their global supply chains so as to reduce reliance on a single producer or region for critical materials. As the only scaled source in North America for critical rare earths, with a processing facility designed to operate with best-in-class sustainability and a competitive cost structure, we believe we are well-positioned to thrive in this transforming global economy.
Our mission is to maximize shareholder returns over the long-term by executing a disciplined business strategy to restore the full rare earth supply chain to the United States of America. We believe we can generate positive outcomes for U.S. national security and industry, the U.S. workforce, and the environment.
Rare Earth Industry Overview
Rare earth elements are fundamental building blocks of the modern economy, impacting trillions of dollars in global gross domestic product through the enablement of end products across industries including transportation, clean energy, robotics, national defense, and consumer electronics, among others. By economic value, NdPr is the largest segment of the REE market. NdPr is most often utilized in NdPr magnets, which are also commonly referred to as “neo,” “NdFeB,” “NIB,” or permanent magnets, and are made predominantly from an alloy of NdPr, iron and boron. NdFeB magnets are the most widely used type of rare earth magnets and are critical for many advanced technologies that are experiencing strong secular growth, including EVs, drones, defense systems, wind turbines, robotics and many others. The rapid growth of these and other advanced motion technologies is expected to drive substantial demand growth for NdPr and NdFeB magnets.
The REE group includes 17 elements, primarily the 15 lanthanide elements. Lanthanum, cerium, praseodymium and neodymium are considered “light REE” that are predominant in bastnaesite; samarium, europium and gadolinium are often referred to as “medium REE”; while terbium, dysprosium, holmium, erbium, thulium, ytterbium and lutetium are considered “heavy REE.” Two additional elements, yttrium and scandium, are often classified as heavy REE although they are not lanthanides. Depending upon the rare earth-bearing mineral, the mixture of light, medium and heavy REE will differ.
1

Table of Contents

The aggregate global market for REO totaled approximately 180,000 metric tons in 2021 and is expected to grow at a compound annual growth rate (“CAGR”) of approximately 4% through 2030, according to research by the CRU Group (“CRU”). Further, CRU estimates that the NdPr segment of the REO market, which makes up the significant majority of the market value, is expected to grow at a 9.1% CAGR through 2030 (excluding the impact of closed loop recycling), well in excess of the overall REO market. This expected growth will be driven by secular growth in demand for NdPr magnets.
REO are used in a diverse array of end markets, including:
Clean-Energy and Transportation Technologies: traction motors in EVs and hybrid electric vehicles, generators in wind power turbines, and linear motors in mag-lev trains;
High-Technology Applications: miniaturization of smart phones and other mobile devices, computing devices, speakers and microphones, as well as fiber optics, lasers, robotics, medical devices and optical temperature sensors in medical and industrial environments;
Critical Defense Applications: guidance and control systems, communications, global positioning systems, radar and sonar, drones, and railguns; and
Essential Industrial Infrastructure: advanced catalyst applications in oil refining, pollution-control systems in traditional internal-combustion automobiles, glass polishing, and LED lighting and phosphors.
Our Process
Upon completion of Stage II, processing at Mountain Pass will include five primary process steps: (i) mining and crushing; (ii) milling and flotation; (iii) leaching and impurity removal; (iv) separation and extraction; and (v) product finishing. Having completed Stage I of our optimization plan (“Stage I”) (discussed below), we are engaged in the first two of these steps. The first step includes mining the primarily bastnaesite ore followed by comminution, which involves crushing and grinding the ore into a milled slurry. In the second step, the milled bastnaesite slurry is then processed by froth flotation, whereby the bastnaesite floats to the surface while the gangue, or non-desired, elements are suppressed and disposed as tailings. We believe we are unique among scaled rare earth producers in our use of a dry tailings process that allows recycling of the water used in our milling and flotation circuit and eliminates the need for high-risk wet tailings ponds and traditional impoundment dams. In 2021, dry tailings processes allowed us to recycle over 1.7 billion liters of water.
Stage I
Following the acquisition of Mountain Pass in July 2017, we began implementing Stage I, which was designed to re-establish stable, scaled production of rare earth concentrate, leveraging the existing processing facility. Since restarting operations from cold-idle status, we implemented changes in the milling, flotation and tailings management processes; implemented and continue to advance an improved reagent scheme to improve mineral recovery; and implemented operational best practices. Together, these changes materially increased plant uptime and reliability driving enhanced flotation throughput, REO recovery and production as well as tailings facility reliability and throughput at a significantly lower cost per processed ton. We have established our ability to achieve approximately 3.5x the production volume of REO content as the prior operator of Mountain Pass using the same capital equipment. We also believe that our Stage I efforts enabled us to achieve world-class production cost levels for rare earth concentrate.
Stage II
Stage II is focused on advancing our operations from the production of rare earth concentrate to the separation of individual REE. Engineering, procurement, construction, and other recommissioning activities are underway and involve upgrades and enhancements to the existing facility process flow to reliably produce separated REE at a lower cost and with an expected smaller environmental footprint per unit of REO produced. As part of Stage II, we are in the process of reintroducing an oxidizing roasting circuit, reorienting the plant process flow, increasing product finishing capacity, improving wastewater management, and making other improvements to materials handling and storage. The reintroduction of the oxidizing roasting circuit also allows subsequent stages of the production process to occur at lower temperatures, and with significantly lower volumes of materials and reagents, which supports lower operating and maintenance costs and higher uptime.
The roasting step that oxidizes the rare earth concentrate in a rotary kiln is crucial to ensuring the cost-competitiveness of Mountain Pass. One of the unique attributes of bastnaesite is the ability to convert the trivalent cerium in the mixed rare earth concentrate to tetravalent cerium that has a low propensity to dissolve, enabling cerium to be separated expediently along with other insoluble gangue elements without selective extraction. Removal of the lower-value cerium early in our separations process will allow for up to a 40% reduction in the mass of material to be separated and finished, thus dramatically reducing the
2

Table of Contents

energy, reagents, and wastewater required to produce the higher-value NdPr. Upon completion of Stage II, we expect to be a global low-cost, high-volume producer of NdPr oxide, which represents a majority of the value contained in our ore.
In February 2022, we were awarded a $35.0 million contract by the Department of Defense’s Office of Industrial Base Policy to design and build a facility to process heavy rare earth elements (“HREE”). Successful completion of this project will establish the first processing and separation facility of its kind for HREEs in support of commercial and defense applications in the United States. The HREE processing and separations facility will be built at Mountain Pass and tie in with the rest of our Stage II facilities.
Stage III
Our mission is to restore the full rare earth magnetics supply chain to the U.S. by pursuing opportunities to integrate further downstream into converting NdPr into metal, alloy, and permanent magnets, as well as advancing magnet recycling capabilities. We recently announced our Fort Worth Facility, which we expect will have the capacity to produce approximately 1,000 metric tons (“MTs”) of finished NdFeB magnets per year, sufficient to power approximately 500,000 EV motors annually. The NdFeB alloy and magnets produced will also support other key markets, including clean energy, electronic and defense technologies. We also expect to supply NdFeB alloy flake to other magnet producers to help develop a diverse and resilient U.S. magnet supply chain. The Fort Worth Facility will serve as the business and engineering headquarters for our growing magnetics division.
The integration of magnet production would establish us as the first and only fully-integrated source of supply for rare earth magnets in the Western Hemisphere. By offering magnet customers a complete, end-to-end Western supply chain solution, we believe vertical integration represents a material incremental value creation opportunity. We believe that the ability to capture significant value from magnet production requires a scaled, steady supply of NdPr, which we believe we are uniquely-positioned to provide in the Western Hemisphere. We also believe integration into magnet production will provide some protection from commodity pricing volatility, while also enhancing our business profile as the producer of a critical industrial output in addition to a producer of resources.
Our Strategy
Offer the Western Hemisphere a trusted, sustainable source of supply for materials and components that enable the development of critical industries.
More than 60 years of operations at Mountain Pass have demonstrated that our ore body is one of the world’s largest and highest-grade rare earth resources. The low-volume nature of rare earth mining coupled with the exceptional scale and quality of the ore body results in a resource with significant viability well into the future.
Upon the completion of Stage II, we believe Mountain Pass will be one of the largest, most advanced and efficient fully-integrated REO processing facilities in the world, and the only such facility located in the Western Hemisphere. We hope to reinvigorate the industrial history of the rare earths supply chain that originated in the United States and provide a domestic alternative to both current and future users of rare earths that helps them avoid the risks associated with the single point-of-failure currently represented by China in the global rare earth supply chain. In addition, the U.S. government is actively seeking to end the country’s reliance on foreign REE sources, and we believe that our constructive relationship with key regulators and the relative stability of U.S. policies provides us with an advantage relative to non-U.S. REE producers.
The global effort to curb carbon emissions and reverse climate change often focuses on the impact of the transportation system, and we believe that our products will play a significant role in advancing those efforts. To date, nearly all U.S. states and the District of Columbia have mandated or offer incentives to support deployment of EVs or alternative fuel vehicles and supporting infrastructure, either through state legislation or private utility incentives within the state, with similar mandates and incentives in other countries globally. The NdPr product that we intend to produce at Mountain Pass is essential to the permanent magnet motor technology deployed in the significant majority of current EVs. In addition, we believe end consumers will demand that the materials used to build these vehicles be extracted sustainably. We are committed to protecting biodiversity and our environmental management plans cover biodiversity impacts, waste and noise management, air and water pollution, as well as natural resource and toxic chemical usage. We believe that our commitment to environmentally responsible production of REO will be a strong competitive advantage in building relationships with EV manufacturers, who share our commitment to sustainability.
A confluence of geopolitical and economic factors is causing downstream customers, such as automotive original equipment manufacturers (“OEMs”), to be increasingly focused on supply risk, highlighting the need to develop domestic production of REE and related products. To meet the growth in demand for EVs, we believe automotive OEMs will redesign
3

Table of Contents

their supply chains to ensure a ready and stable supply of rare earth products as they transition their engine, transmission and motor manufacturing facilities to build EV components. We aim to capitalize on and accelerate this opportunity by seeking to partner with current and future customers in their efforts to re-position the capital and labor in their supply chain and to meet the growth in electrification.
Leverage our low-cost position to maximize earnings power in all commodity price environments.
The success of our business reflects and will reflect our ability to manage our costs. Our production achievements in Stage I have provided economies of scale to lower production costs per unit of REO produced in concentrate. Stage II is designed to enable us to continue to manage our cost structure for separating REE through an optimized facility process flow. This process flow will allow us to use significantly less energy and raw materials per ton of separated REO.
Optimization of logistics is also central to maintaining a low-cost position relative to other global producers. The location of our facility, which is immediately adjacent to Interstate 15, within one hour of truck drive-time to a major railhead and four hours to the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, offers significant transportation advantages that create meaningful cost efficiencies in securing incoming supplies and shipping our final products. We believe the self-contained nature of our operations—with mining, milling, separations, and finishing all on one site—creates additional cost advantages and operational risk mitigation and upon the completion of Stage II, our integrated site will no longer incur the packaging, handling and transportation costs incurred by competitors who lack co-located processing.
Further our mission and ability to capture the full rare earth value chain through downstream integration into NdFeB magnet production.
Beyond re-establishing a supply chain for REE in the Western Hemisphere, we expect to recognize compelling longer-term opportunities to further our mission through the capture of additional value by pairing our attractive access to a large domestic rare earth supply with growing industry demands for magnetic materials. We are currently pursuing vertical integration through further downstream processing of REO into rare earth metals, alloys and finished magnets, including recycling. We intend to achieve this through a buy, build and/or joint venture strategy to achieve technical and cost leadership. We recently announced an agreement with GM and are developing a greenfield metal, alloy and magnet manufacturing and recycling facility in Fort Worth, Texas. We intend to continue exploring future opportunities to invest in, develop, and/or sponsor new downstream opportunities for REO, rare earth metals and alloys and rare earth products that contribute to the electrification of the industrial economy.
We believe our successes to-date at Mountain Pass demonstrate a competency in identifying undervalued assets, creating a disciplined, execution-focused strategy, and assembling the management talent to create value. We intend to apply our experience and skill sets across the rare earth value chain, while allocating capital effectively and responsibly, toward opportunities demonstrated to be in the best interest of our stockholders and consistent with our mission.
Human Capital Resources
Our people are our most valuable asset in progressing toward and ultimately fulfilling the Company’s mission. We strive to develop and maintain an owner-operator culture that instills an entrepreneurial spirit where our employees feel empowered to deliver results through an unwavering commitment to doing what is right in a safe environment. Ensuring we attract, develop and retain top talent across all functions with diverse experiences, backgrounds and perspectives is critical to our success. In each calendar quarter of 2021, our employee retention rate was approximately 94% or higher, which we believe demonstrates that we have prioritized investments and communication to ensure our team is healthy, motivated, proud to work for us, and believes in the Company’s mission.
Workforce Composition and Benefits
Since relaunching production at Mountain Pass in July 2017, we have increased our full-time equivalent (“FTE”) employee base from eight contractors in 2017 to 365 employees as of December 31, 2021, of which 313 were field-based employees and 52 were office-based employees. This represents a 32% increase of FTE employees in 2021. None of the employees are subject to any collective bargaining agreements. As part of our mission, we are committed to creating employment opportunities for U.S. workers and expect to hire more than 150 additional full-time employees as part of Stage II and at least 100 full-time employees as part of Stage III, the majority of which will support the Fort Worth Facility.
In living up to the owner-operator culture that powers our mission, in 2021, we issued immediately vested equity grants to all then-active, non-executive employees for the second year in a row. We believe equity ownership in the Company reinforces an unwavering commitment to our workforce and enhances our employees’ sense of their contribution to the results of the
4

Table of Contents

Company. The equity awards were provided in addition to competitive wages, comprehensive benefits and discretionary bonuses and incentive compensation opportunities.
Health and Safety
The health, well-being and safety of our employees, suppliers and communities are a top priority. We are committed to maintaining a strong safety culture and to emphasizing the importance of our employees’ role in identifying, mitigating and communicating safety risks. We believe that the achievement of superior safety performance is both an important short-term and long-term strategic initiative in managing our operations.
The Company has established appropriate COVID-19 protocols in accordance with laws, guidance and regulations to ensure the safety of all employees and visitors of our facilities. Based on feedback received from our corporate employees through a return-to-office survey, in June 2021, we implemented a temporary hybrid schedule for onsite and remote work for our corporate office. At Mountain Pass, we continued staggered shift times and breaks to support appropriate distancing protocols, provided personal protective equipment across our teams, and initiated an enhanced disinfection program, which included sanitizer, cleaning supplies and electrostatic sprayers, with a focus on shared locations and equipment. We also worked diligently with our employees to accommodate their requests to use the Families First Coronavirus Relief Act and the Family Medical Leave Act. To encourage COVID-19 vaccination participation, the Company administered an incentive program for successful completion of a vaccination regimen.
Through these efforts, as well as our continued commitment to monitor, assess and implement guidance and best practices recommended by the World Health Organization and Centers for Disease Control, we have been able to maintain the continuity of the essential services that we provide to our customers, while also managing the spread of the virus and promoting the health, well-being and safety of our employees, suppliers and communities.
Diversity and Inclusion
We believe that a diverse and inclusive workforce produces better overall decision-making for employees, which benefits the organization. In addition to the requisite skills, we have taken steps to assemble a diverse workforce. One example is partnering with local veterans’ organizations for collaboration on presenting career opportunities and demonstrating support from the Company. As of December 31, 2021, based on employees’ self-reporting, veterans and women represented 4% and 15%, respectively, of our workforce and 18% of managerial or supervisory positions were occupied by women. As we progress with our Stage II and Stage III projects, we will continue to strive to assemble a diverse and inclusive workforce.
Employee Engagement and Development
Employee engagement efforts are critical in ensuring all employees feel heard and valued, and that applicable actions are taken when feedback is received. We provide opportunities for employees to engage with executive management through events such as virtual town hall sessions, which are typically conducted twice per year.
Methodical execution is key to ensuring our Company goals are achieved and exceeded. For 2021, we revamped our performance management evaluation process to align more closely with our mission. This revised performance management baseline, rooted in the values of our organization, will set the foundation for applicable goal-setting, individual development plans and career pathways going forward.
We are dedicated to the continual training and development of our employees, especially of those in field operations, to ensure we develop future managers and leaders from within our organization. Our training starts on an employee’s first day with on-boarding procedures that focus on safety, responsibility, ethical conduct and inclusive teamwork. In addition, we have an electrical and instrumentation apprenticeship program in which we pay for our employees to attend trade school to increase their opportunity for future advancement.
Customers
Currently, we sell the vast majority of our rare earth concentrate to Shenghe under the terms of the A&R Offtake Agreement. Shenghe is contractually obligated under the A&R Offtake Agreement to purchase all of our rare earth concentrate product meeting certain minimum specifications on a “take-or-pay basis” (such that they are obliged to pay for product even if they are unable or unwilling to take delivery). Shenghe sells the rare earth concentrate it acquires under the A&R Offtake Agreement to customers in China, which process and resell these refined products. The A&R Offtake Agreement will terminate by the end of the first quarter of 2022. In February 2022, we entered into a term sheet with Shenghe which provides that once our A&R Offtake Agreement expires, we will continue to sell and Shenghe will continue to purchase our rare earth concentrate
5

Table of Contents

under an offtake arrangement. We may also enter into short- and long-term sales contracts with new customers for the sale of our rare earth concentrate.
In addition, we intend to enter into short- and long-term sales contracts with existing and new customers for separated REO in anticipation of and upon the completion of Stage II. For certain REE where the market demand is high, we may decide not to enter into letters of intent or contracts prior to commencing production.
We are also pursuing sales opportunities for our future NdFeB alloy and magnet products. In December 2021, we entered into a long-term agreement with GM to supply rare earth alloy flake and finished magnets to GM for the electric motors in its Ultium Platform, which will be manufactured in our Fort Worth Facility. We are currently negotiating the terms of a definitive long-term supply agreement with GM, which will include all of the necessary terms and conditions.
Suppliers
We use certain proprietary chemical reagents in our flotation process, which we currently purchase from third-party suppliers. These products are subject to pricing volatility, supply availability and other restrictions and guidelines. In the event of a supply disruption or any other restriction, we believe that alternative reagents could be sourced. The solvent extraction and finishing processes are highly reliant upon standard commodity reagents, particularly hydrochloric acid and sodium hydroxide.
Patents, Trademarks and Licenses
We rely on a combination of trade secret protection, nondisclosure and licensing agreements, patents and trademarks to establish and protect our proprietary intellectual property rights. We utilize trade secret protection and nondisclosure agreements to protect our proprietary rare earth technology.
Competition
The rare earth mining and processing markets are capital intensive and highly competitive. Outside of the six major rare earth producers in China (which are being consolidated into two rare earth conglomerates), and those consolidated under their production quotas—there are only two other producers operating at scale, our Company and Lynas Rare Earths Ltd., which processes its rare earth materials in Malaysia.
Environmental, Health, Safety and Regulatory Matters
We are subject to numerous federal, state and local environmental laws, certifications, regulations, permits, and other legal requirements applicable to the mining and mineral processing industry, including, without limitation, those pertaining to employee health and safety, air quality standards and emissions, water usage, wastewater and stormwater discharges, greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions, hazardous and radioactive and other waste management, plant and wildlife protection, remediation of contamination, land use, reclamation and restoration of properties, procurement of certain materials used in our operations, groundwater quality and the use of explosives. These requirements have had, and will continue to have, a significant effect on our results of operations, earnings and competitive position. Environmental laws and regulation continue to evolve which may require us to meet stricter standards and give rise to greater enforcement, result in increased fines and penalties for non-compliance, and result in a heightened degree of responsibility for companies and their officers, directors and employees. Future laws, regulations, permits or legal requirements, as well as the interpretation or enforcement of existing requirements, may require substantial increases in capital or operating costs to achieve and maintain compliance or otherwise delay, limit or prohibit operations, or other restrictions upon, our current or future operations or result in the imposition of fines and penalties for failure to comply.
Complying with these regulations is complicated and requires significant attention and resources. We expect to continue to incur significant sums for ongoing operating environmental expenditures, including salaries, and the costs for monitoring, compliance, remediation, reporting, pollution control equipment and permitting. In addition, we plan to invest significant capital to maintain and upgrade certain infrastructure to ensure we operate in a safe and environmentally sustainable manner.
6

Table of Contents

Information About Our Executive Officers
The persons serving as our executive officers and their positions with us are as follows:
NAME
AGE
POSITION WITH THE COMPANY
James H. Litinsky
44
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
Michael Rosenthal
43
Chief Operating Officer
Ryan Corbett
32
Chief Financial Officer
Elliot Hoops47
General Counsel and Secretary
James H. Litinsky. Mr. Litinsky is the Founder, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of MP Materials. Mr. Litinsky is also the Founder, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Investment Officer of JHL Capital Group LLC (“JHL”), an alternative investment management firm. Before founding JHL in 2006, he was a member of the Drawbridge Special Opportunities Fund at Fortress Investment Group. Prior to Fortress, he was a Director of Finance at Omnicom Group, and he worked as a merchant banker at Allen & Company. Mr. Litinsky received a B.A. in Economics from Yale University, cum laude, and a J.D./M.B.A. from the Northwestern University School of Law and the Kellogg School of Management. He was admitted to the Illinois Bar. Mr. Litinsky also serves as a member of the Boards of the Shirley Ryan AbilityLab and the Museum of Contemporary Art Chicago.
Michael Rosenthal. Mr. Rosenthal is a Founder and the Chief Operating Officer of MP Materials. He has managed the Mountain Pass operation since the Company acquired the site in 2017. Before MP Materials, he was a Partner at QVT Financial (“QVT”), an investment management firm. At QVT, Mr. Rosenthal concentrated on investments in the global automotive sector and in China. Prior to joining QVT, he worked as a senior high yield credit analyst for Shenkman Capital Management. Mr. Rosenthal graduated from Duke University with an A.B. degree in Economics and Comparative Area Studies.
Ryan Corbett. Mr. Corbett joined MP Materials as its Chief Financial Officer in 2019. Prior to joining MP Materials, he was a Managing Director at JHL, where he focused on JHL’s investment in MP Materials. Before JHL, Mr. Corbett was a member of alternative asset managers Brahman Capital Corp. and King Street Capital Management LP, both based in New York, where he focused on special situations investments across the capital structure. Mr. Corbett began his career in investment banking and corporate finance at Morgan Stanley & Co. after graduating magna cum laude from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania with a concentration in Finance.
Elliot Hoops. Mr. Hoops joined MP Materials as its General Counsel and Secretary in May 2021. Prior to joining MP Materials, he was Vice President and Deputy General Counsel at Penn National Gaming, Inc. (“Penn National”), a regional gaming company, from January 2019 to May 2021, where he was responsible for a variety of legal matters, including commercial transactions, financings, corporate governance, securities law and gaming regulatory compliance. Prior to joining Penn National, he was Vice President and Legal Counsel at Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc. (“Pinnacle”), a regional gaming company (which was acquired by Penn National), from June 2007 to October 2018. Prior to Pinnacle, he was an associate at Holland and Knight LLP and an attorney advisor with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Mr. Hoops received his B.A. in English from the University of Michigan, J.D. from the University of Miami, and LL.M. in Securities and Financial Regulation from Georgetown University Law Center.
Available Information
Our website is located at www.mpmaterials.com. Annual reports on Form 10‑K, quarterly reports on Form 10‑Q, current reports on Form 8‑K, and amendments to those reports, proxy and information statements, earnings releases, and financial statements are made available free of charge on the investor relations section of our website as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such materials with, or furnish such materials to, the SEC. Our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics is also available on the investor relations section of our website. The information contained on our website, or accessible from our website, is not incorporated into, and should not be considered part of, this Form 10‑K or any other documents we file with, or furnish to, the SEC. The SEC maintains an internet site (http://www.sec.gov) that contains reports, proxy and information statements and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC. Annual reports, quarterly reports, current reports, amendments to those reports, proxy and information statements, earnings releases, financial statements and our various corporate governance documents, including our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, are also available free of charge upon written request.
Investors and others should note that we may announce material financial information to our investors using our investor relations website (https://investors.mpmaterials.com/overview), SEC filings, press releases, public conference calls and
7

Table of Contents

webcasts. We use these channels as well as social media to communicate with our stockholders and the public about our company, our services and other issues. It is possible that the information we post on social media could be deemed to be material information. Therefore, we encourage investors, the media, and others interested in our company to review the information we post on the social media channels listed on our investor relations website.
Other
The Company was incorporated on January 24, 2020, as a Delaware corporation under the name “Fortress Value Acquisition Corp.” (“FVAC”) and formed for the purpose of effecting a merger, capital stock exchange, asset acquisition, stock purchase, reorganization or similar business combination with one or more businesses. On November 17, 2020, the Company consummated the transactions contemplated by the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of July 15, 2020, as amended on August 26, 2020 (the “Merger Agreement”), by and among FVAC, certain direct wholly-owned subsidiaries of FVAC, MP Mine Operations LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“MPMO”), which owns the Mountain Pass mine and processing facilities, and Secure Natural Resources LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“SNR”), which holds the mineral rights to the Mountain Pass mine and surrounding areas as well as intellectual property rights related to the processing and development of rare earth minerals. Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, among other things, MPMO and SNR each became wholly-owned subsidiaries of FVAC (the “Business Combination”), which was in turn renamed “MP Materials Corp.”
ITEM 1A.    RISK FACTORS
Investing in our securities involves a high degree of risk. Investors should carefully consider the risks described below and all of the other information we file with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) before deciding to invest in our common stock. If any of the events or developments described below occur, our business, prospects, financial condition, or results of operations could be materially or adversely affected. As a result, the market price of our common stock could decline, and investors could lose all or part of their investment. The risks and uncertainties described below are not the only risks and uncertainties that we face. Additional risks and uncertainties not presently known to us or that we currently deem immaterial may also impair our business operations. The risks discussed below also include forward-looking statements, and our actual results may differ substantially from those discussed in these forward-looking statements. See “Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements” above.
Risk Factor Summary
Our business is subject to a number of risks and uncertainties, including those highlighted immediately following this summary. Some of these risks are:
We may be adversely affected by fluctuations in demand for, and prices of, rare earth minerals and products, alloy flake and magnets.
The success of our business will depend, in part, on the growth of existing and emerging uses for rare earth products.
An increase in the global supply of rare earth products, dumping, predatory pricing and other tactics designed to inhibit our further downstream integration by our competitors may materially adversely affect our profitability.
We operate in a highly competitive industry.
We currently rely on Shenghe to purchase the vast majority of our rare earth concentrate product on a “take-or-pay” basis and sell that product to end users in China; we cannot assure you that they will continue to honor their contractual obligations to purchase and sell our products, or that they will make optimum efforts to market and sell our products.
Changes in China’s political environment and policies, including changes in export policy or the interpretation of China’s export policy and policy on rare earths production or the import of rare earth feedstock, may adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.
The production of rare earth products is a capital-intensive business and the completion of our Stage II project at Mountain Pass will require the commitment of substantial resources; unanticipated costs or delays associated with our ongoing Stage II project could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations.
Our continued growth depends on our ability to complete the Stage II project at Mountain Pass, which is our only rare earth mining and processing facility.
8

Table of Contents

The production of alloy flake and magnets in Stage III is dependent upon the successful completion of our Stage II project and our ability to complete the construction of our Stage III facility; an unanticipated delay in the completion of Stage II or Stage III could have a material adverse effect on our ability to produce alloy flake and magnets.
We may not be able to adequately protect our intellectual property rights. If we fail to adequately enforce or defend our intellectual property rights, our business may be harmed. If we infringe, or are accused of infringing, the intellectual property rights of third parties, it may increase our costs or prevent us from being able to commercialize new products.
We are currently negotiating a definitive long-term supply agreement with GM that includes all necessary terms and conditions, which may or may not occur. In addition, if we are unable to perform the obligations under a long-term supply agreement with GM, this may have a material adverse effect on our financial position and results of operations.
We may not be able to convert current commercial discussions with customers for the sale of REO products, alloy flake and magnets into contracts, which may have a material adverse effect on our financial position and results of operations.
The COVID-19 pandemic could have an adverse effect on our business.
We are subject to a number of operational risks of our business, including power shortage at the Mountain Pass facility, increasing costs or limited access to raw materials, disruptions in transportation or other services, inability to perfect mineral extraction process, access to water, uncertainty in our estimates of REO reserves, labor matters/labor relations, cybersecurity breaches, and/or ESG (as defined below) matters.
The conditional conversion feature of our Convertible Notes, if triggered, may adversely affect our financial condition and operating results.
Conversion of our Convertible Notes may dilute the ownership interest of our stockholders or may otherwise depress the price of our common stock.
Certain provisions in the indenture governing the Convertible Notes may delay or prevent an otherwise beneficial takeover attempt of us.
Servicing our debt requires a significant amount of cash, and we may not have sufficient cash flow from our business to pay our debt.
Risks Relating to our Business and Industry
We may be adversely affected by fluctuations in demand for, and prices of, rare earth minerals and products, alloy flake and magnets.
Because our revenue is, and will be for the foreseeable future, from the sale of rare earth products, changes in demand for, and the market price of, and taxes and other tariffs and fees imposed upon rare earth minerals and products could significantly affect our profitability. Our financial results may be significantly adversely affected by declines in the prices of rare earth minerals and products. Rare earth minerals and product prices may fluctuate and are affected by numerous factors beyond our control such as interest rates, exchange rates, taxes, inflation or deflation, fluctuation in the relative value of the U.S. dollar against foreign currencies on the world market, shipping and other transportation and logistics costs, global and regional supply and demand for rare earth minerals and products, potential industry trends, such as competitor consolidation or other integration methodologies, and the political and economic conditions of countries that produce and procure rare earth minerals and products. Furthermore, supply side factors have a significant influence on price volatility for rare earth minerals. Supply of rare earth minerals is dominated by Chinese producers. The Chinese Central Government regulates production via quotas and environmental standards, and, to a lesser extent, regulation of imports, and has and may continue to change such production quotas, environmental standards, and import regulations. Over the past few years, there has been significant restructuring of the Chinese market in line with Chinese Central Government policy; however, periods of over-supply or speculative trading of rare earth minerals can lead to significant fluctuations in the market price of rare earth minerals.
A prolonged or significant economic contraction in the United States or worldwide could put downward pressure on market prices of rare earth minerals and products. Protracted periods of low prices for rare earth minerals and products could significantly reduce revenues and the availability of required development funds in the future. This could cause substantial reductions to, or a suspension of, REO production operations, impair asset values and reduce our proven and probable rare earth ore reserves.
9

Table of Contents

Demand for our products, including alloy flake and magnets, may be impacted by demand for downstream products incorporating rare earths, including hybrid and electric vehicles, wind turbines, robotics, medical equipment, military equipment and other high-growth, advanced motion technologies, as well as demand in the general automotive and electronic industries. Lack of growth in these markets may adversely affect the demand for our products.
In contrast, extended periods of high commodity prices may create economic dislocations that may be destabilizing to rare earth minerals supply and demand and ultimately to the broader markets. Periods of high rare earth mineral market prices generally are beneficial to our financial performance. However, strong rare earth mineral prices also create economic pressure to identify or create alternate technologies that ultimately could depress future long-term demand for rare earth minerals and products, and at the same time may incentivize development of competing mining properties.
The success of our business will depend, in part, on the growth of existing and emerging uses for rare earth products.
Our strategy is to develop rare earth products, including NdPr, that are used in critical existing and emerging technologies, such as hybrid and electric vehicles, wind turbines, robotics, medical equipment, military equipment and other high-growth, advanced motion technologies. The success of our business depends on the continued growth of these end markets and successfully commercializing rare earth products, including NdPr, in such markets. If the market for these critical existing and emerging technologies does not grow as we expect, grows more slowly than we expect, or if the demand for our products in these markets decreases, then our business, prospects, financial condition and operating results could be harmed. In addition, the market for these technologies, particularly in the automotive industry, tends to be cyclical, which exposes us to increased volatility, and it is uncertain as to how such macroeconomic factors will impact our business. Any unexpected costs or delays in the commercialization of separated REE products, or less than expected demand for the critical existing and emerging technologies that use rare earth products, could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations.
An increase in the global supply of rare earth products, dumping, predatory pricing and other tactics designed to inhibit our further downstream integration by our competitors may materially adversely affect our profitability.
The pricing and demand for rare earth products is affected by a number of factors beyond our control, including growth of economic development and the global supply and demand for REO products. According to CRU, China accounted for approximately 80% of global REO production in 2021. China also dominates the manufacture of metals and NdFeB magnets from rare earths, capabilities that are not currently present in the United States, and the Chinese Central Government regulates production via quotas and environmental standards. Over the past few years, there has been significant restructuring of the Chinese markets in line with China Central Government policy. Assuming that we reach anticipated production rates for REO and other planned downstream products and subsequently become fully operational and integrated, the increased competition may lead our competitors to engage in predatory pricing or other behaviors designed to inhibit our further downstream integration. Any increase in the amount of rare earth products exported from other nations and increased competition may result in price reductions, reduced margins or loss of potential market share, any of which could materially adversely affect our profitability. As a result of these factors, we may not be able to compete effectively against current and future competitors.
We operate in a highly competitive industry.
The rare earth mining and processing and rare earth magnetics markets are capital intensive and competitive. Production of rare earths and related products is dominated by our Chinese competitors. These competitors may have greater financial resources, as well as other strategic advantages to operate, maintain, improve and possibly expand their facilities. Additionally, our Chinese competitors have historically been able to produce at relatively low costs due to domestic economic and regulatory factors, including less stringent environmental and governmental regulations and lower labor and benefit costs. Even upon successful completion of Stage II at Mountain Pass, if we are not able to achieve our anticipated costs of production, then any strategic advantages that our competitors may have over us, including, without limitation, lower labor, compliance and production costs, could have a material adverse effect on our business.
Industry consolidation may result in increased competition, which could result in a reduction in revenue.
Some of our competitors have made, or may make, acquisitions or enter into partnerships or other strategic relationships to achieve competitive advantages. In addition, new entrants not currently considered competitors may enter our market through acquisitions, partnerships or strategic relationships. We expect these trends to continue as demand for rare earth materials increases. Industry consolidation may result in competitors with more compelling product offerings or greater pricing flexibility than we have, or business practices that make it more difficult for us to compete effectively, including on the basis of price, sales, technology or supply. For example, in December 2021, China merged three state entities to establish the China Rare Earth Group Co. Ltd (“China Rare Earth Group”), which will account for more than half of China’s heavy rare earths supplies. China
10

Table of Contents

Rare Earth Group will have enhanced pricing power of key rare earths, such as dysprosium and terbium, which will likely bring changes to the global rare earth supply chain. These competitive pressures could have a material adverse effect on our business.
Our ability to generate revenue will be diminished if we are unable to compete with substitutions for our rare earth materials.
Technology changes rapidly in the industries and end markets that utilize our materials. If these industries introduce new technologies or products that no longer require the rare earth materials we produce, or suitable substitutes become available, it could result in a decline in demand for our rare earth materials. If the demand for our rare earth materials decreases, it will have a material adverse effect on our business and the results of our operations and financial condition.
We currently rely on Shenghe to purchase the vast majority of our rare earth concentrate product on a “take-or-pay” basis and sell that product to end users in China. We cannot assure you that they will continue to honor their contractual obligations to purchase and sell our products, or that they will make optimum efforts to market and sell our products.
We currently sell the vast majority of our rare earth concentrate to Shenghe. While Shenghe is obligated under the A&R Offtake Agreement to purchase all of the rare earth concentrate product meeting certain minimum specifications on a “take-or-pay” basis (such that they are obliged to pay for product even if they are unable or unwilling to take delivery), we cannot guarantee that Shenghe will continue to purchase all of the products that it is contractually bound to purchase or products that do not meet these specifications.
In addition, Shenghe sells the rare earth concentrate it acquires under the A&R Offtake Agreement to customers in China who separate and extract the individual rare earth elements from our rare earth concentrate. We do not control the amount and timing of resources that Shenghe will dedicate to their sales efforts. Therefore, any decline or delay in Shenghe’s sales efforts could reduce sales prices or sales volumes, which could impact the duration of the A&R Offtake Agreement.
Under the A&R Offtake Agreement, Shenghe is entitled to retain their gross profits from the sales of our products, and those gross profits are credited against the Prepaid Balance (as defined in Note 4, “Relationship and Agreements with Shenghe,” in the notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements). When Shenghe has recouped all of the Prepaid Balance, the A&R Offtake Agreement will terminate. As of December 31, 2021, the amount outstanding on the Prepaid Balance was $16.6 million, which will be repaid by the end of the first quarter of 2022 principally through the gross profit recoupment feature.
In February 2022, we entered into a term sheet with Shenghe which provides that once our A&R Offtake Agreement expires, we will continue to sell and Shenghe will continue to purchase our rare earth concentrate under an offtake arrangement. In connection with this term sheet, we are negotiating a new offtake agreement with Shenghe. If we are unable to enter into a new offtake agreement with Shenghe and we are unable to sell rare earth concentrate to other customers, it would have a material adverse effect on our revenues, results of operations and financial condition. There can be no assurance that we will be able to enter into a new offtake agreement with Shenghe or enter into agreements to sell rare earth concentrate to other customers.
To the extent we remain reliant on Shenghe, we are also subject to the risks faced by Shenghe where such risks impede their ability to stay in business, make timely payments to us, perform their obligations to us, or sell our products to their end-customers.
Changes in China’s political environment and policies, including changes in export policy or the interpretation of China’s export policy and policy on rare earths production or the import of rare earth feedstock may adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.
Because the vast majority of our rare earth concentrate product is currently sold to Shenghe under our A&R Offtake Agreement, for further processing by third-party customers in China, the possibility of adverse changes in trade or political relations with China, political instability in China, increases in labor or shipping costs, the occurrence of prolonged adverse weather conditions or a natural disaster such as an earthquake or typhoon, or the continuation of COVID-19 or the outbreak of another global pandemic disease could severely interfere with the sale and/or shipment of our products and would have a material adverse effect on our operations.
Our sales may be adversely affected by the current and future political environment in China and the policies of the China Central Government. China’s government has exercised and continues to exercise substantial control over nearly all sectors of the Chinese economy through regulation and state ownership. Our ability to ship products to China may be adversely affected by changes in Chinese laws and regulations, including those relating to taxation, import and export tariffs, raw materials, environmental regulations, land use rights, property and other matters. The United States government has instituted substantial changes to foreign trade policy with China and has raised, tariffs on several Chinese goods. China has retaliated with increased
11

Table of Contents

tariffs on United States goods. Any further changes in United States trade policy could trigger retaliatory actions by affected countries, including China, resulting in trade wars. Any changes in United States and China relations, including through changes in policies by the Chinese government could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations, including changes in laws, regulations or the interpretation thereof, confiscatory taxation, governmental royalties, restrictions on currency conversion, imports or sources of supplies, or the expropriation or nationalization of private enterprises.
In addition, there may be circumstances where we may have to incur premium freight charges to expedite the delivery of our products to customers or as a result of being required to ship to alternative ports due to local Chinese government regulations or delays at the ports that we typically utilize. If we incur a significant amount of freight charges, our gross profit will be negatively affected if we are unable to pass on those charges to customers. In addition, we may be adversely affected by shipments to such alternative ports, including that these shipments may be delayed for any reason or as they are affected by domestic or international laws and regulations, taxation, import and export tariffs, environmental regulations, customs and other matters.
The production of rare earth products is a capital-intensive business and the completion of our Stage II project at Mountain Pass will require the commitment of substantial resources. Unanticipated costs or delays associated with our ongoing Stage II project could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations.
The completion of our Stage II project at Mountain Pass will require the commitment of substantial resources and capital expenditures. We expect to achieve anticipated production run rates for separated REO in 2023. Our estimated expenses may increase as consultants, personnel and equipment associated with our efforts are added, and as a result of inflationary pressures in the United States. The progress of Stage II, the amounts and timing of expenditures and the success of this project will depend in part on the following: (a) the operational resumption of a portion of the existing process, plant and equipment, certain of which is currently in a care-and-maintenance state, and the further enhancement and development of such existing process, plant and equipment; (b) our ability to timely procure new equipment and materials, certain of which may involve long lead-times, or to repair existing equipment; (c) the failure of service providers or vendors to meet contractually-negotiated delivery or completion deadlines; (d) maintaining, and procuring, as required, applicable federal, state and local permits; (e) the incorporation of project change orders, due to engineering, process, health and safety, or other considerations; (f) negotiating contracts for equipment, earthwork, construction, equipment installation, labor and completing infrastructure and construction work; (g) impact of planned and unplanned shut-downs and delays in our production; (h) impact of stoppages or delays on construction projects; (i) disputes with contractors or other third parties; (j) negotiating sales and offtake contracts for our planned production; (k) the execution of any joint venture agreements or similar arrangements with strategic partners; (l) the impact of COVID-19 or similar pandemics on our business, our strategic partners’ or suppliers’ businesses, logistics or the global economy; and (m) other factors, many of which are beyond our control.
Most of these activities require significant lead times and must be advanced concurrently. Unanticipated costs or delays associated with our Stage II project could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations and could require us to seek additional capital, which may not be available on commercially acceptable terms or at all.
The actual amount of capital required for the Stage II project at Mountain Pass may vary materially from our current estimates, in which case we may need to raise additional funds, which could delay completion and have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition.
The anticipated funding required to complete the Stage II project at Mountain Pass is based on certain estimates and assumptions we have made about the additional equipment, labor, permits and other factors required to complete the project. If any of these estimates or assumptions change, the actual timing and amount of capital required to complete the Stage II project may vary materially from what we anticipate. Additional funds may be required in the event of significant departures from our current plans, unforeseen delays, cost overruns, engineering design changes or other unanticipated events or expenses. There can be no assurance that additional financing will be available to us, or, if available, that it can be obtained on a timely basis and on commercially acceptable terms.
Our continued growth depends on our ability to complete the Stage II project at Mountain Pass, which is our only rare earth mining and processing facility.
Our only rare earth mining and processing facility at this time is Mountain Pass. Our continued growth is based on successfully completing the Stage II project and reaching anticipated production rates for the separation of REE in accordance with our expected timeframe. The deterioration or destruction of any part of Mountain Pass, or a delay in the procurement of any necessary equipment, may significantly hinder our ability to reach or maintain anticipated production rates within the expected time frame or at all. If we are unsuccessful in reaching and maintaining expected production rates for REO at Mountain Pass, including by failing to reach anticipated throughput, recoveries, uptimes, yields, or any combination thereof,
12

Table of Contents

within expected time frames or at all, we may not be able to reach our full revenue potential. In the event that the Stage II project is not completed, the Company may not be able to produce alloy flake and magnets in Stage III and comply with the terms of our agreement with GM.
The production of alloy flake and magnets is a capital-intensive business, and the completion of the Fort Worth Facility will require the commitment of substantial resources; unanticipated costs or delays associated with this project could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations.
In December 2021, we announced that we will be building our initial Stage III facility in Fort Worth, Texas. The Stage III project will require a substantial capital commitment to complete and there may be unanticipated costs or delays associated with the construction of our Stage III facility. In addition, our ability to reach our full revenue potential will be dependent on our ability to complete the construction of our Stage III facility and commence the production of alloy flake and finished magnets. Our proposed timeline for producing alloy flake and magnets is based on certain estimates and assumptions we have made about our business over the next few years, including the successful completion of our Stage II project. If any of these estimates or assumptions prove to be wrong or we are unable to complete our Stage II project, it may significantly hinder our ability to commence Stage III within the expected time frame or at all. If we are unsuccessful in being able to construct and commence production at our Stage III facility, within the expected time frame or at all, we will not be able to take advantage of our downstream value creation opportunity and thus we may not be able to reach our full revenue potential.
If we infringe, or are accused of infringing, the intellectual property rights of third parties, it may increase our costs or prevent us from being able to commercialize new products.
There is a risk that we may infringe, or may be accused of infringing, the proprietary rights of third parties under patents and pending patent applications belonging to third parties that may exist in the United States and elsewhere in the world that relate to our rare earth products and processes, including our planned future production of alloy flake and magnets in Stage III. Because the patent application process can take several years to complete, there may be currently pending applications that may later result in issued patents that cover our products and processes. In addition, our products and processes may infringe existing patents.
Defending ourselves against third-party claims, including litigation in particular, would be costly and time consuming and would divert management’s attention from our business, which could lead to delays in our Stage II project or Stage III downstream expansion. If third parties are successful in their claims, we might have to pay substantial damages or take other actions that are adverse to our business. As a result of intellectual property infringement claims, or to avoid potential claims, we might:
be prohibited from, or delayed in, selling rare earth products, including alloy flake and magnets, or licensing some of our products or using some of our processes unless the patent holder licenses the patent to us, which it is not required to do;
be required to pay substantial royalties or grant a cross license to our patents to another patent holder; or
be required to redesign a product or process so it does not infringe a third party’s patent, which may not be possible or could require substantial funds and time.
In addition, we could be subject to claims that our employees, or we, have inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed trade secrets or other proprietary information of third parties.
If we are unable to resolve claims that may be brought against us by third parties related to their intellectual property rights on terms acceptable to us, we may be precluded from offering some of our products or using some of our processes.
We may not be able to adequately protect our intellectual property rights. If we fail to adequately enforce or defend our intellectual property rights, our business may be harmed.
Much of the technology used in the markets in which we compete is protected by patents and trade secrets, and our commercial success will depend in significant part on our ability to obtain and maintain patent and trade secret protection for our products and methods. To compete in these markets, we rely on a combination of trade secret protection, nondisclosure and licensing agreements, patents and trademarks to establish and protect our proprietary intellectual property rights, including our proprietary rare earth production processes that are not patented. Our intellectual property rights may be challenged or infringed upon by third parties or we may be unable to maintain, renew or enter into new license agreements with third-party owners of intellectual property on reasonable terms. In addition, our intellectual property may be subject to infringement or other unauthorized use outside of the United States. In such case, our ability to protect our intellectual property rights by legal
13

Table of Contents

recourse or otherwise may be limited, particularly in countries where laws or enforcement practices are undeveloped or do not recognize or protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as the United States. Unauthorized use of our intellectual property rights or our inability to preserve existing intellectual property rights could adversely impact our competitive position and results of operations. The loss of our patents could reduce the value of the related products. In addition, the cost to litigate infringements of our patents, or the cost to defend ourselves against patent infringement actions by others, could be substantial and, if incurred, could materially affect our business and financial condition.
Proprietary trade secrets and unpatented know-how are also very important to our business. We rely on trade secrets to protect certain aspects of our technology, especially where we do not believe that patent protection is appropriate or obtainable. However, trade secrets are difficult to protect. Our employees, consultants, contractors, outside scientific collaborators and other advisors may unintentionally or willfully disclose our confidential information to competitors, and confidentiality agreements may not provide an adequate remedy in the event of unauthorized disclosure of confidential or proprietary information. Enforcing a claim that a third party illegally obtained and is using our trade secrets is expensive and time consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. Moreover, our competitors may independently develop equivalent knowledge, methods and know-how. Failure to obtain or maintain trade secret protection could adversely affect our competitive business position.
We may not be able to obtain additional patents and the legal protection afforded by any additional patents may not adequately protect our rights or permit us to gain or keep any competitive advantage.
Our ability to obtain additional patents is uncertain and the legal protection afforded by these patents is limited and may not adequately protect our rights or permit us to gain or keep any competitive advantage. In addition, the specific content required of patents and patent applications that are necessary to support and interpret patent claims is highly uncertain due to the complex nature of the relevant legal, scientific and factual issues. Changes in either patent laws or interpretations of patent laws in the United States or elsewhere may diminish the value of our intellectual property or narrow the scope of our patent protection. Even if patents are issued regarding our products and processes, our competitors may challenge the validity of those patents. Patents also will not protect our products and processes if competitors devise ways of making products without infringing our patents.
We are currently negotiating all the necessary terms and conditions of a definitive long-term supply agreement with GM, which may or may not occur. In addition, if we are unable to perform the obligations under a long-term supply agreement with GM, this will have a material adverse effect on our financial position and results of operations.
We are currently negotiating all the necessary terms and conditions of a definitive long-term supply agreement with GM. There can be no assurance that we will be able to come to a definitive agreement with GM on such terms and conditions or that they will be acceptable to us. In addition, our ability to perform the obligations under a long-term agreement with GM to supply them with rare earth alloy flake and finished magnets is subject to a number of risks and contingencies. We are embarking on building the first scaled rare earth magnet manufacturing facility in the United States in several decades. While we will be relying on a number of experienced engineers and other third parties in the design, engineering and construction of the Stage III facility, we will be making a number of judgments and assumptions on process design, equipment selection and design, and plant operations, that may or may not prove to be correct. Design, engineering or construction delays may impair our ability to perform under a long-term supply agreement with GM. In addition, we will need to procure all of the necessary equipment and materials needed to produce alloy flake and magnets, some of which may be difficult to obtain. There can be no assurance that such equipment and materials will be procured on time or delayed due to circumstances beyond our control.
Further, we will need to hire and recruit a number of employees that are necessary to successfully design and operate the Stage III facility, including engineers, operators and other professionals. It may be difficult for us to hire employees with the necessary experience, education and skills needed to produce alloy flake and magnets, and we may need to hire employees from other countries if we cannot recruit employees in the United States. We will also face competition for these employees.
There can be no assurance that even if we build the Stage III facility, obtain the equipment and materials needed, and hire the necessary employees, that we will successfully produce alloy flake and magnets, including those volumes necessary to meet the requirements under a long-term supply agreement with GM. In the event that we are not able to mitigate these risks and fail to comply with the terms of a definitive agreement with GM, this will have a material adverse effect on our financial position and results of operations.
14

Table of Contents

We may not be able to convert current commercial discussions with customers for the sale of REO products into contracts, which may have a material adverse effect on our financial position and results of operations.
Currently, we sell the vast majority of our rare earth concentrate product to Shenghe on a take-or-pay basis under our A&R Offtake Agreement. That A&R Offtake Agreement will terminate after Shenghe has recovered the full amount of the Offtake Advances (as defined in Note 4, “Relationship and Agreements with Shenghe,” in the notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements). After the A&R Offtake Agreement terminates, we may no longer have a contractual agreement requiring Shenghe to purchase rare earth products from Mountain Pass unless we negotiate a new agreement.
We are actively working on our Stage II project, which includes installing a concentrate drying and roasting circuit, upgrading and restarting the product leaching circuit, recommissioning separation and extraction circuits, improving materials handling and brine management capability, and enlarging product finishing capacity to re-establish the full capability to produce separated, individual rare earth products at Mountain Pass. Upon reaching anticipated production rates for REO and other planned downstream products at Mountain Pass, we expect to produce approximately 20,000 metric tons of separated REO per year, excluding cerium concentrate, consisting of approximately 6,075 metric tons of NdPr oxide per year. Prior to reaching expected production rates for REO and other planned downstream products at Mountain Pass, we intend to enter into short- and long-term sales contracts with new customers. However, there can be no assurance that these customers will enter into sales contracts for REO. The failure to enter into such contracts may have a material adverse effect on our financial position and results of operations.
We may not successfully establish or maintain collaborative, joint venture and licensing arrangements, which could adversely affect our ability to vertically integrate into further downstream processing of our REO.
A key element of our long-term business strategy is to vertically integrate into further downstream processing of our REO into rare earth metal, alloys, and finished magnets. To implement this vertical integration strategy successfully, we may need to license certain intellectual property related to these downstream processes and/or develop the ability, or collaborate with, purchase, or form a joint venture with existing participants in the metal, alloy, and magnet production supply chain. In addition, other licenses that may be necessary for some of these downstream processing steps have not yet been obtained. Any failure to establish or maintain collaborative, joint venture or licensing arrangements for the production of downstream products on favorable terms could adversely affect our business prospects, financial condition or ability to develop and commercialize downstream rare earth products.
The COVID-19 pandemic could have an adverse effect on our business.
The current COVID-19 pandemic is significantly impacting the national and global economy and commodity and financial markets. The full extent and impact of the COVID-19 pandemic is unknown and to date has included, among other things, extreme volatility in financial markets, a slowdown in economic activity, extreme volatility in commodity prices and a global recession. The response to COVID-19 has led to significant restrictions on travel, temporary business closures, quarantines, global stock market volatility and a general reduction in consumer activity and sentiment, globally. The outbreak has affected our business and operations and may continue to do so, by among others, increasing the cost of operations and reducing employee productivity, limiting travel of our personnel, adversely affecting the health and welfare of our personnel, or preventing or delaying important third-party service providers from performing normal and contracted activities crucial to the operation of our business. In addition, since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in the first quarter of 2020, we have periodically experienced shipping delays due to port slowdowns and container shortages from congestion at port facilities and trucking shortages, which has resulted in supply chain disruptions. Congestion at U.S. and international ports could affect the capacity at ports to receive deliveries of products or the loading of shipments onto vessels.
The outbreak has resulted in significant governmental measures being implemented to control the spread of the virus, including, among others, restrictions on manufacturing and the movement of employees in many regions of China, the U.S. and other countries. These disruptions could continue to impact the rare earth market, particularly the supply chain in China and the U.S., which in turn could impact our business or business prospects under our A&R Offtake Agreement with Shenghe.
Decisions beyond our control, such as canceled events, restricted travel, barriers to entry, temporary closures or limited availability of county, state or federal government agencies, or other factors may affect our ability to perform mining operations, corporate activities, and other actions that would normally be accomplished without such limitations. The extent to which the COVID-19 pandemic will impact our operations, our business and the economy is highly uncertain and will also depend on future developments that cannot be predicted, including new information which may emerge concerning the severity of the disease, the duration and spread of the outbreak, including the spread of the Delta and Omicron variants, the scope of travel restrictions imposed, mandatory or voluntary business closures, the impact on businesses and financial and capital markets, and the extent and effectiveness of actions taken throughout the world to contain the virus or treat its impact, including
15

Table of Contents

the effectiveness and availability of vaccines. We cannot predict the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, but it may materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.
On September 9, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order 14042, “Ensuring Adequate COVID Safety Protocols for Federal Contractors.” The Safer Federal Workforce Task Force issued guidance on mandatory vaccines for the employees of federal contractors. In addition, pursuant to the directive in Executive Order 14042, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) published an Emergency Temporary Standard (“ETS”) on November 5, 2021, for employers with 100 or more employees. The ETS required employers to develop a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy, or a weekly testing policy, by January 10, 2022. The ETS required employers who implement a mandatory vaccination policy to ensure employees complete all doses of either the Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, or Moderna vaccine by February 9, 2022, or otherwise be subject to weekly testing. On January 13, 2022, the Supreme Court stayed enforcement of the ETS. However, to the extent we elect or are required to implement mandatory vaccinations or weekly testing, this may have an adverse impact on our results of operations, including loss of personnel and/or production interruptions at Mountain Pass.
A power shortage at Mountain Pass could temporarily delay mining and processing operations and increase costs, which may materially adversely impact our business.
Our facilities at Mountain Pass are currently powered by a natural gas-powered combined heat and power (“CHP”) plant, which was installed at Mountain Pass to produce electricity and steam and to minimize or eliminate reliance on the regional electric power grid. The CHP plant, which was deemed fully operational in December 2021, has the capability to provide all the electricity and steam needed for the industrial operations of Stage I. In addition, operation of the CHP plant is necessary to support the entire energy demand of Stage II. While we believe that the CHP plant will provide sufficient electricity and steam to operate our facilities at Mountain Pass, there can be no assurance that there will not be intermittent interruptions and delays in the ability to produce electricity and steam. Instability in electrical supply could cause sporadic outages or brownouts. Any such outages or brownouts could have a negative impact on our production. If the CHP plant is unable to provide sufficient energy for the operation of Mountain Pass, we would be required to obtain electricity from a single utility company in Southern California. We would incur higher operating costs, remain subject to the effects of occasional power outages and brownouts and could experience temporary interruptions of mining and processing operations. As a result, our revenue could be adversely impacted and our relationships with our customers could suffer, adversely impacting our ability to generate future revenue and otherwise perform our contractual obligations.
Increasing costs or limited access to raw materials may adversely affect our profitability.
We will use significant amounts of chemical reagents to process REE. Even though Mountain Pass includes a chlor-alkali facility, we intend to purchase chemical reagents on the open market for some period of time. Prior to potentially commencing production of these chemicals on-site, during any disruption to such production or for chemicals we cannot produce, we will need to purchase chemical reagents in the open market and as a result, we could be subject to significant volatility in the cost and availability of these chemicals and to restrictions on chemical use imposed by environmental regulations or law. We may not be able to pass increased prices for these chemicals through to our customers in the form of price increases. A significant increase in the price or decrease in the availability of these chemicals before we potentially restart our production of them on-site, or restrictions imposed by environmental regulations or law on chemical use, could materially increase our operating costs and adversely affect our profit margins and production volumes.
Fluctuations in transportation costs or disruptions in transportation services or damage or loss during transport could decrease our competitiveness or impair our ability to supply rare earth minerals or products to our customers, which could adversely affect our results of operations.
We currently transport our rare earth concentrate product to China to be purchased by Shenghe under our A&R Offtake Agreement as well as to other customers. In 2021, there has been a backlog of container ships off the coast of Southern California that has delayed shipments in and out of the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, the ports that we use to ship rare earth concentrate product. While we have managed to mitigate intermittent delays in shipping rare earth concentrate product through these ports, our ability to continue to maintain stable shipments may be impacted if the current backlog of container ships does not improve or worsens.
In addition, we will in the future need to transport our products to our future customers wherever they may be located. Finding affordable and dependable transportation is necessary for us to be able to supply customers around the world. Labor disputes, embargoes, government restrictions, work stoppages, pandemics, derailments, damage or loss events, adverse weather conditions, other environmental events, seasonal changes in supply and demand for transportation, changes to rail or ocean freight systems, domestic or international laws or regulations, permits or other approvals, or other events and activities beyond our control could interrupt or limit available transport services, which could result in customer dissatisfaction and loss of sales
16

Table of Contents

and could materially adversely affect our results of operations. Such events and conditions, including flooding and other natural disasters, could also impact the facilities of our customers which could have a material adverse effect on our ability to deliver our product to our customers.
We will need to process REE to exacting specifications in order to provide future customers with a consistently high-quality product. An inability to perfect the mineral extraction processes to meet individual customer specifications may have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations.
Upon the completion of our Stage II project, we expect to be able to process REE to meet customer needs and specifications and to provide customers with a consistently high-quality product and to meet ever-stricter purity requirements. An inability to perfect the mineral extraction processes to meet individual customer specifications may have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations. In addition, customer needs and specifications may change with time. Any delay or failure in developing processes to meet changing customer needs and specifications may have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations.
Diminished access to water may adversely affect our operations.
Processing of REO requires significant amounts of water. The technology we currently use to beneficiate REO is a sustainable process with dry tailings that limits the need for fresh water usage. Although we believe our current process is sustainable, any disruption in the process could prompt the need for significant access to fresh water. Additionally, once we complete our Stage II project, we will require an even greater amount of water for our power plant, separation and extraction processes, and product finishing operations, including significant demand for highly-pure water. We maintain and operate one water supply well field for potable and process water and own land and wells in another water supply well field that we may be able to operate in the future. Any disruption to our current process or decrease in available water supply may have a material adverse effect on our operations and our financial condition or results of operations.
Uncertainty in our estimates of REO reserves could result in lower-than-expected revenues and higher-than-expected costs.
We base our REO reserve estimates on engineering, economic and geological data assembled and analyzed by outside firms, which are reviewed by our engineers and geologists. Ore reserve estimates, however, are necessarily imprecise and depend to some extent on professional interpretation, including statistical inferences drawn from available drilling data, which may prove unreliable. There are numerous uncertainties inherent in estimating quantities and qualities of REO reserves and costs to mine recoverable reserves, including many factors beyond our control. Estimates of economically recoverable REO reserves necessarily depend upon a number of variable factors and assumptions, all of which may vary considerably from actual results, such as:
geological, mining and processing conditions and/or effects from prior mining that may not be fully identified by available data or that may differ from experience;
changes to the strategic approach to mining and processing the deposit depending upon market demand, corporate strategy and other prevailing economic conditions;
assumptions concerning future prices of rare earth products, foreign exchange rates, process recovery rates, transportation costs, operating costs, capital costs and reclamation costs; and
assumptions concerning future effects of regulation, including the issuance of required permits and taxes by governmental agencies and foreign government policies relating to the import or export of rare earth products.
Uncertainty in our estimates related to our REO reserves could result in lower-than-expected revenues and higher-than-expected costs or a shortened estimated life for the mine at the Mountain Pass facility. Fluctuations in factors out of our control such as changes in future product pricing, foreign government policies on the import or export of rare earths and foreign exchange rates can have a significant impact on the estimates of reserves and can result in significant changes in the quantum of our reserves period-to-period.
Period-to-period conversion of probable REO reserves to proven ore reserves may result in increases or decreases to the total reported amount of ore reserves. Conversion rates are affected by a number of factors, including geological variability, applicable mining methods and changes in safe mining practices, economic considerations and new regulatory requirements.
17

Table of Contents

Work stoppages or similar difficulties could significantly disrupt our operations, reduce our revenues and materially adversely affect our results of operations.
A work stoppage by any of the third parties providing services in connection with the construction projects at Mountain Pass could significantly delay our Stage II project and disrupt our operations, reduce our revenues and materially adversely affect our results of operations.
A shortage of skilled technicians and engineers may further increase operating costs, which may materially adversely affect our results of operations.
Efficient production of rare earth products using modern techniques and equipment requires skilled technicians and engineers. In addition, our optimization and eventual downstream efforts will significantly increase the number of skilled operators, maintenance technicians, engineers and other personnel required to successfully operate our business. In the event that we are unable to hire, train and retain the necessary number of skilled technicians, engineers and other personnel there could be an adverse impact on our labor costs and our ability to reach anticipated production levels in a timely manner, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.
We depend on key personnel for the success of our business.
We depend on the services of our senior management team and other key personnel. The loss of the services of any member of senior management or a key employee could have an adverse effect on our business. We may not be able to locate, attract or employ on acceptable terms qualified replacements for senior management or other key employees if their services are no longer available.
Because of the dangers involved in the mining of minerals and the manufacture of mineral products, there is a risk that we may incur liability or damages as we conduct our business.
The mining of minerals and the manufacture of mineral products involves numerous hazards, including: (i) unusual and unexpected rock formations affecting ore or wall rock characteristics; (ii) ground or slope failures (including open pits, waste rock and tailings disposal areas); (iii) environmental hazards; (iv) industrial accidents; (v) bodily injury or harm; (vi) processing problems; (vii) periodic interruptions due to inclement or hazardous weather conditions or other acts of God; and (viii) mechanical equipment failure and facility performance problems.
Although we maintain insurance to address certain risks involved in our business, such as coverage for property damage, business interruption, natural disasters, terrorism and workers compensation, there can be no assurance that we will be able to maintain insurance to cover these risks at economically feasible premiums. Additionally, we cannot be certain that all claims we may make under our insurance policies will be deemed to be within the scope of, or fully covered by, our policies. We might also become subject to liability for environmental issues, damage or other hazards that may be uninsurable or for which we may elect not to insure because of premium costs or commercial impracticality. These policies contain limits of coverage and exclusions that are typical of such policies generally. The payment of such premiums, or the assumption of such liabilities, may have a material adverse effect on our financial position and results of operations.
Our facilities or operations could be adversely affected by events outside of our control, such as natural disasters, wars or health epidemics or pandemics.
We may be impacted by natural disasters, wars, health epidemics or pandemics or other events outside of our control. For example, Mountain Pass is located in San Bernardino County, California near active faults, which could lead to nearby earthquakes. If major disasters such as earthquakes, wild fires, health epidemics or pandemics, floods or other events occur, or our information system or communications network breaks down or operates improperly, our ability to continue operations at Mountain Pass may be seriously damaged, or we may have to stop or delay production and shipment of our products. We may incur expenses or delays relating to such events outside of our control, which could have a material adverse impact on our business, operating results and financial condition.
We are dependent upon information technology systems, which are subject to cyber threats, disruption, damage and failure.
We depend upon information technology systems in the conduct of our operations. Our information technology systems are subject to disruption, damage or failure from a variety of sources, including, without limitation, computer viruses, security breaches, cyber-attacks, natural disasters and defects in design. Cybersecurity incidents, in particular, are evolving and include, but are not limited to, malicious software, attempts to gain unauthorized access to data and other electronic security breaches
18

Table of Contents

that could lead to disruptions in systems, unauthorized release of confidential or otherwise protected information or the corruption of data. Various measures have been implemented to manage our risks related to information technology systems and network disruptions. However, given the unpredictability of the timing, nature and scope of information technology disruptions, we could potentially be subject to downtimes, operational delays, the compromising of confidential or otherwise protected information, destruction or corruption of data, security breaches, other manipulation or improper use of our systems and networks or financial losses from remedial actions, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results and financial condition.
Our profitability could be adversely affected if we fail to maintain satisfactory labor relations.
Production at Mountain Pass is dependent upon the efforts of our employees. Although none of our employees are currently subject to any collective bargaining arrangements, our employees could, in the future, choose to be represented as a collective unit, which may result in labor disputes, work stoppages or other disruptions in our production efforts that could adversely affect us.
Risks Related to Environmental Regulation
Our operations are subject to extensive and costly environmental requirements; and current and future laws, regulations and permits impose significant costs, liabilities or obligations or could limit or prevent our ability to continue our current operations or to undertake new operations.
We are subject to numerous and detailed, federal, state and local environmental laws, certifications, regulations, permits, and other legal requirements applicable to the mining and mineral processing industry, including, without limitation, those pertaining to employee health and safety, air emissions, water usage, wastewater and stormwater discharges, air quality standards, GHG emissions, water usage and pollution, waste management, plant and wildlife protection, handling and disposal of hazardous and radioactive substances and waste, remediation of soil and groundwater contamination, land use, reclamation and restoration of properties, the discharge of materials into the environment, procurement of certain materials used in our operations, and groundwater quality and availability. These requirements may result in significant costs, liabilities and obligations, impose conditions that are difficult to achieve or otherwise delay, limit or prohibit current or planned operations and future growth. Consequently, the modernization and expansion of the Mountain Pass facility may be delayed, limited or prevented and current operations may be curtailed. Failure to comply with these laws, regulations and permits, including as they evolve, may result in the assessment of administrative, civil and criminal penalties, the issuance of injunctions to limit or cease operations, fines, or the suspension or revocation of permits and other sanctions. Pursuant to such requirements, we may also be subject to third-party claims, including for damages to property or injury to persons arising from our operations. Moreover, environmental legislation and regulation are evolving in a manner which may require stricter standards and enforcement, increased fines and penalties for non-compliance, cessation of operations, more stringent environmental assessments, and a heightened degree of responsibility for companies and their officers, directors and employees. In addition, mine safety has been the subject of increasing scrutiny resulting in federal and state legislatures and other regulatory authorities imposing more stringent regulatory requirements on mining operations. Any changes in environmental laws, regulations or permits (or the interpretation or enforcement thereof) or any sanctions, damages, costs, obligations or liabilities in respect of these matters could have a material adverse effect on our business and/or the results of our operations and financial condition.
Our operations use hazardous materials and generate hazardous waste and radioactive byproducts. While we maintain procedures for the handling and disposing of chemicals or other substances by our personnel, risks, including bodily injury and property damage, persist. Moreover, mining and processing of rare earths has occurred at Mountain Pass since 1952, and contamination is known to exist around the facility. We may be subject to claims under environmental laws, for toxic torts, natural resource damages and other liabilities, as well as for the investigation and remediation of soil, surface water, groundwater and other environmental media. Mountain Pass is subject to an order issued by the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to which we and previous owners have conducted various investigatory and remedial actions, primarily related to contamination emanating from certain on-site impoundments active during prior periods of operation. These remedial activities include groundwater monitoring, extraction and treatment. We are still in the process of delineating the extent of groundwater contamination at and around the facility and cannot assure you that we will not incur material costs relating to the remediation of such contamination. Also, prior to our acquisition of Mountain Pass, leaks in a wastewater pipeline from Mountain Pass to offsite evaporation ponds on the Ivanpah dry lake bed caused contamination. Pursuant to a settlement agreement, that contamination has been remediated by Chevron Mining Inc., which retained ownership of the ponds and the pipeline and provided a full indemnity to the previous buyer of Mountain Pass for liabilities related to the Ivanpah wastewater pipeline. A small portion of the pipeline extends onto the Mountain Pass facility. In addition to claims arising out of our current or former properties, such claims may arise in connection with contaminated third-party sites at which we have disposed of waste. Under the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, and analogous
19

Table of Contents

state statutes, our liability for claims for contamination at our current or former properties, and at third-party sites at which we disposed of waste, may be joint and several, so that we may be held responsible for more than our share of any contamination, or even for the entire share. These and similar unforeseen impacts that our operations may have on the environment, as well as human exposure to hazardous or radioactive materials or wastes, could have a material adverse effect on our business, reputation, results of operations and financial condition.
We must obtain, a number of additional or amended permits that impose strict requirements relating to various environmental and health and safety matters in connection with our current and future operations, including the modernization and expansion of Mountain Pass. To obtain certain permits, we may be required to conduct environmental studies and present data to governmental authorities pertaining to the potential impact of our current and future operations upon the environment and take steps to avoid or mitigate those impacts, particularly impacts to desert flora and fauna. Furthermore, the permitting processes and development of supporting materials, including any environmental impact statements, may be costly and time-consuming. These permit processes and requirements, and the interpretation and enforcement thereof, change frequently, and any such future changes could materially adversely affect our mining operations and results of operations. In some cases, the public (including environmental interest groups) has the right to comment upon, and submit objections to, permit applications and environmental impact statements prepared in connection therewith, and otherwise participate in the permitting process, including challenging the issuance of permits. Accordingly, permits required for our operations, including the modernization and expansion of Mountain Pass, may not be issued, maintained, amended or renewed in a timely fashion or at all, or may be issued or renewed upon conditions that restrict our ability to conduct operations. Any such failure to obtain, maintain, amend or renew permits, or other permitting delays, including in connection with any environmental impact analyses, could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition or otherwise impose significant restrictions on our ability to conduct our business.
Legislation and increased regulation regarding climate change could impose significant costs on us and our suppliers, including costs related to increased energy requirements, capital equipment, environmental monitoring, permitting, reporting and other costs to comply with such regulations. Our operations emit GHGs and, with the restart of our CHP plant in December 2021, we expect to produce emissions exceeding the minimum required for participation in the California cap-and-trade program. The number of credits we will receive and any excess credits we expect to need to purchase are not yet known. Any adopted future climate change regulations could negatively impact our ability to compete with companies situated in areas and countries not subject to such limitations. Given the political significance, regulatory or compliance obligations and uncertainty around the impact of climate change and how it should be addressed, we cannot predict how legislation and regulation will affect our financial condition, operating performance and ability to compete. Furthermore, even without such regulation, increased awareness and any adverse publicity in the global marketplace, including the investing community, about potential impacts on climate change by us or other companies in our industry could harm our reputation or our access to capital. The potential physical impacts of climate change on our operations are highly uncertain and would be particular to the geographic circumstances in areas in which we operate. These impacts may adversely impact the cost, production and financial performance of our operations.
Our inability to acquire, maintain or renew financial assurances related to the reclamation and restoration of mining property, or inaccuracies in the assumption underlying our reclamation plan and mine closure obligations, could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.
Under the California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act we are generally obligated to restore property after it has been mined in accordance with regulatory standards and our approved mining plan. Additionally, we are required under various federal, state and local laws to maintain financial assurances, such as surety bonds, to secure such obligations. The failure to acquire, maintain or renew such assurances, as required by federal, state and local laws, could subject us to fines and penalties as well as the revocation of our mining permits. Such failure could result from a variety of factors, including:
the lack of availability, higher expense or unreasonable terms of such financial assurances;
the ability of current and future financial assurance counterparties to increase required collateral; and
the exercise by third-party financial assurance counterparties of any rights to refuse to renew the financial assurance instruments.
It has become increasingly difficult for mining companies to secure new or renew existing surety bonds without posting partial or full collateral to secure the bonds. In addition, the cost to obtain surety bonds has increased while the market terms of the surety bonds generally have become less favorable. It is possible that surety bond issuers may refuse to provide or renew bonds or may demand additional collateral upon the issuance or renewal of the bonds. Our inability to acquire or failure to
20

Table of Contents

maintain or renew such bonds or other financial assurances could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Federal, state and local laws and regulations establish reclamation and closure standards applicable to our surface mining and other operations as well. Estimates of our total reclamation and mine closing liabilities are based upon our reclamation plan, third-party expert reports, current applicable laws and regulations, certain permit terms, our engineering expertise related to these requirements and review by regulatory agencies. Any change in the underlying assumptions, permissions, or other variation between the estimated liabilities and actual costs could materially and adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.
We are subject to business and reputational risks related to sustainability and corporate social responsibility.
Our business faces increasing scrutiny related to environmental, social and governance (“ESG”) issues, including sustainable development, renewable resources, environmental stewardship, supply chain management, climate change, diversity and inclusion, workplace conduct, human rights, philanthropy and support for local communities. If we fail to meet applicable standards or expectations with respect to these issues, our reputation could be damaged, and our business, financial condition and results of operations could be adversely impacted. These failures could also result from the conduct of third parties such as our customers or other partners.
Implementation of our environmental and sustainability initiatives will require financial expenditures and employee resources, and if we are unable to meet our sustainability, environmental and social and governance goals, this could have a material adverse effect on our reputation and brand and negatively impact our relationship with our employees, customers and consumers. In addition, certain influential institutional investors are also increasing their focus on ESG practices and are placing importance on the implications and social cost of their investments. If our ESG practices do not meet the standards set by these investors, they may choose not to invest in our common stock or if our peer companies outperform us in their ESG initiatives, potential or current investors may elect to invest with our competitors instead. If we do not comply with investor or stockholder expectations and standards in connection with our ESG initiatives or are perceived to have not responded appropriately to address ESG issues within our company, our business and reputation could be negatively impacted, and our share price could be materially and adversely affected.
Risks Related to Our Common Stock
Our stock price has experienced, and may in the future experience, volatility, and you could lose all or part of your investment as a result.
The trading price of our common stock has recently experienced, and may continue to experience, significant volatility, which could cause you to lose all or part of your investment. Moreover, the stock market recently has experienced extreme volatility, in part as a result of strong and atypical retail investor interest in particular stocks. In many cases, this volatility often has been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of particular companies. You may not be able to resell your shares at an attractive price due to a number of factors such as those listed in “Risks Relating to our Business and Industry” above and the following: (a) results of operations that vary from the expectations of securities analysts and investors; (b) changes in expectations as to the Company’s future financial performance, including financial estimates and investment recommendations by securities analysts and investors; (c) declines in the market prices of stocks generally; (d) strategic actions by the Company or its competitors; (e) announcements by the Company or its competitors of significant contracts, acquisitions, joint ventures, other strategic relationships or capital commitments; (f) any significant change in the Company’s management; (g) changes in general economic or market conditions or trends in the Company’s industry or markets; (h) changes in business or regulatory conditions, including new laws or regulations or new interpretations of existing laws or regulations applicable to the Company’s business; (i) future sales of the Company’s common stock or other securities; (j) investor perceptions or the investment opportunity associated with the Company’s common stock relative to other investment alternatives; (k) the public’s response to press releases or other public announcements by the Company or third parties, including the Company’s filings with the SEC; (l) litigation involving the Company, the Company’s industry, or both, or investigations by regulators into the Company’s operations or those of our competitors; (m) guidance, if any, that the Company provides to the public, any changes in this guidance or the Company’s failure to meet this guidance; (n) the development and sustainability of an active trading market for the Company’s stock; (o) actions by institutional or activist stockholders; (p) declines in the market price of our stock as a result of negative reports on the Company by research firms and hedge funds that engage in short selling; (q) changes in accounting standards, policies, guidelines, interpretations or principles; and (r) other events or factors, including those resulting from natural disasters, war, acts of terrorism, health pandemics or responses to these events.
21

Table of Contents

These broad market and industry fluctuations may adversely affect the market price of our common stock, regardless of the Company’s actual operating performance. In addition, price volatility may be greater if the public float and trading volume of our common stock is low.
In the past, following periods of market volatility, stockholders have instituted securities class action litigation. If the Company was involved in securities litigation, it could have a substantial cost and divert resources and the attention of executive management from the Company’s business regardless of the outcome of such litigation.
Because there are no current plans to pay cash dividends on our common stock for the foreseeable future, you may not receive any return on investment unless you sell your common stock for a price greater than that which you paid for it.
We intend to retain future earnings, if any, for future operations, expansion and debt repayment and there are no current plans to pay any cash dividends for the foreseeable future. The declaration, amount and payment of any future dividends on shares of our common stock will be at the sole discretion of our Board. Our Board may take into account general and economic conditions, our financial condition and results of operations, our available cash and current and anticipated cash needs, capital requirements, contractual, legal, tax, and regulatory restrictions, implications on the payment of dividends to our stockholders or by our subsidiaries to us and such other factors as our Board may deem relevant. In addition, our ability to pay dividends may be limited by covenants of any future indebtedness we incur. As a result, you may not receive any return on an investment in our common stock unless you sell our common stock for a price greater than that which you paid for it.
Future sales, or the perception of future sales, by us or our stockholders in the public market could cause the market price for our common stock to decline.
The sale of shares of common stock in the public market, or the perception that such sales could occur, could harm the prevailing market price of shares of common stock. These sales, or the possibility that these sales may occur, also might make it more difficult for us to sell equity securities in the future at a time and at a price that we deem appropriate.
As restrictions on resale end, the market price of the common stock could drop significantly if the holders of these shares sell them or are perceived by the market as intending to sell them. These factors could also make it more difficult for us to raise additional funds through future offerings of common stock or other securities.
In the future, we may also issue our securities in connection with investments or acquisitions. The amount of shares of common stock issued in connection with an investment or acquisition could constitute a material portion of our then-outstanding shares of common stock. Any issuance of additional securities in connection with investments or acquisitions may result in additional dilution to our stockholders.
Anti-takeover provisions in our organizational documents could delay or prevent a change of control.
Certain provisions of our Second Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation and Amended and Restated Bylaws may have an anti-takeover effect and may delay, defer or prevent a merger, acquisition, tender offer, takeover attempt or other change of control transaction that a stockholder might consider in its best interest, including those attempts that might result in a premium over the market price for the shares held by our stockholders.
These provisions provide for, among other things: (i) no cumulative voting with respect to the election of our Board; (ii) the division of the our Board into three classes, with only one class of directors being elected in each year; (iii) the ability of our Board to issue one or more series of preferred stock; (iv) advance notice for nominations of directors by stockholders and for stockholders to include matters to be considered at our annual meetings; (v) certain limitations on convening special stockholder meetings; (vi) limiting the ability of stockholders to act by written consent; (vii) the ability of our Board to fill a vacancy created by the expansion of the board of directors or the resignation, death, or removal of a director in certain circumstances; (viii) providing that our Board is expressly authorized to make, alter or repeal our bylaws; (ix) the removal of directors only for cause; and (x) that certain provisions may be amended only by the affirmative vote of at least 66.7% of the shares of common stock entitled to vote generally in the election of our directors.
These anti-takeover provisions could make it more difficult for a third party to acquire us, even if the third party’s offer may be considered beneficial by many of our stockholders. As a result, our stockholders may be limited in their ability to obtain a premium for their shares. These provisions could also discourage proxy contests and make it more difficult for you and other stockholders to elect directors of your choosing and to cause us to take other corporate actions you desire.
22

Table of Contents

Our Second Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation designates the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware as the sole and exclusive forum for certain types of actions and proceedings that may be initiated by our stockholders, which could limit our stockholders’ ability to obtain a favorable judicial forum for disputes with us or our directors, officers, employees or stockholders.
The Second Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation provides that, subject to limited exceptions, any (i) derivative action or proceeding brought on behalf of the Company, (ii) action asserting a claim of breach of a fiduciary duty owed by any director, officer, stockholder or employee to the Company or its stockholders, (iii) action asserting a claim arising pursuant to any provision of the Delaware General Corporation Law or our Second Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation or our Amended and Restated Bylaws or (iv) action asserting a claim governed by the internal affairs doctrine shall, to the fullest extent permitted by law, be exclusively brought in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware or, if such court does not have subject matter jurisdiction thereof, another state or federal court located within the State of Delaware. The Second Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation also provides that, to the fullest extent permitted by law, the federal district courts of the United States of America will be the exclusive forum for resolving any complaint asserting a cause of action arising under the United States federal securities laws, including the Securities Act and the Exchange Act. Additionally, investors cannot waive our compliance with federal securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder. Any person or entity purchasing or otherwise acquiring any interest in shares of our capital stock shall be deemed to have notice of and to have consented to the provisions of our certificate of incorporation described above. This choice of forum provision may limit a stockholder’s ability to bring a claim in a judicial forum that it finds favorable for disputes with the Company or its directors, officers or other employees, which may discourage such lawsuits against the Company and its directors, officers and employees. There is uncertainty as to whether a court would enforce such an exclusive forum provision with respect to claims under the Securities Act. If a court were to find these provisions of our Second Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation inapplicable to, or unenforceable in respect of, one or more of the specified types of actions or proceedings, we may incur additional costs associated with resolving such matters in other jurisdictions, which could adversely affect our business and financial condition.
Risks Relating to our Convertible Notes
The conditional conversion feature of our Convertible Notes, if triggered, may adversely affect our financial condition and operating results.
We completed an offering of Convertible Notes in March 2021. In the event the conditional conversion feature of our Convertible Notes is triggered, holders of the Convertible Notes will be entitled to convert them at any time during specified periods at their option. If one or more holders elect to convert their Convertible Notes, unless we elect to satisfy our conversion obligation by delivering solely shares of our common stock (other than paying cash in lieu of delivering any fractional share), we would be required to settle a portion or all of our conversion obligation through the payment of cash, which could adversely affect our liquidity. In addition, even if holders do not elect to convert their Convertible Notes, we could be required under applicable accounting rules to reclassify all or a portion of the outstanding principal of the Convertible Notes as a current rather than long-term liability, which would result in a material reduction of our net working capital.
Conversion of our Convertible Notes may dilute the ownership interest of our stockholders or may otherwise depress the price of our common stock.
The conversion of some or all of our Convertible Notes may dilute the ownership interests of our stockholders. Upon conversion of the notes, we have the option to pay or deliver, as the case may be, cash, shares of our common stock, or a combination of cash and shares of our common stock. If we elect to settle our conversion obligation in shares of our common stock or a combination of cash and shares of our common stock, any sales in the public market of our common stock issuable upon such conversion could adversely affect prevailing market prices of our common stock. In addition, the existence of the Convertible Notes may encourage short selling by market participants that engage in hedging or arbitrage activity, and anticipated conversion of the notes into shares of our common stock could depress the price of our common stock.
Certain provisions in the indenture governing the Convertible Notes may delay or prevent an otherwise beneficial takeover attempt of us.
Certain provisions in the indenture governing the Convertible Notes may make it more difficult or expensive for a third party to acquire us. For example, the indenture governing the Convertible Notes requires us to repurchase the notes for cash upon the occurrence of a fundamental change (as defined in the indenture governing the Convertible Notes) of us and, in certain circumstances, to increase the conversion rate for a holder that converts their Convertible Notes in connection with a make-whole fundamental change (as defined in the indenture governing the Convertible Notes). A takeover of us may trigger the requirement that we repurchase the Convertible Notes and/or increase the conversion rate, which could make it more costly for
23

Table of Contents

a potential acquirer to engage in such takeover. Such additional costs may have the effect of delaying or preventing a takeover of us that would otherwise be beneficial to investors.
Servicing our debt requires a significant amount of cash, and we may not have sufficient cash flow from our business to pay our debt.
Our ability to make scheduled payments of the principal of, to pay interest on, or to refinance our indebtedness, including our Convertible Notes, depends on our future performance, which is subject to economic, financial, competitive and other factors beyond our control. In addition, holders of the Convertible Notes will have the right to require us to repurchase their notes for cash upon the occurrence of certain fundamental changes. Upon conversion of the Convertible Notes, unless we elect to deliver solely shares of our common stock to settle such conversion (other than paying cash in lieu of delivering any fractional share), we will be required to make cash payments in respect of the notes being converted. Our business may not continue to generate cash flow from operations in the future sufficient to service our debt and make necessary capital expenditures. If we are unable to generate such cash flow, we may be required to adopt one or more alternatives, such as selling assets, restructuring debt or obtaining additional equity capital on terms that may be onerous or highly dilutive. Our ability to refinance our indebtedness will depend on the capital markets and our financial condition at such time. We may not be able to engage in any of these activities or engage in these activities on desirable terms, which could result in a default on our debt obligations.
ITEM 1B.    UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS
None.
ITEM 2.    PROPERTIES
Mountain Pass
We own and operate the Mountain Pass Rare Earth Mine and Processing Facility (previously defined as “Mountain Pass”), which is located on 2,222 fee simple acres of land, approximately 50 miles southwest of Las Vegas, Nevada near Mountain Pass, San Bernardino County, California at geographic coordinates 35°28’56”N latitude and 115°31’54”W longitude. Mountain Pass includes an open-pit mine in the production stage, infrastructure supporting mining and processing operations, overburden and ore stockpiles, a crusher and mill/flotation plant, separation plants, product finishing facilities, tailings processing and storage facilities, and on-site evaporation ponds, as well as laboratory facilities to support product analysis and research and development activities, offices, maintenance shops, warehouses and support buildings. The majority of our facilities and infrastructure currently used to produce a rare earth concentrate were built between 2012 and 2015, are in good operating condition, and benefits from routine maintenance. Modification and recommissioning activities are currently underway on certain idle facilities and infrastructure that we expect to use to separate our rare earth concentrate into other products, including NdPr oxide. The carrying amount of the property, plant and equipment used in the operation of Mountain Pass was approximately $196 million as of December 31, 2021.
Mountain Pass directly abuts Interstate 15 and may be accessed by existing hard-surface roads. Water at Mountain Pass is supplied through active water wells, pit de-watering, and process water recovery. Our facilities at Mountain Pass are currently powered by a natural gas-powered CHP plant, which was installed at Mountain Pass to produce electricity and steam and to minimize or eliminate reliance on the regional electric power grid.
We also own mining and mill site claims over a further 15,000 acres of adjacent land. Approximately 1,118 acres of the 2,222 acres are currently in use (e.g., existing buildings, infrastructure or active disturbance). Portions of the fee lands, none of which are actively being mined or are currently anticipated to be mined for the purpose of recovering ore, are subject to mineral reservations in favor of the United States for some properties and the State of California for other properties. The specific minerals reserved on those parcels vary according to the type of land patent or conveyance document through which the land was acquired or conveyed. The lands surrounding Mountain Pass are mostly public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management and the National Park Service. In addition, we hold 525 unpatented lode and mineral mining claims and mill sites
24

Table of Contents

under the provisions of The Mining Law of 1872. These mining claims and mill sites provide land for mining, ancillary facilities and expansion capacity around Mountain Pass.
mp-20211231_g2.jpg
Mountain Pass represents the largest commercial source of rare earth materials in the Western hemisphere. Molybdenum Corporation of America began REE mining operations at Mountain Pass in 1952. Mining, milling and separation processes continued under Unocal Corporation, which purchased Molybdenum Corporation of America in 1977, until 1998. In 2005, ChevronTexaco Corporation acquired Unocal Corporation and then, in 2008, Molycorp Minerals, LLC acquired Mountain Pass from Chevron Mining Inc. Operations relating to mining, milling and separations resumed under Molycorp until they were placed into cold-idle status in mid-2015. In July 2017, we acquired Mountain Pass from the Molycorp estate.
We hold the necessary permits to operate Mountain Pass, including conditional use and minor use permits from San Bernardino County, California, and an associated environmental impact report, all of which were issued in 2004, which currently allow continued operation of Mountain Pass through 2042, though we expect to extend such permits to allow for continued operation through at least 2056. Since restarting operations at the facility in the fourth quarter of 2017, our activities have focused on the milling and flotation processes, leading to production of a bastnaesite concentrate, rich in REE, with our first concentrate sales in the first quarter of 2018.
The bastnaesite ore body at Mountain Pass has been mined as a principal source of REE over a period of over 60 years. The Mountain Pass REE deposit is located within an uplifted block of Precambrian metamorphic and igneous rocks that are bounded to the south and east by basin-fill deposits in California’s Ivanpah Valley. The two main groups of rocks in the Mountain Pass area are Early Proterozoic high-grade metamorphic rocks and Middle Proterozoic ultrapotassic rocks and monazitic carbonatites, which carbonatites are associated with higher levels of REE. The total orebody strike length is approximately 2,750 feet and dip extent is 3,000 feet; true thickness of the more than 2% total rare earth oxide (“TREO”) grade zone ranges between 15 feet and 250 feet. The percentage of each rare earth material contained in typical Mountain Pass
25

Table of Contents

bastnaesite concentrate is estimated to be as follows:
Estimated Distribution of TREO Content
Element
Cerium50.2 %
Lanthanum32.3 %
Neodymium-Praseodymium15.7 %
SEG+(1)
1.8 %
(1)See the Rare Earth Resources and Reserves section below for definition.
Texas Land
In February 2022, we closed on the purchase of approximately 18 acres of land in Fort Worth, Texas, on which we are building a metal, alloy, and magnet manufacturing and recycling facility as a part of our Stage III strategy.
Corporate Offices
We currently lease our corporate office space at 6720 Via Austi Parkway, Suites 450 and 430, Las Vegas, Nevada 89119, which lease expires on December 31, 2022. In December 2021, we entered into a lease agreement for executive office space at 1700 S. Pavilion Center Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada 89135, which is estimated to commence on January 1, 2023, at which time, we will no longer lease the current office space.
Rare Earth Resources and Reserves
Introduction
Mineral resources and mineral reserves were estimated by SRK Consulting (U.S.) Inc. (“SRK”) for inclusion in this Annual Report. Pursuant to the requirements of Regulation S-K Subpart 1300 (“S-K 1300”), SRK prepared a pre-feasibility level Technical Report Summary (“TRS”) for Mountain Pass with an effective date of September 30, 2021 (refer to Exhibit 96.1 to this Annual Report). The mineral resource and mineral reserve estimated in that TRS were subsequently depleted by SRK to present an estimate of our resources and reserves as of December 31, 2021. The depletion removed by SRK represents resources and reserves that were extracted from the Mountain Pass open pit from October 1, 2021, through December 31, 2021.
Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve Definitions
Mineral Resources
Item 1300 of S-K 1300 defines a “mineral resource” as 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 cut-off 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.
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.
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.
26

Table of Contents

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.
Mineral Reserves
Item 1300 of S-K 1300 defines a “mineral reserve” 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. 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. A “probable mineral reserve” is the economically mineable part of an indicated and, in some cases, a measured mineral resource.
Estimation Methodology
Mineral Resources
The mineral resource estimate has been constrained by a geological model considering relevant rock types, structure, and mineralization envelopes as defined by TREO content within relevant geological features. This geological model is informed principally by diamond core drilling and multiple phases of geological mapping. Sectional interpretation based on the combination of these data were used to influence implicit modeling of the geological data with manual controls where appropriate. Data has been composited to reasonable lengths based on the original sample lengths and expected mining unit scale, and outliers have been addressed during estimation using restrictions on influence.
A number of internal controls have been applied over the history of the Mountain Pass deposit to demonstrate the consistency and reliability of the historic analytical data supporting mineral resource estimation. Almost all data supporting the mineral resource estimation has been generated by some iteration of a site-based laboratory at the Mountain Pass mine. The Mountain Pass laboratory uses various quality assurance and quality control (“QA/QC”) measures to calibrate modern equipment and ensure analytical precision and accuracy. QA/QC generated by previous laboratories has undergone check assays at independent third-party laboratories, and generally demonstrate no consistent bias. The database is also supported by a very limited amount of blind QA/QC inserted during a re-assay program, including site-specific standards of known TREO content, a variety of duplicate samples, and blank samples. The implementation and results of these various QA/QC programs have not been fully aligned with current industry standards and are not comprehensive, but are suitable for use in mineral resource estimation.
Estimates have been validated to the input data using global statistical and visual comparisons, localized swath plot comparisons of mean grades, and review of the limited reconciliation data to the model. In general, estimates are shown to align closely with the input exploration data, but have been demonstrated to be under-reporting relative to the grade control drilling. SRK has dealt with uncertainty and risk at Mountain Pass by classifying the contained resource by varying degrees of confidence in the estimate. The mineral resources at the Mountain Pass deposit have been classified in accordance with S-K 1300. The classification parameters are defined by the distance to composite data, the number of drillholes used to inform block grades and a geostatistical indicator of relative estimation quality (kriging efficiency). As an overall modifier to classification, SRK considered the limited results from the QA/QC noted above and the observed variability in reconciliation in the mineral resource classification as well, both of which preclude statement of measured resources. Bulk density is based on average density measurements collected from the various rock types over the years, and carbonatite density in particular is supported by extensive mining and processing experience with the materials.
A cut-off grade (“COG”) of 2.28% TREO has been developed to ensure that material reported as a mineral resource can satisfy the definition of reasonable potential for eventual economic extraction (“RPEEE”). Mineral resources have been constrained within an economic pit shell based on reserve input parameters. For mineral resources, a revenue factor of 1.0 is selected which corresponds to a break-even pit shell. SRK notes that the pit selected for mineral resources has been influenced by setbacks relative to critical infrastructure such as the tailing storage and the REO mill and flotation facility.
A detailed description of the methodology used to calculate mineral resources is provided in Exhibit 96.1 to this Annual Report.
27

Table of Contents

Mineral Reserves
SRK developed a life-of-mine (“LoM”) plan for the Mountain Pass operation in support of mineral reserves. For economic modeling, 2022 production was assumed to be bastnaesite concentrate. From 2023 onward, it was assumed that the Company will operate a separations facility at Mountain Pass that will allow the Company to separate bastnaesite concentrate into four individual REO products for sale: neodymium and praseodymium (previously defined as “NdPr”) oxide, samarium, europium, and gadolinium (“SEG+”) oxalate, lanthanum carbonate, and cerium chloride. Forecast economic parameters are based on current cost performance for process, transportation, and administrative costs, as well as a first principles estimation of future mining costs. Forecast revenue from concentrate sales and individual separated product sales is based on a preliminary market study commissioned by the Company.
From this evaluation, pit optimization was performed based on an equivalent concentrate price of $6,139 per dry short ton (“ST”) of 60% TREO concentrate (net of the incremental benefits and costs related to REE separations). The results of pit optimization guided the design and scheduling of the ultimate pit. SRK generated a cash flow model which indicated positive economics for the LoM plan, which provides the basis for the reserves. Reserves within the new ultimate pit are sequenced for the full 35-year LoM.
The costs used for pit optimization include estimated mining, processing, sustaining capital, transportation, and administrative costs, including an allocation of corporate costs. Processing and general and administrative (“G&A”) costs used for pit optimization were based on recent actual costs.
Processing recovery for concentrate is variable based on a mathematical relationship to estimate overall TREO recovery versus ore grade. The calculated COG for the reserves is 2.49% TREO, which was applied to indicated blocks contained within an ultimate pit, the design of which was guided by economic pit optimization.
The optimized pit shell selected to guide final pit design was based on a combination of the revenue factor (“RF”) 0.45 pit (used on the north half of the deposit) and the RF 1.00 pit shell (used on the south half of the deposit). The inter-ramp pit slopes used for the design are based on geotechnical studies and range from 42° to 47°.
Measured resources in stockpiles were converted to proven reserves. Indicated pit resources were converted to probable reserves by applying the appropriate modifying factors to potential mining pit shapes created during the mine design process. Inferred resources present within the LoM pit are treated as waste. Internal controls to demonstrate the consistency and reliability of the historic analytical data supporting the mineral resource estimate (which forms the basis for the mineral reserve estimate) are discussed above.
A detailed description of the methodology used to calculate mineral reserves is provided in Exhibit 96.1 to this Annual Report.
Results
Mineral Resources
As of December 31, 2021, SRK estimates total indicated resources of 1.43 million STs with an average grade of 2.83% TREO and 9.08 million STs of inferred resources with an average ore grade of 5.10% TREO. Mineral resources are reported exclusive of mineral reserves. The reference point for the mineral resources is in situ material.
Category
Resource Type
Cut-Off
TREO (%)
MassAverage Value
Million Short Tons (dry)
TREO(1)
(%)
La2O3(2)
(%)
CeO2
(%)
Pr6O11
(%)
Nd2O3
(%)
Sm2O3
(%)
IndicatedWithin the Reserve Pit2.28-2.490.912.380.781.190.100.290.02
Within the Resource Pit2.280.523.611.181.800.160.440.03
Total Indicated1.432.830.921.410.120.340.03
InferredWithin the Reserve Pit2.28-2.497.035.481.792.730.240.660.05
Within the Resource Pit2.282.063.811.241.900.160.460.03
Total Inferred9.085.101.662.540.220.620.05
(1) TREO% represents the total of individually assayed light rare earth oxides on a 99.7% basis of total contained TREO, based on the historical site analyses.
28

Table of Contents

(2)Percentage of individual light rare earth oxides are based on the average ratios; La2O3 is calculated at a ratio of 32.6% grade of TREO% equivalent estimated grade, CeO2 is calculated at a ratio of 49.9% of TREO% equivalent estimated grade, Pr6O11 is calculated at a ratio of 4.3% of TREO% equivalent estimated grade, Nd2O3 is calculated at a ratio of 12.1% of TREO% equivalent estimated grade, and Sm2O3 is calculated at a ratio of 0.9% of TREO% equivalent estimated grade. The sum of light rare earths averages 99.7%; the additional 0.3% cannot be accounted for based on the analyses available to date and has been discounted from this resource statement.
General Notes:
Mineral Resources are reported exclusive of Mineral Reserves.
Mineral Resources are not Mineral Reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability. There is no certainty that all or any part of the Mineral Resources estimated will be converted into Mineral Reserves estimate.
Mineral Resource tonnage and contained metal have been rounded to reflect the accuracy of the estimate, any apparent errors are insignificant.
Mineral Resource tonnage and grade are reported as diluted.
The Mineral Resource model has been depleted for historical mining based on the December 31, 2021, pit topography.
Pit optimization cut-off grade is based on an average TREO% equivalent concentrate price of $7,059 per ST of dry concentrate (60% TREO, net of the incremental benefits and costs related to REE separations), average mining cost at the pit exit of $1.825 per ST mined plus $0.018 per ST mined for each 15 feet bench above or below the pit exit, combined milling and G&A costs of $69.90 per ST milled, concentrate freight of $177 per ST of dry concentrate, and an average overall pit slope angle of 42° including ramps.
The mineral resource statement reported herein only includes the rare earth elements cerium, lanthanum, neodymium, praseodymium, and samarium (often referred to as light rare earths). While other rare earth elements, often referred to as heavy rare earths, are present in the deposit, they are not accounted for in this estimate due to historic data limitations.
The Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2020 (“Prior Year Form 10-K”), did not include a year-end mineral resource estimate. Rather, the resources stated in the Prior Year Form 10-K were estimated as of July 1, 2020, and were inclusive of mineral reserves. Accordingly, it is not practicable to present a meaningful year-over-year comparison of mineral resources pursuant to Item 1304(e) of S-K 1300.
Mineral Reserves
As of December 31, 2021, SRK estimates total proven reserves of 0.05 million STs of ore with an average grade of 9.45% TREO and 30.08 million STs of probable reserves with an average ore grade of 6.33%. Our total proven and probable reserves are estimated as 30.13 million STs with an average grade of 6.34%. The reference point for the mineral reserves is material delivered to the Mountain Pass mill and flotation facility.
Based on these estimated reserves and our expected annual production rate upon completion of the Stage II project (separations facility), our expected mine life is approximately 36 years, including a partial year in 2021 and a partial year in 2056 to complete the processing of stockpiles and separations.
29

Table of Contents

The following table states the amount of our proven and probable mineral reserves as of December 31, 2021.
CategoryDescriptionRun-of-MineTREO%MY%Concentrate
Million Short Tons (dry)Million Short Tons (dry)
ProvenCurrent Stockpiles0.059.4510.880.01
In situ
Proven Totals0.059.4510.880.01
ProbableCurrent Stockpiles
In situ30.086.336.712.02
Probable Totals30.086.336.712.02
Proven + ProbableCurrent Stockpiles0.059.4510.880.01
In situ30.086.336.712.02
Proven + Probable Totals30.136.346.722.02
General Notes:
Reserves stated as contained within an economically mineable open pit design stated above a 2.49% TREO COG.
Mineral reserves tonnage and contained metal have been rounded to reflect the accuracy of the estimate, and numbers may not add due to rounding.
MY% (mass yield) calculation is based on 60% concentrate grade of the product and the ore grade dependent metallurgical recovery. MY% = (TREO% * Met recovery)/60% concentrate TREO grade.
Indicated mineral resources have been converted to Probable reserves. Measured mineral resources have been converted to Proven reserves.
Reserves are diluted at the contact of the 2% TREO geological model triangulation (further to dilution inherent to the resource model and assume selective mining unit of 15 feet x 15 feet x 30 feet).
Mineral reserves tonnage and grade are reported as diluted.
Pit optimization COG is based on an average TREO% equivalent concentration price of $6,139 per ST of dry concentrate (60% TREO, net of the incremental benefits and costs related to REE separations), average mining cost at the pit exit of $1.825 per ST mined plus $0.018 per ST mined for each 15 feet bench above or below the pit exit, combined milling and G&A costs of $69.90 per ST milled, concentrate freight of $177 per ST of dry concentrate, and an average overall pit slope angle of 42° including ramps.
The topography used was from December 31, 2021.
Reserves contain material inside and outside permitted mining but within mineral lease.
Reserves assume 100% mining recovery.
The strip ratio was 6.1 to 1 (waste to ore ratio).
The mineral reserves were estimated by SRK.
The Company’s Prior Year Form 10-K did not include a year-end mineral reserve estimate. The reserves stated in the Prior Year Form 10-K were estimated as of July 1, 2020. Accordingly, it is not practicable to present a year-over-year comparison of mineral reserves pursuant Item 1304(e) of S-K 1300. Notwithstanding, the following comparison is provided to show the change in reserves over the 18-month period from July 1, 2020, to December 31, 2021.
DescriptionEstimate DateRun-of-MineTREO%MY%Concentrate
Million Short Tons (dry)Million Short Tons (dry)
Proven + Probable ReservesDecember 31, 202130.136.346.722.02
Proven + Probable ReservesJuly 1, 202021.147.067.671.62
Difference8.99-0.720.40
% Difference43%(10)%25%
30

Table of Contents

Reasons for the differences between the two estimates include: additional resource and geotechnical drilling, revised and updated geological block model, revised methodology for applying mining dilution, revised pit slope angles, updated product prices, updated processing recovery assumptions, updated operating costs, and updated cut-off grade. Product prices, processing recovery, operating costs and cut-off grade were adjusted to reflect on-site rare earth separations, construction of which is expected to be complete by year-end 2022.
Factors and Assumptions Affecting Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve Estimates
There are numerous uncertainties inherent in estimating quantities and qualities of REO reserves and costs to mine recoverable reserves, including many factors beyond our control. We will regularly evaluate our REO reserve estimates. This may be done in conjunction with additional exploration drilling programs. The estimates of REO reserves as to both quantity and quality will also be updated to reflect new drilling or other data received. Estimates of economically recoverable REO reserves, however, necessarily depend upon a number of variable factors and assumptions, all of which may vary considerably from actual results, such as:
geological, mining and processing conditions and/or effects from prior mining that may not be fully identified by available data or that may differ from experience;
the strategic approach to mining and processing the deposit may change depending upon market demand, corporate strategy and other prevailing economic conditions;
assumptions concerning future prices of rare earth products, foreign exchange rates, process recovery rates, transportation costs, operating costs, capital costs, and reclamation costs; and
assumptions concerning future effects of regulation, including the issuance of required permits and taxes by governmental agencies and foreign government policy relating to import or export of rare earth products.
Actual REO tonnage recovered from identified REO reserves and revenues and expenditures with respect to the same may vary materially from estimates. Further, period-to-period, our future estimates of REO reserves may fluctuate significantly as macroeconomic conditions and our level of understanding with respect to the deposit change. These estimates may not accurately reflect our actual REO reserves. Any inaccuracy in our estimates related to our REO reserves could result in lower-than-expected revenues and higher-than-expected costs.
ITEM 3.    LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
From time to time, we may be subject to legal and governmental proceedings and claims in the ordinary course of business. We are not currently a party to any material legal or governmental proceedings, and, to our knowledge, none is threatened.
ITEM 4.    MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES
The 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 95.1 to this Annual Report.
PART II
ITEM 5.    MARKET FOR REGISTRANT’S COMMON EQUITY, RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES
Market Information and Trading Symbol for Common Stock
Our common stock is currently quoted on the NYSE under the symbols “MP”.
Holders of Record
According to Continental Stock Transfer & Trust Company, our transfer agent, there was 155 active holders of record of our common stock as of February 17, 2022. The actual number of stockholders is greater than these numbers and includes holders who are beneficial owners, but whose shares are held in street name by brokers and other nominees. These numbers of active holders of record also do not include holders whose shares may be held in trust by other entities.
31

Table of Contents

Dividends
The Company has not paid any cash dividends on its common stock to date. The payment of cash dividends in the future will be dependent upon the Company’s revenues and earnings, capital requirements and general financial condition. The payment of any cash dividends will be within the discretion of our Board of Directors at such time. In addition, the Company is not currently contemplating and does not anticipate declaring any stock dividends in the foreseeable future as it is currently expected that available cash resources will be utilized in connection with our ongoing operations and development projects, including Stage II and Stage III.
Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities
We did not have any sales of unregistered equity securities during the three months ended December 31, 2021.
Repurchase of Securities
During the three months ended December 31, 2021, neither we nor any of our affiliates repurchased shares of our common stock registered under Section 12 of the Exchange Act.
Stock Performance Graph
The following graph compares the cumulative total stockholder return for the Company’s common stock to the cumulative total returns for the Russell 2000 Index and a peer group. The total cumulative return calculations are for the period commencing November 18, 2020, for investments in stock, or October 31, 2020, for investments in index, and ending December 31, 2021, and include the reinvestment of dividends. The stock price performance shown in this graph is based on historical data and is neither indicative of, nor intended to forecast, future stock price performance.
mp-20211231_g3.jpg
*$100 invested on November 18, 2020, in stock or October 31, 2020, in index, including reinvestment of dividends. Fiscal year ended December 31st.
Copyright © 2022 Russell Investment Group. All rights reserved.
11/18/2012/31/2003/31/2106/30/2109/30/2112/31/21
MP Materials Corp.$100.00 $213.19 $238.24 $244.27 $213.59 $300.99 
Russell 2000 Index$100.00 $128.68 $145.02 $151.24 $144.65 $147.75 
Peer Group$100.00 $112.07 $133.00 $142.46 $153.09 $170.93 
ITEM 6.    [RESERVED]
32

Table of Contents

ITEM 7.    MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
You should read the following discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations together with our Consolidated Financial Statements and related notes appearing elsewhere in this annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021 (this “Annual Report”). A discussion of changes in our results of operations and cash flows between years ended December 31, 2020 and 2019, has been omitted from this Annual Report, but may be found in “Part II, Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, Comparison of the Years Ended December 31, 2020 and 2019,” of our annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2020, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 22, 2021. This discussion and analysis contains forward-looking statements that involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions. The actual results may differ materially from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements as a result of certain factors, including, but not limited to, those set forth under “Item 1A. Risk Factors” and elsewhere in this Annual Report. In addition, see “Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements.” References herein to the “Company,” “MP Materials,” “we,” “our,” and “us,” refer to MP Materials Corp. and its subsidiaries.
Executive Overview
MP Materials Corp. is the largest producer of rare earth materials in the Western Hemisphere. The Company owns and operates the Mountain Pass Rare Earth Mine and Processing Facility (“Mountain Pass”), the only rare earth mining and processing site of scale in North America. We estimate the rare earth concentrate we produced and sold in 2021 represented approximately 15% of the rare earth content consumed in the global market. Separated rare earth elements (“REE”) are critical inputs for the magnets that enable the mobility of electric vehicles (“EVs”), drones, defense systems, wind turbines, robotics and many other high-growth, advanced technologies. Our integrated operations at Mountain Pass combine low production costs with high environmental standards, thereby restoring American leadership to a critical industry with a strong commitment to sustainability.
We currently produce a rare earth concentrate that we sell pursuant to the A&R Offtake Agreement (as defined in the “Comparability of Results” section below) to Shenghe Resources (Singapore) International Trading Pte. Ltd. (“Shenghe”), an affiliate of Shenghe Resources Holding Co., Ltd., a leading global rare earth company that is publicly listed in China, that, in turn, typically sells that product to refiners in China. These refiners separate the constituent REE contained in our concentrate and sell the separated products to their customers. Upon completion of our Stage II optimization project (“Stage II”), we anticipate producing separated rare earth oxides (“REO”), including neodymium-praseodymium (“NdPr”) oxide, and selling these products directly to end users, at which time we may no longer sell our concentrate.
In December 2021, we announced that we will build our initial rare earth metal, alloy and magnet manufacturing facility in Fort Worth, Texas (the “Fort Worth Facility”). In addition, we announced that we had entered into a long-term agreement with General Motors Company (NYSE: GM) (“GM”) to supply U.S.-sourced and manufactured rare earth materials, alloy and finished magnets for the electric motors in more than a dozen models using GM’s Ultium Platform, with a gradual production ramp that begins in 2023. We are currently negotiating the terms of a definitive long-term supply agreement with GM which will include all of the necessary terms and conditions. These developments are a part of our Stage III downstream expansion strategy (“Stage III”).
Highlights from the year ended December 31, 2021, include:
Revenue growth of 147% year over year, driven by increases in REO production and sales volume and realized price per REO metric ton (“MT”);
REO production growth of 10% year over year to 42,413 MTs, reflecting higher ore feed rates and mineral recoveries;
Net income of $135.0 million, compared to a net loss of $21.8 million in the prior year, largely driven by higher revenues and a one-time, non-cash settlement charge of $66.5 million in the prior year;
Adjusted EBITDA (see below) of $219.1 million, compared to $42.6 million in the prior year, representing growth of 414% year over year, driven by higher per-unit profitability and production efficiencies, slightly offset by increased public company and growth and development costs;
Net cash provided by operating activities of $102.0 million, an increase from $3.3 million in the prior year;
Adjusted Net Income (see below) growth of 693% year over year, largely driven by higher revenues;
Diluted earnings per share of $0.73, compared to loss per share of $0.27 in the prior year;
33

Table of Contents

Net proceeds of $672.3 million raised from the issuance of Convertible Notes (as defined in the “Liquidity and Capital Resources” section below) in March 2021; and
Steady progress on our Stage II optimization project and acceleration of our Stage III strategy with the announcements of the Fort Worth Facility and the entrance into a long-term agreement with GM.
Our results of operations for the year ended December 31, 2021, demonstrate our strong operational execution as demand for rare earth materials continues to grow, which also resulted in prices for rare earth products, particularly those used in NdFeB magnets, to rise significantly. In 2021, we produced the highest REO output in the history of Mountain Pass. As we continue to drive strong performance in our Stage I operations, we are continuing to make progress on our Stage II optimization project and expect to reach normalized separated oxide production levels in 2023. In addition, our Stage III team is making significant progress on our strategy to repatriate magnet manufacturing to the United States, starting with our initial facility in Fort Worth, Texas.
We consider net income (loss) to be the most directly comparable financial measure calculated in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States (“GAAP”) to Adjusted EBITDA and Adjusted Net Income (Loss), which are non-GAAP financial measures. Refer to the “Non-GAAP Financial Measures” section below for the definitions of Adjusted EBITDA and Adjusted Net Income (Loss), as well as a reconciliation of net income (loss) to Adjusted EBITDA and Adjusted Net Income (Loss).
Key Performance Indicators
We use the following key performance indicators to evaluate the performance of our business. Our calculations of these performance indicators may differ from similar measures published by other companies in our industry or in other industries. The following table presents our key performance indicators:
Year ended December 31,Amount Change% Change
(in whole units or dollars, except percentages)2021202020192021 vs. 20202020 vs. 20192021 vs. 20202020 vs. 2019
REO production volume (MTs)42,413 38,503 27,620 3,910 10,883 10 %39 %
REO sales volume (MTs)42,158 38,367 26,821 3,791 11,546 10 %43 %
Realized price per REO MT$7,745 $3,311 $2,793 $4,434 $518 134 %19 %
Production cost per REO MT$1,493 $1,430 $1,980 $63 $(550)%(28)%
REO Production Volume
We measure our REO-equivalent production volume for a given period in MTs, our principal unit of sale. This measure refers to the REO content contained in the rare earth concentrate we produce. Our REO production volume is a key indicator of our mining and processing capacity and efficiency.
The rare earth concentrate we currently produce is a processed, concentrated form of our mined rare earth-bearing ores. While our unit of production and sale is a MT of embedded REO, the actual weight of our rare earth concentrate is significantly greater, as the concentrate also contains non-REO minerals and residual moisture from the production process. We target REO content of greater than 60% per dry MT of concentrate (referred to as “REO grade”). The elemental distribution of REO in our concentrate is relatively consistent over time and production lot. We consider this the natural distribution, as it reflects the distribution of elements contained, on average, in our ore. As noted above, upon completion of Stage II, we expect to refine our rare earth concentrate to produce separated rare earths, including separated NdPr oxide.
REO Sales Volume
Our REO sales volume for a given period is calculated in MTs. A unit, or MT, is considered sold for purposes of this performance indicator once we recognize revenue on its sale. Our REO sales volume is a key measure of our ability to convert our production into revenue.
Realized Price per REO MT
We calculate the realized price per REO MT for a given period as the quotient of: (i) our Total Value Realized (see below) for a given period and (ii) our REO sales volume for the same period. We define Total Value Realized, which is a non-GAAP financial measure, as our product sales adjusted for the revenue impact of tariff-related rebates from Shenghe on account of
34

Table of Contents

prior sales, and, in connection with our sales of REO to Shenghe between July 1, 2019, and June 5, 2020, the Shenghe Implied Discount. The Shenghe Implied Discount is equal to the difference between (i) Shenghe’s average realized price, net of taxes, tariffs and certain other agreed-upon charges (such as one-time demurrage charges) on our products once sold to their ultimate customers and (ii) the amount of revenue we recognized on the sales of those products to Shenghe for sales between July 1, 2019, and June 5, 2020, which includes a non-cash portion.
Under the terms of the Original Offtake Agreement, for the period between July 1, 2019, and June 5, 2020, Shenghe purchased our rare earth products at an agreed-upon cash price per MT, which was intended to approximate our cash cost of production, and in turn resold it at market prices to its customers. As discussed below, in addition to the revenue we recognized from the cash sales prices, we also realized an amount of deferred revenue applicable to these sales equal to 64% of Shenghe’s gross profit. Upon entrance into the A&R Offtake Agreement, we began to recognize revenue at the full value of our product.
Realized price per REO MT is an important measure of the market price of our product. Accordingly, we calculate realized price per REO MT to reflect a consistent basis between periods by eliminating the impact of recognizing revenue at a discount during the period between July 1, 2019, and June 5, 2020, and the revenue impact of tariff-related rebates. See the “Non-GAAP Financial Measures” section below for a reconciliation of our Total Value Realized, which is a non-GAAP financial measure, to our product sales, which is determined in accordance with GAAP, as well as the calculation of realized price per REO MT.
Production Cost per REO MT
We calculate the production cost per REO MT for a given period as the quotient of: (i) our Production Costs (see below) for a given period and (ii) our REO sales volume for the same period. We define Production Costs, which is a non-GAAP financial measure, as our cost of sales (excluding depletion, depreciation and amortization) less stock-based compensation expense included in cost of sales, shipping and freight costs, and costs attributable to certain other sales, for a given period.
Production cost per REO MT is a key indicator of our production efficiency. As a significant portion of our cash costs of Stage I production are fixed, our production cost per REO MT is influenced by mineral recovery, REO grade, plant feed rate and production uptime. See the “Non-GAAP Financial Measures” section below for a reconciliation of our Production Costs, which is a non-GAAP financial measure, to our cost of sales (excluding depletion, depreciation and amortization), which is determined in accordance with GAAP, as well as the calculation of production cost per REO MT.
Key Factors Affecting Our Performance
We believe we are uniquely positioned to capitalize on the key trends of electrification and supply chain security, particularly as domestic EV production grows. Our success depends to a significant extent on our ability to take advantage of the following opportunities and meet the challenges associated with them.
Demand for REE
The key demand driver for REE is their use in a diverse array of growing end markets, including: clean-energy and transportation technologies (e.g., traction motors in EVs and generators in wind power turbines); high-technology applications (e.g., miniaturization of smart phones and other mobile devices, fiber optics, lasers, robotics, medical devices, etc.); critical defense applications (e.g., guidance and control systems, global positioning systems, radar and sonar, drones, etc.); and essential industrial infrastructure (e.g., advanced catalyst applications in oil refining and pollution-control systems in traditional internal-combustion automobiles, etc.). We believe these drivers will fuel the continued growth of the rare earth market, particularly the market for NdPr.
We believe we benefit from several demand tailwinds for REE, and particularly NdPr. These include the trend toward electrification, geographic supply chain diversification particularly in relation to China, the U.S. government strategy to restore domestic supply of key minerals, and the increasing acceptance of environmental, social and governance mandates. However, changes in technology may also drive down the use of REE, including NdPr, in the components in which they are now used, or lead to a decline in reliance on such components altogether. We also operate in a competitive industry, and many of our key competitors are based in China, where competitors may not be subject to the same rigorous environmental standards and production costs are typically lower than in the United States.
Maximizing Production Efficiency
In 2021, REO production was approximately 3.5x greater than the highest ever production in a twelve-month period by the prior operator of Mountain Pass using principally the same capital equipment. We achieved these results through an optimized reagent scheme, lower process temperatures, better management of the tailings facility, and a commitment to operational
35

Table of Contents

excellence, driving approximately 95% uptime. We believe that our Stage I optimization initiatives enabled us to achieve world-class production cost levels for rare earth concentrate.
The success of our business reflects and will reflect our ability to manage our costs. Our production achievements in Stage I have provided economies of scale to lower production costs per unit of REO produced in concentrate. Stage II is designed to enable us to continue to manage our cost structure for separating REE through an optimized facility process flow. The reintroduction of the oxidizing roasting step will allow us to capitalize on the inherent advantages of the bastnaesite ore at Mountain Pass, which is uniquely suitable to low-cost refining by selectively eliminating the need to carry lower-value cerium through the separations process. The recommissioning of our natural gas-powered combined heat and power (“CHP”) plant, which was completed in December 2021, will remove our reliance on the regional electric power grid. Further, our location offers significant transportation advantages that create meaningful cost efficiencies in securing incoming supplies and shipping of our final products.
We currently operate a single site in a single location, and any stoppage in activity, including for reasons outside of our control, could adversely impact our production, results of operations and cash flows. In addition, several of our current and potential competitors are government supported and may have access to substantially greater capital, which may allow them to make similar or greater efficiency improvements or undercut market prices for our product.
Development of Our REE Refining Capabilities and Other Opportunities
Stage II is focused on advancing our operations from the production of rare earth concentrate to the separation of individual REE. Engineering, procurement, construction, and other recommissioning activities are underway and involve upgrades and enhancements to the existing facility process flow to reliably produce separated REE at a lower cost and with an expected smaller environmental footprint per unit of REO produced. As part of Stage II, we are in the process of reintroducing an oxidizing roasting circuit, reorienting the plant process flow, increasing product finishing capacity, improving wastewater management, and making other improvements to materials handling and storage. Upon completion of Stage II, we expect to be a global low-cost, high-volume producer of NdPr oxide, which represents a majority of the value contained in our ore.
Further, we are pursuing opportunities to integrate further downstream into the business of upgrading NdPr into metal alloys and magnets, including magnet recycling, ultimately expanding our presence as a global source for rare earth magnetics, as evidenced by our recent announcement to build the Fort Worth Facility. We believe integration into magnet production will provide some protection from commodity pricing volatility, while also enhancing our business profile as the producer of a critical industrial output in addition to a producer of resources. We expect our Stage III efforts to continue to benefit from geopolitical developments, including initiatives to repatriate critical materials supply chains.
In February 2022, we were awarded a $35.0 million contract by the Department of Defense’s Office of Industrial Base Policy to design and build a facility to process heavy rare earth elements (“HREE”). Successful completion of this project will establish the first processing and separation facility of its kind for HREEs in support of commercial and defense applications in the United States. The HREE processing and separations facility will be built at Mountain Pass and tie in with the rest of our Stage II facilities.
Our Mineral Reserves
Our ore body has proven over more than 60 years of operations to be one of the world’s largest and highest-grade rare earth resources. As of September 30, 2021, SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc., an independent consulting firm that we retained to assess our reserves, estimates total proven and probable reserves of 2.1 million short tons of REO contained in 30.4 million short tons of ore at Mountain Pass, with an average ore grade of 6.36%. These estimates use an estimated economical cut-off of 2.49% total rare earth oxide. Based on these estimated reserves and our expected annual production rate of REO upon completion of Stage II, as of September 30, 2021, our expected mine life was approximately 35 years. We expect to be able to continue to grow our expected mine life through exploratory drilling programs over time.
Mining activities in the United States are heavily regulated, particularly in California. Regulatory changes may make it more challenging for us to access our reserves. In addition, new mineral deposits may be discovered elsewhere, which could make our operations less competitive.
36

Table of Contents

Comparability of Results
Business Combination and Reverse Recapitalization
Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of July 15, 2020, as amended on August 26, 2020 (the “Merger Agreement”), on November 17, 2020, MP Mine Operations LLC (“MPMO”), the company that owns the Mountain Pass mine and processing facilities, and Secure Natural Resources LLC (“SNR”), the company that holds the mineral rights to the Mountain Pass mine and surrounding areas as well as intellectual property rights related to the processing and development of rare earth minerals, were combined with Fortress Value Acquisition Corp., a special purpose acquisition company (“FVAC”) (the “Business Combination”), and became indirect wholly-owned subsidiaries of FVAC, which was in turn renamed MP Materials Corp.
The Business Combination was accounted for as a reverse recapitalization, with no goodwill or other intangible assets recorded, and the acquisition of SNR (the “SNR Mineral Rights Acquisition”) was treated as an asset acquisition. Furthermore, MPMO was deemed to be the accounting acquirer and FVAC the accounting acquiree, which, for financial reporting purposes, results in MPMO’s historical financial information becoming that of the Company.
Our Relationship and Agreements with Shenghe
In May 2017, prior to our acquisition of Mountain Pass, we entered into a set of commercial arrangements with Shenghe, which principally consisted of a technical services agreement (the “TSA”), an offtake agreement (the “Original Offtake Agreement”), and a distribution and marketing agreement (the “DMA”). We also issued to Leshan Shenghe Rare Earth Co., Ltd. (“Leshan Shenghe”), the majority stockholder of Shenghe, a preferred interest in the Company, which was ultimately exchanged for shares of our common stock in connection with the Business Combination.
The Original Offtake Agreement required Shenghe to advance us an initial $50.0 million (the “Initial Prepayment Amount”) to fund the restart of operations at the mine and the TSA required Shenghe to fund any additional operating and capital expenditures required to bring Mountain Pass to full operability. Shenghe also agreed to provide additional funding of $30.0 million to the Company pursuant to a separate letter agreement dated June 20, 2017 (the “Letter Agreement”) (the “First Additional Advance”), in connection with our acquisition of Mountain Pass. In addition to the repayment of the First Additional Advance, pursuant to the Letter Agreement, the Initial Prepayment Amount was increased by $30.0 million. We refer to the aggregate prepayments made by Shenghe pursuant to the Original Offtake Agreement and the Framework Agreement (as defined below), as adjusted for Gross Profit Recoupment (as defined below) amounts and any other qualifying repayments to Shenghe, inclusive of the $30.0 million increase to the Initial Prepayment Amount, as the “Prepaid Balance.”
Under the Original Offtake Agreement, upon the mine achieving certain milestones and being deemed commercially operational (which was achieved on July 1, 2019), we sold to Shenghe, and Shenghe purchased on a firm “take or pay” basis, all of the rare earth products produced at Mountain Pass. Shenghe marketed and sold these products to customers, and retained the gross profits earned on subsequent sales. These gross profits were credited against the Prepaid Balance, and provided the means by which we repaid, and Shenghe recovered, such amounts (the “Gross Profit Recoupment”).
As discussed within Note 4, “Relationship and Agreements with Shenghe,” in the notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements, the entrance into the Letter Agreement constituted a modification to the Original Offtake Agreement (referred to as the “June 2017 Modification”), which for accounting purposes, resulted in an implied discount on the Company’s sales prices to Shenghe under the Original Offtake Agreement (the “Shenghe Implied Discount”).
For sales to Shenghe under the Original Offtake Agreement between July 1, 2019, and June 5, 2020, the Company and Shenghe periodically agreed on an initial cash sales price, which was intended to approximate our cash cost of production, for each MT of rare earth concentrate. In addition, since the Shenghe Implied Discount applied to sales to Shenghe during this period, we also realized an amount of deferred revenue applicable to these sales equal to 64% of the gross profit realized by Shenghe of this product to its own customers. The full gross profit amount realized by Shenghe on such sales reduced the Prepaid Balance (and consequently, our contractual obligations to Shenghe). For example, for a hypothetical shipment of REO to Shenghe on which it realized gross profit of $1.00 (the difference between the sales price to its customers and its cash cost paid to us), we would recognize $0.64 as non-cash revenue through a reduction in the deferred revenue balance, and the remaining $0.36 would not be recorded as revenue, but would reduce the Prepaid Balance. Shenghe’s gross profit was influenced by market conditions as well as import duties, which were imposed on our products by the General Administration of Customs of the People’s Republic of China during this period. See also “Key Performance Indicators” section above.
In May 2020, we entered into a framework agreement and amendment (the “Framework Agreement”) with Shenghe and Leshan Shenghe that significantly restructured the commercial arrangements. Pursuant to the Framework Agreement, we
37

Table of Contents

entered into an amended and restated offtake agreement with Shenghe on May 19, 2020 (the “A&R Offtake Agreement”), which, upon effectiveness, superseded and replaced the Original Offtake Agreement, and we issued to Shenghe a warrant on June 2, 2020 (the “Shenghe Warrant”). Pursuant to the Framework Agreement, Shenghe funded the remaining portion of the Initial Prepayment Amount and agreed to fund an additional $35.5 million advance to us (the “Second Additional Advance” and together with the Initial Prepayment Amount, inclusive of the $30.0 million increase pursuant to the Letter Agreement, the “Offtake Advances”), which amounts were fully funded on June 5, 2020. The Shenghe Warrant was ultimately exchanged for shares of our common stock in connection with the Business Combination.
Upon the funding of the remaining obligations on June 5, 2020, among other things, (i) the TSA and the DMA were terminated and (ii) the A&R Offtake Agreement and the Shenghe Warrant became effective (such events are collectively referred to as the “June 2020 Modification”). Thus, at the present time, Leshan Shenghe’s and Shenghe’s involvement with the Company and Mountain Pass consists of only the A&R Offtake Agreement, which will terminate when Shenghe has fully recouped all of the Prepaid Balance. Full repayment of the remaining obligation will occur by the end of the first quarter of 2022 whether through non-cash recoupments from sales or a cash payment based, in part, on the Company’s GAAP net income for the year ended December 31, 2021. In February 2022, we entered into a term sheet with Shenghe which provides that once our A&R Offtake Agreement expires, we will continue to sell and Shenghe will continue to purchase our rare earth concentrate under an offtake arrangement.
As discussed in further detail within Note 4, “Relationship and Agreements with Shenghe,” in the notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements, as a result of the June 2020 Modification, we recorded a non-cash settlement charge of $66.6 million during the second quarter of 2020 (reflecting a deemed payment to terminate the DMA). In addition, the accounting treatment specific to the Shenghe Implied Discount was no longer required as a result of the June 2020 Modification.
For sales to Shenghe under the A&R Offtake Agreement after June 5, 2020, the sales price of our rare earth products is based on market prices (net of taxes, tariffs and certain other agreed charges) less applicable discounts. A portion of the sales price to Shenghe is in the form of debt repayment, with the remainder paid in cash.
As a result of the above, the amount of revenue we recorded for periods that included any portion of the period from July 1, 2019, until June 5, 2020, is not comparable, in the aggregate or on a per unit basis, to the amount of revenue recorded in other periods that commenced after June 5, 2020. As discussed in the “Key Performance Indicators” section above, in the calculation of our realized price per REO MT, we eliminate the impact of recognizing revenue at a discount during the period between July 1, 2019, and June 5, 2020, in order to reflect a consistent basis between years presented.
Tariff-Related Rebates
Starting in May 2020, the government of the People’s Republic of China granted retroactive tariff relief to certain importers of rare earth minerals including Shenghe and its affiliates and other consignees of our products, relating to periods prior to the formal lifting of the tariffs. As a result, Shenghe’s eventual realized prices for the REO sold prior to May 2020 were higher than originally realized by us and resulted in tariff rebates to end customers, which contractually were due to Shenghe. On account of these rebates in the second and third quarters of 2020 and the first quarter of 2021, we received from Shenghe certain credits against our contractual commitments to them.
Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic
In December 2019, a novel strain of coronavirus (known as “COVID-19”) began to impact the population of China. In March 2020, the outbreak of COVID-19 was declared a global pandemic after growing both in the United States and globally. The responses by governments, societies, and private sector entities to the COVID-19 pandemic, which include temporary closures of businesses, social distancing, travel restrictions, “shelter in place,” and other governmental regulations and various economic stimulus programs, have significantly impacted market volatility and general global economic conditions, including significant business and supply chain disruption as well as broad-based changes in supply and demand.
Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in the first quarter of 2020, we have experienced, at times, significant shipping delays due to congestion and slowdowns at U.S. and international ports caused by shortages in vessels, containers, and truckers, also disrupting the global supply chain. Congestion and slowdowns have affected and may continue to affect the capacity at ports to receive deliveries of products or the loading of shipments onto vessels. Despite these factors, we have not experienced a reduction in production or sales due to the COVID-19 pandemic; however, the COVID-19 pandemic has contributed to certain cost and schedule pressures on the Stage II optimization project. The Company has worked proactively and diligently to adjust working schedules and hours to optimize logistics and shipping, which has thus far prevented a significant negative impact on our product sales and has mitigated certain impacts on Stage II construction and recommissioning progress. However, there can
38

Table of Contents

be no assurance that the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic will not have a negative impact on our production, sales, or growth projects in the future.
Furthermore, as the situation continues to evolve, including as a result of new and potential future variants of COVID-19 (such as the Delta and Omicron variants), the possibility of federal or state mandates on vaccinations, or other factors that may affect international shipping and logistics or involve responses to government actions such as strikes or other disruptions, it is impossible to predict the effect and ultimate impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the Company’s business and results of operations. The extent and duration of any business disruptions, and related financial impact, cannot be estimated at this time.
Results of Operations
Comparison of the Years Ended December 31, 2021, 2020, and 2019
The following table summarizes our results of operations:
For the year ended December 31,Amount Change% Change
(in thousands, except percentages)2021202020192021 vs. 20202020 vs. 20192021 vs. 20202020 vs. 2019
Revenue:
Product sales$328,563 $133,697 $73,017 $194,866 $60,680 146 %83 %
Other sales3,389 613 394 2,776 219 453 %56 %
Total revenue331,952 134,310 73,411 197,642 60,899 147 %83 %
Operating costs and expenses:
Cost of sales(1)
76,253 63,798 61,261 12,455 2,537 20 %%
General and administrative57,215 26,868 11,104 30,347 15,764 113 %142 %
Advanced projects, development and other4,573 140 — 4,433 140 n.m.n.m.
Depreciation, depletion and amortization24,382 6,931 4,687 17,451 2,244 252 %48 %
Accretion of asset retirement and environmental obligations2,375 2,255 2,094 120 161 %%
Royalty expense— 2,406 1,885 (2,406)521 (100)%28 %
Write-down of inventories1,809 — — 1,809 — n.m.n.m.
Settlement charge— 66,615 — (66,615)66,615 (100)%n.m.
Total operating costs and expenses166,607 169,013 81,031 (2,406)87,982 (1)%109 %
Operating income (loss)165,345 (34,703)(7,620)200,048 (27,083)n.m.355 %
Other income, net3,754 251 4,278 3,503 (4,027)n.m.(94)%
Interest expense, net(8,904)(5,009)(3,412)(3,895)(1,597)78 %47 %
Income (loss) before income taxes160,195 (39,461)(6,754)199,656 (32,707)n.m.484 %
Income tax benefit (expense)(25,158)17,636 (1)(42,794)17,637 n.m.n.m.
Net income (loss)$135,037 $(21,825)$(6,755)$156,862 $(15,070)n.m.223 %
Adjusted EBITDA(2)
$219,077 $42,609 $1,934 $176,468 $40,675 414 %2103 %
Adjusted Net Income (Loss)(2)
$168,374 $21,240 $(7,767)$147,134 $29,007 693 %n.m.
n.m. - Not meaningful.
(1)Excludes depreciation, depletion and amortization.
(2)See the Non-GAAP Financial Measures section below.
Revenue consists primarily of product sales, which pertain to our sales of rare earth concentrate principally to Shenghe under the Original Offtake Agreement for sales between January 1, 2020, and June 5, 2020, or the A&R Offtake Agreement for sales after June 5, 2020.
The increase in product sales for the year ended December 31, 2021, as compared to the prior year, was driven by higher REO sales volume, which increased by 3,791 MTs, or 10%, to 42,158 MTs for the year ended December 31, 2021, and a higher realized price per REO MT, which increased by 134%, reflecting higher demand for rare earth products. REO production volume increased by 3,910, or 10%, to 42,413 MTs for the year ended December 31, 2021, as compared to the prior year, primarily reflecting higher ore feed rates and mineral recoveries. The improvements were driven by continued optimization of the flotation circuit, including operational consistency, and adjustments to the reagent scheme developed through previous
39


pilots that resulted in higher production and improved product quality. Product sales for year ended December 31, 2020, were negatively impacted by the Shenghe Implied Discount, in which $3.7 million of the value of products sold to Shenghe from January 1, 2020, until June 5, 2020, was not recognized as revenue. As mentioned above, starting after June 5, 2020, the accounting treatment specific to the Shenghe Implied Discount was no longer required.
REO sales volume varies period to period based on the timing of shipments, but sales volumes generally track our production volumes over time given our take-or-pay arrangement with Shenghe. See the “Quarterly Performance Trend” section below for further discussion on realized price per REO MT.
Cost of sales (excluding depreciation, depletion and amortization) consists of production- and processing-related labor costs (including wages and salaries, benefits, and bonuses), mining and processing supplies (such as reagents), parts and labor for the maintenance of our mining fleet and processing facilities, other facilities-related costs (such as property taxes and utilities), packaging materials, and shipping and freight costs.
Cost of sales for the year ended December 31, 2021, increased year over year primarily due to higher REO sales volume. The increase in production cost per REO MT from $1,430 for the year ended December 31, 2020, to $1,493 for the year ended December 31, 2021, is primarily due to higher payroll costs and employee headcount, including an increase in hiring ahead of the completion of our Stage II optimization project. Cost discipline and production efficiencies achieved during the year ended December 31, 2021, more than offset higher material and supplies costs as well as COVID-19-impacted freight-in costs.
Notwithstanding an increase in employee headcount as we progress toward completion of our Stage II optimization project, we believe our production cost per REO MT has stabilized in the short-term, with operating efficiencies largely offsetting raw material and logistics pressures. We anticipate additional efficiency opportunities as we increase REO production volumes in our milling and flotation circuit over time. In addition, production cost per REO MT may vary period to period based on the timing of scheduled outages of our production facilities for maintenance as well as anticipated tie-ins of certain Stage II-related facilities over the next twelve months. See the “Quarterly Performance Trend” section below for further discussion on production cost per REO MT.
General and administrative expenses consist primarily of accounting, finance and administrative personnel costs, including stock-based compensation expense related to these personnel; professional services (including legal, regulatory, audit and others); certain engineering expenses; insurance, license and permit costs; facilities rent and other costs; office supplies; general facilities expenses; certain environmental, health and safety expenses; and gain or loss on sale or disposal of long-lived assets.
General and administrative expenses for the year ended December 31, 2021, reflect an increase in stock-based compensation expense of $13.5 million, primarily from grants of restricted stock and restricted stock units (“Stock Awards”) made during the fourth quarter of 2020 related to the Business Combination. Prior to the fourth quarter of 2020, we had not granted any Stock Awards nor recorded any stock-based compensation expense. Excluding stock-based compensation expense, general and administrative expenses increased by $16.8 million, or 63%, mainly due to increases in personnel costs, insurance, and legal costs, the majority of which were incurred to support our operations as a public company, as well as a legal settlement of $1.0 million, including legal fees.
Advanced projects, development and other consists principally of costs incurred in connection with research and development of new processes or to significantly enhance our existing processes, certain government contracts, and start-up costs, as well as costs incurred to support growth and development initiatives or other opportunities. Advanced projects, development and other for the year ended December 31, 2021, increased year over year due to costs incurred under certain of our government contracts as well as other costs incurred to support growth and development initiatives, particularly with regards to metal, alloy, and magnet manufacturing, including recycling.
Depreciation, depletion and amortization consists of depreciation of property, plant and equipment; depletion of mineral rights; and amortization of finance lease right-of-use assets. The increase in depreciation, depletion and amortization for the year ended December 31, 2021, primarily reflects the depletion of the mineral rights resulting from the SNR Mineral Rights Acquisition in November 2020, which increased by $15.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2021, as well as the impact of additional equipment purchases and assets placed into service, including the CHP plant in December 2021, offset slightly by a reduction in depreciation of $1.1 million as a result of a decrement to our asset retirement obligation during the year ended December 31, 2021. At the beginning of the fourth quarter of 2021, as a result of an updated life of mine, we revised our estimate of the remaining useful life of the mineral rights to approximately 35 years from approximately 23 years.
Accretion of asset retirement and environmental obligations is based on the requirement to reclaim and remediate the land surrounding our mine and processing facilities upon the retirement of the Mountain Pass facility and on the estimated
40


future cash flow requirement to monitor groundwater contamination, respectively. Accretion of asset retirement and environmental obligations remained relatively flat year over year.
Royalty expense relates to our obligation to pay SNR for the right to extract rare earth ores contained in our mine and was based on 2.5% of product sales, subject to certain minimums. Following the Business Combination, we do not incur royalty expenses on a consolidated basis.
Write-down of inventories for the year ended December 31, 2021, pertains to a non-cash write-down of a portion of our legacy low-grade stockpile inventory during the second quarter of 2021. See Note 8, “Property, Plant and Equipment,” in the notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements for more information.
Settlement charge of $66.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2020, which was non-cash, was recorded in connection with the termination of the DMA. See Note 4, “Relationship and Agreements with Shenghe,” in the notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements for a detailed discussion of the termination of the DMA and associated accounting treatment.
Other income, net, which consists primarily of gains or losses on extinguishment of debt and interest income, for the year ended December 31, 2021, increased year over year as a result of a non-cash gain recognized during the second quarter of 2021 as a result of the Small Business Administration’s approval to forgive the Paycheck Protection Loan, which had a principal amount of $3.4 million. For more information, see the “Liquidity and Capital Resources” section below.
Interest expense, net consists primarily of the coupon interest and the amortization of the debt issuance costs on our Convertible Notes; the amortization of the discount on our debt obligation to Shenghe; and interest expense associated with promissory notes with certain private investment funds, which were repaid in full upon the consummation of the Business Combination; offset by interest capitalized.
Interest expense, net for the year ended December 31, 2021, increased year over year, reflecting interest expense from our Convertible Notes and the amortization of the discount on our debt obligations to Shenghe, which was higher than the interest expense incurred on the promissory notes in the prior year. During the year ended December 31, 2021, we capitalized interest of $0.3 million as compared to the capitalized interest of $0.2 million in the prior year.
Income tax benefit (expense) consists of an estimate of U.S. federal and state income taxes and income taxes in the jurisdictions in which we conduct business, adjusted for federal, state and local allowable income tax benefits, the effect of permanent differences and any valuation allowance against deferred tax assets. The effective tax rate (income taxes as a percentage of income or loss before income taxes) was 15.7% for the year ended December 31, 2021, as compared to 44.7% for the year ended December 31, 2020, principally due to a valuation allowance release in the prior year. The effective tax rate for the year ended December 31, 2021, was lower than the federal statutory tax rate of 21% primarily due to the income tax benefit received from percentage depletion, offset partially by state income tax expense.
Quarterly Performance Trend
While our business is not highly seasonal in nature, we sometimes experience a timing lag between production and sales, which may result in volatility in our results of operations between periods. In addition, our realized price per REO MT for the quarterly periods prior to the second quarter of 2020 were adversely impacted by the imposition of Chinese import duties in 2018 (and subsequent increase in May 2019). The import duties were lifted in May 2020.
The following table presents our key performance indicators for the quarterly periods since the mine achieved commercial operations:
FY2021FY2020FY2019
(in whole units or dollars)Q4Q3Q2Q1Q4Q3Q2Q1Q4Q3
REO production volume (MTs)10,261 11,998 10,305 9,849 9,337 10,197 9,287 9,682 8,673 9,417 
REO sales volume (MTs)9,674 12,814 9,877 9,793 10,320 9,429 10,297 8,321 8,561 9,852 
Realized price per REO MT
$10,101 $7,693 $7,343 $5,891 $4,070 $3,393 $3,093 $2,544 $2,389 $2,967 
Production cost per REO MT$1,525 $1,449 $1,538 $1,475 $1,589 $1,389 $1,412 $1,300 $1,602 $1,695 
Liquidity and Capital Resources
Liquidity refers to our ability to generate sufficient cash flows to meet the cash requirements of our business operations, including working capital and capital expenditure needs, contractual obligations, debt service and other commitments.
41


Historically, our principal sources of liquidity have been the Offtake Advances from Shenghe, issuances of notes or other debt, and net cash from operating activities. More recently, through the consummation of the Business Combination, including the PIPE Financing (as defined within Note 3, “Business Combination and Reverse Recapitalization,” in the notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements), and the issuance of the Convertible Notes, we raised $504.4 million and $672.3 million in net proceeds, respectively.
As of December 31, 2021, we had $1,179.3 million of cash and cash equivalents, $690.0 million principal amount of long-term debt (to third parties) and $16.6 million principal amount of related-party debt pertaining to our Offtake Advances with Shenghe.
Our results of operations and cash flows depend in large part upon the market prices of REO and particularly the price of rare earth concentrate. Rare earth concentrate is not quoted on any major commodities market or exchange and demand is currently limited to a relatively limited number of refiners, a significant majority of which are based in China. Although we believe that our cash flows from operations and cash on hand is adequate to meet our liquidity requirements for the foreseeable future, uncertainty exists as to the market price of REO, especially in light of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, including the emergence of new and potential future variants (such as the Delta and Omicron variants).
Our current working capital needs relate mainly to our mining and beneficiation operations. Our principal capital expenditure requirements relate mainly to the periodic replacement of mining or processing equipment, as well as our Stage II optimization project and related HREE project and the development of the Fort Worth Facility. Our future capital requirements will depend on several factors, including future acquisitions and potential additional investments in further downstream production (for example, pursuit of further Stage III downstream expansion opportunities).
The completion of our mission to become a fully integrated domestic magnetics producer is expected to be capital intensive. In accelerating the strategic opportunity for the separation of HREE, enhancements were made to the design and scope of the initial Stage II project. Including these enhancements and other factors impacting the remaining cost of completion, and including the initial costs of a HREE separation facility and the development and construction costs of the Fort Worth Facility, as well as other growth and infrastructure investments at Mountain Pass, we expect to incur approximately $500 million of capital costs in 2022. We expect to incur further costs to complete the HREE separation facility and the Fort Worth Facility in 2023 and 2024.
Our estimated costs or estimated time to complete these projects may increase, potentially significantly, due to factors outside of our control. While we believe that we have sufficient cash resources to fund these initiatives and operating working capital in the near term, we cannot assure this. If our available resources prove inadequate to fund our plans or commitments, we may be forced to revise our strategy and business plans or could be required, or elect, to seek additional funding through public or private equity or debt financings; however, such funding may not be available on terms acceptable to us, if at all. Any delays in our ongoing capital projects or substantial cost increases, including construction costs and related materials costs, related to their execution could significantly impact our ability to maximize our revenue opportunities and adversely impact our business and cash flows.
Debt and Other Long-Term Obligations
The Company’s material cash requirements include the following contractual and other obligations.
Convertible Notes: On March 26, 2021, we issued $690.0 million aggregate principal amount of 0.25% unsecured green convertible senior notes that mature, unless earlier converted, redeemed or repurchased, on April 1, 2026 (the “Convertible Notes”), at a price of par. Interest on the Convertible Notes is payable on April 1st and October 1st of each year, beginning on October 1, 2021. The Convertible Notes may, at the Company’s election, be settled in cash, shares of common stock of the Company, or a combination thereof. The Company has the option to redeem the Convertible Notes, in whole or in part, beginning on April 5, 2024. The Company received net proceeds of $672.3 million from the issuance of the Convertible Notes.
The Convertible Notes are convertible into shares of the Company’s common stock at an initial conversion price of $44.28 per share, or 22.5861 shares, per $1,000 principal amount of notes, subject to adjustment upon the occurrence of certain corporate events. However, in no event will the conversion exceed 28.5714 shares of common stock per $1,000 principal amount of notes.
Prior to January 1, 2026, at their election, holders of the Convertible Notes may convert their outstanding notes under the following circumstances: (i) during any calendar quarter commencing with the third quarter of 2021 if the last reported sale price of the Company’s common stock for at least 20 trading days (whether or not consecutive) during the period of 30 consecutive trading days ending on, and including, the last trading day of the immediately preceding calendar quarter is greater
42


than or equal to 130% of the conversion price on each applicable trading day; (ii) during the five business day period after any five consecutive trading day period (the “measurement period”) in which the trading price (as defined below) per $1,000 principal amount of Convertible Notes for each trading day of the measurement period was less than 98% of the product of the last reported sale price of the Company’s common stock and the conversion rate on each such trading day; (iii) if we call any or all of the Convertible Notes for redemption, at any time prior to the close of business on the scheduled trading day immediately preceding the redemption date; or (iv) upon the occurrence of specified corporate events set forth in the indenture governing the Convertible Notes. On or after January 1, 2026, and prior to the maturity date of the Convertible Notes, holders may convert their outstanding notes at any time, regardless of the foregoing circumstances.
If we undergo a fundamental change (as defined in the indenture governing the Convertible Notes), holders may require us to repurchase for cash all or any portion of their outstanding notes at a price equal to 100% of the principal amount of the notes to be repurchased, plus accrued and unpaid interest to, but excluding, the fundamental change repurchase date. In addition, following certain corporate events that occur prior to the maturity date of the Convertible Notes or if we deliver a notice of redemption, we will, in certain circumstances, increase the conversion rate for holders who elect to convert their outstanding notes in connection with such corporate event or notice of redemption, as the case may be.
We aim to allocate an amount equal to the net proceeds from the Convertible Notes offering to existing or future investments in, or the financing or refinancing of, eligible “green projects.” Eligible green projects are intended to reduce the Company’s environmental impact and/or enable the production of low-carbon technologies. Pending such allocation of the net proceeds to eligible green projects, we may use the net proceeds from the Convertible Notes offering for general corporate purposes.
Offtake Advances: As of December 31, 2021, we had debt recorded to Shenghe with a carrying amount of $16.1 million, of which $16.6 million was principal and $0.5 million was debt discount. As described above, the debt is to be satisfied primarily through product sales where partial non-cash consideration is received by the Company in the form of debt reduction (generally equal to approximately 15% of the ultimate market value of the REO, excluding tariffs, duties and certain other charges). Additional cash payments are required as a result of product sales to other parties, and under certain other conditions.
We follow an imputed interest rate model to calculate the amortization of the embedded discount, which is recognized as non-cash interest expense, by estimating the timing of anticipated payments and reductions of the debt principal balance. The effective rate applicable from the June 5, 2020, inception to December 31, 2021, was between 4.41% and 16.28%. As of December 31, 2021, the Company updated its estimate of the effective interest rate to 24.75%, to be applied prospectively. However, since full repayment of the remaining principal amount will occur by the end of the first quarter of 2022 whether through non-cash recoupments from sales or a cash payment based, in part, on the Company’s GAAP net income for the year ended December 31, 2021, the amount of interest expense to be recognized in the first quarter of 2022 pertaining to the Offtake Advances will only consist of the remaining unamortized discount. The increases over time in the imputed rate between June 5, 2020, and December 31, 2021, were primarily due to increases in expected market prices resulting in earlier anticipated repayments of the outstanding balance, which resulted in higher implicit interest rates in order to fully amortize the debt discount concurrent with the expected final repayment of the debt balance.
Paycheck Protection Loan: In April 2020, we obtained a loan of $3.4 million pursuant to the Paycheck Protection Program under the CARES Act (the “Paycheck Protection Loan” or the “Loan”). The Loan, which was in the form of a note dated April 15, 2020, issued by CIBC Bank USA, was to mature on April 14, 2022, and bore interest at a rate of 1% per annum. In June 2021, we received notification from the Small Business Administration that the Loan and related accrued interest was forgiven.
Equipment Notes: We have entered into several financing agreements for the purchase of equipment, including trucks, tractors, loaders, graders, and various other machinery. In February 2021, we entered into financing agreements for the purchase of equipment, including trucks and loaders, in the aggregate amount of $9.7 million, including $0.3 million for the associated extended warranties. These equipment notes have terms of 5 years and interest rates of 4.5% per annum with monthly payments commencing in April 2021. As of December 31, 2021, we had $9.7 million in principal (and accrued interest) outstanding under the equipment notes.
Leases: We have lease arrangements for certain equipment and facilities, including office space, vehicles and equipment used in our operations. As of December 31, 2021, we had future expected lease payment obligations, including leases that have not yet commenced, totaling $11.2 million, with $0.6 million payable within the next 12 months.
Purchase Obligations: Our outstanding purchase obligations as of December 31, 2021, primarily consist of purchase orders initiated with vendors and suppliers in the ordinary course of business for operating and maintenance capital expenditures that will be settled within one year. In certain instances, we are permitted to cancel, reschedule or adjust these
43


orders. Consequently, only a small portion of these outstanding purchase orders relate to firm, non-cancelable and unconditional obligations. We have also entered into a long-term supply arrangement for certain chemical reagents used in our operations, which is based on current consumption requirements.
Other: In order to support our Stage II optimization project and our Fort Worth Facility, we expect to hire at least an additional 250 full-time employees within the next two years, which will result in additional cash requirements for salaries, benefits and training. Our engineering, procurement, and construction contract pertaining to our Stage II optimization project is cancellable. See Note 11, “Asset Retirement and Environmental Obligations,” in the notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements for our estimated cash requirements to settle asset retirement and environmental obligations.
Public Warrants
Warrants to purchase 11,499,968 shares of our common stock at $11.50 per share were issued in connection with FVAC’s initial public offering (the “Public Warrants”) pursuant to the Warrant Agreement, dated April 29, 2020 (the “Warrant Agreement”), by and between the Company and Continental Stock Transfer & Trust Company (“CST”), as warrant agent.
On May 4, 2021, at the direction of the Company, CST, in its capacity as warrant agent, delivered a notice of redemption to each of the registered holders of the outstanding Public Warrants for a redemption price of $0.01 per warrant (the “Redemption Price”), that remained outstanding on June 7, 2021 (the “Redemption Date”). In accordance with the Warrant Agreement, our Board of Directors elected to require that, upon delivery of the notice of redemption, all Public Warrants were to be exercised only on a “cashless basis.” Accordingly, a holder exercising a Public Warrant was deemed to pay the $11.50 per warrant exercise price by the surrender of 0.3808 of a share of common stock that such holder would have been entitled to receive upon a cash exercise, resulting in exercising warrant holders receiving 0.6192 of a share of common stock for each Public Warrant surrendered for exercise.
During the year ended December 31, 2021, we issued 7,080,005 shares of our common stock as a result of the cashless exercise of 11,434,455 Public Warrants. We redeemed the remaining 65,513 Public Warrants outstanding at the Redemption Date for a nominal amount.
Cash Flows
The following table summarizes our cash flows:
For the year ended December 31,Amount Change% Change
(in thousands, except percentages)2021202020192021 vs 20202020 vs 20192021 vs 20202020 vs 2019
Net cash provided by (used in):
Operating activities$101,971 $3,277 $(437)$98,694 $3,714 3012 %n.m.
Investing activities$(119,363)$(22,370)$5,624 $(96,993)$(27,994)434 %n.m.
Financing activities$666,109 $521,961 $(4,096)$144,148 $526,057 28 %n.m.
n.m. - Not meaningful.
Net Cash Provided by (Used in) Operating Activities: Net cash provided by operating activities increased by $98.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2021, as compared to the prior year, reflecting the increase in product sales, partially offset by the increase in our cost of sales and general and administrative expenses (all as discussed above) and by a reduction due to the timing of payment of working capital items, such as accounts receivable. In addition, $54.8 million of our product sales was excluded from cash provided by operating activities for the year ended December 31, 2021, since that portion of the sales price was retained by Shenghe to reduce the debt obligation, compared to $21.3 million in the prior year.
Net Cash Provided by (Used in) Investing Activities: Net cash used in investing activities increased by $97.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2021, as compared to the prior year, attributable mainly to an increase in capital expenditures relating primarily to our Stage II optimization project, as well as the commissioning of our CHP plant and water treatment plant as well as other investments at Mountain Pass, partially offset by $4.4 million of proceeds from a government award used for construction, specifically our Stage II optimization project.
Net Cash Provided by (Used in) Financing Activities: Net cash provided by financing activities increased by $144.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2021, as compared to the prior year, attributable primarily to the net proceeds received from the issuance of the Convertible Notes in March 2021 of $672.3 million, versus the $35.5 million in proceeds received from the Second Additional Advance and $504.4 million in proceeds from the consummation of the Business Combination,
44


including the PIPE Financing, in the prior year. In addition, the change reflects $40.3 million payments of underwriting and transaction costs in the prior year, and a year-over-year decrease of $17.7 million in principal payments on debt obligations and finance leases.
Non-GAAP Financial Measures
We present Total Value Realized, Production Costs, Adjusted EBITDA, Adjusted Net Income (Loss) and Free Cash Flow, which are non-GAAP financial measures that we use to supplement our results presented in accordance with GAAP. These measures may be similar to measures reported by other companies in our industry and are regularly used by securities analysts and investors to measure companies’ financial performance. Total Value Realized, Production Costs, Adjusted EBITDA, Adjusted Net Income (Loss) and Free Cash Flow are not intended to be a substitute for any GAAP financial measure and, as calculated, may not be comparable to other similarly titled measures of performance or liquidity of other companies within our industry or in other industries.
Total Value Realized
Total Value Realized, which we use to calculate our key performance indicator, realized price per REO MT, is a non-GAAP financial measure. As mentioned above, realized price per REO MT is an important measure of the market price of our product. The following table presents a reconciliation of our Total Value Realized, to our product sales, which is determined in accordance with GAAP, as well as the calculation of realized price per REO MT:
For the year ended December 31,
(in thousands, unless otherwise stated)202120202019
Product sales$328,563 $133,697 $73,017 
Adjusted for:
Shenghe Implied Discount(1)
— 3,664 1,882 
Tariff rebates(2)
(2,050)(10,347)— 
Total Value Realized326,513 127,014 74,899 
Divided by:
REO sales volume (in MTs)42,158 38,367 26,821 
Realized Price per REO MT (in dollars)(3)
$7,745 $3,311 $2,793 
(1)Represents the difference between the contractual amount realized by Shenghe and the amount of deferred revenue we recognized.
(2)The amounts pertain to tariff rebates due to the retroactive effect of lifting of Chinese tariffs in May 2020.
(3)May not recompute as presented due to rounding.
Production Costs
Production Costs, which we use to calculate our key performance indicator, production cost per REO MT, is a non-GAAP financial measure. As mentioned above, production cost per REO MT is a key indicator of our production efficiency. The following table presents a reconciliation of our Production Costs to our cost of sales (excluding depreciation, depletion and amortization), which is determined in accordance with GAAP, as well as the calculation of production cost per REO MT:
For the year ended December 31,
(in thousands, unless otherwise stated)202120202019
Cost of sales (excluding depreciation, depletion and amortization)
$76,253 $63,798 $61,261 
Adjusted for:
Stock-based compensation expense(1)
(4,294)(277)— 
Shipping and freight(8,923)(8,220)(7,793)
Other(2)
(79)(446)(374)
Production Costs62,957 54,855 53,094 
Divided by:
REO sales volume (in MTs)42,158 38,367 26,821 
Production Cost per REO MT (in dollars)(3)
$1,493 $1,430 $1,980 
(1)Pertains only to the amount of stock-based compensation expense included in cost of sales.
45


(2)Pertains to costs attributable to sales of stockpiles.
(3)May not recompute as presented due to rounding.
Adjusted EBITDA
We define Adjusted EBITDA as our GAAP net income or loss before interest expense, net; income tax expense or benefit; and depreciation, depletion and amortization; further adjusted to eliminate the impact of stock-based compensation expense; transaction-related costs and other non-recurring costs; non-cash accretion of asset retirement and environmental obligations; gain or loss on sale or disposal of long-lived assets; write-downs of inventories; royalty expense; settlement charge; tariff rebates; and other income, net. We present Adjusted EBITDA because it is used by management to evaluate our underlying operating and financial performance and trends.
Adjusted EBITDA excludes certain expenses that are required in accordance with GAAP because they are non-recurring, non-cash or are not related to our underlying business performance. This non-GAAP financial measure is intended to supplement our GAAP results and should not be used as a substitute for financial measures presented in accordance with GAAP. In addition, the comparability between years presented below as well as the trend of our Adjusted EBITDA is impacted by the accounting treatment of the modifications of our agreements with Shenghe. Had the Shenghe Implied Discount applicable to sales made under the Original Offtake Agreement been recognized in revenue, our Adjusted EBITDA for the years ended December 31, 2020 and 2019, would have been higher by $3.7 million and $1.9 million, respectively.
The following table presents a reconciliation of our Adjusted EBITDA, which is a non-GAAP financial measure, to our net income (loss), which is determined in accordance with GAAP:
For the year ended December 31,
(in thousands)202120202019
Net income (loss)$135,037 $(21,825)$(6,755)
Adjusted for:
Depreciation, depletion and amortization24,382 6,931 4,687 
Interest expense, net8,904 5,009 3,412 
Income tax expense (benefit)25,158 (17,636)
Stock-based compensation expense(1)
22,931 5,014 — 
Transaction-related and other non-recurring costs(2)
3,716 4,438 888 
Accretion of asset retirement and environmental obligations2,375 2,255 2,094 
Loss (gain) on sale or disposal of long-lived assets(3)
569 101 (3,785)
Write-down of inventories(4)
1,809 — — 
Royalty expense(5)
— 2,406 1,885 
Settlement charge(6)
— 66,615 — 
Tariff rebates(7)
(2,050)(10,347)— 
Other income, net(8)
(3,754)(352)(493)
Adjusted EBITDA$219,077 $42,609 $1,934 
(1)Principally included in “General and administrative” within our Consolidated Statements of Operations. Approximately $15.3 million and $4.9 million of the amounts for the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively, pertained to a one-time grant of stock awards to employees and executives upon the consummation of the Business Combination.
(2)Amount for the year ended December 31, 2021, includes mainly advisory, consulting, accounting and legal expenses principally in connection with secondary equity offerings and the redemption of the Company’s Public Warrants in May and June 2021. Amount for the year ended December 31, 2020, includes mainly advisory, consulting, accounting, legal expenses and one-time employee bonuses in connection with the Business Combination, as well as non-recurring costs for SAP implementation. Amounts for the year ended December 31, 2019, includes mainly severance payments to certain former members of our executive team.
(3)For the year ended December 31, 2019, we recorded a gain on sales of idle mining equipment following the acquisition of Mountain Pass.
(4)Represents a non-cash write-down of a portion of our legacy low-grade stockpile inventory during the second quarter of 2021.
(5)Relates to our obligation to pay SNR for the right to extract rare earth ores contained within Mountain Pass. Following the Business Combination, we do not incur royalty expenses on a consolidated basis.
(6)As discussed in the “Comparability of Results” section above, in connection with terminating the DMA, we recognized a one-time, non-cash settlement charge.
(7)Represents non-cash revenue recognized in connection with tariff rebates received relating to product sales from prior periods.
(8)Amount for the year ended December 31, 2021, principally represents a non-cash gain recognized as a result of the Small Business Administration’s approval to forgive the Paycheck Protection Loan.
46


Adjusted Net Income (Loss)
We calculate Adjusted Net Income (Loss) as our GAAP net income or loss excluding the impact of depletion; stock-based compensation expense; transaction-related and other non-recurring costs; gain or loss on sale or disposal of long-lived assets; write-downs of inventories; royalty expense; settlement charge; tariff rebates; and other income or loss, net; adjusted to give effect to the income tax impact of such adjustments; and the release of valuation allowance. To calculate the income tax impact of such adjustments on a year-to-date basis, we utilize an effective tax rate equal to our income tax expense excluding material discrete costs and benefits, with any impacts of changes in effective tax rate being recognized in the current period. We present Adjusted Net Income (Loss) because it is used by management to evaluate our underlying operating and financial performance and trends.
Adjusted Net Income (Loss) excludes certain expenses that are required in accordance with GAAP because they are non-recurring, non-cash, or not related to our underlying business performance. As a result of the SNR Mineral Rights Acquisition, the mineral rights for the rare earth ores contained in our mine were recorded at fair value as of the date of the Business Combination, resulting in a significant step-up of the carrying amount of the asset which will cause depletion to be meaningfully higher in future periods. While the depletion expense related to the stepped-up mineral rights asset is excluded from Adjusted Net Income (Loss), the revenue related to such mineral rights is reflected in Adjusted Net Income (Loss) as this asset contributes to our revenue generation. This non-GAAP financial measure is intended to supplement our GAAP results and should not be used as a substitute for financial measures presented in accordance with GAAP. In addition, the comparability between years presented below as well as the trend of our Adjusted Net Income (Loss) is impacted by the accounting treatment of the modifications of our agreements with Shenghe.
The following table presents a reconciliation of our Adjusted Net Income (Loss), which is a non-GAAP financial measure, to our net income (loss), which is determined in accordance with GAAP:
For the year ended December 31,
(in thousands)202120202019
Net income (loss)$135,037 $(21,825)$(6,755)
Adjusted for:
Depletion(1)
17,200 1,961 114 
Stock-based compensation expense(2)
22,931 5,014 — 
Transaction-related and other non-recurring costs(3)
3,716 4,438 888 
Loss (gain) on sale or disposal of long-lived assets(4)
569 101 (3,785)
Write-down of inventories(5)
1,809 — — 
Royalty expense(6)
— 2,406 1,885 
Settlement charge(7)
— 66,615 — 
Tariff rebates(8)
(2,050)(10,347)— 
Other income, net(9)
(3,754)(352)(493)
Tax impact of adjustments above(10)
(7,084)(17,438)379 
Release of valuation allowance(11)
— (9,333)— 
Adjusted Net Income (Loss)$168,374 $21,240 $(7,767)
(1)Principally includes the depletion associated with the mineral rights for the rare earth ores contained in the Company’s mine, which were recorded in connection with the SNR Mineral Rights Acquisition at fair value as of the date of the Business Combination, resulting in a significant step-up of the carrying amount of the asset. See Note 3, “Business Combination and Reverse Recapitalization” in the notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements for more information on the accounting for the asset acquisition.
(2)Principally included in “General and administrative” within our Consolidated Statements of Operations. Approximately $15.3 million and $4.9 million of the amounts for the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively, pertained to a one-time grant of stock awards to employees and executives upon the consummation of the Business Combination.
(3)Amount for the year ended December 31, 2021, includes mainly advisory, consulting, accounting and legal expenses principally in connection with secondary equity offerings and the redemption of the Company’s Public Warrants in May and June 2021. Amount for the year ended December 31, 2020, includes mainly advisory, consulting, accounting, legal expenses and one-time employee bonuses in connection with the Business Combination, as well as non-recurring costs for SAP implementation. Amounts for the year ended December 31, 2019, includes mainly severance payments to certain former members of our executive team.
(4)For the year ended December 31, 2019, we recorded a gain on sales of idle mining equipment following the acquisition of Mountain Pass.
(5)Represents a non-cash write-down of a portion of our legacy low-grade stockpile inventory during the second quarter of 2021.
(6)Relates to our obligation to pay SNR for the right to extract rare earth ores contained within Mountain Pass. Following the Business Combination, we do not incur royalty expenses on a consolidated basis.
47


(7)In connection with terminating the DMA, we recognized a one-time, non-cash settlement charge.
(8)Represents non-cash revenue recognized in connection with tariff rebates received relating to product sales from prior periods.
(9)Amount for the year ended December 31, 2021, principally represents a non-cash gain recognized as a result of the Small Business Administration’s approval to forgive the Paycheck Protection Loan.
(10)Tax impact of adjustments is calculated using an adjusted effective tax rate, excluding the impact of discrete tax costs and benefits, to each adjustment. The adjusted effective tax rates were 17.5%, 25.0% and 27.3% for the years ended December 31, 2021, 2020 and 2019, respectively. See Note 12, “Income Taxes,” in the notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements for more information on the effective tax rate.
(11)Reflects the one-time impact of the release of the majority of our valuation allowance.
Free Cash Flow
We calculate Free Cash Flow as net cash provided by or used in operating activities less additions of property, plant and equipment, net of proceeds received from government awards used for construction. We believe Free Cash Flow is useful for comparing our ability to generate cash with that of our peers. The presentation of Free Cash Flow is not meant to be considered in isolation or as an alternative to cash flows from operating activities and does not necessarily indicate whether cash flows will be sufficient to fund cash needs.
The following table presents a reconciliation of our Free Cash Flow, which is a non-GAAP financial measure, to our net cash provided by (used in) operating activities, which is determined in accordance with GAAP:
For the year ended December 31,
(in thousands)202120202019
Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities(1)
$101,971 $3,277 $(437)
Additions of property, plant and equipment, net(2)
(119,488)(22,370)(2,274)
Free Cash Flow$(17,517)$(19,093)$(2,711)
(1)Under the terms of the A&R Offtake Agreement and pursuant to the accounting treatment thereof, $54.8 million and $21.3 million of our product sales for the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively, were excluded from cash provided by operating activities since that portion of the sales price was retained by Shenghe to reduce the debt obligation.
(2)Amount for the year ended December 31, 2021, is net of $4.4 million in proceeds received from a government award used for construction, specifically Stage II.
Critical Accounting Estimates
Preparation of the Consolidated Financial Statements in accordance with GAAP requires our management to make judgments, estimates and assumptions that impact the reported amount of revenue and operating expenses, assets and liabilities and the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities. We consider an accounting judgment, estimate or assumption to be critical when (i) the estimate or assumption is complex in nature or requires a high degree of judgment and (ii) the use of different judgments, estimates and assumptions could have a material impact on our Consolidated Financial Statements. Our significant accounting policies are described in Note 2, “Significant Accounting Policies,” in the notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements. Our critical accounting estimates are described below.
Revenue
We recognize revenue from sales of rare earth products produced from our facility. Our principal customer, Shenghe, purchased the vast majority of our production for the years ended December 31, 2021, 2020 and 2019, and is an affiliate of an equity holder of the Company. We recognize revenue at the point in time control of the products transfers to the customer and, under our offtake agreements with Shenghe, our performance obligation is typically satisfied when we deliver products to the agreed-upon shipping point. The transaction price with Shenghe is typically based on an agreed-upon price per MT but subject to certain quality adjustments based on REO content, with an adjustment for the ultimate market price of the product realized by Shenghe in their sales to their customers, further adjusted for certain contractually negotiated amounts. We typically negotiate with and bill an initial price to Shenghe; such prices are then updated based on final adjustments for REO content and/or actual sales prices realized by Shenghe. Sales to Shenghe under the Original Offtake Agreement between July 1, 2019, and June 5, 2020, also reflect an adjustment for the Shenghe Implied Discount.
Debt Obligations and Imputed Interest Rate Applied to Debt Discount
In connection with the June 2020 Modification, we recorded a total principal amount of $94.0 million in debt due to the nature of our obligations, including a carrying amount upon issuance of $85.7 million based on the fair value of the instrument upon issuance, offset by the resulting debt discount of $8.3 million. Since the A&R Offtake Agreement does not have a stated
48


rate, and the timing and method of repayment is contingent on several factors, including our production and sales volumes, market prices realized by Shenghe, our sales to other parties, our asset sales and the amount of our annual net income, we estimated the timing of payments and other reductions to the outstanding balance to determine an imputed interest rate.
The debt discount represents the difference between the fair value of the debt liability issued and the total amount of the contractual obligation as a consequence of our entry into the A&R Offtake Agreement. The imputed interest rate is calculated by amortizing the debt discount over the time period that management expects to bring the total outstanding principal balance to zero and determining the annualized interest rate necessary to fully amortize the discount in the same period when final principal reduction is expected to occur. Actual repayments or reductions in the principal balance may differ in timing and amount from our estimates, and we therefore expect to update our estimates each reporting period. Accordingly, the imputed interest rate is likely to differ in future periods.
We have determined that we will recognize adjustments from these estimates using the prospective method. Under the prospective method, we will update our estimate of the effective imputed interest rate in future periods based on revised estimates of the timing of remaining principal reductions. This rate will then be used to recognize interest expense for subsequent reporting periods, until the estimates are updated again. Under this method, the effective interest rate is not constant, and changes are recognized prospectively as an adjustment to the effective yield. See Note 9, “Debt Obligations,” in the notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements for further discussion.
Asset Retirement Obligations
We recognize asset retirement obligations for estimated costs of legally and contractually required closure, dismantlement, and reclamation activities associated with Mountain Pass. Asset retirement obligations are initially recognized at their estimated fair value in the period in which the obligation is incurred. Fair value is based on the expected timing of reclamation activities, cash flows to perform activities, amount and uncertainty associated with the cash flows, including adjustments for a market risk premium, and discounted using a credit-adjusted risk-free rate. The liability is accreted over time through periodic charges to earnings and reduced as reclamation activities occur; differences between estimated and actual amounts are recognized as an adjustment to operating expense.
Subsequent increments in expected undiscounted cash flows are measured at their discounted values using updated estimates of our credit-adjusted risk-free rate applied to the increment only. Subsequent decrements in the expected undiscounted cash flows are reduced based on the weighted-average credit-adjusted risk-free rate associated with the obligation. When increments and decrements are caused by a change in the estimated timing of settlement, the Company treats the increase in cash flows in the year of the updated estimate as an increment and the reduction in cash flows in the original year as a decrement. Associated asset retirement costs, including the effect of increments and decrements, are recognized as adjustments to the related asset’s carrying amount and depreciated or depleted over the related asset’s remaining useful life. If a decrement is greater than the carrying amount of the related asset, the difference is recognized as a reduction to depreciation expense. As of December 31, 2021, the credit-adjusted risk-free rate ranged between 6.5% and 8.2%, depending on the timing of expected settlement and when the layer or increment was recognized.
As a result of an update to our life of mine in the fourth quarter of 2021, we revised our estimated timing and cash flows pertaining to the settlement of the reclamation and removal activities associated with Mountain Pass, estimating that a significant portion of the cash outflows will now be incurred beginning in 2057 instead of 2043. The change in estimate resulted in a decrement of $9.8 million, of which $8.7 million reduced the carrying amounts of the associated property, plant and equipment, and $1.1 million was recorded as a reduction to depreciation expense for the year ended December 31, 2021. See Note 11, “Asset Retirement and Environmental Obligations,” in the notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements for further discussion.
Recently Adopted and Issued Accounting Pronouncements
Recently adopted and issued accounting pronouncements are described in Note 2, “Significant Accounting Policies,” in the notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
ITEM 7A.    QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK
We have in the past and may in the future be exposed to certain market risks, including commodity price risks, in the ordinary course of our business, as discussed further below. In addition to commodity pricing risk, our revenues are highly concentrated, with Shenghe accounting for more than 90% of our product sales for all years presented.
49

Table of Contents

Commodity Price Risk
Our results of operations depend in large part upon the market prices of REO and particularly the price of rare earth concentrate. Concentrate prices are less transparent than those of many other commodities. Rare earth concentrate is not quoted on any major commodities market or exchange as product attributes vary and demand is currently constrained to a relatively limited number of refiners, a significant majority of which are based in China.
We believe that we are a leading, low-cost producer of rare earth concentrate containing significant amounts of NdPr. We expect demand for NdPr to continue to grow, driving demand for our concentrate and ultimately, upon the completion of Stage II, separated NdPr oxide, and upon completion of Stage III, magnetic products containing NdPr, but actual demand and pricing may fluctuate for numerous reasons beyond our control, including, among other things, discoveries of new mineral properties, technological changes that lead to diminished reliance on NdPr and/or permanent magnets, and shifts in underlying end-user demand for products or components manufactured with NdPr. See the “Key Factors Affecting Our Performance,” section in “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.”
While we currently generate revenue in the United States and in U.S. dollars, the market transactions are denominated mainly in the Chinese Yuan, and we are therefore indirectly exposed to currency volatility and devaluation risks. For example, we negotiate monthly U.S. dollar REO prices with Shenghe, which are based in part on the exchange rate between the U.S. dollar and the Chinese Yuan. Geopolitical tensions between the U.S. and China may lead to increased tariffs, preferences for local producers, some of which may be government-supported, changes in taxing regimes or other trade barriers. We have not entered into derivative contracts to protect the selling price for our REO and do not expect to do so in the foreseeable future, as there is no liquid market for such contracts and their cost may be prohibitive, if they could be obtained at all.
50

Table of Contents

ITEM 8.    FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
To the Stockholders and the Board of Directors
MP Materials Corp.:
Opinions on the Consolidated Financial Statements and Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of MP Materials Corp. and subsidiaries (the Company) as of December 31, 2021 and 2020, the related consolidated statements of operations, changes in stockholders’ equity (deficit), 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). We also have audited 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.
In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above 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. Also 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.
Basis for Opinions
The Company’s management is responsible for these consolidated financial statements, 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 Annual Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Company’s consolidated financial statements and an opinion on the Company’s internal control over financial reporting based on our audits. We are a public accounting firm registered with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) (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 audits to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the consolidated financial statements are free of material misstatement, whether due to error or fraud, and whether effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects.
Our audits of the consolidated financial statements 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. 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 audits also included performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinions.
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.
51


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.
Critical Audit Matter
The critical audit matter communicated below is a matter arising from the current period audit of the consolidated financial statements that was communicated or required to be communicated to the audit committee and that: (1) relates 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 a critical audit matter 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 matter below, providing a separate opinion on the critical audit matter or on the accounts or disclosures to which it relates.
Related party transactions with Shenghe
As discussed in Notes 4 and 18 to the consolidated financial statements, the Company has entered into a set of commercial agreements with Shenghe Resources (Singapore) International Trading Pte. Ltd (“Shenghe”). Under the agreements, Shenghe purchases the rare earth products produced by the Company at specified prices. A portion of the sales price, for sales made under these agreements, reduces debt owed to Shenghe.
We identified the assessment of the related party transactions (transactions) with Shenghe as a critical audit matter. Subjective auditor judgment was required in assessing the sufficiency of the procedures performed to determine such transactions were identified, accounted for, and disclosed properly by the Company.
The following are the primary procedures we performed to address this critical audit matter. We applied auditor judgment to determine the nature and extent of procedures to be performed over transactions with Shenghe. We evaluated the design and tested the operating effectiveness of certain internal controls related to the identification, accounting, and disclosure of the transactions with Shenghe. We evaluated the identification, accounting, and disclosure of transactions with Shenghe by:
obtaining and analyzing underlying documentation for a sample of sales transactions
confirming the accounts receivable balance due from Shenghe and the debt balance due to Shenghe as of December 31, 2021
reading the underlying agreements with Shenghe and comparing the disclosed terms to the Company’s public filings
inquiring of management of the Company and the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors regarding the Shenghe relationship and transactions
reading the minutes from meetings of the Board of Directors regarding the Shenghe relationship and transactions.
We evaluated the sufficiency of audit evidence obtained by assessing the results of procedures performed over the transactions with Shenghe.

/s/ KPMG LLP
We have served as the Company’s auditor since 2017.
Denver, Colorado
February 28, 2022
52


MP MATERIALS CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
December 31,
(in thousands, except share and per share data)20212020
Assets
Current assets
Cash and cash equivalents$1,179,297 $519,652 
Accounts receivable (including related party), net of allowance for credit losses of $0 and $0, respectively
51,009 3,589 
Inventories38,692 32,272 
Prepaid expenses and other current assets7,809 5,534 
Total current assets1,276,807 561,047 
Non-current assets
Restricted cash516 9,100 
Property, plant and equipment, net610,612 501,974 
Finance lease right-of-use assets758 1,028 
Other non-current assets973 1,139 
Total non-current assets612,859 513,241 
Total assets$1,889,666 $1,074,288 
Liabilities and stockholders’ equity
Current liabilities
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities$35,734 $16,159 
Income taxes payable3,463 — 
Current installments of long-term debt
— 2,403 
Current installments of long-term debt—related party
16,082 22,070 
Current portion of finance lease liabilities254 266 
Other current liabilities4,010 2,163 
Total current liabilities59,543 43,061 
Non-current liabilities
Asset retirement obligations17,615 25,570 
Environmental obligations16,598 16,602 
Long-term debt, net of current portion674,927 961 
Long-term debt—related party, net of current portion— 44,380 
Finance lease liabilities, net of current portion554 736 
Deferred income taxes104,500 87,473 
Other non-current liabilities7,197 1,628 
Total non-current liabilities821,391 177,350 
Total liabilities880,934 220,411 
Commitments and contingencies (Note 13)
Stockholders’ equity:
Preferred stock ($0.0001 par value, 50,000,000 shares authorized, none issued and outstanding in either year)
— — 
Common stock ($0.0001 par value, 450,000,000 shares authorized, 177,816,554 and 170,719,979 shares issued and outstanding, as of December 31, 2021 and December 31, 2020, respectively)
18 17 
Additional paid-in capital936,299 916,482 
Retained earnings (accumulated deficit)72,415 (62,622)
Total stockholders’ equity1,008,732 853,877 
Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity$1,889,666 $1,074,288 
See accompanying notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
53

Table of Contents

MP MATERIALS CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
For the year ended December 31,
(in thousands, except share and per share data)202120202019
Revenue:
Product sales (including related party)$328,563 $133,697 $73,017 
Other sales3,389 613 394 
Total revenue331,952 134,310 73,411 
Operating costs and expenses:
Cost of sales (including related party)(excluding depreciation, depletion and amortization)
76,253 63,798 61,261 
General and administrative57,215 26,868 11,104 
Advanced projects, development and other4,573 140 — 
Depreciation, depletion and amortization24,382 6,931 4,687 
Accretion of asset retirement and environmental obligations2,375 2,255 2,094 
Royalty expense— 2,406 1,885 
Write-down of inventories1,809 — — 
Settlement charge— 66,615 — 
Total operating costs and expenses166,607 169,013 81,031 
Operating income (loss)165,345 (34,703)(7,620)
Other income, net3,754 251 4,278 
Interest expense, net(8,904)(5,009)(3,412)
Income (loss) before income taxes160,195 (39,461)(6,754)
Income tax benefit (expense)(25,158)17,636 (1)
Net income (loss)$135,037 $(21,825)$(6,755)
Net income (loss) per share:
Basic$0.78 $(0.27)$(0.10)
Diluted$0.73 $(0.27)$(0.10)
Weighted-average shares outstanding:
Basic173,469,546 79,690,821 66,556,975 
Diluted189,844,028 79,690,821 66,556,975 
See accompanying notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
54

Table of Contents

MP MATERIALS CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY (DEFICIT)
Preferred Equity
Common Equity
Shenghe WarrantAdditional Paid-in CapitalRetained Earnings (Accumulated
Deficit)
Total
Stockholders’
Equity (Deficit)
(in thousands, except share data)UnitsSharesAmountUnitsSharesAmount
Balance as of January 1, 2019110.98 — $2,275 1,000 — $20,500 $— $— $(34,042)$(11,267)
Retroactive application of recapitalization(110.98)— (2,275)(1,000)66,556,975 (20,493)— 22,768 — — 
Net loss— — — — — — — — (6,755)(6,755)
Balance as of December 31, 2019— — — — 66,556,975 — 22,768 (40,797)(18,022)
Issuance of Shenghe Warrant— — — — — — 53,846 — — 53,846 
Business Combination, including PIPE Financing— — — — 60,738,714 (53,846)563,115 — 509,275 
SNR Mineral Rights Acquisition— — — — 19,999,942 — 326,647 — 326,649 
Common stock issuances— — — — 21,484,898 — (2)— — 
Stock-based compensation— — — — 2,013,006 — — 5,014 — 5,014 
Shares used to settle payroll tax withholding— — — — (69,083)— — (996)— (996)
Net loss— — — — — — — — (21,825)(21,825)
Other— — — — (4,473)— — (64)— (64)
Balance as of December 31, 2020— — — — 170,719,979 17 — 916,482 (62,622)853,877 
Redemption of Public Warrants— — — — 7,080,005 — (2)— (1)
Stock-based compensation— — — — 180,026 — — 22,931 — 22,931 
Forfeiture of restricted stock— — — — (90,000)— — — — — 
Shares used to settle payroll tax withholding— — — — (73,456)— — (3,330)— (3,330)
Net income— — — — — — — — 135,037 135,037 
Other— — — — — — — 218 — 218 
Balance as of December 31, 2021— — $— — 177,816,554 $18 $— $936,299 $72,415 $1,008,732 
See accompanying notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
55

Table of Contents

MP MATERIALS CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
For the year ended December 31,
(in thousands)202120202019
Operating activities:
Net income (loss)$135,037 $(21,825)$(6,755)
Adjustments to reconcile net income (loss) to net cash provided by (used in) operating activities:
Depreciation, depletion and amortization24,382 6,931 4,687 
Accretion of asset retirement and environmental obligations2,375 2,255 2,094 
Gain on forgiveness of Paycheck Protection Loan(3,401)— — 
Loss (gain) on sale or disposal of long-lived assets, net569 101 (3,375)
Stock-based compensation expense22,931 5,014 — 
Accretion of debt discount and amortization of debt issuance costs7,384 3,146 1,001 
Write-down of inventories1,809 — — 
Non-cash settlement charge— 66,615 — 
Revenue recognized in exchange for debt principal reduction(54,828)(21,312)— 
Deferred income taxes17,425 (17,792)
Decrease (increase) in operating assets:
Accounts receivable (including related party)(47,420)(3,219)(145)
Inventories(8,229)(9,224)(9,573)
Prepaid expenses, other current and non-current assets(4,154)1,794 (82)
Increase (decrease) in operating liabilities:
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities5,530 (3,848)6,246 
Income taxes payable3,463 — — 
Refund liability to related party— (2,746)162 
Deferred revenue from related party— 1,933 7,061 
Other current and non-current liabilities(902)(4,546)(1,759)
Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities101,971 3,277 (437)
Investing activities:
Additions of property, plant and equipment(123,870)(22,370)(2,274)
Proceeds from sale of property, plant and equipment125 — 7,898 
Proceeds from government awards used for construction4,382 — — 
Net cash provided by (used in) investing activities(119,363)(22,370)5,624 
Financing activities:
Proceeds from issuance of long-term debt
690,000 3,364 7,236 
Proceeds from Second Additional Advance— 35,450 — 
Proceeds from Business Combination, including PIPE Financing— 544,712 — 
Principal payments on debt obligations and finance leases(2,435)(20,180)(11,332)
Payment of underwriting and transaction costs— (40,325)— 
Payment of debt issuance costs(17,749)— — 
Tax withholding on stock-based awards(3,330)(996)— 
Other(377)(64)— 
Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities666,109 521,961 (4,096)
Net change in cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash648,717 502,868 1,091 
Cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash beginning balance532,440 29,572 28,481 
Cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash ending balance$1,181,157 $532,440 $29,572 
Reconciliation of cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash:
Cash and cash equivalents$1,179,297 $519,652 $2,757 
Restricted cash, current1,344 3,688 24 
Restricted cash, non-current516 9,100 26,791 
Total cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash$1,181,157 $532,440 $29,572 
See accompanying notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
56

Table of Contents

MP MATERIALS CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
NOTE 1—DESCRIPTION OF BUSINESS AND BASIS OF PRESENTATION
Description of Business: MP Materials is the largest producer of rare earth materials in the Western Hemisphere. We own and operate the Mountain Pass Rare Earth Mine and Processing Facility (“Mountain Pass”), the only rare earth mining and processing site of scale in North America. Our wholly-owned subsidiary, MP Mine Operations LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“MPMO”), acquired the Mountain Pass mine and processing and separations facilities in July 2017. Our wholly-owned subsidiary, Secure Natural Resources LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“SNR”), holds the mineral rights to the Mountain Pass mine and surrounding areas as well as intellectual property rights related to the processing and development of rare earth materials. The mine achieved commercial operations in July 2019. References herein to the “Company,” “we,” “our,” and “us,” refer to MP Materials Corp. and its subsidiaries.
We currently produce a rare earth concentrate that we sell pursuant to the A&R Offtake Agreement to Shenghe (as such terms are defined in Note 4, “Relationship and Agreements with Shenghe”), a related party of the Company, that, in turn, sells that product to refiners in China. These refiners separate the constituent rare earth elements contained in our concentrate and sell the separated products to their customers. For further information, see Note 4, “Relationship and Agreements with Shenghe. We are currently recommissioning, upgrading and enhancing the processing facility at Mountain Pass to provide for the separation of rare earth oxides (“REO”) (referred to as the “Stage II optimization project” or “Stage II”), that will allow us the opportunity to sell separated REO directly to end users. In addition, we are pursuing downstream expansion opportunities to integrate further into the business of upgrading REO into metal, alloys and magnets (referred to as “Stage III”). See Note 20, “Subsequent Events,” for additional information on Stage III.
Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of July 15, 2020, as amended on August 26, 2020 (the “Merger Agreement”), on November 17, 2020, MPMO and SNR were combined with Fortress Value Acquisition Corp., a special purpose acquisition company (“FVAC”) (the “Business Combination”), and became wholly-owned subsidiaries of FVAC, which was in turn renamed MP Materials Corp. The Business Combination was accounted for as a reverse recapitalization, with no goodwill or other intangible assets recorded, in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States (“GAAP”). The acquisition of SNR (the “SNR Mineral Rights Acquisition”) was treated as an asset acquisition. Furthermore, MPMO was deemed to be the accounting acquirer and FVAC the accounting acquiree, which, for financial reporting purposes, results in MPMO’s historical financial information becoming that of the Company. In addition, the common stock, preferred stock, additional paid-in capital, and earnings (loss) per share amounts presented in the Consolidated Financial Statements and these accompanying notes have been restated to reflect recapitalization. For further discussion, see Note 3, “Business Combination and Reverse Recapitalization.”
Operating segments are defined as components of an enterprise about which separate financial information is available and evaluated regularly by the chief operating decision maker (“CODM”), or decision-making group, in deciding how to allocate resources and in assessing performance. The Company’s CODM views the Company’s operations and manages the business as one reportable segment.
The cash flows and profitability of the Company’s operations are significantly affected by the market price of rare earth products. The prices of rare earth products are affected by numerous factors beyond the Company’s control. The products of the Company are sold globally, with a primary focus in the Asian market due to the refining capabilities of the region. Rare earth products are critical inputs in hundreds of existing and emerging clean-tech applications including electric vehicles and wind turbines as well as drones and defense applications.
Basis of Presentation: The Consolidated Financial Statements of the Company have been prepared in accordance with GAAP and with the rules and regulations of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
NOTE 2—SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
Principles of Consolidation: The Consolidated Financial Statements include the accounts of MP Materials Corp. and its subsidiaries. All intercompany accounts and transactions have been eliminated in consolidation.
Concentration of Risk: As of December 31, 2021, Shenghe accounted for more than 90% of product sales. Shenghe has entered into an arrangement to purchase substantially all of the Company’s production of rare earth concentrate. As with any contract, there is risk of nonperformance; however, we do not believe that it is reasonably possible that Shenghe would terminate the agreement as it would delay Shenghe’s recovery of non-interest-bearing advance payments that are recognized by the Company as debt. As discussed in Note 9, Debt Obligations, full repayment of the obligation will occur by the end of the
57


first quarter of 2022 whether through non-cash recoupments from sales or a cash payment based, in part, on the Company’s GAAP net income for the year ended December 31, 2021. See also Note 4, “Relationship and Agreements with Shenghe,” for additional information.
Furthermore, while revenue is generated in the United States, our principal customer conducts its primary operations in China and may transport and sell products in the Chinese market; therefore, the Company’s revenue is affected by Shenghe’s ultimate realized prices in China. In addition, there is an ongoing economic conflict between China and the United States that has resulted in tariffs and trade barriers that may negatively affect the Company’s business and results of operations.
In December 2019, a novel strain of coronavirus (known as “COVID-19”) began to impact the population of China. In March 2020, the outbreak of COVID-19 was declared a global pandemic after growing both in the United States and globally. The responses by governments, societies, and private sector entities to the COVID-19 pandemic, which include temporary closures of businesses, social distancing, travel restrictions, “shelter in place,” and other governmental regulations and various economic stimulus programs, have significantly impacted market volatility and general global economic conditions, including significant business and supply chain disruption as well as broad-based changes in supply and demand.
Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in the first quarter of 2020, we have experienced, at times, significant shipping delays due to congestion and slowdowns at U.S. and international ports caused by shortages in vessels, containers, and truckers, also disrupting the global supply chain. Congestion and slowdowns have affected and may continue to affect the capacity at ports to receive deliveries of products or the loading of shipments onto vessels. Despite these factors, we have not experienced a reduction in production or sales due to the COVID-19 pandemic; however, the COVID-19 pandemic has contributed to certain cost and schedule pressures on the Stage II optimization project. The Company has worked proactively and diligently to adjust working schedules and hours to optimize logistics and shipping, which has thus far prevented a significant negative impact on our product sales and has mitigated certain impacts on Stage II construction and recommissioning progress. However, there can be no assurance that the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic will not have a negative impact on our production, sales, or growth projects in the future.
Furthermore, as the situation continues to evolve, including as a result of new and potential future variants of COVID-19 (such as the Delta and Omicron variants), the possibility of federal or state mandates on vaccinations, or other factors that may affect international shipping and logistics or involve responses to government actions such as strikes or other disruptions, it is impossible to predict the effect and ultimate impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the Company’s business and results of operations. The extent and duration of any business disruptions, and related financial impact, cannot be estimated at this time.
Use of Estimates: The preparation of the Consolidated Financial Statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect (i) the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, (ii) the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the Consolidated Financial Statements, and (iii) the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. The more significant areas requiring the use of management estimates and assumptions relate to the useful lives and recoverability of long-lived assets (such as the effects of mineral reserves and cash flows from operating the mine in determining the life of the mine); uncertain tax positions; the valuation allowance of deferred tax assets; asset retirement and environmental obligations; and determining the fair value of assets and liabilities in acquisitions and financial instruments in connection with transactions that require initial measurement to be at fair value. Management bases its estimates on historical experience and on various other assumptions that are believed to be reasonable under the circumstances. Accordingly, actual results may differ from those estimates.
Cash and Cash Equivalents: Cash and cash equivalents consist of all cash balances and highly liquid investments with a maturity of three months or less when purchased.
Restricted Cash: Restricted cash consists of funds that are contractually restricted as to usage or withdrawal due to legal agreement. The Company determines current or non-current classification based on the expected duration of the restriction. See also Note 6, “Restricted Cash.”
Trade Accounts Receivable: Trade accounts receivable are recorded at the invoiced amount and do not bear interest. The Company evaluates its estimate of expected credit losses based on historical experience and current economic conditions for each portfolio of customers, though at present, the amounts are concentrated in a single customer. As of December 31, 2021 and 2020, the Company did not have an allowance for expected credit losses, as principally all of our receivables are from Shenghe and there is no history or expectation of uncollectible amounts. Further, as of December 31, 2021, a portion and, as of December 31, 2020, all of the amount not received in cash would have been offset by a reduction in the principal balance owed to Shenghe.
58


Inventories: Inventories consist of raw materials and supplies, work in process (referred to as “in-process inventory”), and finished goods. Materials and supplies consist of raw materials, spare parts, reagent chemicals, maintenance supplies, and packaging materials used in the production of rare earth products. In-process inventory primarily consists of mine ore stockpiles and bastnaesite ore in various stages of the production process. Finished goods primarily consist of packaged bastnaesite concentrate that is ready for sale.
Raw materials, in-process inventory and finished goods are carried at average cost. Supplies are carried at moving average cost. All inventories are carried at the lower of cost or net realizable value, which represents the estimated selling price of the product during the ordinary course of business based on current market conditions less costs to sell. Inventory cost includes all expenses directly attributable to the manufacturing process, including labor and stripping costs, and an appropriate portion of production overhead, including depletion, based on normal operating capacity.
Stockpiled ore tonnages are verified by periodic surveys. The Company evaluates the carrying amount of inventory on a periodic basis, considering slow-moving items, obsolescence, excess inventory levels, and other factors and recognizes related write-downs in cost of sales. See also Note 7, “Inventories.”
Property, Plant and Equipment: Property, plant and equipment are recorded at cost and depreciated over their useful lives. Expenditures for new property, plant and equipment and improvements that extend the useful life or functionality of the assets are recorded at their cost of acquisition or construction. Depreciation on property, plant and equipment is recognized on a straight-line basis over their estimated useful lives, as follows:
Years
Land improvements
25
Buildings and building improvements
Up to 40
Machinery and equipment
3-10
Assets under construction include costs directly attributable to the construction or development of long-term assets. These costs may include labor and employee benefits associated with the construction of the asset, site preparation, permitting, engineering, installation and assembly, procurement, insurance, legal, commissioning, and interest on borrowings to finance the construction of the assets. Depreciation is not recorded on the related assets until they are ready for their intended use. Repair and maintenance costs that do not extend the useful life of an asset are expensed as incurred. Gains and losses arising from the disposal of property, plant and equipment are determined as the difference between the proceeds from disposal and the carrying amount of the asset.
Property, plant and equipment primarily relate to the Company’s open-pit mine and processing facility at Mountain Pass. In addition to the mine, Mountain Pass includes a crusher and mill/flotation plant, mineral recovery and separation plants, tailings processing and storage facilities, product finishing facilities, on-site evaporation ponds, a combined heat and power (“CHP”) plant, water treatment facilities, a Chlor-Alkali plant, as well as laboratory facilities to support research and development activities, offices, warehouses and support infrastructure. See also Note 8, “Property, Plant and Equipment.”
Mineral Rights: The Company capitalizes costs for acquiring and leasing mining properties and expenses costs to maintain mineral rights as incurred. Depletion on mineral rights is recognized on a straight-line basis over the estimated remaining useful life of the mine, which was approximately 34 years as of December 31, 2021. Mineral rights are classified as a component of “Property, plant and equipment” within our Consolidated Balance Sheets. See also Note 8, “Property, Plant and Equipment.”
In connection with the SNR Mineral Rights Acquisition, the Company recorded the additional cost of acquiring the mineral rights pertaining to the rare earth ores contained in the Mountain Pass mine, which was SNR’s sole operating asset. Prior to the SNR Mineral Rights Acquisition, MPMO and SNR were considered related parties. As discussed in Note 18, “Related-Party Transactions,” upon entering into the Royalty Agreement (as defined in Note 18, “Related-Party Transactions”), the Company recognized an asset equal to the present value of minimum royalty payments owed to SNR under the Royalty Agreement as an acquisition cost of the 97.5% working interest.
Mine Development Costs: Mine development costs include drilling costs and the cost of other development work, all of which are capitalized during the development phase. Production costs are capitalized into inventory or expensed as incurred.
Leases: The Company determines if an arrangement is, or contains, a lease at contract inception. In some cases, the Company has determined that its lease arrangements include both lease and non-lease components. The Company has elected to use a practical expedient to account for each separate lease component and its associated non-lease components as a single lease component for the majority of its asset classes.
59


The Company recognizes lease liabilities and right-of-use (“ROU”) assets upon commencement for all leases with a lease term greater than 12 months. The Company has elected to use a practical expedient to not recognize leases with a lease term of 12 months or less in the Consolidated Balance Sheets for the majority of its asset classes. These short-term leases are expensed on a straight-line basis over the lease term.
ROU assets represent the Company’s right to use an underlying asset for the lease term and lease liabilities represent the Company’s obligation to make lease payments arising from the lease. ROU assets and lease liabilities are recognized at commencement date of the lease based on the present value of lease payments over the lease term. When the rate implicit to the lease cannot be readily determined, the Company utilizes its incremental borrowing rate in determining the present value of the future lease payments. Lease liabilities are accreted each period and reduced for payments. The ROU asset also includes other adjustments, such as for the effects of escalating rents, rent abatements or initial lease costs. The lease term may include periods covered by options to extend or terminate the lease when it is reasonably certain that the Company will exercise a renewal option, or reasonably certain it will not exercise an early termination option. For operating leases, lease expense is recognized on a straight-line basis over the expected lease term. For finance leases, the ROU asset amortizes on a straight-line basis over the lease term (or the useful life of the underlying asset if title transfers at the end of the lease term or there is a purchase option the Company is reasonably certain to exercise) and the lease liability accretes interest based on the interest method using the discount rate determined at lease commencement. See also Note 10, “Lease Obligations.”
Impairment of Long-Lived Assets: Long-lived assets, including mineral rights, are reviewed for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of an asset or asset group may not be recoverable. In estimating undiscounted cash flows, assets are grouped at the lowest level for which there are identifiable cash flows that are largely independent of undiscounted cash flows from other asset groups. The Company’s estimates of undiscounted cash flows are based on numerous assumptions, and it is possible that actual cash flows may differ significantly from estimates, as actual produced reserves, prices, commodity-based and other costs, and closure costs are each subject to significant risks and uncertainties. The estimated undiscounted cash flows used to assess recoverability of long-lived assets and to measure the fair value of the Company’s mining operations are derived from current business plans, which are developed using short-term price forecasts reflective of the current price environment and the Company’s projections for long-term average prices. In addition to short- and long-term price assumptions, other assumptions include estimates of production costs; proven and probable mineral reserves estimates, including the timing and cost to develop and produce the reserves; value beyond proven and probable estimates; and estimated future closure costs.
If the carrying amount of the long-lived asset or asset groups is not recoverable on an undiscounted cash flows basis, an impairment is recognized to the extent that the carrying amount exceeds its fair value. Fair value is determined through various valuation techniques, including discounted cash flow models, quoted market values, and third-party independent appraisals, based on the approach the Company believes a market participant would use. An impairment loss, if any, is recorded for the excess of the asset’s (or asset group’s) carrying amount over its fair value, as determined by a valuation technique appropriate to the given circumstances. See also Note 8, “Property, Plant and Equipment.”
Offtake Advances Accounted for as Debt Obligations and Debt Discount: Subsequent to the June 2020 Modification to the Original Offtake Agreement (as such terms are defined in Note 4, “Relationship and Agreements with Shenghe”), the Company accounts for net prepayments or other advances received from Shenghe prior to or in connection with the June 2020 Modification as debt. The associated debt discount is amortized to interest expense using the effective interest method over the Company’s estimated contractual term of the underlying indebtedness. The debt discount reduces the carrying amount of the associated debt. See also, Note 9, “Debt Obligations.”
Asset Retirement Obligations: The Company recognizes asset retirement obligations (“AROs”) for estimated costs of legally and contractually required closure, dismantlement, and reclamation activities associated with Mountain Pass. AROs are initially recognized at their estimated fair value in the period in which the obligation originates. Fair value is based on the expected timing of reclamation activities, cash flows to perform activities, amount and uncertainty associated with the cash flows, including adjustments for a market risk premium, and discounted using a credit-adjusted risk-free rate. The liability is accreted over time through periodic charges to earnings and reduced as reclamation activities occur with differences between estimated and actual amounts recognized as an adjustment to operating expenses.
Subsequent increments in expected undiscounted cash flows are measured at their discounted values using updated estimates of the Company’s credit-adjusted risk-free rate applied to the increment only. Subsequent decrements in expected undiscounted cash flows are reduced based on the weighted-average credit-adjusted risk-free rate associated with the obligation. When increments and decrements are caused by a change in the estimated timing of settlement, the Company treats the increase in cash flows in the year of the updated estimate as an increment and the reduction in cash flows in the original year as a decrement. Associated asset retirement costs, including the effect of increments and decrements, are recognized as adjustments
60


to the related asset’s carrying amount and depreciated over the related asset’s remaining useful life. If a decrement is greater than the carrying amount of the related asset, the difference is recognized as a reduction to depreciation expense. See also Note 11, “Asset Retirement and Environmental Obligations.”
Environmental Obligations: The Company has assumed certain environmental remediation obligations that primarily relate to groundwater monitoring activities. Estimated remediation costs are accrued based on management’s best estimate at the end of each reporting period of the costs expected to be incurred at a site to settle the obligation when those amounts are probable and estimable. Such cost estimates may include ongoing care, maintenance and monitoring costs associated with remediation activities. Changes in remediation estimates are reflected in earnings in the period an estimate is revised. Remediation costs included in environmental obligations are discounted to their present value when payments are readily estimable, and are discounted using a risk-free rate, which the Company derives from U.S. Treasury yields. See also Note 11, “Asset Retirement and Environmental Obligations.”
Debt Issuance Costs: Debt issuance costs that are incurred by the Company in connection with the issuance of debt are deferred and amortized to interest expense using the effective interest method over the contractual term of the underlying indebtedness. Debt issuance costs reduce the carrying amount of the associated debt.
Revenue Recognition: The Company’s revenue comes from sales of rare earth products produced at Mountain Pass. The Company’s sales are primarily to an affiliate of Shenghe. The Company’s performance obligation is to deliver rare earth products to the agreed-upon delivery point, and the Company recognizes revenue at the point in time control of the products transfers to the customer, which is typically when the rare earth products are delivered to the agreed-upon shipping point. At that point, the customer has the ability to direct the use of and obtain substantially all of the remaining benefits from the products, and the customer bears the risk of loss.
For sales to third parties, the transaction price is agreed to at the time the sale is entered into. For sales entered into with the related party, the transaction price is typically based on an agreed-upon price per metric ton, subject to certain quality adjustments depending on the measured characteristics of the product, with an adjustment for the ultimate market price of the product realized by Shenghe upon sales to their customers and certain other discounts. These ultimate market prices are forms of variable consideration. The Company typically negotiates with and bills an initial price to Shenghe; such prices are then updated based on final adjustments for quality differences and/or actual sales prices realized by Shenghe. Initial pricing is typically billed upon delivering the product to the agreed-upon shipping point and paid within 30 days or less. Final adjustments to prices may take longer to resolve.
When the final price has not been resolved by the end of a reporting period, the Company estimates the expected sales price based on the initial price, current market pricing and known quality measurements, and further constrains such amounts to an amount that is probable not to result in a significant reversal of previously-recognized revenue. Revenue from product sales is recorded net of taxes collected from customers that are remitted to governmental authorities. When appropriate, the Company applies a portfolio approach in estimating a refund obligation.
Prior to the June 2020 Modification, the Company had also received significant prepayments (referred to as “Offtake Advances”) from Shenghe. The Company had determined that the prepayments did not have a significant financing component, based on the uncertainty associated with the timing of delivery and on the relationship of the payment to the other payments required under the Original Offtake Agreement. See Note 4, “Relationship and Agreements with Shenghe,” for further information on the June 2020 Modification as well as the Offtake Advances from Shenghe. See also Note 5, “Revenue Recognition.”
Government Grants: In accounting for grants received from the government, the grant proceeds are recognized when there is reasonable assurance the conditions of the grant will be met, and the grant will be received. When a grant is related to an expense item, it is recognized as income (or a reduction of expense) over the periods necessary to match the grant on a systematic basis to the costs that it is intended to compensate. When a grant is related to an asset, the funds received are recorded as reductions of the related asset’s carrying amount, thereby reducing future depreciation expense. See also Note 8, “Property, Plant and Equipment.”
Stock-Based Compensation: The cost of employee services received in exchange for an award of equity instruments is based on the grant-date fair value of the award and the expense is recognized ratably over the requisite service period. The fair value of Stock Awards (as defined in Note 15, “Stock-based Compensation,”) is equal to the fair value of the Company’s stock on the grant date. Stock Awards with graded vesting schedules are recognized on a straight-line basis over the requisite service period for each separately vesting portion of the award. The Company accounts for forfeitures in the period in which they occur based on actual forfeitures. See also Note 15, “Stock-based Compensation.”
61


Earnings (Loss) Per Share: Basic earnings (loss) per share (“EPS”) is computed by dividing net income (loss) by the weighted-average number of common shares outstanding during the period. Diluted EPS reflects the additional dilution for all potentially dilutive securities such as unvested restricted stock awards. See also Note 17, “Earnings (Loss) per Share.”
Commitments and Contingencies: Liabilities for loss contingencies arising from claims, assessments, litigation, fines and penalties, and other sources are recorded when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated. If a loss contingency is not probable or reasonably estimable, disclosure of the contingency and estimated range of loss, if determinable, is made in the financial statements when it is at least reasonably possible that a material loss could be incurred. Legal costs incurred in connection with loss contingencies are expensed as incurred. See also Note 13, “Commitments and Contingencies.”
Income Taxes: The Company accounts for income taxes using the balance sheet method, recognizing certain temporary differences between the book basis of the liabilities and assets and the related income tax basis for such liabilities and assets. This method generates either a net deferred income tax liability or asset for the Company, as measured by the statutory tax rates in effect. The Company derives a deferred income tax expense or benefit by recording the change in either the net deferred income tax liability or asset balance for the year. The Company’s policy, if it were to have uncertain tax positions, is to recognize interest and/or penalties related to unrecognized tax benefits as part of its income tax expense. See also Note 12, “Income Taxes.”
Valuation of Deferred Tax Assets: The Company’s deferred income tax assets include certain future tax benefits. The Company records a valuation allowance against any portion of those deferred income tax assets when it believes, based on the weight of available evidence, it is more likely than not that some portion or all of the deferred income tax asset will not be realized. The Company reviews the likelihood that the benefit of the deferred tax assets will be realized and the need for valuation allowances on a quarterly basis, or more frequently if events indicate that a review is required. In determining the requirement for a valuation allowance, the Company evaluated all available positive and negative evidence.
Certain categories of evidence carry more weight in the analysis than others based upon the extent to which the evidence may be objectively verified. The Company looks to the nature and severity of cumulative pretax losses (if any) in the current three-year period ending on the evaluation date, recent pretax losses and/or expectations of future pretax losses. Other factors considered in the determination of the probability of the realization of the deferred tax assets include, but are not limited to:
Earnings history;
Projected future financial and taxable income based upon existing reserves and long-term estimates of commodity prices;
The duration of statutory carry forward periods;
Prudent and feasible tax planning strategies readily available that may alter the timing of reversal of the temporary difference;
Nature of temporary differences and predictability of reversal patterns of existing temporary differences; and
The sensitivity of future forecasted results to commodity prices and other factors.
Concluding that a valuation allowance is not required is difficult when there is significant negative evidence which is objective and verifiable, such as cumulative losses in recent years. However, recent cumulative losses are not solely determinative of the need for a valuation allowance. The Company also considers all other available positive and negative evidence in its analysis. See also Note 12, “Income Taxes.”
Recently Issued Accounting Pronouncements: The Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (“JOBS Act”) allowed the Company, as an emerging growth company (“EGC”), to delay adoption of new or revised accounting pronouncements applicable to public companies until such pronouncements were applicable to private companies. We had elected to use this extended transition period under the JOBS Act and as a result of this election, we did not have to comply with the public company effective dates until we ceased to be classified as an EGC. As a result of the market value of the Company’s publicly held common stock held by non-affiliates as of June 30, 2021, we lost our EGC status effective as of December 31, 2021, which accelerated the adoption of various accounting pronouncements. These accounting pronouncements were therefore adopted as of January 1, 2021, and we will adopt future accounting pronouncements based on the public company effective dates.
Other than the adoption of the accounting guidance mentioned below, there have been no material impacts on our Consolidated Financial Statements resulting from the adoption of new accounting pronouncements.
62


In June 2016, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued No. 2016-13, “Financial Instruments - Credit Losses (Topic 326): Measurements of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments” (“ASU 2016-13”), which sets forth a “current expected credit loss” model which requires the Company to measure all expected credit losses for financial instruments held at the reporting date based on historical experience, current conditions, and reasonable supportable forecasts. We elected to early adopt ASU 2016-13 during the first quarter of 2021 using a modified retrospective approach, which did not have a material impact on our Consolidated Financial Statements and did not result in a cumulative-effect adjustment.
In August 2018, the FASB issued ASU No. 2018-15, “Intangibles-Goodwill and Other-Internal-Use Software (Subtopic 350-40): Customer’s Accounting for Implementation Costs Incurred in a Cloud Computing Arrangement That Is a Service Contract” (“ASU 2018-15”), which aligns the requirements for capitalizing implementation costs incurred in a hosting arrangement that is a service contract with the requirements for capitalizing implementation costs incurred to develop or obtain internal-use software. ASU 2018-15 requires capitalized costs to be amortized on a straight-line basis generally over the term of the arrangement, and the financial statement presentation for these capitalized costs would be the same as that of the fees related to the hosting arrangements. We elected to early adopt ASU 2018-15 during the first quarter of 2021 using a prospective approach, which did not have a material impact on our Consolidated Financial Statements.
In December 2019, the FASB issued ASU No. 2019-12, “Income Taxes (Topic 740) - Simplifying the Accounting for Income Taxes” (“ASU 2019-12”), which is intended to simplify accounting for income taxes. ASU 2019-12 removes certain exceptions to the general principles in Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) Topic 740, “Income Taxes,” and amends existing guidance to improve consistent application. We elected to early adopt ASU 2019-12 during the first quarter of 2021 using a prospective approach, which did not have a material impact on our Consolidated Financial Statements.
In August 2020, the FASB issued ASU No. 2020-06, “Accounting for Convertible Instruments and Contracts in an Entity’s Own Equity” (“ASU 2020-06”), which (i) simplifies the accounting for convertible debt instruments and convertible preferred stock by removing the existing guidance in ASC Subtopic 470-20, “Debt—Debt with Conversion and Other Options,” that requires entities to account for beneficial conversion features and cash conversion features in equity, separately from the host convertible debt or preferred stock; (ii) revises the scope exception from derivative accounting in ASC Subtopic 815-40, “Derivatives and Hedging—Contracts in Entity’s Own Equity,” for freestanding financial instruments and embedded features that are both indexed to the issuer’s own stock and classified in stockholders’ equity, by removing certain criteria required for equity classification; and (iii) revises the guidance in ASC Topic 260, “Earnings Per Share,” to require entities to calculate diluted EPS for convertible instruments by using the if-converted method. In addition, entities must presume share settlement for purposes of calculating diluted EPS when an instrument may be settled in cash or shares. We elected to early adopt ASU 2020-06 during the first quarter of 2021 using a prospective approach. See Note 9, “Debt Obligations,” for a discussion of our Convertible Notes (as defined in Note 9, “Debt Obligations”), which we issued in March 2021.
In November 2021, the FASB issued ASU No. 2021-10, “Government Assistance (Topic 832) - Disclosures by Business Entities about Government Assistance” (“ASU 2021-10”), which is intended to increase the transparency of government assistance including the disclosure of the types of assistance, an entity’s accounting for the assistance, and the effect of the assistance on an entity’s financial statements. We elected to early adopt ASU 2021-10 during the fourth quarter of 2021 using a prospective approach, which did not have a material impact on our Consolidated Financial Statements. See Note 8, “Property, Plant and Equipment,” for a discussion of our government grant.
Reclassifications: Certain amounts in prior periods have been reclassified to conform to the current year presentation.
NOTE 3—BUSINESS COMBINATION AND REVERSE RECAPITALIZATION
The Business Combination was consummated on November 17, 2020, pursuant to the Merger Agreement whereby MPMO and SNR were combined with FVAC and became wholly-owned subsidiaries of FVAC, which was in turn renamed MP Materials Corp.
As of December 31, 2019, and through to the date of the Business Combination, MPMO had 1,000 voting common units with no par value and 110.98 non-voting preferred units with no par value, which were held by Leshan Shenghe (as defined in Note 4, “Relationship and Agreements with Shenghe”), outstanding. In addition, as discussed in Note 4, “Relationship and Agreements with Shenghe,” in connection with the June 2020 Modification, MPMO issued the Shenghe Warrant. Immediately prior to the Business Combination, the Shenghe Warrant was exercised and MPMO issued 89.88 non-voting preferred units with no par value to Leshan Shenghe. As a result, 200.86 non-voting preferred units were outstanding immediately prior to the Business Combination.
In connection with the Business Combination and pursuant to the Merger Agreement, the Company issued shares of its Common Stock to unitholders of MPMO at an exchange ratio of approximately 59,908.35 shares of the Company’s common
63


stock with a par value of $0.0001 per share (“Common Stock”) for each common unit and preferred unit of MPMO, resulting in the issuance of 71,941,538 shares of our Common Stock. In addition, in connection with the SNR Mineral Rights Acquisition, 19,999,942 shares (adjusted for fractional shares) of our Common Stock were issued to SNR unitholders. See below for further discussion of the SNR Mineral Rights Acquisition.
Immediately prior to the consummation of the Business Combination and pursuant to the Parent Sponsor Warrant Exchange Agreement, entered into by FVAC and Fortress Acquisition Sponsor LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “Sponsor”), on July 15, 2020, the Sponsor exchanged all 5,933,333 of its private placement warrants (the “Private Placement Warrants”) for an aggregate of 890,000 shares of FVAC Class F common stock that, upon the consummation of the Business Combination, were converted into Common Stock of the Company (the “Parent Sponsor Warrant Exchange”).
In connection with the consummation of the Business Combination, the Company issued, in a private placement transaction, an aggregate of 20,000,000 shares of Common Stock for an aggregate purchase price of $200.0 million, to PIPE investors pursuant to the terms of respective subscription agreements entered into separately between the Company and each PIPE investor, each dated July 15, 2020 (the “PIPE Financing”).
After giving effect to the above, shares of our Common Stock issued and outstanding immediately after the closing of the Business Combination were as follows (including restricted stock issued to certain executives upon closing):
ShareholderNumber of Shares
FVAC public stockholders(1)
34,464,151 
Private Placement Warrants890,000 
MPMO unitholders(2)
71,941,538 
SNR unitholders19,999,942 
PIPE Financing20,000,000 
Restricted stock issued to certain MPMO executives2,013,006 
Total149,308,637 
(1)Represents the outstanding shares held by FVAC’s public stockholders (Class A common stock) which were not redeemed in connection with the Business Combination. The Company received gross proceeds of $344.7 million and net proceeds of $332.6 million after $12.1 million of underwriting commissions in connection with the sale of these shares.
(2)Includes 5,384,563 shares issued relating to the Shenghe Warrant.
MPMO’s merger with FVAC was accounted for as a reverse recapitalization in accordance with GAAP. Under this method of accounting, FVAC was treated as the acquired company for financial reporting purposes. Accordingly, for accounting purposes, the merger was treated as the equivalent of MPMO issuing stock for the net assets of FVAC, accompanied by a recapitalization. The net assets of FVAC are stated at historical cost, with no goodwill or other intangible assets recorded. Among other factors, MPMO was determined to be the accounting acquirer principally on the basis that its unitholders would hold the greatest voting interest in the combined company, the majority of executive management of MPMO remained with the Company, and MPMO had a significantly larger employee base and substantive operations.
Pursuant to the amended and restated letter agreement dated July 15, 2020, and amended and restated on August 26, 2020, by and among FVAC and the holders of FVAC Class F common stock, all of the shares of FVAC Class A common stock issued upon the conversion of FVAC Class F common stock (held by insiders initially purchased prior to the FVAC initial public offering (“IPO”)), were subject to certain vesting and forfeiture provisions (the “Vesting Shares”) based on the achievement of certain volume weighted-average price (“VWAP”) thresholds of the Company’s Common Stock.
The holders of MPMO Holding Company, which was a Delaware corporation formed by MPMO pursuant to the Merger Agreement (“MPMO HoldCo”), preferred stock and common stock and SNR Holding Company, LLC, which was a Delaware limited liability company formed by SNR pursuant to the Merger Agreement (“SNR HoldCo”), common stock immediately prior to the closing of the Business Combination were given the contingent right to receive up to an additional 12,860,000 shares of the Company’s Common Stock (the “Earnout Shares”) based on the achievement of certain VWAP thresholds of the Company’s Common Stock.
The Company determined that the Earnout Shares issued to the Sponsor, holders of MPMO HoldCo preferred stock and common stock, and holders of SNR HoldCo common stock met the criteria for equity classification under ASC Subtopic 815-40, “Contracts in Entity’s Own Equity.” The Company estimated that the total fair value of the Earnout Shares at closing of
64


the Business Combination was $171.2 million, consisting of $134.0 million and $37.2 million ascribed to the MPMO and SNR earnouts, respectively.
In December 2020, 8,625,000 Vesting Shares vested, and 12,859,898 Earnout Shares (adjusted for fractional shares) were issued after achievement of the aforementioned VWAP thresholds. As of December 31, 2021 and 2020, the Vesting Shares and the Earnout Shares delivered to the equityholders were recorded as equity with an allocation between common stock at par value and additional paid-in capital, and the Earnout Shares delivered to MPMO equityholders were accounted for as a distribution. Since all Earnout Shares were determined to be equity-classified at initial recognition and through the date of achievement of the thresholds, no remeasurement was required.
SNR Mineral Rights Acquisition
The acquisition of SNR did not meet the criteria for the acquisition of a business under ASC Topic 805, “Business Combinations” (“ASC 805”), and was accounted for as an asset acquisition since substantially all of the fair value of the assets acquired was concentrated in a single asset. The principal asset acquired in the SNR Mineral Rights Acquisition was the mineral rights for the rare earth ores contained in the Company’s mine, which was SNR’s sole operating asset. The net assets acquired in the SNR Mineral Rights Acquisition were $324.1 million, which was principally comprised of a mineral rights asset of $434.7 million, net of the associated deferred tax liability of $109.1 million.
MPMO and SNR had a relationship prior to the Business Combination, specifically related to the Royalty Agreement and an intellectual property license. The Company considered the provisions of ASC 805 regarding the settlement of pre-existing relationships. Immediately prior to the consummation of the Business Combination, MPMO had a $3.9 million liability related to the minimum royalty, which was effectively settled through intercompany when MPMO and SNR became wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Company. The settlement of the liability was reflected in the cost of the acquisition due to the pre-existing contractual relationship being cancellable without penalty and no gain or loss was recognized. For further information on the Royalty Agreement and the minimum royalty liability, see Note 18, “Related-Party Transactions.”
Transaction Costs
In connection with the Business Combination, the Company incurred direct and incremental costs of $33.5 million, consisting of legal and professional fees, of which $28.2 million was related to equity issuance costs and recorded to “Additional paid-in capital” as a reduction of proceeds at the time of the Business Combination, $3.3 million was recorded to “General and administrative” expenses, for the year ended December 31, 2020, and $2.0 million was related to the SNR Mineral Rights Acquisition, which was included as a component of the cost of the acquisition.
NOTE 4—RELATIONSHIP AND AGREEMENTS WITH SHENGHE
Original Commercial Agreements
In May 2017, prior to our acquisition of Mountain Pass, the Company entered into a set of commercial arrangements with Shenghe Resources (Singapore) International Trading Pte. Ltd. (“Shenghe”), a majority owned subsidiary of Leshan Shenghe Rare Earth Co., Ltd. (“Leshan Shenghe”) whose ultimate parent is Shenghe Resources Holding Co., Ltd., a leading global rare earth company listed on the Shanghai Stock Exchange, to fund the Company’s operations, identify operational efficiencies, and sell products to Shenghe and third parties. Shenghe and its affiliates primarily engage in the mining, separation, processing and distribution of rare earth products. As part of these arrangements, Shenghe (and its controlled affiliates) became both the principal customer and a related party when Leshan Shenghe obtained 110.98 MPMO preferred units, which represented a 9.99% non-voting preferred interest in MPMO at the time. As discussed in Note 3, “Business Combination and Reverse Recapitalization,” in connection with the Business Combination, these MPMO preferred units were exchanged for our Common Stock. See also Note 18, “Related Party Transactions.”
The original commercial arrangements principally consisted of a technical services agreement (the “TSA”), an offtake agreement (the “Original Offtake Agreement”), and a distribution and marketing agreement (the “DMA”). Under the TSA, Shenghe provided technical services, know-how and other assistance to MPMO in order to facilitate the development and operations of Mountain Pass. In addition, both the TSA and the Original Offtake Agreement imposed certain funding obligations on Shenghe. The Original Offtake Agreement required Shenghe to advance us an initial $50.0 million (the “Initial Prepayment Amount”) to fund the restart of operations at the mine and the TSA required Shenghe to fund any additional operating and capital expenditures required to bring Mountain Pass to full operability. Shenghe also agreed to provide additional funding of $30.0 million to the Company pursuant to a separate letter agreement dated June 20, 2017 (the “Letter Agreement”) (the “First Additional Advance”), in connection with our acquisition of Mountain Pass. In addition to the repayment of the First Additional Advance, pursuant to the Letter Agreement, the Initial Prepayment Amount increased by
65


$30.0 million. We refer to the aggregate prepayments made by Shenghe pursuant to the Original Offtake Agreement and the Framework Agreement (as defined below), as adjusted for Gross Profit Recoupment (as defined below) amounts and any other qualifying repayments to Shenghe, inclusive of the $30.0 million increase to the Initial Prepayment Amount, as the “Prepaid Balance.”
As discussed below, the entrance into the Letter Agreement constituted a modification to the Original Offtake Agreement for accounting purposes (referred to as the “June 2017 Modification”), which ultimately resulted in the Shenghe Implied Discount (as defined below). Under the terms of these agreements, the amounts funded by Shenghe constitute prepayments for the rare earth products to be sold to Shenghe historically under the Original Offtake Agreement (and currently under the A&R Offtake Agreement, as defined below).
Under the Original Offtake Agreement, upon the mine achieving certain milestones and being deemed commercially operational (which was achieved on July 1, 2019), we sold to Shenghe, and Shenghe purchased on a firm “take or pay” basis, all of the rare earth products produced at Mountain Pass. Shenghe marketed and sold these products to customers, and retained the gross profits earned on subsequent sales. The gross profits were credited against the Prepaid Balance, and provided the means by which we repaid, and Shenghe recovered, such amounts (the “Gross Profit Recoupment”). Under the Original Offtake Agreement, we were obliged to sell all Mountain Pass rare earth products to Shenghe until Shenghe had fully recouped all of its prepayments (i.e., the Prepaid Balance is reduced to zero), at which point the Original Offtake Agreement would terminate automatically.
As originally entered, the DMA was to become effective upon termination of the Original Offtake Agreement. The DMA provided for a distribution and marketing arrangement between the Company and Shenghe, subject to certain exceptions. MPMO retained the right to distribute its products directly to certain categories of customers. As compensation for Shenghe’s distribution and marketing services, the DMA entitled Shenghe to a portion of the net profits from the sale of rare earth products produced at Mountain Pass (the “Net Profit-Based Commission”). See below for further discussion of the DMA termination and associated accounting treatment.
Framework Agreement and Restructured Commercial Agreements
In May 2020, the Company entered into a framework agreement and amendment (the “Framework Agreement”) with Shenghe and Leshan Shenghe that significantly restructured the commercial arrangements and provided for, among other things, a revised funding amount and schedule to settle Shenghe’s prepayment obligations to the Company, as well as either the amendment or termination of the various agreements between the parties, as discussed below.
Pursuant to the Framework Agreement, we entered into an amended and restated offtake agreement with Shenghe on May 19, 2020 (the “A&R Offtake Agreement”), which, upon effectiveness, superseded and replaced the Original Offtake Agreement, and we issued to Shenghe a warrant on June 2, 2020 (the “Shenghe Warrant”), exercisable at a nominal price for 89.88 MPMO preferred units, which, at the time, reflected approximately 7.5% of the Company’s equity on a diluted basis, subject to certain restrictions. Pursuant to the Framework Agreement, Shenghe funded the remaining portion of the Initial Prepayment Amount and agreed to fund an additional $35.5 million advance to us (the “Second Additional Advance” and together with the Initial Prepayment Amount, inclusive of the $30.0 million increase pursuant to the Letter Agreement, the “Offtake Advances”), which amounts were fully funded on June 5, 2020. As discussed in Note 3, “Business Combination and Reverse Recapitalization,” the Shenghe Warrant was exchanged for our Common Stock in connection with the Business Combination.
Upon the funding of the remaining obligations on June 5, 2020, among other things, (i) the TSA and the DMA were terminated (as described below) and (ii) the A&R Offtake Agreement and the Shenghe Warrant became effective (such events are collectively referred to as the “June 2020 Modification”). Thus, at the present time, Leshan Shenghe’s and Shenghe’s involvement with the Company and Mountain Pass consists of only the A&R Offtake Agreement.
The A&R Offtake Agreement maintains the key take-or-pay, amounts owed on actual and deemed advances from Shenghe, and other terms of the Original Offtake Agreement, with the following changes: (i) modifies the definition of “offtake products” in order to remove from the scope of that definition lanthanum, cerium and other rare earth products that do not meet the specifications agreed to under the A&R Offtake Agreement; (ii) as to the offtake products subject to the A&R Offtake Agreement, provides that if we sell such offtake products to a third party, then, until the Prepaid Balance has been reduced to zero, we will pay an agreed percentage of our revenue from such sale to Shenghe, to be credited against the amounts owed on Offtake Advances; (iii) replaces the Shenghe Sales Discount (as defined in Note 5, “Revenue Recognition”) under the Original Offtake Agreement with a fixed monthly sales charge; (iv) provides that the sales price to be paid by Shenghe for our rare earth products (a portion of which reduces the Prepaid Balance rather than being paid in cash) will be based on market prices (net of taxes, tariffs and certain other agreed charges) less applicable discounts; (v) obliges us to pay Shenghe, on an annual basis, an
66


amount equal to our annual net income, less any amounts recouped through the Gross Profit Recoupment mechanism over the course of the year, until the Prepaid Balance has been reduced to zero; (vi) obliges us to pay Shenghe the net after-tax profits from certain sales of assets until the Prepaid Balance has been reduced to zero (this obligation was previously contained in the TSA); and (vii) provides for certain changes to the payment, invoicing and delivery terms and procedures for products.
The sales price and other terms applicable to a quantity of offtake products are set forth in monthly purchase agreements between the Company and Shenghe. As with the Original Offtake Agreement, the A&R Offtake Agreement will terminate when Shenghe has fully recouped all of the Prepaid Balance. As discussed in Note 2, “Significant Accounting Policies,” and Note 9, “Debt Obligations,” the A&R Offtake Agreement will terminate by the end of the first quarter of 2022 through either non-cash recoupments from sales or a cash payment based, in part, on the Company’s GAAP net income for the year ended December 31, 2021. See Note 20, “Subsequent Events,” for additional information.
Accounting for the June 2017 Modification
Pursuant to the Letter Agreement, Shenghe agreed to provide additional funding via a short-term, non-interest-bearing note in the amount of $30.0 million to the Company (defined above as the “First Additional Advance”), which required repayment within one year. Furthermore, under the terms of the Letter Agreement, Shenghe became entitled to an additional $30.0 million recovery through an increase to the Prepaid Balance. Therefore, under the terms of the Letter Agreement, Shenghe would ultimately receive repayment of the short-term debt instrument from the Company, and also be entitled to realize an additional $30.0 million as a part of the contractual Gross Profit Recoupment from ultimate sales to its customers.
The Company concluded that the $30.0 million proceeds received from Shenghe should be allocated between (i) the non-interest-bearing debt instrument and (ii) the existing revenue arrangement (under the terms of the Original Offtake Agreement) on a relative fair value basis. As a result of such analysis, the Company determined that the debt instrument had a relative fair value of $26.5 million and the modification to the revenue arrangement had a relative fair value of $3.5 million. The First Additional Advance was repaid in full by the Company in 2018.
Based on the relationship between (i) the deemed proceeds the Company would ultimately receive from the Initial Prepayment Amount (adjusted for (a) the fair value of the preferred interest provided to Shenghe at the time of entering into the aforementioned commercial arrangements of $2.3 million and (b) the fair value allocated to the modification of the revenue arrangement of $3.5 million) and (ii) the contractual amount owed to Shenghe (i.e., the Prepaid Balance, which included the Initial Prepayment Amount and the additional $30.0 million adjustment to the Prepaid Balance in connection with the Letter Agreement) at the time, the June 2017 Modification resulted in an implied discount on the Company’s sales prices to Shenghe under the Original Offtake Agreement, for accounting purposes (the “Shenghe Implied Discount”).
The Shenghe Implied Discount was applicable to Shenghe’s gross profit on the sales of rare earth products to its own customers (for sales made between July 2019 and early June 2020). That gross profit is a contractually determined amount based on Shenghe’s realized sales price (net of taxes, tariffs, and certain other adjustments, such as demurrage) compared to the agreed-upon cash cost Shenghe would pay to the Company. The Shenghe Implied Discount amounted to 36% of that contractually determined gross profit amount. See also Note 5, “Revenue Recognition.”
Accounting for the June 2020 Modification
As noted above, in May 2020, the Company renegotiated various aspects of its relationship with Shenghe and entered into the Framework Agreement to significantly restructure the aforementioned set of arrangements. Prior to the June 2020 Modification, for accounting purposes, the Original Offtake Agreement constituted a deferred revenue arrangement; however, as a result of the June 2020 Modification, the A&R Offtake Agreement constituted a debt obligation as well as provided for the issuance of the Shenghe Warrant. For further discussion of the deferred revenue arrangement, see Note 5, “Revenue Recognition,” and for further discussion of the debt obligation, see Note 9, “Debt Obligations.”
The DMA provided Shenghe with the right of first refusal to be the Company’s distribution and marketing agent for product sales after the expiration of the Original Offtake Agreement and until April 2047 in exchange for the Net Profit-Based Commission. Under the Original Offtake Agreement, Shenghe would also have been responsible for funding additional advance payments toward the Company’s Stage II optimization project. The agency relationship was not to commence until any such additional amount was also recovered under the Original Offtake Agreement. Although it had not yet commenced, the DMA was enforceable, and could only be terminated upon the mutual agreement of the parties involved.
At its inception in May 2017, the DMA was determined to be at-market, as it provided an expected commission to Shenghe for its services that was consistent with the Company’s expectations for a regular sales commission based on its revenue and cost expectations at the time. In connection with the June 2020 Modification, the Company determined that the existing
67


arrangement within the DMA now provided Shenghe with a favorable, off-market return for the future distribution and marketing services, due in part to (i) favorable changes in expected profitability, driven partially by changes in tariffs, as well as cost performance in Stage I, (ii) favorable estimates of the capital cost of the Stage II optimization project, and (iii) favorable changes in expected production, based on higher than forecast contained rare earth oxides production in Stage I.
Taken together, the Company concluded that the above factors would likely result in materially lower per-unit costs (including depreciation) and higher profitability versus its original estimates. Therefore, these changes in circumstances meant that the Net Profit-Based Commission would no longer be commensurate with the value of the service; and therefore, created an off-market feature. These same factors would also result in the Company fulfilling its obligations under the Original Offtake Agreement more quickly, resulting in a longer period of payments under the now-unfavorable terms of the DMA.
In addition, as noted above, Shenghe would still have had to provide the additional advances required to complete Stage II, which would have created a near-term cash commitment for Shenghe. While these costs were expected to be approximately $200 million, Shenghe would have remained exposed to the potential that actual costs exceed these estimates and remained committed to fund them. Further, these upfront payments were to be non-interest bearing, exposing Shenghe to economic cost from the time value of money. Therefore, as part of the renegotiations, the Company and Shenghe agreed to terminate the DMA. As a result of the June 2020 Modification, specifically the termination of the DMA, the Company recorded a non-cash settlement charge of $66.6 million during the year ended December 31, 2020.
Ultimately, the renegotiations resulted in the following exchange, which is also referenced in Note 19, “Supplemental Cash Flow Information,” as a transaction with significant non-cash components:
(in thousands)As of June 2020 Modification
Deemed proceeds for fair value of debt issuance(1)
$85,695 
Deemed proceeds for fair value of warrant issuance53,846 
Total deemed proceeds139,541 
Derecognition of the existing deferred revenue balance(2)
(37,476)
Deemed payment to terminate the unfavorable DMA(3)
(66,615)
Total deemed payments(104,091)
Net cash received$35,450 
(3)This non-cash charge is included within the Consolidated Statement of Operations for the year ended December 31, 2020, as “Settlement charge.”
NOTE 5—REVENUE RECOGNITION
Sales to Shenghe Prior to Achieving Commercial Operations: Prior to achieving commercial operations in July 2019, the Company sold various products, including stockpile inventories, to Shenghe under individual sales agreements, which did not include the Shenghe Implied Discount.
Sales to Shenghe Under the Original Offtake Agreement: Beginning in July 2019, and through early June 2020, the Company and Shenghe periodically agreed on a cash sales price for each metric ton of rare earth concentrate delivered by the Company, which was recognized as revenue upon each sale. This sales price was intended to approximate the Company’s cash cost of production. Sales during this period were made under the Original Offtake Agreement and were impacted by the Shenghe Implied Discount, which is discussed in Note 4, “Relationship and Agreements with Shenghe.”
The Shenghe Implied Discount amounted to 36% of the difference between Shenghe’s realized price on its sales of rare earth products to its own customers (net of taxes, tariffs, and certain other adjustments, such as demurrage) and the agreed-upon cash cost for those products (i.e., its gross profit). In addition to the revenue, we recognized from the cash sales prices, we also realized an amount of deferred revenue applicable to these sales equal to 64% of Shenghe’s gross profit. The full gross profit amount realized by Shenghe on such sales reduced the Prepaid Balance (and consequently, our contractual obligations to Shenghe), but the remaining 36% was not recognized as revenue.
68


In addition, sales to Shenghe under the Original Offtake Agreement between July 2019 and early June 2020 typically provided Shenghe with a discount generally in the amount of between 3% and 6% of the initial cash price of our rare earth products sold in consideration of Shenghe’s sales efforts to resell our rare earth products (the “Shenghe Sales Discount”). The Shenghe Sales Discount was considered a reduction in the transaction price and thus was not recognized as revenue. Additionally, the Shenghe Sales Discount was not applied to reduce the Prepaid Balance; however, it was considered as part of Shenghe’s cost of acquiring our product in the calculation of Shenghe’s gross profit.
Sales to Shenghe Under the A&R Offtake Agreement: Beginning after the June 2020 Modification, the sales price (and other terms applicable to the quantity of products sold) are set forth in monthly purchase agreements with Shenghe. Furthermore, the June 2020 Modification provided that the sales price to be paid by Shenghe for our rare earth products will be based on market prices (net of taxes, tariffs and certain other agreed charges) less applicable discounts. A portion of the sales price is in the form of debt repayment, with the remainder paid in cash. See Note 9, “Debt Obligations,” for further information.
As a result of the June 2020 Modification, revenue recognized under the A&R Offtake Agreement after the June 2020 Modification does not include the Shenghe Implied Discount. In addition, rather than adjusting the sales price for the Shenghe Sales Discount, as was the case with sales made under the Original Offtake Agreement, revenue under the A&R Offtake Agreement is reduced by a fixed monthly sales charge (similarly accounted for as a discount).
Deferred Revenue: As mentioned in Note 4, “Relationship and Agreements with Shenghe,” the Original Offtake Agreement was accounted for as a deferred revenue arrangement and the June 2020 Modification effectively replaced this deferred revenue arrangement with a debt obligation (see Note 9, “Debt Obligations”). Prior to the June 2020 Modification, Offtake Advances received from Shenghe were accounted for as deferred revenue. Under the Original Offtake Agreement, Shenghe’s gross profit was retained by Shenghe and applied to reduce the Prepaid Balance.
Activity for the deferred revenue balance (including current portion) was as follows:
For the year ended December 31,
(in thousands)202120202019
Opening balance(1)
$— $35,543 $28,482 
Prepayments received(2)
— 11,050 10,311 
Revenue recognized(3)
— (9,117)(3,250)
Effect of June 2020 Modification(4)
— (37,476)— 
Ending balance$— $— $35,543 
(1)Of the amounts for the years ended December 31, 2020 and 2019, $6.6 million and $3.3 million, respectively, were classified as current based on when such amounts were expected to be realized.
(2)The full amount for the year ended December 31, 2020, and $9.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2019, related to the contractual commitment for Shenghe to provide funds to the Company (the Initial Prepayment Amount). After the amount pertaining to the year ended December 31, 2020, was funded, no further amount was required to be funded by Shenghe under the Initial Prepayment Amount.
(3)As discussed above, for sales made to Shenghe during the period from July 2019 through early June 2020, as a result of the Shenghe Implied Discount, we recognized an amount of deferred revenue applicable to such sales equal to 64% of the gross profit realized by Shenghe on sales of this product to its own customers. As discussed below, the amount for the year ended December 31, 2020, included a tariff rebate of $1.4 million received in May 2020; the amounts for the years ended December 31, 2020 and 2019, excluded the tariff rebates realized in August 2020.
(4)As discussed in Note 4, “Relationship and Agreements with Shenghe,” the balance of deferred revenue was derecognized in connection with the June 2020 Modification.
Tariff-Related Rebates: In May 2020, the government of the People’s Republic of China suspended certain tariffs that had been charged to consignees of our product on imports, and provided such relief retroactive to March 2020. In addition, Shenghe began negotiating for tariff rebates from sales prior to March 2020, which affected Shenghe’s realized prices, and thus the contractual Prepaid Balance. These, in turn, affected the Company’s realized prices and, as a result, the deferred revenue and the Shenghe Implied Discount on our prior sales. The Company realized $1.4 million of revenue related to tariff rebates received in May 2020, which included amounts related to prior periods. While additional tariff rebates were possible, the Company did not have insight into Shenghe’s negotiations or their probability of success, and such negotiations were outside of the Company’s control. Thus, the Company fully constrained estimates of any future tariff rebates that may have been realized at that time.
In January 2021 and August 2020, the Company received additional information from Shenghe regarding its successful negotiation of additional tariff rebates. Consequently, the Company revised its estimates of variable consideration and recognized $2.0 million and $9.3 million of revenue for the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively, primarily related to additional tariff credits realized for sales from the pre-modification period. Since these rebates were recognized after
69


the June 2020 Modification, the amounts were treated as a reduction to the principal balance of the debt obligation, partially offset by a proportionate reduction in the related debt discount, as discussed in Note 9, “Debt Obligations.”
Refund Liability: Prior to the mine reaching commercial operations, the Company entered into individual product sales with the same affiliate of Shenghe based on standardized product quality specifications, against which adjustments would be recognized based on actual quality measurements and settlements agreed between the Company and Shenghe. The product quality was expected to be below the standard and would result in quality adjustments for ultimate repayment of the refund liability. As such, in 2018, the Company estimated and recognized a refund liability based on expected differences.
In 2019, the Company negotiated with Shenghe to settle all outstanding quality differences for a total of $2.3 million, of which $0.5 million of the refund obligation was paid in 2019 and $1.8 million was paid in 2020. In addition, the Company agreed to repay $0.9 million of Offtake Advances based on gross profits realized on sales of rare earth fluorides, which were purchased in 2018 from Molycorp, Inc., debtors, which was paid in 2020.
NOTE 6—RESTRICTED CASH
The Company’s restricted cash balances were as follows:
December 31,
(in thousands)20212020
Restricted cash, current$1,344 $3,688 
Restricted cash, non-current516 9,100 
Total restricted cash$1,860 $12,788 
Current restricted cash, which is included in “Prepaid expenses and other current assets” within the Consolidated Balance Sheets, principally relates to cash held in various trusts for both years presented. Non-current restricted cash as of December 31, 2020, pertains to cash collateral posted for closure and post-closure surety bonding for the Mountain Pass site and a trust established with the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, which is the state of California’s recycling and waste management program, for a closed onsite landfill (see Note 11, “Asset Retirement and Environmental Obligations”).
NOTE 7—INVENTORIES
The Company’s inventories consisted of the following:
December 31,
(in thousands)20212020
Materials and supplies
$10,711 $5,124 
In-process
25,574 24,524 
Finished goods
2,407 2,624 
Total inventory$38,692 $32,272 
During the second quarter of 2021, the Company recognized a non-cash write-down of a portion of its legacy low-grade stockpile inventory of $1.8 million, after determining that it contained a significant amount of alluvial material that did not meet the Company’s requirement for mill feed and, as a result, was deemed unusable. The write-down is included in the Consolidated Statement of Operations for the year ended December 31, 2021, as “Write-down of inventories.”
70


NOTE 8—PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT
The Company’s property, plant and equipment consisted of the following:
December 31,
(in thousands)20212020
Land and land improvements$7,925 $6,534 
Buildings and building improvements8,791 2,953 
Machinery and equipment61,822 22,911 
Assets under construction134,327 46,814 
Mineral rights437,376 437,654 
Property, plant and equipment650,241 516,866 
Less: Accumulated depreciation and depletion(39,629)(14,892)
Property, plant and equipment, net$610,612 $501,974 
Capitalized Costs: The Company capitalized expenditures of $138.0 million, $26.2 million and $2.8 million for the years ended December 31, 2021, 2020 and 2019, respectively, mostly related to vehicles, machinery, equipment, and assets under construction to support its Stage II optimization project and other capital projects at Mountain Pass. Interest capitalized was $0.3 million and $0.2 million for the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively. No interest was capitalized for the year ended December 31, 2019.
Seller-Financed Equipment Notes: In February 2021, the Company acquired equipment, including trucks and loaders, in the aggregate amount of $9.4 million, which was purchased through seller-financed equipment notes. See also Note 9, “Debt Obligations,” and Note 19, “Supplemental Cash Flow Information.”
CHP Plant: In December 2021, upon designating the Company’s natural gas-powered CHP plant fully operational, $27.2 million of CHP assets under construction were transferred to buildings and machinery and equipment in the amounts of $6.0 million and $21.2 million, respectively.
Technology Investment Agreement: In November 2020, the Company was awarded a Defense Production Act Title III technology investment agreement (“TIA”) from the Department of Defense (“DOD”) to establish domestic processing for separated light rare earth elements (this “project”) in the amount of $9.6 million. Pursuant to the terms of the TIA, the Company must utilize the funds to acquire property and equipment that will contribute to the mission of this project. Furthermore, in exchange for these funds, the Company is required to provide the DOD with periodic reporting specific to this project for up to approximately five years.
During the year ended December 31, 2021, pursuant to the TIA, the Company received $4.4 million in reimbursements from the DOD. The funds received reduced the carrying amount of certain fixed assets associated with the Company’s Stage II optimization project, which are currently included in “Assets under construction.” As of December 31, 2021, the Company is entitled to receive an additional $5.2 million from the DOD under the TIA.
Impact of Change in Estimate of ARO: As a result of a decrement to the Company’s ARO during the fourth quarter of 2021, the carrying amount of the Company’s total property, plant and equipment was reduced by $8.7 million, the majority of which pertained to buildings, machinery and equipment, and assets under construction, in the amounts of $2.0 million, $2.4 million and $3.2 million, respectively. Additionally, the Company’s depreciation expense for the year ended December 31, 2021, was reduced by $1.1 million, reflecting the excess of the decrement over the carrying amount of the related property, plant and equipment. See Note 11, “Asset Retirement and Environmental Obligations,” for further information on the decrement.
71


The Company’s depreciation and depletion expense were as follows:
For the year ended December 31,
(in thousands)202120202019
Depreciation expense$6,825 $4,702 $4,414 
Depletion expense(1)
$17,200 $1,961 $114 
(1)At the beginning of the fourth quarter of 2021, as a result of an updated life of mine, we revised our estimate of the remaining useful life of the mineral rights to approximately 35 years from approximately 23 years. The effect of the change in estimate was a reduction in depletion expense for the year ended December 31, 2021, of $1.5 million.
There were no impairments recognized for the years ended December 31, 2021, 2020 and 2019.
NOTE 9—DEBT OBLIGATIONS
The Company’s current and non-current portions of long-term debt were as follows:
December 31,
(in thousands)20212020
Long-term debt
Convertible Notes due 2026$690,000 $— 
Paycheck Protection Loan— 3,364 
Less: Unamortized debt issuance costs(15,073)— 
Net carrying amount674,927 3,364 
Less: Current installments of long-term debt— (2,403)
Long-term debt, net of current portion$674,927 $961 
Long-term debt to related party
Offtake Advances$16,599 $71,843 
Less: Unamortized debt discount(517)(5,393)
Net carrying amount16,082 66,450 
Less: Current installments of long-term debt to related party(16,082)(22,070)
Long-term debt to related party, net of current portion$— $44,380 
Convertible Notes
On March 26, 2021, the Company issued $690.0 million aggregate principal amount of 0.25% unsecured green convertible senior notes that mature, unless earlier converted, redeemed or repurchased, on April 1, 2026 (the “Convertible Notes”), at a price of par. Interest on the Convertible Notes is payable on April 1st and October 1st of each year, beginning on October 1, 2021. The Convertible Notes may, at the Company’s election, be settled in cash, shares of Common Stock of the Company, or a combination thereof. The Company has the option to redeem the Convertible Notes, in whole or in part, beginning on April 5, 2024. The Company received net proceeds of $672.3 million from the issuance of the Convertible Notes.
The Convertible Notes are convertible into shares of the Company’s Common Stock at an initial conversion price of $44.28 per share, or 22.5861 shares, per $1,000 principal amount of notes, subject to adjustment upon the occurrence of certain corporate events. However, in no event will the conversion exceed 28.5714 shares of Common Stock per $1,000 principal amount of notes. As of December 31, 2021, based on the initial conversion price, the maximum number of shares that could be issued to satisfy the conversion feature of the Convertible Notes was 19,714,266 and the amount by which the Convertible Notes’ if-converted value exceeded its principal amount was $205.4 million.
Prior to January 1, 2026, at their election, holders of the Convertible Notes may convert their outstanding notes under the following circumstances: (i) during any calendar quarter commencing with the third quarter of 2021 if the last reported sale price of the Company’s Common Stock for at least 20 trading days (whether or not consecutive) during the period of 30 consecutive trading days ending on, and including, the last trading day of the immediately preceding calendar quarter is greater than or equal to 130% of the conversion price on each applicable trading day; (ii) during the five business day period after any five consecutive trading day period (the “measurement period”) in which the trading price (as defined below) per $1,000 principal amount of Convertible Notes for each trading day of the measurement period was less than 98% of the product of the
72


last reported sale price of the Company’s Common Stock and the conversion rate on each such trading day; (iii) if we call any or all of the Convertible Notes for redemption, at any time prior to the close of business on the scheduled trading day immediately preceding the redemption date; or (iv) upon the occurrence of specified corporate events set forth in the indenture governing the Convertible Notes. On or after January 1, 2026, and prior to the maturity date of the Convertible Notes, holders may convert their outstanding notes at any time, regardless of the foregoing circumstances.
If we undergo a fundamental change (as defined in the indenture governing the Convertible Notes), holders may require us to repurchase for cash all or any portion of their outstanding notes at a price equal to 100% of the principal amount of the notes to be repurchased, plus accrued and unpaid interest to, but excluding, the fundamental change repurchase date. In addition, following certain corporate events that occur prior to the maturity date of the Convertible Notes or if we deliver a notice of redemption, we will, in certain circumstances, increase the conversion rate for holders who elect to convert their outstanding notes in connection with such corporate event or notice of redemption, as the case may be.
Paycheck Protection Loan
In April 2020, the Company obtained a loan of $3.4 million pursuant to the Paycheck Protection Program (the “PPP”) under the CARES Act (the “Paycheck Protection Loan” or the “Loan”). The Paycheck Protection Loan, which was in the form of a note dated April 15, 2020, issued by CIBC Bank USA, was to mature on April 14, 2022, and bore interest at a rate of 1% per annum. Under the terms of the PPP, loans may be forgiven if the funds are used for qualifying expenses as described in the CARES Act, which include payroll costs, costs used to continue group health care benefits, rent and utilities. In June 2021, the Company received notification from the Small Business Administration that the Loan and related accrued interest was forgiven. Consequently, for the year ended December 31, 2021, the Company recorded a gain on forgiveness of the Loan in the amount of $3.4 million, which is included in “Other income, net” within our Consolidated Statements of Operations.
Offtake Advances
In connection with the June 2020 Modification, which is discussed in Note 4, “Relationship and Agreements with Shenghe,” Shenghe agreed to fund an additional $35.5 million advance to the Company (previously defined as the “Second Additional Advance”) and the Company issued the Shenghe Warrant. For accounting purposes, the June 2020 Modification effectively replaced the deferred revenue arrangement relating to the Original Offtake Agreement with a debt obligation relating to the A&R Offtake Agreement and the issuance of the Shenghe Warrant.
Under the A&R Offtake Agreement, a portion of the sales prices of products sold to Shenghe is paid in the form of debt reduction, rather than cash. In addition, the Company must pay the following amounts to Shenghe in cash to reduce the debt obligation until repaid in full: (i) an agreed-upon percentage of sales of products to parties other than Shenghe under the A&R Offtake Agreement; (ii) 100% of net profits from asset sales; and (iii) 100% of net income determined under GAAP, less the tax-effected amount of total non-cash recoupment from sales of products to Shenghe, within five business days of the completion of the annual external audit of the Company’s Consolidated Financial Statements. Since these features require cash payments regardless of sales to Shenghe, the Company determined that amounts due to Shenghe under the Offtake Advances should be classified as a debt obligation. For the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020, $52.8 million and $12.0 million of the sales prices of products sold to Shenghe was paid in the form of debt reduction, respectively (see Note 19, “Supplemental Cash Flow Information”). During the year ended December 31, 2021, the Company made a payment to Shenghe of $0.2 million based on sales to other parties. No amounts were required to be paid based on asset sales.
As of the date of the June 2020 Modification, the outstanding balance on the Offtake Advances was $94.0 million. Since the debt obligation was recorded at fair value, the result was a debt discount of $8.3 million. The A&R Offtake Agreement does not have a stated rate (and is non-interest-bearing), and repayment is contingent on a number of factors, including market prices realized by Shenghe, the Company’s sales to other parties, asset sales, and the Company’s annual net income, as adjusted (discussed above). The imputed interest rate is a function of this discount taken together with our expectations about the timing of the anticipated reductions of the principal balance. As of December 31, 2021 and 2020, $16.6 million and $25.7 million of the principal amount, respectively, was classified as current based on the Company’s expectations of the timing of repayment. Furthermore, full repayment of the remaining principal amount will occur by the end of the first quarter of 2022 whether through non-cash recoupments from sales or a cash payment based, in part, on the Company’s GAAP net income for the year ended December 31, 2021.
The actual amounts repaid may differ in timing and amount from the Company’s estimates and is updated each reporting period to determine the imputed interest rate, which will likely differ from the current estimated rate. The Company has determined that it will recognize adjustments from these estimates following a prospective method. Under the prospective method, the Company will update its estimate of the effective interest rate in future periods based on revised estimates of the timing of remaining principal reductions at that time. The updated rate will be the discount rate that equates the present value of
73


those revised estimates of remaining reductions with the carrying amount of the debt, and it will be used to recognize interest expense for the remaining periods. Under the prospective method, the effective interest rate is not constant, and changes are recognized prospectively as an adjustment to the effective yield. The effective rate applicable from the June 5, 2020, inception to December 31, 2021, was between 4.41% and 16.28%. As of December 31, 2021, the Company updated its estimate of the effective interest rate to 24.75%, to be applied prospectively. However, since full repayment of the remaining principal amount will occur by the end of the first quarter of 2022, the amount of interest expense to be recognized in the first quarter of 2022 pertaining to the Offtake Advances will only consist of the remaining unamortized discount.
As discussed in Note 5, “Revenue Recognition,” in January 2021 and August 2020, the Company was informed of tariff rebates of $2.2 million and $9.7 million, respectively, that Shenghe received, which increased the gross profit earned by Shenghe on certain sales. In addition, during the year ended December 31, 2020, after the June 2020 Modification, but relating to sales made prior the June 2020 Modification, Shenghe realized higher gross profit than estimated by the Company in the amount of $0.4 million due to higher market prices. As a result of these events, for the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020, the Company recorded reductions in the principal amount of the debt obligation of $2.2 million and $10.1 million, respectively, and the corresponding debt discount of $0.2 million and $0.8 million, respectively.
Equipment Notes
The Company has entered into several financing agreements for the purchase of equipment, including trucks, tractors, loaders, graders, and various other machinery, including agreements entered into in February 2021 (as further discussed below). The Company’s equipment notes, which are secured by the purchased equipment, have terms of between 4 to 5 years and interest rates of between 0.0% and 6.5% per annum.
In February 2021, we entered into several financing agreements for the purchase of equipment, including trucks and loaders, in the aggregate amount of $9.7 million, including $0.3 million for the associated extended warranties. These equipment notes, which are secured by the purchased equipment, have terms of 5 years and interest rates of 4.5% per annum with monthly payments commencing in April 2021.
The current and non-current portions of the equipment notes, which are included within the Consolidated Balance Sheets in “Other current liabilities” and “Other non-current liabilities,” respectively, were as follows:
December 31,
(in thousands)20212020
Equipment notes
Current$2,566 $835 
Non-current7,095 1,267 
$9,661 $2,102 
Interest expense, net
Interest expense, net, was as follows:
For the year ended December 31,
(in thousands)202120202019
Interest expense$9,168 $5,171 $3,412 
Capitalized interest(264)(162)— 
Interest expense, net$8,904 $5,009 $3,412 
Interest expense related to the Convertible Notes was as follows:
For the year ended December 31,
(in thousands)202120202019
Coupon interest$1,318 $— $— 
Amortization of debt issuance costs2,675 — — 
Convertible Notes interest expense$3,993 $— $— 
74


The debt issuance costs are being amortized to interest expense over the term of the Convertible Notes at an effective interest rate of 0.51%. The remaining term of the Convertible Notes was 4.3 years as of December 31, 2021.
Debt Maturities
The following is a schedule of debt repayments as of December 31, 2021:
(in thousands)Convertible NotesOfftake AdvancesEquipment Notes
Year ending December 31,
2022$— $16,599 $2,566 
2023— — 2,352 
2024— — 2,106 
2025— — 2,098 
2026690,000 — 539 
Thereafter— — — 
Total minimum payments$690,000 $16,599 $9,661 
As of December 31, 2021, none of the agreements governing our indebtedness contain financial covenants.
NOTE 10—LEASE OBLIGATIONS
The Company has operating and finance leases for certain office space, vehicles and equipment used in its operations, with lease terms ranging from one month to five years, excluding any leases that have not yet commenced. These leases require monthly lease payments that may be subject to annual increases throughout the lease term. Certain of these leases also include renewal options at the election of the Company to renew or extend the lease for an additional one to five years. These optional periods have not been considered in the determination of the ROU asset or lease liabilities associated with these leases as the Company did not consider it reasonably certain it would exercise the options.
In November 2021, the Company entered into a lease agreement for corporate office space in a building that is currently being constructed by the landlord. The lease, which is estimated to commence on January 1, 2023, has an initial term of 91 months, with one subsequent five-year renewal option on the same terms and conditions, exercisable at the Company’s option. The initial annual base rent payment will be $1.2 million, subject to an annual escalator. Pursuant to the lease agreement, the Company is entitled to receive a tenant improvement allowance of $1.8 million. As of December 31, 2021, the Company paid $0.2 million in prepaid rent and a security deposit, which were included in “Other assets” within the Consolidated Financial Statements.
The Company’s lease agreements do not contain any termination options or material residual value guarantees, reasonably certain purchase options, or restrictive covenants. The Company does not have any lease arrangements with related parties.
Total lease cost included the following components:
Location on Consolidated Statements of OperationsFor the year ended December 31,
202120202019
Operating lease costPrimarily Cost of sales (including related party) (excluding depreciation, depletion and amortization)$780 $2,466 $218 
Finance lease cost
Amortization of right-of-use assetsDepreciation, depletion and amortization357 268 159 
Interest on lease liabilitiesInterest expense, net60 50 42 
417 318 201 
Short-term lease costPrimarily Cost of sales (including related party) (excluding depreciation, depletion and amortization)1,163 1,246 913 
$2,360 $4,030 $1,332 
75


Supplemental cash flow information related to leases was as follows:
For the year ended December 31,
202120202019
Cash paid for amounts included in the measurement of lease liabilities:
Operating cash flows related to operating leases$790 $2,432 $223 
Operating cash flows related to finance leases$60 $50 $42 
Financing cash flows related to finance leases$278 $249 $121 
Right-of-use assets obtained in exchange for lease liabilities:
Operating leases$— $2,932 $549 
Finance leases$88 $724 $671 
Information related to lease terms and discount rates was as follows:
December 31,
20212020
Weighted-Average Remaining Lease Term
Operating leases1.0 year1.3 years
Finance leases2.7 years3.5 years
Weighted-Average Discount Rate
Operating leases5.2 %5.2 %
Finance leases6.3 %6.7 %
As of December 31, 2021, the maturities of the Company’s operating and finance lease liabilities were as follows:
(in thousands)Operating LeasesFinance Leases
Year ending December 31,
2022$361 $280 
2023— 359 
2024— 137 
2025— 100 
2026— 
Thereafter— — 
Total lease payments361 877 
Less: Imputed interest(4)(69)
Total$357 $808 
76


Supplemental disclosure for the Consolidated Balance Sheets related to the Company’s operating and finance leases was as follows:
Location on Consolidated Balance SheetsDecember 31,
(in thousands)20212020
Operating Leases:
Right-of-use assetsOther non-current assets$340 $1,090 
Operating lease liability, currentOther current liabilities$357 $761 
Operating lease liability, non-currentOther non-current liabilities— 357 
Total operating lease liabilities$357 $1,118 
Finance Leases:
Right-of-use assetsFinance lease right-of-use assets$758 $1,028 
Finance lease liability, currentCurrent portion of finance lease liabilities$254 $266 
Finance lease liability, non-currentFinance lease liabilities, net of current portion554 736 
Total finance lease liabilities$808 $1,002 
NOTE 11—ASSET RETIREMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL OBLIGATIONS
Asset Retirement Obligations
The Company estimated AROs based on the requirements to reclaim its mine pit and related processing and separations facilities at Mountain Pass. Minor reclamation activities related to discrete portions of the Company’s operations are ongoing. As of December 31, 2021, the Company estimates a significant portion of the cash outflows for the major reclamation and the retirement of Mountain Pass will be incurred beginning in 2057, which reflects an update to the Company’s life of mine and expected cessation of other processing and separations activities for Mountain Pass.
Change in Mine Life and Effect on ARO
As a result of the updated life of mine, in the fourth quarter of 2021, the Company revised its estimated timing and cash flows pertaining to the settlement of the reclamation and removal activities associated with Mountain Pass. As a result of this update, the Company determined that the estimated commencement of the reclamation and removal activities will now occur in 2056 and 2057 for a significant portion of the assets subject to the ARO. These changes in estimates resulted in a decrement of $9.8 million, of which $8.7 million reduced the carrying amounts of the associated property, plant and equipment, and $1.1 million, reflecting the excess of the decrement over the carrying amount of the related property, plant and equipment, was recorded as a reduction to depreciation expense for the year ended December 31, 2021.
Re-zoning Efforts
In March 2020, the Company commenced the process of requesting a re-zoning approval of certain of its properties such that certain of the Company’s processing facilities would be zoned for industrial end uses as opposed to the prior “resource conservation” designation. In June 2021, San Bernardino County approved the re-zoning request, which may obviate the Company’s current requirement to demolish and reclaim the impacted areas. The Company is currently evaluating the impact that the re-zoning has on its reclamation plan, which must still be approved by San Bernardino County and the State of California, and its related effect on the Company’s ARO. Upon final submission of the reclamation plan and approval, which has not yet occurred as of December 31, 2021, the Company will update the estimated cash flows underlying its ARO, as the Company’s existing reclamation obligations will not be legally reduced until such approval is obtained.
77


Rollforward of ARO Balances
The following is a summary of the Company’s AROs:
December 31,
(in thousands)20212020
Beginning balance$25,646 $23,966 
Obligations settled(199)(75)
Accretion expense1,876 1,755 
Additional AROs213 — 
Revisions in estimated cash flows(9,779)— 
Ending balance$17,757 $25,646 
The balance as of December 31, 2021 and 2020, included current portions of $0.1 million. The total estimated future undiscounted cash flows required to satisfy the AROs for the year ended December 31, 2021 and 2020 were $167.3 million and $142.3 million, respectively. As of December 31, 2021, the credit-adjusted risk-free rate ranged between 6.5% and 8.2% depending on the timing of expected settlement and when the layer or increment was recognized. There were no significant increments for the year ended December 31, 2021, and there were no significant increments or decrements for the years ended December 31, 2020 and 2019.
Financial Assurances and Surety Bonds
The Company is required to provide the applicable government agencies with financial assurances relating to the closure and reclamation obligations. As of December 31, 2021 and 2020, the Company had financial assurance requirements of $39.0 million and $38.4 million, respectively, which were satisfied with surety bonds placed with the California state and regional agencies that have historically been partially secured by restricted cash.
The following is a summary of restricted cash for surety bonds:
December 31,
(in thousands)20212020
Beginning balance$8,700 $26,619 
Additions32 135 
Refunds(1)
(8,732)(18,054)
Ending balance$— $8,700 
(1)The reduction during the year ended December 31, 2021, was principally due to the continued improvement in the Company’s creditworthiness since the Business Combination.
Environmental Obligations
The Company assumed certain environmental remediation liabilities related to the monitoring of groundwater contamination. The Company engaged an environmental consultant to develop a remediation plan and remediation cost projections based upon that plan. Utilizing the remediation plan developed by the environmental consultant, the Company developed an estimate of future cash payments for the remediation plan.
As of December 31, 2021, the Company estimated the cash outflows related to these environmental activities will be incurred annually over the next 26 years. The Company’s environmental remediation liabilities are measured at the expected value of future cash outflows discounted to their present value using a discount rate of 2.93%. There were no significant changes in the estimated remaining remediation costs for the years ended December 31, 2021, 2020 and 2019.
The total estimated aggregate undiscounted cost of $27.7 million and $28.2 million as of December 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively, was principally related to water monitoring activities required by state and local agencies. Based on the Company’s estimate of the cost and timing and the assumption that payments are considered to be fixed and reliably determinable, the Company has discounted the liability. The balance as of December 31, 2021 and 2020, included current portions of $0.5 million.
78


As of December 31, 2021, the total environmental remediation costs were as follows (in thousands):
Year ending December 31,
2022$504 
2023520 
2024536 
2025552 
2026569 
Thereafter24,998 
Total27,679 
Effect of discounting(10,576)
Total environmental obligations$17,103 
NOTE 12—INCOME TAXES
As discussed in Note 3, “Business Combination and Reverse Recapitalization,” the Business Combination was treated as a reverse recapitalization and the SNR Mineral Rights Acquisition was treated as an asset acquisition. Furthermore, MPMO was deemed to be the accounting acquirer and FVAC the accounting acquiree, which, for financial reporting purposes, results in MPMO’s historical financial information becoming that of the Company. For income tax purposes, the Business Combination was treated as a tax-free reorganization whereby the taxable years of MPMO and SNR ended on November 17, 2020, and the Company became the new parent and sole filer of a tax return for the remainder of 2020 as MPMO and SNR became disregarded entities for income tax purposes. Although the SNR Mineral Rights Acquisition was treated as an asset acquisition, the assets, liabilities and other attributes took carryover basis for tax purposes because of the tax-free reorganization nature of the transaction.
Income tax benefit (expense) consisted of the following:
For the year ended December 31,
(in thousands)202120202019
Current:
Federal$(4,818)$— $— 
State(2,915)(156)(1)
Total current(7,733)(156)(1)
Deferred:
Federal(15,851)14,088 — 
State(1,574)3,704 — 
Total deferred(17,425)17,792 — 
Total tax benefit (expense)$(25,158)$17,636 $(1)
During the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020, the Company recorded $0.4 million and $4.7 million, respectively, related to certain deductible expenditures incurred in connection with the Business Combination to “Additional paid-in capital.”
Income (loss) before income taxes, by tax jurisdiction, was as follows:
For the year ended December 31,
(in thousands)202120202019
United States$160,195 $(39,461)$(6,754)
79


Income taxes differed from the amounts computed by applying the U.S. federal income tax rate of 21% to pretax income (loss) as a result of the following:
For the year ended December 31,
202120202019
(in thousands, except tax rates)PercentAmountPercentAmountPercentAmount
Computed income tax benefit (expense) at the statutory rate21.0 %$(33,641)21.0 %$8,287 21.0 %$1,419 
Changes resulting from:
State and local income taxes, net of federal benefits2.7 %(4,288)4.3 %1,729 6.8 %459 
Limitation on officer’s compensation1.7 %(2,638)(1.2)%(478)— %— 
Depletion in excess of basis(6.1)%9,663 1.1 %425 — %— 
Paycheck Protection Loan forgiveness(0.5)%714 — %— — %— 
Foreign-derived intangible income(1.8)%2,886 — %— — %— 
California competes tax credit, net of federal detriment(1.2)%1,975 — %— — %— 
Effect of other permanent differences— %67 (0.3)%(110)(0.5)%(35)
Valuation allowance0.5 %(821)23.7 %9,333 (25.5)%(1,720)
Other items(0.6)%925 (3.9)%(1,550)(1.8)%(124)
Total effective tax rate and income tax benefit (expense)15.7 %$(25,158)44.7 %$17,636 — %$(1)
The tax effects of temporary differences that gave rise to significant portions of the deferred income tax assets and deferred income tax liabilities were as follows:
December 31,
(in thousands)20212020
Deferred tax assets:
Asset retirement and environmental obligations$8,744 $10,727 
Other deferred tax assets636 860 
Net operating losses2,174 4,248 
Interest expense carryforward— 63 
Inventory6,695 1,667 
Offtake Advances, net of debt discount4,034 16,665 
Shenghe Warrant2,329 10,087 
Stock-based compensation2,688 536 
Organization costs860 943 
Credits764 — 
Gross deferred tax assets28,924 45,796 
Less: Valuation allowance(3,192)(2,370)
Net deferred tax assets25,732 43,426 
Deferred tax liabilities:
Property, plant and equipment(14,077)(7,653)
Prepaid expenses(1,192)(273)
Deferred revenue(9,938)(13,260)
Mineral rights(104,735)(109,174)
Other(290)(539)
Total deferred tax liabilities(130,232)(130,899)
Long-term deferred tax liabilities, net$(104,500)$(87,473)
As of December 31, 2021 and 2020, the Company had net operating loss carryforwards for federal income tax purposes of zero and $16.3 million, respectively, and $7.4 million in both periods for state income tax purposes. Of the state carryforward amount as of December 31, 2021, $4.9 million can be used to offset taxable income and reduce income taxes payable in future
80


periods until its expiration in 2040, and the remaining balance of $2.5 million can be carried forward until its expiration in 2043. As of December 31, 2021, the Company considered the positive and negative evidence to determine the need for a valuation allowance to offset its deferred tax assets and has concluded that it is more likely than not that, with the exception of certain deferred tax assets related to asset retirement and environmental obligations, its deferred tax assets will be realized through future taxable temporary differences, principally resulting from the significant deferred tax liability recorded as a result of the SNR Mineral Rights Acquisition which occurred during the 2020 tax year.
During the fourth quarter of 2021, the Company received notice from the state of California that it had been awarded a California Competes Tax Credit (“CCTC”) of $14.8 million that is available to be offset against the Company’s California state income tax liability over the next several years. The credit is allocated in varying amounts over a five-year period based on the Company’s ability to meet certain milestones related to California employees hired, the annual wage of these employees, and the capital investments made by the Company in California. Once the annual milestones are met, a credit amount is awarded. However, a portion of the credit could be “clawed back” if the milestones are not continually met for each of the three following years. For the year ended December 31, 2021, it was determined that the Company had met the first year’s milestones for the CCTC and recorded a credit of $2.5 million in the fourth quarter of 2021 that resulted in an income tax benefit and a reduction to the Company’s California state income tax payable for the 2021 tax year.
The Company has evaluated its tax positions for the years ended December 31, 2021, 2020 and 2019 and determined that there were no uncertain tax positions requiring recognition in the Consolidated Financial Statements. The tax years from 2018 onward remain open to examination by the taxing jurisdictions to which the Company is subject.
NOTE 13—COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
The Company may become party to lawsuits, administrative proceedings and government investigations, including environmental, regulatory, and other matters, in the ordinary course of business. Large, and sometimes unspecified, damages or penalties may be sought in some matters, and certain matters may require years to resolve.
In January 2019, a former employee filed a complaint with the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency alleging numerous violations of California labor law, and subsequently filed a representative action against the Company. In October 2021, we entered into a memorandum of understanding to settle the lawsuit in the amount of approximately $1 million, including legal fees, subject to the court’s approval of the class settlement. This amount is included in “General and administrative” within the Consolidated Statement of Operations for the year ended December 31, 2021.
NOTE 14—STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY
Common Stock and Preferred Stock
On November 17, 2020, in connection with the consummation of the Business Combination, FVAC amended and restated its first amended and restated certificate of incorporation (the “Second Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation”). Pursuant to the terms of the Second Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation, the Company increased the number of authorized shares of all classes of capital stock from 221,000,000 shares to 500,000,000, consisting of (i) 450,000,000 shares of common stock (previously defined as “Common Stock”) and (ii) 50,000,000 shares of preferred stock (“Preferred Stock”), each with a par value of $0.0001 per share.
As discussed in Note 3, “Business Combination and Reverse Recapitalization,” there were 149,308,637 shares of the Company’s Common Stock issued and outstanding immediately after the closing of the Business Combination (including restricted stock issued to certain executives upon closing). Furthermore, in December 2020, the criteria for the Vesting Shares and the Earnout Shares were attained, which resulted in the issuance of 8,625,000 and 12,859,898 shares, respectively, of the Company’s Common Stock.
Public Warrants
Warrants to purchase 11,499,968 shares of the Company’s Common Stock at $11.50 per share were issued in connection with FVAC’s initial public offering (“IPO”) (the “Public Warrants”) pursuant to the Warrant Agreement, dated April 29, 2020 (the “Warrant Agreement”), by and between the Company and Continental Stock Transfer & Trust Company (“CST”), as warrant agent. These warrants qualified as equity instruments as they were indexed to the Company’s stock and settlement in shares was within the Company’s control. Accordingly, the Public Warrants were included in “Additional paid-in capital” within the Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheet as of December 31, 2020.
81


On May 4, 2021, at the direction of the Company, CST, in its capacity as warrant agent, delivered a notice of redemption to each of the registered holders of the outstanding Public Warrants for a redemption price of $0.01 per warrant (the “Redemption Price”), that remained outstanding on June 7, 2021 (the “Redemption Date”). In accordance with the Warrant Agreement, the Company’s Board of Directors elected to require that, upon delivery of the notice of redemption, all Public Warrants were to be exercised only on a “cashless basis.” Accordingly, a holder exercising a Public Warrant was deemed to pay the $11.50 per warrant exercise price by the surrender of 0.3808 of a share of Common Stock that such holder would have been entitled to receive upon a cash exercise, resulting in exercising warrant holders receiving 0.6192 of a share of Common Stock for each Public Warrant surrendered for exercise. All Public Warrants that remained unexercised on the Redemption Date were delisted, voided and no longer exercisable, and the holders had no rights with respect to those Public Warrants, except to receive the Redemption Price.
During the year ended December 31, 2021, the Company issued 7,080,005 shares of its Common Stock as a result of the cashless exercise of 11,434,455 Public Warrants. The Company redeemed the remaining 65,513 Public Warrants outstanding at the Redemption Date for a nominal amount.
NOTE 15—STOCK-BASED COMPENSATION
2020 Incentive Plan: In November 2020, the Company’s stockholders approved the MP Materials Corp. 2020 Stock Incentive Plan (the “2020 Incentive Plan”), which permits the Company to issue stock options (incentive and/or non-qualified); stock appreciation rights (“SARs”); restricted stock, restricted stock units (“RSUs”) and other stock awards (“Stock Awards”); and performance awards. As of December 31, 2021, the Company has not issued any stock options, SARs or performance awards.
Pursuant to the 2020 Incentive Plan, 9,653,671 shares of Common Stock were initially available for issuance. The number of shares of Common Stock available under the 2020 Incentive Plan may be increased annually on the first day of each calendar year, beginning with the year ended December 31, 2021, and continuing until (and including) the year ending December 31, 2030, with such annual increase equal to the lesser of (i) 2% of the number of shares of stock issued and outstanding on December 31st of the immediately preceding fiscal year and (ii) an amount determined by the Board of Directors. The number of shares of Common Stock that remain available for future grants under the 2020 Incentive Plan shall be reduced by the sum of the aggregate number of shares of Common Stock that become subject to outstanding options, outstanding free-standing SARs, outstanding Stock Awards, and outstanding performance awards denominated in shares of Common Stock, other than substitute awards. As of December 31, 2021, there were 6,454,702 shares available for future grants under the 2020 Incentive Plan.
Directors Compensation: RSUs granted to non-employee directors vest into tax-deferred stock units (“DSUs”) upon the earlier of one year after the grant date and the next annual stockholder meeting. The DSUs are settled as shares of Common Stock of the Company upon the earlier of (i) June 15th of the fifth year after grant, (ii) a change in control of the Company, or (iii) the director’s separation from the Board, unless the director elects to defer settlement until retirement. The Company granted 12,584 and 15,992 shares of RSUs to non-employee directors for the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively.
In December 2020, the Company adopted a director deferred compensation plan (the “2021 Director Deferred Compensation Plan”). Under the 2021 Director Deferred Compensation Plan, non-employee members of the Board may elect to defer their annual cash retainer into DSUs, which vest immediately and are settled in the same manner as the RSUs granted to non-employee directors described above. During the year ended December 31, 2021, the Company granted an additional 5,810 shares of RSUs to non-employee directors under the 2021 Director Deferred Compensation Plan.
Stock Awards: Pursuant to the terms and conditions of certain executive employment agreements, in connection with the consummation of the Business Combination, 2,013,006 shares of restricted stock were issued during the year ended December 31, 2020, of which 200,000 shares immediately vested and the remainder of shares were to vest ratably pursuant the respective employment agreements over the requisite service period of four years.
In addition, we granted 1,026,387 and 386,639 RSUs to employees, during the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively, which, with the exception of 80,350 RSUs granted during the year ended December 31, 2021, that vested immediately, vest ratably in equal installments over the requisite service period of four years. The grant date fair value of our Stock Awards is based on the closing stock price of the Company’s shares of Common Stock on the date of grant.
82


The following table contains information on our Stock Awards:
Number of SharesWeighted-Average Grant Date Fair Value
Nonvested as of January 1, 20212,215,637 $14.54 
Granted1,044,781 $41.24 
Vested(271,828)$22.19 
Forfeited(118,910)$15.12 
Nonvested as of December 31, 20212,869,680 $23.51 
As of December 31, 2021, the unamortized compensation cost not yet recognized related to Stock Awards totaled $48.4 million and the weighted-average period over which the costs are expected to be recognized was 2.3 years. The total fair value of Stock Awards that vested during the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020, was $10.9 million and $2.9 million, respectively.
Stock-Based Compensation Expense: During the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020, the Company recognized $22.9 million and $5.0 million, respectively, of stock-based compensation expense, which is principally included within the Consolidated Statements of Operations in “General and administrative.” The total income tax benefit recognized within the Consolidated Statements of Operations for stock-based compensation arrangements was $3.2 million and $1.3 million for the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively. There was no stock-based compensation expense recognized for the year ended December 31, 2019.
NOTE 16—FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENTS
ASC Topic 820, “Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures” (“ASC 820”), establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes the inputs to valuation techniques used to measure fair value. The hierarchy gives the highest priority to unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities (Level 1 measurements) and the lowest priority to unobservable inputs (Level 3 measurements). The three levels of the fair value hierarchy are described below:
Level 1Unadjusted quoted prices in active markets that are accessible at the measurement date for identical, unrestricted assets or liabilities;
Level 2Quoted prices in markets that are not active, quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities in active markets, quoted prices or inputs that are observable, either directly or indirectly, for substantially the full term of the asset or liability and model-based valuation techniques (e.g. the Black-Scholes model) for which all significant inputs are observable in active markets.
Level 3Prices or valuation techniques that require inputs that are both significant to the fair value measurement and unobservable (supported by little or no market activity).
The Company’s assessment of the significance of a particular input to the fair value measurement requires judgment and may affect the valuation of assets and liabilities and their placement within the fair value hierarchy. The following methods and assumptions are used to estimate the fair value of each class of financial instruments for which it is practicable to estimate. The fair value of the Company’s accounts receivable, accounts payable, short-term debt and accrued liabilities approximates the carrying amounts because of the immediate or short-term maturity of these financial instruments.
Cash, Cash Equivalents and Restricted Cash
The Company’s cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash are classified within Level 1 of the fair value hierarchy. The carrying amounts reported in the Consolidated Balance Sheets approximate the fair value of cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash due to the short-term nature of these assets.
Convertible Notes
The fair value of the Company’s Convertible Notes is estimated based on quoted prices in active markets and is classified as a Level 1 measurement.
83


Offtake Advances
The Company’s Offtake Advances are classified within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy because there are unobservable inputs that follow an imputed interest rate model to calculate the amortization of the embedded debt discount, which is recognized as non-cash interest expense, by estimating the timing of anticipated payments and reductions of the debt principal balance. This model-based valuation technique, for which there are unobservable inputs, was used to estimate the fair value of the liability balance classified within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy.
Equipment Notes
The Company’s equipment notes are classified within Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy because there are inputs that are directly observable for substantially the full term of the liability. Model-based valuation techniques for which all significant inputs are observable in active markets were used to calculate the fair values of liabilities classified within Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy.
As required by ASC 820, assets and liabilities are classified in their entirety based on the lowest level of input that is significant to the fair value measurement. The carrying amounts and estimated fair values by input level of the Company’s financial instruments were as follows:
December 31, 2021
(in thousands)
Carrying
Amount
Fair ValueLevel 1Level 2Level 3
Financial assets:
Cash and cash equivalents$1,179,297 $1,179,297 $1,179,297 $— $— 
Restricted cash$1,860 $1,860 $1,860 $— $— 
Financial liabilities:
Convertible Notes$674,927 $880,026 $880,026 $— $— 
Offtake Advances$16,082 $16,501 $— $— $16,501 
Equipment notes$9,661 $9,737 $— $9,737 $— 
December 31, 2020
(in thousands)
Carrying
Amount
Fair Value
Level 1Level 2Level 3
Financial assets:
Cash and cash equivalents$519,652 $519,652 $519,652 $— $— 
Restricted cash$12,788 $12,788 $12,788 $— $— 
Financial liabilities:
Offtake Advances$66,450 $68,151 $— $— $68,151 
Equipment notes$2,102 $2,077 $— $2,077 $— 
NOTE 17—EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE
Pursuant to the Second Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation and as a result of the Business Combination and reverse recapitalization, the Company has retrospectively adjusted the weighted-average shares outstanding prior to November 17, 2020, to give effect to the exchange ratio used to determine the number of shares of Common Stock into which the MPMO common units and preferred units, which were outstanding prior the Business Combination, converted.
Basic EPS is computed based on the weighted-average number of common shares outstanding during the period. Diluted EPS is based on the weighted-average number of common shares outstanding plus the effect of dilutive potential common shares outstanding during the period using the treasury stock method or the if-converted method, as applicable. During the periods when there is a net loss, potentially dilutive common stock equivalents have been excluded from the calculation of diluted loss per share as their effect is anti-dilutive.
84


For the year ended December 31,
202120202019
Weighted-average shares outstanding, basic173,469,546 79,690,821 66,556,975 
Assumed conversion of Public Warrants2,840,624 — — 
Assumed conversion of Convertible Notes11,997,860 — — 
Assumed conversion of restricted stock1,257,360 — — 
Assumed conversion of restricted stock units278,638 — — 
Weighted-average shares outstanding, diluted189,844,028 79,690,821 66,556,975 
The following table presents the calculation of basic and diluted EPS for the Company’s Common Stock:
For the year ended December 31,
(in thousands, except share and per share data)202120202019
Calculation of basic EPS:
Net income (loss)$135,037 $(21,825)$(6,755)
Weighted-average shares outstanding, basic173,469,546 79,690,821 66,556,975 
Basic EPS$0.78 $(0.27)$(0.10)
Calculation of diluted EPS:
Net income (loss)$135,037 $(21,825)$(6,755)
Interest expense, net of tax(1):
Convertible Notes3,366 — — 
Diluted income (loss)$138,403 $(21,825)$(6,755)
Weighted-average shares outstanding, diluted189,844,028 79,690,821 66,556,975 
Diluted EPS$0.73 $(0.27)$(0.10)
(1)The year ended December 31, 2021, was tax-effected at a rate of 15.7%. As discussed in Note 9, “Debt Obligations,” the Convertible Notes were issued in March 2021; therefore, no adjustment is required for the years ended December 31, 2020 and 2019.
The following potentially dilutive securities have been excluded from the computation of diluted weighted-average shares of common stock outstanding as they would be anti-dilutive:
For the year ended December 31,
202120202019
Public Warrants— 11,499,968 — 
Restricted stock— 1,813,006 — 
RSUs18,322 397,662 — 
Total18,322 13,710,636 — 
NOTE 18—RELATED-PARTY TRANSACTIONS
Product Sales and Cost of Sales: Product sales to Shenghe were $326.6 million, $133.7 million and $73.0 million for the years ended December 31, 2021, 2020 and 2019, respectively, and are discussed in more detail in Note 5, “Revenue Recognition.” Cost of sales, which includes shipping and freight, related to sales made to Shenghe was $76.0 million, $63.3 million and $60.9 million for the years ended December 31, 2021, 2020 and 2019, respectively.
Purchases: The Company purchases reagent products (produced by an unrelated third party manufacturer) used in the flotation process from Shenghe. Purchases for the years ended December 31, 2021, 2020 and 2019, totaled $4.8 million, $2.6 million and $3.2 million, respectively.
Royalty Agreement: In April 2017, MPMO entered into a 30-year mineral lease and license agreement with SNR (the “Royalty Agreement”) under which MPMO paid royalties to SNR in the amount of 2.5% of the gross proceeds from the sale of rare earth products made from ores extracted from the Mountain Pass mine, subject to a minimum non-refundable royalty of $0.5 million per year. Excluding payments of these minimums (which were treated as a reduction to the obligation), royalty
85


expense was $2.4 million and $1.9 million, and the Company paid out $4.3 million and $1.2 million for the years ended December 31, 2020 and 2019, respectively.
At the time of entering into the Royalty Agreement, MPMO and SNR had shareholders common to both entities; however, they were not partners in business nor did they hold any other joint interest. In connection with the Business Combination, MPMO and SNR both became wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Company. Consequently, the intercompany transactions between MPMO and SNR after the date of the SNR Mineral Rights Acquisition and the Business Combination eliminate in consolidation, including the effects of the Royalty Agreement.
Accounts Receivable: As of December 31, 2021 and 2020, $49.9 million and $3.5 million of the accounts receivable, respectively, and as stated on the Consolidated Balance Sheets, were receivable from and pertained to sales made to Shenghe in the ordinary course of business.
Indebtedness: The Company’s related-party debt is described in Note 9, “Debt Obligations.”
NOTE 19—SUPPLEMENTAL CASH FLOW INFORMATION
In addition to the non-cash components of the June 2020 Modification, as discussed in Note 4, “Relationship and Agreements with Shenghe,” and the cash flow information pertaining to lease activity, as presented in Note 10, “Lease Obligations,” other supplemental cash flow information and non-cash investing and financing activities were as follows:
For the year ended December 31,
(in thousands)202120202019
Supplemental cash flow information:
Cash paid for interest$1,204 $3,089 $926 
Cash payment related to income taxes, net$4,172 $255 $
Supplemental non-cash investing and financing activities:
Property, plant and equipment acquired with seller-financed equipment notes$9,407 $1,216 $569 
Property, plant and equipment purchased but not yet paid$14,082 $4,054 $— 
SNR Mineral Rights Acquisition$— $324,125 $— 
Revenue recognized in exchange for debt principal reduction(1)
$54,802 $21,312 $— 
Decrease in estimates of asset retirement costs$8,713 $— $— 
Paycheck Protection Loan forgiveness$3,401 $— $— 
(1)Of the amounts for the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020, $52.8 million and $12.0 million, respectively, pertained to product sales to Shenghe, as discussed in Note 9, “Debt Obligations.” Additionally, $2.0 million pertained to the tariff rebate for the year ended December 31, 2021, and $9.3 million pertained to the tariff rebate and changes in estimates of realized prices of prior period sales for the year ended December 31, 2020, as discussed in Note 5, “Revenue Recognition.”
NOTE 20—SUBSEQUENT EVENTS
In February 2022, we were awarded a $35.0 million contract by the Department of Defense’s Office of Industrial Base Policy to design and build a facility to process heavy rare earth elements (“HREE”). Successful completion of this project will establish the first processing and separation facility of its kind for HREEs in support of commercial and defense applications in the United States. The HREE processing and separations facility will be built at Mountain Pass and tie in with the rest of our Stage II facilities.
In February 2022, the Company entered into a term sheet with Shenghe which provides that once the A&R Offtake Agreement expires, the Company will continue to sell and Shenghe will continue to purchase the Company’s rare earth concentrate under an offtake arrangement. In connection with this term sheet, the Company is currently negotiating a new offtake agreement with Shenghe. As discussed in Note 4, “Relationship and Agreements with Shenghe,” and Note 9, “Debt Obligations,” by the end of the first quarter of 2022, upon full repayment of the Prepaid Balance, which is accounted for as a debt obligation, the A&R Offtake Agreement will terminate.
86

ITEM 9.     CHANGES IN AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH ACCOUNTANTS ON ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE
None.
ITEM 9A.    CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES
Disclosure Controls and Procedures
Under the supervision and with the participation of our management, including our principal executive officer and principal financial and accounting officer, we conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures (as such term is defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”)) as of December 31, 2021. Based on this evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer have concluded that, as of the end of the period covered by this Annual Report on Form 10-K (this “Annual Report”), our disclosure controls and procedures were effective to provide reasonable assurance that information required to be disclosed by us in reports we file or submit under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized, and reported within the time periods specified in SEC rules and forms, and is accumulated and communicated to management, including our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, as appropriate, to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosures.
Management’s Annual Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining a system of internal control over financial reporting as defined in Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) under the Exchange Act. Internal control over financial reporting is designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of our financial reporting and preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Internal control over financial reporting includes maintaining records that in reasonable detail accurately and fairly reflect our transactions; providing reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary for preparation of our financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America; providing reasonable assurance that our receipts and expenditures are made in accordance with authorizations of our management and directors; and providing reasonable assurance that unauthorized acquisition, use or disposition of our assets that could have a material effect on our financial statements would be prevented or detected on a timely basis.
Management conducted an assessment of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting based on the framework set forth by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission in the Internal Control— Integrated Framework (2013). Based on this assessment, our management concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2021, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and preparation of financial statements for external reporting purposes in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
Attestation Report of the Registered Public Accounting Firm
The effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2021, has been audited by KPMG LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, as stated in their report which is included in Part II, Item 8 of this Annual Report.
Changes in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
During the fourth quarter of the year ended December 31, 2021, there were no changes in our internal control over financing reporting (as defined in Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) under the Exchange Act) that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect our internal control over financing reporting.
ITEM 9B.    OTHER INFORMATION
None.
ITEM 9C.    DISCLOSURE REGARDING FOREIGN JURISDICTIONS THAT PREVENT INSPECTIONS
Not applicable.

87

Table of Contents

PART III
ITEM 10.    DIRECTORS, EXECUTIVE OFFICERS AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
The remaining information required by this item concerning directors and corporate governance is hereby incorporated by reference to the Company’s definitive proxy statement for its Annual Meeting of Shareholders (the “2022 Proxy Statement”), to be filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission within 120 days after December 31, 2021, pursuant to Regulation 14A under the Securities Act. Information required by this item concerning executive officers is included in Part I of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
ITEM 11.    EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
The information required by this item is hereby incorporated by reference to the 2022 Proxy Statement.
ITEM 12.    SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT AND RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS
The information required by this item is hereby incorporated by reference to the 2022 Proxy Statement.
ITEM 13.    CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS, AND DIRECTOR INDEPENDENCE
The information required by this item is hereby incorporated by reference to the 2022 Proxy Statement.
ITEM 14.    PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT FEES AND SERVICES
The information required by this item is hereby incorporated by reference to the 2022 Proxy Statement.
PART IV
ITEM 15.    EXHIBIT AND FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULES
(a)    The following documents are filed as part of this Annual Report:
(1)Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
Auditor Name: KPMG LLP
Auditor Location: Denver, CO
Auditor Firm ID: 185
Financial Statements (see Item 8. “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data” and incorporated herein by reference).
(2)Financial Statement Schedules (Schedules to the Financial Statements have been omitted because the information required to be set forth therein is not applicable or is shown in the accompanying Financial Statements or notes thereto).
(3)Exhibits (incorporated herein by reference or filed as part of this Annual Report).
Exh. No.Description
2.1
2.2
3.1
88

Table of Contents

Exh. No.Description
3.2
4.1*
4.2
4.3
10.1
10.2
10.3
10.4†
10.5
10.6†
10.7†
10.8†
10.9†
10.10†
10.11†
10.12†
10.13†
10.14†
89

Table of Contents

Exh. No.Description
10.15†*
10.16+
10.17†
16.1
21.1*
23.1*
23.2*
23.3*
23.4*
24.1*
31.1*
31.2*
32.1**
32.2**
95.1*
96.1*
101.INSInline XBRL Instance Document - the instance document does not appear in the Interactive Data File because its XBRL tags are embedded within the Inline XBRL document.
101.SCHInline XBRL Taxonomy Extension Schema Document.
101.CALInline XBRL Taxonomy Extension Calculation Linkbase Document.
101.DEFInline XBRL Taxonomy Extension Definition Linkbase Document.
101.LABInline XBRL Taxonomy Extension Label Linkbase Document.
101.PREInline XBRL Taxonomy Extension Presentation Linkbase Document.
104Cover Page Inline XBRL File (included in Exhibit 101).
*Filed herewith.
**Furnished herewith.
Indicates a management contract or compensatory plan or arrangement.
+
Certain portions of this exhibit (indicated by “[***]”) have been omitted pursuant to Regulation S-K, Item (601)(b)(10).
ITEM 16.    FORM 10-K SUMMARY
Not applicable.
90

Table of Contents

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.
MP MATERIALS CORP.
Dated:February 28, 2022By:/s/ Ryan Corbett
Ryan Corbett
Chief Financial Officer
POWER OF ATTORNEY AND SIGNATURES
We, the undersigned officers and directors of MP Materials Corp. hereby severally constitute and appoint James H. Litinsky and Ryan Corbett, and each of them singly (with full power to each of them to act alone), our true and lawful attorneys-in-fact and agents, with full power of substitution and resubstitution in each of them for her or him and in her or his name, place and stead, and in any and all capacities, to sign any and all amendments to this Annual Report on Form 10‑K, and generally to do all things in our names and on our behalf in such capacities to enable MP Materials Corp. to comply with the provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and all the requirements of the Securities Exchange Commission.
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, 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 H. Litinsky
Chief Executive Officer (principal executive officer), Chairman of the Board of Directors and DirectorFebruary 28, 2022
James H. Litinsky
/s/ Ryan CorbettChief Financial Officer (principal financial and accounting officer)February 28, 2022
Ryan Corbett
/s/ Gen. Richard B. Myers
DirectorFebruary 28, 2022
Gen. Richard B. Myers
/s/ Andrew A. McKnight
DirectorFebruary 28, 2022
Andrew A. McKnight
/s/ Daniel Gold
DirectorFebruary 28, 2022
Daniel Gold
/s/ Randall Weisenburger
DirectorFebruary 28, 2022
Randall Weisenburger
/s/ Maryanne R. Lavan
DirectorFebruary 28, 2022
Maryanne R. Lavan
/s/ Connie K. Duckworth
DirectorFebruary 28, 2022
Connie K. Duckworth
91

Exhibit 4.1

DESCRIPTION OF THE REGISTRANT’S SECURITIES REGISTERED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 12 OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED
General
The common stock to purchase common stock of MP Materials Corp. (the “Company”) are registered under Section 12(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”).
The following summary is not intended to be a complete discussion of the rights of the holders of the Company’s common stock and is qualified in its entirety by reference to the Delaware General Corporation Law and the various documents of the Company that is referred to in this summary, as well as reference to the Second Amended and Restated Charter and Amended and Restated Bylaws, each of which is incorporated by reference as an exhibit to our Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission of which this exhibit is a part (the “Annual Report”).
Capitalized terms used herein and not defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to such terms in the Annual Report.
Authorized Capital Stock
The Second Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation authorizes the issuance of 500,000,000 shares of capital stock, consisting of (i) 450,000,000 shares of common stock, consisting entirely of 450,000,000 shares of common stock, $0.0001 par value per share (the “Common Stock”) and (ii) 50,000,000 shares of preferred stock, par value $0.0001 per share.
As of December 31, 2021, there were 177,816,554 shares of Common Stock outstanding. No shares of preferred stock are outstanding.

Common Stock
Voting Power
Except as otherwise required by law or as otherwise provided in any certificate of designation for any series of preferred stock, under the Second Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation, the holders of Common Stock possess all voting power for the election of our directors and all other matters requiring stockholder action and are entitled or will be entitled, as applicable, to one vote per share on matters to be voted on by stockholders.
Dividends
Subject to the rights, if any of the holders of any outstanding shares of preferred stock, under the Second Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation, holders of the Common Stock are entitled to receive such dividends and other distributions, if any, as may be declared from time to time by the our Board in its discretion out of funds legally available therefor and shall share equally on a per share basis in such dividends and distributions.
Liquidation, Dissolution and Winding Up
The Second Amended and Restated Charter provides that subject to applicable law and the rights, if any, of the holders of any outstanding series of the preferred stock, in the event of any voluntary or involuntary liquidation, dissolution or winding up of the Company, after payment or provision for payment of the debts and other liabilities of the Company, the holders of shares of Common Stock will be entitled to share ratably in all the remaining assets of the Company available for distribution to its stockholders.
Preemptive or Other Rights
Under the Second Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation, the Company’s stockholders have no preemptive or other subscription rights and there is no sinking fund or redemption provisions applicable to the Common Stock.
Number and Election of Directors
Under the terms of the Second Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation, the Company’s Board is divided into three classes, Class I, Class II and Class III, with only one class of directors being elected in each year and each class (except for those directors appointed to Class I and Class II) serving a three-year term. The term of office of the Class II directors will expire at the 2022 annual meeting of the stockholders of the Company. The term of office of the Class III directors will expire
1



at the 2023 annual meeting of the stockholders of the Company. The term of office of the Class I directors will expire at the 2024 annual meeting of the stockholders of the Company.
Under the Second Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation, there is no cumulative voting with respect to the election of directors, and directors of the Company are elected by a plurality of the votes cast at a meeting of the Company’s stockholders by holders of Common Stock.
Preferred Stock
Our Second Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation provides that shares of preferred stock may be issued from time to time in one or more series. Our Board is authorized to fix the voting rights, if any, designations, powers, preferences and relative, participating, optional, special and other rights, if any, and any qualifications, limitations and restrictions thereof, applicable to the shares of each series. Our Board is able, without stockholder approval, to issue preferred stock with voting and other rights that could adversely affect the voting power and other rights of the holders of the Common Stock and could have anti-takeover effects. The ability of our Board to issue preferred stock without stockholder approval could have the effect of delaying, deferring or preventing a change of control of us or the removal of existing management. We have no preferred stock outstanding at the date hereof. Although we do not currently intend to issue any shares of preferred stock, we cannot assure you that we will not do so in the future.
Certain Anti-Takeover Provisions of Delaware Law, the Company’s Certificate of Incorporation and Bylaws
Provisions of the DGCL and our Second Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation and Amended and Restated Bylaws could make it more difficult to acquire the Company by means of a tender offer, a proxy contest or otherwise, or to remove incumbent officers and directors. These provisions, summarized below, are intended to discourage coercive takeover practices and inadequate takeover bids and to encourage persons seeking to acquire control the Company to first negotiate with the board of directors. We believe that the benefits of these provisions outweigh the disadvantages of discouraging certain takeover or acquisition proposals because, among other things, negotiation of these proposals could result in an improvement of their terms and enhance the ability of the Company’s Board to maximize stockholder value. However, these provisions may delay, deter or prevent a merger or acquisition of us that a stockholder might consider is in its best interest, including those attempts that might result in a premium over the prevailing market price of tour Common Stock.
Business Combinations
The Company has opted out of Section 203 of the DGCL; however, the Second Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation contains provisions that are substantially similar to Section 203 of the DGCL. These provisions prevent the Company, under certain circumstances, from engaging in a “business combination” with (i) a stockholder who owns fifteen percent (15%) or more of our outstanding voting stock (otherwise known as an “interested stockholder”); (ii) an affiliate of an interested stockholder; or (iii) an associate of an interested stockholder, in each case, for three years following the date that such stockholder became an interested stockholder.
A “business combination” includes a merger or sale of more than 10% of our assets. However, the above provisions do not apply if:
the Company’s Board approves the transaction that made the stockholder an “interested stockholder,” prior to the date of the transaction;
after the completion of the transaction that resulted in the stockholder becoming an interested stockholder, that stockholder owned at least 85% of our voting stock outstanding at the time the transaction commenced, other than certain excluded shares of Common Stock; or
on or subsequent to the date of the transaction, the business combination is approved by the Company’s Board and authorized at a meeting of our stockholders, and not by written consent, by an affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of the outstanding voting stock not owned by the interested stockholder.
In addition, our Second Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation provide for certain other provisions that may have an anti-takeover effect:
There is no cumulative voting with respect to the election of directors.
Our Board is empowered to elect a director to fill a vacancy created by the expansion of the board of directors or the
2



resignation, death, or removal of a director in certain circumstances.
Directors may only be removed from the board of directors for cause.
A prohibition on stockholder action by written consent, which forces stockholder action to be taken at an annual or special meeting of our stockholders.
A prohibition on stockholders calling a special meeting and the requirement that a meeting of the stockholders may only be called by members of our Board, by our Chief Executive Officer or by our Chairman, which may delay the ability of our stockholders to force consideration of a proposal or to take action, including the removal of directors.
Our authorized but unissued Common Stock and preferred stock are available for future issuances without stockholder approval and could be utilized for a variety of corporate purposes, including future offerings to raise additional capital, acquisitions and employee benefit plans. The existence of authorized but unissued and unreserved Common Stock and preferred stock could render more difficult or discourage an attempt to obtain control of us by means of a proxy contest, tender offer, merger or otherwise.
Classified Board:
Under the terms of the Second Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation, the Company’s Board is divided into three classes, Class I, Class II and Class III, with only one class of directors being elected in each year and each class (except for those directors appointed to Class I and Class II) serving a three-year term. The term of office of the Class II directors will expire at the 2022 annual meeting of the stockholders of the Company. The term of office of the Class III directors will expire at the 2023 annual meeting of the stockholders of the Company. The term of office of the Class I directors will expire at the 2024 annual meeting of the stockholders of the Company. Members of the Company’s Board will be elected by a plurality of the votes cast at each annual meeting of the stockholders of the Company. Directors will be elected by a plurality of the votes cast at a meeting of the stockholders by holders of our Common Stock. So long as the Company’s Board is classified, it would take at least two elections of directors for any individual or group to gain control of the Company’s Board. Accordingly, while the classified board is in effect, these provisions could discourage a third party from initiating a proxy contest, making a tender offer or otherwise attempting to gain control of the Company.
Advance notice requirements for stockholder proposals and director nominations
Our Amended and Restated Bylaws provide that stockholders seeking to bring business before the annual meeting of the stockholders, or to nominate candidates for election as directors at the annual meeting of the stockholders of the Company must provide timely notice of their intent in writing. To be timely, a stockholder’s notice will need to be received by the company secretary at our principal executive offices not later than the close of business on the 90th nor earlier than the close of business on the 120th day prior to the anniversary date of the immediately preceding annual meeting of the stockholders. Pursuant to Rule 14a-8 of the Exchange Act, proposals seeking inclusion in our annual proxy statement must comply with the notice periods contained therein. Our Amended and Restated Bylaws also specify certain requirements as to the form and content of a stockholders’ meeting. These provisions may preclude the stockholders of the Company from bringing matters before our annual meeting of the stockholders or from making nominations for directors at our annual meeting of the stockholders.
Exclusive Forum
The Second Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation provides that unless the Company consents to the selection of an alternative forum, any (1) derivative action or proceeding brought on behalf of the Company, (2) action asserting a claim of breach of a fiduciary duty owed by any director, officer, stockholder or employee to the Company or its stockholders, (3) action asserting a claim arising pursuant to any provision of the DGCL or the Second Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation or the Amended and Restated Bylaws or (4) action asserting a claim governed by the internal affairs doctrine shall, to the fullest extent permitted by law, be exclusively brought in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware or, if such court does not have subject matter jurisdiction thereof, another state or federal court located within the State of Delaware. Additionally, the Second Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation will also provide that, to the fullest extent permitted by law, the federal district courts of the United States of America will be the exclusive forum for resolving any complaint asserting a cause of action arising under the United States federal securities laws, including the Securities Act and the Exchange Act. Any person or entity purchasing or otherwise acquiring any interest in shares of capital stock of the Company shall be deemed to have notice of and consented to the forum provisions in the Second Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation; however, there is uncertainty as to whether a court would enforce such an exclusive forum provision with respect to claims under the Securities Act. Additionally, investors cannot waive the Company’s compliance with federal securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder.
3
Exhibit 10.15
MP MATERIALS CORP.
2020 Stock Incentive Plan
Restricted Stock Unit Award Agreement
MP Materials Corp., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), hereby grants to [________] (the “Holder”) as of [DATE] (the “Grant Date”), pursuant to the provisions of the MP Materials Corp. 2020 Stock Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), a restricted stock unit award (the “Award”) with respect to [________] shares of the Company’s Common Stock, par value $0.0001 per share (“Stock”), upon and subject to the restrictions, terms and conditions set forth in the Plan and this agreement (the “Agreement”). Capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the meanings specified in the Plan.
1.Award Subject to Acceptance of Agreement. The Award shall be null and void unless the Holder accepts this Agreement by executing it in the space provided therefor and returning an original execution copy to the Company (or electronically accepts this Agreement within the Holder’s stock plan account with the Company’s stock plan administrator according to the procedures then in effect, which electronic acceptance shall constitute the Holder’s electronic signature for all purposes of this Agreement). By executing (manually or electronically) this Agreement, the Holder (a) agrees to abide by all administrative procedures established by the Company or its stock plan administrator, including any procedures requiring the Holder to notify the Company of any proposed sale of any Stock acquired upon the vesting of this Award, (b) agrees that this Award is granted under and governed by the terms and conditions of the Plan, this Agreement, and the applicable provisions (if any) contained in a written agreement between the Holder and any member of the Company Group (an “Employment Agreement”), and (c) hereby agrees to accept as binding, conclusive and final all decisions or interpretations of the Committee on questions relating to the Plan, this Award, and, solely in so far as they relate to this Award, the applicable provisions (if any) contained in an Employment Agreement, if applicable.
2.No Rights as a Stockholder. The Holder shall not be entitled to any privileges of ownership with respect to the shares of Stock subject to the Award unless and until, and only to the extent, such shares become vested pursuant to Section 3 hereof and the Holder becomes a stockholder of record with respect to such shares.
3.Restriction Period and Vesting.
3.1.    Service-Based Vesting Condition. Except as otherwise provided in the Plan or the applicable provisions (if any) contained in an Employment Agreement, if applicable, the Award shall vest in 25% annual increments on the one-year, two-year, three-year and four-year anniversary of the Grant Date (each such anniversary, a “Vesting Date”); provided that you are, and have been, continuously (except for any absence for vacation, leave, etc. in accordance with the Company's or its Subsidiaries' policies): (a) employed by the Company or any of its Subsidiaries; (b) serving as a Non-Employee Director or (c) providing services to the Company or any of its Subsidiaries as an advisor or consultant (employment or the provision of services pursuant to clauses (a) through (c), as applicable “Service”), in each case, from the date of this



Agreement through and including the applicable Vesting Date. The period of time prior to the vesting shall be referred to herein as the “Restriction Period.”
3.2.    Termination Prior to the Expiration of the Restriction Period. If the Holder’s Service terminates prior to the end of the Restriction Period for any reason other than the Holder’s death or Disability, then the portion of the Award that was not vested immediately prior to such termination of Service shall be immediately forfeited by the Holder and cancelled by the Company, subject to the applicable provisions (if any) contained in an Employment Agreement, if applicable.
3.3.    Change in Control. In the event of a Change in Control, the Award shall be subject to Section 5.8 of the Plan, subject to the applicable provisions (if any) contained in an Employment Agreement, if applicable.
3.4.    Death or Disability. Subject to the applicable provisions (if any) contained in an Employment Agreement, if applicable, (i) if the Holder’s Service terminates prior to the end of the Restriction Period due to the Holder’s death or Disability (as defined herein), the Award shall fully vest as of the date of such termination of Service and (ii) for purposes of this Award, “Disability” shall mean the Holder’s absence from the Holder’s duties with the Company on a full-time basis for at least 180 consecutive days as a result of the Holder’s incapacity due to physical or mental illness.
4.Issuance or Delivery of Shares. As soon as practicable (but no later than thirty (30) days) after the vesting of the Award, the Company shall issue or deliver to the Holder, subject to the conditions of this Agreement, the shares of Stock related to the portion of the Award that has vested. Such issuance or delivery shall be evidenced by the appropriate entry on the books of the Company or of a duly authorized transfer agent of the Company. The Company shall pay all original issue or transfer taxes and all fees and expenses incident to such issuance or delivery, except as otherwise provided in Section 8. Prior to the issuance to the Holder of the shares of Stock subject to the Award, the Holder shall have no direct or secured claim in any specific assets of the Company or in such shares of Stock, and will have only the status of a general unsecured creditor of the Company.
5.Transfer Restrictions and Investment Representation.
5.1.    Nontransferability of Award. During the Restriction Period, the Award may not be offered, sold, transferred, assigned, pledged, hypothecated, encumbered or otherwise disposed of (whether by operation of law or otherwise) by the Holder or be subject to execution, attachment or similar process other than by will, the laws of descent and distribution or pursuant to beneficiary designation procedures approved by the Company. Any attempt to so sell, transfer, assign, pledge, hypothecate, encumber or otherwise dispose of such shares shall be null and void.
5.2.    Investment Representation. The Holder hereby represents and covenants that (a) any share of Stock acquired upon the vesting of the Award will be acquired for investment and not with a view to the distribution thereof within the meaning of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), unless such acquisition has been registered under the Securities Act and any applicable state securities laws; (b) any subsequent sale of any such



shares shall be made either pursuant to an effective registration statement under the Securities Act and any applicable state securities laws, or pursuant to an exemption from registration under the Securities Act and such state securities laws; and (c) if requested by the Company, the Holder shall submit a written statement, in form satisfactory to the Company, to the effect that such representation (x) is true and correct as of the date of vesting of any shares of Stock hereunder or (y) is true and correct as of the date of any sale of any such share, as applicable. As a further condition precedent to the delivery to the Holder of any shares of Stock subject to the Award, the Holder shall comply with all regulations and requirements of any regulatory authority having control of or supervision over the issuance or delivery of the shares of Stock and, in connection therewith, shall execute any documents which the Board shall in its sole discretion deem necessary or advisable.
6.Restrictive Covenants.
6.1.    General. Holder acknowledges and recognizes the highly competitive nature of the business of the Company together with any of its direct or indirect subsidiaries (collectively, the “Company Group”), that access to Confidential Information renders Holder special and unique within the industry of the Company Group, and that Holder will have the opportunity to develop substantial relationships with existing and prospective clients, accounts, customers, consultants, contractors, investors, and strategic partners of the Company Group during the course of and as a result of Holder’s employment with the Company Group. In light of the foregoing, as a condition of the Award, Holder acknowledges and agrees to the covenants contained in this Section 6. Holder further recognizes and acknowledges that the restrictions and limitations set forth in this Section 6 are reasonable and valid in temporal scope and in all other respects and are essential to protect the value of the business and assets of the Company Group.
6.2.    Confidential Information. Holder acknowledges that, during Holder’s employment with the Company Group, Holder will have access to information about the Company Group and that Holder’s employment with the Company Group shall bring Holder into close contact with confidential and proprietary information of the Company Group. In recognition of the foregoing, Holder agrees, at all times during the Holder’s employment with the Company Group and thereafter, to hold in confidence, and not to use, except for the benefit of the Company Group, or to disclose to any Person without written authorization of the Company, any Confidential Information. Nothing in this Agreement shall prohibit or impede Holder from communicating, cooperating or filing a complaint with any U.S. federal, state or local governmental or law enforcement branch, agency or entity (collectively, a “Governmental Entity”) with respect to possible violations of any U.S. federal, state or local law or regulation, or otherwise making disclosures to any Governmental Entity, in each case, that are protected under the whistleblower provisions of any such law or regulation, provided that in each case such communications and disclosures are consistent with applicable law. Holder understands and acknowledges that an individual shall not be held criminally or civilly liable under any Federal or State trade secret law for the disclosure of a trade secret that is made (a) in confidence to a Federal, State, or local government official or to an attorney solely for the purpose of reporting or investigating a suspected violation of law, or (b) in a complaint or other document filed in a lawsuit or other proceeding, if such filing is made under seal. Holder understands and acknowledges further that an individual who files a lawsuit for retaliation by an employer for



reporting a suspected violation of law may disclose the trade secret to the attorney of the individual and use the trade secret information in the court proceeding, if the individual files any document containing the trade secret under seal; and does not disclose the trade secret, except pursuant to court order. Moreover, Holder is not required to give prior notice to (or get prior authorization from) the Company regarding any such communication or disclosure. Notwithstanding the foregoing, under no circumstance will Holder be authorized to disclose any information covered by attorney-client privilege or attorney work product of any member of the Company Group without prior written consent of Company’s General Counsel or other officer designated by the Company. Holder does not need the prior authorization of (or to give notice to) any member of the Company Group regarding any communication, disclosure, or activity permitted by this paragraph.
6.3.    Assignment of Intellectual Property.
(a)    Holder agrees that Holder will, without additional compensation, promptly make full written disclosure to the Company, and will hold in trust for the sole right and benefit of the Company all developments, original works of authorship, inventions, concepts, know-how, improvements, trade secrets, and similar proprietary rights, whether or not patentable or registrable under copyright or similar laws, which Holder may (or have previously) solely or jointly conceive or develop or reduce to practice, or cause to be conceived or developed or reduced to practice, during Holder’s employment with the Company Group, whether or not during regular working hours, provided they either (i) relate at the time of conception or reduction to practice of the invention to the business of any member of the Company Group, or actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development of any member of the Company Group; (ii) result from or relate to any work performed for any member of the Company Group; or (iii) are developed through the use of equipment, supplies, or facilities of any member of the Company Group, or any Confidential Information, or in consultation with personnel of any member of the Company Group (collectively referred to as “Developments”). Holder further acknowledges that all Developments made by Holder (solely or jointly with others) within the scope of Holder’s employment with the Company Group are “works made for hire” (to the greatest extent permitted by applicable law) for which Holder is, in part, compensated by Holder’s base salary, unless regulated otherwise by law, but that, in the event any such Development is deemed not to be a work made for hire, Holder hereby assigns to the Company, or its designee, all Holder’s right, title, and interest throughout the world in and to any such Development.
(b)    Holder agrees to assist the Company, or its designee, at the Company’s expense, in every way to secure the rights of the Company Group in the Developments and any copyrights, patents, trademarks, service marks, database rights, domain names, mask work rights, moral rights, and other intellectual property rights relating thereto in any and all countries, including the disclosure to the Company of all pertinent information and data with respect thereto, the execution of all applications, specifications, oaths, assignments, recordations, and all other instruments that the Company shall deem necessary in order to apply for, obtain, maintain, and transfer such rights and in order to assign and convey to the Company Group the sole and exclusive right, title, and interest in and to such Developments, and any intellectual property and other proprietary rights relating thereto. Holder further agrees that Holder’s obligation to execute



or cause to be executed, when it is in Holder’s power to do so, any such instrument or papers shall continue after the termination of the term of Holder’s employment with the Company Group until the expiration of the last such intellectual property right to expire in any country of the world; provided, however, that the Company shall reimburse Holder for Holder’s reasonable expenses incurred in connection with carrying out the foregoing obligation. If the Company is unable because of Holder’s mental or physical incapacity or unavailability for any other reason to secure Holder’s signature to apply for or to pursue any application for any United States or foreign patents or copyright registrations covering Developments or original works of authorship assigned to the Company as above, then Holder hereby irrevocably designates and appoints the Company and its duly authorized officers and agents as Holder’s agent and attorney in fact to act for and in Holder’s behalf and stead to execute and file any such applications or records and to do all other lawfully permitted acts to further the application for, prosecution, issuance, maintenance, and transfer of letters patent or registrations thereon with the same legal force and effect as if originally executed by me. Holder hereby waives and irrevocably quitclaims to the Company any and all claims, of any nature whatsoever, that Holder now or hereafter have for past, present, or future infringement of any and all proprietary rights assigned to the Company.
(c)    Non-Interference. During Holder’s employment with the Company Group, Holder shall not, directly or indirectly for Holder’s own account or for the account of any other Person, engage in Interfering Activities.
6.4.    Return of Documents. In the event of Holder’s termination of employment from the Company Group for any reason, Holder shall deliver to the Company (and will not keep in Holder’s possession, recreate, or deliver to anyone else) any and all Confidential Information and all other documents, materials, information, and property developed by Holder pursuant to Holder’s employment with the Company Group or otherwise belonging to the Company Group.
6.5.    Independence; Severability; Blue Pencil. Each of the rights enumerated in this Section 6 shall be independent of the others and shall be in addition to and not in lieu of any other rights and remedies available to the Company Group at law or in equity. If any of the provisions of this Section 6 or any part of any of them is hereafter construed or adjudicated to be invalid or unenforceable, the same shall not affect the remainder of this Section 6, which shall be given full effect without regard to the invalid portions. If any of the covenants contained herein are held to be invalid or unenforceable because of the duration of such provision or scope covered thereby, each of the Company and Holder agree that the court making such determination shall have the power to reduce the duration or scope of such provision to the maximum and/or broadest duration or scope permissible by law, and in its reduced form said provision shall then be enforceable.
6.6.    Remedies.
(a)    Injunctive Relief. Holder expressly acknowledges that any breach or threatened breach of any of the terms and/or conditions set forth in this Section 6 may result in substantial, continuing, and irreparable injury to the members of the Company Group. Therefore, Holder hereby agrees that, in addition to any other remedy that may be available to the Company, any member of the Company Group shall be entitled to seek injunctive relief, specific



performance, or other equitable relief by a court of appropriate jurisdiction in the event of any breach or threatened breach of the terms of this Section 6. Notwithstanding any other provision to the contrary, Holder acknowledges and agrees that the term of any period of violation of any of the covenants set forth in this Section 6 shall be tolled during any period of violation of any of the covenants in this Section 6. Notwithstanding any other provisions to the contrary, Holder acknowledges and agrees that the term of any period of violation of any of the covenants of this Section 6 shall be tolled during any period of violation of any of the covenants in this Section 6 and during any other period required for litigation during which the Company or any other member of the Company Group seeks to enforce such covenants against Holder if it is ultimately determined that Holder was in breach of such covenants.
(b)    Clawback of Proceeds. If the Holder materially violates this Agreement: (i) the Award shall be forfeited and (ii) the Holder shall immediately remit a cash payment to the Company equal to (x) the Fair Market Value of a share of Stock on the date on which the Company first became aware of such violation, multiplied by (y) the number of shares of Stock that became vested and delivered pursuant to Sections 3 and 4 of this Agreement. The remedy provided by this Section 6 shall be in addition to and not in lieu of any rights or remedies which the Company may have against the Holder in respect of a breach by the Holder of any duty or obligation to the Company.
(c)    Right of Setoff. The Holder agrees that by accepting the Agreement the Holder authorizes the Company and its affiliates to deduct any amount or amounts owed by the Holder pursuant to this Section 6 from any amounts payable by or on behalf of the Company or any affiliate to the Holder, including, without limitation, any amount payable to the Holder as salary, wages, vacation pay, bonus or the settlement of the Award or any stock-based award. This right of setoff shall not be an exclusive remedy and the Company’s or an affiliate’s election not to exercise this right of setoff with respect to any amount payable to the Holder shall not constitute a waiver of this right of setoff with respect to any other amount payable to the Holder or any other remedy.
6.7.    Disclosure of Covenants. As long as it remains in effect, Holder will disclose the existence of the covenants contained in this Section 6 to any prospective employer, partner, co-venturer, investor, or lender prior to entering into an employment, partnership, or other business relationship with such Person or entity.
6.8.    Other Covenants. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Agreement to the contrary, in the event that Holder is subject to similar restrictive covenants pursuant to any other agreement with any member of the Company Group (“Other Covenants”), the covenants contained in this Agreement shall be in addition to, and not in lieu of, any such Other Covenants, and enforcement by the Company of the covenants contained in this Agreement shall not preclude the applicable member of the Company Group from enforcing such Other Covenants in accordance with their terms.



6.9.    Definitions.
(a)     “Business” shall mean any business activities related to rare earth mining and processing, or any other current or demonstrably planned business activities of the Company Group associated with rare earth mining or processing.
(b)    “Business Relation” shall mean any current or prospective client, customer, licensee, supplier, or other business relation of the Company Group, or any such relation that was a client, customer, licensee or other business relation within the prior six- (6-) month period, in each case, with whom Holder transacted business or whose identity became known to Holder in connection with Holder’s employment with the Company Group.
(c)    “Confidential Information” means information that the Company Group has or will develop, acquire, create, compile, discover, or own, that has value in or to the business of the Company Group that is not generally known and that the Company wishes to maintain as confidential. Confidential Information includes, but is not limited to, any and all non-public information that relates to the actual or anticipated business and/or products, research, or development of the Company Group, or to the Company Group’s technical data, trade secrets, or know-how, including, but not limited to, research, plans, or other information regarding the Company Group’s products or services and markets, customer lists, and customers (including, but not limited to, customers of the Company on whom Holder called or with whom Holder may become acquainted during the term of Holder’s employment with the Company Group), software, developments, inventions, processes, formulas, technology, designs, drawings, engineering, hardware configuration information, marketing, finances, and other business information disclosed by the Company either directly or indirectly in writing, orally, or by drawings or inspection of premises, parts, equipment, or other Company Group property. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Confidential Information shall not include any of the foregoing items that have become publicly and widely known through no unauthorized disclosure by Holder or others who were under confidentiality obligations as to the item or items involved.
(d)    “Interfering Activities” shall mean (i) recruiting, encouraging, soliciting, or inducing, or in any manner attempting to recruit, encourage, solicit, or induce, any Person employed by, or providing consulting services to, any member of the Company Group to terminate such Person’s employment or services (or in the case of a consultant, materially reducing such services) with the Company Group, (B) hiring any individual who was employed by the Company Group within the six (6) month period prior to the date of such hiring, or (C) encouraging, soliciting, or inducing, or in any manner attempting to encourage, solicit, or induce, any Business Relation to cease doing business with or reduce the amount of business conducted with the Company Group, or in any way interfering with the relationship between any such Business Relation and the Company Group.
(e)    “Person” shall mean any individual, corporation, partnership, limited liability company, joint venture, association, joint‑stock company, trust (charitable or non-charitable), unincorporated organization, or other form of business entity.
7.Additional Terms and Conditions of Award.



7.1.    Withholding Taxes.
(a)    As a condition precedent to the issuance or delivery of the Stock upon the vesting of the Award, the Holder shall, upon request by the Company, pay to the Company such amount as the Company may be required, under all applicable federal, state, local or other laws or regulations, to withhold and pay over as income or other withholding taxes (the “Required Tax Payments”) with respect to the Award. If the Holder shall fail to advance the Required Tax Payments after request by the Company, the Company may, in its discretion, deduct any Required Tax Payments from any amount then or thereafter payable by the Company to the Holder.
(b)    The Holder may elect to satisfy his or her obligation to advance the Required Tax Payments by any of the following means: (1) a cash payment to the Company; (2) if permitted by the Company, delivery to the Company (either actual delivery or by attestation procedures established by the Company) of previously owned whole shares of Stock having an aggregate Fair Market Value, determined as of the date on which such withholding obligation arises (the “Tax Date”), equal to the Required Tax Payments; (3) if permitted by the Company, authorizing the Company to withhold whole shares of Stock which would otherwise be delivered to the Holder having an aggregate Fair Market Value, determined as of the Tax Date, equal to the Required Tax Payments; (4) to the extent permitted by applicable law, a cash payment by a broker-dealer acceptable to the Company to whom the participant has submitted an irrevocable notice of same-day sale or (5) any combination of (1), (2), (3) and (4). Shares of Stock to be delivered or withheld may not have a Fair Market Value in excess of the minimum amount of the Required Tax Payments (or such higher withholding amount permitted by the Committee). Any fraction of a share of Stock which would be required to satisfy any such obligation shall be disregarded and the remaining amount due shall be paid in cash by the Holder. No share of Stock or certificate representing a share of Stock shall be delivered until the Required Tax Payments have been satisfied in full. Any determination by the Company with respect to the tendering or withholding of shares of Stock to satisfy the Required Tax Payments shall be made by the Committee if the Holder is subject to Section 16 of the Exchange Act.
7.2.    Adjustment. In the event of any equity restructuring (within the meaning of Financial Accounting Standards Board Accounting Standards Codification Topic 718, Compensation—Stock Compensation) that causes the per share value of shares of Stock to change, such as a stock dividend, stock split, spinoff, rights offering or recapitalization through an extraordinary dividend, the terms of this Award, including the number and class of securities subject hereto, shall be appropriately adjusted by the Committee. In the event of any other change in corporate capitalization, including a merger, consolidation, reorganization, or partial or complete liquidation of the Company, such equitable adjustments described in the foregoing sentence may be made as determined to be appropriate and equitable by the Committee to prevent dilution or enlargement of rights of the Holder. The decision of the Committee regarding any such adjustment shall be final, binding and conclusive.
7.3.    Compliance with Applicable Law. The Award is subject to the condition that if the listing, registration or qualification of the shares of Stock subject to the Award upon any securities exchange or under any law, or the consent or approval of any governmental body, or



the taking of any other action is necessary or desirable as a condition of, or in connection with, the vesting or delivery of shares hereunder, the shares of Stock subject to the Award shall not vest or be delivered, in whole or in part, unless such listing, registration, qualification, consent, approval or other action shall have been effected or obtained, free of any conditions not acceptable to the Company. The Company agrees to use reasonable efforts to effect or obtain any such listing, registration, qualification, consent, approval or other action.
7.4.    Award Confers No Rights to Continued Employment. In no event shall the granting of the Award or its acceptance by the Holder, or any provision of the Agreement or the Plan, give or be deemed to give the Holder any right to continued employment by the Company, any Subsidiary or any affiliate of the Company or affect in any manner the right of the Company, any Subsidiary or any affiliate of the Company to terminate the employment of any person at any time.
7.5.    Decisions of Board or Committee. The Board or the Committee shall have the right to resolve all questions which may arise in connection with the Award. Any interpretation, determination or other action made or taken by the Board or the Committee regarding the Plan or this Agreement shall be final, binding and conclusive.
7.6.    Successors. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of any successor or successors of the Company and any person or persons who shall, upon the death of the Holder, acquire any rights hereunder in accordance with this Agreement or the Plan.
7.7.    Taxation. The Holder understands that the Holder is solely responsible for all tax consequences to the Holder in connection with this Award, and no provision of this Agreement shall be interpreted or construed to transfer any such tax consequences imposed on the Holder, including any liability due to a failure to comply with the applicable requirements of Section 409A of the Code, from the Holder or any other individual to the Company or its subsidiaries, affiliates or successors. The Holder represents that the Holder has consulted with any tax consultants the Holder deems advisable in connection with the Award and that the Holder is not relying on the Company for any tax advice. This Award is intended to be exempt from or comply with Section 409A of the Code, and shall be administered and construed accordingly, and each settlement hereunder shall be considered a separate payment under Section 409A of the Code. Whenever this Agreement specifies a period for the transfer of shares of Stock to the Holder, the actual date of transfer within such specified period shall be within the sole discretion of the Company, and the Holder shall have no right (directly or indirectly) to determine the year in which such transfer is made. To the extent that the Award is subject to Section 409A of the Code, (i) if any agreement provides for the Award to become vested and be settled upon the Holder’s termination of employment, the applicable shares of Stock shall be transferred to the Holder or his or her beneficiary upon the Holder’s “separation from service,” within the meaning of Section 409A of the Code, (ii) if the Holder is a “specified employee,” within the meaning of Section 409A of the Code, such shares of Stock shall be transferred to the Holder or his or her beneficiary upon the earlier to occur of (A) the six-month anniversary of such separation from service and (B) the date of the Holder’s death, and (iii) in the event a transfer period straddles two consecutive calendar years, the date of transfer of shares of Stock shall be made in the later of such calendar years.



7.8.    Notices. All notices, requests or other communications provided for in this Agreement shall be made, if to the Company, to MP Materials Corp., Attn: General Counsel, 6720 Via Austi Parkway, Suite 450, Las Vegas, NV 89119, and if to the Holder, to the last known mailing address of the Holder contained in the records of the Company. All notices, requests or other communications provided for in this Agreement shall be made in writing either (a) by personal delivery, (b) by facsimile or electronic mail with confirmation of receipt, (c) by mailing in the United States mails or (d) by express courier service. The notice, request or other communication shall be deemed to be received upon personal delivery, upon confirmation of receipt of facsimile or electronic mail transmission or upon receipt by the party entitled thereto if by United States mail or express courier service; provided, however, that if a notice, request or other communication sent to the Company is not received during regular business hours, it shall be deemed to be received on the next succeeding business day of the Company.
7.9.    Governing Law. Except as provided by Section 7.10, this Agreement, the Award and all determinations made and actions taken pursuant hereto and thereto, to the extent not governed by the laws of the United States, shall be governed by the laws of the State of Delaware and construed in accordance therewith without giving effect to principles of conflicts of laws.
7.10.    Mutual Arbitration Provision. Holder and the Company agree to arbitrate before a neutral arbitrator any and all disputes and claims between Holder and the Company, including any parent, subsidiary or affiliate of the Company, in consideration of the benefits provided to Holder under this Agreement. This provision is governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. § 1 et. Seq.) (the “FAA”).
(a)    Claims Covered By This Arbitration Provision. Holder and the Company agree to arbitrate before a neutral arbitrator any and all disputes or claims between Holder and the Company, including claims against any current or former officer, director, shareholder, agent or employee of the Company, that arise out of or relate to Holder’s recruiting and/or hiring by, employment with or separation from the Company. This arbitration provision applies, without limitation, to existing or future disputes regarding any city, county, state or federal wage and hour law, trade secrets, unfair competition, compensation, breaks and rest periods, expense reimbursement, termination, discrimination, harassment, breach of contract, fraud, tort, defamation, and claims arising under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Civil Rights Acts, Americans Disabilities Act, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Older Workers Benefit Protection Act, Family Medical Leave Act, Fair Labor Standards Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act, Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act, claims for violations of Nevada law including but not limited to violation of Chapters 608 and 613 of the Nevada Revised Statutes, and any other state or local law or statute, if any, addressing the same or similar subject matters, and any other similar federal, state and local statutory and common law claims. This arbitration provision is intended to require arbitration of every claim or dispute that lawfully can be arbitrated , except for those claims and disputes which by the terms of this Agreement are expressly excluded.
(b)    Claims not Covered By This Arbitration Provision. Notwithstanding the above, Holder and the Company agree that disputes and claims for workers’ compensation benefits, unemployment insurance, state or federal disability insurance, claims for benefits under



a plan that is governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (“ERISA”), and claims for temporary equitable relief in the form of a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction or any other temporary equitable remedy which may then be available, including the right to injunctive relief as provided in Section 6 herein, are not covered by this arbitration provision and shall therefore be resolved in any appropriate forum under the laws then in effect.
(c)    Final and Binding Arbitration. Holder and the Company understand and agree that the arbitration of disputes and claims under this arbitration provision shall be in place of a court trial before a judge and/or jury. Holder and the Company understand and agree that, by executing (manually or electronically) this Agreement, the parties are expressly waiving any and all rights to a trial before a judge and/pr jury regarding any disputes and claims which the parties now have or which they may in the future have that are subject to arbitration under this arbitration provision. The parties also understand and agree that the arbitrator’s decision will be final and binding on both Holder and the Company, subject to confirmation and review on the grounds set forth in the FAA.
(d)    Class Action Waiver. All covered claims under this arbitration provision must be brought in the parties’ individual capacity and not as a plaintiff or class member in any purported class. The parties expressly waive any right with respect to any covered claims to submit, initiate or participate as a plaintiff or member in a class action, regardless of whether the action is filed in arbitration or in court. For the avoidance of doubt, this class action waiver will apply to the pending California lawsuit captioned Noriega v. MP Mine Operations LLC, Case No. CIVDS1903740 (San Bernardino Superior Court). Claims may not be joined or consolidated in arbitration with disputes brought by other individual(s), unless agreed to in writing by all parties. Furthermore, if a court orders that a class action should proceed, such action may only proceed in court, and in no event will such action proceed in arbitration. This class action waiver does not apply to representative actions under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, Cal. Labor Code §§ 2698, et seq. (“PAGA”).
(e)    Arbitration Procedures. Holder and the Company understand and agree that the arbitration shall be conducted on an individual-claimant basis before a single arbitrator in accordance with, and pursuant to, the Employment Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures of the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”). The AAA Rules may be found on the Internet at http://www.adr.org/Rules or by using an internet search engine to locate “AAA Employment Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures.”
(f)    Place of Arbitration. Holder and the Company understand and agree that the arbitration shall take place in the county in which Holder works or worked at the time the arbitrable dispute or claim arose.
(g)    Cost of Arbitration. Holder and the Company understand and agree that, to the extent required by controlling law, as determined by the arbitrator, the Company will bear the arbitrator’s fee and any other type of expense or cost that Holder would not be required to bear if the dispute or claim was brought in court as well as any other expense or cost that is unique to arbitration.



(h)    Confidentiality. Except as may be required by law, neither a party nor the arbitrator may disclose the existence, content, or results of any arbitration without the prior written consent of both parties, unless to protect or pursue a legal right.
(i)    Resolution of Disputes. Holder and the Company understand and agree that any dispute as to the arbitrability of a particular issue or claim pursuant to this arbitration provision is to be resolved in arbitration. The arbitrator, and not any federal, state, or local court or agency, shall have exclusive authority to resolve any dispute relating to the interpretation, applicability, enforceability or formation of this arbitration provision, including, but not limited to any claim that all or any part of this arbitration provision is void or voidable.
(j)    Complete Agreement. Holder and the Company understand and agree that this arbitration provision contains the complete agreement between the Company and Holder regarding the subject of arbitration of disputes.
(k)    Knowing And Voluntary Agreement. HOLDER AND THE COMPANY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT HOLDER AND THE COMPANY HAVE BEEN ADVISED TO CONSULT WITH AN ATTORNEY OF THEIR OWN CHOOSING BEFORE SIGNING (MANUALLY OR ELECTRONICALLY) THIS AGREEMENT, AND HOLDER AND THE COMPANY HAVE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO. HOLDER AND THE COMPANY AGREE THAT EACH HAS READ THIS ARBITRATION PROVISION CAREFULLY AND UNDERSTANDS ITS TERMS, AND THAT BY SIGNING (MANUALLY OR ELECTRONICALLY) IT, EACH IS WAIVING ALL RIGHTS TO A TRIAL OR HEARING BEFORE A JUDGE OR A JURY OF ANY AND ALL DISPUTES AND CLAIMS SUBJECT TO ARBITRATION UNDER THIS ARBITRATION PROVISION.
8.    Release of Claims. Holder understands and agrees that Holder’s execution (manually or electronically) of this Agreement within 21 days after, but not before, the date of the Agreement, is among the conditions precedent to the Company’s obligation to provide any of the Award or other benefits set forth in the Agreement. The Company shall provide the Award and other benefits in accordance with the terms of this Agreement only if the conditions set forth herein have been met.
8.1.    The term “Released Parties” as used in this Agreement includes: (a) the Company and its past, present, and future parents, divisions, subsidiaries, partnerships, affiliates, and other related entities; (b) each of the foregoing entities’ and persons’ past, present, and future owners, trustees, fiduciaries, administrators, shareholders, directors, officers, partners, members, associates, agents, employees, and attorneys; and (c) the predecessors, successors and assigns of each of the foregoing persons and entities.
8.2.    Holder, and anyone claiming through Holder or on Holder’s behalf, hereby waive and release the Company and the other Released Parties with respect to any and all claims, whether currently known or unknown, that Holder now has or has ever had against the Company or any of the other Released Parties arising from or related to any act, omission, or thing occurring or existing at any time prior to or on the date on which Holder executes (manually or electronically) this Agreement, except (i) any claims on account of wages due, or to become due, or made as an advance on wages to be earned, unless payment of those wages has been made;



and (ii) the claims at issue in a pending California lawsuit captioned Noriega v. MP Mine Operations LLC, Case No. CIVDS1903740 (San Bernardino Superior Court). Without limiting the foregoing, the claims waived and released by Holder hereunder include, but are not limited to all claims under any federal, state, local law dealing with discrimination or based on age, race, sex, national origin, handicap, religion, disability, sexual orientation or any other protected class, status or characteristic. This release of claims includes, but is not limited to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Equal Pay Act, the Executive Retirement Income Security Act, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Delaware Discrimination in Employment Act, the Delaware Persons with Disabilities Employment Protections Act, the California Family Rights Act, California Fair Employment and Housing Act, California Unruh Civil Rights Act, Statutory Provisions Regarding the Confidentiality of AIDS Information -Cal. Health & Safety Code, California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, California Parental Leave Law, California Apprenticeship Program Bias Law, California Equal Pay Law, California Whistleblower Protection Law, California Military Personnel Bias Law, Statutory Provision Regarding California Family and Medical Leave, Statutory Provisions Regarding California Electronic Monitoring of Employees, The California Occupational Safety and Health Act, as amended, California Obligations of Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Law, California Political Activities of Employees Law, California Domestic Violence Victim Employment Leave Law, California Court Leave Law, and those other provisions of the California Labor Code that lawfully may be released, claims for violations of Nevada law including but not limited to violation of Chapters 608 and 613 of the Nevada Revised Statutes and all other similar federal, state and local statutory and common law claims, and any claims arising from or related to any tax, penalty, interest, expense, or other liability imposed on the Holder under the Code, including without limitation any taxes or liabilities imposed pursuant to Section 409A of the Code.
8.3.    Notwithstanding the foregoing, the releases and waivers set forth above shall not apply to any claim for unemployment or workers’ compensation, or a claim that by law is non-waivable. Holder confirms that Holder has not filed any legal or other proceeding(s) against any of the Released Parties, is the sole owner of the claims released herein, has not transferred any such claims to anyone else, and has the full right to grant the releases and agreements in this Agreement.
8.4.    In the event of any complaint, charge, proceeding or other claim (collectively, “Claims”) filed with any court, other tribunal, or governmental entity that involves or is based upon any claim waived and released by Holder in this Release, Holder hereby waives and agrees not to accept any money or other personal relief on account of any such Claims for any actual or alleged personal injury or damages to Holder, including without limitation any costs, expenses and attorneys' fees incurred by or on behalf of Holder (provided, however, that this Agreement does not limit Holder’s eligibility to receive an award under applicable law, if any, for providing truthful information to a governmental entity).
8.5.    HOLDER ACKNOWLEDGES, UNDERSTANDS, AND AGREES THAT: (a) HOLDER HAS READ AND UNDERSTANDS THE TERMS AND EFFECT OF THIS AGREEMENT, INCLUDING THE RELEASE IN THIS SECTION 8; (b) HOLDER



RELEASES AND WAIVES CLAIMS UNDER THIS RELEASE KNOWINGLY AND VOLUNTARILY, IN EXCHANGE FOR CONSIDERATION IN ADDITION TO ANYTHING OF VALUE TO WHICH HOLDER ALREADY IS ENTITLED; (c) HOLDER HEREBY IS AND HAS BEEN ADVISED OF HOLDER’S RIGHT TO HAVE HOLDER’S ATTORNEY REVIEW THIS RELEASE (AT HOLDER’S COST) BEFORE SIGNING (MANUALLY OR ELECTRONICALLY) IT; (d) HOLDER HAS TWENTY-ONE (21) DAYS IN WHICH TO CONSIDER WHETHER TO EXECUTE (MANUALLY OR ELECTRONICALLY) THIS RELEASE; AND (e) WITHIN SEVEN (7) DAYS AFTER THE DATE ON WHICH HOLDER SIGNS (MANUALLY OR ELECTRONICALLY) THIS RELEASE, HOLDER MAY, AT HOLDER’S SOLE OPTION, REVOKE THE RELEASE UPON WRITTEN NOTICE TO MP MATERIALS CORP., ATTN: GENERAL COUNSEL, 6720 VIA AUSTI PARKWAY, SUITE 450, LAS VEGAS, NV 89119, AND THE RELEASE WILL NOT BECOME EFFECTIVE OR ENFORCEABLE UNTIL THIS SEVEN-DAY REVOCATION PERIOD HAS EXPIRED WITHOUT ANY REVOCATION BY HOLDER. IF HOLDER REVOKES THIS RELEASE, IT SHALL BE NULL AND VOID, AND HOLDER WILL NOT RECEIVE THE AWARD SET FORTH UNDER THE AGREEMENT.
8.6.    Except as required by law, Holder will not disclose the existence or terms of this Release to anyone except Holder’s accountants, attorneys and spouse (and will ensure that all such persons comply with this confidentiality provision). Nothing in this Release is intended to or shall be construed as an admission by any of the Released Parties that any of them violated any law, breached any obligation or otherwise engaged in any improper or illegal conduct with respect to Holder or otherwise. The Released Parties expressly deny any such illegal or wrongful conduct. This Agreement and the Plan are the entire agreement of the parties regarding the matters described in such agreements and supersede any and all prior and/or contemporaneous agreements, oral or written, between the parties regarding such matters. This Release is governed by Delaware law (without regard to conflicts of laws principles), may be signed (manually or electronically) in counterparts, and may be modified only by a writing signed by all parties.
8.7.    Agreement Subject to the Plan. This Agreement is subject to the provisions of the Plan and shall be interpreted in accordance therewith. In the event that the provisions of this Agreement and the Plan conflict, the Plan shall control. The Holder hereby acknowledges receipt of a copy of the Plan. The Holder also hereby acknowledges and agrees that this Award is in complete and full satisfaction of any promises or commitments from the Company, in respect of equity participation, set forth an Employment Agreement, if applicable.
8.8.    Entire Agreement. This Agreement together with the Plan and any Employment Agreement constitute the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the shares of Stock subject to this Award and supersede in their entirety all prior undertakings and agreements of the Company and the Holder with respect to such shares of Stock, and may not be modified adversely to the Holder’s interest except by means of a writing signed by the Company and the Holder or except as provided otherwise in this Agreement or the Plan. In the event of any conflict between the terms of this Award and the terms of any Employment Agreement, the applicable terms of the Employment Agreement shall control.



8.9.    Partial Invalidity. The invalidity or unenforceability of any particular provision of this Agreement shall not affect the other provisions hereof and this Agreement shall be construed in all respects as if such invalid or unenforceable provision was omitted.
8.10.    Amendment and Waiver. Except as provided otherwise in this Agreement or the Plan, the provisions of this Agreement may be amended or waived only by the written agreement of the Company and the Holder, and no course of conduct or failure or delay in enforcing the provisions of this Agreement shall affect the validity, binding effect or enforceability of this Agreement.
8.11.    Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed (manually or electronically) in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and both of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. A facsimile, pdf, DocuSigned or other electronic signature will have the same force and effect as an original.
THE PARTIES STATE THAT THEY HAVE READ AND UNDERSTAND THE FOREGOING AND KNOWINGLY AND VOLUNTARILY SIGN (MANUALLY OR ELECTRONICALLY) BELOW INTENDING TO BE BOUND HERETO:
MP MATERIALS CORP.
By: _________________________
Name:
Title
Acknowledgment, Acceptance and Agreement:
By signing below (manually or electronically) and returning this Agreement to MP Materials Corp., I hereby acknowledge receipt of the Agreement and the Plan, accept the Award granted to me and agree to be bound by the terms and conditions of this Agreement and the Plan.
 _________________________
 Holder
 _________________________
 Date



Exhibit 21.1
MP MATERIALS CORP.

SUBSIDIARIES

CompanyState or Jurisdiction of Incorporation
MP Mine Operations LLC
Delaware
Secure Natural Resources LLCDelaware
MP Magnetics LLCDelaware
MP Separations Company LLCDelaware


Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-251239 and 333-261954) on Forms S-3 and registration statement (No. 333-252361) on Form S-8 of our report dated February 28, 2022, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of MP Materials Corp. and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting.

/s/ KPMG LLP
Denver, Colorado
February 28, 2022
1
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. 1125 17th Street, Suite 600 Denver, CO 80202 United States T: +1 303 985 1333 F: +1 303 985 9947 denver@srk.com www.srk.com U.S. Offices: Alaska 907 677 3520 Clovis 559 452 0182 Denver 303 985 1333 Elko 775 753 4151 Reno 775 828 6800 Tucson 520 544 3688 Canadian Offices: Saskatoon 306 955 4778 Sudbury 705 682 3270 Toronto 416 601 1445 Vancouver 604 681 4196 Yellowknife 867 873 8670 Group Offices: Africa Asia Australia Europe North America South America SRK_Consent_20220224_Signed.docx February 24, 2022 MP Materials Corp. 6720 Via Austi Parkway, Suite 450 Las Vegas, NV 89119 Attention: Ryan Corbett Chief Financial Officer Dear Mr. Corbett: Consent Letter – Mountain Pass Technical Report Summary In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021 and any amendments thereto (collectively the, “Form 10-K”) to be filed by MP Materials Corp. (the “Company”) with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. (“SRK”), hereby consents to: (1) the filing and/or incorporation by reference by the Company and use of the Technical Report Summary titled “SEC Technical Report Summary, Pre-Feasibility Study, Mountain Pass Mine, San Bernardino County, California” with an effective date of September 30, 2021, and a report date of February 16, 2022 (the “Technical Report Summary”) that was prepared in accordance with Subpart 1300 of Regulation S-K promulgated by the SEC, as an exhibit to and referenced in the Form 10-K; (2) the use of and references to SRK’s name as a “qualified person” (as defined in Subpart 1300 of Regulation S-K promulgated by the SEC), in connection with the Form 10-K and any such Technical Report Summary; and (3) the use of any quotation from, or summarization of, the particular section or sections of the Technical Report Summary in the Form 10-K, to the extent it was prepared by SRK, that SRK supervised its preparation of and/or that was reviewed and approved by SRK, that is included or incorporated by reference to the Form 10-K. SRK is responsible for, and this consent pertains to the following sections of the Technical Report Summary: • Portions of Sections 1, 10, 14, 18, 22, 23, 24, and 25 • Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 19, 20, 21 Neither the whole nor any part of the Technical Report Summary nor any reference thereto may be included in any other filings with the SEC without the prior written consent of SRK as to the form and context in which it appears.


 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. Page 2 SRK_Consent_20220224_Signed.docx February 2022 Yours faithfully, SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. Fernando Rodrigues, BSc, MBA, MAusIMM, MMSAQP Practice Leader, Principal Consultant /s/ Fernando Rodrigues


 
February 23, 2022 MP Materials Corp. 6720 Via Austi Parkway, Suite 450 Las Vegas, NV 89119 Attention: Ryan Corbett Chief Financial Officer Dear Mr. Corbett: Consent Letter – Mountain Pass Technical Report Summary In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021 and any amendments thereto (collectively the, “Form 10-K”) to be filed by MP Materials Corp. (the “Company”) with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), CRU International Ltd. (“CRU”), hereby consents to: (1) the filing and/or incorporation by reference by the Company and use of the Technical Report Summary titled “SEC Technical Report Summary, Pre-Feasibility Study, Mountain Pass Mine, San Bernardino County, California” with an effective date of September 30, 2021, and a report date of February 16, 2022 (the “Technical Report Summary”) that was prepared in accordance with Subpart 1300 of Regulation S-K promulgated by the SEC, as an exhibit to and referenced in the Form 10-K; (2) the use of and references to CRU’s name as a “qualified person” (as defined in Subpart 1300 of Regulation S-K promulgated by the SEC), in connection with the Form 10-K and any such Technical Report Summary; and (3) the use of any quotation from, or summarization of, the particular section or sections of the Technical Report Summary in the Form 10-K, to the extent it was prepared by CRU, that CRU supervised its preparation of and/or that was reviewed and approved by CRU, that is included or incorporated by reference to the Form 10-K. CRU is responsible for, and this consent pertains to Section 16 and portions of Sections 1, 23 and 24 of the Technical Report Summary. Neither the whole nor any part of the Technical Report Summary nor any reference thereto may be included in any other filings with the SEC without the prior written consent of CRU as to the form and context in which it appears. Regards, /s/ Manuel A. Hernández Manuel A. Hernández Civil Mining Engineer, FAusIMM. Member 306576 Qualified Person for CRU International Ltd.


 
SGS Proprietary and Confidential Information SGS North America Inc. Minerals Services 3845 N. Business Center Drive, Suite 115, Tucson, AZ 85705 t (520) 579.8315 f (520) 579.7045 www.sgs.com Member of SGS Group 22 February 2022 519-07 MP Materials Corp. 6720 Via Austi Parkway, Suite 450 Las Vegas, NV 89119 Attention Ryan Corbett Chief Financial Officer Subject: Consent Letter – Mountain Pass Technical Report Summary Dear Mr. Corbett: In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021 and any amendments thereto (collectively the, “Form 10-K”) to be filed by MP Materials Corp. (the “Company”) with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), SGS North America, Inc. (“SGS”), hereby consents to: (1) the filing and/or incorporation by reference by the Company and use of the Technical Report Summary titled “SEC Technical Report Summary, Pre-Feasibility Study, Mountain Pass Mine, San Bernardino County, California” with an effective date of September 30, 2021, and a report date of February 16, 2022 (the “Technical Report Summary”) that was prepared in accordance with Subpart 1300 of Regulation S-K promulgated by the SEC, as an exhibit to and referenced in the Form 10-K; (2) the use of and references to SGS’s name as a “qualified person” (as defined in Subpart 1300 of Regulation S-K promulgated by the SEC), in connection with the Form 10-K and any such Technical Report Summary; and (3) the use of any quotation from, or summarization of, the particular section or sections of the Technical Report Summary in the Form 10-K, to the extent it was prepared by SGS, that SGS supervised its preparation of and/or that was reviewed and approved by SGS, that is included or incorporated by reference to the Form 10-K. SGS is responsible for, and this consent pertains to portions of Sections 1, 10, 14, 18, 22, 23 and 24 of the Technical Report Summary. Neither the whole nor any part of the Technical Report Summary nor any reference thereto may be included in any other filings with the SEC without the prior written consent of SGS as to the form and context in which it appears. Very truly yours, John Holley P.E. Engineering Manager SGS North America, Inc. /s/ John Holley


 

Exhibit 31.1
CERTIFICATION

I, James H. Litinsky, certify that:
1.I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of MP Materials Corp.;
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 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 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 functions):
(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 28, 2022
/s/ James H. Litinsky
James H. Litinsky
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer


Exhibit 31.2
CERTIFICATION
I, Ryan Corbett, certify that:
1.I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of MP Materials Corp.;
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 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 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 functions):
(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 28, 2022
/s/ Ryan Corbett
Ryan Corbett
Chief Financial Officer


Exhibit 32.1
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002,
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the annual report of MP Materials Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James H. Litinsky, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to my knowledge:
1.The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
2.The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
Date:February 28, 2022
/s/ James H. Litinsky
James H. Litinsky
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer


Exhibit 32.2
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002,
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the annual report of MP Materials Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ryan Corbett, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to my knowledge:
1.The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
2.The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
Date:February 28, 2022
/s/ Ryan Corbett
Ryan Corbett
Chief Financial Officer


Exhibit 95.1
MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURE

Pursuant to Section 1503(a) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”), issuers that are operators, or that have a subsidiary that is an operator, of a coal or other mine in the United States are required to disclose in their periodic reports filed with the SEC information regarding specified health and safety violations, orders and citations, issued under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (the “Mine Act”) by the Mine Safety and Health Administration (the “MSHA”), as well as related assessments and legal actions, and mining-related fatalities.
The table below provides information for the year ended December 31, 2021, at the Mountain Pass mine in San Bernardino County, California.
Additional information about the Mine Act and MSHA references used in the table follows:
Section 104(a) Significant and Substantial (“S&S”) Citations: Citations received from MSHA under §104(a) of the Mine Act 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.
Section 104(b) Orders: Orders issued by MSHA under §104(b) of the Mine Act, which represent a failure to abate a citation under §104(a) within the period of time prescribed by MSHA. This results in an order of immediate withdrawal from the area of the mine affected by the condition until MSHA determines that the violation has been abated.
Section 104(d) S&S Citations and Orders: Citations and orders issued by MSHA under §104(d) of the Mine Act for unwarrantable failure to comply with mandatory, significant and substantial health or safety standards.
Section 110(b)(2) Violations: Flagrant violations issued by MSHA under §110(b)(2) of the Mine Act.
Section 107(a) Orders: Orders issued by MSHA under §107(a) of the Mine Act for situations in which MSHA determined an “imminent danger” (as defined by MSHA) existed.
MineMine Act §104(a) S&S CitationsMine Act §104(b) OrdersMine Act §104(d) S&S Citations and OrdersMine Act §110(b)(2) ViolationsMine Act §107(a) OrdersProposed MSHA Assessments (in whole dollars)Mining Related Fatalities
Mine Act §104(e) Notice (Yes/No) (1)
Pending Legal Actions before Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission (Yes/No)
Mountain Pass20000$3,4460NoNo
(1)A written notice from the MSHA regarding a pattern of violations, or a potential to have such pattern under §104(e) of the Mine Act.

Exhibit 96.1

SEC Technical Report Summary

Pre-Feasibility Study

Mountain Pass Mine

San Bernardino County, California

Effective Date: September 30, 2021

Report Date: February 16, 2022

Report Prepared for

MP Materials Corp.

67750 Bailey Road

HC1 Box 224

Mountain Pass, CA 92366

Report Prepared by

 

LOGO

SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

1125 Seventeenth Street, Suite 600

Denver, CO 80202

SRK Project Number: 536900.070


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 2

 

 

Table of Contents

 

1   Executive Summary

   18

1.1  Property Description and Ownership

   18

1.2  Geology and Mineralization

   18

1.3  Status of Exploration, Development and Operations

   19

1.4  Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing

   19

1.4.1  Existing Crushing and Concentrating Operations

   19

1.4.2  Rare Earths Separations

   20

1.5  Mineral Resource Estimate

   21

1.6  Mineral Reserve Estimate

   22

1.7  Mining Methods

   25

1.8  Recovery Methods

   26

1.8.1  Existing Crushing and Concentrating Operations

   26

1.8.2  Modified and Recommissioned Separations Facility

   26

1.9  Project Infrastructure

   27

1.10 Market Studies and Contracts

   28

1.11 Environmental, Closure and Permitting

   29

1.12 Capital and Operating Costs

   29

1.13 Economic Analysis

   30

1.14 Conclusions and Recommendations

   31

2   Introduction

   33

2.1  Registrant for Whom the Technical Report Summary was Prepared

   33

2.2  Terms of Reference and Purpose of the Report

   33

2.3  Sources of Information

   33

2.4  Details of Inspection

   33

2.5  Report Version Update

   34

2.6  Units of Measure

   34

2.7  Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve Definitions

   34

2.8  Qualified Person

   35

3   Property Description and Location

   37

3.1  Property Location

   39

3.2  Mineral Title

   39

3.2.1  Nature and Extent of Registrant’s Interest

   42

3.3  Royalties, Agreements, and Encumbrances

   42

3.4  Environmental Liabilities and Permitting

   42

3.4.1  Remediation Liabilities

   43

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 3

 

 

3.4.2  Required Permits and Status

     43  

3.5  Other Significant Factors and Risks

     44  

4   Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure, and Physiography

     45  

4.1  Topography, Elevation, and Vegetation

     45  

4.2  Accessibility and Transportation to the Property

     45  

4.3  Climate and Length of Operating Season

     45  

4.4  Infrastructure Availability and Sources

     46  

5   History

     47  

5.1  Prior Ownership and Ownership Changes

     47  

5.2  Exploration and Development Results of Previous Owners

     47  

5.3  Historic Production

     49  

6   Geological Setting, Mineralization and Deposit

     53  

6.1  Regional Geology

     53  

6.2  Local and Property Geology

     55  

6.2.1  Local Lithology

     57  

6.2.2  Alteration

     58  

6.2.3  Structure

     58  

6.3  Significant Mineralized Zones

     59  

6.4  Surrounding Rock Types

     63  

6.5  Relevant Geological Controls

     63  

6.6  Deposit Type, Character, and Distribution of Mineralization

     63  

7   Exploration and Drilling

     64  

7.1  Exploration

     64  

7.2  Drilling

     64  

8   Sample Preparation, Analysis and Security

     66  

8.1  Historical Sampling

     66  

8.2  Sampling 2009-2011

     67  

8.3  Sampling 2021

     67  

8.4  Laboratory Analysis

     67  

8.4.1  Note on Assay Terminology

     68  

8.4.2  Historical

     69  

8.4.3  Current

     69  

8.4.4  2009 and 2010 Samples

     69  

8.4.5  2011 Samples

     70  

8.4.6  2021 Samples

     70  

9   Data Verification

     71  

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 4

 

 

9.1  Quality Assurance/Quality Control Procedures

     71  

9.1.1  Historical

     71  

9.1.2  2009-2010 Program

     71  

9.1.3  2011 Program

     73  

9.1.4  2021 Program

     73  

9.2  2009 Re-Assaying Program

     75  

9.2.1  Procedures

     75  

9.2.2  SGS Check Assay Sample Preparation

     76  

9.2.3  SGS Check Assay XRF Procedures

     76  

9.2.4  Mountain Pass Laboratory Check Assay XRF Procedures

     77  

9.2.5  Analysis of Light Rare Earth Oxide Distribution

     77  

9.2.6  Analysis of Heavy Rare Earth Oxide Assays

     79  

9.2.7  Results

     79  

9.3  Data Adequacy

     83  

10  Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing

     85  

10.1 Background

     85  

10.2 Flotation Studies Versus Ore Grade

     85  

10.3 Concentrator Recovery Estimate

     87  

10.4 Separation of Individual Rare Earths

     88  

10.4.1  Metallurgical Testwork

     89  

10.4.2  Representativeness of Test Samples

     91  

10.4.3  Analytical Laboratories

     92  

10.4.4  Separations Facility Recovery Estimates

     92  

10.4.5  Expected Product Specifications

     102  

11  Mineral Resource Estimate

     104  

11.1 Topography and Coordinate System

     104  

11.2 Drillhole Database

     104  

11.3 Geology

     107  

11.3.1  Structural Model

     107  

11.3.2  Lithology Model

     108  

11.3.3  Mineralogical/Alteration Model

     109  

11.4 Exploratory Data Analysis

     110  

11.4.1  Resource Domains

     110  

11.4.2  Outliers

     112  

11.4.3  Compositing

     116  

11.5 Specific Gravity

     116  

11.6 Variogram Analysis and Modeling

     117  

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 5

 

 

11.7 Block Model Limits

     119  

11.8 Grade Estimation

     120  

11.8.1  Blasthole Estimate Specifics

     121  

11.8.2  Exploration Estimate Specifics

     122  

11.9 Model Validation

     122  

11.10 Production Reconciliation

     124  

11.10.1   Blasthole “Bias”

     127  

11.11 Uncertainty and Resource Classification

     130  

11.12 Cut-Off Grade and Pit Optimization

     131  

11.13 Mineral Resource Statement

     133  

11.14 Mineral Resource Sensitivity

     135  

11.15 Assumptions, Parameters, and Methods

     137  

12  Mineral Reserve Estimate

     139  

12.1 Conversion Assumptions, Parameters, and Methods

     139  

12.1.1  Model Grade Dilution and Mining Recovery

     140  

12.1.2  Cut-off Grade Calculation

     140  

12.2 Reserve Estimate

     141  

12.3 Relevant Factors

     142  

13  Mining Methods

     144  

13.1 Parameters Relevant to Mine or Pit Designs and Plans

     145  

13.1.1  Geotechnical

     145  

13.1.2  Hydrogeological

     149  

13.2 Pit Optimization

     154  

13.2.1  Mineral Resource Models

     154  

13.2.2  Topographic Data

     155  

13.2.3  Pit Optimization Constraints

     155  

13.2.4  Pit Optimization Parameters

     155  

13.2.5  Optimization Process

     156  

13.2.6  Optimization Results

     157  

13.3 Design Criteria

     160  

13.3.1  Pit and Phase Designs

     160  

13.4 Mine Production Schedule

     163  

13.4.1  Mine Production

     163  

13.5 Waste and Stockpile Design

     169  

13.5.1  Waste Rock Storage Facility

     169  

13.5.2  Stockpiles

     171  

13.6 Mining Fleet and Requirements

     172  

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 6

 

 

13.6.1  General Requirements and Fleet Selection

     172  

13.6.2  Drilling and Blasting

     175  

13.6.3  Loading

     175  

13.6.4  Hauling

     176  

13.6.5  Auxiliary Equipment

     178  

13.6.6  Mining Operations and Maintenance Labor

     178  

14  Processing and Recovery Methods

     181  

14.1 Historic Production

     181  

14.2 Current Operations

     181  

14.2.1  Metallurgical Control and Accounting

     183  

14.2.2  Plant Performance

     183  

14.2.3  Significant Factors

     186  

14.3 Individual Rare Earth Separations

     186  

15  Infrastructure

     190  

15.1 Access and Local Communities

     191  

15.2 Site Facilities and Infrastructure

     191  

15.2.1  On-Site Facilities

     191  

15.2.2  Explosives Storage and Handling Facilities

     193  

15.2.3  Service Roads

     193  

15.2.4  Mine Operations and Support Facilities

     193  

15.2.5  Waste and Waste Handling (Non-Tailings/Waste Rock)

     193  

15.2.6  Waste Rock Handling

     194  

15.2.7  Power Supply and Distribution

     194  

15.2.8  Natural Gas

     194  

15.2.9  Vehicle and Heavy Equipment Fuel

     194  

15.2.10   Other Energy

     194  

15.2.11   Water Supply

     194  

15.3 Tailings Management Area

     196  

15.4 Security

     197  

15.5 Communications

     197  

15.6 Logistics Requirements and Off-Site Infrastructure

     197  

15.6.1  Rail

     197  

15.6.2  Port and Logistics

     197  

16  Market Studies and Contracts

     198  

16.1 Abbreviations

     198  

16.2 Introduction

     198  

16.3 General Market Outlook

     199  

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 7

 

 

16.3.1  Historical Pricing

     199  

16.3.2  Market Balance

     203  

16.3.3  Costs

     206  

16.4 Products and Markets

     208  

16.4.1  Mixed Rare Earth Concentrate

     208  

16.4.2  PrNd Oxide

     210  

16.4.3  SEG+ Oxalate

     213  

16.4.4  La Carbonate

     216  

16.4.5  Cerium Chloride

     218  

16.5 Specific Products

     222  

16.5.1  Concentrate

     222  

16.5.2  PrNd Oxide

     223  

16.5.3  SEG+ Oxalate

     224  

16.5.4  La Carbonate

     225  

16.5.5  Cerium Chloride

     225  

16.6 Conclusions

     226  

16.7 Contracts

     227  

17  Environmental Studies, Permitting, and Closure

     229  

17.1 Environmental Study Results

     229  

17.2 Required Permits and Status

     229  

17.3 Mine Closure

     230  

18  Capital and Operating Costs

     231  

18.1 Capital Cost Estimates

     231  

18.1.1  Mining Capital Cost

     231  

18.1.2  Separations Facility Capital Cost

     233  

18.1.3  Other Sustaining Capital

     233  

18.1.4  Closure Costs

     234  

18.1.5  Basis for Capital Cost Estimates

     234  

18.2 Operating Cost Estimates

     235  

18.2.1  Mining Operating Cost

     235  

18.2.2  Processing Operating Cost

     237  

18.2.3  Selling, General, and Administrative Operating Costs

     239  

19  Economic Analysis

     240  

19.1 General Description

     240  

19.2 Basic Model Parameters

     240  

19.3 External Factors

     240  

19.3.1  Pricing

     240  

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 8

 

 

19.3.2  Taxes and Royalties

     241  

19.3.3  Working Capital

     241  

19.4 Technical Factors

     241  

19.4.1  Mining Profile

     241  

19.4.2  Processing Profile

     242  

19.4.3  Operating Costs

     243  

19.4.4  Mining

     245  

19.4.5  Processing

     245  

19.4.6  G&A Costs

     245  

19.4.7  Capital Costs

     245  

19.4.8  Results

     246  

19.4.9  Sensitivity Analysis

     247  

19.4.10 Cash Flow Snapshot

     247  

20  Adjacent Properties

     249  

21  Other Relevant Data and Information

     250  

22  Interpretation and Conclusions

     251  

22.1 Mineral Resource Estimate

     251  

22.2 Mineral Reserve Estimate

     251  

22.3 Metallurgy and Processing

     253  

22.3.1  Existing Crushing and Concentration Operations

     253  

22.3.2  Modified and Recommissioned Separations Facility

     253  

22.4 Project Infrastructure

     253  

22.5 Products and Markets

     254  

22.6 Environmental, Closure, and Permitting

     254  

22.7 Projected Economic Outcomes

     255  

23  Recommendations

     256  

24  References

     258  

25  Reliance on Information Provided by the Registrant

     259  

Signature Page

     260  

List of Tables

 

Table 1-1: Product Specifications

     20  

Table 1-2: Mineral Resource Statement for the Mountain Pass Rare Earth Project, September 30, 2021

     22  

Table 1-3: Mineral Reserves at Mountain Pass as of September 30, 2021 - SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

     24  

Table 1-4: Cash Flow Summary

     31  

Table 2-1: Site Visits

     34  

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 9

 

 

Table 3-1: Current Financial Assurance Obligations

     43  

Table 5-1: Production History, 1952 to 1970

     50  

Table 5-2: Mine Production History, 1971 to 2002

     51  

Table 5-3: Mountain Pass Production History, 2009 to 2015, as Separated RE Products

     51  

Table 5-4: Mountain Pass Production History, 2018 to 2021, as Bastnaesite Concentrate

     52  

Table 8-1: Oxides and TREO Detection Limits, Mountain Pass Laboratory

     69  

Table 8-2: Oxides and Element Detection Limits, Actlabs Laboratory

     70  

Table 9-1: Oxides Analyzed with Detection Limits

     77  

Table 9-2: Light Rare Earth Oxide Distribution Statistics: 2009 and 2010 Analyses

     77  

Table 9-3: Light Rare Earth Oxide Distribution Statistics: 2011 Analyses

     78  

Table 9-4: Light Rare Earth Oxide Distribution Statistics: 2009, 2010 and 2011 Analyses

     78  

Table 9-5: Light Rare Earth Oxide Assay Statistics: 2009 and 2010 Analyses

     78  

Table 9-6: Heavy Rare Earth Summary

     79  

Table 9-7: Standards with Expected Analytical Performance

     80  

Table 10-1: Head Analyses for Grade Range Test Composites

     86  

Table 10-2: Cumulative Rougher Flotation Concentrate Grade and Recovery Versus Ore Grade

     86  

Table 10-3: Estimated Rougher and Cleaner Flotation REO Recovery (1)

     87  

Table 10-4: Analytical Laboratories

     92  

Table 10-5: Feed Conditions That Resulted in Optimal Extractions at 109 g/L

     94  

Table 10-6: Test Material Feed Composition by % Solid REO

     95  

Table 10-7: Outlet Stream Composition by g/L REO at 109 g/L

     95  

Table 10-8: Settling Test Results Including Overflow Clarity with Various Flocculants and Dosages

     95  

Table 10-9: Assays of Feed, Cell of Complete Rare Earth Breakthrough, and Cell of Fe/U Bleed

     98  

Table 10-10: Mass Balance Calculations for Outlet Streams at Various Fractions

     98  

Table 10-11: Volumetric Flowrates of Different Streams along with Mass Flowrates of Different Components

     99  

Table 10-12: Impurities in Brine Before and After Treatment

     102  

Table 11-1: TREO Influence Limitations

     113  

Table 11-2: 2009 Specific Gravity Results - Carbonatite

     117  

Table 11-3: Block Model Specifications

     120  

Table 11-4: Blasthole vs. Exploration Comparison

     128  

Table 11-5: Cut-Off Grade Input Parameters

     131  

Table 11-6: Mineral Resource Statement Exclusive of Mineral Reserves for the Mountain Pass Rare Earth Project, September 30, 2021

     134  

Table 11-7: Mineral Resources Inclusive of Mineral Reserves for the Mountain Pass Rare Earth Project, September 30, 2021

     135  

Table 11-8: TREO Cut-off Sensitivity Analysis Within Resource Pit – Measured and Indicated Category

     136  

Table 11-9: TREO COG Sensitivity Analysis Within Resource Pit – Inferred Category

     136  

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 10

 

 

Table 11-10: Mineralized Material Internal and External to Resource Pit

     137  

Table 12-1: Pit Optimization Inputs

     141  

Table 12-2: Mineral Reserves at Mountain Pass as of September 30, 2021, SRK Consulting

     142  

Table 13-1: Recommended Slope Design Parameters

     148  

Table 13-2: CNI Preliminary Recommended Slope Design Parameters by Design Sector

     149  

Table 13-3: CNI Final Recommended Slope Design Parameters by Design Sector

     149  

Table 13-4: Summary of Pit Water Production in First Half of 2021

     152  

Table 13-5: Block Model Block Sizes

     154  

Table 13-6: Pit Optimization Parameters

     156  

Table 13-7: Mountain Pass Pit Optimization Result Using Indicated Classification Only

     158  

Table 13-8: Estimated Storage Capacity for Overburden and Stockpile Grade Material

     170  

Table 13-9: North, East and West Waste Dump Schedule

     172  

Table 13-10: Mining Equipment Requirements

     174  

Table 13-11: Loading Statistics by Unit Type in Waste

     175  

Table 13-12: Loading Productivities by Unit Type in Waste

     176  

Table 13-13: Hauling Statistics by Unit Type in Waste

     176  

Table 13-14: Pit Haulage Cycle Times (minutes)

     177  

Table 13-15: Hauling Productivities

     177  

Table 13-16: Mining Operations and Maintenance Labor Requirements

     180  

Table 14-1: Historic Mill Production, 1980 to 2002

     181  

Table 14-2: Concentrator Production Summary - 2020

     185  

Table 14-3: Concentrator Production Summary - 2021 (Jan -Sept)

     185  

Table 16-1: Abbreviations for Market Studies and Contracts

     198  

Table 16-2: Summary of U.S. Facilities Monitoring and Limiting P-levels

     219  

Table 16-3: Summary of Long Term Price Forecasts

     222  

Table 17-1: Current Environmental Permits and Status

     230  

Table 18-1: Mining Equipment Capital Cost Estimate (US$000’s)

     232  

Table 18-2: Estimated Remaining Separations Facility Capital Costs

     233  

Table 18-3: Closure Cost Estimates

     234  

Table 18-4: Mining Operating Costs

     236  

Table 18-5: Separations Operating Costs

     238  

Table 18-6: Summary of MP Materials Site G&A Operating Costs

     239  

Table 19-1: Basic Model Parameters

     240  

Table 19-2: LoM Mining Summary

     242  

Table 19-3: LoM Processing Profile

     242  

Table 19-4: Mining Cost Summary

     245  

Table 19-5: Processing Cost Summary

     245  

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 11

 

 

Table 19-6: G&A Cost Summary

     245  

Table 19-7: Economic Result

     247  

Table 25-1: Reliance on Information Provided by the Registrant

     259  

List of Figures

Figure 1-1: Final Pit Design and Site Layout

     25  

Figure 1-2: Project Cashflow

     31  

Figure 3-1: General Facility Arrangement (WGS84 Coordinate System)

     38  

Figure 3-2: Location Map

     39  

Figure 3-3: Land Tenure Map

     41  

Figure 6-1: Regional Geological Map

     54  

Figure 6-2: Generalized Geologic Map – Sulfide Queen Carbonatite

     56  

Figure 6-3: Schematic Cross Section (A-A’) of Sulfide Queen Carbonatite

     57  

Figure 7-1: Drilling in MP Materials Pit Area

     65  

Figure 9-1: 2009 Through 2010 Pit Standard Assays

     72  

Figure 9-2: 2009 Through 2010 Duplicates

     73  

Figure 9-3: 2021 Field Duplicate Analyses – MP Materials Lab

     74  

Figure 9-4: External Duplicate Analyses – MP vs. ALS

     75  

Figure 9-5: Results of Standard Analysis

     81  

Figure 9-6: Results of Pulp Duplicate Analysis

     82  

Figure 9-7: Results of Field Duplicate Analysis

     83  

Figure 10-1: TREO Rougher Flotation Recovery versus Concentrate Grade for Different Feed Grades

     87  

Figure 10-2: TREO Recovery to Cleaner Flotation Concentrate versus Feed Grade

     88  

Figure 10-3: Primary Processes for Stage 2 Operation

     89  

Figure 10-4: Recovery Estimates

     93  

Figure 10-5: Extraction of Rare Earth Oxides at 109 g/L with 93+% PrNd

     94  

Figure 10-6: Extraction of Rare Earth Oxides at 127 g/L

     94  

Figure 10-7: Volumes of Leach Liquor per Volume of Resin Required Before a Regeneration Cycle

     97  

Figure 10-8: Mass Balance

     98  

Figure 10-9: Diagram of the SXH Process

     99  

Figure 10-10: % REO in Feed, Raffinate, and Preg Liquor

     100  

Figure 10-11: TREO in Overflow Liquor Over Time vs Stoichiometric Feed Ratio and pH

     101  

Figure 10-12: Market Standard PrNd Oxide Specification and Mountain Pass Historical Results

     103  

Figure 11-1: Drilling Distribution near Mountain Pass Mine

     105  

Figure 11-2: Sample Length Histogram – Mineralized CBT

     106  

Figure 11-3: Geological Mapping and Fault Expressions – August 2021

     107  

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 12

 

 

Figure 11-4: Plan View of 3D Geological Model

     109  

Figure 11-5: Histogram of TREO% within CBT

     111  

Figure 11-6: Cross Section Illustrating CBT Domains and TREO Grades

     112  

Figure 11-7: Log Probability Plot for TREO – HG Core

     114  

Figure 11-8: Log Probability Plot for TREO – Undifferentiated CBT

     115  

Figure 11-9: Example of Directional Variogram – Blastholes TREO

     118  

Figure 11-10: Example of Directional Variogram – Exploration TREO

     119  

Figure 11-11: Domain Boundary Analysis

     120  

Figure 11-12: Variable Orientation Surfaces for Estimation Orientation

     121  

Figure 11-13: NW-SE Cross Section Showing Block Grades, Composite Grades, Resource Pit Outline

     123  

Figure 11-14: Swath Plot (NS orientation) Comparison Between TREO Block Grades and Composite Grades

     124  

Figure 11-15: Spatial Comparison of MRE Grade Distribution with Blasthole Grade Distribution

     125  

Figure 11-16: Comparison of Resource and Grade Control Models

     126  

Figure 11-17: Previous Production Areas for Reconciliation Validation

     128  

Figure 11-18: Percent Difference BH/EXP Estimate

     129  

Figure 11-19: Extents of Optimized Pit Shape Relative to Surface Topography

     133  

Figure 11-20: Optimized pit shell and blocks >= 2.28% TREO

     137  

Figure 12-1: Side by Side Comparison Non-Diluted (Left) Block Model and Diluted (Right) Block Model

     140  

Figure 13-1: Final Pit Design and Site Layout

     145  

Figure 13-2: Recommended Double Bench IRA from CNI

     146  

Figure 13-3: Idealized Cross Section Through Mine Area and Adjacent Valleys

     150  

Figure 13-4: Location of Industrial and Domestic Water Supply Wells and Mine Facilities

     151  

Figure 13-5: Location of Monitoring Wells, Measured Water Table Elevation, and Direction of Groundwater Flow (as Q2 2021)

     152  

Figure 13-6: Location of Piezometers and Measured Water Levels in Pit Walls

     153  

Figure 13-7: Mountain Pass Pit by Pit Optimization Result

     159  

Figure 13-8: Mountain Pass Mineral Reserves Pit (red line) and Mineral Resources Shell (magenta line) Surface Intersection

     160  

Figure 13-9: Phase Design Locations

     161  

Figure 13-10: Final Pit Design

     162  

Figure 13-11: Reserve Starting Topography, September 30, 2021

     163  

Figure 13-12: Total Mined Material from the Open Pit (ore and waste)

     164  

Figure 13-13: Ore Mined from the Open Pit

     164  

Figure 13-14: Mined Ore Grade

     165  

Figure 13-15: Rehandled Material

     165  

Figure 13-16: Mill Concentrate Production

     166  

Figure 13-17: Mill Feed Grade

     166  

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 13

 

 

Figure 13-18: Number of Benches Mined

     167  

Figure 13-19: Haul Truck Cycle Time

     167  

Figure 13-20: Long-Term Ore Stockpile End of Period Balance

     168  

Figure 13-21: Final Pit Design and Waste Dump Locations

     171  

Figure 14-1: MP Materials Concentrator Flowsheet

     182  

Figure 14-2: Rare Earth Distribution in Flotation Concentrate

     187  

Figure 15-1: Facilities General Location

     192  

Figure 15-2: Water Supply System

     195  

Figure 15-3: Northwest Tailings Disposal Facility

     196  

Figure 16-1: Annualized PrNd Price Volatility

     200  

Figure 16-2: PrNd Oxide Price History

     201  

Figure 16-3: SEG Oxide Price History

     202  

Figure 16-4: La Oxide Price History

     202  

Figure 16-5: Ce Oxide Price History

     203  

Figure 16-6: Sizeable Supply Gap Emerges in the Late-2020s without Prompt New Investment

     204  

Figure 16-7: CRU’s LT Base Case Envisages enough Supply to Meet 10-15 Weeks’ Worth of Global Stocks

     204  

Figure 16-8: Magnet Material Prices will Need to Rise to Stimulate a Supply Response

     205  

Figure 16-9: Rare Earth Market Balance Forecast

     206  

Figure 16-10: Operational Rare Earths Mining Cost Curve, 2025, US$/kg REO

     207  

Figure 16-11: Mixed Rare Earth Concentrate Price Forecast

     209  

Figure 16-12: PrNd Oxide Price Forecast

     211  

Figure 16-13: SEG Oxalate Price Forecast

     214  

Figure 16-14: La Carbonate Price Forecast

     217  

Figure 16-15: CeCl3 Price Forecast

     220  

Figure 18-1: Mining Unit Cost Profile

     236  

Figure 19-1: Mining Profile

     242  

Figure 19-2: Concentrate Production

     243  

Figure 19-3: Separations Production Profile

     243  

Figure 19-4: Annual Operating Costs

     244  

Figure 19-5: LoM Operating Costs

     244  

Figure 19-6: Capital Expenditure Profile

     246  

Figure 19-7: Annual Cash Flow

     246  

Figure 19-8: After-Tax Sensitivity Analysis

     247  

Figure 19-9: Mountain Pass Annual Cashflow (US$ millions)

     248  

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 14

 

 

Appendices

Appendix A: Claims List

Appendix B: Grade Estimation Details

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 15

 

 

List of Abbreviations

The US System for weights and units has been used throughout this report. Tons are reported in short tons of 2,000 lb, drilling and resource model dimensions and map scales are in ft. All currency is in U.S. dollars (US$) unless otherwise stated.

The following abbreviations may be used in this report.

 

Abbreviation

  

Unit or Term

 
A    ampere  
AA    atomic absorption  
A/m2    amperes per square meter  
amsl    meters above mean sea level  
ANFO    ammonium nitrate fuel oil  
AP    Action Plan  
°C    degrees Centigrade  
CCD    counter-current decantation  
CIL    carbon-in-leach  
cm    centimeter  
cm2    square centimeter  
cm3    cubic centimeter  
cfm    cubic feet per minute  
CHP    combined heat and power plant  
COG    cut-off grade  
ConfC    confidence code  
CRec    core recovery  
CSS    closed-side setting  
CTW    calculated true width  
CUP    Conditional Use Permit  
°    degree (degrees)  
dia.    diameter  
EIR    Environmental Impact Report  
EIS    Environmental Impact Statement  
EMP    Environmental Management Plan  
FA    fire assay  
Factor of Safety    FoS  
ft    foot (feet)  
ft2    square foot (feet)  
ft3    cubic foot (feet)  
g    gram  
gal    gallon  
g/L    gram per liter  
g-mol    gram-mole  
gpm    gallons per minute  
g/t    grams per metric tonne  
ha    hectares  
HDPE    Height Density Polyethylene  
hp    horsepower  
HREE    heavy rare earth elements  
HRSG    heat recovery steam generators  
HTW    horizontal true width  
ICP    inductively coupled plasma  
ID2    inverse-distance squared  
ID3    inverse-distance cubed  
IFC    International Finance Corporation  
ILS    Intermediate Leach Solution  
kA    kiloamperes  
kg    kilograms  

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 16

 

 

Abbreviation

  

Unit or Term

 
km    kilometer  
km2    square kilometer  
koz    thousand troy ounce  
kt    thousand tonnes  
kt/d    thousand tonnes per day  
kt/y    thousand tonnes per year  
kV    kilovolt  
kW    kilowatt  
kWh    kilowatt-hour  
kWh/t    kilowatt-hour per metric tonne  
L    liter  
L/sec    liters per second  
L/sec/m    liters per second per meter  
lb    pound  
LLDDP    Linear Low Density Polyethylene Plastic  
LOI    Loss on Ignition  
LoM    life-of-mine  
LREE    light rare earth elements  
LUS    Land Use Services  
m    meter  
m2    square meter  
m3    cubic meter  
mg/L    milligrams/liter  
mL    milliliter  
mm    millimeter  
mm2    square millimeter  
mm3    cubic millimeter  
MME    Mine & Mill Engineering  
Moz    million troy ounces  
Million short tons    million short tons  
mtw    measured true width  
MW    million watts  
m.y.    million years  
NGO    non-governmental organization  
NTU    nephelometric turbidity unit  
oz    troy ounce  
%    percent  
PLC    Programmable Logic Controller  
PLS    Pregnant Leach Solution  
PMF    probable maximum flood  
ppb    parts per billion  
ppm    parts per million  
QA/QC    Quality Assurance/Quality Control  
RC    rotary circulation drilling  
RCRA    Resource Conservation and Recovery Act  
REE    rare earth elements  
REO    rare earth oxide  
RF    Revenue Factor  
RO    reverse osmosis  
RoM    Run-of-Mine  
RQD    Rock Quality Description  
SEC    U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission  
sec    second  
SG    specific gravity  
SLS    spent leach solution  
SPT    standard penetration testing  
st    short ton (2,000 pounds)  
SX    solvent extraction  
SXD    solvent extraction didymium  

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 17

 

 

Abbreviation

  

Unit or Term

 
SXH    solvent extraction heavies  
SXI    solvent extraction impurities  
t    tonne (metric tonne) (2,204.6 pounds)  
t/h    tonnes per hour  
t/d    tonnes per day  
t/y    tonnes per year  
TEM    technical economic model  
TREO    total rare earth oxide  
TSF    tailings storage facility  
TSP    total suspended particulates  
TVR    thermal vapor recompression  
µm    micron or microns  
V    volts  
VFD    variable frequency drive  
W    watt  
XRD    x-ray diffraction  
y    year  
yd3    cubic yard  

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 18

 

 

1

Executive Summary

This report was prepared as a pre-feasibility level Technical Report Summary in accordance with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) S-K regulations (Title 17, Part 229, Items 601 and 1300 until 1305) for MP Materials Corp. (“MP Materials”) by SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. (“SRK”) on the Mountain Pass Mine (“Mountain Pass”).

Sections of this report pertaining to the modification and recommissioning of the rare earth element (REE) separations facility at Mountain Pass were authored by SGS North America Inc. (“SGS”). Portions of this report pertaining to products and markets, including long term price forecast for REE products, were authored by CRU International Limited (“CRU”).

 

1.1

Property Description and Ownership

Mountain Pass is located in San Bernardino County, California, north of and adjacent to Interstate-15 (I-15), approximately 15 miles (mi) southwest of the California-Nevada state line and 30 mi northeast of Baker, California, at geographic coordinates 35°28’56”N latitude and 115°31’54”W longitude. This area is part of the historic Clark Mining District established in 1865. Mountain Pass is the only rare earth deposit identified within this district. The Project lies within portions of Sections 11, 12, 13, and 14 of Township 16 North, Range 14 East, San Bernardino Base and Meridian.

On November 17, 2020, pursuant to a merger agreement dated July 15, 2020, MP Mine Operations LLC (“MPMO”) and Secure Natural Resources LLC (“SNR”), the company that holds the mineral rights to the mine, were combined with Fortress Value Acquisition Corp., a special purpose acquisition company (“FVAC”) (the “Business Combination”). In connection with the Business Combination, MPMO and SNR became subsidiaries of FVAC, which was in turn renamed MP Materials Corp.

Mining claims and surface rights associated with the Project include:

 

   

Patented claims with surface rights owned by MPMO and mineral rights held by SNR

 

   

Unpatented lode and mineral claims held by SNR

 

   

Surface ownership by MPMO and mineral rights controlled by the State of California

 

   

Surface ownership by MPMO and mineral rights controlled by the U.S.

 

   

Surface ownership by School District and mineral rights controlled by the U.S.

The rare earth mineralization at the Project is located within land either owned or leased by MP Materials.

 

1.2

Geology and Mineralization

The Mountain Pass deposit is a rare-earth-element-enriched carbonatite historically referred to as the Sulfide Queen orebody. The carbonatite and numerous other alkaline intrusives in the vicinity are hosted in gneissic rocks which have been altered (fenitized) by the intrusive bodies. Multiple carbonatite dikes are present throughout the area. Small dikes and breccia bodies surround the Sulfide Queen orebody which comprises several different types of carbonatite (sovite, beforsite, dolosolvite, and white sovite) which are interlayered within a relatively large carbonatite package, this is unique in terms of size of the concession, and globally significant in terms of its enrichment in rare-earth minerals.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 19

 

 

The southern part of the Sulfide Queen orebody strikes to the south southeast and dips at 40° to the west southwest; the northern part of the orebody strikes to the north northeast and dips at some 40° to the west north-west. A number of post-mineralization faults result in slight offsets to the otherwise simple tabular/lensoid geometry. The total orebody strike length is approximately 2,750 feet (ft) and dip extent is 3,000 ft; true thickness of the more than 2% total rare earth oxide (TREO) grade zone ranges between 15 ft and 250 ft.

The main rare-earth-bearing mineral, bastnaesite, is present in all carbonatite subtypes, but in relatively lower proportions in the breccias and the monazitic carbonatites which typically occur mainly outside of and close to the main orebody. Monazite and crocidolite (“blue ore” found on the hangingwall contact in the northern part of the orebody) are both undesirable in the processing plant. In some areas, post mineral fault zones provide a conduit for water which results in localized alteration of the fresh carbonatite. Alteration dissolves the calcite and dolomite gangue minerals, leaving behind elevated concentrations of bastnaesite with limonite resulting in what is referred to as brown and black ore types, the most altered of which become a loosely consolidated very high grade bastnaesite sand. The altered ore types are mined, stockpiled separately and blended at a minor proportion to maintain target ore grades in the mill feed blend.

 

1.3

Status of Exploration, Development and Operations

The Mountain Pass mine is an active operating mine. The primary mineral of economic interest is bastnaesite. MP Materials mines ore from the open pit, transports the ore to a primary crushing/stockpile facility and transports the ore to the mill. At the mill, the crushed material is ground further with a ball mill and conveyed via a slurry pipeline to the flotation plant to separate the bastnaesite from the gangue minerals. The primary product of the flotation process is a bastnaesite concentrate, which is filter dried and then transported to customers for sale. MP Materials is in the process of recommissioning a rare earths separations facility that is scheduled to be operational by year-end 2022. The separations facility, once operational, will allow the Company to separate the bastnaesite concentrate into four saleable products: praseodymium and neodymium (PrNd) oxide, samarium, europium, and gadolinium (SEG+) oxalate, lanthanum (La) carbonate, and cerium (Ce) chloride.

MP Materials relies on predecessor companies, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) (Olson and others, 1954), and various consulting companies for interpretations related to the regional and mine area geology and hydrogeology, regional and local structure, and deposit geology. Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing.

 

1.4

Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing

 

1.4.1

Existing Crushing and Concentrating Operations

During the later years of mining operations at Mountain Pass, the ore grade is expected to decline. To assess TREO (total rare earth oxide) recovery from lower grade ore, MP Materials conducted rougher flotation tests on ore samples over a grade range from 1.86 - 8.10% TREO using standard concentrator test conditions. Based on the results of this testwork, MP Materials has developed a mathematical relationship to estimate overall TREO recovery versus ore grade. This relationship has been used to estimate TREO recovery from lower grade ores later in the mine life.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 20

 

 

1.4.2

Rare Earths Separations

It is the intention of MP Materials to modify the current operations to produce four marketable rare earth products in the future (PrNd oxide, SEG+ oxalate, La carbonate/La oxide, and Ce chloride). The specifications for the four products are shown in Table 1-1, with further discussion on the product specification provided in Section 14.6

Table 1-1: Product Specifications

 

Product    Compound    w/w % TREO      Purity   
PrNd Oxide    75% Nd2O3 + 25% Pr6O11 (+/-2%)    99%      99.5%+ PrNd/TREO   
SEG+ Oxalate/Concentrate    -    25% to 45%      99% SEG+/TREO   
Lanthanum Carbonate    La2(CO3)3 + La2O3    99%      99% La/TREO   
Cerium Chloride    LaCeCl3    45%      85% Ce/TREO   

Note: w/w % is the weight concentration of the solution.

Source: MP Materials, 2021

The work effort to develop the design criteria for processing facility modifications are briefly described below and are detailed in Section 10.4. Unit operations for the modified facilities are described below.

Concentrate Drying and Roasting

Concentrate drying and roasting was practiced at Mountain Pass commencing in the mid 1960’s. Tonnage quantity roasting test work to confirm optimum operating parameters was conducted at Hazen Research. Studies involving the definition of specific leaching conditions were conducted at SGS Lakefield and at Mountain Pass facilities. These studies served to elucidate optimum operational conditions. Of major importance was the adjustment of roasting parameters such that leaching dissolved trivalent rare earths and left the majority of the cerium undissolved.

Leaching

Optimization studies to specify the most appropriate leaching parameters were conducted at several external laboratories and at MP Materials Cerium 96 leaching facility. MP Materials upgraded a small-scale onsite leaching pilot facility which provided superior temperature control so as to define the optimum leach facility operating conditions. The leaching operations produced an undissolved cerium concentrate and solubilized trivalent rare earths plus dissolved impurities.

Impurity Removal

Soluble impurities in the leach solution include iron, aluminum, uranium, calcium, magnesium, and other minor quantities of dissolved elements. The MP Materials solvent extraction system used for this duty has been successfully used for a number of years.

SXH and SXD

The solvent extraction heavies (SXH) circuit makes a bulk separation of heavy rare earths and the solvent extraction didymium (SXD) circuit separates a PrNd stream. These circuits have been piloted and have been demonstrated to function as designed.

Brine Recovery, Treatment, Crystallizing: MP Materials has conducted several rounds of pilot studies taking appropriate mixtures of brine from previously operated facilities and solvent extraction (SX) pilot plant investigations to produce a representative brine. Past experience coupled with recent modeling work indicate that the system has sufficient capacity to handle anticipated feed volumetric changes.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 21

 

 

Conclusions

As with any extensive process modification effort, all possible contingencies may not be anticipated. However, based upon the project documentation provided, a site visit to the MP Materials installations at Mountain Pass, an interview with the manager of ongoing construction and conversations with MP Materials engineers who will be directly involved with the commissioning efforts, it is the opinion of SGS North America Inc. (SGS) that the Mountain Pass modification and modernization project has been performed in a professional manner. It is also SGS’s opinion that it is likely that the project schedule and commissioning efforts will be accomplished in the stipulated time frame, which is currently assumed to be year-end 2022.

 

1.5

Mineral Resource Estimate

The Mineral Resources are reported in accordance with the S-K regulations (Title 17, Part 229, Items 601 and 1300 until 1305). Mineral Resources are not Mineral Reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability. There is no certainty that all or any part of the Mineral Resource will be converted into Mineral Reserves. The Mineral Resource modelling and reporting was completed by SRK Consulting (U.S.) Inc.

The mineral resource estimate has been constrained by a geological model considering relevant rock types, structure, and mineralization envelopes as defined by TREO content within relevant geological features. This geological model is informed principally by diamond core drilling and multiple phases of geological mapping. Sectional interpretation based on the combination of these data were used to influence implicit modeling of the geological data with manual controls where appropriate.

SRK has dealt with uncertainty and risk at Mountain Pass by classifying the contained resource by varying degrees of confidence in the estimate. The mineral resources at the Mountain Pass deposit have been classified in accordance with the S-K 1300 regulations. The classification parameters are defined by both the distance to composite data, the number of drillholes used to inform block grades and a geostatistical indicator of relative estimation quality (kriging efficiency). Density is based on average density measurements collected from the various rock types over the years, and carbonatite density in particular is supported by extensive mining and processing experience with the materials.

A cut-off grade (COG) of 2.28% TREO has been developed to ensure that material reported as a mineral resource can satisfy the definition of reasonable potential for eventual economic extraction (RPEEE). Mineral resources have been constrained within an economic pit shell based on reserve input parameters. For mineral resources, a revenue factor of 1.0 is selected which corresponds to a break-even pit shell. SRK notes that the pit selected for mineral resources has been influenced by setbacks relative to critical infrastructure such as the tailing storage and the rare earth oxide (REO) concentrator.

The September 30, 2021, mineral resource statement is shown in Table 1-2. The reference point for the mineral resources is in situ material.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 22

 

 

Table 1-2: Mineral Resource Statement for the Mountain Pass Rare Earth Project, September 30, 2021

 

Category

  

Resource

Type

    

Cut-Off

TREO%

 

 

    

Mass

(million sh. ton)

 

 

     Average Value     
    

TREO(1)

(%)

 

 

    

La2O3(2)

(%)

 

 

    

CeO2

(%)

 

 

    

Pr6O11

(%)

 

 

    

Nd2O3

(%)

 

 

    

Sm2O3

(%)

 

 

  

Indicated

  

Within the

Reserve Pit

     2.28-2.49         0.9         2.38         0.78         1.19         0.10         0.29         0.02      
  

Within the

Resource Pit

     2.28        0.5        3.61        1.18        1.80        0.16        0.44        0.03     

Total

Indicated

                   1.4        2.82        0.92        1.41        0.12        0.34        0.03     

Inferred

  

Within the

Reserve Pit

     2.28-2.49        7.1        5.48        1.78        2.73        0.24        0.66        0.05     
  

Withing the

Resource Pit

     2.28        2.1        3.81        1.24        1.90        0.16        0.46        0.03     

Total

Inferred

                   9.1        5.10        1.66        2.54        0.22        0.62        0.05     

Source: SRK 2021

(1): TREO% represents the total of individually assayed light rare earth oxides on a 99.7% basis of total contained TREO, based on the historical site analyses.

(2): Percentage of individual light rare earth oxides are based on the average ratios; La2O3 is calculated at a ratio of 32.6% grade of TREO% equivalent estimated grade, CeO2 is calculated at a ratio of 49.9% of TREO% equivalent estimated grade, Pr6O11 is calculated at a ratio of 4.3% of TREO% equivalent estimated grade, Nd2O3 is calculated at a ratio of 12.1% of TREO% equivalent estimated grade, and Sm2O3 is calculated at a ratio of 0.90% of TREO% equivalent estimated grade. The sum of light rare earths averages 99.7%; the additional 0.3% cannot be accounted for based on the analyses available to date and has been discounted from this resource statement.

General Notes:

   

Mineral Resources are reported exclusive of Mineral Reserves.

   

Mineral Resources are not Mineral Reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability. There is no certainty that all or any part of the Mineral Resources estimated will be converted into Mineral Reserves estimate.

   

Mineral Resource tonnage and contained metal have been rounded to reflect the accuracy of the estimate, any apparent errors are insignificant.

   

Mineral Resource tonnage and grade are reported as diluted.

   

The Mineral Resource model has been depleted for historical and forecast mining based on the September 30, 2021, pit topography.

   

Pit optimization cut-off grade is based on an average TREO% equivalent concentrate price of US$7,059/st of dry concentrate (60% TREO, net of the incremental benefits and costs related to REE separations), average mining cost at the pit exit of US$1.825/st mined plus US$0.018/st mined for each 15 ft bench above or below the pit exit, combined milling and G&A costs of US$69.90/st milled, concentrate freight of US$177/st of dry concentrate, and an average overall pit slope angle of 42° including ramps.

   

The mineral resource statement reported herein only includes the rare earth elements cerium, lanthanum, neodymium, praseodymium, and samarium (often referred to as light rare earths). While other rare earth elements, often referred to as heavy rare earths, are present in the deposit, they are not accounted for in this estimate due to historic data limitations (see Section 9.2.6).

 

1.6

Mineral Reserve Estimate

SRK developed a life-of-mine (LoM) plan for the Mountain Pass operation in support of mineral reserves. For economic modeling, 2022 production was assumed to be bastnaesite concentrate. From 2023 onward, it was assumed that MP Materials will operate a separations facility at the Mountain Pass site that will allow the Company to separate bastnaesite concentrate into four individual REO products for sale (PrNd oxide, SEG+ oxalate, La carbonate/La oxide, and Ce chloride). Forecast economic parameters are based on current cost performance for process, transportation, and administrative costs, as well as a first principles estimation of future mining costs. Forecast revenue from concentrate sales and individual separated product sales is based on a preliminary market study commissioned by MP Materials, as discussed in Section 16 of this report.

From this evaluation, pit optimization was performed based on an equivalent concentrate price of US$6,139 per dry st of 60% TREO concentrate (net of the incremental benefits and costs related to REE separations). The results of pit optimization guided the design and scheduling of the ultimate pit.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 23

 

 

SRK generated a cash flow model which indicated positive economics for the LoM plan, which provides the basis for the reserves. Reserves within the new ultimate pit are sequenced for the full 35-year LoM. There is a partial year of stockpile processing after mining of in situ reserves is completed.

The costs used for pit optimization include estimated mining, processing, sustaining capital, transportation, and administrative costs, including an allocation of corporate costs. Processing and G&A costs used for pit optimization were based on 12-month rolling average actual costs from August 2020 – July 2021. Processing and G&A costs used for economic modeling were updated subsequent to pit optimization and are based on January 2021 – September 2021 actual costs.

Processing recovery for concentrate is variable based on a mathematical relationship to estimate overall TREO recovery versus ore grade. The calculated COG for the reserves is 2.49% TREO, which was applied to indicated blocks contained within an ultimate pit, the design of which was guided by economic pit optimization.

The optimized pit shell selected to guide final pit design was based on a combination of the revenue factor (RF) 0.45 pit (used on the north half of the deposit) and the RF 1.00 pit shell (used on the south half of the deposit). The inter-ramp pit slopes used for the design are based on geotechnical studies and range from 42° to 47°.

Measured resources in stockpiles were converted to proven reserves. Indicated pit resources were converted to probable reserves by applying the appropriate modifying factors, as described herein, to potential mining pit shapes created during the mine design process. Inferred resources present within the LoM pit are treated as waste.

The mine design process results in in situ open pit mining reserves of 30.45 million st with an average grade of 6.35% TREO. Table 1-3 presents the mineral reserve statement, as of September 30, 2021, for the Mountain Pass mine (MP Materials’ mining engineers provided a month-end September 2021 topography as a reserve starting point). The reference point for the mineral reserves is ore delivered to the Mountain Pass concentrator.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 24

 

 

Table 1-3: Mineral Reserves at Mountain Pass as of September 30, 2021 - SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

Category        Description        Run-of-Mine  (RoM)          TREO%          MY%      Concentrate         
  

Million Short Tons

(dry)

    

    Million Short Tons

(dry)

        

Proven

  

Current Stockpiles

     0.05        9.45        10.88        0.01     
  

In situ

     -        -        -        -     
  

Proven Totals

     0.05        9.45        10.88        0.01     

Probable

  

Current Stockpiles

     -        -        -        -     
  

In situ

     30.4        6.35        6.74        2.05     
  

Probable Totals

     30.4        6.35        6.74        2.05     

Proven +

Probable

  

Current Stockpiles

     0.05        9.45        10.88        0.01     
  

In situ

     30.4        6.35        6.74        2.05     
  

Proven + Probable Totals

     30.45         6.36         6.75         2.05      

Source: SRK, 2021

General Notes:

   

Reserves stated as contained within an economically minable open pit design stated above a 2.49% TREO COG.

   

Mineral reserves tonnage and contained metal have been rounded to reflect the accuracy of the estimate, and numbers may not add due to rounding. A small difference of approximately 0.3% between the reserve tonnage and the ore tonnage used in the cashflow model is not considered to be material.

   

MY% calculation is based on 60% concentrate grade of the product and the ore grade dependent metallurgical recovery. MY% = (TREO% * Met recovery)/60% concentrate TREO grade.

   

Indicated mineral resources have been converted to Probable reserves. Measured mineral resources have been converted to Proven reserves.

   

Reserves are diluted at the contact of the 2% TREO geological model triangulation (further to dilution inherent to the resource model and assume selective mining unit of 15 ft x 15 ft x30 ft).

   

Mineral reserves tonnage and grade are reported as diluted.

   

Pit optimization COG is based on an average TREO% equivalent concentration price of US$6,139/st of dry concentrate (60% TREO, net of the incremental benefits and costs related to REE separations), average mining cost at the pit exit of US$1.825/st mined plus US$0.018/st mined for each 15 ft bench above or below the pit exit, combined milling and G&A costs of US$69.90/st milled, concentrate freight of US$177/st of dry concentrate, and an average overall pit slope angle of 42° including ramps.

   

The topography used was from September 30, 2021.

   

Reserves contain material inside and outside permitted mining but within mineral lease.

   

Reserves assume 100% mining recovery.

   

The strip ratio was 6.1 to 1 (waste to ore ratio).

   

The mineral reserves were estimated by SRK Consulting (U.S.) Inc.

The reserve estimate herein is subject to potential change based on changes to the forward-looking cost and revenue assumptions utilized in this study. It is assumed that MP Materials will produce and sell bastnaesite concentrate to customers in 2022. It is further assumed that MP Materials will ramp its on-site separations facilities (currently undergoing modification and recommissioning) as discussed in Section 10.4 and will transition to selling separated rare earth products starting in 2023.

Full extraction of this reserve is dependent upon modification of current permitted boundaries. Failure to achieve modification of these boundaries would result in MP Materials not being able to extract the full reserve estimated in this study. It is MP Materials’ expectation that it will be successful in modifying this permit condition. In SRK’s opinion, MP Materials’ expectation in this regard is reasonable.

A portion of the pit encroaches on an adjoining mineral right holder’s concession. This portion of the pit only includes waste stripping (i.e., no rare earth mineralization is assumed to be extracted from this concession). The prior owner of Mountain Pass had an agreement with this concession holder to allow this waste stripping (with the requirement that aggregate mined be stockpiled for the owner’s use). MP Materials does not currently have this agreement in place, but SRK believes it is reasonable to assume that MP Materials will be able to negotiate a similar agreement.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 25

 

 

1.7

Mining Methods

Mountain Pass is currently being mined using conventional open-pit methods. The open pit is in gently undulating topography intersecting natural drainages that require diversion to withstand some rainfall events during the summer and winter months. Waste dumps are managed according to the Action Plan (AP), are located on high ground, and are designed for control of drainage (contact water) if required.

The open pit that forms the basis of the mineral reserves and the LoM production schedule is approximately 3,100 ft from east to west and 3,800 ft from north to south with a maximum depth of 1,400 ft. Total mining is estimated at 216 million st comprised of 30.4 million st of ore and 186 million st of waste, resulting in a strip ratio of 6.1 (waste to ore). Mined ore grade averages 6.35% TREO yielding over 2.05 million dry st of recoverable 60% TREO concentrate. SRK designed four pit pushbacks that adhere to proper minimum mining widths. Bench sinking rates are approximated to no more than six benches per year per pushback.

Figure 1-1 illustrates the site layout and final pit design (the tailings area is not highlighted in this image).

 

LOGO

16000 N 15000 N 14000 N 13000 N 12000 N 11000 N 10000 N 9000 N 8000 N 7000 N 1000 E 2000 E 3000N 4000 E 5000 E 6000 E 7000 E 8000 E 9000 N 10000 E 11000 E 12000 E 13000 E 14000 E

Source SRK, 2021

Figure 1-1: Final Pit Design and Site Layout

Mine activities include drilling, blasting, loading, hauling, and mining support activities. Drill and blast operations are performed by a contractor, and this will continue for the foreseeable future. All other mine operations are performed by MP Materials. The primary loading equipment is front-end loaders

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 26

 

 

(15 cubic yards (yd3)), which were selected for operational flexibility. Rigid frame haul trucks with 102 wet short tons (wst) capacity were selected to match with the loading units.

Material within the pit will be blasted on 30 ft high benches. Material classified as reserves (>2.49% TREO) will be sent to the RoM stockpiles for near-term blending to the primary crusher or, alternatively, to long-term stockpiles for processing later in the mine life. Waste dumps will be used for material below 2.49% TREO.

The mine operations schedule includes one 12-hour day shift, seven days per week for 365 days per year.

 

1.8

Recovery Methods

 

1.8.1

Existing Crushing and Concentrating Operations

MP Materials operates a 2,000 t/d flotation concentrator that produces concentrates that are currently sold to customers who further process the concentrates to produce separated rare earth oxides. The concentrator flowsheet includes crushing, grinding, rougher/scavenger flotation, cleaner flotation, concentrate thickening and filtration and tailings thickening and filtration followed by dry stack tailings disposal. Significant improvements in concentrator performance have occurred since inception of operations, which are attributed primarily to new reagent and ore blending schemes as well as the introduction of steam boiler to support process kinetics. During 2020 TREO recovery averaged 66.8% into concentrates containing an average of 60.6% TREO. During 2021 (January – September) TREO recovery has averaged 69.8% into concentrates averaging 61.2% TREO, reflecting ongoing operational improvements in the concentrator.

 

1.8.2

Modified and Recommissioned Separations Facility

MP Materials is in the process of modifying and recommission its on-site separations facility to produce individual rare earth products as previously summarized in Table 1-3. The incentive for this substantial process change is the enhancement of revenue that would be realized for producing individual rare earth products as compared to the current practice of producing a single rare earth containing flotation concentrate which is then sold to various entities that separate and market individual rare earth products. MP Materials has investigated the marketability of the proposed new products and has reached the conclusion that the process modifications specified herein should go forward and has made substantial technical and financial commitments to that end.

Consequently, based upon the value of the rare earth products defined in the table above, coupled with a site visit to the MP Materials installations at Mountain Pass, an interview with the manager of ongoing construction, and conversations with MP Materials engineers that will be directly involved with the commissioning efforts, it is the opinion of SGS that the Mountain Pass modification and modernization project has been performed in an expeditious and professional manner. It is likely that the project construction completion schedule presently anticipated to complete by year-end 2022 will be realized. It is also likely that the ramp schedule assumed for economic modeling purposes, which estimated feeding 50%, 90%, and 100% of concentrate production into the facility in 2023, 2024, and 2025, respectively, is conservative and will be achieved.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 27

 

 

1.9

Project Infrastructure

The Project is in San Bernardino County, California, north of and adjacent to Interstate 15 (I-15), approximately 15 mi southwest of the California-Nevada state line and 30 mi northeast of Baker, California (Figure 3-2).

The nearest major city is Las Vegas, Nevada, located 50 mi to the east on I-15. The Project lies immediately north of I-15 at Mountain Pass and is accessed by the Bailey Road Exit (Exit 281 of I-15), which leads directly to the main gate. The mine is approximately 15 mi southwest of the California-Nevada state line in an otherwise undeveloped area, enclosed by surrounding natural topographic features.

Outside services include industrial maintenance contractors, equipment suppliers and general service contractors. Access to qualified contractors and suppliers is excellent due to the proximity of population centers such as Las Vegas, Nevada as well as Elko, Nevada (an established large mining district) and Phoenix, Arizona (servicing the copper mining industry).

Access to the site, as well as site haul roads and other minor roads are fully developed and controlled by MP Materials. There is no public access through the Project area. All public access roads that lead to the Project are gated at the property boundary.

MP Materials has fully developed an operating infrastructure for the Project in support of extraction and concentrating activities. A manned security gate is located on Bailey Road for providing required site-specific safety briefings and monitoring personnel entry and exit to the Project.

The site has a 12-kV electrical powerline that supplies the full power needs of the Project in its current configuration. The site also uses piped natural gas to supply a rental boiler used to provide steam for the concentrator plant. Development activities completed by the prior Project owner included the construction of a Combined Heat and Power (CHP) or co-generation (cogen) power facility to address the increased electrical demands associated with the process flow sheet utilized at that time. This CHP plant is in the final stages of being recommissioned and is expected to provide for all the electricity and steam needs for all process areas of the site in early 2022, replacing the need for grid power and the rental boiler.

Water is supplied through active water wells, legacy treatment wells, mine dewatering, and natural precipitation. The Project has a net positive water balance and excess water is evaporated in evaporation ponds. Fire systems are supplied by separate fire water tanks and pumps.

The site has all facilities required for operation, including the open pit, concentrator, access and haul roads, explosives storage, fuel tanks and fueling systems, warehouse, security guard house and perimeter fencing, tailings filter plant, tailings storage area, waste rock storage area, administrative and office buildings, surface water control systems, evaporation ponds, miscellaneous shops, truck shop, laboratory, multiple laydown areas, power supply, water supply, gas-fired boiler and support equipment, waste handling bins and temporary storage locations, and a fully developed communications system.

The LoM plan will require the relocation in 2036 of the paste tailings plant and the water tanks currently northeast of the pit highwall near the concentration plant. Additionally, the crusher will be relocated in 2027 to allow the pit to expand to the north. Capital cost provisions are included in the economic model for these relocations.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 28

 

 

The design capacity of the tailings storage facility is approximately 24 million st. The project has utilized approximately 3.6 million st of that space. The existing facility will have a remaining capacity of approximately 20.4 million st which will provide over 23 years of storage. MP Materials will expand the existing tailings facility to the northwest in approximately 2042 to provide an additional 13 years of storage capacity. A capital cost provision has been included in the economic model for this expansion.

Site logistics are straightforward with the current concentrate product shipped in Super Sacks within a shipping container by truck approximately 4.5 hours to the port of Los Angeles. At the port, the containers are loaded onto a container ship and shipped to the final customers.

 

1.10

Market Studies and Contracts

Section 16 of this report highlights key trends within the REE market, which can be categorized by a significant degree of variation in the demand profiles for various REE and their associated products.

Products outlined in this report (PrNd oxide, SEG+ oxalate, La carbonate, and Ce chloride) are considered marketable from an economic perspective, provided market standards and requirements are met. As shown in Table 1-4, and based on outlined product specifications, CRU forecasts a long-term price of US$95/kg REO for PrNd oxide, US$7.5/kg REO for SEG+ oxalate, US$1.4/kg REO for Lanthanum carbonate, and US$4.4/kg REO for Cerium chloride. The mixed rare earth concentrate price of US$10/kg of contained REO will be principally driven by trends in PrNd and dysprosium (Dy), price swings of which will be mirrored by concentrates.

Table 1-4: Summary of Long Term Price Forecasts

 

Product    Long term price forecast, real 2020 US$/kg       
Mixed Rare Earth Concentrate        US$10 per kg of contained REO   
PrNd Oxide    US$95 per kg   
SEG+ Oxalate    US$7.5 per kg   
La Carbonate    US$1.4 per kg   
Cerium Chloride    US$4.4 per kg   

Source: CRU, 2022

At a high level, when constructing an average non-China rare earths project, the long-run incentive price for PrNd is calculated at ~US$85/kg. Expectations of a potentially persistent market deficit, with PrNd prices staying well above US$100/kg out to 2028 elevate the long term price forecast to US$95/kg. The SEG+ oxalate price forecast is based on projected terms at which Chinese separation facilities with heavy rare earth capacity will aim to purchase the oxalate as feedstock. The carbonate and chloride price forecasts are based on end-use production cost analysis. These forecasts are therefore based on a variation of product-specific market trends and long-run cost methodologies specific to rare earth operations.

A strong demand profile for PrNd oxide drives a weaker profile for Ce and La products, with the basket problem driving oversupplied Ce and La markets. As a result, the long-run price for PrNd is centered on the principle that it carries the cost of production for most operations. Heavy rare earth operations also contribute to economic value beyond the cost of their extraction, but separation is generally more expensive and therefore only feasible in higher quantities than average bastnaesite or monazite orebodies. Although the Mountain Pass facility may derive value for the mixed heavy rare earth product (SEG+ oxalate), PrNd oxide contains the most economic value at the present market view. Where

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 29

 

 

geopolitical tensions may intercede with standard market operations, Mountain Pass appears well positioned to provide market-standard products.

 

1.11

Environmental, Closure and Permitting

As of September 30, 2021, MP Materials holds the necessary operating permits, including conditional use and minor use permits from the County of San Bernardino (SBC), which currently allows continued operations of the Mountain Pass facility through 2042.

MP Materials maintains financial assurance cost estimates for closure, post-closure maintenance (PCM), and All Known and Reasonably Foreseeable Releases (AKRFR) for current and planned operations at the Mountain Pass property. The Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (LRWQCB) administers the groundwater and surface water related financial assurance obligations. The SBC administers financial assurance requirements for surface reclamation of the property. The California Department of Resource, Recycling and Recovery administers financial assurance requirements for decontamination and decommissioning activities. MP Materials maintains miscellaneous financial assurance instruments for other closure-related obligations. As of September 2021, the total financial assurance obligation is approximately US$39 million.

 

1.12

Capital and Operating Costs

Capital and operating costs are incurred and reported in US dollars and are estimated at a pre-feasibility level with an accuracy of approximately +/-25%.

Capital Costs

The mine is currently operating and, as such, there is no initial capital expenditure other than for modification and recommissioning of the separations facility, which is currently underway. Recommissioning capital expenditures for the water treatment plant and the CHP plant have largely been incurred in 2021, with both units in service as of the end of 2021. All other capital expenditure as contemplated by this report is expected to be sustaining capital. Sustaining capital expenditures include the sustaining capital cost associated with the mining fleet. Also included are sustaining capital cost provisions for planned paste tailings plant, crusher and water tank relocations and the “other” category, which captures all other sustaining capital costs.

Capital costs for the separations facility modification and recommissioning have been reviewed and approved by SGS. All other capital costs have been reviewed and approved by SRK.

Table 1-4 summarizes the LoM capital costs for Mountain Pass.

Table 1-4: LoM Capital Expenditures

 

Category   

Years

Incurred

    

LoM Total

(US$ million)

      

Separations Facility Modification and Recommissioning

     2021-2022        210.4     

Mining Equipment Replacements and Rebuilds

     2021-2055        61.4     

Infrastructure Relocations

     2027-2036        78.0     

TSF Expansion

     2042        10.0     

Closure

     2057        39.0     

Separations Facility Sustaining

     2023-2055        210.5     

Other Sustaining

     2021-2056        537.9     

Total

              1,145.7     

Source: SRK and SGS

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 30

 

 

Operating Costs

For economic modeling, the operating costs are allocated among three main areas: mining, processing and site general and administrative (G&A). SRK developed a first principles operating cost forecast for mining. SGS and MP Materials developed a first principles operating cost forecast for the modified and recommissioned separations facility. Otherwise, costs are forecast based on current operating results, with appropriate adjustments for anticipated future changes in the configuration of the operation.

The estimated operating costs are presented in Table 1-5.

Table 1-5: Operating Costs

 

Category   

LoM Total

    (US$ million)

   

Average Unit Cost

    (US$/ore ton processed)

     

Mining

     599.1        19.6     

Processing (including separations)

     5,259.7       172.3    

Site G&A

     670.9       22.0    

Total

     6,529.7       213.9    

Source: SRK and SGS

 

1.13

Economic Analysis

SRK generated an economic model for the life of the reserve stated in this report. The economic model utilized the capital and operating costs described in Section 18. Product sales price assumptions are described in Section 16 and are based on a preliminary market study. Based on this economic analysis, the reserve stated herein generates positive free cash flow and meets the economic test for the declaration of a reserve under SEC regulations.

Economic analysis, including estimation of capital and operating costs is inherently a forward-looking exercise. These estimates rely upon a range of assumptions and forecasts that are subject to change depending upon macroeconomic conditions, operating strategy and new data collected through future operations and therefore actual economic outcomes often deviate significantly from forecasts.

The Mountain Pass operation consists of an open pit mine and several processing facilities fed by the open pit mine. The operation is expected to have a 36 year life with the first modeled year of operation a partial year to align with the effective date of the reserves. The final year (also a partial year) is limited to the processing of remaining stockpiles.

The economic analysis metrics are prepared on annual after-tax basis in US$. The results of the analysis are presented in Table 1-4. The results indicate that, at prices outlined in the market study section of this report, the operation returns an after-tax net present value (NPV) at 6% of US$2.6 billion. Note, that because the mine is in operation and is valued on a total project basis with prior costs treated as sunk, internal rate of return (IRR) and payback period analysis are not relevant metrics.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 31

 

 

Table 1-4: Cash Flow Summary

 

LoM Cash Flow (unfinanced)    Units    Value      

Total Revenue

   US$ (million)      15,271.08    

Total Opex

   US$ (million)      (6,529.67  

Operating Margin

   US$ (million)      8,741.41    

Operating Margin Ratio

   %      57  

Taxes Paid

   US$ (million)      (2,075.10  

Before Tax

         

Free Cash Flow

   US$ (million)      7,595.68    

NPV at 6%

   US$ (million)      3,478.59    

After Tax

         

Free Cash Flow

   US$ (million)      5,520.59    

NPV at 6%

   US$ (million)      2,556.82    

Source: SRK

A summary of the cashflow on an annual basis is presented in Figure 1-2.

 

LOGO

Project Cashflow (unfinanced) 600 400 2000 1,000 Revenus US$ (Millions) 200 (400) (800) 2027 Operating Cost 2028 2040 Working Capital Adjustment 2037 2039 Sustaining Capital 2011 2042 2013 2048 Tax Paid - Project Net Cashflow 2051 Camulative Net Cashflow 2036

Source: SRK

Figure 1-2: Project Cashflow

 

1.14

Conclusions and Recommendations

Based on the data available and the analysis described in this report, in SRK’s opinion, the Mountain Pass operation has a valid mineral resource and mineral reserve, as stated herein. The mineral resource model has been updated with revised drilling information and a new geological model. The resource estimation has been validated using conventional means and reconciled against production records.

The resources and reserves are subject to potential change based on changes to the forward-looking cost and revenue assumptions utilized in this study. Rare earth concentrate sales to China are currently subject to value added tax (VAT). Sales of individual rare earth products are assumed to begin in 2023, subject to the successful modification and recommissioning of the on-site separations facility, which is currently underway.

Full extraction of this reserve is dependent upon modification of current permitted boundaries. Failure to achieve modification of these boundaries would result in MP Materials not being able to extract the full reserve estimated in this study. It is MP Materials’ expectation that it will be successful in modifying this permit condition. In SRK’s opinion, MP Materials’ expectation in this regard is reasonable.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 32

 

 

A portion of the pit encroaches on an adjoining mineral right holder’s concession. This portion of the pit only includes waste stripping (i.e., no rare earth mineralization is assumed to be extracted from this concession). The prior owner of Mountain Pass had an agreement with this concession holder to allow this waste stripping (with the requirement that aggregate mined be stockpiled for the owner’s use). MP Materials does not currently have this agreement in place, but SRK believes it is reasonable to assume that MP Materials will be able to negotiate a similar agreement.

Additional opportunity exists from the potential to convert current inferred resources both within the LoM pit and on the fringes of the pit. The conversion of inferred resources to either measured or indicated resources, if successful, would increase the mine life and reduce waste stripping. Therefore, SRK recommends that MP Materials target infill drilling for the purpose of this conversion and to improve definition of the higher grade and mineralogically distinct parts of the orebody. This effort should include a robust QA/QC program and an expanded assay program to better define individual rare earth components and a more comprehensive determination of density values and their relationship with grade.

Other, more minor recommendations are detailed in Section 23.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 33

 

 

2

Introduction

 

2.1

Registrant for Whom the Technical Report Summary was Prepared

This report was prepared as a pre-feasibility level Technical Report Summary in accordance with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) S-K regulations (Title 17, Part 229, Items 601 and 1300 until 1305) for MP Materials Corp. (MP Materials) by SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. (SRK) on the Mountain Pass Mine (Mountain Pass).

 

2.2

Terms of Reference and Purpose of the Report

The quality of information, conclusions, and estimates contained herein are consistent with the level of effort involved in SRK’s services, based on: i) information available at the time of preparation and ii) the assumptions, conditions, and qualifications set forth in this report. This Technical Report Summary is based on pre-feasibility level engineering.

This report is intended for use by MP Materials subject to the terms and conditions of its contract with SRK and relevant securities legislation. The contract permits MP Materials to file this report as a Technical Report Summary with U.S. securities regulatory authorities pursuant to the SEC S-K regulations, more specifically Title 17, Subpart 229.600, Item 601(b)(96) - Technical Report Summary and Title 17, Subpart 229.1300 - Disclosure by Registrants Engaged in Mining Operations. Except for the purposes legislated under U.S. securities law, any other uses of this report by any third party are at that party’s sole risk. The responsibility for this disclosure remains with MP Materials.

The purpose of this Technical Report Summary is to report mineral resources and mineral reserves.

 

2.3

Sources of Information

This report is based in part on internal Company technical reports, previous feasibility studies, maps, published government reports, Company letters and memoranda, and public information as cited throughout this report and listed in Section 24.

Reliance upon information provided by the registrant is listed in Section 25 when applicable.

 

2.4

Details of Inspection

Table 2-1 summarizes the details of the personal inspections on the property by each qualified person or, if applicable, the reason why a personal inspection has not been completed.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 34

 

 

Table 2-1: Site Visits

 

Expertise    Company      Date(s) of Visit      Details of Inspection  
Infrastructure    SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.     
        September 25,
2019

 
   Infrastructure, tailings area, general site inspection  
Slope Stability/
Engineering Geology        
   SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.     
September 25,
2019

 
   Open pit slopes and stockpiles  
Mining/Reserves    SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.     
September 30,
2019

 
   Review of the current practices and inspection  
Geology/Mineral
Resources
   SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.     
August 10-13,
2021
 
 
   Review of the current practices and inspection of laboratory and core facility, tour of pit geology, meetings and technical sessions on geological modeling.  
Metallurgy/
Process
   SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.     
September 25,
2019

 
   Review of the current practices and inspection  
Separations Facility    SGS North America Inc.      January 11, 2022      Review of construction progress  
Environmental/
Permitting/
Closure
   SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.     
No recent
site visit

 
   Visited site on several occasions under previous ownership  

Source: SRK, 2022

 

2.5

Report Version Update

The user of this document should ensure that this is the most recent Technical Report Summary for the property.

This Technical Report Summary is not an update of a previously filed technical report summary filed pursuant to 17 CFR §§ 229.1300 through 229.1305 (subpart 229.1300 of Regulation S-K).

 

2.6

Units of Measure

The US System for weights and units has been used throughout this report. Tons are reported in short tons of 2,000 lb, drilling and resource model dimensions and map scales are in ft. All currency is in U.S. dollars (US$) unless otherwise stated.

 

2.7

Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve Definitions

The terms “mineral resource” and “mineral reserves” as used in this Technical Report Summary have the following definitions.

Mineral Resources

17 CFR § 229.1300 defines a “mineral resource” as 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 cut-off 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.

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

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 35

 

 

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.

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.

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.

Mineral Reserves

17 CFR § 229.1300 defines a “mineral reserve” 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. 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. A “probable mineral reserve” is the economically mineable part of an indicated and, in some cases, a measured mineral resource.

 

2.8

Qualified Person

This report was compiled by SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc., with contributions from SGS North America Inc. and CRU International Limited. All three firms are third-party firms comprising mining experts in accordance with 17 CFR § 229.1302(b)(1). MP Materials has determined that all three firms meet the qualifications specified under the definition of qualified person in 17 CFR § 229.1300.

SGS North America Inc. prepared the following sections of the report.

 

   

Sections 1.4.2 and 1.8.2 (Recommissioned Separations Facility)

 

   

Section 10.4 (Separation of Rare Earth Elements)

 

   

Section 14.6 (Individual Rare Earths Separations)

 

   

Sections 18.1.2 and 18.1.5 (Separations Facility Capital Cost)

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 36

 

 

   

Section 18.2.2 (Separations Facility Operating Cost)

 

   

Section 22.3.2 (Separations Facility)

 

   

Related contributions to Section 1 (Executive Summary), Section 23 (Recommendations) and Section 24 (References)

In sections of this report prepared by SGS, references to the Qualified Person or QP are references to SGS North America Inc. and not to any individual employed at SGS.

CRU International Limited prepared the following sections of the report.

 

   

Section 16 (Market Studies and Contracts)

 

   

Related contributions to Section 1 (Executive Summary), Section 23 (Recommendations) and Section 24 (References)

In sections of this report prepared by CRU, references to the Qualified Person or QP are references to CRU International Limited and not to any individual employed at CRU.

SRK Consulting (U.S.) Inc. prepared all sections of the report that are not identified in this Section 2.8 as being prepared by SGS and CRU. In sections of this report prepared by SRK, references to the Qualified Person or QP are references to SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. and not to any individual employed at SRK.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 37

 

 

3

Property Description and Location

MP Materials’ surface ownership includes approximately 2,222 acres (900 hectares (ha)). The County of San Bernardino General Plan previously designated the Official Land Use District for the majority of the site as Resource Conservation. In 2021 a rezoning was completed, with the majority of the site designated for Regional Industrial (IR). The site is located within Improvement Overlay District 5, which applies to very rural areas with little or no development potential. The County Development Code permits mining in any land use district within the County subject to a conditional use permit.

The lands surrounding the Mountain Pass Mine site are mostly public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The Mojave National Preserve, managed by the National Park Service, lies two to three miles to the north, west, and south of the site. The Clark Mountain Wilderness Area is located four miles northwest of the project site.

Current mining and mineral recovery operations include the following major activities and facilities at the mine site (Figure 3-1):

 

   

A single open pit mine for extraction of the rare earth mineralization

 

   

West and north overburden stockpiles (overburden consists of un-mineralized rock extracted from the pit)

 

   

Crusher and mill/flotation plant

 

   

Paste tailings disposal facility

 

   

Mineral recovery plants (currently undergoing modification and recommissioning)

 

   

Offices, warehouses, and support buildings

 

   

Onsite evaporation pond facility

 

   

Product storage

 

   

Stormwater ponds

The primary mineral of economic interest mined historically at the Project is bastnaesite, a light brown carbonate mineral that is significantly enriched with 14 of the lanthanide elements plus yttrium.

As the Mountain Pass operation is currently configured, the material is crushed and blended at the crushing plant and then conveyed to the mill. At the mill, the crushed material is ground further with a ball mill and is conveyed via a slurry pipeline to the flotation plant to separate the bastnaesite from the gangue minerals. The primary product of the flotation process is a bastnaesite concentrate, which is filter-dried and then transported to customers for sale. Engineered containment facilities are used for storage of product and feedstock. Other ponds are used to control storm water runoff.

MP Materials is in the process of modifying and recommissioning a REE separations facility at Mountain Pass which, when placed into operation, will allow MP Materials to produce four saleable REE products: praseodymium and neodymium (PrNd) oxide, samarium, europium, and gadolinium (SEG+) oxalate, lanthanum (La) carbonate, and cerium (Ce) chloride.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 38

 

 

LOGO

N 115.55 Property Line utility 35.483333°N Specialty Plant Gas Meter Site Shop/ Main Warehouse Maintenance Shop Administration Mobile Maintenance/ Warehouse Health/Safety Former Tailings Pund Warehouse Training Center Legacy Plant Open PIL Mine Separation Pa Crusher Tallings Plant Evaporation Fonds Northwest Tailings Disposal Facility West Overburden Stuckpile Warehouse

Source: MP Materials, 2021

Figure 3-1: General Facility Arrangement (WGS84 Coordinate System)

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 39

 

 

3.1

Property Location

Mountain Pass is located in San Bernardino County, California, north of and adjacent to Interstate-15 (I-15), approximately 15 miles southwest of the California-Nevada state line and 30 miles northeast of Baker, California, at geographic coordinates 35°28’56”N latitude and 115°31’54”W longitude (Figure 3-2). This area is part of the historic Clark Mining District established in 1865. Mountain Pass is the only rare earth deposit identified within this district. The Project lies within portions of Sections 11, 12, 13, and 14 of Township 16 North, Range 14 East, San Bernardino Base and Meridian.

 

LOGO

Re and High CLARK COUNTY Project Site COUNTY Nevado California KEEN COUNTY Visierelle ANGELES COUNTY RIVERSIDE COUNTY ORANGE

Source: Molycorp, 2010

Figure 3-2: Location Map

 

3.2

Mineral Title

Figure 3-3 illustrates the boundaries of the current mineral claims and surface rights associated with the Project, as provided by MP Materials. Mining claims and surface rights associated with the Project include:

 

   

Patented claims with surface rights owned by MPMO and mineral rights held by SNR

 

   

Unpatented lode and mineral claims held by SNR

 

   

Surface ownership by MPMO and mineral rights controlled by the State of California

 

   

Surface ownership by MPMO and mineral rights controlled by the U.S.

 

   

Surface ownership by School District and mineral rights controlled by the U.S.

The rare earth mineralization at the Project is located within land owned by MP Materials.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 40

 

 

Historically, the surface and subsurface rights associated with the Project were held by Molycorp, Inc. (Molycorp), which filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in 2015. As part of the corporate restructuring in the bankruptcy proceedings, the former assets of Molycorp, associated with the Project, were split between multiple parties. This included MP Mine Operations LLC (MPMO), which purchased the real property (e.g., equipment, surface rights, water rights, surface use rights, access rights, easements, etc.) and SNR, which purchased the subsurface mineral rights and certain intellectual property. MPMO entered into a lease agreement with SNR on April 3, 2017, allowing MP Materials to extract rare earth products and byproducts from the Project mineral rights (note that this agreement excludes rights to all other minerals and hydrocarbons that could be present at the Project) and utilize the intellectual property, held by SNR. At the time of entering into the lease agreement, MPMO and SNR had shareholders common to both entities; however, they were not partners in business nor did they hold any other joint interest. On November 17, 2020, MPMO and SNR were combined with Fortress Value Acquisition Corp. (FVAC) and became wholly-owned subsidiaries of FVAC, which was in turn renamed MP Materials Corp. Consequently, the intercompany transactions between MPMO and SNR did not continue after the business combination.

Discussion of each category of land ownership is provided in the following sections. Figure 3-3 provides a land tenure map. Listings of claims for MPMO and SNR as reflected on the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) website are located in Appendix A to this Technical Report Summary.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 41

 

 

LOGO

11 29 34 MOUNTAIN PASS RARE EARTHO DISTR CLAIM AND PROPERTY MAP 5 22 36 18 16 15 19 20 21 22 29 28 27 32 33 34 21 22 27 34 2 31 25 26 21 22 23 15 10 3 34 36 1

Source: Chevron, 2007

Figure 3-3: Land Tenure Map

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 42

 

 

3.2.1

Nature and Extent of Registrant’s Interest

Surface Ownership by MP Materials and Mineral Rights by the State of California

The California State Lands Commission (CSLC) retains a mineral right in T16N, R14E, Section 13 (Figure 4-2). In a June 19, 2003, letter from the CSLC letter to the previous Project owner, “...the CSLC has advised San Bernardino County that the State acquired and patented certain lands within the proposed project boundary, reserving a 100% mineral interest in approximately 400 acres in the S1/2, SE1/4 of NE1/4, and the SW1/4 of the NW1/4 of Section 13, T16N, R13E, SBM. This interest is under the jurisdiction of the CSLC.” (CSLC, 2003).

Surface Ownership by MP Materials and Mineral Rights by the U.S. Government

The U.S. government holds the mineral rights to an approximate 2.25 square mile parcel of land located east of the planned area of operations.

Surface Ownership by School District and Mineral Rights by the State of California

The School District owns a 40-acre parcel of land adjacent to the Bailey Road highway exit. The State of California retains the mineral rights to this parcel. This mineral right is located to the south of the existing deposit and does not encroach on the ultimate boundaries of the open pit or overburden stockpiles. MPMO has entered into a lease with the School District for this parcel excluding those areas covered by the legacy school assets.

 

3.3

Royalties, Agreements, and Encumbrances

Several public service and utility easements and rights-of-way are located within the mine boundaries, including a Southern California Edison (SCE) electric utility easement and an AT&T right-of-way.

 

3.4

Environmental Liabilities and Permitting

MP Materials maintains financial assurance cost estimates for closure, PCM, and AKRFR for current and planned operations at the Mountain Pass property. The LRWQCB administers the groundwater and surface water related financial assurance obligations. San Bernardino County administers financial assurance requirements for surface reclamation of the property. The California Department of Resource, Recycling and Recovery administers financial assurance requirements for decontamination and decommissioning activities. MP Materials maintains miscellaneous financial assurance instruments for other closure-related obligations. Table 3-1 presents the current financial assurance obligations for the Mountain Pass property. The total financial assurance obligation is approximately US$39 million.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 43

 

 

Table 3-1: Current Financial Assurance Obligations

 

Regulatory Authority    Regulatory Obligation      FA Instrument       

FA

Instrument

(US$)

 

 

 

 
Lahontan Regional
Water Quality
Control Board
   Closure      Bond #K09652437        13,266,445    
   Post-Closure      Bond #K09652449        4,217,681     
   AKRFR      Bond #K09652450        8,759,632    
County of
San Bernardino
   Closure – Physical
Grading, Capping, Vegetating
and Monitoring
     Bond #K09652504        10,233,989    
   Closure and Regrading of
NW Evaporation Ponds
     Bond #K09652498        723,100    
California Department of Resource,
Recycling and Recovery
  

Closure – Landfill

Post-Closure Monitoring

    

Bond #SUR0059731

Trust Agreement

 

 

    

327,285

123,214

 

 

 
California Department of
Public Health –
Radiological Health Branch
   Closure – Decommissioning
of Industrial Facilities
     Bond #K09652474        1,125,000    
Bureau of Land Management    Fresh Water Wells ROW               191,200    
State Lands Commission    Fresh Water Pipeline ROW         20,000    

Total

 

     $38,987,546    

Source: MP Materials, 2021

Existing closure obligations include:

 

   

Reclamation and closure of the existing overburden stockpiles and dry stack tailings facility

 

   

Decommissioning of existing industrial facilities (e.g., the modified separations facility) in accordance with the approved Mine Reclamation Plan

 

   

Completing active Corrective Action Programs (CAP) for groundwater remediation

 

   

Clean closure of the on-site evaporation ponds

 

   

Indirect costs associated with direct costs listed above

Existing post-closure obligations include annual inspection and maintenance for the following closed facilities:

 

   

Pond P-1

 

   

Pond P-16

 

   

Community landfill

 

3.4.1

Remediation Liabilities

The AKRFR costs include approximately 20 years of ongoing groundwater extraction and treatment of a plume of impacted groundwater generated during historic operations. Pursuant to a 1998 clean up and abatement order issued by the LRWQCB, previous ownership conducted, and MP Materials continues to conduct various investigatory, monitoring, and groundwater abatement activities related to contamination at and around the Mountain Pass facility. These activities include soil remediation and the operation of groundwater monitoring and recovery wells, water treatment systems, and evaporation ponds.

 

3.4.2

Required Permits and Status

MP Materials holds conditional use and minor use permits from SBC, which currently allow continued operations of the Mountain Pass facility through 2042. MP Materials also holds permits to operate from

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 44

 

 

the LRWQCB and the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District. The Company plans to re-start the REE separations facility with some modifications to the process. The Company maintains the current permit authorization to operate the NWTDF and to co-dispose of other waste streams in the NWTDF. MP Materials anticipates these waste streams will meet the approved waste characterization profiles.

The updated mine plan extends mining through 2056. MP Materials will be required to amend the conditional use permit from SBC to accommodate the updated mine plan. Section 17.2 provides further information.

 

3.5

Other Significant Factors and Risks

Full extraction of this reserve is dependent upon modification of current permitted boundaries. Failure to achieve modification of these boundaries would result in MP Materials not being able to extract the full reserve estimated in this study. It is MP Materials’ expectation that it will be successful in modifying this permit condition. In SRK’s opinion, MP Materials’ expectation in this regard is reasonable.

A portion of the pit encroaches on an adjoining mineral right holder’s concession. This portion of the pit only includes waste stripping (i.e., no rare earth mineralization is assumed to be extracted from this concession). The prior owner of Mountain Pass had an agreement with this concession holder to allow this waste stripping (with the requirement that aggregate mined be stockpiled for the owner’s use). MP Materials does not currently have this agreement in place, but SRK believes it is reasonable to assume MP Materials will be able to negotiate a similar agreement.

SRK is not aware of any other risk items that can reasonably be assumed to impact access, title, right, or ability to perform work on the property.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 45

 

 

4

Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure, and Physiography

The Project is located in San Bernardino County, California, north of and adjacent to Interstate 15 (I-15), approximately 15 miles southwest of the California-Nevada state line and 30 miles northeast of Baker, California (Figure 3-2).

 

4.1

Topography, Elevation, and Vegetation

The area is in the southwestern part of the Great Basin section of the Basin and Range physiographic province, which is characterized by a series of generally north to south-trending mountain ranges separated by broad, low-relief alluvial basins, which often have internal drainage (Peterson, 1981).

The Project occupies the highest elevation along I-15 between Barstow, California, and Las Vegas, Nevada. Elevations range from 4,500 to 5,125 feet (ft) above mean sea level (amsl), with most of the site located between 4,600 to 4,900 ft amsl. Clark Mountain (located northwest of the Project) is the highest local peak at 7,903 ft amsl.

The major habitat in the Project area is Mojave Desert scrub. Local surface drainages support a mixture of scrub and riparian species. Vegetation is characterized by various yuccas with a predominance of Eastern Joshua trees, larger shrubs, thorn bushes, and a host of smaller shrubs. Areas of ongoing disturbance in the Project area are barren of vegetation.

 

4.2

Accessibility and Transportation to the Property

The nearest major city is Las Vegas, Nevada, located 50 miles to the northeast on I-15. The Project lies immediately north of I-15 at Mountain Pass and is accessed by the Bailey Road Exit (Exit 281 of I-15), which leads directly to the main gate. The mine is approximately 15 miles southwest of the California-Nevada state line in an otherwise undeveloped area, enclosed by surrounding natural topographic features. I-15 follows the natural drainages, east-west between the Clark Mountain and Mescal mountains ranges, cresting at Mountain Pass Summit at an elevation of 4,730 ft amsl.

All access to the Project is controlled by MP Materials, and there is no public access through the Project area. All public access roads that lead to the Project are gated at the property boundary.

MP Materials maintains the existing infrastructure for the Project in support of mining and processing activity. A manned security gate is located on Bailey Road for providing required site-specific safety briefings and monitoring personnel entry and exit to the Project.

 

4.3

Climate and Length of Operating Season

The climate at Mountain Pass is described as arid desert, generally hot and dry in the summer and mild in the winter, with limited precipitation and cloud cover. Based on Western Regional Climate Center Statistics, the coldest month of the year is January with an average minimum temperature of 29.5°F (-1.4°C). The warmest month is July with an average high temperature of 92.8°F (33.8°C).

Precipitation in the area of the mine averages 8.4 inches per year. The maximum precipitation from a single storm in the past 45 years was 5.9 inches (Geomega, 2000). Most storms yield a precipitation of 0.5 inch or less. Precipitation most frequently occurs during November through February, accounting for over 40% of the annual total rainfall. However, the most significant portion of the annual rainfall can

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 46

 

 

occur as summer thunderstorms during July and August with average monthly precipitation above 1.0 inch per month during these two months. These storms may result in heavy rainfall and flash floods. The snowfall in the winter months can accumulate rapidly but has minimal effect on operations. Operations at the Project are year-round.

 

4.4

Infrastructure Availability and Sources

MP Materials has fully developed operating infrastructure for the Project in support of extraction and concentrating activities. A manned security gate is located on Bailey Road for providing required site-specific safety briefings and monitoring personnel entry and exit to the Project.

Given the relative proximity of the Project to the city of Las Vegas, Nevada, most personnel at the Project commute from the greater Las Vegas area. This regional city provides an adequate source of skilled and unskilled labor for the operation.

Outside services include industrial maintenance contractors, equipment suppliers, and general service contractors. Access to qualified contractors and suppliers is excellent due to the proximity of population centers, such as Las Vegas, Elko, Nevada (an established large mining district), and Phoenix, Arizona (servicing the copper mining industry).

Power to the Mountain Pass facility is currently supplied by a 12-kV line from a Southern California Edison substation two miles away. The mine historically met thermal demands of the process circuit through use of boilers running on fuel oil, diesel, and propane. Development activities completed by the prior Project owner included the construction of a Combined Heat and Power (CHP) or co-generation (cogen) power facility to address the increased electrical demands associated with the process flow sheet utilized at that time. This CHP plant is in the final stages of being recommissioned and will provide for all the electricity and steam needs for all process areas of the site starting in early 2022.

Water is supplied through active water wells located eight miles west of the Project. Fire systems are supplied by separate fire water tanks and pumps.

Site logistics are straightforward with the current concentrate product currently shipped in Super Sacks within a shipping container by truck approximately 4.5 hours to the port of Los Angeles. At the port, the containers are loaded onto a container ship and shipped to the final customers.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 47

 

 

5

History

 

5.1

Prior Ownership and Ownership Changes

The Molybdenum Corporation of America (MCA) purchased the Birthday claims and the Sulfide Queen properties in 1950 and 1951, respectively. In 1974, MCA changed its name to Molycorp, Inc. (“Old Molycorp”). In 1977, Union Oil of California (Unocal) purchased Old Molycorp and operated the company as a wholly-owned subsidiary. In 2005, Chevron Corporation purchased Unocal. On September 30, 2008, Chevron sold the Mountain Pass facility and Rare Earth business, including the rights to the name Molycorp, to a private investor group who formed Molycorp, LLC. Molycorp, Inc. (“Molycorp”) was formed on March 4, 2010, for the purpose of continuing the business of Molycorp, LLC in corporate form. Molycorp filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in June 2015. As part of the corporate restructuring in the bankruptcy proceedings, the former assets of Molycorp associated with the Project were split between multiple parties. This included MPMO, which purchased the real property (e.g., equipment, surface rights, water rights, surface use rights, access rights, easements, etc.) and SNR, which purchased the subsurface mineral rights and certain intellectual property.

MPMO entered into a lease agreement with SNR on April 3, 2017, allowing MP Materials to extract rare earth products and byproducts from the Project mineral rights (note that this agreement excludes rights to all other minerals and hydrocarbons that could be present at the Project) and utilize the intellectual property, held by SNR. At the time of entering into the lease agreement, MPMO and SNR had shareholders common to both entities; however, they were not partners in business nor did they hold any other joint interest. On November 17, 2020, MPMO and SNR were combined with FVAC and became wholly-owned subsidiaries of FVAC, which was in turn renamed MP Materials Corp. Consequently, the intercompany transactions between MPMO and SNR did not continue after the business combination.

 

5.2

Exploration and Development Results of Previous Owners

The mining history of the area began with the organization of the Clark Mining District in 1865. This district produced about US$5,000,000 in silver between 1865 and about 1895 (Olson et al., 1954). Between 1900 and 1920, many small lead, zinc, copper, gold, and tungsten mines were operated in the area.

Mining at Mountain Pass began in 1924 when prospectors identified galena (lead sulfide) on Sulfide Queen Hill, which is near the location of the existing open pit. Several small shafts and trenches were excavated by various operators; however, no ore was shipped. The Sulfide Queen mine was developed and worked for gold between 1939 and 1942, producing about 350 ounces of gold from an inclined shaft about 320 ft deep and about 2,200 ft of workings developed on four levels.

The discovery of rare earth mineralization at Mountain Pass was made in April of 1949 by prospectors searching for uranium. Having noted that samples from the Sulfide Queen gold mine were radioactive, prospectors returned to the area and discovered a radioactive vein containing a large proportion of a light brown mineral (bastnaesite) that the prospectors were unable to identify. This original discovery is known as the Birthday vein. The prospectors sent a sample of the unknown mineral to the United States Bureau of Mines for identification.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 48

 

 

The USGS confirmed the bastnaesite discovery and made a public announcement in November 1949 (Olson et al., 1953). This attracted the attention of several mining companies, including MCA, which purchased the Birthday group of claims in February 1950. MCA sank a 100 ft-deep shaft on the Birthday claims, but no mineable ore was delineated, and development was stopped.

During this time, prospectors identified carbonatite dikes throughout a wider, adjacent area. The USGS proceeded to conduct detailed mapping of the entire Mountain Pass area. During this work, the USGS staff identified a massive body of carbonatite to the south of the Birthday claims, largely made up of barite, calcite, dolomite, and bastnaesite. Much of this carbonatite body was located on the original Sulfide Queen claims. MCA bought the Sulfide Queen claim group and the surrounding properties in January 1951. The existing gold mine and its associated equipment and buildings were also purchased, and a new crushing plant was installed. MCA drilled several hundred shallow churn holes in the following months and analyzed the cuttings for their rare-earth element contents (Olson et al., 1954).

Production of rare earth concentrate at the Project began in 1952, using the old gold plant, a new ball mill, and flotation cells from MCA’s Urad, Colorado, molybdenum property. Mining started on a portion of the deposit where the ore averaged more than 15% TREO. The production rate varied from 80 to 120 st per day.

MCA signed a contract with the U.S. General Services Administration to produce rare earth concentrates for the government stockpile. By 1954, MCA shipped one hundred and twenty 60 t carloads of bastnaesite concentrate to the government stockpile, thereby fulfilling the terms of the contract. Other markets for TREOs had not yet developed, and the mine and mill operated part-time with a small crew.

Owing to the increasing demand for europium for use in color televisions, MCA constructed a europium oxide plant in 1965 and increased production six-fold from the previous year to approximately 6.1 million pounds (Mlb) of TREO concentrate. The following year, a new concentrator was completed with a capacity of 600 metric tonnes per day. At the start of 1965, MCA produced 6,000 pounds per year (lb/yr) of europium oxide. By year-end, production of europium oxide reached 20,000 lb/yr. By the end of 1966, total production at the Project had quadrupled to 24 Mlb/yr of TREO concentrates.

Old Molycorp (formerly MCA) undertook a major geologic evaluation program at Mountain Pass between 1976 and 1980. MCA and Old Molycorp drilled dozens of diamond drillholes between 1953 and 1992 for exploration, mine development, and condemnation. More than 300 new mining claims were added over ground which could potentially contain rare earth mineralization. Regional aeromagnetic and radiometric surveys were conducted within and beyond the known rare earth mineralization, and Landsat imagery for the region was evaluated. The geological program included characterization of the alkaline rocks and rare earth mineralization of the district and involved detailed geologic mapping and petrographic studies of the Sulfide Queen deposit and the surrounding rocks. Ground-based geophysical surveys were completed over the known bastnaesite-bearing carbonatite and associated intrusive rocks.

Due to the continued expansion of the rare earths market, a new separation plant was completed in 1982, which could produce samarium and gadolinium oxides up to 99.999% in purity by solvent extraction (SX). Subsequently, the plant was modified to produce high-purity terbium oxide for fluorescent lighting.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 49

 

 

In 1989, Old Molycorp began production of dysprosium oxide and increased its output of neodymium to satisfy the demand created by the growing neodymium-iron-boron permanent magnet industry. By 1990, lanthanide processing facilities at Mountain Pass expanded to produce various TREO concentrates. Between 1995 and 1997, Molycorp produced and sold in excess of 40 Mlbs of rare earth oxide products per year. Limited mining of overburden and mineralized rock took place through 2002. The historic mill entered care and maintenance in 2002. Between 2007 and 2012, there was limited production of rare earth oxides from various types of stockpiled rare earth concentrates (primarily lanthanum concentrates and bastnaesite concentrate) through the historic separation facility.

In December 2010, under the new Molycorp, mining operations were restarted, and in January 2011, a major redevelopment project was initiated targeting modernization of milling and separation facilities. These new mining and separation facilities were intended to be developed in two phases, with the first phase targeting 19,050 metric tonnes (42 Mlb) of rare earth production per year and the second phase targeting 40,000 metric tonnes (88 Mlb) of rare earth production per year. This modernization included construction of a new mill, cracking facilities, separation facilities, and associated infrastructure, including power generation and reagent recycling facilities. The new separation facilities included production of cerium, lanthanum, neodymium, and praseodymium, with the remaining rare earths sold as a samarium, europium, and gadolinium (SEG) concentrate. During initial construction activities, Molycorp changed its development strategy and decided to build out capacity for both phases at the same time. Construction activities were largely completed by the end of 2013, with all first phase equipment constructed and most of the second phase constructed. Ramp up of the concentrator, separation facility and associated infrastructure (e.g., chlor-alkali/reagent recycling) encountered several issues that limited production and prevented operations from achieving targeted goals. 2013 production from Mountain Pass was approximately 7.7 Mlb of rare earth oxides, and 2014 production was approximately 10.5 Mlb. January through June 2015 production was approximately 8.1 Mlb of rare earth oxides. Molycorp declared bankruptcy in June 2015, and mining and processing operations were halted at that time.

The current operator, MP Materials, restarted mining and milling operations in December 2017. MP Materials does not currently separate individual rare earths and instead sells a bastnaesite concentrate. 2018 production totaled approximately 29,400 metric tonnes of concentrate with approximately 13,900 metric tonnes contained rare earth oxides. 2019 production totaled 58,535 metric tonnes of concentrate with approximately 28,442 metric tonnes contained rare earth oxides. 2020 production totaled 69,430 metric tonnes of concentrate with approximately 38,561 metric tonnes contained rare earth oxides. The most recent nine months of production (January through September 2021) totaled 57,154 metric tonnes concentrate production with 32,152 metric tonnes contained rare earth oxide.

 

5.3

Historic Production

The reported historic production for the Mountain Pass deposit for the period 1953 through 1970, including the tonnage of mineralized and overburden materials mined, the plant feed grades and recovery, and pounds of rare-earth oxides produced, is shown in Table 5-1. The historic production from 1968 to 2002, including short tons mined, crushed, and milled, is presented in Table 5-2. Historic rare earth oxide production from 2009 to 2015, which includes reprocessing of existing stockpiles (2009 to 2012) and processing of freshly mined ore (2012 to 2015), is presented in Table 5-3. MP Materials’ historic rare earth oxide production from 2018 through May 2020 is presented in Table 5-4.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 50

 

 

Table 5-1: Production History, 1952 to 1970

 

Item

    

1952 to

1964

 

 

     1965        1966        1967        1968        1969        1970 (1)      Total     

Waste stripped, st

     0        0        0        15,000        20,000        85,000        14,000       134,000     

Ore mined and fed to

plant, st

     255,375        37,476        179,721        201,233        193,100        259,097        182,290       1,308,292     

Flotation Plant Feed,

% TREO

     9.1        10.2        9.1        8.3        8.1        7.5        7.2       8.3     

Concentrate No. 400,

klb TREO

     31,934        6,094        12,873        16,483        2,361        2,188        7,519       154,444     

Concentrate No. 401,

klb TREO

     0        0        11,139        8,001        20,408        25,155        10,289       0     

Flotation Plant

Recovery, %

     68.6        80.1        73.0        73.2        72.7        70.5        68.1       0     

Chemical Plant Feed,

klb TREO

     0        6,899        18,380        13,198        14,087        19,604        11,178       83,346     

RE Oxide Nos. 410/411,

klb TREO

     0        275        282        307        1,731        409        0       3,004     

Cerium Nos. 530/532,

klb CeO

     0        0        1,925        1,668        1,680        1,901        1,672       8,846     

Lanthanum, 521,

klb TREO

     0        0        0        3,250        6,669        7,568        5,522       23,009     

Lanthanum, 523,

klb TREO

     0        0        306        501        249        28        64       1,148     

Neo-Praseo No. 545,

lb Pr6O11

     0        0        0        0        0        74,702        3,677       78,379     

Gadolinium No. 573,

lb Gd2 O

     0        0        0        0        17,084        17,881        13,990       48,955     

Gad-Sam No. 575,

lb TREO

     0        0        0        9,961        12,095        0        0       22,056     

Samarium No. 583,

lb Sm2 O3.

     0        0        0        0        29,600        0        0       29,600     

Europium Nos. 500/501/

510/510B/511, lb

     0        1,845        11,384        9,058        3,234        7,847        8,226       41,594     

Source: Mountain Pass monthly operational reports

(1): Through October 31, 2007

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 51

 

 

Table 5-2: Mine Production History, 1971 to 2002

 

Year      Mined (st)      Crushed (st)      Milled (st)      Overburden (st)              
1971        214,000        181,175        181,175        No data     
1972        163,000        228,488        228,488        No data     
1973        303,000        305,072        305,073        No data     
1974        479,000        499,597        499,596        9,100     
1975        296,693        296,693        296,693        70,100     
1976        355,253        308,938        308,938        73,980     
1977        314,946        321,508        321,508        66,255     
1978        292,760        266,757        266,757        132,200     
1979        326,010        358,399        358,399        327,760     
1980        386,927        360,068        360,068        219,345     
1981        371,553        370,207        370,207        225,691     
1982        400,428        400,427        391,417        221,625     
1983        485,315        322,771        371,252        226,000     
1984        621,714        439,000        543,354        728,000     
1985        365,000        204,000        253,000        1,233,000     
1986        343,000        214,000        225,000        1,225,000     
1987        402,000        320,000        358,000        1,072,000     
1988        143,000        214,000        221,764        1,049,000     
1989        445,000        419,000        418,446        1,610,000     
1990        706,000        508,000        480,161        1,749,000     
1991        404,000        446,000        336,344        2,477,000     
1992        275,000        247,000        409,000        1,771,000     
1993        540,000        447,000        433,000        1,232,000     
1994        567,000        494,000        508,000        1,217,000     
1995        714,000        546,000        537,000        2,388,000     
1996        604,000        551,000        544,000        2,312,000     
1997        632,000        452,000        424,000        3,355,000     
1998        234,000        269,000        321,000        688,000     
1999        94,000        0        0        43,000     
2000        78,000        0        0        239,000     
2001        175,010        260,000        175,010        634,000     
2002        201,520        217,204        183,487        255,520     

Source: Mountain Pass monthly operational reports

Mill quantities do not include tailings that were reprocessed.

Between 1975 and 1982, crushing tonnages were not recorded (assumed to be the same as milling tonnages).

Table 5-3: Mountain Pass Production History, 2009 to 2015, as Separated RE Products

 

Year        TREO Production (Metric Tonnes)              
  2009          2,103     
  2010          1,296     
  2011          3,062     
  2012          2,236     
  2013          3,473     
  2014          4,769     
  2015(1)          3,678     

Source: Molycorp 10-K and 10-Q filings

  (1):

January to June production

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 52

 

 

Table 5-4: Mountain Pass Production History, 2018 to 2021, as Bastnaesite Concentrate

 

Year    TREO Production (Metric Tonnes)             

2018  

   13,913    

2019  

   28,442    

2020  

   38,561    

2021(1)  

   32,152    

Source: MP Materials

  (1):

January to September production

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 53

 

 

6

Geological Setting, Mineralization and Deposit

 

6.1

Regional Geology

Mountain Pass is located in the southern part of the Clark Range in the northern Mojave Desert. The Mojave is situated in the southwestern part of the Great Basin which extends from central Utah to eastern California and is characterized by intense Tertiary regional extensional deformation. This deformational event resulted in north-south trending mountain ranges separated by gently sloping valleys, characteristic of Basin and Range tectonic activity. The Mountain Pass rare earth deposit is located within an uplifted block of Precambrian metamorphic and igneous rocks that is bounded to the south and east by basin-fill deposits in the Ivanpah Valley. This block is separated from Paleozoic and Mesozoic rocks on the west and southwest by the Clark Mountain fault, which strikes north-northwest and dips from 35° to 70º west but averages 55 Wº. The North Fault forms the northern boundary of the block, striking west-northwest and dips from 65° to 70° south (Olson, et al., 1954; Castor, 2008). Geology of Mountain Pass is shown in Figure 6-1.

There are two main groups of rocks in the Mountain Pass area divided by age and rock type. These are Early Proterozoic high-grade metamorphic rocks, which are intruded by unmetamorphosed Middle Proterozoic ultrapotassic and carbonatite rocks. The Early Proterozoic high-grade metamorphic complex represents a wide variety of compositions and textures, as follows:

 

   

Garnetiferous micaceous gneiss and schist

   

Biotite-garnet-sillimanite gneiss

   

Hornblende gneiss, schist, and amphibolite

   

Biotite gneiss and schist

   

Granitic gneiss and migmatite; granitic pegmatite

   

Minor occurrences of foliated mafic rocks

The Middle Proterozoic ultrapotassic rocks are intrusive bodies of granite, syenite, and composite shonkinite-syenite, which contain augite and orthoclase. These have been intruded by carbonatites which formed swarms of thin dikes, stocks and the tabular Sulfide Queen carbonatite at the Project (Olson et al, 1954; Castor 2008). The Middle Proterozoic ultrapotassic rocks have been age dated using U-Th-Pb and 40Ar-39Ar methods at 1,410 ± 5 Ma and 1403 ± 5 Ma for shonkinite and syenite respectively. The rare earth-bearing carbonatite units, including the Sulfide Queen deposit, are younger with age dates, using Th-Pb ratios, of 1,375 ± 5 Ma (DeWitt et al, 1987). Both the Early Proterozoic metamorphic rocks and the Middle Proterozoic intrusive rocks have been crosscut by volumetrically minor, Mesozoic to Tertiary age dikes of andesitic to rhyolitic composition. Large portions of the Mountain Pass district are covered by younger (Tertiary to Quaternary) basin-fill sedimentary deposits (Olson et al, 1954; Castor 2008) (Figure 6-1).

Significant rare earth mineralization is only associated with the carbonatite intrusions. Strongly potassic igneous rocks of approximately the same age are known from other localities in and around the Mojave Desert, but no significant carbonatite bodies or rare earth mineralization have been identified (Haxel, 2004).

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 54

 

 

LOGO

1,4800 1 inch = 400 fit P-16

Source: Geomega, 2012

Figure 6-1: Regional Geological Map

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 55

 

 

6.2

Local and Property Geology

At Mountain Pass, the ultrapotassic rocks occur in seven larger stocks and as hundreds of small dikes. The largest single body is a composite shonkinite-syenite-granite stock approximately 6,400 ft in length and 2,100 ft wide (Olson et al, 1954). These rocks span a variety of compositions, from phlogopite shonkinite (melanosyenite) to amphibole-biotite (mesosyenite and leucosyenite) to alkali-rich granite (Haxel, 2004). These complex and varied lithologies are believed to be sourced from the same parent magma formed from partial melting of the upper mantle (asthenosphere) beneath the North American continent during the Middle Proterozoic. The different compositions reflect different phases of magma differentiation (Castor, 2008). A generalized geologic map of the area is shown in Figure 6-2.

The Sulfide Queen carbonatite, which hosts the mineralization at the Project is referred to as a stock but is a roughly tabular, sill-like body that strikes approximately north and dips to the west at about 40° as shown in Figure 6-3. The carbonatite magma is believed to have formed by liquid immiscibility, separating from the same parent magma which formed the ultrapotassic rocks occurring nearby (Castor, 2008).

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 56

 

 

LOGO

Bastnäsite Beforsite (bb) Bastbäsite Dolosövite (bd) Bastnäsite Sövite (bs) Monazite Carbonatite (mc) Breccia (bx) Gneiss and Schist (gn) 85 80 A’ - 35.4800° N NA B’ 50 m 115.5300 W

Source: Castor, 2008

Figure 6-2: Generalized Geologic Map – Sulfide Queen Carbonatite

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 57

 

 

LOGO

bs bs gn mc ds bs 4670 level Drill Hole Bastnäsite Beforsite (bb) Bastnäsite Dolosövite (bd) Bastnäsite Sövite (bs) Monazite Carbonatite (mc) Breccia (bx) Gneiss and Schist (gn)

Note: Section looking N-NE

Source: Castor, 2008

Figure 6-3: Schematic Cross Section (A-A’) of Sulfide Queen Carbonatite

 

6.2.1

Local Lithology

In the open pit and to the south, east and west, lithology is dominated by gneiss and the Sulfide Queen carbonatite. Immediately north of the pit, carbonatite is found at surface and a small outcrop of syenite is found adjacent to and on the east flank of the Sulfide Queen. The Sulfide Queen extends to the contact with shonkinite and ultrapotassic granite approximately 650 ft northwest of the open pit boundary.

The carbonatite rocks at the Project have been divided by geologists at Mountain Pass into six types:

 

   

Bastnaesite sövite (Bastnaesite-barite sövite)

 

   

Bastnaesite beforsite (Bastnaesite-barite sövite)

 

   

Bastnaesite dolosövite (Bastnaesite-barite dolomitic sövite)

 

   

White sövite (White bastnaesite-barite sövite)

 

   

Parisite sövite (Parisite sövite)

 

   

Monazitic sövite (Monazite-bearing carbonatite)

These divisions are based on the carbonate mineral composition of the carbonatite, either calcite or dolomite, the dominant rare earth mineral, texture and other criteria detailed in the following sections

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 58

 

 

(Castor 1988, 2008). The different carbonatite types and their specific mineralization are discussed in detail in Section 6.3.

Breccia is found within and adjacent to the Sulfide Queen and includes altered clasts of country rock as well as carbonatite. It is most abundant in the northern part of the open pit and to the south under the former mill. Breccia textures range from matrix to clast supported breccia with rounded to angular clasts. In the hanging wall of the Sulfide Queen, breccia occurs as a stockwork while in other areas it appears to have formed by intrusive stoping. In the footwall of the carbonatite, the breccia is composed of rounded and crushed gneiss, syenite and shonkinite, which is interpreted by Castor (1988, 2008) as indicating a pre-carbonate intrusive formation. Breccia has previously been thought to be unmineralized but contains monazite in places.

 

6.2.2

Alteration

Alteration at the Property is primarily contact metamorphism associated with the emplacement of the Sulfide Queen carbonatite. It is primarily fenitic alteration and found in the country rock adjacent to the carbonatite. Fenitic alteration or fenitization is associated with carbonate-rich fluids and is characterized by secondary potassium feldspar, phlogopite and magnesio-riebeckite with chlorite and hematite in places. Owing to the resulting distinctive color and textures of these minerals, the fenitic alteration type is relatively easy to recognize in outcrop and drill core by its light-colored minerals. Fenitization is typically less intense and widespread proximal to the ultrapotassic rocks relative to the intense alteration observed in the more reactive Middle Proterozoic rocks in the open pit area (Castor, 1988, 2008).

Other alteration identified locally, includes hydrothermal alteration and silicification around the Celebration Fault. This is considered late stage and has little effect on mineralization (Castor, 1988; 2008).

The presence of sillimanite in the biotite-garnet-sillimanite gneiss indicates that rocks of the Middle Proterozoic age reached high temperatures and pressures during metamorphism and were metamorphosed to the granulite facies. The carbonatite sills are not metamorphosed, and the Late Proterozoic age ultrapotassic rocks show limited contact metamorphism where these rocks host carbonatite.

 

6.2.3

Structure

Structural controls include local brecciation and faulting. Regional structural controls include the Clark Mountain and North Faults, which bound the block separating the Proterozoic rocks at the Property from the surrounding Paleozoic and Mesozoic age rocks. The Clark Mountain Fault strikes north-northwest and dips from 35° to 70º W but averages 55º W. The North Fault strikes west-northwest and dips from 65° to 70º S and has offset the Clark Mountain Fault by an estimated 1,200 ft near the Property. In general, all major faults in the Property area strike north-westerly and dip to the southwest. This includes the Middle and South Faults near the open pit (Olsen et al, 1954; Castor, 2008).

Within the open pit area, the important faults are the Ore Body, Middle and the Celebration faults. The Ore Body Fault is a splay off of the North Fault and the carbonatite and ultrapotassic rocks are found primarily between the Middle and Ore Body Faults. Both of these are normal faults that strike northwest and dip moderately to steeply southwest. Both faults display evidence of left-lateral and dip-slip displacements and were active until the Pliocene-Pleistocene. Both faults contain substantial gouge

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 59

 

 

zones and are barriers to groundwater flow. Many smaller faults with similar orientations and movement histories have been mapped between these two faults.

The Celebration Fault transects the open pit along the highwall and dips into the pit. It also functions as a groundwater conduit and is a target for two dewatering wells. This structure is sub-parallel to the Middle Fault and strikes at an average of N60º W with a dip of approximately 60° SW. Although appreciable dip-slip offset is not noted north of 800 NW on the mine grid, shallowly plunging slickensides indicate a component of right lateral strike-slip motion. The Celebration Fault is marked by a 10 to 20 ft wide zone of shearing and brecciation with only local cementation. The Friendship Fault visible in the pit dips approximately 78º NE and is considered to be a splay off the Celebration Fault. Information from drilling indicates that the Sulfide Queen carbonatite has offset downdip by a series of faults with limited displacement. These structures are sub-parallel to the Friendship Fault, do not offset the Celebration Fault and displacement of the Sulfide Queen carbonatite is less than 100 ft in most places (Castor, 1988; Molycorp, 2003; Nason, 2009).

 

6.3

Significant Mineralized Zones

Mineralization occurs entirely within the Sulfide Queen carbonatite within the Project area. This has been defined through drilling and mapping. Grade distribution internal to this mineralized zone is variable. Higher grade zones (>10% TREO) tend to occur in lenses parallel to the hangingwall/footwall contacts, both downdip and along strike. They also occur along faults which have different orientations; meteoric water in faults dissolved host carbonate minerals leaving behind a higher concentration of bastnaesite in a weathered host rock. Continuity of mineralization internal to the carbonatite zone is well defined both along strike and downdip.

The currently defined zone of rare earth mineralization exhibits a strike length of approximately 2,750 ft in a north-northwest direction and extends for approximately 3,000 ft downdip from surface. The true thickness of the >2.0% TREO zone ranges between 15 to 250 ft.

The principal economic mineral at the Project is bastnaesite, a rare earth fluorocarbonate with the generalized chemical formula LnCO3F, where Ln is a variable representing a lanthanide elemental component (usually lanthanum or cerium). This naming convention is applied throughout this resource report. The bastnaesite composition at the Project is dominated by cerium, lanthanum, and neodymium, with smaller concentrations of praseodymium, europium, samarium, gadolinium, dysprosium, terbium and the heavier rare-earth elements.

Bastnaesite mineralization at the Project is entirely restricted to carbonatite rocks and its nearby breccia which were subdivided by Castor (1988, 2008) as described below. Non-mineralized rock types within the open pit area are also described.

Bastnaesite Sövite

Bastnaesite-sövite is a calcite-rich mineralized rock type containing relatively coarse, early-formed bastnaesite, along with recrystallized barite phenocrysts, in an anhedral matrix of fine calcite and barite. Where unaltered, this material is a pink to mottled white and red-brown rock carrying about 65% calcite, 25% strontian barite, and 10% bastnaesite. However, chemical and mineralogic changes subsequent to crystallization have produced more complex mineralogy. The sövite is characterized by relatively high calcium, strontium and lead, moderate barium and low phosphorous.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 60

 

 

The bastnaesite sövite forms the basal portions of the resource area, and all of the resource at the north end of the pit. At the south end of the pit, sövite makes up less than half the mineralized zone thickness.

Celestite occurs in the bastnaesite sövite as bladed replacements and outgrowths from barite phenocrysts. Celestite is particularly abundant, along with variable amounts of very coarse bastnaesite, in a basal sheet of otherwise unaltered sövite about 50 ft thick. This celestite sövite zone is separated from the main mineralized body by a zone of gneiss and/or breccia. Late celestite veins have been observed cutting talc-altered sövite.

Dark brown or ochre limonite is locally pervasive in sövite, particularly in silicified ore. Such rocks rarely have higher iron contents than unaltered sövite. Coarse bastnaesite typifies sovitic mineralized rock. On the 4640 level the average bastnaesite grain diameter is about 300 µm. For the most part, monazite [LNPO4)] occurs sparingly in the sövite, almost always as small primary euhedral and patches of radial secondary needles.

Bastnaesite Beforsite

The bastnaesite beforsite unit generally lies above the sovitic material and is separated from it by dolosovite. Bastnaesite beforsite is a carbonate-rich mineralized rock type, containing ferroan dolomite (ankerite) as the major carbonate phase, instead of calcite, and is largely unaltered. Locally this rock contains minor quartz. Beforsite is tan or grey to pinkish tan and contains abundant grey or purple to pink and white single-crystal barite phenocrysts. The matrix consists mainly of fine dolomite rhombs set in very fine interstitial material consisting mainly of bastnaesite with calcite and barite. The mineralogical composition of an average beforsite is about 55% dolomite, 25% barite, 15% bastnaesite, and 5% calcite. Zones of barite-rich beforsite, associated with barite-poor zones have been logged in core holes and noted during pit mapping. Compared with the sövite, beforsite in pit samples has higher Ln and Ba, along with lower Sr and Pb. Phosphate content is variable but can be high in areas of irregular late veinlets of felty monazite. This is known as “bone” monazite and can be as much as 5% of the rock.

Dark brown limonitic alteration occurs in places in the beforsite, particularly along faults and in structural zones. In many instances, the limonite forms rhomb-shaped pseudomorphs indicating it formed by replacing the ferroan dolomite. In addition, secondary lanthanide minerals occur in portions of the beforsite such as sahamalite [(Mg,Fe2+)Ln2(CO3)4], synchisite [synchysite, CaLn(CO3)2F] and ancylite [SrLn(CO3)2(OH)•H2O] which was also identified using XRD. Large amounts of these secondary LN carbonates occurring within beforsite are associated with secondary calcite. Along the south wall of the pit, the beforsite contains crude, nearly vertical banding. On close examination, this is seen to consist of braided discontinuous veins of late bastnaesite/calcite. This texture probably formed by upward streaming of lanthanum and calcium-rich residual fluids remaining in the beforsite after dolomite crystallization.

Bastnaesite Dolosovite

Bastnaesite dolosovite occurs in a 100 to 200 ft wide zone between the beforsite and sövite. It contains both dolomite and calcite and is generally limonitic. Similar to the beforsite, dark brown limonite commonly forms pseudomorphs after dolomite rhombs. The dolosovite generally contains white to pink recrystallized barite phenocrysts. Some dolosovite samples contain coarse bastnaesite as in the sövite, but often samples have fine, late beforsite-style bastnaesite. A line drawn along the interface

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 61

 

 

between the zone of coarse (greater than 150 µm) bastnaesite average crystal sizes and the zone characterized by fine (less than 150 µm) average crystal size roughly bisects the bastnaesite dolosovite zone.

Chemically, the dolosovite shows both sovitic and beforsitic attributes. It is highly variable in terms of gangue mineralogy, particularly with regard to the carbonate minerals which show much evidence of secondary redistribution. In some samples, dolomitization is obvious, along with later limonitic replacement of the dolomite. In other locations, late white to brown calcite veining is abundant.

Some consider the dolosovite to be a hybrid rock and not a separate intrusive type. In this case, it is plausible it was formed by carbonate redistribution during and after intrusion of the beforsite. Based on bastnaesite grain size, it is mainly dolomitized sövite; but contains some finely divided bastnaesite and is in part calcitized beforsite. Strongly limonitized dolosovite, referred to as “black ore”, creates extreme milling problems. “Black ore” is mainly restricted to the dolosovite but in places extends into the beforsite. This material is generally dark brown soft material with white calcite veining. It typically exhibits high lanthanum content, carrying large amounts of coarse or fine grained bastnaesite. In part, the elevated lanthanide (Ln) values may be due to removal of carbonate, resulting in an abundance of void space allowing the formation larger grain sizes. This material generally has relatively low densities and is poorly indurated. Analysis of this rock type shows that bastnaesite dolosovite has above average iron, manganese, and phosphorous contents as compared with the bastnaesite sövite.

The bastnaesite dolosovite has high strontianite contents where derived from sovitic rock. It is also locally high in fine, anhedral, late-stage silica. Although the dolosovite appears to be dominated by alteration minerals, it rarely contains talc.

Ln-bearing minerals other than bastnaesite commonly occur in the dolosovite, though mainly as minor phases. Bright yellow synchisite replacing bastnaesite was observed in many thin sections. Secondary sahamalite and ancylite have also been identified in many dolosovite samples. Bastnaesite in dolosovite is generally yellow-brown or dark-brown, rather than in normal light tan to grey colors. Bone monazite is more abundant than primary monazite.

White Sövite

White sövite occurs above the beforsite in the southwest corner of the pit (current pit bottom 4,300 ft). It carries very fine, late bastnaesite as in the beforsite, but contains little or no dolomite. White sövite appears to be the product of late stage calcitization of beforsite by rising residual fluids responsible for late bastnaesite/calcite deposition in the underlying beforsite.

In addition to fine bastnaesite, the white sövite contains abundant single-crystal barite phenocrysts as in the beforsite. Chemically, white sövite has high Ln and low Pb relative to beforsite. Its Sr content ranges from low to moderate. Phosphate contents are variable, with most present as veins of bone monazite.

On the 4640 level, the white sövite is exposed as a thick dike within hangingwall stockwork breccia 10 to 20 ft above the beforsite. Drillhole 85-1 intercepted 80 ft of white sövite before encountering dolomitic carbonatite.

Parisite Sövite

Parisite sövite is found in the pit above the 4700 level in the footwall. A dike carrying about 20% of flow-oriented parisite [CaLn2(CO3)3F2] was mapped on the 4760 level at the south end of the pit. This

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 62

 

 

dike was intercepted in core hole 85-2. More information about this rock type is discussed by Sherer (1979).

Monazitic Carbonatite

Bodies of carbonatite which contain primary monazite in amounts that approach or exceed bastnaesite contents occur within, and adjacent to, the mineralized zone. In addition, monazitic sövite comprises most of the small carbonatite dikes in the vicinity of the mineralized zone.

The monazitic carbonatite has low total TREO content, generally in the 2% to 4% range. It is also characterized by high Ca and P, and low Ba. In hand specimen, the monazitic carbonatite is nearly equigranular because barite phenocrysts are sparse or lacking.

Although sovitic and beforsitic carbonate rock types have both been documented, nearly all of the monazitic-bearing carbonatite rocks observed on the 4700 to 4640 levels are dolosovite. Monazite sövite is abundant in core holes drilled on the north part of the pit. Significant amounts of monazite dolosovite occur at the south end of the mineralized zone and extend beneath the mill.

Monazitic carbonatite is generally associated with brecciated rocks. Small, phlogopitized clasts are commonly present in the monazite carbonatite as well as phlogopite xenocrysts. At the north and south ends of the pit monazitic carbonatite appears to form envelopes around breccia masses. A large monazite dolosovite mass along the hangingwall of the deposit contains areas rich in clasts.

The monazite in the monazitic carbonatite occurs predominantly as primary euhedra or subhedra. Bone monazite replaces primary crystals in some samples. Where present, bastnaesite occurs as sparse corroded grains, generally observed in coarser sizes similar to those documented in the basal sövite.

The location of monazitic carbonatite masses, and the lack of barite phenocrysts suggest the monazitic magma was filter pressed out of the adjacent breccias. Formation of the monazitic carbonatite units probably post-dated sövite emplacement and predated beforsite emplacement.

Alteration in the monazitic carbonatite is similar to that observed in the dolosovite. However, “black ore” formed from monazitic carbonatite has not been recognized to date.

Breccia

Breccia with a carbonatite matrix comprises a significant proportion of the Mountain Pass carbonatite body. Like the related monazitic carbonatite, the breccia nearly always has low lanthanum oxide (LnO) and high P and has historically not been added to mill feed in significant quantities. Breccia has been observed in abundance at the north end of the current pit, and essentially limits mining in that direction due to metallurgical concerns. Breccia is also present at the south end of the pit, where considerable tonnages extend under the current mill location.

As observed by Sherer (1979), breccia occurrences associated with the main carbonatite body at the Project are variable. The breccia bodies were previously noted to be semi-continuous envelopes on the hangingwall and footwall contact with the carbonatite intrusion and interlayered within the mineralized rock types. In the hangingwall, they range from stockworks of randomly oriented or sheeted carbonatite dikes cutting altered gneiss, clast-supported breccia with more than 70% altered angular clasts, to matrix-supported breccia with angular to rounded clasts which locally grades into monazitic carbonatite with sparse clasts.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 63

 

 

In the footwall, abundant rounded clasts of gneiss, shonkinite, and syenite occur in a crushed rock matrix with little or no carbonatite. This breccia grades to matrix supported breccia with rounded clasts. Some footwall breccia has protomylonitic textures, along with occurrences of talc and crocidolite. Breccia at the north end of the pit is strongly altered to talc, which renders clast identification difficult. Brecciated zones have also been observed internal to the main carbonatite body.

 

6.4

Surrounding Rock Types

The carbonatite stock at the Project is intruded into the metamorphic rocks and the ultrapotassic suite. Both of these rock types are typically strongly fenitized near their contacts with carbonatite, and fenitized clasts are commonly included in igneous breccias at the edges of the intrusion (Castor, 1988).

 

6.5

Relevant Geological Controls

The primary geologic control on mineralization is lithology; and only the carbonatitic rock types appear to be favorable for economically significant rare earth mineralization. Although a number of high-angle normal faults bisect the mineralized zone, offset appears to be post mineral in all cases.

 

6.6

Deposit Type, Character, and Distribution of Mineralization

Mountain Pass is a carbonatite hosted rare earth deposit (USGS Deposit Model 10; Singer, 1986). The mineralization is hosted principally in carbonatite igneous rock. Mountain Pass is the only known example of a rare earth deposit in which bastnaesite is mined as the primary magmatic economic mineral in the world (Haxel, 2004).

Mineralization occurs entirely within the carbonatitic portion of the currently drilled geologic sections, although grade distribution internal to this mineralized zone is variable. Higher grade zones (>10% TREO) tend to occur in lenses parallel to the hangingwall/footwall contacts, both downdip and along strike. Continuity of mineralization internal to the carbonatite zone is well defined both along strike and downdip.

The currently defined zone of rare earth mineralization exhibits a strike length of approximately 2,750 ft (850 m) in a north-northwest direction and extends for approximately 3,000 ft (930 m) downdip from surface. The true thickness of the >2.0% TREO zone ranges between 15 to 250 ft (5 to 75 m).

Globally, carbonatites are subdivided into two main groups: apatite-magnetite bearing, mined for iron and/or phosphorus ± various by-products, and rare-earth bearing carbonatites. Many other commodities may be present in economically significant concentrations, such as uranium, thorium, titanium, copper, vermiculite, zirconium, niobium, and phosphorus (Singer, 1986). The majority of carbonatite complexes display a series of variable carbonatitic magma compositions, the majority of which are not significantly enriched in rare earths. Mountain Pass is unique in that the carbonatite does not exhibit such variation and has significant intervals of elevated rare earths throughout its entirety.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 64

 

 

7

Exploration and Drilling

 

7.1

Exploration

In 1949, the rare earth-bearing carbonatite was discovered by a USGS field team (Olson, et al., 1954). The discovery and exploration details of Mountain Pass was published in USGS Professional Paper 261, which included regional and local scale geological and structural maps as well as maps of the underground workings at the Sulfide Queen Mine. USGS Professional Paper 261 details petrography, mineralogy and chemical analyses in addition to structural and geologic data collected by the USGS. This document served as the basis for further exploration and eventual exploitation of the Mountain Pass Mine.

There is no other relevant exploration work, other than drilling, conducted by or on behalf of current and previous owners at the Mountain Pass Mine. Drilling is discussed in Section 7.2.

 

7.2

Drilling

Extensive drilling at the Mountain Pass mine has been undertaken since the 1950’s, some of which is utilized to define the orebody and relevant geological features. The prior owner, Molycorp, completed drilling campaigns in 2009, 2010 and 2011. Data prior to those exploration campaigns is historic. While this provides good geological and grade information, the historic drilling has no quality control data associated with it. In 2021, MP Materials performed a limited geotechnical and exploratory drilling campaign, and handled core logging/sampling in a similar manner to the 2009-2011 drilling

The 2009 drilling campaign consisted of an in-fill drilling program to upgrade the resource classification within and adjacent to the existing Sulfide Queen area. The program consisted of twelve, 5.5-inch reverse circulation holes around the south, west, and north sides of the pit. The 12 holes ranged in depth from 230 to 1,245 ft (70.1 to 379.5 m) and were drilled between December 2009 and February 2010. Sampling was done on 5 ft (1.524 m) intervals, and the bagged samples were delivered by SRK to the on-site sample prep facility. Among the 12 holes, MP-09-01 is missing all data.

The 2010 program was designed as a diamond core in-fill, exploration, and condemnation program. The program consisted of two core in-fill holes on the south side of the pit, two core exploration holes north of the pit, and two condemnation holes. One condemnation hole was diamond core drilled northwest of the existing waste rock dump to test a possible future tailings site; the other was a reverse-circulation (RC) hole drilled northeast of the pit, at the site of the separation plant expansion. Core sampling was conducted on 5 ft intervals and bagged samples were stored at the on-site sample preparation facility. RC samples were submitted as approximate 10-kilogram (kg) splits of the original recovered sample

In 2011, Molycorp initiated a new infill drilling campaign; however, this data was not included in the current resource estimation as wireframing had finished before the results were available. This data was incorporated for the first time in this new resource estimate. In addition to routine total rare earth assaying, Molycorp randomly selected 683 core samples for laboratory analysis of the individual light rare earth components.

Core recoveries from the 2009 and 2010 drill campaigns exceeded 95%. MP Materials has noted similar results for the 2011 and 2021 drilling as well. Sample protocols described in Sections 8.1

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 65

 

 

through 8.3 of this report provide reproducible results. SRK is of the opinion that drilling and sampling in these campaigns provides generally accurate and reliable results.

MP Materials conducted a geotechnical / exploration diamond core drilling campaign in 2021 with 16 holes drilled at a total depth of 10,136 ft for engineering as well as resource modeling purposes. All cores have been sampled at an interval of 10 ft on host rocks, and 5 ft on ore rocks.

Figure 7-1 illustrates the locations of the drillholes, color coded by drill campaign. Several drillholes are located outside of the field of view but these do not impact the mineral resource model which is shown as block grades on the pit surface.

 

LOGO

Year 2021 2010 2000 1990 -8000c. 00 1980 1970

Note: colored points are drill collars shaded by relative approximate date of drilling.

Source: SRK, 2019

Figure 7-1: Drilling in MP Materials Pit Area

Geotechnical data for the project was acquired by detailed rock fabric mapping of surface exposures and subsurface sampling using drill core. SRK has reviewed the industry-accepted procedures and methods used by Call and Nicholas, Inc. (“CNI”), which are documented in Nicholas & Sims (2001) to characterize the rock mass. In SRK’s opinion, the geotechnical conditions are well characterized, and a sufficient number of holes have been drilled into the final pit wall to interpret the ground conditions.

CNI conducted laboratory testing to determine the intact and fracture strengths of the rock mass at their laboratory in Tucson, Arizona. Laboratory testing at this laboratory is done in general accordance with procedures outlined in ASTM standards for rock and soil testing. Using the intact and fracture strengths, rock mass strength estimates were developed using a procedure outlined in the Guidelines for Open Pit Slope Design (Read & Stacey, 2009). SRK has reviewed the rock mass strength calculations and inputs to the stability analysis. SRK concurs with the methods, approach, and results of the documented geotechnical study and interpretation of the results. Further discussion of the geotechnical parameters used for open pit mine design is presented in Section 13.1.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 66

 

 

8

Sample Preparation, Analysis and Security

In 2021, MP Materials performed a limited geotechnical and exploratory drilling campaign. The majority of data in the resource database is from historic drilling conducted prior to 2009. SRK has relied on prior discussions, from the time of Molycorp ownership, with former site geologists (e.g., Geoff Nason and John Landreth) for description of sample collection, preparation, analysis and security (Nason and Landreth; personal communication; 2009). SRK conducted a verification program at the Project between 2009 and 2010 that included reanalysis of archived core from historic drilling programs and a limited infill program. This is discussed in Section 9.2.

Subsequent to this, Molycorp completed an exploration/delineation drilling program during 2011. Additional wells for monitoring purposes were installed in 2012-2013. All sample processing was conducted at the Project. No additional drilling was completed until 2021, during which MP Materials drilled a series of 16 holes for geotechnical purposes (GT series), some of which were in carbonatite zones and featured economic mineralization. Similar to previous programs, samples were processed and analyzed at the on-site laboratory with duplicate samples analyzed by an outside lab for validation. SRK toured the laboratory and prep facility on site during an August 10-13, 2021, site visit. SRK is of the opinion that the sample preparation, security, and analytical procedures are adequate for reliance in the mineral resource estimation. Any uncertainty related to the historical or variable nature of the analyses have been dealt with in mineral resource classification as described in Section 11 of this report.

 

8.1

Historical Sampling

The sample and drilling procedures prior to 2009 described by Nason and Landreth (2009) indicate that during drilling, the core or drill cuttings were in the custody of the drillers or geologists or secured in an onsite storage location at all times. Field geologists delivered samples to the sample preparation area. The sample preparation and laboratory facilities were within the secured Mountain Pass property boundary. This was industry standard practice at the time for ongoing exploration at an operating mine. Access to the Mountain Pass Mine is controlled by security at the gate 24 hours per day. Drilling since 2009 has been conducted in and around the open pit, which is a restricted area. All drill cores and RC samples were transported from the drill sites by a Molycorp employee and stored in a secure storage area until the core or RC chips were logged. Sample security was controlled and supervised by Molycorp personnel. Molycorp observed industry best practice chain of custody.

Nason and Landreth (2009) described the sampling methods prior to 2009. After the core was logged, a geologist selected sample intervals for analysis. Sample intervals were based on lithology and were generally 5 ft in mineralized zones. It was the practice at the time of the historic drilling campaigns to only sample material that was visually mineralized. Sample intervals could be shorter or slightly longer at lithological contacts and through fault zones. Lithological contacts are generally sharp and recognizable.

The core was split longitudinally using a hydraulic core splitter. Half of the core was placed in a bag for analysis and the remaining half retained for geological reference. Following sample collection, the samples were delivered to the sample processing facility located in the mill facility. Preparation of the split core samples included overnight drying and subsequent crushing and pulverizing. The entire crushed and dried sample was then passed through a cone crusher, homogenized and split using a Jones splitter to a 100 gram (g) sample. Reject material was placed in envelopes and labeled for

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 67

 

 

storage. From the 100 g sample, 10 g was delivered to the on-site lab for XRF analysis. The grain size of the 90 g of remaining sample was further reduced using a shatterbox swing mill. A split of the pulverized material was placed in sample envelopes and delivered to the Mountain Pass Lab. All pulp and coarse rejects were packaged and labeled. After analysis the pulp and coarse rejects were returned to the geology department for onsite storage.

SRK was not able to independently verify or observe the sampling methods employed during the historic drilling campaigns and has relied on verbal and written descriptions of the processes by former employees of Molycorp and its predecessors. SRK reviewed drill logs, sample summary sheets, a limited number of coarse and pulp rejects and remaining drill core. The remaining drill core is stored on site and is organized by drillhole and interval. Coarse and pulp rejects are no longer available on site.

SRK conducted a random inspection of the historic sample preparation area and core in the storage areas from the various major drilling programs and is of the opinion that sample handling, sample preparation and storage of core and rejects meets current industry accepted practices.

 

8.2

Sampling 2009-2011

The 2009 to 2011 drilling programs include photographs of core, a system of marking sample intervals on the core boxes, a sample numbering system and record-keeping for all sample intervals in the drill log.

Sampling procedures followed by SRK include:

 

   

A written record of the sample collected

 

   

Marking the sample interval on the core box

 

   

Identifying the sample interval and box interval on the inside top of the box

 

   

Photographing the core as both dry and wet core and core box top

 

   

Placing the split core into a pre-labeled sample bag

 

   

Inserting core blocks at the beginning and end of the removed core

 

   

Inserting a lath cut to the sample interval as a space keeper in the core box

Sample numbers were generated using a combination of the drillhole identification and from-to sample interval. Control samples were placed in the sample stream with similar numbers using a drillhole and interval so as to be unrecognizable to the laboratory. The sample interval used for control samples was beyond the total depth of the drillhole to eliminate confusion with an actual sample. This was noted on the sample log to avoid future confusion on total depth of drillholes.

 

8.3

Sampling 2021

Procedures of sampling 2021 drilling cores are similar to the procedures used in 2009-2011. Core samples were collected by MP Materials’ geologists, logged, split and provided to the on-site prep lab for analysis.

 

8.4

Laboratory Analysis

There were various analytical procedures used by MP Material’s predecessors for sample preparation and analytical methods. Historically, Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) samples were not inserted into the sample stream as part of the drilling programs.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 68

 

 

There were two types of analytical techniques used for measuring TREO at the Project:

 

   

Gravimetric methods

 

   

X-ray fluorescence (XRF)

Results for rare earths were typically reported as TREO.

The analysis for the drilling data in the existing assay database was obtained primarily by XRF analysis.

 

8.4.1

Note on Assay Terminology

For many rare earth projects currently in the public domain, laboratory results typically include assays for all the individual rare earth oxides as well as for Y2O3 which is not strictly speaking a rare earth oxide but is geochemically very similar and therefore is often geologically associated with heavy rare earth oxides. The exact grouping of individual oxides into light and heavy categories is not consistent from one project to another.

Mountain Pass, in common with most other carbonatite deposits, is considerably enriched in light rare earth oxides (“LREO”) compared with heavy rare earth oxides and Yttrium (“HREO+Y”), due in this case to the predominance of bastnaesite whose mineral structure favors inclusion of lighter rare earth elements. The Mountain Pass assay package was limited to the lighter rare earth oxides, specifically La2O3, CeO2, Pr6O11, Nd2O3, and Sm2O3 and these were routinely summed together and reported as a single value representing the sum of the five individual oxide assays. Therefore, for the Mountain Pass project, the grades entered into the drillhole database as “LnO” or “REO” and presented in this report as “TREO” represent the sum of La2O3, CeO2, Pr6O11, Nd2O3, and Sm2O3.

Many rare earth projects discuss LREO or HREO+Y ratios by expressing one group as a percentage of the sum (LREO+HREO+Y) and may refer to this summed assay value as TREO or TREO+Y; however, this is not the case for Mountain Pass.

Specifically, the definition of the term TREO in this report is different from the same term typically used when discussing other projects; in this report, TREO is the sum of La2O3, CeO2, Pr6O11, Nd2O3, and Sm2O3 and it excludes the heavier rare earth oxides and yttrium oxide.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 69

 

 

8.4.2

Historical

Prior to 1970, Molycorp used a gravimetric method for samples from the drilling and sampling programs. The gravimetric method determined Re2O3% and was reported as TREO%. In this method, approximately 0.5 to 1.0 g of sample was dissolved through heating in a mixture of perchloric acid (HClO4) and hydrogen peroxide (H2O2). The rare earths were then isolated in two precipitation and dissolution steps using organic solvents and inorganic rinses. The first step involved using phenolphthalein and NH4OH and the second used oxalic acid. This procedure separated the TREO and thorium from iron, aluminum, uranium, titanium, phosphate, manganese, alkaline and alkali earth metals and other divalent cations. The final filtered precipitate of RE-oxalate was then ignited at 900 to 1,000°C and when cooled weighed as total Re2O3 (Jennings, 1966). SRK does not know the detection limit for this technique.

 

8.4.3

Current

The equipment used for the historic drilling programs was replaced with newer models and the on-site laboratory no longer primarily relies on the wet chemistry method that was standard during the early drilling programs.

Molycorp equipped the on-site lab with state-of-the-art equipment for analysis of rare earths. Currently, the on-site lab uses XRF and Inductively Coupled Plasma (ICP) techniques for determination of individual rare earth species and reports the analysis as individual TREO and TREO. Laboratory equipment at the on-site laboratory includes:

 

   

One Philips PW2404 x-ray spectrometer XRF with a PW2450 VRC sample changer capable of running up to 150 samples per day (the lab is currently capable of prepping 50 fusion disks per day)

 

   

One X’Pert PRO X-ray Diffraction (XRD) PANalytical

 

   

One Perkin and Elmer Atomic Absorption Spectrometer (AAS)

 

   

Two Ultima2 Inductively Coupled Plasma Atomic Emission spectrometers (ICP-AES) each capable of 100 samples per day

 

   

One Agilant Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometer (ICP-MS) with an Agilant 7500cc Octopole Reaction System capable of speciation that can analyze 600 samples per day

Table 8-1 presents the detection limits for the oxides and TREO parameters.

Table 8-1: Oxides and TREO Detection Limits, Mountain Pass Laboratory

 

                  

  Oxide   P2O5   ThO2   SiO2   Fe2O3   MgO   CaO   SrO   BaO   

                                                                 

 

Limit (%)

 

0.05

 

0.01

 

0.05

 

0.05

 

0.05

 

0.05

 

0.05

 

0.05

 

TREO

 

TREO

 

CeO2

 

La2O3

 

Pr6O11

 

Nd2O3

 

Sm2O3

     
 

Limit (%)

 

0.1

 

0.03

 

0.03

 

0.02

 

0.02

 

0.02

       

Source: SRK, 2012

 

8.4.4

2009 and 2010 Samples

Analyses of check assays and infill drilling samples were completed between 2009 and 2010 and were conducted at both the Mountain Pass Laboratory and at SGS Minerals in Lakefield, Ontario Canada. SGS Minerals has ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation.

Details of sample preparation and analysis for SGS Minerals are discussed in Section 9.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 70

 

 

Samples included:

 

   

Field blanks (roadside marble and scoria grab samples)

 

   

Pulp blanks prepared from purchased silica sand

 

   

Field duplicates (i.e., two splits of RC cuttings collected at the drill rig)

 

   

Coarse reject duplicates

 

   

Pulp duplicates

 

   

A pit standard (pulp prepared by Mountain Pass)

 

8.4.5

2011 Samples

The analysis for the 2011 drilling program completed by Molycorp was conducted at Actlabs in Ancastor, Ontario, Canada using the Code 8 Rare Earth Element Assay Package. In this package, the analysis is conducted using a lithium metaborate/tetraborate fusion followed by dissolution in acid and analysis by ICP-MS. Detection limits for this technique are shown in Table 8-2. Actlabs has ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation.

Table 8-2: Oxides and Element Detection Limits, Actlabs Laboratory

 

Oxide or
Element
 

Detection  

Limit  

  Element  

Detection  

Limit  

  Element  

Detection  

Limit  

  Element  

Detection  

Limit  

Al2O3

  0.01%     Be   1 ppm     Rb   2 ppm     La   0.1 ppm  

CaO

  0.01%     Bi   0.4 ppm     Sb   0.5 ppm     Ce   0.1 ppm  

Fe2O3

  0.01%     Co   1 ppm     Sc   1 ppm     Pr   0.05 ppm  

K2O

  0.01%     Cr   20 ppm     Sn   1 ppm     Nd   0.1 ppm  

MgO

  0.01%     Cs   0.5 ppm     Sr   2 ppm     Sm   0.1 ppm  

MnO

  0.001%     Cu   10 ppm     Ta   0.1 ppm     Eu   0.05 ppm  

Na2O

  0.01%     Ga   1 ppm     Th   0.1 ppm     Gd   0.1 ppm  

P2O5

  0.01%     Ge   1 ppm     Tl   0.1 ppm     Tb   0.1 ppm  

SiO2

  0.01%     Hf   0.2 ppm     U   0.1 ppm     Cy   0.1 ppm  

TiO2

  0.001%     In   0.2 ppm     V   5 ppm     Ho   0.1 ppm  

LOI

  0.01%     Mo   2 ppm     W   1 ppm     Er   0.1 ppm  

Ag

  0.5 ppm     Nb   1 ppm     Y   2 ppm     Tm   0.05 ppm  

As

  5 ppm     Ni   20 ppm     Zn   30 ppm     Yb   0.1 ppm  

Ba

  3 ppm     Pb   5 ppm     Zr   4 ppm     Lu   0.04 ppm  

Source: Modified from Actlabs fee schedule (http://www.actlabs.com/files/Canada_2012.pdf, 2012

 

8.4.6

2021 Samples

A relatively small subset of the database is comprised of samples taken during 2021 geotechnical drilling. These samples function for two purposes, primarily as additional information to characterize select interceptions of mineralization, and secondly as verification of the sample prep and analysis methodology employed by the Mountain Pass laboratory.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 71

 

 

9

Data Verification

 

9.1

Quality Assurance/Quality Control Procedures

 

9.1.1

Historical

During the drilling programs at the Project, which were conducted prior to 1992, there was no QA/QC in place that included the regular insertion of standards, blanks and duplicates into the sample stream. SRK located a limited number of laboratory printouts but no analytical certificates. Within the printouts, SRK found a limited number of re-analyses, but these were not systematic, appeared to be confirmation of higher grades and did not represent the entire spectrum of analytical results. Current laboratory personnel report that instrument QA/QC was in place at the on-site laboratory during these drilling programs, but no records are available.

The pre-1992 drilling comprises more than half of the drilling used in the resource model. The uncertainty that results from the lack of QA/QC is counteracted by the production reconciliation presented in this report.

 

9.1.2

2009-2010 Program

The infill drilling program conducted in 2009 through 2010 used both the Mountain Pass laboratory and SGS Lakefield for sample assaying. Figure 9-1 illustrates the assay results returned for the pit standard. The pit standard was prepared and homogenized by Molycorp and was not subjected to a round robin assay study which would normally be completed to ‘certify’ the standard material; nevertheless, the results were quite precise and both laboratories were broadly in agreement with each other with Mountain Pass laboratory returning slightly lower grades on average than SGS laboratory.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 72

 

 

LOGO

Pit Standard Submissions 2009-2010 R-4 R-4 R-4 MP-10-02 MP10-01 -Mountain Pass Laboratory --SGS Laboratory MP10-01 MP10-01 MP-10-05 MP-10-05 MP-10-05 MP-10-04 MP-10-04 MP-10-04 MP-10-04 MP-09-06 MP-09-06 MP-09-06 MP-09-06 MP-09-02 MP-09-02 MP-09-02 9

Source: SRK, 2019

Figure 9-1: 2009 Through 2010 Pit Standard Assays

A number of duplicate samples were submitted during the course of the program to assess the repeatability of sample assays both for field duplicates and for pulp duplicates. Figure 9-2 illustrates the results, generally both field and pulp duplicates compare closely, the half average relative difference for each dataset is up to +/-17% and up to +/-6% respectively. This shows that the mineralization is reasonably homogeneous within the drill core and that there is only limited potential for sampling error.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 73

 

 

 

LOGO

20.00 Mountain Pass 2009-2010 Duplicates Field Duplicates Pulp Duplicates 0.00 16.00 18.00 14.00 20.00 12.00 Original Submission Grade (%TREO) 8.00 6.00 10.00 18:00 16.00 14.00 10000 8.00 6.00 4.00 2.00 Duplicate Submission Grade (%TREO) 2:00 4.00 12.00

Source: SRK, 2019

Figure 9-2: 2009 Through 2010 Duplicates

 

9.1.3

2011 Program

The 2011 drilling program included the insertion of blanks and duplicates but no standards. The prior standard samples were depleted during the 2010 drilling campaign. Blanks, standards, and duplicates are part of an industry best practice drilling program and are used to independently check precision and accuracy during analysis.

SRK was not provided with the QA/QC data from the 2011 drilling program. As a result, SRK has not reviewed this QA/QC data and cannot comment.

 

9.1.4

2021 Program

The 2021 drilling included a series of field duplicate analyses and four blank insertions into the sample stream. No standards (certified reference materials) were inserted to test laboratory precision. Duplicates were collected as quarter core from the remaining half not sent for analysis as the primary sample. One quarter was provided to the Mountain Pass lab to test against the primary half core sample. The second quarter was sent to ALS Minerals in Tucson, AZ for processing and ALS Minerals Vancouver for analysis. While the comparison for the duplicates within the MP lab (Figure 9-3) show excellent agreement, the comparison for the duplicates submitted to ALS (Figure 9-4) appear relatively poor, with significant deviations in grade from the original Mountain Pass sample. In SRK’s opinion, this likely demonstrates differences between laboratories in terms of preparation/analytical methodology.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 74

 

 

 

LOGO

18.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 5.00 10.00 Original 15.00 20.00 ... Linear (Duplicate TREO) 10.00 Duplicate 8.00 12.00 16.00 14.00 Duplicate TREO

Source: SRK, 2021

Figure 9-3: 2021 Field Duplicate Analyses – MP Materials Lab

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 75

 

 

LOGO

16.00 14.00 12.00 10.00 8.00 6.00 4.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 -2.00 MP REO ALS Linger (REO ALS)

Source: SRK, 2021

Figure 9-4: External Duplicate Analyses – MP vs. ALS

 

9.2

2009 Re-Assaying Program

Based on the review of historic sample preparation and analytical procedures, SRK initiated a check assay program. The material remaining from historical drilling programs consisted of archived split core stored on site in locked SeaVans. Most of the coarse and pulp rejects had been discarded. Because of this, the sample check program was conducted using split core.

For this check assay program, samples were prepared at SGS Minerals preparation laboratory located in Elko, Nevada, USA. (SGS Elko). The primary analytical laboratory used for this program was SGS Minerals (SGS Minerals) located in Lakefield, Ontario, Canada and approximately 10% of these check samples were also analyzed on site at the Mountain Pass Laboratory.

 

9.2.1

Procedures

The 2009 sample check program included re-analysis of approximately 1% of the historic assay database results. The program included the following sample types and numbers:

 

   

108 core samples with original assay results between 0.18% to 16.30% TREO

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 76

 

 

   

10 site-specific standard samples based on two samples of known TREO content

 

   

10 blind duplicates

 

   

5 blank samples

SRK selected random duplicate samples from sample intervals within the database that covered a range of analytical results from 0.18% TREO to 16.30% TREO. Since these duplicate samples are second half of the archived split core, they are effectively field duplicates. Of the 108 core samples, 66 core samples had historic assay results between 3.00% and 11.00% TREO. The remaining 42 core samples had historic assay results between 0.18% and 2.99% or 11.01% and 16.30% TREO.

Standards and blanks were site specific. The site-specific standards are non-certified and were created by the on-site laboratory from a pit sample and a high-grade sample from the Birthday claim. The blank material was a non-mineralized sample collected at the Mountain Pass site by SRK.

SRK directed SGS Elko to prepare ten duplicates from the pulverized samples and to give them unique sample numbers. The duplicates were prepared and inserted into the sample stream prior to shipping to the SGS Minerals laboratory for analysis. Ten pulverized splits of the core samples were also sent back to the on-site laboratory for comparative analysis. The pulverized splits are considered pulp duplicates, which are allowed a ±10% error.

In addition to the SRK QA/QC samples, SGS Minerals included one blank, one sequential duplicate (i.e., a duplicate placed immediately after the primary sample) and three additional duplicates per batch at the analytical lab in Lakefield. The analysis was run in two batches, so this totaled two blanks, two in-line duplicates and six duplicates in addition to those inserted under the direction of SRK. Calibration standards were provided by the Mountain Pass Laboratory to insure similar analytical sensitivity for both labs.

Technicians at the Mountain Pass Laboratory inserted two duplicates and one standard in the ten samples analyzed onsite.

Ten samples were selected from the core samples and sent to ALS Chemex in Reno, Nevada U.S.A for specific gravity measurements. Specific gravity is discussed further in Section 11.5.

 

9.2.2

SGS Check Assay Sample Preparation

Sample preparation for the check analysis was completed at SGS Elko. The preparation technique used was SGS Minerals code PRP90, which used the following procedures:

 

   

The sample was dried at 100°C for 24 hours.

 

   

The sample was crushed to 90% passing a 2-millimeter (mm) (10 mesh) screen.

 

   

The sample was split using a riffle splitter to 250 g.

 

   

The 250 g split was placed in a vibratory mill and pulverized until 85% passed a 75-micron (200 Mesh) screen.

 

   

The coarse reject was retained and returned to the client for any future analysis.

The sample was then shipped to the SGS Minerals laboratory for XRF analysis (SGS Minerals, 2009).

 

9.2.3

SGS Check Assay XRF Procedures

SGS Minerals worked closely with the Mountain Pass Laboratory to identify the appropriate method for preparing fusion discs for the XRF to ensure that both labs used similar procedures for TREO

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 77

 

 

analysis. A 0.2 g to 0.5 g pulp sample is fused with 7 g of a 50/50 mixture of lithium tetraborate and lithium metaborate into a homogenous glass disk. This is then analyzed using a wave dispersive XRF (WDXRF). Loss on ignition at 1000°C is determined separately using gravimetric techniques and is part of the matrix correction calculation. These calculations are performed by WDXRF software (SGS, 2009). This method is accredited with the Standards Council of Canada (SCC) and conforms with the requirements of ISO/IEC 17025 (SGS, 2009).

The analyses performed for the SRK study were SGS Minerals control quality, which are used to monitor and control metallurgical or manufacturing processes. They are analyzed individually for better quality output. The oxides analyzed and their detection limits are listed in Table 9-1. The analytical work included Loss on Ignition (LOI) as a separate analysis.

Table 9-1: Oxides Analyzed with Detection Limits

 

              

  Oxide    Limit (%)      Oxide    Limit (%)      Oxide      Limit (%)     

                                                                                  

  Whole Rock Analysis  
  SiO2      0.01      Na2O      0.01        CaO        0.01  
  Al2O3      0.01      TiO2      0.01        MgO        0.01  
  Fe2O3      0.01      Cr2O3      0.01        K2O        0.01  
  P2O5      0.01      V2O5      0.01        MnO        0.01  
  Rare Earth Oxide Analysis  
  La2O3      0.01      CeO2      0.02        Nd2O3        0.02  
  Pr6O11      0.02      Sm2O3      0.03        BaO        0.02  
  SrO      0.02      ThO2      0.01                    

Source: SRK, 2012

 

9.2.4

Mountain Pass Laboratory Check Assay XRF Procedures

The Mountain Pass Laboratory check assay XRF procedures are discussed in Section 8.3.3.

 

9.2.5

Analysis of Light Rare Earth Oxide Distribution

Starting in 2009, Molycorp expanded the assay method to include the individual rare earths present in each sample. During the 2009 in-fill and 2010 condemnation drilling campaigns, SRK selected 403 samples for the assay of light rare earth elements (i.e., lanthanum, cerium, praseodymium, neodymium and samarium). Table 9-2 presents a statistical summary of the light rare earth element results.

Table 9-2: Light Rare Earth Oxide Distribution Statistics: 2009 and 2010 Analyses

 

                 

  Statistic    La2O3      CeO2      Pr6O11      Nd2O3      Sm2O3     

                                                             

  Number of Samples      403        403        403        403        403  
  Mean Fraction of TREO      0.325        0.497        0.043        0.121        0.009  
  Standard Deviation      0.026        0.021        0.003        0.012        0.002  
  Coefficient of Variance      0.079        0.042        0.075        0.095        0.238  
  Minimum      0.26        0.44        0.02        0.09        0.01  
  Maximum      0.41        0.61        0.05        0.17        0.02  
  Abs Diff (Min – Max)      0.151        0.167        0.028        0.080        0.015  

Source: SRK, 2012

Standard deviation and associated coefficient of variance indicate a relatively narrow range of variability suggesting that the light rare earth distribution is consistent. SRK has verified the QA/QC aspects of the 2009/2010 data set and is of the opinion that the protocols in place during this period meet or exceed industry best practices.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 78

 

 

In 2011, Molycorp completed an expanded assay program using a combination of existing core samples and additional drilling in the resource area. Molycorp conducted an additional 395 assays for individual light rare earths. Table 9-3 presents the summary statistics for this assay program.

Table 9-3: Light Rare Earth Oxide Distribution Statistics: 2011 Analyses

 

                

  Statistic    La2O3      CeO2      Pr6O11      Nd2O3      Sm2O3     

                                                     

  Number of Samples      395        395        395        395        395  
  Mean Fraction of TREO      0.327        0.500        0.043        0.121        0.009  
  Standard Deviation      0.019        0.010        0.003        0.012        0.002  
  Coefficient of Variance      0.060        0.019        0.077        0.101        0.242  
  Minimum      0.27        0.46        0.02        0.09        0.01  
  Maximum      0.37        0.54        0.05        0.16        0.02  
  Abs Diff (Min – Max)      0.102        0.075        0.028        0.070        0.016  

Source: SRK, 2012

Similar to the 2009 and 2010 statistical summary, the 2011 analyses corroborate the relative light rare earth oxide distribution as a function of TREO. The standard deviation and associated coefficient of variation represent a wider range of variability but still suggest a narrow overall range for light rare earth distribution and that the data are consistent.

SRK combined the 2009 through 2011 light rare earth assays and calculated summary statistics for each light rare earth. Table 9-4 presents the results of this combined analysis of light rare earths.

Table 9-4: Light Rare Earth Oxide Distribution Statistics: 2009, 2010 and 2011 Analyses

 

                

  Statistic    La2O3      CeO2      Pr6O11      Nd2O3      Sm2O3     

                                                     

  Number of Samples      798        798        798        798        798  
  Mean Fraction of TREO      0.326        0.499        0.043        0.121        0.009  
  Standard Deviation      0.023        0.015        0.003        0.012        0.002  
  Coefficient of Variance      0.069        0.031        0.076        0.098        0.240  
  Minimum      0.258        0.444        0.022        0.092        0.005  
  Maximum      0.410        0.611        0.051        0.171        0.021  
  Abs Diff (Min – Max)      0.151        0.167        0.028        0.079        0.016  

Source: SRK, 2012

The combined dataset of 798 individual assays provides a robust basis to define the distribution of light rare earths in the target carbonatite mineral, bastnaesite.

SRK examined the individual assay parameters for the 2009 and 2010 drilling campaigns. Table 9-5 presents the results of this examination. The mean TREO% of this dataset is 7.96%, indicating that the majority of assayed samples are likely above the 5% TREO cut-off grade. Standard deviations are greater than 50% of the mean estimates.

Table 9-5: Light Rare Earth Oxide Assay Statistics: 2009 and 2010 Analyses

 

                

  Statistic    La2O3      CeO2      Pr6O11      Nd2O3      Sm2O3     

                                                     

  Length (ft)      1,972        1,972        1,972        1,972        1,972  
  Number      395        395        395        395        395  
  Mean Grade (%)      2.652        3.970        0.336        0.932        0.067  
  Standard Deviation      1.69        2.35        0.19        0.51        0.03  
  Coefficient of Variance      0.637        0.593        0.579        0.546        0.511  
  Minimum Grade (%)      0.80        1.35        0.11        0.35        0.03  
  Maximum Grade (%)      7.81        10.84        0.95        2.68        0.21  
  Abs Diff Grade (%)      7.01        9.49        0.85        2.33        0.18  

Source: SRK, 2012

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 79

 

 

9.2.6

Analysis of Heavy Rare Earth Oxide Assays

Based on a limited re-assaying program of 210 5 ft composite samples from eight of the 2009 Mountain Pass drillholes, the HREO+Y subtotal expressed as a proportion of LREO+HREO+Y is on average 0.8% in the high-grade samples (TREO>5%), 1.8% in low to medium grade samples (TREO 2% to 5%) and 2.2% in the lowest grade samples (TREO<2%). Table 9-6 summarizes the results per element for the three grade categories.

To be clear, while this data shows the presence of these heavy rare earths in the Mountain Pass deposit, given the majority of historic sampling does not include analysis for these elements, they have been excluded from the mineral resource estimate given the uncertainty around the consistency of distribution across the deposit. Further investigation is required to better define average grade distributions to include these elements in the mineral resource statement.

Table 9-6: Heavy Rare Earth Summary

 

                

        Assay Grade (%)      Proportion of LREO+HREO+Y    

                                                                      

   Grade Category      Grade Category  
   >5%      2%-5%      <2%      >5%     2%-5%     <2%  
  Y2O3      0.02        0.02        0.01        0.21     0.66     0.79
  La2O3      2.85        0.75        0.33        33.4     30.4     29.1
  CeO2      4.19        1.20        0.55        49.1     48.8     49.0
  Pr6O11      0.36        0.11        0.05        4.25     4.52     4.67
  Nd2O3      0.98        0.32        0.15        11.5     13.2     13.8
  Sm2O3      0.07        0.03        0.01        0.86     1.21     1.34
  Eu2O3      0.013        0.006        0.003        0.15     0.24     0.27
  Gd2O3      0.021        0.011        0.006        0.25     0.46     0.53
  Tb4O7      0.004        0.002        0.001        0.05     0.06     0.08
  Dy2O3      0.006        0.004        0.002        0.07     0.17     0.20
  Ho2O3      0.001        0.001        0.001        0.01     0.03     0.05
  Er2O3      0.005        0.002        0.001        0.06     0.08     0.09
  Tm2O3      0.001        0.001        0.001        0.01     0.02     0.04
  Yb2O3      0.001        0.001        0.001        0.01     0.03     0.05
  Lu2O3      0.001        0.001        0.001        0.01     0.02     0.04
  LREO      8.46        2.41        1.10        99.2     98.2     97.8
  HREO+Y      0.07        0.04        0.02        0.8     1.8     2.2
  LREO+HREO+Y      8.53        2.46        1.12        100     100     100

Source: Molycorp, 2009

 

9.2.7

Results

Statistical comparison of the new analytical results for the 108 core samples with the historic assay database values indicate the datasets are broadly comparable within tolerance limits. Results for the site-specific standards and duplicate samples were also within acceptable limits.

There were no blank failures indicating that there was no cross contamination during sample preparation. However, two failures were observed in the low-grade standard in the 2009 and 2010 QA/QC analysis at the Project. Only one high grade standard was inserted in the sample stream due to delays in creating this sample. Both standards performed lower than the expected value and the nine low grade standard analyses suggest instrument drift, based on a consistent downward slope in the graph over time.

In addition, one of the standards that failed was within a group of samples that showed good correlation with the original sample. The standard failure may be due to failure to adequately determine the

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 80

 

 

accepted mean and standard deviation of the standard samples. Table 9-7 lists the standards with expected analytical values and Figure 9-5 shows the results of the standards.

Table 9-7: Standards with Expected Analytical Performance

 

                

        Maximum TREO (%)      Median TREO (%)      Minimum TREO (%)     

                                                                 

  Pit Standard      6.50        5.91        5.32  
  Birthday Standard        24.86        22.60        20.34  

Source: SRK, 2012

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 81

 

 

LOGO

Pit Standard 1.00 +10 (-20) 6.50 6.00 591 5.00 5.32 100 -10(-20) 8 9 10 012 Birthday Standard +10% (-20) 24.86 24 23 22.60 (%) 22 21 10(-20) 24.34

Source: SRK, 2012

Figure 9-5: Results of Standard Analysis

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 82

 

 

The Mountain Pass pulp duplicates showed good agreement with the SGS Lakefield original analyses being within ±10% with one failure. The blind pulp duplicate assay value pairs analyzed by SGS were all within ±10% of each other. These results are shown in Figure 9-6.

 

LOGO

SGS Originals. SGS Duplicate 10% 1 pales SUS Original (RFU5) Mt. Pass Duplicate vs. SCS Duplicate -10% Mt. Pass Duplicate (Re0 %)

Source: SRK, 2012

Figure 9-6: Results of Pulp Duplicate Analysis

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 83

 

 

Overall, the historic Project analyses in the resource database are on average lower than the corresponding SGS Minerals analyses and the present-day Mountain Pass Laboratory analyses. This is shown in the scatterplot provided in Figure 9-7. SRK notes that the observed scatter between labs from this program is similar to the 2021 duplicate core samples submitted to ALS, indicating that there are likely differences in processing of samples between labs.

 

LOGO

Original vs. SGS +20% SGS ReO%) -20% u= 117 pairs Original (ReO %)

Source: SRK, 2012

Figure 9-7: Results of Field Duplicate Analysis

 

9.3

Data Adequacy

The duplicate pulps assayed at Mountain Pass during this verification exercise show that assays generated by the modern-day Mountain Pass Laboratory compare well with SGS Lakefield. SRK concludes that assay results from the 108-half core duplicate samples show some scatter which is partly due to the differences in grade from one half of the core to the other and partly due to laboratory precision. This conclusion is borne out in the 2021 duplicate analysis as well. It appears that the historical samples which were prepared on site and assayed at the Mountain Pass Laboratory 20 years ago returned lower assay grades than those returned by SGS Lakefield based on the field duplicate analysis.

Overall, average grades for field duplicates submitted to ALS for the 2021 samples returned a lower grade of 3.4% TREO vs. the MP lab at 3.8%. Given the limited duplicate data set and the nature of there being no consistent bias observed, SRK notes that this remains unresolved at the time of this

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 84

 

 

report. SRK strongly recommends that MP investigates the source of the variance in the duplicates from the 2021 sampling.

The production reconciliation has shown that the MRE model is generally reliable although demonstrably lower grade than the grade control data. The MRE grades are smoother than those in the grade control data which suggests there is an opportunity to better separate higher and lower grade populations in future short-range improvements to the model.

Overall, SRK is of the opinion that the historic analytical data in the database can support a level of confidence commensurate with long term resource estimation. Uncertainties in the underlying quality of the analytical data are dealt with in mineral resource classification and compensated by the fact that Mountain Pass is an operating mine with ongoing production and reconciliation to support the long-term resource.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 85

 

 

10

Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing

 

10.1

Background

MP Materials mines ore from the open pit, transports the ore to a primary crushing/stockpile facility and transports the ore to the mill. At the mill, the crushed material is ground further with a ball mill and conveyed via a slurry pipeline to the flotation plant to separate the bastnaesite from the gangue minerals. The primary product of the flotation process is a bastnaesite concentrate, which is filter dried and then transported to customers for sale. The discussion in Sections 10.2 and 10.3 have been prepared by SRK. MP Materials has determined SRK meets the qualifications specified under the definition of qualified person in 17 CFR § 229.1300.

MP Materials is in the process of recommissioning a rare earths separations facility that is scheduled to be operational by year-end 2022. The separations facility, once operational, will allow the Company to separate the bastnaesite concentrate into four saleable products (PrNd oxide, SEG+ oxalate, La carbonate, and Ce chloride). The discussion in Section 10.4 has been prepared by SGS. MP Materials has determined SGS meets the qualifications specified under the definition of qualified person in 17 CFR § 229.1300.

 

10.2

Flotation Studies Versus Ore Grade

During the later years of mining operations at Mountain Pass, the ore grade is expected to decline. To assess TREO (total rare earth oxide) recovery from lower-grade ore, MP Materials conducted rougher flotation tests on ore samples over a grade range from 1.86% to 8.10% TREO using standard concentrator test conditions. Each test composite was prepared and assayed for the full suite of analyses shown in Table 10-1.

Rougher flotation tests were conducted on each test composite for a total retention time of eight minutes with concentrates collected at timed increments, which allowed the evaluation of TREO recovery versus concentrate grade. The results of these rougher flotation tests are summarized in Table 10-2.

TREO recovery versus concentrate grade was plotted for each test and is shown graphically in Figure 10-1 along with the corresponding grade versus recovery equation that was developed for each test composite. MP Materials has established from plant experience that a rougher flotation concentrate containing 25% TREO is required in order to produce a final upgraded cleaner concentrate containing 60% TREO.

Table 10-3 shows interpolated TREO recoveries for each test composite at a fixed 25% TREO rougher flotation concentrate grade. TREO recovery into the rougher concentrate increased from 29.0% to 83.4% as the feed grade increases from 1.9% to 8.1% TREO. Additionally, MP Materials reports that the concentrator recovers, on average, 83.1% of the TREO contained in the rougher flotation concentrate into a final cleaner flotation concentrate containing 60% TREO. As shown in Table 10-3, estimated overall REO recovery into a cleaner flotation concentrate containing 60% TREO increases from 24.1% to 69.3% as the ore grade increases from 1.9% to 8.1% TREO. A TREO recovery versus ore grade equation was developed by MP Materials based on these results.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 86

 

 

Table 10-1: Head Analyses for Grade Range Test Composites

 

Composite   

TREO

(%)

    

La2O3

(%)

    

CeO2

(%)

    

Pr6O11

(%)

     Nd2O3
(%)
    

MnO

(%)

    

Fe2O3

(%)

    

Al2O3

(%)

    

BaO

(%)

    

CaO

(%)

    

SiO2

(%)

    

MgO

(%)

    

P2O5

(%)

    

SrO

(%)

        

2019 test 3~5%

     3.22        1.00        1.61        0.07        0.23        0.30        6.11        6.63        9.60        13.13        28.12        3.32        0.52        2.60     

2020 test 3~5%

     3.92        1.25        2.02        0.12        0.34        0.30        5.94        5.28        9.57        16.36        22.04        3.51        0.63        3.24     

2020 test 5~7%

     5.65        1.84        2.92        0.20        0.62        0.31        5.17        5.22        9.99        15.02        23.10        2.71        0.48        3.91     

2020 test 7~8%

     7.13        2.33        3.68        0.28        0.88        0.30        4.63        5.41        9.74        13.42        24.57        1.92        0.32        4.23     

2020 test > 8%

     8.10        2.70        4.18        0.33        0.89        0.45        3.46        2.03        15.70        18.96        9.85        4.26        0.51        1.99     

2021 test 2%

     1.86        0.57        0.93        0.07        0.12        0.17        4.55        10.56        3.99        7.93        46.23        3.48        0.31        0.73     

2021 test 2.5%

     2.70        0.82        1.35        0.10        0.22        0.20        4.40        9.29        5.54        8.78        41.52        3.42        0.35        0.98     

2021 test 3%

     3.22        0.98        1.61        0.13        0.29        0.22        4.29        8.55        6.49        9.98        37.18        3.75        0.38        1.00     

2021 test 3.5%

     3.46        0.99        1.73        0.02        0.39        0.26        4.67        9.57        7.09        11.00        31.98        4.57        0.40        1.42     

Source: MP Materials, 2021

Table 10-2: Cumulative Rougher Flotation Concentrate Grade and Recovery Versus Ore Grade

 

Ore Grade  

REO %  

   Cumulative Ro Conc Grade (TREO%)    Cumulative TREO Recovery (%)
   Ro Conc-1      Ro Conc-2      Ro Conc-3      Ro Conc-4      Ro Conc-1      Ro Conc-2      Ro Conc-3      Ro Conc-4  

1.86  

   28.0      23.4      20.0      16.9      18.7      33.5      37.3      38.7  

2.70  

   29.6      26.8      24.2      21.7      21.2      35.0      39.1      40.5  

3.22  

   31.5      28.2      25.4      22.6      21.7      36.8      41.0      42.6  

3.46  

   34.4      29.8      27.9      24.8      28.5      41.6      44.8      46.2  

3.92  

   33.0      23.5      20.3      18.4      47.6      64.5      69.7      71.4  

5.65  

   36.1      31.0      28.1      24.8      60.9      71.9      74.9      76.2  

7.13  

   43.9      33.1      30.3      26.1      62.6      77.2      79.8      81.8  

8.10  

   38.2      31.2      28.5      25.5      59.4      77.9      81.6      83.3  

Source: MP Materials, 2021

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 87

 

 

LOGO

90 Recovery vs Grade Curve 80 y = -0.0288x²-0.1713x+84 584 y=-0.0408x+1.7805x + 63.17 70 V-0 1272x+ 6.3887x-4.1042 60 Rouglier recovery a 50 y=-0.136x² +6.7664x-0.7383 20.8% 150 con y=-0.3571x +17.036x 160.38 grade for 50% 40 final contBYAUS 30 y 0.2097x²+10.544x-86.251 Rougher Recovery (%) 20 Rougher RECOVERY (P 25% REQ com praze-0.1964x+7.0626x-24.797 y=-0.431x + 19.714x-184.65 10 for 60% final com 0 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Rougher Concenrtrate Grade REO (%) -2.5% feed -3~5% feed 45 50 2% feed -3.5% feed -7~8% feed ->8% feed 3% feed 5*7% feed -Poly. (2% feed) Poly, (2.5% feed) Poly. (3% feed) Poly. (3.5% feed)

Source: MP Materials, 2021

Figure 10-1: TREO Rougher Flotation Recovery versus Concentrate Grade for Different Feed Grades

Table 10-3: Estimated Rougher and Cleaner Flotation REO Recovery (1)

 

                          

Head Grade  

TREO (%)  

   Rougher Concentrate    Estimated Cleaner Concentrate
   TREO (%)      TREO Recovery (%)      TREO (%)      TREO Recovery (%) (2)  

1.86  

   25      29.0      60      24.1  

2.70  

   25      38.8      60      32.2  

3.22  

   25      42.3      60      35.1  

3.46  

   25      46.3      60      38.5  

3.91  

   25      62.3      60      51.7  

5.65  

   25      76.1      60      63.2  

7.13  

   25      82.2      60      68.3  

8.10  

   25      83.4      60      69.3  

Source: MP Materials, 2021

(1) Based on 25%TREO Rougher Concentrate Grade and 60% TREO Cleaner Concentrate Grade

(2) Plant cleaner flotation unit recovery: 83.1%

 

10.3

Concentrator Recovery Estimate

The TREO recovery versus ore grade relationship developed by MP Materials based on the results of rougher flotation tests over a range of feed grades is shown on Figure 10-2. TREO recovery versus

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 88

 

 

ore grade is expressed by the following relationship which is capped at 70% recovery to conservatively reflect actual plant performance:

Y = -0.0431*X5 + 1.2761*X4 – 14.415*x2 – 169 *X + 159.4

Where:

Y = TREO recovery % into the cleaner flotation concentrate at a grade of 60% REO

x = Ore grade: REO%

At ore grades less than 2% TREO this recovery relationship is not valid and begins to estimate incrementally higher REO recoveries. To address this issue, SRK has interpolated REO recovery at 22% for the ore grade increment of 1.5% to 2.0% TREO and zero % recovery for ore grades less than 1.5% TREO. SRK is of the opinion that the data relied upon is adequate for the purposes of estimating concentrator recoveries across the anticipated range of mill feed grades.

 

LOGO

Final recovery vs Feed grade (70% Cap) 80 70 Final Rcovery (%) 50 40 8 30 y=-0.0431x³+1.2761x-14.415x³ +75.427x²-169x + 159.4 R² = 0.989 20 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 Feed Grade(%REO)

Source: MP Materials, 2021

Figure 10-2: TREO Recovery to Cleaner Flotation Concentrate versus Feed Grade

 

10.4

Separation of Individual Rare Earths

The findings put forth by SGS are based on decades of process data, implied results from MP Materials’ current customers, plant data from the same assets operating between 2012-2015, bench data, and pilot data. For the purposes of this report, it was assumed that MP Materials will recommission the separations facility and supporting infrastructure by year-end 2022, and the commissioning ramp rate will follow a Type 2 McNulty curve, resulting in feeding 50%, 90%, and 100% of concentrate production into the facility in 2023, 2024, and 2025, respectively.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 89

 

 

10.4.1

Metallurgical Testwork

MP Materials has conducted extensive pilot testing to both generate data to design circuits and to confirm existing legacy data. There are 11 primary processes that make up the separations (“Stage 2”) operation. They are outlined in the Figure 10-3 below.

 

Process    Data Source    Analytical Results     

1 Concentrate Drying & Roasting

   Historical Data (1965-1998); customer data; pilot data (small/large scale)    MP & 3rd Party Laboratories   

2 Leaching Impurity Removal

   Historical Data (1965-2011); 3rd party lab; pilot data (small/large scale)    MP & 3rd Party Laboratories   

3 HREE/LREE Separation

   Plant data (2012-2015); pilot data (small/large)    MP & 3rd Party Laboratory   

4 PrNd Separation

   Plant data (2012-2015); pilot data (small scale)    MP Laboratory   

5 PrNd Finishing

   Plant data (2012-2015); 3rd party lab testing; pilot data (small scale)    MP & 3rd Party Laboratories   

6 La Finishing

   Plant data (2012-2015); 3rd party lab testing; pilot data (small scale)    MP & 3rd Party Laboratories   

7 Ce Finishing

   Plant data (2012-2015); pilot testing (small scale)    MP, 3rd Party Laboratory, Customer qualification   

8 SEG+ Finishing

   Plant data (2012-2015); pilot data (small scale); interference testing    MP Laboratory; 3rd Party Laboratory; Customer Data   

9 Brine Recovery, Treatment, Crystallizing

   Plant data (2012-2015); pilot data (small scale); vendor testing/engineering    MP & 3rd Party Laboratories   

Source: MP Materials, 2021

Figure 10-3: Primary Processes for Stage 2 Operation

Details of the test work performed are as follows.

Concentrate drying and roasting: roasting of bastnaesite concentrate began at Mountain Pass in 1965 or 1966. Roasting of bastnaesite is known to convert the carbonates into oxides with the salutary effect of converting much of the trivalent cerium to the tetravalent state, which is largely insoluble. The roasting conditions are critical to leach recovery. Consequently, roasting is a most important thermal step that will allow for economical downstream rare earth processing. Legacy records from the multi-hearth furnace (that remains onsite) suggested a roasting temperature of approximately 600°C. To confirm these figures, MP Materials conducted initial scoping studies of different roasting temperatures and roasting residence times at Hazen Research. The roasted concentrate was then leached at various temperatures and acid consumption levels to confirm recoveries of trivalent rare earth elements (REEs) and rejection of cerium. This testing was then scaled up by sending at least 5 st of concentrate to multiple outside labs and tolling facilities. These organizations performed larger scale roasting exercises using their pilot equipment. These samples were sent to SGS Lakefield for further confirmatory testing. These tests confirmed the optimal process conditions. Lastly, an approximately 2 short ton batch of roasted concentrate was leached at MP Materials’ Cerium 96 plant in two large reactors to confirm the scalability of the results. Subsequent smaller scale leach tests using the same roasted concentrate have been performed to optimize the timing and temperature of HCl to further enhance PrNd recovery and Ce rejection.

Leaching: given the interconnectedness of roasting with the leach steps, leaching pilot studies were used to confirm both the effectiveness of the roasting conditions and the optimization of leach conditions. As mentioned above, testing was performed at several outside laboratories, and MP Materials’ pilot plant. The results were duplicated on a larger scale in MP Materials’ Cerium 96 plant. To mirror the temperature control and flexibility provided in MP Materials’ multi-stage, temperature-controlled reactors, MP Materials upgraded its small-scale leach pilot facility to incorporate better temperature control than was available in the Cerium 96 plant or at outside laboratories. This generated the best results, superior to those of previous tests. Notwithstanding, MP Materials has the more conservative recovery estimates to underly its pre-feasibility study for the separations facility.

Impurity Removal: following the leach step and the removal of the cerium concentrate and insoluble impurities, the next stages initiate the removal of remaining impurities. The primary end point is the

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 90

 

 

removal of iron, uranium, aluminum, and any other salts that may be partially solubilized with the potential to produce solids (i.e., CRUD – defined as interphase suspended solids or emulsions) in the solvent extraction circuits. These circuits were operated by MP Materials’ predecessor from 2012-2015. Plant data confirms that these circuits operated with few major issues. Improvements include a new thickener, filter press, and a pressure leaf filter to ensure full removal of precipitated solids induced by pH adjustment. Also, the installation of a system to add filter aid to assist in the solid-liquid separation stage of additional impurities is expected to further reduce the risk of CRUD formation in the (solvent extraction) SX circuits and improve consistent throughput. SGS Lakefield pilot tests for impurity removal and MP Materials own pilot tests confirm the ability to successfully remove sufficient iron, uranium, and dramatically reduce aluminum prior to SX. A secondary bulk extraction is then performed to remove rare earths from remaining impurities, in particular the cations Ca and Mg. Historical plant data demonstrates that this system operated largely without major complications. The removal of a significant portion of the cerium during leaching will offset the increased volumetric flow which will result from higher concentrate production. MP Materials has conducted several pilot plant runs using glass mixer-settlers to produce feed for heavy REE separations and (solvent extraction didymium) SXD pilot plant experiments to further minimize CRUD formation. All these studies have confirmed high recovery and purity of the RE-enriched preg solution.

SXH: a bulk separation of the heavy rare earths (SEG+) fraction from light rare earth element (LREE) will be performed in solvent extraction heavies (SXH). Previous plant operating experience between 2012-2015 and MP Materials’ modeling confirms that this plant is adequately sized to ensure clean separation of Sm+ from Nd while minimizing losses of Nd into Sm. The separation factor between Sm and Nd is large (aided largely by the absence of Pm in nature), so MP Materials has not performed any additional piloting on this circuit.

SXD: the SXD circuit separates a PrNd stream from the La and residual Ce in the SXH raffinate. SXD operated smoothly under the predecessor entity and sufficient data exists from the later months to conclude that once in equilibrium, the ability to make on-spec PrNd is confirmed. However, MP Materials is pursuing an additional separation in this facility involving the elimination of the need for a separate cerium removal stage.

PrNd Finishing: precipitation of PrNd from the chloride media has been piloted at SGS Lakefield as well as in MP Materials’ pilot plant. Both carbonate and oxalate experiments were conducted and analyzed for rheology, particle size, settling rate, impurities, ability to meet market product specifications, and determination of equipment sizing. The products were analyzed by a 3rd party laboratory and MP Materials’ analytical laboratory. The finishing circuit has been designed for maximum flexibility for product precipitation and high-purity finishing based upon testing performed by MP Materials, 3rd party laboratories, and equipment vendors.

La Finishing: lanthanum precipitation by soda ash, solid liquid separation, drying and calcining tests were conducted at 3rd party laboratories, and in MP Materials’ pilot plant to confirm rheology, equipment sizing, and the ability to meet market specifications. The implementation of a 2-stage (countercurrent decantation) CCD solid-liquid separation circuit is anticipated to improve spent leach solution (SLS), minimize losses, and improve product quality. This approach was demonstrated in several pilot plant runs.

PhosFIX™ Finishing: a multi-month pilot study conducted by MP Materials demonstrated the ability to produce a clean cerium chloride solution for sale into the water treatment market. This confirmed

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 91

 

 

previous modeling studies. The laboratory data were confirmed by MP Materials’ laboratory and by mass balances. The wide range of acceptable La to Ce ratios means that little additional pilot work has been necessary.

SEG+ Finishing: MP Materials plans to use the same SEG+ finishing assets as previously employed from 2012-2015 with minimal change. Legacy plant data confirms that the equipment is appropriately sized and designed, so no additional testing was performed.

Brine Recovery, Treatment, Crystallizing: MP Materials has conducted several rounds of pilot studies taking appropriate mixtures of brine from previously operated facilities and SX pilot plant investigations to produce a representative brine. Additional flocculant testing and soda ash precipitation has been conducted in several runs to confirm the ability to perform adequate solid/liquid separation. MP Materials plans an upgrade to the brine recovery circuit, including the addition of an additional filter press (like in kind), and a pressure leaf filter as a final polishing step. These will facilitate removal of non-sodium salts, to be disposed on site, prior to sending the sodium chloride solution to the brine evaporator and crystallizer. As no material chemical changes are expected, the major focus has been on confirming adequate equipment sizing. Legacy plant data combined with SysCAD modeling confirm that there should be sufficient redundancy to handle the expected volume. A salt crystallizer is being designed to handle the expected plant flow (including an engineering factor). A conservative brine assay was provided to confirm suitability of the materials of construction as well as throughput. The existing brine evaporator ran smoothly to service the chlor-alkali plant (that is not slated for restart until a later date) and is being repositioned to optimize the crystallizer feed solution. No direct piloting of the crystallizer has been performed, though the vendor has provided a performance guarantee.

 

10.4.2

Representativeness of Test Samples

The Mountain Pass ore body has been consistent over 70 years of regular mining, beneficiation, and processing. The mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates presented in this Technical Report Summary forecast a similar mineralogy over the life of mine. For this reason, the pilot results are considered to be representative of the results to be expected for the deposit as a whole.

The most critical steps in the entire hydrometallurgical and separation process are the roasting and leaching steps. These steps are critical for cracking the bastnaesite mineral as well as maximizing trivalent recovery and minimizing cerium recovery that underlie the processing of the Mountain Pass ore. MP Materials has extensively piloted roasting and leaching variations from concentrate produced over different periods (early 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021) and has always found the optimal results utilize similar conditions. Testing was conducted by 3rd party laboratories, various vendors and cross-checked with legacy data, verified as consistent with Chinese processing conditions, and further piloted at bench, pilot, and commercial scale at MP Materials. These optimized conditions, apparently not coincidentally, were nearly identical to those practiced by its predecessor from 1966 to 1998.

This suggests that within the typical volatility of the ore body, these roasting and leaching conditions have produced the optimal results over time. In recent years, MP Materials has shipped approximately 100,000 metric tonnes of REO to different processors in China. MP Materials understands that the vast majority of its customers pursue a similar hydrometallurgical process as is planned by MP Materials. Despite the concentrate being produced from different mining phases of the open pit (and different ore blends and final concentrate grades), the sales pricing framework has remained largely

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 92

 

 

intact. This suggests that the leaching recovery has been consistent over the four-year period, providing further comfort of the representativeness of the samples tested.

Once the bastnaesite has been leached, it is not expected that variations in mineralogy will materially impact plant performance. Therefore, satisfaction of consistent leachability should provide sufficient support for the assumption of the suitability of the process design for life of mine.

 

10.4.3

Analytical Laboratories

MP Materials has been supported in its process design effort by a number of institutions and laboratories, as shown in Table 10-4. With the exception of MP Materials’ own analytical and engineering laboratories, all are fully independent of MP Materials and were compensated on a fee-per-service basis with no compensation tied to results achieved.

Table 10-4: Analytical Laboratories

 

Name    Location    Certification    

Hazen Research, Inc.

  

Golden

Colorado

USA

   https://www.hazenresearch.com/capabilities/analytical-laboratories  

SGS Lakefield

  

Lakefield

Ontario

Canada

   https://www.scc.ca/en/system/files/client-scopes/ASB_SOA_15254-Scope_v2_2021-07-30.pdf  

Paterson & Cooke

USA Ltd

  

Golden

Colorado

USA

  

http:///www.dcmsciencelab.com/certifications/

through DCM Science Laboratories

 

Golder Associates

Inc.

  

Lakewood

Colorado

USA

  

https://acz.com/index.php/certifications/

through ACZ Laboratories Inc.

 

Source: MP Materials, 2021

 

10.4.4

Separations Facility Recovery Estimates

In order to design, size, and optimize the operation of the existing and to-be-constructed circuits in the Stage 2 process, MP Materials has analyzed legacy plant data and conducted (and continues to conduct) a range of bench-scale and larger-scale pilot activities. The primary end points relate to the following, summary data of which will be explained in more detail in the subsequent sections:

 

  1)

Optimizing roasting and leaching conditions to maximize trivalent (La, Pr, Nd, SEG+) rare earth recoveries while maintaining cerium recovery below 20%

 

  2)

Ensuring sufficient settling rate of cerium concentrate with clear thickener overflow

 

  3)

Efficient iron and uranium removal with minimal REE loss

 

  4)

pH adjustment and further impurity removal with minimal trivalent REE loss

 

  5)

Clean separation of Nd from Sm, with a focus on minimizing Sm into the raffinate stream (i.e., into Nd)

 

  6)

Clean separation of PrNd from La and Ce along with pure La and on-spec Ce (with no more than 20% La)

 

  7)

Sufficient settling of PrNd oxalate with clear overflow and low impurities

 

  8)

Sufficient settling and purity of lanthanum carbonate

 

  9)

Ability to remove non sodium (Na) impurities from brine stream to feed the crystallizer, allowing for relatively pure sodium salt (non-Resource Conservation and Recovery Act) discharge that could be either sold or disposed onsite in the Northwest Tailings Disposal Facility (NWTDF)

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 93

 

 

The data confirms the recovery figures shown in Figure 10-4.

 

Overall Recovery:

Concentrate to Finished Products

     

Lanthanum

  

78.5%

     

Cerium

  

9.2%

     

Praseodymium/Neodymium

  

89.6%

     

SEG+

  

97.8%

     

Note: SEG+ includes the impact of LREE losses into SEG+ stream (considered an impurity)

Source: MP Materials, 2021

Figure 10-4: Recovery Estimates

Summary of Continuous Roasting and Leaching

Experimental Conclusions

For the leach pilot, an optimal extraction of 94.63% Nd2O3 and %Pr6O11 and %SEG+ was achieved at 109 grams per liter (g/L) REO in pregnant leach solution (PLS). Respective Ce extraction was 13.90%. During the stabilized run of the pilot, the highest achievable consistent g/L was 125 to 127 g/L. The respective optimal cerium extraction achieved was 9.57%.

Experiment Background and Objectives

During previous runs of the REE separation circuit at Mountain Pass, further downstream processes were required to separate cerium from the blend of rare earth elements in the concentrate. The purpose of this pilot was to show that parametric optimization of the roasting and leaching conditions in the leach circuit can result in the rejection of 80%+ cerium oxide and the extraction of 90%+ PrNd and SEG+ Oxides.

Experiment Metrics

Experiment results are presented in Figure 10-5 and Figure 10-6 and in Table 10-5 through Table 10-7.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 94

 

 

LOGO

Extractions at 109 g/L 120.00% 100.00% 9.95 0.95 80.00% 40.00% 20.00% Rare Earth Extraction 0.14 Pr6011 % REO Na203% St0 Totat 120.00%

Source: MP Materials, 2021

Figure 10-5: Extraction of Rare Earth Oxides at 109 g/L with 93+% PrNd

 

LOGO

Extractions at 127g/L 0.97 0.88 0.82 40.00% Rare Earth % Extraction 20.00% La203 % CeO2 % Pr6011 % REO Nd203% SEG+Total REO

Note: Lower extraction of Nd2O3 and SEG+

Source: MP Materials, 2021

Figure 10-6: Extraction of Rare Earth Oxides at 127 g/L

Table 10-5: Feed Conditions That Resulted in Optimal Extractions at 109 g/L

 

Ore Feed  

Rate  

(g/min)  

 

RO  

Water  

(mL/min)  

  

HCl TK2  

(mL/min)  

  

HCL TK3  

(mL/min)  

  

HCL TK4  

(mL/min)  

  

HCL TK5  

(mL/min)  

  

HCL TK6  

(mL/min)  

  

Total Volume  

Pilot Tanks  

(mL)  

  

Residence Time  

Distribution  

(hours)  

8.3     18.3      1.8      1.4      1.4      1.4      1      17,500      9.55  

Note: “g/min” is grams per minute; “mL/min” is milliliters per minute.

Source: MP Materials, 2021

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 95

 

 

Table 10-6: Test Material Feed Composition by % Solid REO

 

La2O3%      CeO2%      Pr6O11%      Nd2O3%      SEG%+        
24.4      37.7      3.3      8.5      1.5        

Source: MP Materials, 2021

Table 10-7: Outlet Stream Composition by g/L REO at 109 g/L

 

La2O3 g/L      CeO2 g/L      Pr6O11 g/L      Nd2O3 g/L      SEG g/L        
62.034      13.739      7.939      22.095      3.3139        

Source: MP Materials, 2021

Summary of Leach Slurry Settling Tests

Experimental Conclusions

With the assistance of two vendors, MP Materials evaluated various anionic high molecular weight dry flocculants mixed at 0.20% and dosed into 500 mL samples of well mixed slurry. It was found that two worked best at a minimal dosage of 40 ppm for all 3 CCD thickeners. For CCD 1, this translated to 1,012 grams per metric tonne (g/t) dosages and for CCD 2 and 3 translated to approximately 909.1 g/t. See Table 10-8 below for full breakdown.

Experiment Background and Objectives

Tests were performed on the CCD 1 thickener feed slurry with both vendors’ products. Two products of similar settling efficacy were found.

Experiment Metrics

Experiment results are presented in Table 10-8. NTU (as a measure of clarity) refers to nephelometric turbidity unit.

Table 10-8: Settling Test Results Including Overflow Clarity with Various Flocculants and Dosages

 

CCD   

Test

Product #

    

Dose

(PPM)

    

Minimum Dosage

(grams/metric tonne)

     Size      Settle     

Clarity

(NTU)

           
1      1        40        1,012.0        Small        Fast        28        
1      2        40        1,012.0        Small        Med.        1000+        
1      3        40        1,012.0        Small        Fast        428        
1      4        40        1,012.0        Small        Med.        1000+        
1      1        40        1,012.0        Small        Fast        23        
1      5        40        1,012.0        Small        Fast        38        
1      6        40        1,012.0        Small        Fast        113        
1      1        40        1,012.0        Small        Fast        50        
1      7        40        1,012.0        Small        Fast        36        
1      2        40        1,012.0        Small        Med.        1000+        
1      7        40        1,012.0        Small        Fast        29        
1      1        40        1,012.0        Small        Med        29        
2      1        40        909.1        Small        Fast        45        
3      1        40        909.1        Small        Fast        31        
1      8        40        1,012.0        Small        Fast        31        
1      8        40        909.1        Small        Fast        31        
1      8        40        909.1        Small        Fast        31        

Source: MP Materials, 2021

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 96

 

 

Summary Fe/U Loading and Losses

Experimental Conclusions

The range of Fe in MP Materials’ leach solution exists nominally within a range of 200 to 400 ppm, and, as such, ion exchange loading capacity is reported as a range respective to these two conditions. With the addition of 12N HCl and a 10% dilution of the feed solution, it is possible to reach a loading capacity of 0.95 to 1.89 L mother liquor/L column resin. With the addition of 1.8 N NaCl and a 10% dilution of the feed solution with 12N HCl (total Cl- of 3N), that number can be increased to 5.59 to 11.18 L mother liquor/L column resin. It was determined that 250 g/L of solid NaCl (4.27 Mol Cl-) can be safely added to further boost the loading capacity of the resin and that NaCl should be dissolved first to avoid the formation of sodium hydride salts in the reactor. At a 20% dilution with 12N HCl, this would increase the loading capacity to 22.18 to 44.36 L mother liquor/ L column resin. Mass balances of the rare earths that hover between 98% and 102% indicate analytical statistical error and are not indicative of rare earth losses to the resin. However, loading of iron and uranium can be observed as shown in the mass balance of cell 10 of Table 10-10.

Experimental and Objectives

The objective of these experiments is to alter the Cl- composition of the feed stock leach liquor to improve loading capacity of the Fe/U IX columns. This is achieved with the addition of HCl and NaCl.

Experimental Metrics

Experiment results are presented in Figure 10-7,

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 97

 

 

Table 10-9 and Table 10-10.

 

LOGO

Total Loadable Volume vs Column Bed Volume 90 180 70 60 50 40 30 20 11.18 22.18 10 1.89 0.95 10 42.28 29.23 LMP Liquor/L Column Resin 7:00 2.00 3 3.7 5 6 1.2 1.5 Approximate Normal Cl Min Feed Volume (400 ppm Fe)

Source: MP Materials, 2021

Figure 10-7: Volumes of Leach Liquor per Volume of Resin Required Before a Regeneration Cycle

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 98

 

 

Table 10-9: Assays of Feed, Cell of Complete Rare Earth Breakthrough, and Cell of Fe/U Bleed

 

Sample ID    La2O3  g/L      CeO2 g/L      Pr6O11  g/L      Nd2O3  g/L      Fe mg/L      Na mg/L      U mg/L         

INFLB Cell 10

     36        22.14        5.69        21.91        2.7        34840.9        0.1     

INFLB Cell 78

     36.47        22.4        5.56        22.1        65.3        34257.3        5.3     

INFLB Feed

     36.89        22.53        5.54        22.55        129.7        34195.9        19.1     

Source: MP Materials, 2021

Table 10-10: Mass Balance Calculations for Outlet Streams at Various Fractions

 

Sample ID   

La/La

Feed

   

Ce/Ce

Feed

   

Pr/Pr

Feed

   

Nd/Nd

Feed

   

Fe/Fe

Feed

   

Na/Na

Feed

   

U/U

Feed

       

INFLB Cell 10

     97.59     98.27     102.71     97.16     2.08     101.89     0.52  

INFLB Cell 78

     98.86     99.42     100.36     98.00     50.35     100.18     27.75  

INFLB Feed

     100.00     100.00     100.00     100.00     100.00     100.00     100.00  

Source: MP Materials, 2021

Summary of Impurity Removal

The Impurity Removal circuit is designed to achieve a high purity SX feed. First the pH of the liquor is increased by the addition of 32% NaOH solution to the highest practical value with less than 1% of rare earth losses. This process was piloted at Mountain Pass in Summer 2021 to attain process parameters. A secondary goal of the pilot work was to determine whether this could serve as the primary aluminum-removal step for MP Materials’ entire plant process.

Figure 10-8 shows a before and after for the steady-state operation of the pilot effort. The assay for “T2 Shift Avg” represents the product stream of this pilot work. The absolute concentrations are listed as well as the adjusted values.

 

Sample ID    La2O3    CeO2    Pr6O11    Nd2O3    Sm2O3    Eu2O3    Gd2O3     
   g/L    g/L    g/L    g/L    g/L    g/L    g/L     
Fe/U-removed leach liquor    27.065    30.054    4.386    19.510    3.953    0.247    0.163   
T2 Shift Avg- Absolute    24.093    26.003    3.986    17.862    3.634    0.219    0.148   
T2 Shift Avg - Dilution Adjusted    26.310    28.396    4.353    19.505    3.969    0239    0.162   
T2 % Loss    2.79    5,52    0,76    0.03    -0.39    3.01    0.95   

Source: MP Materials, 2021

Figure 10-8: Mass Balance

The pilot effort also showed that an additional aluminum removal step will continue to be required.

Summary of SXI Recovery / Mass Balance

A subsequent impurity removal stage has two main functions in the overall MP Materials flowsheet:

 

   

Remove the divalent impurities from the leach liquors

 

   

Increase the concentration of rare earth elements feeding solvent extraction

One of the relevant modifications in the circuit from the legacy operations is that around 10% of the lanthanum present in the feed stream will be intentionally rejected. The process was tested on a pilot scale for a total of 10 weeks to achieve statistical process control.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 99

 

 

Summary of SXH Recovery / Mass Balance

The SXH circuit which follows the solvent extraction impurities (SXI) circuit in the overall MP Materials flowsheet, receives the purified SX solution as the feed, after a stage of pH adjustment. The primary functions of the SXH circuit in the circuit are:

 

   

To separate the heavy fraction (i.e., the SEG+ elements) from the light rare earths (i.e., LaCePrNd fraction). The light REE fraction is subsequently separated in the SXD circuit

   

To concentrate the SEG+ fraction from ~20 g/L to ~350 g/L in the preg stream

The process has three input streams as shown below in Figure 10-9; Feed, NaOH, and HCl. There are two output streams: Raffinate containing the light REs, and the heavy RE-enriched preg stream.

 

LOGO

Feed LAE Product Streant NaOH SXH Process HRE Product Stream

Source: MP Materials, 2021

Figure 10-9: Diagram of the SXH Process

The process was run on a pilot scale using a synthetic feed produced by blending SXI preg with heavy rare earth element (HREE) concentrate produced from the legacy circuit. Although the REO distribution in the synthetic feed does not match what would be encountered in the full-scale plant, the outcome of the testing would be the same at plant conditions. Piloting feed concentrations were adjusted to provide a reasonable timeframe for results.

The process control of the circuit was done by complexometric titrations to measure the REO concentrations in different streams of the circuit. Additionally periodic samples were analyzed by ICP-MS to evaluate the efficacy of the process. The concentrations of relevant species, i.e., Pr, Nd and Hv (abbreviation for SEG+ fraction), in the pilot during steady state are given in Table 10-11 with the flowrates.

Table 10-11: Volumetric Flowrates of Different Streams along with Mass Flowrates of Different Components

 

     Feed      NaOH      Scrub      Strip      Raffinate      Preg liquor        

Flowrate (ml/min)

   60      6.4      5.2      12.2      71.6      12.2        

Pr g/L

   0.77      0      0      0      0.828      0.008        

Nd g/L

   3.1      0      0      0      2.5      2.4        

Hv g/L

   33.2      0      0      0      0.068      342        

Source: MP Materials, 2021

The elemental distribution of the raffinate, preg, and feed streams as shown in Figure 10-10, indicate that >99.5% of the light REE fraction reported to the raffinate and >95% of the heavy REE fraction reported to the preg solution in the pilot run described. This effort also resulted in 7.7% Nd losses in the pregnant solution stream. As the synthetic feed had significantly higher proportion of HREEs (65% by weight) in contrast to the natural distribution of REEs in bastnaesite (~2% by weight), the purity

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 100

 

 

numbers achieved were not optimized. Furthermore, to minimize the heavy fraction in the raffinate, greater than optimal concentration of neodymium was lost in the pregnant liquor stream. The large separation factor between Nd and Sm and the legacy operation indicates that high yield and purity of Hv can be achieved with low loss of Nd into the pregnant solution.

 

LOGO

50 40 30 25 20 15 10 Raffinate 0 La203 CeO2 Pr6011 Nd203 Sm203 Eu203 Gd203 Tb407 Dy203 Ho203 Er203 Tm203 Preg liquor Feed Yb203 Lu203 Y203

Source: MP Materials, 2021

Figure 10-10: % REO in Feed, Raffinate, and Preg Liquor

Summary of SXD Pilot

Piloting data for SXD indicated that >99% pure (Pr/Nd)Cl3 can be produced as a product in both the traditional configuration, and in a new configuration. The new configuration increased the purity of the La in raffinate to be >99.5% pure for sustained periods of several days, while maintaining the purity of the PrNdCl3 product. The purity of the Ce-La product achieved was >99% with an average ratio of Ce to La of 2.87 (74% Ce) on an oxide basis. The low residence time of the mixer settlers as well as the low inventory volume led to high volatility compared to what is expected in the full-scale operation. In the full-scale operation, it is believed that even higher purity may be achieved due to increased SX circuit stability. Characterization of Ce and La in the PrNdCl3 product was to the nearest 1 g/L.

PrNd Oxalate/Carbonate Precipitation – PrNd

PrNd Precipitation was conducted with SXD Pregnant Solution (containing 166 g/L TREO at about 30% Pr and 70% Nd) and precipitant being fed into Reactor 1 and cascading down a series of four reactors before overflowing into a collection bucket.

Average recovery for the first five days was 99.9%, suggesting that even at feed ratios close to (or even slightly lower than) 1.0 can achieve nearly complete recovery.

From this study, stoichiometric feed ratio may be a good starting point for determining feed rates, but from a control standpoint, pH appears to be a good indicator for precipitation performance. Based on the data, low pH values should be targeted.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 101

 

 

Lanthanum Carbonate Precipitation – Summary of La Recovery 

Lanthanum Carbonate Precipitation was conducted with a solution containing 70 g/L of lanthanum on an oxide basis and soda ash solution (at 15% sodium carbonate by weight) being fed into Reactor 1 and cascading down a series of four reactors before overflowing into a collection bucket.

Figure 10-11 shows the stoichiometric feed ratio (actual/theoretical for soda ash) and residual TREO in the overflow liquor (both via ICP and manual titration) over the course of a two-week period. Stoichiometric feed ratio was calculated from recorded feed rates measured every two hours using a stopwatch and graduated cylinder. This crude method may account for some of the noise in this dataset. Average recovery for the first five days was 90.3%.

 

LOGO

8/11 8/12 8/13 8/14 8/15 8/16 8/17 8/18 8/19 8/20 8/21 8/22 8/23 8/24 8/25 8/26 8/27 8/28 8/29 Date

Via CP
Via Manual Titration

Source: MP Materials, 2021

Figure 10-11: TREO in Overflow Liquor Over Time vs Stoichiometric Feed Ratio and pH

On day six, soda ash flow became more erratic. In response, a reduction in lanthanum recovery is noted. While there were periods of time where flow was normal, this circumstance did not appear to be sufficient to maintain a consistent level of recovery in the pilot facility, suggesting that a consistent flow is critical to the operation of carbonate precipitation. This situation should be more easily maintained in the full-scale process.

Brine Recovery Summary

The Brine Recovery circuit is designed to remove impurities via carbonate precipitation from the brine crystallizer feed stream and allow for the impurities to be impounded as carbonate solids. This process was piloted at Mountain Pass in Spring 2021 to display proof of concept and to attain process parameters.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 102

 

 

The Mountain Pass pilot showed that impurities can be removed from the crystallizer stream to the point at which the wet cake salt (generated from the crystallizer) may be impounded. The Company would like to sell the salt as a product in the future. The pilot work also showed that the solids generated from the process are permissible to be impounded.

Table 10-12 shows the average concentrations of relevant impurities from the Mountain Pass pilot effort. The Impurity Removal Solution is an average of multiple grabs from the starting material, while the crystallizer feed is multiple grabs of the supernatant generated from the thickener.

Table 10-12: Impurities in Brine Before and After Treatment

 

Brine Recovery Pilot - Average of Grab Sample Assays    
Component    Unit of Measure     Impurity Removal Solution     Crystallizer Feed      

Al

   mg/L   5.0     <0.1    

Ba

   mg/L   2,240     0.56    

Ca

   mg/L   23,845.1     2.4    

Co

   mg/L   3.0     <0.1    

Fe

   mg/L   6.0     <0.1    

Mg

   mg/L   345.4     <0.1    

Mn

   mg/L   249     <0.1    

Na

   mg/L   69,864     66,192    

Ni

   mg/L   1.3     <0.1    

P

   mg/L   5.3     0.4    

Pb

   mg/L   200     <0.1    

Si

   mg/L   18.8     1.2    

Sr

   mg/L   4,587     0.44    

Th

   mg/L   <0.1     <0.1    

U

   mg/L   <0.1     <0.1    

Cl

   mg/L   77,302     76,837    

PO4

   mg/L   13.4     2.1    

SO4

   mg/L   7.0     14.2    

K

   mg/L   78.0     54    

Source: MP Materials, 2021

The thickener from the pilot plant did not provide any relevant data regarding settling time, however the solids did settle easily with both flocculants which were deployed.

 

10.4.5

Expected Product Specifications

Lanthanum Carbonate/Oxide

For lanthanum, MP Materials has designed its circuits to primarily meet the required specifications for the FCC catalyst market in the U.S. and Europe, which are the largest future customers. These specifications are not considered exceedingly tight, and the implementation of the SXD upgrades in MP Materials’ Stage 2 will enable the Company to alter the amount of lanthanum directed into the cerium chloride product to ensure on-spec La/TREO for those customers requiring higher purity La carbonate or oxide. MP Materials produced sample material for customer testing during the SXD pilot operation in mid-2020, which confirmed the ability to meet these primary specifications.

Cerium Chloride

The cerium (or cerium-lanthanum) chloride market does not yet have a fixed specification. However, the ratio of cerium to lanthanum, in MP Materials’ experience, does not dramatically impact performance. MP Materials’ predecessor produced and sold cerium chloride solution into the market for several years, and MP Materials has continued to sell legacy inventory of this product to an existing

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 103

 

 

customer at premiums to observed market prices. The MP Materials flowsheet will produce cerium chloride in a similar process flow to the predecessor, where there should be no difficulty continuing to meet market expectations. Product that does not meet market specifications can be recycled back to the separation plant or neutralized and disposed through brine recovery without significant financial impact.

PrNd Oxide

Market standard PrNd oxide specifications, as confirmed by MP Materials’ customer discussions, are demonstrated in Figure 10-12. Mountain Pass’s primary production and separation assets were previously operated at commercial scale, and several representative 5 metric tonne lots are compared to market specifications below, highlighting the ability to produce on-spec PrNd Oxide. Further, MP Materials will be implementing more robust solid liquid separation, QA/QC, and finishing assets, which are expected to improve upon the ability and economics of producing to market specification.

 

Element    specification    5450-15-0826-1B    5450-15-0827-1B    5450-15-0827-2B    5450-15-0828-1B

TREO

   99.00%    99.70%    99.80%    99.70%    99.70%

LOI

   <1%    0.33%    0.24%    0.32%    0.28%

Pr6O11

      23.60%    22.20%    22.90%    23.00%

Nd2O3

      76.80%    78.00%    77.50%    77.30%

Pr6O11+Nd2O3/TREO

   99.50%    100.40%    100.20%    100.40%    100.30%

Pr6O11/pr6+Nd2O3)

   25% +/-3%    23.51%    22.16%    22.81%    22.93%

La2O3/TREO

   0.05%    0.003%    0.002%    0.001%    0.003%

CeO2/TREO

   0.05%    0.008%    0.007%    0.008%    0.008%

Sm2O3/TREO

   0.03%    0.007%    0.005%    0.005%    0.005%

Y2O3/TREO

   0.01%    r\l3    n/a    n/a    n/a

Other REO

   n/a    0.005%    0.005%    0.005%    0.005%

Fe2O3

   0.05%    0.002%    0.002%    0.001%    0.002%

CaO

   0.05%    0.004%    0.004%    0.001%    0.001%

Al2O3

   0.05%    0.001%    0.001%    0.003%    0.001%

Na2O

   0.05%    0.004%    0.001%    0.005%    0.001%

SiO2

   0.05%    0.006%    0.006%    0.006%    0.006%

SO4

   0.05%    0.001%    0.001%    0.001%    0.001%

   0.05%    0.030%    0.050%    0.030%    0.020%

Source: MP Materials, 2021

Figure 10-12: Market Standard PrNd Oxide Specification and Mountain Pass Historical Results

SEG+ Oxalate

There are varying specifications for SEG+ Oxalate products driven by the varying ratios of Tb and Dy and purity requirements. The typical SEG+ contract would include a minimum Tb and Dy assay percentage.

A representative SEG+ transaction, pictured below, specifies a 4% Tb+Dy minimum (REO equivalent). While there is sample volatility due to low concentrations of certain elements, recently produced samples from material extracted from legacy circuits and other testing indicate between 4% and 8% as a conservative range for Tb+Dy.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 104

 

 

 

11

Mineral Resource Estimate

The mineral resource estimate was prepared and reported by SRK Consulting (U.S.) Inc.

Geology is modeled in Leapfrog Geo software, and a 3D block model, grade estimation, and classification were all developed in the same software utilizing the EDGE module. Pit optimization was conducted in Maptek Vulcan software. The Project limits are based on the near-mine area and are represented in local mine coordinate system.

Rare earth mineralization at Mountain Pass is exclusively confined to carbonatite which is surrounded by gneissic and shonkinitic/syenitic rocks of pre-Cambrian age. Rare earth mineralization tends to have a relatively constant dip of 35° to 45° to the west southwest (255o), offset by minor post-mineral west and north-northwest normal faults. Drillholes are predominantly vertical to steeply dipping mainly almost perpendicular to the dip of the mineralized zone, and they are spaced on an average 100 to 200 ft apart throughout the deposit along the strike and downdip, the drilling may locally exceed 300 ft spacing. Most of the drilling occurred prior to or during mine production in the early 1950’s to late 1990’s. The current estimate incorporates drilling and mapping information that has been sourced or revised by MP Materials as part of a geological database review process in 2020 and 2021.

SRK generated the mineral resource estimate based on composites derived from drillhole sample assay results. The estimate is constrained by a 3D wireframe of the carbonatite and internal 3D grade-based domains. Grade interpolation was defined based on the geology, drillhole spacing and geostatistical analysis of the data. The mineral resources were classified by their proximity to the sample locations, number of drillholes used in the estimate, and relative indicator of estimation quality (Kriging Efficiency – KE). The final mineral resources are reported above a nominal cut-off grade developed from understanding of internal cost and pricing from MP, and within an optimized pit shell to assess the reasonable potential for eventual economic extraction.

 

11.1

Topography and Coordinate System

The geological model was constrained to a year-end 2013 regional topography. The mineral resource estimate has been confined to a topography dated September 30, 2021, but can be reported between these surfaces to facilitate high level reconciliation.

 

11.2

Drillhole Database

As described in Section 7, the majority of drilling activities at the Project were conducted throughout the 1950’s to 1990’s, and data was recorded in US standard units with locations in a local mine grid. Drilling locations relevant to the project area are shown against the geology model extents in Figure 11-1.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 105

 

 

 

LOGO

Year 2021 2010 2000 1990 1980 1970 1960 1950 Looking Down

Source: SRK, 2021

Figure 11-1: Drilling Distribution near Mountain Pass Mine

MP Materials compiled a digital database based on information available from original laboratory analyses. In some cases, the original lab sheets were not located, and SRK relied on typed and hand-written analyses as posted on drilling logs. SRK is of the opinion that the archiving of historic information related to drilling programs on-site is reasonable. This database differs from previous drilling information compiled by SRK or other consultants and includes revisions to historic information based on relatively newly discovered records as well as drilling added to the database from 2011 to recent (2021) drilling. MP Materials compiled this drilling database in Microsoft Excel.

In the version of the database used for the geological model and mineral resource estimate, there are a total of 233 drillholes with a cumulative length of 118,621 ft in the vicinity of the mine area. SRK notes that there are many more drillholes in the database which are excluded as they were drilled for different purposes (hydrogeological, geotechnical, etc.), could not be located accurately from historic information, or were outside of the project area. Individual holes range in length from 50 to 2,499 ft, and average about 510 ft. The drilling is located on a series of generally east-northeast and east to west oriented cross-sections spaced at nominal 150 ft intervals. Drill spacing is not consistent down-dip and is down to less than 100 ft in the higher-grade core of the deposit but widens to well over 300 ft in other areas or at the extents. Drillhole spacing averages approximately 200 ft x 100 ft throughout most of the deposit area. In the mine area, 15 holes were ignored prior to any modeling on the basis of missing both the geology and assay information. In some cases, holes were utilized which featured geological logging, but which were missing assays. These exclusively exist outside of the main carbonatite zone and are used to inform the geological modeling process only.

Within the area of the geological model, there are 6,975 samples analyzed for TREO with grades ranging from 0.01% TREO to a maximum of 26.42% TREO. Historically, core samples were selectively assayed based on visual confirmation of mineralization. Accordingly, many intervals in the hangingwall and footwall of the mineralized zone were not assayed. Intervals in the drilling database for which there

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 106

 

 

were no recorded sampling, but which featured geological logging, were assigned a -0.01 TREO grade. These were assigned a grade of 0.001 % TREO in the modeling software for the purposes of domain evaluation and estimation. Intervals which are entirely missing in terms of logging and assays are rare within the mine area and were omitted from compositing and estimation.

Individual sample intervals range from a minimum of 0.9 ft to a maximum of 21.5 ft, with an average of 5.14 ft. On a percentage basis, more than 83% of the samples internal to the carbonatite are 5 ft with another 7% between 5 and 10 ft (Figure 11-2). Longer intervals are noted for the unsampled material in the hangingwall or footwall. A portion of the samples have also been tested for multi-element geochemistry including P2O5, CaO, SrO, Fe2O3, PbO, SiO2, ThO, with a very limited selection of lanthanide series elements assayed for within the drilling. Only P2O5 was evaluated and estimated in the model to potentially aid in determination of where monazite may host some of the rare earth content, but this is not reported in the mineral resource summary and is not utilized for reporting.

 

LOGO

Histogram of thickness, filtered by cbt_mineralized Count 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 thickness

Source: SRK, 2021

Figure 11-2: Sample Length Histogram – Mineralized CBT

There is limited information available regarding drilling recoveries recorded on the original drill logs, but this has not been analyzed in detail. Anecdotal information by site personnel indicates good core

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 107

 

 

recovery, and no relationship was historically observed between core recovery and TREO grade. Zones of low or no recovery are noted in drilling logs and generally remain unsampled. These intervals neither contribute to nor are assigned some limit of detection grade on the basis of review of the drill logs and communication with site personnel. If there was an issue with recoveries, SRK would expect this to be evident as relationship between recovery and grade as a result of the highest-grade ore being also very friable; this should be reviewed in more detail in future.

 

11.3

Geology

SRK modeled the geology as 3D wireframes utilizing Leapfrog Geo. Downhole geological information has, for 2021, been compiled from physical paper records for most of the historic drilling at Mountain Pass. In addition to the drilling, SRK registered geological mapping from previous workers to the corresponding topographical surfaces and incorporated this mapping into the modeling effort as GIS or polylines in Leapfrog. Most important to this effort was the mapping completed by MP during July and August of 2021 to inform areas where historic exploration drilling was relatively sparse in the pit area. This is shown in Figure 11-3.

 

LOGO

Source: SRK, 2021

Figure 11-3: Geological Mapping and Fault Expressions – August 2021

 

11.3.1

Structural Model

SRK utilized the structural mapping from the July-August 2021 pit mapping as primary contacts for a series of five structures observed in the pit area. These include:

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 108

 

 

   

Celebration Fault – Offsetting CBT and trending NW along orientation of CBT.

 

   

Middle Fault Zone – Identified as a relatively wide damage zone dipping to the W from the pit area.

 

   

QAL Fault – Significant downdropping W-NW fault exposed in S pit wall. Juxtaposes QAL with host rocks and would offset CBT. No drilling has identified CBT south of this fault.

 

   

F1 Fault – Mapped as minor downdropping fault trending W-NW. Likely sympathetic to QAL Fault Offsets and truncates CBT to the south.

 

   

F2 Fault – Appears to be NE trending minor splay of Middle Fault Zone. Not activated in geological model due to minimal or no perceived offset, but retained to inform geotechnical model development.

 

   

Shear Zone - Appears to be NW trending shear developed in central part of pit. Not activated in geological model due to minimal or no perceived offset but retained to inform geotechnical model development.

Where possible, SRK projected these structures from measurements taken in the pit and linked them to obvious intersections of structure noted in the drilling. The structural logging is very inconsistent in the drilling. It is likely that observations were not recorded which may correspond to other structures or that some observations should be ignored due to the same inconsistency. Relative interactions of the structures noted above were reviewed with MP geology staff for consistency to the observed mapping and current geological interpretation. The resulting interactions effectively define fault blocks which are discrete from each other and bound the lithological model.

 

11.3.2

Lithology Model

The lithology was generalized from the drill logging to critical units at a level commensurate with the relative consistency of the drilling and mapping information. Basic lithologies which could be grouped from the variable historic logging were carbonatite (CBT), host rock (HOST - primarily gneiss with minor granite/shonkinite/syenite), and Quaternary alluvium (QAL). Although sub-lithologies could potentially be defined, the inconsistency of the logging over various generations would make this definition very difficult and likely inaccurate. In addition, the relative importance of the definition of sub-lithologies is very minor according to the current operational plan. The primary purpose of the geological model at Mountain Pass is to define areas with different densities or perhaps different waste rock geochemistry, slope stability, or other general engineering parameters. Thus, a more detailed lithological model was not deemed necessary by MP to support the MRE.

 

   

The QAL was defined as an erosional surface superseding all other lithologies as the latest unit, and is informed primarily from drilling. Surface mapping of the distribution of the QAL is also incorporated from 2013 geological mapping of the area.

 

   

Carbonatite was modeled primarily from the grouped logging codes which represent carbonatite logging information generated over the various drilling campaigns. SRK notes that TREO grade was not utilized to generate the carbonatite shape, and that this was based purely on the geological logging or mapping conducted by MP or predecessors.

 

   

Host rocks are effectively the remaining volume not broken out for CBT or QAL. The host rocks are mixed and generally understood to not vary significantly in terms of SG or other parameters relevant for the current mine operation.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 109

 

 

   

A fault damage zone was also constructed between the hangingwall and foot wall surfaces of the Middle fault zone and is left as a separate lithology for the purposes of evaluating differently in terms of specific gravity, rock mechanics, hydrogeology, or other relevant disciplines.

A rotated view of the 3D geological model resulting from this work is shown below in Figure 11-4.

 

LOGO

Litho_grp_simp 10-QAL 60_CBT 70_HOST

Note: Faults shown as shaded linear features.

Source: SRK, 2021

Figure 11-4: Plan View of 3D Geological Model

 

11.3.3

Mineralogical/Alteration Model

No mineralogical or alteration model has been developed for the Project. In general, consistency in nomenclature of specific type of carbonatite or alteration in the carbonatites or host rocks has been poor. MP has previously noted carbonatite “types” that may exist internal to the CBT orebody, primarily understood to be “black” (high grade relatively friable CBT), “blue” (low grade CBT featuring chrysotile), and “breccia” (marginal or contact-altered CBT which is more friable and erratic in terms of REO distribution). The data is inconsistent in its approach to defining these in the drilling or mapping, and SRK elected to not attempt to model these features. Anecdotal discussions with MP personnel noted that these types of carbonatite which may be observed are generally dealt with satisfactorily through

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 110

 

 

the current blending strategy, and generally have no impact on overall metallurgical recovery or other economic/operational factors.

SRK notes that ore typing within the CBT is currently done solely on the basis of TREO grade, and that mineralogy or alteration are not considered in mine scheduling, mill feed, or downstream economics. If this changes over time, significant effort will need to be applied to either re-logging historic drilling on a consistent basis for these details or utilizing other means to obtain and characterize this data.

 

11.4

Exploratory Data Analysis

 

11.4.1

Resource Domains

Within the CBT unit, sub-domaining of the CBT was deemed appropriate based on observations of likely multiple phases or types of intrusion within the broader CBT, some of which feature considerably different distributions of TREO compared to others. Unfortunately, the inconsistency of the geological logging does not provide a robust mineralogical or other categorical feature appropriate for producing a model of the phases of intrusion internal to the CBT. A number of peer-reviewed papers have discussed the variable mineralogy and its relationship to REO grades, but reasonable spatial models of these features have not been generated to date. A histogram of the REO grades internal to the CBT unit is shown in Figure 11-5.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 111

 

 

LOGO

Histogram of REO4_2021, filtered by cbt_asayed Count (percent) REO4_2021

Source: SRK, 2021

Figure 11-5: Histogram of TREO% within CBT

The bimodal nature of this histogram distribution and a review of the spatial context of these populations shows a distinctly higher-grade interior portion of the CBT relative to a more erratic and undifferentiated lower grade outer carapace of CBT. This is consistent with in-pit observations of the CBT, as well as the local sectional interpretation of the CBT. To this end, SRK selected a nominal 5.0% REO cut-off for the purposes of generating an indicator model of the higher-grade CBT. In addition to the cut-off of 5.0% REO, a probabilistic factor of 0.4 was used to assess intervals and areas for which the probability of exceeding the 5.0% REO cut-off was greater than 40%.

Other parameters defining this domain are as follows:

 

   

The same structural trends utilized for creation of the CBT unit itself were applied to the indicator.

 

   

The indicator was limited to samples only within the CBT, and each fault block defined from the structural model constrained its own indicator.

 

   

A conceptual variogram was applied to the indicator for interpolation in Leapfrog. The range was set to 300 ft, with a total sill of 0.2 and a nugget of 0.02 (10%). No drift was applied.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 112

 

 

   

Volumes less than 10,000,000 ft3 were discarded.

The results of this REO grade-based domaining process provided a robust constraint on sampling within the CBT which define a relatively contiguous “core” of REO mineralization relative to the undifferentiated CBT parts. Performance statistics for the indicator also show robust dilution metrics of approximately 7.2% of samples within the domain being lower than the defined COG. SRK finds this internal domaining process to be sufficient for use in mineral resource estimation, and a reasonable approximation of the geological features and related grade distribution of the orebody (Figure 11-6).

 

LOGO

Reo_ok discretIe Resource_Dom dins

Looking SE

Source: SRK, 2021

Figure 11-6: Cross Section Illustrating CBT Domains and TREO Grades

 

11.4.2

Outliers

The raw assay dataset was inspected for the presence of high-grade outlier values that could adversely impact grade estimation. After review of log probability plots, the raw data were capped

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 113

 

 

using the levels indicated in Table 11-1. All raw data were capped prior to compositing. SRK is of the opinion that the statistical distributions of both TREO and P2O5 are reasonably well behaved, and assay capping is of minor significance to the resource estimation. Log probability plots for TREO within the two domains are provided in Figure 11-7 and Figure 11-8, respectively. Other capping scenarios were evaluated for each data population and demonstrated relatively low sensitivity to a capping strategy in terms of impact to average grade or CV.

SRK elected to utilize a reduction of influence or a “clamp” for mitigating the impact of outliers on the grade estimation. For this, SRK assumed that the full composite grade would be utilized for a relative distance of 30 ft (1 block) after which the grade would be reduced to a nominal capping level as defined below. This outlier restriction is applied during the estimation, and successfully retains the local very high grade as have been demonstrated to exist but reduces the scope of their impact on larger volumes/distances which are not likely as supported based on the probability plots. SRK generated probability plots for the two domains and visually reviewed the consistency of populations at varying grade ranges to understand both the spatial context of the outlier populations (i.e., what part of the orebody they may be contained within) as well as the consistency of the populations to each other. Beyond the existing domaining, no additional sub-domaining was warranted.

Table 11-1: TREO Influence Limitations

 

Domain    Outlier Threshold Level (%)      Distance (ft)      Percentile of Distribution       

HG Core

   18.0      30      98.88     

Undifferentiated 

   10.5      30      99.50     

Source: SRK, 2021

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 114

 

 

 

LOGO

Log probability plot REO4_2021 cap=18 capped=21 CV=0.43 Total Lost=0.3%

Source: SRK, 2021

Figure 11-7: Log Probability Plot for TREO – HG Core

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 115

 

 

LOGO

Log probability plot REO4_2021 cap=10.5 capped=14 CV=0.9 Total Lost=0.3%

Source: SRK, 2021

Figure 11-8: Log Probability Plot for TREO – Undifferentiated CBT

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 116

 

 

11.4.3

Compositing

All exploration assay data were composited into 10 ft downhole lengths. Composites were broken by the CBT and internal resource domains for use in retrieval during grade estimation. As noted in 14.4.2, SRK did not apply a cap the raw or composite data, as outliers were dealt with via a reduction on influence applied to the composites during estimation.

Blastholes were composited to their nominal 30 ft bench height, or 15 ft in selected older holes which were not drilled to the full bench height.

 

11.5

Specific Gravity

For all historic resource/reserve estimates, a tonnage factor of 10 ft3/ton (specific gravity = 3.20) was applied to mineralized carbonatite, and a tonnage factor of 11.5 or 11 ft3/ton (SG = 2.79 to 2.91) was applied to the enclosing country rock (Cole, 1974; Couzens, 1997, Nason, 1991). Original documentation related to specific gravity cannot be located, although it was reported that IMC performed a truck weight study in the field on waste rock during prior operations.

In order to validate the historic specific gravity assumptions, SRK collected a total of 10 samples for specific gravity determination, and the results of this testwork are provided in Table 11-2. Based on these results, SRK assigned a tonnage factor of 10.25 ft3/ton (specific gravity = 3.13) for mineralized carbonatite, and 11.57 ft3/ton (specific gravity = 2.77) for the enclosing gneissic rocks, which is in reasonable agreement with historical assumptions.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 117

 

 

Table 11-2: 2009 Specific Gravity Results - Carbonatite

 

Sample ID    Hole     Sample Depth (ft)      g/cm3      ft3/ton      Rock Type    Notes

SGMP833531

     83-3        531        3.22         9.95      Carbonatite    With red and brown flow foliation

SG854224

     85-4       224        3.14        10.20      Carbonatite breccia    Pink and white to pink and brown matrix with green amphibole clasts altered to chlorite and sericite

SG859233

     85-9       233        2.82        11.36      Gneiss    Fine grained biotite-qtz gneiss “sparse red feldspar and crocidolite mostly along veins”

SG8520427

     85-20       427        2.62        12.23      Carbonatite    Dark yellow brown strong limonite replacement of carbonatite bastnaesite rare

SG8521437

     85-21       437        2.72        11.78      Carbonatite breccia    With abundant syenite/shonkinite clasts

SG882399

     88-2       399        3.29        9.74      Carbonatite breccia    Blue to red brown matrix pink to brown barite, abundant crocidolite

SG9013464

     90-13       464        3.37        9.51      Carbonatite    Pink barite and white to gray calcite

SG9016244

     90-16       244        2.87        11.16      Carbonatite    Pink barite and white calcite, iron pseudomorphs black ore up to 60%, some violet barite

SG9111153

     91-11       153        2.91        11.01      Carbonatite breccia    Matrix supported breccia, matrix is light gray to maroon with salt and pepper texture, abundant feox

SG9111258

     91-11       258        3.65        8.78      Carbonatite    Pink to light gray mottled with clear to light pink barite phenocrysts

Source: SRK, 2012

 

11.6

Variogram Analysis and Modeling

Variography was conducted in order to model the spatial continuity of TREO grades within the relevant domains (and data types) for the Mountain Pass deposit. Orientations of the variograms were selected based on the overall geological continuity and generally follow a dip of 38° to an azimuth of 250°, with a varying pitch depending on the domain. Orientations of the orebody are known to vary locally, and SRK stressed broad orientation for models given the expected use of variable orientations in the estimation process. SRK modeled both standard semi-variograms as well as normal-score transformed variograms to achieve improved models and eventual use in ordinary kriging interpolation. Back transforms for the normal scores were done prior to estimation. Continuity ranges generally reached an upper limit of between 400 to 500 ft depending on the data set. Blastholes generally

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 118

 

 

demonstrate relatively shorter ranges compared to the exploration data, likely a function of both the close relative spacing of the blastholes and the inherent variability of the blastholes relative to the more broadly continuous exploration data. Blastholes also demonstrate comparably better short-range continuity due to this close spacing. In general, both sets of variograms (Figure 11-9 and Figure 11-10) show relatively rapid rises to the sill, reaching 60-70% within 100-150ft, with the remaining variability coming over an additional 200-300ft. Nugget effects were modeled independently for each domain and data set, and generally range from about 5% to 20% of the sill.

 

LOGO

Variogram for REO_2021 Values

Source: SRK, 2021

Figure 11-9: Example of Directional Variogram – Blastholes TREO

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 119

 

 

LOGO

Variogram for REO_2021 Values NS Minor Semi-maj

Source: SRK, 2021

Figure 11-10: Example of Directional Variogram – Exploration TREO

 

11.7

Block Model Limits

A sub-blocked model was created in Leapfrog EDGE with the origin and extent presented in Table 11-3. The model features a total of 6,818,200 blocks and duplicates the geological volumes to within 0.2% of the wireframes in the model. Sub-blocking triggers included the September 30, 2021, mining topography, the 2013 topography bounding the geological model, the geological wireframes, and the resource domain boundaries. Blocks are coded with geological model codes, domain codes, densities, estimated TREO grades, and relevant supporting parameters derived from the estimation or classification process. All estimates were done at the parent block dimension, which is approximately 1/3 to 1/5 of the drill spacing the majority of the deposit.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 120

 

 

Table 11-3: Block Model Specifications

 

Axis    Minimum (ft)      Maximum (ft)      Number of Parent Blocks       Parent/Child Block Size (ft)  
X      2,200        7,840        188         30/7.5  
Y      7,800        13,200        180         30/7.5  
Z      2,510        5,300        93         30/7.5  

Source: SRK, 2021

 

11.8

Grade Estimation

SRK estimated TREO from the composited assay values in two databases provided by MP Materials, an exploration dataset and a blasthole dataset. Estimates were compiled into a single TREO variable for reporting. A general description of the estimation process is below. Estimation details are summarized in Appendix B of this report in tabulated format.

SRK first conducted boundary analysis of the high-grade core and undifferentiated CBT domains, and noted that (particularly for blastholes) the domains appeared to be transitional over a relatively short distance (Figure 11-11). SRK elected to apply a soft boundary to the estimation process, by which each domain could use samples from within a 10ft buffer internal to the other, but not from outside of both.

 

LOGO

REO_2021 values in relation to HG_CORE_CBT domain Inside Outside Distance from Domain

Source: SRK, 2021

Figure 11-11: Domain Boundary Analysis

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 121

 

 

Based on robust variograms, ordinary kriging was selected as the interpolation method most appropriate for the Mountain Pass deposit. Orientations for search ellipsoids were varied as a function of the geology of the deposit as reflected from digitized surfaces representing the hangingwall and footwall of the carbonatite (Figure 11-12). This is commonly referred to a variable orientation modeling, and adjusts both the search and the variogram orientation as a function of the relationship to the geological controls on mineralization. This was utilized for both the blasthole and exploration estimations.

The normal scores back-transformed variograms were used to inform the ordinary kriging. Nested passes for estimation were used for exploration data estimates and were also utilized to assist in classification/reporting. Differences between the estimation relying on blastholes vs. exploration data is noted below.

 

LOGO

Litho_grp_simp 10-QAL 60_CBT 70_HOST

Source: SRK, 2021

Figure 11-12: Variable Orientation Surfaces for Estimation Orientation

 

11.8.1

Blasthole Estimate Specifics

Blastholes were estimated from the 30ft composites within the relevant geological wireframes. In general, SRK utilized a single 60 ft x 60 ft x 30 ft search pass from a minimum of 3 and maximum of 15 composites. Quadrant restrictions were applied to this to ensure that no estimates were unduly extrapolated beyond the tightly clustered blasthole data. This selection is not relevant to the blasthole variograms so much as the intent to only allow the blastholes to affect a maximum of two benches from the last data. This decision was made based on review of the inherent variability of the blasthole dataset relative to the exploration data and the naturally clustered data.

No outlier restrictions (limitations on influence) were placed on the blasthole data, as this data has been supported by production and affects a relatively small volume of blocks.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 122

 

 

11.8.2

Exploration Estimate Specifics

SRK estimated grades from composite data using the 10 ft composites, within the relevant geological wireframes. Two nested passes were conducted, with the first designed to capture estimates using more data from a more well-ordered spacing based on average major and semi-major variogram ranges (nominally 300 ft x 300 ft x 100 ft) influenced by quadrant restrictions and hole limits on sample selection. Between 3 and 15 samples were selected for estimation, with quadrant restrictions placed on estimates to ensure that samples within the first pass must fill at least two quadrants, and only allow a maximum of two samples per hole to contribute.

The second pass was designed to fill the model and select relatively fewer data from larger distances. Second pass searches are 3X multipliers of the first pass (900 ft x 900 ft x 100 ft) and allow sample selection from as little as a single hole.

Outlier restrictions were placed on interpolation in the exploration data. The first pass uses a nominal restriction of a value of 18% TREO or 10.5% TREO for the HG Core and Undifferentiated domains respectively, both to a distance of 10% of the search (30 ft = 1 bench) after which the original composite grade reverts to either of the values noted above. Similar restrictions were placed on the second pass in terms of grades, but reduces the distance applied to 3.33% of the total search (30 ft = 1 bench).

 

11.9

Model Validation

The results of the modeling process were validated using several methods. These include a thorough visual review of the model grades in relation to the underlying drillhole composite grades in section and plan, comparisons with other estimation methods (inverse distance and nearest neighbor), and statistical comparisons between block and composite grades and volumes. SRK has also reconciled the mineral resource model with production records as described in Section 11.10.

Visual comparison between the block grades and the underlying composite grades in plan and section show close agreement, which would be expected considering the estimation methodology employed. An example cross section showing block grades, composite grades and resource pit outline are provided in Figure 11-13. Swath plots show excellent agreement between input composites and block estimates over the various orientations, and generally demonstrate that estimates are following overall trends in grade with smoothing as expected for a block estimate compared to composite drill data (Figure 11-14).

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 123

 

 

LOGO

Plan View

Source: SRK, 2021

Figure 11-13: NW-SE Cross Section Showing Block Grades, Composite Grades, Resource Pit Outline

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 124

 

 

LOGO

Swathplot in Y, 3 block spacing Average Swath

Note: Composite grades shown in red, ordinary kriged estimated grades shown in green, inverse distance estimated grades shown in blue, and nearest neighbor estimated grades shown in orange. Green bars illustrate relative volumes of blocks where the estimates are made.

Source: SRK, 2021

Figure 11-14: Swath Plot (NS orientation) Comparison Between TREO Block Grades and Composite Grades

 

11.10

Production Reconciliation

SRK has previously undertaken a reconciliation of the block model used for the 2020 mineral resource statement, which is based on exploration drilling only, against a grade control model, which is based on blasthole data collected by MP Minerals during routine mining operations. The blasthole samples are 15 ft bench composite grades taken on a regular pattern with a spacing of approximately 12 ft. These grades were estimated into the same block model framework using a simple inverse distance weighting (IDW) method. SRK then analyzed the resultant grade distributions spatially and statistically. Figure 11-15 shows the grade distribution on two example benches.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 125

 

 

LOGO

Pit Bench 4692.5 ft RL MRE Block Model and Exploration Drillholes Grade Control Block Model and Blastholes

Source: SRK, 2012

Figure 11-15: Spatial Comparison of MRE Grade Distribution with Blasthole Grade Distribution

A regression plot showing resource model grade and blasthole model grade is shown in Figure 11-16. A best fit line through the cloud of points shows that on average, in higher grade parts of the deposit, blasthole model values are higher grade than resource model values. For example, where blasthole grades are around 14%, resource model grades are around 12%.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 126

 

 

LOGO

Block Model (TREO%) Best Fit Linear (Best Fit)

Source: SRK, 2020

Figure 11-16: Comparison of Resource and Grade Control Models

In addition to the block model comparison exercise, a reconciliation was undertaken of material movements and tonnage and grade records based on production records from January 2020 to May 2020 (inclusive).

Based on the block model comparison described above, there is understood to be some 20% more TREO contained in the grade control model compared with the resource model when a 5% TREO COG is applied.

The production tonnage (mined ex pit) records are based on truck weightometer readings. Based on diglines in the pit which subdivided each bench into mining shapes depending on blasthole grades, each truck was known to be carrying material belonging to one of the following grade categories:

 

   

>9% TREO

 

   

7% to 9% TREO

 

   

5% to 7% TREO

 

   

2% to 5%TREO

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 127

 

 

The tonnages so recorded include planned and unplanned mining dilution.

The grades assigned to each category are those reported in the mine’s production records which come from the mine’s ore control (OC) model. Grades are based on blasthole data within practical mining dig lines representing each grade band, therefore incorporating planned dilution.

The trucked tonnage is locally 25% greater than that reported by the blasthole block model in the same January to May 2020 mining volume, largely as a result of planned and unplanned dilution. The trucked grade is some 20% lower due to the dilution, and the contained TREO is some 10% higher.

If these two steps are combined, the trucked tonnage is some 25% greater than the SRK model, and the grade is slightly higher (being 9.0% instead of 8.4%), resulting in some 35% more TREO being trucked than predicted by the SRK model. MP has noted that trucked tonnages include moisture content and that this may affect the accuracy of the reconciliation.

The direct crusher feed is blended with supplemental material sourced from stockpiles to achieve a planned mill feed grade. The planned mill feed tonnage and grade typically agrees well with the actuals according to weightometer records and mill samples. Therefore, the trucked tonnage and grade estimate combined with the estimated stockpile loadings and depletions can be considered robust. Despite the absence of routine QA/QC for the majority of resource drilling samples, SRK’s reconciliation study demonstrates that the MRE model is sufficiently reliable and demonstrably conservative for long-term mine planning and mineral resource and mineral reserve reporting.

 

11.10.1

        Blasthole “Bias”

Subsequent to the reconciliation noted above, SRK compared the 2019-2021 production blasthole data against the exploration datasets by estimating both data into the same volume of blocks using similar methods, and reviewing the spatial context of the discrepancies in reference to observations in the pit. Figure 11-17 shows the three general areas where this comparison could be made, i.e., where both data types exist at spacings within an approximate 60 ft x 60 ft grid. Table 11-4 shows a global comparison of each estimate within the same volume, and supports the assertions from reconciliation to production that the blastholes are seen to predict higher grades than the exploration data. On review of this data spatially, SRK notes that much of this bias is observed in selected areas which are characterized by relatively little exploration drilling.

Because operational mining is informed by the blasthole data more so than the resource model, benches are taken relative to the blastholes over the exploration data by default. Since mining also tends to favor focus on higher grade material over waste, the bias trends positive in conventional reconciliation. A percent difference calculation of the two check estimates supporting this review are noted below in Figure 11-18, and shows these areas where the blastholes appear to have a high bias in red, vs. the opposite in blue. The blue areas, by comparison, are shown to be comparably lower in the blastholes relative to the exploration data, and the reconciliation process has simply been biased by the effects of mining higher grades over the relevant production period. Overall, SRK believes this indicates that the exploration data may not be able to predict the local variability of grade (implying the necessity of a local grade control/short term drilling program), but that this has not seemed to currently be an issue for the mine production. This is a contributing factor in Mountain Pass not being assigned a Measured level of confidence in the in situ mineral resource estimation and is discussed in classification.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 128

 

 

LOGO

REO 9 7 5 2 1

Source: SRK, 2021

Figure 11-17: Previous Production Areas for Reconciliation Validation

Table 11-4: Blasthole vs. Exploration Comparison

 

Resource Domains   

Mass

(thousand sh. Ton)

     Average Value      Material Content  
  

REO Blastholes

(%)

    

REO Exploration

%

     REO BH      REO EXP  
   (Mlb)      (Mlb)  

CBT - HG CORE

     3,513        8.89        7.91        624        556  

CBT – LOW GRADE

     2,001        4.84        2.88        194        115  

Total

     5,514        7.42        6.08        818        671  

Differences may occur in totals due to rounding.

Source: SRK, 2021

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 129

 

 

LOGO

Bh_vs_ex pl_pct_diff 100 50

Note: Warmer coloring indicates apparent high bias in blastholes vs. exploration, with cooler colors being the opposite.

Source: SRK, 2021

Figure 11-18: Percent Difference BH/EXP Estimate

SRK considers there to be a few possible explanations for these outcomes:

 

   

The most recent blastholes are processed using industry standard methodology and are not suspect in terms of a material preparation or analytical bias. Moreover, MP Materials has noted in personal communication that blastholes generally agree with samples taken from the plant and stockpiles for production blending. Historically, the Mountain Pass Laboratory tended to underestimate higher grade sample assay values; there is no direct evidence of this, and no adjustment has been made to the historical assays.

 

   

Exploration drill core used for the resource model may not recover high-grade friable ore as well as blastholes do; there is no direct evidence of this, and no adjustments have been made to account for this.

 

   

The wider sample spacing in the exploration drilling is insufficient to characterize the inherent local variability of the orebody. SRK notes that this is likely the case based on observations in mining of the most recent production areas which feature local discrepancies between what is predicted by exploration drilling and what is in the pit.

 

  o

For the previous two years of production, this has been a positive swing with reconciled mine grade exceeding that predicted by the resource model. SRK notes that there is no guarantee that positive reconciliation will continue as a trend, and that the exploration drilling should be considered appropriate for long term resource estimation and not for short term production models. Additional tightly-spaced grade control drilling should support short and medium range planning for the operation to optimize local understanding of TREO distribution.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 130

 

 

11.11  Uncertainty and Resource Classification

All mineral resource estimates carry an inherent amount of risk and uncertainty depending on a variety of factors, many of which influence or compound the effects of others. Mountain Pass is an operating mine, which implies that a certain amount of inherent risk in mineral resource estimation has been borne in the sunk cost of the operation and ongoing production to date. This being noted, uncertainty in the data collection and geological complexity of the deposit remain relevant to the estimation of mineral resources at Mountain pass. The primary mechanism utilized to minimize uncertainty for Mountain Pass has been to improve the geological modeling and utilize a more robust database and geological information repository than what has been used prior to this estimate. This includes robust geological logging of the drilling (previously not included in a database for modeling) and updated geological mapping from the pit. This has resulted in a complete structural and lithological model which SRK notes shows material differences from previous grade-based interpretations. Most importantly, SRK believes this model to be an improved constraint and control on the grade distribution and estimation of the resource and Mountain Pass.

Other sources of uncertainty in the Mountain Pass estimate are noted as follows:

 

   

The QA/QC information has not been kept to an industry standard. The limited QA/QC that does exist shows relatively good performance, but ongoing checks on independent and internal labs with conventional QA/QC such as commercial certified reference materials, blanks, duplicates, and check assays has been applied variably over time and no ongoing implementation or monitoring of this has been noted.

 

   

The exploration drilling has been sufficient to characterize a resource at a spacing that blastholes have shown to be insufficient to get high confidence in the local accuracy of grade distribution.

 

  o

To date, this has been shown to provide positive reconciliations, in the mine producing higher grades than predicted by exploration drilling. No studies have been conducted in terms of sample representativity between data types. SRK notes that this apparent bias seems to be local and geological in nature, and simply is showing that higher grade areas of the deposit were “missed” by exploration drilling which have now been picked up by blastholes.

SRK has dealt with uncertainty and risk at Mountain Pass by classifying the contained resource by varying degrees of confidence in the estimate. The mineral resources at the Mountain Pass deposit have been classified in accordance with the S-K 1300 regulations. The classification parameters are defined by both the distance to composite data, the number of drillholes used to inform block grades and a geostatistical indicator of relative estimation quality (kriging efficiency). The classification parameters are intended to encompass zones of reasonably continuous mineralization. The distances utilized for resource classification are generally based on the directional variography.

Classification is done using an iterative process which followed a simple script to categorize blocks based on the parameters below:

 

   

Measured mineral resources: Tonnages of stockpiles at surface for mill feed. Stockpiles resources, as of September 2021, are based on detailed grade control, well-established bulk

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 131

 

 

 

density and accurate survey data, and have been depleted forward according to a detailed short term mine plan and blending schedule.

 

  o

No Measured resources have been assigned to in situ resources at Mountain Pass at this time. This is based on relatively inconsistent QA/QC practices and the relatively poor reconciliations/observed blasthole vs. exploration comparison.

 

   

Indicated mineral resources: Blocks in the model estimated using a minimum of three drillholes which are at maximum average distance of 300 ft, and for which the kriging efficiency of the estimate exceeds 0.

 

  o

Kriging efficiency here is used as a relative indicator of estimation quality. Even where the drill spacing may meet a reasonable grid with the requisite number of holes, and the grade variance is still high, blocks may be filtered to Inferred based on the uncertainty this presents using a relatively poor kriging efficiency. This was determined as much from review of histograms of the kriging efficiency as the spatial impact of filtering different parts of these histograms on the grade continuity of the blocks.

 

   

Inferred mineral resources: Blocks in the model which have been estimated but do not meet the criteria for indicated resources but are within the carbonatite model.

 

   

Subsequent to this process, the results are manually contoured and smoothed to eliminate artifacts from the scripting process. The final results are coded into the block model for reporting.

11.12  Cut-Off Grade and Pit Optimization

A cut-off grade (COG) of 2.28% TREO has been developed to ensure that material reported as a mineral resource can satisfy the definition of reasonable potential for eventual economic extraction (RPEEE). Parameters to derive this COG are noted below in Table 11-5. The COG is based on a concentrate selling price of US$7,059/dry st of 60% TREO concentrate (a 15% increase to the Mineral Reserve selling price of US$6,139/dry st of 60% TREO concentrate). The pit optimization remains based on the reserve selling price.

Pricing is based on a preliminary marketing study as summarized in Section 16 of this report. Additional costs and recovery considerations have been applied to the cut-off grade assumption as a result of this change.

Table 11-5: Cut-Off Grade Input Parameters

 

Production    Value    Units

Concentrator Recovery

  

Variable based on mined grade

  

%

Target Concentrate Grade

  

60.0%

  

% TREO

Pricing

         

Applied Price

  

7,059

  

US$/dry st conc

Packaging and Shipping Cost

         

Packaging and shipping unit cost

  

177.04

  

US$/dry st conc

Operating Cost

         

Mining

  

1.825 + 0.018 incremental per bench

  

US$/st mined

Crushing

  

7.29

  

US$/st ore processed

Processing

  

41.90

  

US$/st ore processed

G&A

  

20.71

  

US$/st ore processed

Source: SRK, 2021

Mineral resources have been constrained within an economic pit shell based on reserve input parameters as defined in Table 13-6 of this report. Pit slope angles are variable based on geotechnical

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 132

 

 

study inputs, and mining costs are variable based on haulage/pit depth. Pit optimizations were completed using Maptek Vulcan LG optimization algorithms. Various scenarios were evaluated yielding a range of revenue factors. For mineral resources, a revenue factor of 1.0 is selected which corresponds to a break-even pit shell at the nominal pricing of US$6,139/dry st concentrate. SRK notes that the pit selected for mineral resources has been influenced by setbacks relative to critical infrastructure such as the tailing storage and the REO concentrator. These setbacks are approximately 280 ft, and “heavy” blocks or extreme densities were assigned to these areas in pit optimization to avoid the optimization mining these areas. Removal of these constraints would increase the overall volume of the pit and thereby the resource. SRK is of the opinion that these constraints are reasonable and in line with the overall determination of RPEEE.

There are additional low-grade stockpiles which are below the resource COG; however, when high-grade ore is encountered in the pit, some of this material may be blended into the crusher mix to maintain a mill head grade TREO.

Figure 11-19 shows the extents of the optimized pit shape used for resources.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 133

 

 

LOGO

Concentrator Tailings Looking down

Source: SRK, 2021

Figure 11-19: Extents of Optimized Pit Shape Relative to Surface Topography

11.13  Mineral Resource Statement

The Mineral Resources are reported in accordance with the S-K regulations (Title 17, Part 229, Items 601 and 1300 until 1305). Mineral Resources are not Mineral Reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability. There is no certainty that all or any part of the Mineral Resource will be converted into Mineral Reserves. The Mineral Resource modelling and reporting was completed by SRK Consulting (U.S.) Inc. Mineral resources are summarized in Table 11-6. The reference point for the mineral resources is in situ material.

.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 134

 

 

  Table 11-6:

Mineral Resource Statement Exclusive of Mineral Reserves for the Mountain Pass Rare Earth Project, September 30, 2021

 

Category   

Resource

Type

  

    Cut-Off

    TREO%

    

Mass 

(million sh. ton) 

     Average Value
  

TREO(1) 

(%) 

  

La2O3(2) 

(%) 

  

CeO2 

(%) 

  

Pr6O11 

(%) 

  

Nd2O3 

(%) 

  

Sm2O3 

(%) 

Indicated   

Within the

Reserve Pit

     2.28-2.49          0.9       2.38     0.78     1.19     0.10     0.29     0.02 
  

Within the

Resource Pit

     2.28          0.5       3.61     1.18     1.80     0.16     0.44     0.03 

Total

Indicated

                   1.4       2.82     0.92     1.41     0.12     0.34     0.03 
Inferred   

Within the

Reserve Pit

     2.28-2.49          7.1       5.48     1.78     2.73     0.24     0.66     0.05 
  

Withing the

Resource Pit

     2.28          2.1       3.81     1.24    1.90     0.16     0.46     0.03 

Total

Inferred

                   9.1       5.10     1.66     2.54     0.22     0.62     0.05 

Source: SRK 2021

(1): TREO% represents the total of individually assayed light rare earth oxides on a 99.7% basis of total contained TREO, based on the historical site analyses.

(2): Percentage of individual light rare earth oxides are based on the average ratios; La2O3 is calculated at a ratio of 32.6% grade of TREO% equivalent estimated grade, CeO2 is calculated at a ratio of 49.9% of TREO% equivalent estimated grade, Pr6O11 is calculated at a ratio of 4.3% of TREO% equivalent estimated grade, Nd2O3 is calculated at a ratio of 12.1% of TREO% equivalent estimated grade, and Sm2O3 is calculated at a ratio of 0.90% of TREO% equivalent estimated grade. The sum of light rare earths averages 99.7%; the additional 0.3% cannot be accounted for based on the analyses available to date and has been discounted from this resource statement.

General Notes:

 

   

Mineral Resources are reported exclusive of Mineral Reserves.

 

   

Mineral Resources are not Mineral Reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability. There is no certainty that all or any part of the Mineral Resources estimated will be converted into Mineral Reserves estimate.

 

   

Mineral Resource tonnage and contained metal have been rounded to reflect the accuracy of the estimate, any apparent errors are insignificant.

 

   

Mineral Resource tonnage and grade are reported as diluted.

 

   

The Mineral Resource model has been depleted for historical and forecast mining based on the September 30, 2021, pit topography.

 

   

Pit optimization cut-off grade is based on an average TREO% equivalent concentrate price of US$7,059/st of dry concentrate (60% TREO, net of the incremental benefits and costs related to REE separations), average mining cost at the pit exit of US$1.825/st mined plus US$0.018/st mined for each 15 ft bench above or below the pit exit, combined milling and G&A costs of US$69.90/st milled, concentrate freight of US$177/st of dry concentrate, and an average overall pit slope angle of 42° including ramps.

 

   

The mineral resource statement reported herein only includes the rare earth elements cerium, lanthanum, neodymium, praseodymium, and samarium (often referred to as light rare earths). While other rare earth elements, often referred to as heavy rare earths, are present in the deposit, they are not accounted for in this estimate due to historic data limitations (see Section 9.2.6).

Resources inclusive of the reserves are stated in Table 11-7.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 135

 

 

  Table 11-7:

Mineral Resources Inclusive of Mineral Reserves for the Mountain Pass Rare Earth Project, September 30, 2021

 

Material

Type

   Class_SRK   

Mass 

(million sh. ton) 

  

TREO(1) 

(%) 

  

La2O3(2) 

(%) 

  

CeO2 

(%) 

  

Pr6O11 

(%) 

  

Nd2O3 

(%) 

  

Sm2O3 

(%) 

Stockpile

   Measured    0.05     8.74     2.85     4.36     0.38     1.06     0.08 

In Situ

   Indicated    33.2     6.26     2.04     3.12     0.27     0.76     0.06 
   Inferred    9.1     5.10     1.66     2.54     0.22     0.62     0.05 

Source: SRK, 2021

(1) TREO% represents the total of individually assayed light rare earth oxides on a 99.7% basis of total contained TREO, based on the historical site analyses.

(2) Percentage of individual light rare earth oxides are based on the average ratios; La2O3 is calculated at a ratio of 32.6% grade of TREO% equivalent estimated grade, CeO2 is calculated at a ratio of 49.9% of TREO% equivalent estimated grade, Pr6O11 is calculated at a ratio of 4.3% of TREO% equivalent estimated grade, Nd2O3 is calculated at a ratio of 12.1% of TREO% equivalent estimated grade, and Sm2O3 is calculated at a ratio of 0.90% of TREO% equivalent estimated grade. The sum of light rare earths averages 99.7%; the additional 0.3% cannot be accounted for based on the analyses available to date and has been discounted from this resource statement.

General Notes:

 

   

Mineral Resources are not Mineral Reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability. There is no certainty that all or any part of the Mineral Resources estimated will be converted into Mineral Reserves estimate.

 

   

Resources stated as contained within a potentially economically minable open pit stated above a 2.28% TREO Equivalent cut-off.

 

   

Mineral Resource tonnage and contained metal have been rounded to reflect the accuracy of the estimate, any apparent errors are insignificant.

 

   

Mineral Resource tonnage and grade are reported as diluted.

 

   

The Mineral Resource model has been depleted for historical and forecast mining based on the September 30, 2021, pit topography.

 

   

Pit optimization cut-off grade is based on an average TREO% equivalent concentrate price of US$7,059/st of dry concentrate(60% TREO, net of the incremental benefits and costs related to REE separations), average mining cost at the pit exit of US$1.825/st mined plus US$0.018/st mined for each 15 ft bench above or below the pit exit, combined milling and G&A costs of US$69.90/st milled, concentrate freight of US$177/st of dry concentrate, and an average overall pit slope angle of 42° including ramps.

 

   

The mineral resource statement reported herein only includes the rare earth elements cerium, lanthanum, neodymium, praseodymium, and samarium (often referred to as light rare earths). While other rare earth elements, often referred to as heavy rare earths, are present in the deposit, they are not accounted for in this estimate due to historic data limitations (see Section 9.2.6).

11.14 Mineral Resource Sensitivity

In order to assess the impact of COG on contained metal, tonnage and grade were summarized within the TREO resource pit above a series of TREO cut-offs (Table 11-8 and Table 11-9). As can be observed from these sensitivities, the resource is relatively sensitive to cut-off grade in the 3.0% to 5.0% TREO range, which is shown to be above the COG range of economic interest.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 136

 

 

Table 11-8: TREO Cut-off Sensitivity Analysis Within Resource Pit – Measured and Indicated Category

 

Cut-off Grade 

(TREO%) 

  

Short Tons Cut-off 

(millions) 

  

Average Grade Cut-off 

(TREO%) 

  

Material Content 

(%) 

    

0.25 

   44.18     5.32     99.99 

0.50 

   44.01     5.34     99.96 

0.75 

   43.60     5.38     99.85 

1.00 

   43.01     5.44     99.63 

1.25 

   42.30     5.52     99.29 

1.50 

   41.29     5.62     98.70 

1.75 

   40.31     5.72     98.02 

2.00 

   39.10     5.83     97.05 

2.25 

   37.77     5.96     95.84 

2.50 

   36.21     6.12     94.27 

2.75 

   34.54     6.29     92.41 

3.00 

   32.73     6.48     90.18 

3.25 

   30.98     6.66     87.86 

3.50 

   29.03     6.89     85.06 

3.75 

   27.33     7.09     82.44 

4.00 

   25.77     7.28     79.86 

4.25 

   24.35     7.47     77.38 

4.50 

   23.15     7.63     75.15 

4.75 

   21.96     7.79     72.80 

5.00 

   20.85     7.94     70.50 

Source: SRK, 2021

Table 11-9: TREO COG Sensitivity Analysis Within Resource Pit – Inferred Category

 

Cut-off Grade 

(TREO%) 

  

Short Tons Cut-off 

(millions) 

  

Average Grade Cut-off 

(TREO%) 

  

Material Content 

(%) 

    

0.25 

   19.55     3.58     99.92 

0.50 

   19.27     3.63     99.76 

0.75 

   18.61     3.74     99.19 

1.00 

   17.63     3.89     97.94 

1.25 

   16.84     4.03     96.67 

1.50 

   15.96     4.17     94.94 

1.75 

   15.34     4.27     93.49 

2.00 

   14.60     4.40     91.51 

2.25 

   13.60     4.56     88.51 

2.50 

   12.63     4.73     85.20 

2.75 

   11.41     4.95     80.63 

3.00 

   10.27     5.19     75.98 

3.25 

   9.15     5.44     70.95 

3.50 

   8.10     5.71     65.91 

3.75 

   7.03     6.02     60.38 

4.00 

   6.00     6.39     54.69 

4.25 

   5.09     6.80     49.32 

4.50 

   4.52     7.11     45.80 

4.75 

   3.93     7.48     41.89 

5.00 

   3.63     7.69     39.84 

Source: SRK, 2021

In addition to the sensitivity noted above, SRK notes that pit optimization selection does demonstrate sensitivity to those parameters. At the current pricing, recovery assumptions, infrastructure setbacks, and other parameters, the resource pit does not enclose all mineral resource blocks above the COG. The relationship to the pit shape and estimated blocks above the COG is shown in Table 11-10 and Figure 11-20.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 137

 

 

Table 11-10: Mineralized Material Internal and External to Resource Pit

 

Pit Optimization      Classification   

Mass 

(million sh. ton) 

  

Average Value 

TREO 

(%) 

  

        

Resource Pit

   Indicated    32.8     6.28    
   Inferred    9.0     5.13    

Outside

   Indicated    7.1     3.90    
   Inferred    10.1     3.54    

Source: SRK, 2021

 

LOGO

REO 9 7 5 2 1

Source: SRK, 2021

Figure 11-20: Optimized pit shell and blocks >= 2.28% TREO

 

11.15

Assumptions, Parameters, and Methods

SRK used a comprehensive set of assay analyses and ratio analysis for individual light rare earth oxides to manually back-calculate rare earth grades and contained metal, as previously described in Section 9.2.5. Based on a statistical review of these analytical data, SRK is of the opinion that the low variances and numerical ranges of these ratios provide a reasonable assessment of individual contained metals with the TREO estimate, and that these calculations are suitable for resource reporting.

The resource estimated herein is subject to potential change based on changes to the forward-looking cost and revenue assumptions utilized in this study.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 138

 

 

Extraction of this resource is dependent on modification of current permitted boundaries for the open pit. It is MP Materials’ expectation that it will be successful in modifying these permit conditions. In SRK’s opinion, MP Material’s expectation in this regard is reasonable.

A portion of the resource pit encroaches on an adjoining mineral right holder’s concession. This portion of the pit would only include waste stripping (i.e., no rare earth mineralization is assumed to be extracted from this concession). The prior owner of Mountain Pass had an agreement with this concession holder to allow this waste stripping (with the requirement that aggregate mined be stockpiled for the owner’s use). MP Materials does not currently have this agreement in place, but SRK believes it is reasonable to assume MP Materials will be able to negotiate a similar agreement.

SRK is of the opinion that the resource estimate would not be materially affected by any additional known environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, socio-economic, marketing, political, or any other relevant factors.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 139

 

 

12

Mineral Reserve Estimate

SRK developed a life-of-mine (LoM) plan for the Mountain Pass operation in support of mineral reserves. For economic modeling, 2022 production was assumed to be bastnaesite concentrate. From 2023 onward, it was assumed that MP Materials will operate a separations facility at the Mountain Pass site that will allow the Company to separate bastnaesite concentrate into four individual REO products for sale (PrNd oxide, SEG oxalate, La carbonate/La oxide, and Ce chloride). Forecast economic parameters are based on current cost performance for process, transportation, and administrative costs, as well as a first principles estimation of future mining costs. Forecast revenue from concentrate sales and individual separated product sales is based on a preliminary market study commissioned by MP Materials, as discussed in Section 16 of this report.

From this evaluation, pit optimization was performed based on an equivalent concentrate price of US$6,139 per dry st of 60% TREO concentrate (net of the incremental benefits and costs related to REE separations). The results of pit optimization guided the design and scheduling of the ultimate pit. SRK generated a cash flow model which indicated positive economics for the LoM plan, which provides the basis for the reserves. Reserves within the new ultimate pit are sequenced for the full 35-year LoM.

The costs used for pit optimization and mine design include estimated mining, processing, sustaining capital, transportation, and administrative costs, including an allocation of corporate costs. Processing and G&A costs used for pit optimization were based on 12-month rolling average actual costs from August 2020 – July 2021. Processing and G&A costs used for economic modeling were updated subsequent to pit optimization and are based on January 2021 – September 2021 actual costs.

Processing recovery for concentrate is variable based on a mathematical relationship to estimate overall TREO recovery versus ore grade. The calculated COG for the reserves is 2.49% TREO, which was applied to indicated blocks contained within an ultimate pit, the design of which was guided by economic pit optimization.

 

12.1

Conversion Assumptions, Parameters, and Methods

All conversion assumptions, such as mining dilution, mining recovery, COG calculation, pit optimization, and costs were taken into consideration to calculate the reserve estimate.

The following steps were used to calculate the reserves:

 

   

Apply mining dilution to resource block model (using 3D techniques).

 

   

Compile and confirm costs and process recoveries.

 

   

Input optimization parameters into pit optimizer to calculate nested pits using different rare earth concentrate selling prices (only indicated resources were included in the evaluation).

 

   

Choose a pit optimization shell based on strip ratio, revenue, grade distribution, discounted cash flow, cash costs, equipment sizes, pit footprint, depth of pit, minimum mining widths, COG, processing plant size, and other factors.

 

   

Detailed phase design with ramp access to all benches

 

   

Multiple trade-off mine plans based on different mining rates

 

   

Detailed truck haulage estimates

 

   

Detailed mine cost estimates based on detailed mine plan

 

   

Discounted cash flow based on all capital and operating cost inputs

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 140

 

 

   

Choose final mine plan and cash flow followed by reported reserves.

The following sections provide a description of how mining dilution was applied and how the in-pit COG was calculated.

 

12.1.1  

Model Grade Dilution and Mining Recovery

The SRK resource block model is based on a sublocked 7.5 ft x 7.5 ft x 7.5 ft block size. The sublocked block model has approximately 3.5% estimated dilution. SRK’s selected SMU is 15 x 15 x 30 ft. SRK ran a comparison between the original block model and the final reserves and determined that dilution is approximately 7.1% and the mining recovery from the reblocking is approximately 95%. Based on site reconciliation, SRK has noted that the grades have been higher than predicted. In SRK’s opinion, there is a potential opportunity to reduce dilution by modeling consistently with the 15 ft x 15 ft x 15 ft SMU however the current mining methodology is based on 30 feet bench height. Figure 12-1 shows side by side comparison of the original sublocked model (pre-diluted) and the final 15x15x30 ft SMU selected diluted block model.

 

LOGO

5200 L 5000 L 4800 L 4600 L 4400 L 4400 L 4200 L 4000 L 3800 L 3600 L 3400 L 3200 L

Source: SRK, 2021

Figure 12-1: Side by Side Comparison Non-Diluted (Left) Block Model and Diluted (Right) Block Model

It is SRK’s opinion that the reblocking exercise added sufficient dilution to support the Probable category that has been used for the reserves statement. There is a risk that unmodeled internal dykes could increase dilution locally in some areas; however, the current resource drilling information does not have enough resolution to identify these dykes. MP Materials takes care in the mining operations to exclude dyke material from the ore to the extent possible. Dyke material is identifiable in the blasthole cuttings that are used for grade control, and it is visually identifiable by the loader operators.

 

12.1.2  

Cut-off Grade Calculation

Table 12-1 shows the parameters used for pit optimization. A selling price of US$6,139 per dry st of equivalent concentrate at 60% TREO was used for estimating reserves. The equivalent concentrate selling price is net of the incremental benefits and costs related to REE separations. The design of the ultimate reserves pit was guided by economic pit optimization. Indicated blocks mined from within the reserves pit were included in the reserves tabulation if they have sufficient value to pay for processing, G&A, and product shipping costs. The COG that meets this value threshold is 2.49% TREO. SRK notes that pit mining costs were excluded from the COG calculation because all reserve blocks are

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 141

 

 

constrained by a designed ultimate pit. The designed ultimate pit was based on economic pit optimization that considered all costs, including mining costs.

Table 12-1: Pit Optimization Inputs

 

Parameter   Unit   Value     

Mining Parameters

        

Mining Rate

  Mt/y   7.0            

Mining Dilution(1)

  %   0   

Mining Dilution Grade

  % TREO   0   

Mining Recovery

  %   100   

Interramp Slope Angles(2)

        

Azimuth 0° to 110°

  degrees   44.0   

Azimuth 110° to 155°

  degrees   47.0   

Azimuth 155° to 210°

  degrees   46.0   

Azimuth 210° to 270°

  degrees   47.0   

Azimuth 270° to 300°

  degrees   43.0   

Azimuth 300° to 360°

  degrees   42.0   

Processing Parameters

        

Processing Rate

  st/y   896,000   

Target Concentrate Grade

  % TREO   60.0   

Concentrate Moisture

  %   9.0   

Processing Recovery

        

>1.5% TREO

  %   0.0   

1.5% to 2.1% TREO

  %   22.0   

2.1% to 8.3% TREO

  %   Variable Based on Grade   

>8.3% TREO

  %   70.0   

Price

        

Equivalent Concentrate Price(3)

  US$/dry st conc.   6,139   

Costs

        

Mining Cost Base Cost

  US$/st mined   1.825   

Mining Cost 15 ft Adjustment

  US$/st mined   0.018   

Processing Costs

  US$/st ore   49.19   

General and Administration

  US$/st ore   20.71   

Freight and Marketing

  US$ /dry st conc.   177.04   

Royalty

  % of gross revenue   -   

Source: SRK, 2021

(1): Mining dilution is already built into the resource model and no further dilution was applied.

(2): An azimuth of zero degrees corresponds to north.

(3): Net of the incremental benefits and costs related to REE separations.

 

12.2

Reserve Estimate

The pit optimization considered only the indicated mineral resource category. The revenue factor 1.0 pit shell is the optimized pit shell that corresponds to 100% of the US$6,139 per dry st selling price selected for reserves estimation. The optimized pit shell selected to guide final pit design was based on a combination of the revenue factor (RF) 0.45 pit (used on the north half of the deposit) and the RF 1.00 pit shell (used on the south half of the deposit). The overall pit slopes used for the mine design are based on operational-level geotechnical studies and range from 42° to 47°.

Indicated pit resources were converted to probable reserves by applying the appropriate modifying factors, as described herein, to potential mining pit shapes created during the mine design process. Inferred resources present within the LoM pit are treated as waste.

The mine design process results in in situ open pit mining reserves of 30.4 million st with an average grade of 6.35% TREO. The mineral reserve statement, as of September 30, 2021, for the Mountain

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 142

 

 

Pass pit is presented in Table 12-2. The reference point for the mineral reserves is ore delivered to the Mountain Pass concentrator.

Table 12-2: Mineral Reserves at Mountain Pass as of September 30, 2021, SRK Consulting

 

Category    Description   

Run-of-Mine (RoM) 

Million Short Tons (dry) 

   TREO%     MY%    

Concentrate 

Million Short Tons (dry) 

    

Proven

   Current Stockpiles    0.05     9.45     10.88     0.01    
   In situ    --               
   Proven Totals    0.05     9.45     10.88     0.01             

Probable

   Current Stockpiles               
   In situ    30.4     6.35     6.74     2.05      
   Probable Totals    30.4     6.35     6.74     2.05    

Proven +

Probable

   Current Stockpiles    0.05     9.45     10.88     0.01    
   In situ    30.4     6.35     6.74     2.05      
  

Proven + Probable

Totals

   30.45     6.36     6.75     2.05    

Source: SRK, 2021

General Notes:

 

   

Reserves stated as contained within an economically minable open pit design stated above a 2.49% TREO COG.

 

   

Mineral reserves tonnage and contained metal have been rounded to reflect the accuracy of the estimate, and numbers may not add due to rounding. A small difference of approximately 0.3% between the reserve tonnage and the ore tonnage used in the cashflow model is not considered to be material.

 

   

MY% calculation is based on 60% concentrate grade of the product and the ore grade dependent metallurgical recovery. MY% = (TREO% * Met recovery)/60% concentrate TREO grade.

 

   

Indicated mineral resources have been converted to Probable reserves. Measured mineral resources have been converted to Proven reserves.

 

   

Reserves are diluted at the contact of the carbonatite geological model triangulation (further to dilution inherent to the resource model and assume selective mining unit of 15 ft x 15 ft x30 ft).

 

   

Mineral reserves tonnage and grade are reported as diluted.

 

   

Pit optimization COG is based on an average TREO% equivalent concentration price of US$6,139/st of dry concentrate (60% TREO, net of the incremental benefits and costs related to REE separations), average mining cost at the pit exit of US$1.825/st mined plus US$0.018/st mined for each 15 ft bench above or below the pit exit, combined milling and G&A costs of US$69.90/st milled, concentrate freight of US$177/st of dry concentrate, and an average overall pit slope angle of 42° including ramps.

 

   

The topography used was from September 30, 2021.

 

   

Reserves contain material inside and outside permitted mining but within mineral lease.

 

   

Reserves assume 100% mining recovery.

 

   

The strip ratio was 6.1 to 1 (waste to ore ratio).

 

   

The mineral reserves were estimated by SRK Consulting (U.S.) Inc.

 

12.3

Relevant Factors

The reserve estimate herein is subject to potential change based on changes to the forward-looking cost and revenue assumptions utilized in this study. It is assumed that MP Materials will produce and sell bastnaesite concentrate to customers in 2022. It is further assumed that MP Materials will ramp its on-site separations facilities (currently undergoing modification and recommissioning) as discussed in Section 10.4 and will transition to selling separated rare earth products starting in 2023.

Full extraction of this reserve is dependent upon modification of current permitted boundaries for the open pit. Failure to achieve modification of these boundaries would result in MP Materials not being able to extract the full reserve estimated in this study. It is MP Materials’ expectation that it will be successful in modifying this permit condition. In SRK’s opinion, MP Materials’ expectation in this regard is reasonable.

A portion of the resource pit encroaches on an adjoining mineral right holder’s concession. This portion of the pit would only include waste stripping (i.e., no rare earth mineralization is assumed to be extracted from this concession). The prior owner of Mountain Pass had an agreement with this

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 143

 

 

concession holder to allow this waste stripping (with the requirement that aggregate mined be stockpiled for the owner’s use). MP Materials does not currently have this agreement in place, but SRK believes it is reasonable to assume MP Materials will be able to negotiate a similar agreement.

SRK is not aware of other existing environmental, permitting, legal, socio-economic, marketing, political, or other factors that might materially affect the open pit mineral reserve estimate.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 144

 

 

13

Mining Methods

The Mountain Pass deposit is mined by open pit mining methods. Surface mining operations include:

 

   

Drilling and blasting to remove overburden material

 

   

Loading and haulage

 

   

General maintenance and services

The mine requires blending of mill ore to ensure that the mill receives a head grade within the operating range of the mill. The MP Materials mining equipment fleet includes wheel loaders, trucks, tractors, and graders. Maintenance shops are available at the mine site to service mine equipment.

The open pit is located in gently undulating topography intersecting natural drainages that require small diversions to withstand some rainfall events during the summer months. Waste dumps are managed according to the Action Plan (AP), are located on high ground, and are designed for control of drainage (contact water) if required. Some of these small diversions are already in place; however, additional diversions will need to be established.

The open pit that forms the basis of the mineral reserves and the LoM production schedule is approximately 3,100 ft from east to west and 3,800 ft from north to south with a maximum depth of 1,400 ft. Total mining is estimated at 216 million st comprised of 30.4 million st of ore and 186 million st of waste, resulting in a strip ratio of 6.1 (waste to ore). Ore grade averages 6.35% TREO yielding over 2.05 million dry st of recoverable 60% TREO concentrate. SRK designed four pit pushbacks that adhere to proper minimum mining widths. Bench sinking rates are approximated to no more than six benches per year per pushback.

Figure 13-1 illustrates the site layout and final pit design (tailings area is not highlighted in this picture).

SRK’s evaluation included:

 

   

Open pit block model incorporating dilution and other required mining variables

 

   

Pit optimization analysis and sensitivities

 

   

Pit and phase designs

 

   

Bench-based LoM production schedule integrated with the processing schedule

 

   

Low-grade stockpile design

 

   

Waste dump design

 

   

Quarterly progression of pit and waste dumps for developing annual haulage cycle time estimation

 

   

Fleet estimation of open pit equipment based on the mining production schedule

Results developed included estimated equipment fleet requirements, sustaining capital costs, and operating costs.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 145

 

 

LOGO

16000 N 15000 N 14000 N 13000 N 12000 N 11000 N 10000 N 9000 N 8000 N 7000 N

Source: SRK, 2021

Figure 13-1: Final Pit Design and Site Layout

 

13.1

Parameters Relevant to Mine or Pit Designs and Plans

 

13.1.1

Geotechnical

For pit optimization and phase design, SRK used recommendations for pit slope inter-ramp angles between 42° and 47° for all phases. These angles are based on preliminary results of a geotechnical study that was in progress by Call & Nicholas, Inc. in 2021 (CNI, 2022). CNI provided the preliminary recommendations in November 2021. CNI subsequently completed their geotechnical study and published the final results in January 2022. Based on their final report, CNI increased slope angles in the northwest and east-northeast sectors of the Mountain Pass open pit by 2°, compared to the preliminary results provided in November 2021. Figure 13-2 shows the final inter-ramp slope angles (IRA) recommended by CNI, 2022 for the phase and final pit designs. Notwithstanding the steeper IRAs recommended in CNI’s final report, SRK’s mine design work was based on the slightly more conservative slope preliminary IRAs provided in November 2021, as presented in Table 12.1.

The recommended slope angles are controlled by the bench and inter-ramp stability, for all design sectors with the exception of the northwest (azimuth 300-0). An 80% catch bench reliability for the 60-foot-high double bench configuration was used to determine the bench and inter-ramp slope angles. Overall slope wall factor of safety (FoS) exceeds 2.0 for the stability analysis sections analyzed by CNI.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 146

 

 

LOGO

No critical Infrastructure within 200 ft. of pit crest.

Note: ISA is equivalent to IRA

Source: CNI, 2022

Figure 13-2: Recommended Double Bench IRA from CNI

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 147

 

 

Rock Mass Characterization

Four geotechnical studies with a defined rock mass for stability analyses have been completed to date on the Project. These studies include:

 

   

Call & Nicholas Inc. (2022). Mountain Pass Phase 10 Geotechnical Feasibility Study, Consultant’s report dated January 2022.

  o

The 2022 CNI report documented geotechnical core drilling and an update to rock fabric mapping and major structure mapping in the pit and recommended slope angles ranging from 44° to 47° based on a double-bench configuration. No substantial changes to slope angles are noted as compared to the 2020 report. A critical infrastructure offset of 200 ft was recommended from the crest of the slope.

   

Call & Nicholas Inc. (2020). Mountain Pass Geotechnical Evaluation. Consultant’s report dated February 2020, 83 p.

  o

The 2020 CNI report documented rock fabric mapping and major structure mapping in the pit and recommended slope angles ranging from 44° to 47° based on a double-bench configuration. This study flattened the northwest wall sectors to 44° to 45° based on a prior slope instability and major structure mapped on the wall.

   

Call & Nicholas Inc. (2011). Slope Stability Study Mountain Pass Mine. Consultant’s report dated October 2011, 135 p.

   

Golder Associates (2009). Mountain Pass Mine Pit Slope Inspection. Consultant’s Report dated September 8, 2009, 50 p.

   

Golder Associates (2002). Post Closure Stability Analyses, Mountain Pass Mine, California. Consultant’s Technical Memorandum dated November 5, 2002, 24 p.

  o

The 2002 Golder report incorporated point load testing from the 1995 Vector Engineering study. This study included analysis of final pit wall stability and was used as the basis for the reclamation plan submitted to San Bernardino County.

In consultation with CNI, SRK and MP Materials, the 2021 CNI preliminary results were the basis for the slope angles for final wall design for this study. SRK has reviewed the preliminary and final (CNI, 2022) CNI slope angle recommendations and consider them valid and appropriate for slope design. Pit slope angles have been determined using the recommendations from the CNI report assuming an 80% catch bench reliability. SRK recommends using the final published CNI, 2022 angles for future mine optimization studies.

SRK conducted a site visit on September 25, 2019, to observe the conditions of the Mountain Pass open pit. Key observations included successful double benching on the west wall with greater than 80% catch reliability in slopes excavated by MP Materials.

The rock mass consists of several different engineering geologic properties, including Carbonatite, Breccia, and Gneiss/Schist. The carbonatites are strong, dense, coarsely crystalline rocks and carbonatites which comprise most of the north, east, and south walls. The rock mass is strongly foliated with a dip to the west-southwest at approximately 50° to 70°. Distinct sets of cross joints are observed orthogonal to the main foliation; however, the orientation of these joints varies over short distances.

Intact strengths have been estimated by both point load testing (Vector, 1995) and by uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) testing of surface samples conducted by CNI in 2011. Intact UCS values range from 10,000 to 20,000 pounds per square inch (psi).

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 148

 

 

Rock Quality Designation/Rock Mass Rating

The Rock Quality Designation (RQD) ranges from 20 to 80 as observed by both CNI and Golder in the pit slope walls. An average RQD value of 50 is appropriate for characterizing the rock mass. A full Rock Mass Rating (RMR), including analysis of drill core at depth in the final walls, has not been completed but is estimated by SRK to be in the range of RMR 50 to 60.

Open Pit Mine Design Parameters

The recommended slope angles for the Mountain Pass open pit were developed from the review of the 2022 CNI slope stability report and a review of the slope conditions of the west wall excavated by MP Materials. The recommended slope design parameters are listed in Table 13-1, and the slope design sectors are graphically illustrated on Figure 13-2.

Table 13-1: Recommended Slope Design Parameters

 

Open Pit Parameters   
Bench increment    15 ft    
Bench height    30 or 60 ft             
Bench face/batter angle (BFA)    66° to 68°    
Design bench/berm width (60 ft high bench)    30 to 36 ft    
Minimum bench width (modified Ritchie Criteria, 30 and 60 ft high)    15 to 24 ft    
Maximum IRA by design sector    44° to 47°    
Maximum overall slope angle (OSA)    45°    
Design Criteria   
Minimum factor of safety (FoS)    2.0    

Source: SRK, 2021

Slope design constraints assume a 15 ft model block height. Mining production will be conducted primarily on 30 ft bench heights. Most areas of the mine are in competent rock mass, and it is envisioned that in these areas the mining in the final wall will be finished to a 30 ft face or a 60 ft face height. Using a multiple-bench final wall configuration permits a steeper IRA in competent ground. The maximum inter-ramp slope height (bench stack height) is 500 ft. A geotechnical berm, or haul ramp, with a minimum width of 65 ft is required between bench stacks.

The minimum catch bench width is developed using the modified Ritchie Criteria (Ryan and Pryor, 2000). The minimum catch bench width for a 60 ft-high bench face is 24 ft using the Ritchie Criteria. For a 30 ft-high bench, the minimum width is 15 ft.

Bench face angles vary by sector and are based on average obtained values by mapping. The measured bench face angle using highwall controlled blasting procedures results in average bench face angles ranging from 66° to 68°. For the given slope design parameters and limited subsurface data, dual ramp access is required to ensure access to ore material for each mining phase. With the ramps and the recommended IRAs, the final wall overall slope angle maximum is 45°. Stability of the pit slope, including hydrogeological inputs, is documented in the CNI, 2022 report. SRK has reviewed the results, and stability of the pit slope using these design parameters meets a slope acceptance criterion with a minimum FoS of greater than 2.0. These FoS results are within the guidelines of the current reclamation plan, and also meet the criteria outlined in Guidelines for Open Pit Slope Desing (Read & Stacey, 2009).

Table 13-2 lists the November 2021 recommendations used for this study. Table 13-3 lists the CNI recommended slope design parameters by wall sector, as illustrated on Figure 13-2.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 149

 

 

Table 13-2: CNI Preliminary Recommended Slope Design Parameters by Design Sector

 

Mine Planning
Azimuth
   Wall DDR
(Clockwise)
  

Bench 

Height 

(ft) 

  

Design 

IRA 

(°) 

    
Start     End     Start     End 
210     270     30     90     60     47             
270     300     90     120     60     43    
300        120     180     60     42    
   110     180     290     60     44    
110     155     290     335     60     47    
155     210     335     30     60     46    

Source: CNI, 2021

Table 13-3: CNI Final Recommended Slope Design Parameters by Design Sector

 

Mine
Planning
Azimuth
   Wall DDR
(Clockwise)
  

Bench 

Height 

(ft) 

  

Design 

IRA 

(°) 

  

BFA 

(°) 

  

Design Layout 

Bench Width 

(ft) 

    
Start     End     Start     End 
110     270     290     90     60     47     70     34.1             
270     300     90     120     60     45     71     39.3    
300        120     180     60     44     68     37.9    
   110     180     290     60     46     68     33.7    

Source: CNI, 2022

MP Materials has been using controlled wall blasting in order to achieve the recommended bench configurations. Trim shots are used against final walls. In SRK’s opinion, the blasting procedures in place are sufficient to achieve the recommended slope design parameters.

CNI recommended a slope offset for mine facilities, including the concentrator, paste tailings plant, process plant, and water storage tanks, of 200 ft. CNI recommends if the pit crest is within 200 ft of critical infrastructure, the recommended IRA is 44° for at least four benches (120 ft). Below these benches, the IRA may be increased to 46°. SRK concurs with this recommendation.

As a part of the 2021 CNI Geotechnical study (CNI, 2022), Three multi-level piezometers with a total of nine transducers were reviewed to characterize the current phreatic surface elevation. An Environmental Impact Report written in 1996 (ENSR, 1996) shows that groundwater flows Northwest to Southeast in the pit area. The stability analysis incorporates modeled pore pressures based on the piezometric data.

Geotechnical Recommendations

 

   

Optionally, MP Materials could choose to update the current mine plan using the less conservative final pit slope recommendations provide by CNI in January 2022. This would represent an opportunity for optimization and is not required to extract the mineral reserve stated in this report.

   

Routine geotechnical slope monitoring, data collection, and analysis should continue. MP Materials should review geotechnical parameters and optimize the mine plan prior to starting new phases based on this review.

 

13.1.2

Hydrogeological

Groundwater in the vicinity of the mine occurs within coarse unconsolidated alluvial sediments and within underlying fractured Precambrian bedrock. In general, most of the groundwater flows eastward

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 150

 

 

through the alluvium toward to the Ivanpah Valley and westward toward to the Shadow Valley as shown schematically in Figure 13-3.

 

LOGO

SHADOE VALLEY CLARK MOUNTAINS IVANPAH VALLEY

Source: Draft EIR (1996)

Figure 13-3: Idealized Cross Section Through Mine Area and Adjacent Valleys

The Location of industrial and domestic water supply wells (both historic and existing) with the mine facilities is shown in Figure 13-4.

Mine Dewatering

Mine pit dewatering is accomplished using one or two dewatering wells in the bottom of the mine pit.

Historically, dewatering of the open pit was done by one dewatering well. The pumping rate was about 36 gpm during 1987 through 1991. From June to November 1993 the pit well pumped an average 127 gpm to depress the water table below 4,510-foot mining level.

Two extraction dewatering wells (PEW-1 and PEW-2) were installed at the bottom of the pit within fractured bedrock in 2018 and drilled to the depths of 215 m and 162 m, respectively. The screen depth intervals in PEW-1 are from 115 to 214 m, and in PEW-2 are from 60 to 160 m. The location of these wells is shown in Figure 13-5.

A summary of pit water production during the first half of 2021 is provided in Table 13-4. Pit dewatering yielded approximately 20.5 million gallons during the last two quarters 2021. The pumping rate varied from 6 to 150 gpm with an average rate of 79 gpm, which reflects a modest increase from the 18.8 million gallons pumped during the prior semiannual reporting period. The pit water was used exclusively for dust control on the mine’s roads. Pumping from wells PEW-1 and PEW-2 allow the mine to maintain local containment of groundwater (described below).

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 151

 

 

LOGO

BLM LAND COMPANY LAND FIRST SEMI ANNUAL 2021 GROUND WATER MONITORING REPORT MP MINE OPERATION LLC MOUNTAIN PASS, COLIFORNA

Source: Geo-Logic (2021)

Figure 13-4: Location of Industrial and Domestic Water Supply Wells and Mine Facilities

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 152

 

 

Table 13-4: Summary of Pit Water Production in First Half of 2021

 

                

   Month   

Volume of Pumped Water  

(gal)  

  

Average Pumping Rate  

(gpm)  

  

                                                                 

   January    4,448,200      100  
   February        6,117,100      152  
   March    4,155,100      93  
   April    2,626,900      61  
   May    2,930,100      66  
   June    253,700      6  
   Average    3,421,850      79  

Source: SRK (2021) based on Geo-Logic (2021)

The groundwater levels around open pit and other mine facilities have been observed by monitoring wells. Their location, currently measured water table elevation, and direction of groundwater flow is shown in Figure 13-5.

LOGO

LEGEND FIRST SEMI ANNUAL 2021 GROUND WATER MONITORING

Source: Geo-Logic (2021)

 

  Figure 13-5:

Location of Monitoring Wells, Measured Water Table Elevation, and Direction of Groundwater Flow (as Q2 2021)

Figure 13-6 and Geo-Logic (2021) indicate:

 

   

Groundwater generated by recharge from precipitation at the Clark Mountains north of the mine flows to the southeast and discharges in alluvial fan deposits of the Ivanpah Valley and Shadow Valley to the east and west, respectively.

 

   

The open pit creates a local cone of drawdown due to pumping from two pit dewatering wells. The estimated lowest water table elevation within the pit is about 4,400 ft amsl.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 153

 

 

   

Current depth to groundwater in the pit dewatering wells is 83.3 to 90.0 ft.

 

   

Measured groundwater levels at the site during the first 2021 monitoring period reflect a continued long-term decreasing trend, and several have become dry. The steady decline in water levels extends back to a particularly wet year in 2005 when there was a marked increase in water levels at the site.

Water level elevations in the walls of the proposed ultimate pit were measured in the piezometers recently installed in geotechnical core holes. Their location and measured water levels are shown in Figure 13-6.

 

LOGO

Upward gradient

Note: Existing pit is shown in the right figure in green, with the pit evaluated by CNI – in grey. Ultimate pit shells proposed by SRK are not shown – they consider deepening of main and secondary lobes of the pit to elevations of 3,000 ft amsl and 3,800 ft amsl, respectively

Source: CNI (November 2021)

Figure 13-6: Location of Piezometers and Measured Water Levels in Pit Walls

Figure 13-6 indicates:

 

   

The lower part of water table in the pit area is about 4,400 ft

 

   

Presence of a downward hydraulic gradient in the eastern wall (recharge area) and an upward gradient in the eastern wall (toward the discharge area).

The proposed deepening of the bottom of the pit to the ultimate elevations of 3,000 ft amsl (main lobe) and to 3,800 ft amsl (second lobe) will increase dewatering requirements.

Most likely, pit dewatering can be handled by a system of the pumping wells (in-pit, similar to existing wells PEW-1 and PEW-2, or perimeter wells drilled to the greater depths) and residual passive inflow captured by in-pit sumps).

It should be noted that:

 

   

Hydrogeological conditions of the bedrock have not been tested at the proposed depth of the future pit.

 

   

Future effectiveness of in-pit pumping wells is unclear considering deepening of the existing pit bottom by an additional 1,400 ft.

 

   

A numerical groundwater model of mine area has not been created to allow the prediction of:

 

  o

dewatering requirements during future mining conditions,

 

  o

pit lake infilling during post-mining conditions.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 154

 

 

SRK recommends that MP Materials:

 

   

Conduct additional hydrogeological studies of the deep part of the bedrock to the elevation of the proposed bottom of the pit (3,000 ft amsl) by conducting packer isolated tests in three or four core holes defining bedrock permeability and dewatering targets (where and to what depth dewatering wells can be installed). Vibrated wire piezometers (similarly installed by CNI) are also recommended in these core holes).

   

Develop numerical groundwater flow to predict inflow to the proposed pit and better define:

  o

Dewatering requirements

  o

Pore-pressures in pit walls and the potential necessity to reduce them by installation of horizontal drain holes from pit benches (if required by geotechnical conditions of the slopes)

  o

Propagation of the drawdown cone during both mining and post-mining conditions (including pit lake infilling) to evaluate potential impact the groundwater system as a result of continued deepening of the open pit.

 

13.2

Pit Optimization

SRK completed a pit optimization exercise to provide the basis for the final LoM reserve pit design. This process utilizes initial approximated assumptions for the LoM production such as an average overall slope angle, typical production costs and typical process recoveries, as discussed below. It is important to note that these parameters do not exactly reflect the final reserve assumptions as this process is an interim step that precedes these final reserve calculations. Therefore, there are typically small differences between initial pit optimization assumptions and final reserve assumptions on items such slope design and costs, which are calculated as part of the final mine design process.

For the purposes of this analysis, SRK utilized Whittle™ software which uses a Lerchs-Grossmann algorithm to produce a series of nested pit shells which are derived by incrementally changing revenue assumptions. These incremental changes are referred to as Revenue Factors (RF) with, for example, a RF 1.0 reflecting a pit requiring 100% of the assumed base case revenue to be economic. In comparison, a RF 0.9 pit only requires 90% of the base case revenue to be economic, this pit is inherently smaller than the RF 1.0 pit and hence is nested within it.

 

13.2.1

Mineral Resource Models

The current block model block sizes are 15 ft by 15 ft by 30 ft (Table 13-5). SRK applied a dilution to the edge blocks based on the percentage of waste material within this block. This was done by performing a reblocking calculation on all the blocks. SRK is of the opinion that the grades will vary considerably at the local scale when mining.

Table 13-5: Block Model Block Sizes

 

                

   Item      Main Pit Area     

            

   X (ft)      15  
   Y (ft)      15  
   Z (ft)      30  

Source: SRK, 2021

The resource block model was imported into Whittle™ and Maptek Vulcan LG and verified against the original mineral resource block model (block model), created in Vulcan™. The Vulcan™ block model

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 155

 

 

subsequently was coded in preparation for optimization. This included diluting the block model to account for mining practices. The verification process indicated no material changes to the block model tonnages and grade during the process of importing into Whittle™.

 

13.2.2

Topographic Data

SRK was provided a September 30, 2021, surface to be used in the reserve calculation. The site uses a DJI Phantom 4 RTK Drone, Pix4D, and Maptek’s I-Site software to provide detailed surveys.

The most recent fully validated topographic data was used during construction and update of the block model.

 

13.2.3

Pit Optimization Constraints

The Mountain Pass pit design combines current site access, mining width requirements, and generalized geotechnical parameters to explore the possibility for full extraction of resources through open pit techniques. As such, restrictions were not placed on any areas.

The optimization process was restricted to indicated resources. There are no pit resources classified as measured. For the purpose of the optimization, there were no production or processing limits used within Whittle™, and all material not classified as indicated was treated for calculation purposes as waste.

 

13.2.4

Pit Optimization Parameters

Mining Dilution

The block model is based on 15 ft by 15 ft by 30 ft blocks. Where the interpretation of the mineralized rock intersects a block model block centroid, the block within the mineralized shape is recorded. The flagging of ore type is based on block centroid and accounts for the location and placement of the ore contact. Because the contact of waste and ore is not always clearly visible, dilution is expected and has been accounted for.

The Whittle™ optimization software used settings of 0% mining dilution and 100% ore recovery (as this was pre-coded into the block model). These parameters were supplied by the client but are considered by SRK to be reasonable because the imported block model was already diluted.

Discount Rate

The pit optimization process did not utilize a discounting factor. Inflation was not factored into the costs or the selling price used in the analysis.

Geotechnical Parameters

For the pit optimization, SRK used a variable overall slope angle between 39° and 45, which approximates the inclusion of ramps (the pit optimization process cannot include actual ramp design so this must be approximated). The final pit design, including the location of the ramps will differ slightly from the pit optimization initial assumptions.

Revenue

SRK utilized a base case selling price of US$6,139/dry st for a 60% TREO equivalent concentrate, net of the incremental benefits and costs related to REE separations.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 156

 

 

Royalties

No royalties have been applied to the optimization.

Mining Costs

SRK reviewed MP Materials’ recent actual costs and modified the pit optimization costs based on prior experience with similar projects. A base mining cost per short ton at the pit exit elevation has been applied for all material. The base mining cost is US$1.825/st. For each 15 ft bench that is mined above or below the pit exit elevation, an incremental cost of US$0.018/st was added. Subsequent to pit optimization, SRK prepared a first principles mining cost model, the results of which were used for economic modeling.

Processing Costs and Recoveries

Processing and G&A costs used for pit optimization were based on 12-month rolling average actual costs from August 2020 – July 2021. Processing and G&A costs used for economic modeling were updated subsequent to pit optimization and are based on January 2021 – September 2021 actual costs.

The current forecast mill recoveries are variable based on ore grade, and the concentrate grade target is 60% TREO. SRK is using the following equation for the mass yield calculation: MY% = (TREO% * Met Recovery)/60%.

Other Costs

Table 13-6 presents base case pit optimization parameters.

Table 13-6: Pit Optimization Parameters

 

                

  Parameter    Unit    Value      

                

 

Mining dilution(1)

   %       
 

Mining dilution grade

         
 

Mining recovery

   %      100   
 

Overall slope angle

   degrees      39-45   
 

Base Mining cost

   US$/st      1.825   
 

Mining rate

   million st/y       
 

Processing rate

   million st/y      0.896   
 

Process recovery

   %      Variable   
 

Revenue(2)

   US$/st (dry concentrate)      6,139   
 

Processing costs

   US$/st ore      49.19   
 

General and administration    

   US$/st ore      20.71   
 

Sustaining capital cost

   US$/st ore       
 

Royalty

   % of gross revenue       
 

Freight and marketing

   US$/st dry conc.      177.04   

(1): Mining dilution is already built into the resource model and no further dilution was applied.

(2) Net of the incremental benefits and costs related to REE separations.

Source: SRK, 2021

 

13.2.5

Optimization Process

As a result of the pit optimization, the relationship of potential pit shells is based on stripping ratio variability and subject to the base case selling price of US$6,139/dry st (60% TREO equivalent concentrate, net of the incremental benefits and costs related to REE separations). By looking at the relationship of ore to waste and the associated best-case and worst-case cash flows generated at each incremental pit, the risk profile and revenue generating potential of the deposit can be estimated.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 157

 

 

To estimate the LoM pit utilized as the basis for the final reserve pit design, a series of nested pit shells were calculated over a range of Revenue Factors (RF). Each of the nested pit shells were generated based on the maximum undiscounted cash flow calculated for the applicable RF. The generated nested pit shells increase in size as the RF and maximum undiscounted cash flow also increase.

The final pit design will not exactly match this optimization output and will often include a small amount of material outside of this estimated LoM pit.

 

13.2.6

Optimization Results

Pit optimization results are presented in Table 13-7. The optimized pit shell selected to guide final pit design was based on a combination of the RF 0.45 pit (pit shell 8, used on the north half of the deposit) and the RF 1.00 pit shell (pit shell 19, used on the south half of the deposit).

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 158

 

 

Table 13-7: Mountain Pass Pit Optimization Result Using Indicated Classification Only

 

Pit     

Revenue

Factor

    

Concentrate (60% TREO)

Selling Price

(US$/dry st)

     Strip Ratio     

Total Mined

(st)

    

Ore

(st)

    

Waste

(st)

    

Concentrate Produced

(st)

     MY%      REO Dil%  

1  

     0.10        $614        0.28        285,594        222,593        63,001        36,437        16.4%        14.08  

2  

     0.15        $921        0.69        9,356,744        5,540,353        3,816,391        560,049        10.1%        8.87  

3  

     0.20        $1,228        2.36        48,610,897        14,450,841        34,160,056        1,235,414        8.5%        7.67  

4  

     0.25        $1,535        3.13        95,996,167        23,264,556        72,731,611        1,729,549        7.4%        6.85  

5  

     0.30        $1,842        3.60        121,430,744        26,377,731        95,053,013        1,887,435        7.2%        6.64  

6  

     0.35        $2,148        3.93        136,611,909        27,737,192        108,874,717        1,951,487        7.0%        6.56  

7  

     0.40        $2,455        4.01        140,813,685        28,099,207        112,714,478        1,966,880        7.0%        6.53  

8  

     0.45        $2,762        4.21        149,934,911        28,763,591        121,171,320        1,994,348        6.9%        6.49  

9  

     0.50        $3,069        4.25        151,544,266        28,875,838        122,668,429        1,998,381        6.9%        6.48  

10  

     0.55        $3,376        4.34        155,674,689        29,131,244        126,543,445        2,007,135        6.9%        6.46  

11  

     0.60        $3,683        4.35        156,260,199        29,209,093        127,051,106        2,009,084        6.9%        6.45  

12  

     0.65        $3,990        4.44        159,636,306        29,353,797        130,282,509        2,013,943        6.9%        6.44  

13  

     0.70        $4,297        4.53        163,467,827        29,583,148        133,884,679        2,020,031        6.8%        6.41  

14  

     0.75        $4,604        4.54        164,344,104        29,648,205        134,695,900        2,021,552        6.8%        6.41  

15  

     0.80        $4,911        4.57        165,451,146        29,693,651        135,757,495        2,022,851        6.8%        6.40  

16  

     0.85        $5,218        4.61        167,028,000        29,766,235        137,261,765        2,024,608        6.8%        6.40  

17  

     0.90        $5,525        4.62        167,521,212        29,817,152        137,704,060        2,025,516        6.8%        6.39  

18  

     0.95        $5,832        4.64        168,379,716        29,879,137        138,500,580        2,026,641        6.8%        6.38  

19  

     1.00        $6,139        4.69        170,203,286        29,930,998        140,272,288        2,027,990        6.8%        6.38  

20  

     1.05        $6,445        4.72        171,597,283        29,992,775        141,604,509        2,029,212        6.8%        6.37  

21  

     1.10        $6,752        4.72        171,671,059        29,997,344        141,673,715        2,029,288        6.8%        6.37  

22  

     1.15        $7,059        4.72        171,735,393        30,000,708        141,734,685        2,029,338        6.8%        6.37  

23  

     1.20        $7,366        4.73        171,832,620        30,003,986        141,828,633        2,029,394        6.8%        6.37  

24  

     1.25        $7,673        4.73        171,872,508        30,005,281        141,867,227        2,029,410        6.8%        6.37  

25  

     1.30        $7,980        4.74        172,323,471        30,037,586        142,285,886        2,030,605        6.8%        6.37  

Note: The optimized pit shell selected to guide final pit design was based on a combination of the RF 0.45 pit (pit shell 8, used on the north half of the deposit) and the RF 1.00 pit shell (pit shell 19, used on the south half of the deposit)

Source SRK, 2021

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 159

 

 

Figure 13-7 shows the results of the pit optimization in a pit-by-pit graph.

 

LOGO

Pit by Pit Graph
Toonage
Value
Waste-Best
Total Ore-Best
Disc. Cash flow-Best
Disc. Cash flow-Worst
Disc. Cash flow- Lag

Source: SRK, 2021

Figure 13-7: Mountain Pass Pit by Pit Optimization Result

Figure 13-8 shows the mineral reserves (red line) versus the mineral resources (magenta line) pit optimization shells.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 160

 

 

LOGO

13000 N

Source: SRK, 2021

 

  Figure 13-8:

Mountain Pass Mineral Reserves Pit (red line) and Mineral Resources Shell (magenta line) Surface Intersection

 

13.3

Design Criteria

 

13.3.1

Pit and Phase Designs

Phase designs for the deposit are largely driven by the effective mining width and its influence on access to the resource. The same design parameters used in the final pit design have been incorporated into the phase designs. A total of four phase designs were created for the Mountain Pass pit, all of which fall within the selected optimized pit shell. Figure 13-9 shows the location of each phase.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 161

 

 

LOGO

13000 N

Note: Phases 1 through 4 were previously mined.

Source SRK, 2021

Figure 13-9: Phase Design Locations

To ensure proper ore exposure and access to different TREO grades, SRK created multiple mining phases. To improve the economics of the Project, phases were divided by following pit optimization shells to ensure that the higher profit pit shells were being mined first.

Figure 13-10 shows the final pit design. Figure 13-11 shows the September 30, 2021, starting reserve topography.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 162

 

 

LOGO

13000 N 12000 N

Source: SRK, 2021

Figure 13-10: Final Pit Design

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 163

 

 

LOGO

110000 N

Source: SRK, 2021

Figure 13-11: Reserve Starting Topography, September 30, 2021

 

13.4

Mine Production Schedule

The current LoM plan has pit mining for 35 years, followed by one partial year of processing long-term ore stockpiles. The entire reserve is mined by the LoM plan. The average strip ratio is 6.1 to 1.

 

13.4.1

Mine Production

Figure 13-12 to Figure 13-20 present the LoM production schedule for the Mountain Pass mine. The production schedule is used as the basis of the technical economic model (TEM) and comprises mill feed ore (>2.49% TREO) and waste. To ensure proper ore exposure, SRK generated the mine plan using quarterly periods for the duration of the mine life. Appendix C shows the year-to-year progress of the mine plan.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 164

 

 

LOGO

Short Tons Mined From the Open Pit

Note: 2021 includes only October - December

Source: SRK, 2021

Figure 13-12: Total Mined Material from the Open Pit (ore and waste)

 

LOGO

Ore Mined From the Open Pit

Note: 2021 includes only October - December

Source: SRK, 2021

Figure 13-13: Ore Mined from the Open Pit

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 165

 

 

LOGO

Open Pit Mined Grade TREO%

Note: 2021 includes only October - December

Source: SRK, 2021

Figure 13-14: Mined Ore Grade

 

LOGO

Rehandled Material

Note: 2021 includes only October - December

Source: SRK, 2021

Figure 13-15: Rehandled Material

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 166

 

 

LOGO

Concentrate Produced (Plant Output)

Note: 2021 includes only October - December

Source: SRK, 2021

Figure 13-16: Mill Concentrate Production

 

LOGO

Mill Feed Grade

Note: 2021 includes only October - December

Source: SRK, 2021

Figure 13-17: Mill Feed Grade

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 167

 

 

LOGO

30 Foot Benchers per Phase

Note: 2021 includes only October - December

Source: SRK, 2021

Figure 13-18: Number of Benches Mined

 

LOGO

Truck Running Cycle Time (minutes)

Note: 2021 includes only October - December

Source: SRK, 2021

Figure 13-19: Haul Truck Cycle Time

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 168

 

 

LOGO

Long Term Ore Stockpile

Note: 2021 includes only October - December

Source: SRK, 2021

Figure 13-20: Long-Term Ore Stockpile End of Period Balance

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 169

 

 

Grade Control

Grade control provides critical control to ensure that ore and waste are identified at a high resolution prior to mining and then hauled to the appropriate destination (i.e., primary crusher, long-term ore stockpile, low-grade stockpile, or waste dump). The grade control process is as follows:

 

   

All blastholes will be sampled near the mineralized zones.

   

For the 30 ft mining bench height, the following sampling technique will be utilized.

  o

Drillers/samplers will gather cuttings and define them by their drill hole number and pattern number.

  o

Samples will be analyzed in a laboratory set up on-site.

  o

The geologist / mine engineer will build outlines based on the analyzed grade range.

   

The geologist and surveyors will place flags in the pattern based on the grade control outlines.

 

13.5

Waste and Stockpile Design

 

13.5.1

Waste Rock Storage Facility

The waste rock storage for the Mountain Pass operation has been designed to limit the vertical expansion of the waste dump and have dump toes located for control of surface run-off. The dumps have also been located in areas that will not be impacted by potential future mining operations.

The mine plan includes full development of the west overburden stockpile, located to the west of the existing open pit. As of July 1, 2021, the remaining, permitted storage capacity of the west overburden stockpile is 16.5 million st.

The total estimated overburden storage requirement associated with the mine plan is 190 million st. This total includes low-grade material that exhibits a TREO content between 2% and 2.49%. Mountain Pass will fill the west overburden stockpile and place the balance of overburden material in the north overburden stockpile and/or the east overburden stockpile. Total estimated waste dump and stockpile capacities are provided in Table 13-8.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 170

 

 

Table 13-8: Estimated Storage Capacity for Overburden and Stockpile Grade Material

 

    Dump      Toe Elevation    Volume (ft3)      Short Tons     

                

                

  West    4700      2,200,278        133,337  
   4750      28,559,342        1,730,696  
   4800      41,575,285        2,519,462  
   4850      33,919,100        2,055,497  
   4900      30,252,296        1,833,289  
   4950      36,967,194        2,240,212  
   5000      64,269,379        3,894,724  
   5050      38,417,238        1,997,696  
   West Total      276,160,111        16,404,914  
  North    4650      6,296,178        381,548  
   4700      30,789,129        1,865,821  
   4750      64,712,674        3,921,588  
   4800      92,851,037        5,626,773  
   4850      115,618,016        7,006,452  
   4900      181,056,995        10,972,054  
   4950      253,995,971        15,392,156  
   5000      237,843,074        14,413,290  
   5050      236,422,800        14,327,222  
   5100      176,596,942        10,701,775  
   5150      70,275,062        4,258,669  
   North Total      1,466,457,878        88,867,347  
  East    4450      451,952        27,388  
   4500      17,605,333        1,066,883  
   4550      69,639,713        4,220,167  
   4600      155,725,456        9,436,963  
   4650      255,540,504        15,485,755  
   4700      253,512,035        15,362,829  
   4750      218,397,774        13,234,905  
   4800      171,764,355        10,408,920  
   4850      128,748,100        7,802,135  
   4900      90,933,281        5,510,557  
   4950      60,399,969        3,660,238  
   5000      32,677,587        1,980,262  
   5050      12,127,716        734,940  
   East Total      1,467,523,775        88,931,941  
  All    Total      3,210,141,764        194,204,203  

Source: SRK, 2021

Figure 13-21 shows the location of the low-grade dump and the waste dumps.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 171

 

 

LOGO

LOW GRADE STOCKFILE NORTH BUMP

Source SRK, 2021

Figure 13-21: Final Pit Design and Waste Dump Locations

 

13.5.2

Stockpiles

The long-term ore stockpile will hold a maximum of about 4.4 million st of ore, all of which will eventually be sent to the primary crusher. The current mine plan will stockpile approximately 2 million st of low grade material throughout the mine life. The low grade material is not currently included in the reserves and is treated as waste in the economic model. The long-term ore stockpile is located to the north of the pit and shares a footprint with the low-grade dump (the two material types will be deposited in separate areas within the footprint).

The current operation uses four low-capacity RoM blending stockpiles in front of the primary crusher. These stockpiles are small, and the total capacity for all of them is less than 50,000 st. The operation plans to continue this practice in the future.

Table 13-9 shows the waste dump stockpile schedule.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 172

 

 

Table 13-9: North, East and West Waste Dump Schedule

 

Dump    Toe Elevation    Volume (ft3)      Short Tons      Year       

West

   4700      2,200,278        133,337        2021     
   4750      28,559,342        1,730,696        2021     
   4800      41,575,285        2,519,462        2022     
   4850      33,919,100        2,055,497        2022     
   4900      30,252,296        1,833,289        2022     
   4950      36,967,194        2,240,212        2023     
   5000      64,269,379        3,894,724        2023     
   5050      38,417,238        1,997,696        2023     
   West Total      276,160,111        16,404,914              

North

   4650      6,296,178        381,548        2024     
   4700      30,789,129        1,865,821        2024     
   4750      64,712,674        3,921,588        2024     
   4800      92,851,037        5,626,773        2025     
   4850      115,618,016        7,006,452        2025/2026     
   4900      181,056,995        10,972,054        2026     
   4950      253,995,971        15,392,156        2027/2028     
   5000      237,843,074        14,413,290        2029/2030     
   5050      236,422,800        14,327,222        2031/2032     
   5100      176,596,942        10,701,775        2033     
   5150      70,275,062        4,258,669        2034     
   North Total            1,466,457,878        88,867,347              

East

   4450      451,952        27,388        2035     
   4500      17,605,333        1,066,883        2035     
   4550      69,639,713        4,220,167        2035     
   4600      155,725,456        9,436,963        2036/2037     
   4650      255,540,504        15,485,755        2038/2039     
   4700      253,512,035        15,362,829        2040/2041     
   4750      218,397,774        13,234,905        2042/2043     
   4800      171,764,355        10,408,920        2044/2046     
   4850      128,748,100        7,802,135        2047/2050     
   4900      90,933,281        5,510,557        2051/2052     
   4950      60,399,969        3,660,238        2053     
   5000      32,677,587        1,980,262        2054     
   5050      12,127,716        734,940        2055     
   East Total      1,467,523,775        88,931,941              

All

   Total        3,210,141,764          194,204,203              

Source SRK, 2021

 

13.6

Mining Fleet and Requirements

 

13.6.1

General Requirements and Fleet Selection

Mountain Pass is an open pit mine using front-end wheel loaders loading haul trucks for waste and ore haulage. The operations are described further in the following sections.

Mining activities include drilling, blasting, loading, hauling and support activities. Ore (>=2.49% TREO) will be sent to the primary crusher RoM stockpiles for near-term blending or to long-term stockpiles for processing later in the mine life. Waste dumps will be used for material below 2.49% TREO.

The loading, hauling, and support equipment operations are performed with a fleet that is owned and operated by MP Materials. Drill and blast operations are performed by a contractor, and this will continue for the foreseeable future. The primary loading equipment is front-end loaders (17 yd3), which

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 173

 

 

were selected for operational flexibility. Rigid frame haul trucks (102 wet st) were selected to match with the loading units.

The mine equipment fleet requirements are based on the annual mine production schedule, the mine work schedule, and shift production estimates. The equipment fleet requirements are further discussed in the individual sections that follow in this report.

All mine mobile equipment is diesel-powered to avoid the requirement to provide electrical power into the pit working areas.

The mine operations schedule includes one 12-hour day shift, seven days per week for 365 days per year. Mine productivity and costing included estimating the productive shift operating time. Non-productive time includes shift change (travel time), equipment inspections, fueling, and operator breaks. SRK estimated that the total time per shift for these items will be 1.5 hours. The scheduled production time (scheduled operating hours) was therefore estimated at 10.5 hours per shift, representing a (shift) utilization of 87.5% of the 12-hour shift period (and excludes mechanical availability and work efficiency factors).

In addition, allowances were made for work efficiencies including equipment moves (production delays while moving to other mining areas within the pit), and certain dynamic operational inefficiencies. These work efficiencies are further discussed in the respective sections for loading and hauling.

Equipment fleet mechanical availability was estimated for the various major mine equipment fleets and includes manufacturer equipment availability guarantees in some instances. Replacement equipment units for units that have reached their useful life are assumed to be new.

Table 13-10 shows the mining equipment fleet requirements for the mine plan.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 174

 

 

Table 13-10: Mining Equipment Requirements

 

Equipment

Units

  Model     Size     2021     2022     2023     2024     2025     2026     2027     2028     2029     2030     2031     2032     2033     2034     2035     2036     2037     2038     2039     2040     2041     2042     2043     2044     2045     2046     2047     2048     2049     2050     2051     2052     2053     2054     2055     2056        
Loading

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

Wheel

loader

    WA600      

8.4

yd3

 

 

    2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       1    

Wheel

loader

    WA900      

17.0

yd3

 

 

    2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       -    
Hauling                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

Haul

truck

    775G      

75

wst

 

 

    2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       1    

Haul

truck

    HD785      

102

wst

 

 

    6       6       6       7       8       8       9       6       6       7       7       7       8       8       8       9       6       6       6       6       7       7       7       8       8       9       9       9       7       7       4       3       3       4       3       -    
Other Mine Equip

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         

Track

dozer

    D9      

405

hp

 

 

    1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1    

Motor

grader

    GD655      

218

hp

 

 

    1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1    
Excavator     PC400      

306

hp

 

 

    1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1    

Water

truck

    HM400      

8,000

gal

 

 

    1       1       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2    
Support Equip

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         

Track

dozer

    D6      

150

hp

 

 

    1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1    

Wheel

loader

    980M      

425

hp

 

 

    1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1    

Haul

truck

    HM400      

44

wst

 

 

    2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2    

Fuel/Lube

truck

                    1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1    
HD mech                     1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1    

Welding

truck

                    1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1    

Flatbed

truck

                    1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1    

Pumps /

generators

                    2       2       2       2       2       2       3       3       3       3       3       4       4       4       4       4       4       4       4       4       4       4       4       4       4       4       4       4       4       4       4       4       4       4       4       4    

Personnel

bus

                    1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1       1    

Pickup

trucks

                    7       7       7       7       7       7       7       7       7       7       7       7       7       7       7       7       7       7       7       7       7       7       7       7       7       7       7       7       7       7       7       4       3       3       3       3    

Light

plant

                    6       6       6       6       6       6       6       6       6       6       6       6       6       6       6       6       6       6       6       6       6       6       6       6       6       6       6       6       6       6       6       4       2       2       2       2    

Source: SRK, 2021

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 175

 

 

13.6.2

Drilling and Blasting

MP Materials has contracted for drilling and blasting services. The contractor will provide all equipment, supplies, and labor to complete the services. It is MP Materials’ intention to continue with contractor drilling and blasting services for the foreseeable future. Accordingly, SRK has included a provision in the mining cost estimate for drilling and blasting services for the LoM timeframe.

Drilling is based on a 15 ft blasthole spacing and a 15 ft burden. The designed hole depth is 30 ft with a 4 ft subdrill. Dry blastholes will be loaded with ammonium nitrate fuel oil (ANFO). It is assumed that there will be 20% additional holes for pre-splitting, and 10% of blastholes will be loaded with emulsion (wet conditions).

The blasting contractor transports blasting accessories to site and stores these separately in a suitable explosives magazine. The blasting contractor has an explosives truck (ANFO/emulsion), which delivers bulk explosives to the open pit blast sites during daylight hours. Stemming material is 34 inch rock. The blasting contractor manages and conducts the blasting operations.

 

13.6.3

Loading

The main loading equipment fleet for the mining operations is two Komatsu WA900 front-end loaders (17.0 yd3 bucket capacity). This equipment loads a fleet of six Komatsu HD785 haul trucks (102 wet st capacity).

The main loading equipment fleet for the mining operations will be assisted by two smaller front-end loaders (8.4 yd3 Komatsu WA600 units) and two Caterpillar 775 haul trucks (75 wet st capacity).

The dry density for waste was estimated to be 0.0864 short ton/ft3 (2.77 metric tonne/m3). The dry density for ore was estimated to be 0.0976 short ton/ft3 (3.13 metric tonne/m3). Rock moisture content was estimated to be 2% on average and swell in loading blasted rock to be 40%.

Table 13-11 shows selected loading statistics for the loading units when operating in waste.

Table 13-11: Loading Statistics by Unit Type in Waste

 

Equipment Type   Unit   

Loader

(Komatsu WA900)

    

Loader

(Komatsu WA600)

 
Bucket Size   yd3      17.0        8.4  
Matched Truck Rated Size   wet st      102        102  
Number of Passes(1)   pass      4        6  
Total Truck Loading Time   min      2.5        34.5  
Moving and Delay Time   min/op hr      10        12  
Waste Prod. Per Unit (100% Available)   dry short ton/op hr        1,986        1,010  

(1): Average 2% moisture assumed.

Source: SRK, 2021

The total truck loading times included a truck spotting (initial positioning of the trucks for loading) time of 50 seconds.

Table 13-12 shows selected loading productivity information in waste for the planned loading equipment.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 176

 

 

Table 13-12: Loading Productivities by Unit Type in Waste

 

Equipment Type   Unit   

Loader

  (Komatsu WA900)

    

Loader

  (Komatsu WA600)

 
Waste Prod. per Unit (100% Available)   dry t/op hr      1,986        1,010  
Planned Operating Hours per Shift   scheduled op hrs        10.5        10.5  
Planned Operating Hours per Year   scheduled op hrs        4,380        4,380  
Estimated Mechanical Availability   op hrs %      85%        85%  
Actual Operating Hours per Year   op hrs      3,258        3,258  
Annual Waste Production Capacity per Unit   dry million st/yr      6.5        3.3  

Source: SRK, 2021

As part of the mining operations, an allowance was made for re-handling fine ore between the crusher and the mill with Komatsu WA600 loaders and Caterpillar 775 haul trucks. The same fleet also will be used to load and haul ore from longer-term ore stockpiles to the RoM area.

 

13.6.4

Hauling

Waste is hauled to the waste dumps. Ore is hauled to RoM stockpiles close to the primary crusher or, alternatively, to long-term stockpiles.

The main hauling equipment fleet for the pit mining operations is composed of 102 wet short ton capacity haul trucks (Komatsu HD785). The hauling equipment for moving ore from the long-term ore stockpiles consists of two Caterpillar 775 haul trucks.

The Maptek Vulcan™ haulage module was used to calculate the cycle times and distances. Routes were drawn from every bench for each pit phase to the destinations, and one-way distances reported.

Various haul profiles were developed for different time periods, and haulage cycle times from the pits were estimated for waste and ore. Base haul cycle times were estimated using the software, and these were factored for practical operational hauling aspects to reflect realistic cycle times.

Truck spot, load, and dump times were then added to the factored haul cycle times to make up total haul cycle times. Spot and loading times used were taken the loading unit time estimates.

Table 13-13 shows selected hauling productivity information for waste haulage.

Table 13-13: Hauling Statistics by Unit Type in Waste

 

Hauling Equipment Type    Unit    Komatsu HD785    Caterpillar 775
Rated Truck Size    wet st    102    75
Truck Fill Factor by Weight    Wet Tonnage Basis %    100%    100%
Typical Total Truck Loading Time (1)    min    2.50    3.50
Total Truck Dumping Time    min    1.20    1.20
Hauling Efficiency Factor    %    Variable
90% to 100%
   Variable
90% to 100%
Production per Unit (100% Available)    st/op hr    Variable based

on haul profile

   Variable based

on haul profile

(1) Includes truck spotting time; Komatsu HD785 loading with Komatsu WA900 and Cat 785 loading with Komatsu WA 600.

Source: SRK, 2021

Table 13-14 summarizes the factored truck haulage cycle times and corresponding one-way haul distances from the pit for each year. These cycle times are the total truck cycle times and include truck spotting and loading times.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 177

 

 

Table 13-14: Pit Haulage Cycle Times (minutes)

 

Year              Waste                    Ore       
 2021          13.1        18.0     
2022        16.5        20.0     
2023        17.9        21.8     
2024        21.0        22.3     
2025        23.6        22.7     
2026        25.5        23.5     
2027        27.6        24.0     
2028        17.1        19.6     
2029        17.9        23.3     
2030        19.7        24.3     
2031        20.3        23.0     
2032        22.6        20.1     
2033        23.1        18.9     
2034        25.5        20.6     
2035        27.9        23.5     
2036        26.9        24.7     
2037        17.1        25.4     
2038        18.2        24.4     
2039        17.0        24.3     
2040        17.8        25.4     
2041        20.4        25.0     
2042        21.4        23.7     
2043        22.1        23.7     
2044        22.9        25.3     
2045        24.0        26.5     
2046        25.2        28.2     
2047        26.3        27.9     
2048        27.8        25.7     
2049        28.8        25.6     
2050        30.6        27.4     
2051        32.1        29.1     
2052        33.1        30.2     
2053        34.4        31.7     
2054        35.8        33.1     
2055        37.8        34.3     

Note: Total factored haul truck cycle times including spotting, dumping, and estimated hauling inefficiency.

Source: SRK, 2021

Additionally, haul trucks (Cat 775) will haul ore from long-term stockpiles to the RoM area and fine ore from the crusher to the mill.

Table 13-15 shows selected hauling productivity information for the hauling equipment.

Table 13-15: Hauling Productivities

 

Metric    Unit    Value     
Production per Unit (100% Available)   

st/op hr

  

Variable

  

                             

Planned Operating Hours per Shift   

scheduled op hrs

  

10.5

  
Planned Operating Hours per Year   

scheduled op hrs

  

4,380

  
Estimated Mechanical Availability   

%

  

Variable from 88% to 93%

  
Actual Operating Hours per Year   

op hrs

  

3,373 to 3,564

  
Annual Production Capacity per Unit   

million st/yr

  

Variable based on haul profile

  

Source: SRK, 2021

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 178

 

 

Truck hauling productivities were calculated for each year of the mining operations and were used to estimate respective fleet hauling operating hours required, which were then used as the basis for determining the truck fleet requirements.

 

13.6.5

Auxiliary Equipment

Other major mining operations support equipment was previously shown in Table 13-10. The Caterpillar D9 track dozer is used for drill site preparation, road and ramp development, and maintenance of loading areas and waste dumps. The grader and water trucks maintain ramps, haul roads, and operating surfaces. The excavator performs site development work including pioneering and drainage diversion ditch development. The major mining equipment fleet size for roads and dumps is based on the general production level and allowance for general site conditions (including annual precipitation).

Annual operating hours were estimated for all of the major mining support equipment units, in general, between 1,629 and 3,258 operating hours per unit per year were scheduled for the mining operations.

The Caterpillar D6 track dozer is used for handling paste tailings. Other mining equipment involved in the handling of the paste tailings includes a Caterpillar 980M loader and two Komatsu HM400 articulated dump trucks (ADT) which will haul the paste to the tailings area for the dozer to then place.

Mining support equipment includes equipment maintenance units such as a fuel/lube truck, which delivers to equipment in the field from the fuel station, heavy duty mechanics’ truck, and welders’ truck.

Mine site operations and development utilize a flatbed truck, various moveable generators/pumps, light plants, transport van, and various service pickup trucks.

Dewatering is required for the pit. A combination of precipitation falling within the outer perimeter of the pit (normally only a few inches of rain per year) and groundwater inflows into the pit account for the total volume of water that is handled by the dewatering equipment.

 

13.6.6

Mining Operations and Maintenance Labor

The mine has salaried staff for mine administration, supervision of mine operations, supervision of mine equipment maintenance, and for technical services (geology and mining departments). These positions are on a permanent day shift. Operations employees fill mining production, mining support functions, and mining equipment maintenance positions.

The mine administration and operations supervision staff totals six positions, and the technical services staff totals five positions. The total staff includes 11 positions. The operations, mine equipment maintenance, and technical services positions include:

 

   

Mine administration includes the mine manager.

 

   

Mine operations include two shift foremen.

 

   

Mobile maintenance includes the maintenance superintendent and maintenance planner.

 

   

An administrative assistant

 

   

Mine geology includes the geologist and the senior geologist.

 

   

Mine engineering includes the senior mine engineer, mine planner and surveyor.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 179

 

 

Equipment operator labor positions are based on the number of mining equipment units required, and on the assumption that some of the operators are cross-trained. When some of the operators are not required to be on one type of heavy equipment unit, they will be able to operate another.

Operator positions are estimated for each year of operation. Required loading, hauling, and other fleet equipment operators are based on the annual operating hours required. The operations assigned to the mining department also include the paste tailings loading, crusher operation, loading, hauling, and road/dump maintenance. Estimated annual wages include overtime allowances and burdens (33%).

A maintenance group is staffed with mobile equipment mechanics, electricians, welders, and other maintenance personnel. Maintenance man-hours are approximately 40% of major mining equipment man-hours.

The mining operations and maintenance labor requirements are shown in Table 13-16. The peak number of operations and maintenance personnel is 68, which occurs in 2048.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 180

 

 

Table 13-16: Mining Operations and Maintenance Labor Requirements

 

Category   2021     2022     2023     2024     2025     2026     2027     2028     2029     2030     2031     2032     2033     2034     2035     2036     2037     2038     2039     2040     2041     2042     2043     2044     2045     2046     2047     2048     2049     2050     2051     2052     2053     2054     2055     2056        

Loading Operators

    6       6       6       6       6       6       6       6       6       6       6       6       6       6       6       6       6       6       6       6       6       6       6       6       6       6       6       6       4       4       4       4       4       4       4       2    

Truck Drivers

    14       16       16       18       20       22       22       16       16       18       18       20       20       20       22       22       16       18       16       18       18       20       20       20       22       22       22       24       20       18       14       12       12       12       12       2    

Other Mine Equipment  

    7       7       9       9       9       9       9       9       9       9       9       9       9       9       9       9       9       9       9       9       9       9       9       9       9       9       9       9       9       9       9       7       7       7       7       7          

Support Activities

    15       15       15       15       15       15       15       15       15       15       15       15       15       15       15       15       15       15       15       15       15       15       15       15       15       15       15       15       15       15       15       15       15       15       15       15    

Total Mining Ops

    42       44       46       48       50       52       52       46       46       48       48       50       50       50       52       52       46       48       46       48       48       50       50       50       52       52       52       54       48       46       42       38       38       38       38       26    

Maintenance

                                                                                                                                                 

Senior Mech/Elec

    3       3       4       4       4       4       4       3       4       4       4       4       4       4       4       4       4       4       4       4       4       4       4       4       4       4       4       5       4       4       3       2       2       2       2       1    

Mech/Elec

    4       5       5       6       6       6       6       5       5       5       5       6       6       6       6       6       5       5       5       5       5       6       6       6       6       6       6       6       6       5       4       3       3       3       3       1    

Assistant Mech

    1       1       2       2       2       2       2       1       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       2       1       1       1       1       1       -    

Total Maintenance

    8       9       11       12       12       12       12       9       11       11       11       12       12       12       12       12       11       11       11       11       11       12       12       12       12       12       12       13       12       11       8       6       6       6       6       2    

Total

    51       54       58       61       63       65       65       56       58       60       60       63       63       63       65       65       58       60       58       60       60       63       63       63       65       65       65       68       61       58       50       44       44       44       44       28    

Note: Support activities include paste tailings handling and crusher operations

Source: SRK, 2021

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 181

 

 

14

Processing and Recovery Methods

 

14.1

Historic Production

Over a 50-year operating history MP Material’s predecessor companies successfully produced bastnaesite flotation concentrates on a continuous basis for sale and/or further on-site processing. Table 14-1 presents the historic mill production from 1980 to 2002. During this period REO recovery ranged from about 52 to 69% from ore that that ranged from 7.18 to 9.47% TREO.

Table 14-1: Historic Mill Production, 1980 to 2002

 

Year   

Milled

(st)

    

Mill Feed Grade

(TREO %)

    

REO Recovery

(%)

    

Flotation Concentrate

(lb TREO)

      

2002

     183,487        7.91        67.0        2,616,000     

2001

     175,010        8.09        62.8        17,845,000     

2000

     No operation                    

1999

     No operation                    

1998

     321,000                    

1997

     424,000        8.43        57.5        41,117,711     

1996

     544,000        --        --        42,513,000     

1995

     537,000        9.01        52.0        49,029,000     

1994

     508,000        8.68        56.4        49,726,403     

1993

     433,000        8.31        55.3        39,722,150     

1992

     409,000        8.80        60.4        42,800,327     

1991

     336,344        8.74        59.8        35,143,870     

1990

     480,161        8.81        60.2        50,943,008     

1989

     418,446        8.96        62.2        46,613,913     

1988

     221,764        9.74        60.5        26,135,080     

1987

     358,000        9.31        58.4        38,962,866     

1986

     225,000        9.47        57.3        24,414,453     

1985

     253,000        8.15        75.6        31,193,018     

1984

     543,354        7.82        68.9        58,176,586     

1983

     371,252        7.85        67.3        39,224,489     

1982

     391,417        7.30        69.0        38,581,897     

1981

     370,207        7.43        68.4        37,659,763     

1980

     360,068        7.18        68.2        35,243,503     

Source: Mountain Pass Monthly Operational Reports, 1980 through 2002

 

14.2

Current Operations

MP Materials initiated the operation of a 2,000 t/d flotation concentrator during December 2017. The concentrator flowsheet includes crushing, grinding, rougher/scavenger flotation, cleaner flotation, concentrate thickening and filtration, and tailings thickening and filtration followed by dry stack tailings disposal. The generalized process flowsheet is shown in Figure 14-1, and each unit operation is briefly discussed in this section. Site infrastructure that supports the processing operations (e.g., power and water supply) is discussed in Section 15.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 182

 

 

LOGO

Source: MP Materials, 2021

Mining 3-Stage Crushing Miling

Figure 14-1: MP Materials Concentrator Flowsheet

Crushing

RoM ore is truck-hauled and stockpiled at the crusher in three separate stockpiles dependent upon grade. A front-end loader pulls from each stockpile as needed to achieve a target ore blend grade of approximately 8% to 9% TREO. The blended ore is crushed through a three-stage crushing circuit that includes a Svedala jaw crusher and two Terex cone crushers (MVP-380). Ore is crushed at the rate of 180 st per hour to produce a final -3/8 inch crushed product that is stockpiled in multiple 20,000 st stockpiles.

Grinding

Crushed ore is truck-hauled to stockpiles beside the concentrator and then trammed with a front-end loader to the ore feed hopper from which it is conveyed to the grinding circuit. The grinding circuit consists of a 3.8 m diameter by 7.1 m EGL ball mill (2,500 horsepower (hp)), which is operated in a closed circuit with a cluster of Cavex-Weir cyclones to produce a final grind size of 80% passing (P80) 45 microns (µm).

Reagent Conditioning and Flotation

The cyclone overflow from the grinding circuit is advanced to a four—stage conditioning circuit in which the required flotation reagents are sequentially conditioned at 135°F. The mineral collectors are added in the second and third conditioner. Froth modifiers are stage-added to the fourth conditioner. The conditioned slurry is then advanced to the rougher/ rougher scavenger flotation circuit, which consists of two banks of tank cells. The resulting rougher/scavenger flotation concentrate is then advanced to multiple stages of cleaner/cleaner scavenger flotation. The final cleaner flotation concentrate is thickened to over 70% solids in a 35 ft diameter thickener and then filtered to about 8% moisture in a 1,500 by 1,500 millimeter (mm) 20/16 Siemens filter press. The filtered concentrate is hauled to a storage area pending sampling and bagging for shipment. The rougher and cleaner scavenger flotation tailings are combined as the final concentrator tailing, which is pumped to the paste tailings plant where

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 183

 

 

it is filtered to about 15% moisture and then truck-hauled to the northwest tailing disposal facility (NWTDF).

Sampling and Bagging

The bastnaesite flotation concentrate is manually loaded into 1.5-tonne Super Sacks with a small front-end loader. Each loader bucket of concentrate is sampled multiple times with a pole sampler prior to being added to the Super Sack, and a sample representing the contents of each Super Sack is sent to the analytical laboratory for analyses and moisture content determination. Each Super Sack is weighed with a scale as it is being loaded, and the final weight of each Super Sack is recorded. Concentrate is shipped from site in containers, and each container contains 13 Super Sacks.

Paste Tailings Plant

Concentrator tailings are pumped to the paste plant, which is remotely located near the dry stack NWTDF. At the paste tailings plant, the concentrator tailings are thickened to about 65% solids and then filtered in three fully automatic filter presses (Siemens 1,500 mm by 2,000 mm 60/50) to about 15% moisture. In order to achieve a clear thickener overflow, a coagulant is added, followed by the addition of a slightly anionic flocculant at the thickener mix box. tailings are conveyed to a stockpile outside the paste tailings plant and then hauled to the NWTDF, which is discussed in Section 15.

14.2.1  Metallurgical Control and Accounting

Ore feed tonnage to the concentrator is obtained from a belt scale on the ball mill feed conveyor, and operational performance of the concentrator is monitored by manually sampling the feed, final flotation concentrate, and final tailings every two hours, which are then prepared and analyzed by x-ray fluorescence (XRF) for %TREO. This information is used to monitor the concentrator performance and to make any required adjustments to the process. This information is also used to calculate a metallurgical TREO recovery and metric tonnes of bastnaesite flotation concentrate produced.

Final flotation concentrate production is weighed and sampled as it is being loaded into 1.5-tonne Super Sacks for shipment, and a concentrate sample representing each shipment lot is assayed at the on-site laboratory using a total digestion/titration technique to determine %CeO2 content. Based on experience, MP Materials has determined that bastnaesite at Mountain Pass contains approximately 50% CeO2, and from this they are able to calculate the total %TREO content of the concentrate. There is reasonable agreement between the metallurgical TREO recovery reported by the concentrator (which is determined by XRF analyses of concentrator samples) and packaged recovery (which is determined by actual shipments of TREO concentrate).

14.2.2  Plant Performance

Plant performance for 2020 is shown in Table 14-2, and plant performance for 2021 (January – September) is shown in Table 14-3. During 2020, the concentrator processed 660,950 metric tonnes (mt) of ore at an average grade of 8.7% TREO and produced 69,430 mt of bastnaesite concentrate at an average grade of 60.6% TREO. Overall TREO recovery averaged 66.8%. During 2021 (January to September), the concentrator processed 519,684 mt of ore at an average grade of 8.9% TREO and produced 57,154 mt of bastnaesite concentrate at an average grade of 61.2% TREO. Overall TREO recovery during 2021 (January to September) has averaged 69.8%. Concentrator performance has continued to improve since initiation of operations in 2017. MP Materials attributes the improved performance during this period to the following initiatives:

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 184

 

 

   

Introduction of certain new reagents

   

Installation of a boiler during April 2019, which has improved flotation kinetics, allowed the reagent conditioning and flotation circuit to run at a higher constant temperature and

   

Prevented the buildup of organisms harmful to flotation selectivity in the reclaim water

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 185

 

 

Table 14-2: Concentrator Production Summary - 2020

 

Quarter    Feed      Packaged Concentrate      Packaged TREO       
   Tonnes      TREO (%)      TREO Tonnes      Tonnes      Moisture (%)      TREO (%)      Tonnes      Recovery (%)       

Q1

     168,165        8.7        14,688        18,180        8.7        58.2        9,662        65.8     

Q2

     163,396        8.7        14,158        16,518        8.2        61.7        9,364        66.1     

Q3

     159,940        8.9        14,253        17,961        8.0        61.7        10,197        71.5     

Q4

     169,449        8.6        14,635        16,771        8.4        60.8        9,338        63.8     

Total

     660,950        8.7        57,734        69,430        8.3        60.6        38,561        66.8     

Source: MP Materials, 2021

Table 14-3: Concentrator Production Summary - 2021 (Jan -Sept)

 

Quarter    Feed      Packaged Concentrate      Packaged TREO       
   Tonnes      TREO (%)      TREO Tonnes      Tonnes      Moisture (%)      TREO (%)      Tonnes      Recovery (%)       

Q1

     169,032        8.9        14,988        17,782        8.6        60.6        9,849        65.7     

Q2

     166,593        8.8        14,644        18,253        7.9        61.3        10,305        70.4     

Q3

     184,059        8.9        16,442        21,119        7.8        61.7        11,998        73.0     

Total

     519,684        8.9        46,074        57,154        8.1        61.2        32,152        69.8     

Source: MP Materials, 2021

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 186

 

 

14.2.3 Significant Factors

The following significant factors for the crushing and concentrating operations have been identified:

 

   

MP Materials conducted flotation studies to evaluate TREO recovery versus ore grade and developed a mathematical relationship to estimate overall TREO recovery versus ore grade. This relationship has been used to estimate TREO recovery from lower grade ores later in the mine life.

   

MP Materials has operated a flotation concentrator since December 2017 to recover a bastnaesite concentrate that is currently shipped to China for further processing.

   

Significant improvements in concentrator performance have occurred since inception of operations, which are attributed primarily to the installation of a boiler that has enabled flotation to be conducted at a constant higher temperature, as well as new reagent testing and blending of historically problematic ores.

   

During 2020 TREO recovery averaged 66.8% into concentrates containing an average of 60.6% TREO.

   

During 2021 (January – September) TREO recovery has averaged 69.8% into concentrates averaging 61.2% TREO, reflecting ongoing operational improvements in the concentrator.

 

14.3

Individual Rare Earth Separations

The discussion in Section 14.6 has been prepared by SGS. MP Materials has determined that SGS meets the qualifications specified under the definition of qualified person in 17 CFR § 229.1300.

MP Materials plans to produce four main products initially: PrNd oxide, lanthanum carbonate, cerium chloride, and an SEG+ concentrate. The specifications are as shown in Table 14-4.

Table 14-4: Product Specifications

 

Product    Compound      w/w % TREO      Purity   
PrNd Oxide    75% Nd2O3 + 25% Pr6O11 (+/-2%)      99%      99.5%+ PrNd/TREO   
SEG+ Oxalate/Concentrate    -      25% to 45%      99% SEG+/TREO   
Lanthanum Carbonate    La2(CO3)3 + La2O3      99%      99% La/TREO   
Cerium Chloride    LaCeCl3      45%      85% Ce/TREO   

Note: w/w % is the weight concentration of the solution.

Source: MP Materials, 2021

The current rare earth concentrate production of approximately 42,000 metric tonnes in the trailing twelve months September 2021 supports this plan.

To achieve the individual production and purity targets, the process flow will combine traditional processing methods applied successfully at Mountain Pass for decades with unique circuits designed for efficiency or to reduce environmental impact.

Figure 14-2 serves as the basis for the rare earth distribution in the concentrate being fed into the downstream separations facilities. These values are based on recent concentrate production and historical values. The rare earth distribution in the ore coming out of the mine, and the resulting concentrate produced from milling & flotation, has been very consistent throughout the decades operations at Mountain Pass. These values fall within recently and historically reported values.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 187

 

 

Flotation Concentrate - REO Distribution       

Lanthanum

     32.3%     

Cerium

     50.2%     

Prase odymium+Neodymium

     15.7%     

SEG+

     1.8%     

Source: MP Materials, 2021

Figure 14-2: Rare Earth Distribution in Flotation Concentrate

Concentrate Thickening & Filtration: The Stage 2 optimization will install a new like-in-kind filter press and ancillary equipment. This modification is being added primarily for material handling considerations rather than for technical ones. The existing filter press – from which the new press is designed – is currently in successful operation. However, the handling of semi-damp filter cake on a batch basis into the dryer was expected to have created a challenge in its existing location. Hence a redundant press was designed to minimize conveyance risks.

Concentrate Drying & Calcining: The direct-fire natural gas dryer was designed to manage the batch flow of concentrate from the filter press. The function of low temperature drying is to reduce the cake moisture from 7% to 10% down to less than 1%. This dried material will feed a storage bin that will continuously feed the electric fired calciner. The multiple, electric heating elements are designed to maximize temperature control and stability throughout the rotary kiln so that the targeted LOI (loss on ignition) is achieved in the concentrate prior to leaching. The discharge of the calciner will include a cooling screw and storage and cooling tanks with up to two days of capacity. There will also be the ability to automatically package calcined concentrate.

Leach and Scrubber: The concentrate will be pneumatically conveyed into a dissolution tank where it will be cooled to ambient temperature in chilled water. Temperature will be maintained by application of a glycol chiller system. The concentrate will be continuously fed into the existing Leach 2.0 reactor tanks where HCl will be added at different concentrations to maximize trivalent REO recovery and cerium rejection. Temperature will be maintained by the chiller and heat exchangers. The additional mass flow as compared to the predecessor system and the insolubility of the cerium results in the production of chlorine gas that will be scrubbed using the new, larger scrubber system combined with an existing venturi system.

Leach Thickening & Filtration: A new three stage countercurrent decantation tank system will be installed. This installation mirrors the leaching process from the 1970’s. The countercurrent motion of overflow and underflow and multiple flocculent addition points are designed to ensure clean overflow and minimal loss of soluble REEs to the underflow. The final underflow slurry will pass through a filter press. The cake will then be washed to remove remaining rare earth chloride solution and then either packaged for sale or reslurried and comingled with beneficiation tailings for disposal.

Impurity Removal: Removal of soluble impurities begins in this block that is being recommissioned with minimal change Initially, the solution will pass through three existing ion exchange columns containing a standard resin. Substantially all iron and uranium will be removed and sent to the brine recovery circuit. The solution will then undergo pH adjustment to remove certain non-REE impurities. The solid will precipitate in a new thickener to replace temporary assets previously operated. A filter aid

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 188

 

 

will be added from a new bulk handling system. This addition will increase the propensity to settle and the enhance the ease of filtration. To capture all fine solids as well as minimize the production of hazardous waste, a new pressure leaf filter will be installed prior to existing cartridge filters. The new filter press will be installed in place of previously operated temporary filter presses. In the next step, REE will be separated from the from remaining impurities. The waste will be sent to brine recovery and the high-concentrate REE feed will go to SXH.

Brine Purification: Brine feeds from impurity removal stages, various finished product solid/liquid separation steps, and water treatment plant will converge at the existing brine purification circuit. Two existing thickeners will be operated with soda ash, flocculant, and caustic soda to adjust pH and maximize settling of impurities. A second filter press, relocated from another use at Mountain Pass, will be installed to help balance the filtration needs. A new pressure leaf filter will be installed to assist in removal of any fines from the filtrate feeding the crystallizer, to which the clean brine will be sent.

SXH: The purified rare earths will be pumped to the existing SXH circuit. SXH is a series of small mixer/settlers utilized to perform a bulk extraction of heavy rare earths (from samarium and heavier) from the light rare earths (La, Ce, Pr, Nd). Minor upgrades are planned to the existing assets to increase automation control. The cleaner feed stream supplying SXH is expected to ensure a cleaner separation between Nd and Sm.

SEG+ Finishing: The pregnant solution from SXH will contain the SEG+ chloride solution. This will be sent to the existing finishing circuit in the “Specialty Plant.” An oxalic solution will be added to the SEG+ chloride solution to produce SEG+ oxalate. The oxalate will be maintained in an agitated tank before passing through a centrifuge. The thick slurry will then be washed, dried, and packaged in recommissioned, existing assets. The mother liquor will be returned to the leach circuit as low acid solution or sent to brine purification for neutralization.

SXD: The raffinate from SXH will travel to the existing SXD circuit. The custom-designed mixer/settlers will ensure clean separation between PrNd and La and the remaining Ce. Certain additions are being made to allow for the subsequent production of high-purity (greater than 99.5%) lanthanum product and a greater than 80% Ce (20% La) cerium chloride product to be produced. The cerium product solution will be directly packaged as PhosFIX from this circuit. No additional changes are planned.

PrNd Finishing: The PrNd finishing circuit is being constructed to ensure maximum on-specification production of PrNd oxide. No new technology is being implemented, but redundance and enhanced quality control capability are included in the design. The initial step will be the precipitation reactors. The new reagent handling system will produce the precipitant solution which will mix with the PrNd chloride solution. This mixture then feeds a new 2-tank CCD thickener to ensure maximum PrNd recovery with maximum disentrainment of chloride from rare earths. The rare earth underflow will feed a belt filter equipped with multiple and washing steps to remove remaining chlorides. The cake will then be repulped in RO water and fed to a new filter press. The filter cake will feed a new gas-fired rotary dryer. The dry product will be pneumatically conveyed into a new rotary calciner to produce the oxide. Finally, the cooled oxide will be automatically packaged. At each step there will be QA/QC tanks, hold points, and automatic blending capability. Between the dyer and the calciner will be a large rotary mixer to allow for blended “batches” to be thoroughly mixed to meet specifications.

La Finishing: The La finishing circuit will start with the lanthanum chloride from the SXD ancillary strip section. This solution will be pumped to the existing precipitation tanks in the specialty plant. Here soda ash solution from the central tank farm’s new soda ash system will be mixed to produce a lanthanum

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 189

 

 

carbonate precipitate. This solution will be pumped to the new 2-tank CCD thickener system to remove the lanthanum carbonate in the underflow while minimizing REE loss to the overflow. The carbonate will undergo the same belt filter, repulp, filter press steps as the PrNd, using identical assets. The filter cake will be fed to a new rotary dryer. The dry carbonate can be packaged directly. A minority of customers may prefer lanthanum oxide over lanthanum carbonate, so new pneumatic conveyance line will be installed to transport the dry carbonate to the existing lanthanum calciner. The existing feed system is being modified to account for the improved handling conditions (dry carbonate vs wet cake).

Brine Evaporation: The clean brine from the brine purification process will feed the existing brine evaporation system. This process is being upgraded to manage the new service to feed the crystallizer (rather than chlor-alkali installation). The four heat effects will concentrate the brine to 300 g/L NaCl from approximately 100 g/L NaCl, thereby maximizing the crystallizer capacity.

Salt Crystallizing: A thermal vapor recompression (TVR) crystallizer is being installed to evaporate the high-concentration brine, remove the salt, and condense the high-purity water for re-use. The unit is designed to operate using the excess steam from the combined heat and power plant (CHP), thereby reducing the energy footprint.

Water Softening / RO Water Treatment: The existing Water Treatment Plant (WTP) was in operation from 2012-2015 and was recommissioned in fall 2021. It has the capability to make triple-pass RO water from potable water, with the retentate discharge being sent to brine recovery. RO water from this plant can be used to feed the leach, SX, product finishing, and CHP requirements. It is expected that once the crystallizer is operational, condensate from the crystallizer and CHP will provide the vast majority (possibly more than 100%) of pure water needs, resulting in minimal use of the WTP.

CHP: the CHP operated safely and reliably from 2012-2015. It has undergone a large recommissioning effort overseen by a specialty power plant recommissioning group. As of fall 2021 it is operating in a performance testing and calibration phase. In addition, a new load bank, back-up generator, and dump condenser are being installed. The plant was put into full service at end of 2021. The two single-cycle generators with heat recovery steam generators (HRSG) are each capable of producing 12-13MW. The two turbines in operation will more than adequately cover the power needs of the site while producing sufficient steam for the crystallizer, flotation plant, and various other heating needs across the facility.

Stage 2 Related Infrastructure: In addition to the captive power and water treatment plant, general site services include a centralized bulk reagent tank farm with storage for HCl and NaOH. Bulk handling for soda ash and other reagents are being buttressed as part of the Stage 2 project.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 190

 

 

15

Infrastructure

The Project is in San Bernardino County, California, north of and adjacent to Interstate 15 (I-15), approximately 15 mi southwest of the California-Nevada state line and 30 mi northeast of Baker, California (Figure 3-2).

The nearest major city is Las Vegas, Nevada, located 50 mi to the northeast on I-15. The Project lies immediately north of I-15 at Mountain Pass and is accessed by the Bailey Road Exit (Exit 281 of I-15), which leads directly to the main gate. The mine is approximately 15 mi southwest of the California-Nevada state line in an otherwise undeveloped area, enclosed by surrounding natural topographic features.

Outside services include industrial maintenance contractors, equipment suppliers and general service contractors. Access to qualified contractors and suppliers is excellent due to the proximity of population centers such as Las Vegas, Nevada as well as Elko, Nevada (an established large mining district) and Phoenix, Arizona (servicing the copper mining industry).

Access to the site, as well as site haul roads and other minor roads are fully developed and controlled by MP Materials. There is no public access through the Project area. All public access roads that lead to the Project are gated at the property boundary.

MP Materials has fully developed an operating infrastructure for the Project in support of extraction and concentrating activities. A manned security gate is located on Bailey Road for providing required site-specific safety briefings and monitoring personnel entry and exit to the Project.

The site has a 12-kV electrical powerline that supplies the full power needs of the Project in its current configuration. The site also uses piped liquid natural gas (LNG) to supply a rental boiler used to provide steam for the concentrator plant. Development activities completed by the prior Project owner included the construction of a Combined Heat and Power (CHP) or co-generation (cogen) power facility to address the increased electrical demands associated with the process flow sheet utilized at that time. This CHP plant is in the final stages of being recommissioned and is expected to provide for all the electricity and steam needs for all process areas of the site in early 2022, replacing the need for grid power and the rental boiler.

Water is supplied through active water wells located eight miles west of the project. Fire systems are supplied by separate fire water tanks and pumps.

The site has all facilities required for operation, including the open pit, concentrator, access and haul roads, explosives storage, fuel tanks and fueling systems, warehouse, security guard house and perimeter fencing, tailings filter plant, tailings storage area, waste rock storage area, administrative and office buildings, surface water control systems, evaporation ponds, miscellaneous shops, truck shop, laboratory, multiple laydown areas, power supply, water supply, gas-fired boiler and support equipment, waste handling bins and temporary storage locations, and a fully developed communications system.

Site logistics are straightforward with the flotation concentrates shipped in super sacks within a shipping container. The shipping containers are hauled by truck to the port of Los Angeles, which is about 4.5 hours from the mine site. At the port the containers are loaded onto a container ship and shipped to the final customers. Upon commissioning of the refining facilities and production of separated rare earth products, super sacks and/or drums destined for overseas markets will continue to be trucked to the port of Los Angeles, while products for domestic consumption will be shipped by a combination of truck

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 191

 

 

and rail either packaged or in bulk. Rail transshipment infrastructure are available in Henderson, NV and Barstow, CA less than 2 hours drive from the site.

 

15.1

Access and Local Communities

The Project is located in San Bernardino County, California, north of and adjacent to Interstate 15 (I-15), approximately 15 mi southwest of the California-Nevada state line and 30 mi northeast of Baker, California. The site is accessed via I-15 and leaving the highway at exit 281 onto Bailey Road north of the interstate for less than 1 mile.

The majority of the employees live in Las Vegas, Nevada 50 miles northeast of the site via I-15. Las Vegas is a major metropolitan area with approximately 650,000 people in the city and 2.2 million in the metropolitan area. Major services to support the Project including vendors, contractors, and services are available in Las Vegas as well as approximately four hours southwest in the Los Angeles (LA), California metropolitan area. Baker California, population of approximately 700, is the next nearest town 37 mi southwest along highway toward LA on I-15.

Air access to the Project is provided at McCarran International Airport located approximately 47 mi northeast of the project in south Las Vegas. Other airports are available in the Los Angeles area.

Employees drive or carpool to work and park in the company parking lots on site. Full emergency facilities are available in Las Vegas with emergency dispatch in Primm, NV and Baker, CA.

 

15.2

Site Facilities and Infrastructure

15.2.1  On-Site Facilities

The Project has fully developed operating facilities and facilities necessary to support the current operations. The general layout of the facilities is shown in Figure 15-1.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 192

 

 

LOGO

Concentrator Facility

Source: MP Materials, 2020

Figure 15-1: Facilities General Location

The currently operating facilities include:

 

   

Maintenance shop

 

   

Truck shop

 

   

Warehouse

 

   

Administrative building/offices

 

   

Change house

 

   

Explosives storage

 

   

Electrical shop

 

   

Fuel storage tanks and fueling system

 

   

Multiple laydown areas

 

   

Core storage

 

   

Water evaporation ponds

 

   

Mineral processing facilities

 

   

Natural gas fired boiler and associated facilities

 

   

Laboratory

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 193

 

 

   

Fuel storage

 

   

Fire system including fire tank and pumps

 

   

Water supply system

 

   

Tire repair area

 

   

Tailings filter plant

 

   

Lined tailings storage facilities

 

   

Waste rock storage

 

   

Security building and site fencing

The site also has significant equipment that was used in the previous operation including major processing equipment, powerhouse, backup generator and other facilities. SRK notes that these are not required for the current operation, but many are expected to be recommissioned as part of MP Materials’ plans to restart separation and finishing of individual rare earth oxides in 2022.

The LoM plan will require the relocation in 2036 of the paste tailings plant and the water tanks currently northeast of the pit highwall near the concentration plant. Additionally, the crusher will be relocated in 2027 to allow the pit to expand to the north. Capital cost provisions are included in the economic model for these relocations.

15.2.2  Explosives Storage and Handling Facilities

The site has two explosives storage locations. Contractors manage the ANFO storage and emulsion storage locations.

15.2.3  Service Roads

The Project has a completely developed system of on-site access roads to all process facilities, tailings storage area, and a system of auxiliary roads for the mining, processing and on-site operations.

15.2.4  Mine Operations and Support Facilities

The open pit mine has a full complement of haul roads, ramps, and auxiliary roads with access to the pit, waste storage area, shops, and crusher area.

15.2.5  Waste and Waste Handling (Non-Tailings/Waste Rock)

The Project has established waste handling procedures and does not store waste on site, except for the permitted rock storage and tailings facilities. Waste other than tailings and mine waste rock is handled as follows.

 

   

Solid Waste (non-toxic) – Waste is stored on-site in roll off containers, and a contractor hauls the containers to permitted third party landfills near Las Vegas.

   

Septic – The site has septic systems for the facilities.

   

Toxic or hazardous waste – Very little hazardous or toxic waste is generated at the Project. The small volumes of materials have a separate storage area. The materials are removed by a qualified contractor and disposed of in approved disposal areas.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 194

 

 

15.2.6  Waste Rock Handling

Mine waste rock is stored in designated mine rock storage areas. Waste rock is discussed in detail in Section 13.

15.2.7  Power Supply and Distribution

The Mountain Pass facility is currently supplied by a 12-kV line from a Southern California Edison substation 2 mi away.

During recent operations under prior ownership, a Combined Heat and Power (CHP) or co-generation (cogen) power facility was constructed to support increased power and heat demands associated with the rare earth separation facilities it operated. As of September 2021, MP Materials is not currently operating the separation facilities, and therefore the grid power and a temporary boiler are adequate to meet its current electrical and thermal energy demands. As noted above, the CHP plant was brought online in late 2021, prior to separations facility startup, in preparation for the higher steam and electric demand of the separations and finishing facilities.

15.2.8  Natural Gas

The Project has access to natural gas through an 8.6 mi, 8-inch-diameter pipeline, extending from the Kern River Gas Transmission Company mainline. It has a capacity of 24,270 dekatherms per day. A new gas meter was installed in 2021 to provide flexibility for high and low gas usage.

The operation currently receives gas via pipeline lateral to supply a rented 600 HP boiler that produces steam for heating in the concentrator for mineral processing. Prior to the addition of the low-flow meter, MP Materials supplied the rented boiler with LNG delivered by truck.

The site is in the final stages of recommissioning the CHP plant. Load balancing and performance testing will begin in October 2021. Full “Island Mode,” disconnecting the process operations from the electrical grid, commenced in early 2022.

15.2.9  Vehicle and Heavy Equipment Fuel

The site has multiple fuel storage tanks and fuel delivery systems for the large mining equipment and smaller vehicles. Fuel for the mining equipment is supplied through the mining contractor who receives the fuel from a vendor located in Las Vegas. MP Materials can contract the fuel directly in the future. There are tanks for diesel near the pit and near the processing facility. Additional tanks are used for unleaded fuel for the vehicles.

The site has several diesel and gasoline storage tanks that are for Project use. The tanks are fueled by contractor fuel trucks from Las Vegas. Tank storage is more than adequate for the Project needs.

15.2.10  Other Energy

There are several compressed air systems on the site used for process and maintenance. The site also has several small propane tanks used for miscellaneous minor heating needs at the various facilities.

15.2.11  Water Supply

MP Materials maintains and operates two water supply well fields for potable and process water. The Ivanpah well field, established in 1952, is located on private land 8 mi east of the mine site and consists

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 195

 

 

of six freshwater producing wells, three booster pumping stations, and associated pipelines. This well field is available to supply water but is currently used only to provide water to the Mojave National Preserve Ivanpah Desert Tortoise Research Facility. The Shadow Valley well field, established in 1980, is located 8 mi west of the mine site, consists of four wells of which three are on public land and one on private land, a single booster pumping station, and associated pipelines. The water supply wells are completed within coarse alluvial sediments.

The amount of freshwater consumed by the facility in 1996 was approximately 850 gpm from both wellfields. The five-year annual average between 1993 and 1997 was 795 gpm. As part of the comprehensive plan for continued operations, MP Materials placed emphasis on-site management and treatment of process water and maximizing reuse (SRK, 2010). As the water supply systems have consistently produced much larger amounts of fresh water for the facility in the past, water supply is not anticipated to be problematic.

Additional water is supplied from recovery well water from legacy operations, pit water, and natural precipitation. The site also has water storage tanks that store water for use as needed on site. The site has a net-positive site water balance with excess water evaporated as necessary in the evaporation ponds. The water supply system can be seen in Figure 15-2.

 

LOGO

Property Line Fresh Water Line

Source: Molycorp Mine Reclamation Plan Revised, 2015

Figure 15-2: Water Supply System

The site has installed surface water control drainage channels and ponds, including lined evaporation ponds and a lined tailings water control pond.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 196

 

 

15.3

Tailings Management Area

The Project handles tailings through use of a filtered tailings facility located adjacent to the pit to the north and west of the primary crushing facility and northwest of the existing open pit adjacent to the pit to the northwest and east of the overburden stockpile. The Project manages tailings through use of a filtered tailings facility that produces filtered tailings. The concentrator generates tailings that are piped to the filter plant via pipeline. The filtered tailings plant then filters the tailings to approximately 15% moisture content. The filtered tailings are moved on a conveyor to a temporary storage facility where the tailings are stacked out near the tailings plant and then loaded by front end loader (FEL) into articulated mine trucks that transport the tailings approximately 1 mile to the lined tailings facility known as the Northwest Tailings Disposal Facility (NWTDF). After the material is dumped by the trucks, a small dozer levels the tailings and prepares the material for the next truck lift.

The NWTDF is a lined containment facility that is designed to receive and store tailings material. The NWTDF at full buildout will eventually cover approximately 90 acres (36 hectares) and about the north face of the west overburden stockpile. The design capacity of the NWTDF is approximately 24 million st. The project has utilized approximately 3.6 million st of that space. The facility will have a remaining capacity of approximately 20.4 million st which will provide over 23 years of storage. The current facility covers about half the overall acreage and abuts the waste rock pile. Expansion is straightforward in the future with the addition of liner and then placement of the additional tailings. The facility design at full buildout is shown in Figure 15-3.

 

LOGO

North West Tailing Disposal Facility

Source: Molycorp Mine Reclamation Plan Revised, 2015

Figure 15-3: Northwest Tailings Disposal Facility

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 197

 

 

The tailings site was designed by Golder. MP Materials personnel have been doing design and placement reviews with Golder. There is compaction information being taken, but the program at this point is not fully developed.

MP Materials will expand the existing tailings facility to the northwest in approximately 2042 to provide an additional 13 years of storage capacity. A capital cost provision has been included in the economic model for this expansion.

 

15.4

Security

The site is controlled in its entirety by fencing with a security building and controlled access through the main gate. MP contracts with a security firm to staff the main gate and provide roving services around the perimeter of the site.

The site is fully fenced and has a restricted entry through a guard gate and building at the main entrance.

 

15.5

Communications

The site communications are fully developed and functioning, including a fiber line to site. Additionally, a strong cell phone signal is available due to placement of a third-party cell phone tower on a peak near the site. The site has telephone, internet, and all necessary infrastructure to support needed communications.

 

15.6

Logistics Requirements and Off-Site Infrastructure

 

15.6.1

Rail

Rail is not currently used by the Project. Union Pacific has a rail line located approximately 16 miles away by paved road to the east of the Project near Nipton, California. There are existing double track sections near the Nipton warehouse and loading platforms are still in place but have not been used or maintained.

 

15.6.2

Port and Logistics

It is approximately 230 miles southwest of the Project to the Port of Los Angeles. The 4.5-hour drive is on improved two and four lane highway with the majority of the trip by Interstate highway. The travel closer to LA is impacted by traffic. A primary shipping lot in the current operation includes 13 supersacks of 1.5 net metric tonnes bastnaesite concentrate each per container (approximately 19.5 metric ton net product weight per lot). MP Materials has scales at the site and also takes weight measurements on each bag. The product containers are shipped to the final customers in China by container ships.

When the separations facility is placed into operation, the various dry finished products (lanthanum, PrNd, and some SEG+) will be packaged in 1-1.5 metric tonne super sacks and shipped to both domestic and international customers. Cerium chloride product will be shipped via individual 275-gallon intermediate bulk container (IBC) totes or approximately 45,000 lb solution bulk tankers.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 198

 

 

16

Market Studies and Contracts

This section of the Technical Report Summary discusses market studies and contracts and was prepared by CRU International Limited (CRU). It is primarily based on a CRU authored preliminary market study titled “MP Materials S-K 1300 Market Study” dated January 21, 2022 (CRU, 2022). CRU prepared the preliminary market study for MP Materials. MP Materials has determined that CRU meets the qualifications specified under the definition of qualified person in 17 CFR § 229.1300.

 

16.1

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations apply to the discussion of market studies and contracts.

Table 16-1: Abbreviations for Market Studies and Contracts

 

Elements    Organizations    

Ce - Cerium

   MIIT - Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (China)    

Dy - Dysprosium

   USGS - United States Geological Survey  

Er - Erbium

   USEPA - United Stated Environmental Protection Agency  

Eu - Europium

   WTO - World Trade Organisation  

Gd - Gadolinium

   Other  

Ho - Holmium

   CAGR - compound annual growth rate  

La - Lanthanum

   EXW - ex works  

Lu - Lutetium

   FOB - free on board  

Nd - Neodymium

   GDP - gross domestic product  

Pm - Promethium

   LED - light emitting diode  

Pr - Praseodymium

   NdFeB - neodymium iron boron  

Sc - Scandium

   PrNd - Praseodymium/Neodymium mixed product  

Sm - Samarium

   NiMH - nickel metal hydride (batteries)  

Tb - Terbium

   OEM - original equipment manufacturer  

Th - Thorium

   RoW - rest of world  

Tm - Thulium

   TC/RC - treatment charge/refining charge  

Y - Yttrium

   VAT - value added tax  

Yb - Ytterbium

   xEV - electric vehicle  

U - Uranium

   Units and Measurements  

Rare earth element abbreviations

   kg - kilogram  

REE - rare earth element

   t - metric tonne  

LREE - light rare earth element

   kt - thousand tonnes  

HREE - heavy rare earth element

   Mt - million tonnes  

REO - rare earth oxide

   kt/y - kilotonnes per year  

MREO - mixed rare earth oxide

   mn - million  

TREO - total rare earth oxide

   bn - billion  

SEG - samarium europium gadolinium

   Mgal - million gallons  

Chemistry

   Mgal/d - million gallons per day  

Chloride - chemical compound containing the Cl- ion

   $ - USD (unless otherwise stated)  

Coagulant - substance which causes liquids to coagulate

      

Oxalate - C2O4

      

Oxide - chemical compound containing at least one oxygen atom

      

Source: CRU, 2022

 

16.2

Introduction

Rare Earth Elements (REE) consist of the 15 Lanthanide Elements, with atomic numbers 57 to 71, with the addition of Yttrium and in some cases Scandium. REEs occur together in ores in different

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 199

 

 

proportions, depending on the orebody. They are considered as a group because they are mined and processed together, up to the stage of REO concentrate. They then have to be chemically separated into the individual elements. This is important because the end uses of REEs are for specific individual elements. For example, the main REEs used in permanent magnets are neodymium (Nd) and praseodymium (Pr), while the main elements used in catalysts are cerium (Ce) and lanthanum (La). Because of their different end use profiles, the individual rare earth elements have different demand growth rates. However, they are supplied in fixed proportions dependent on the composition of the main orebodies. This gives rise to the so-called “basket problem”, since, if mine production is driven by the fastest growing elements, then many of the other elements will be in surplus. This issue lies at the heart of rare earth market trends and impacts the economics of each producer.

China has come to dominate global production and consumption of REE. This control was initially achieved through the economic displacement of production elsewhere in the early 1990s, but more recently has been more focused on controlling output through the development of specific industry policies, export license and quota schemes and various tax changes. Emerging rapid demand growth in magnet applications, as well as the desire to evolve non-Chinese value chains, means that this dominance is likely to erode over the coming decade. Establishing a non-China supply chain for critical materials such as rare earths is a key driving force in new capacity addition over the coming decade.

Below, CRU provides considerations on the rare earth market in terms of products produced presently and in the future by MP Materials’ Mountain Pass Rare Earth Mine and Processing Facility. Based on expected product specifications as discussed by SGS in Sections 10.4.5 and 14.6 of this Technical Report Summary which appear reasonably achievable, MP Materials will likely be able to market products at forecast prices. Note that these product specifications are based on the opinion of MP Materials and an unaffiliated third party, which in turn is based on test work and prior operations using the existing infrastructure.

All prices shown and discussed below are in REO terms, unless stated otherwise.

 

16.3

General Market Outlook

 

16.3.1

Historical Pricing

The history of rare earths prices has historically been tied on occasion with geopolitical events. For example, a political dispute caused by the collision of a Chinese trawler (the Minjinyu 5179) with Japanese Coast Guard patrol boats on the morning of September 7, 2010, resulted in the detention of the trawler’s captain for two weeks. Although it was never officially acknowledged, the export of REO products to Japan was restricted as part of the response. China’s MIIT began imposing export restrictions in 2009 (of 31kt) and tightened this further to 24.2kt in 2010, with the aim of squeezing RoW midstream players (such as NdFeB magnet producers) out of the market and replacing them with Chinese ones. This prompted a WTO case by the US, Japan and the EU, a case won in 2015.

Annualized PrNd price volatility is shown in Figure 16-1.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 200

 

 

LOGO

Annualised PrNd price volatility

Source: CRU, 2022

Figure 16-1: Annualized PrNd Price Volatility

Prices for rare earths reached record highs, with PrNd approaching values more than 10 times higher than pre-incident. This spike did cause considerable short-term investment interest in the industry, although once the political issues were resolved, prices rapidly returned to normal. Both supply and demand contracted in 2011 post the price spike, the latter as a response to demand destruction. Since that period, supply/demand has returned to a more typical gradual growth of both, with prices gradually normalizing.

In more recent years, prices have responded to demand growth. This is evident in the relative divergence of prices, with magnet metal REO price changes outstripping those of other REO due to structural demand growth in permanent magnet applications.

Prices for products sold by MP Materials are presented in terms of oxide or oxide equivalent for the sake of comparability and consistency. Concentrate prices are composites of the individual product prices and tend to follow an aggregate trend. Mixed rare earth concentrates are not as fungible as individual rare earths products.

PrNd Oxide

Five-year prices for PrNd oxide can be broken down into two trends:

1.         Relatively flat prices from 2016 to July 2020, with a minor spike in 2017.

2.         Sudden, rapid increases in price from October 2020 to date.

Since 2018, prices have more than doubled from US$50/kg to over US$100/kg to date. The rapid increase in PrNd prices is related to the growing demand for NdFeB magnets, and the relatively limited supply of PrNd oxide to produce the magnets. As new Chinese regulations and announcements have continued to cause uncertainty amongst market participants, and as the capacity for supply to keep pace with demand becomes less evident, PrNd prices have remained well above October 2020 levels.

Figure 16-2 shows PrNd oxide price history since 2016.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 201

 

 

LOGO

PrNd oxide price history

Source: CRU, 2022

Figure 16-2: PrNd Oxide Price History

SEG Oxide

The five-year history for SEG oxide presents broadly the same trend as that for PrNd oxide, though prices have increased from US$7.5/kg to US$25/kg, marking a 300% increase in price. SEG oxides with specifications of MP Materials’ intended product mix have a higher sales price, as will be discussed. The trend is nevertheless the same as most quoted SEG oxide price trends.

Driven by dysprosium and terbium’s use in magnet production, October 2020 announcements on Chinese export controls caused an uptick in prices for SEG oxides. In line with the price decrease observed for PrNd oxide, the SEG oxide price also fell between March and June 2021 on the back of minor de-stocking, before returning to the trend of pre-March 2021.

Figure 16-3 shows SEG oxide price history since 2016.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 202

 

 

LOGO

SEG oxide price history

Note: SEG Oxide price trends are based on MP Materials product specifications, which has higher Tb and Dy content than the market average – leading to higher prices.

Source: CRU, 2022

Figure 16-3: SEG Oxide Price History

Lanthanum Oxide

La oxide prices have broadly followed the same trend of decline as with cerium since 2016, reducing from US$2/kg to near US$1.4/kg in September 2021 after a minor increase in 2017. Much like Ce oxide, the decline in the price of La oxide is due to the increased supply and reduced demand. Ramp ups in mine production to meet rapid demand growth for PrNd has led to intensified oversupply.

Figure 16-4 shows La oxide price history since 2016.

 

LOGO

La oxide price history

Source: CRU, 2022

Figure 16-4: La Oxide Price History

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 203

 

 

Cerium Oxide

Cerium is the largest volume rare earth element market, accounting for approximately one-third of all production. As its end uses (predominantly catalyst and polishing applications) are growing slower than magnet applications, the cerium market has been in relative oversupply. As such, since 2018 Ce oxide prices have undergone a consistent decline from prices in excess of US$2/kg to less than US$1.5/kg. During 2021, prices of Ce have begun to flatten off with prices remaining close to US$1.5/kg.

Figure 16-5 shows Ce oxide price history since 2016.

 

LOGO

Ce oxide price history

Source: CRU, 2022

Figure 16-5: Ce Oxide Price History

16.3.2 Market Balance

Chinese rare earth production quotas have increased significantly in the last three years, from just 105kt in 2017 to 140kt in 2020. This pushed the rare earths market into oversupply. CRU expects oversupply in 2021, but from 2022 onwards we expect the market to swing back into a sustained deficit for the remainder of the forecast period. The start-up of several new projects, most notably Arafura’s Nolans project and Hastings’ Yangibana project, will likely slow, but not prevent, the market’s steady shift into market deficit in the mid-2020s.

Figure 16-6 shows the PrNd market balance.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 204

 

 

LOGO

NdPr market balance

Source: CRU, 2022

Figure 16-6: Sizeable Supply Gap Emerges in the Late-2020s without Prompt New Investment

In Figure 16-7, CRU shows the base case inferred for the long-term market balance (i.e., as yet unknown measures to address the supply gap) used to create our long-term price forecast. This is taking into consideration the surge in prices anticipated for the early- to mid-2020s, as well as governmental interest arising from security of supply concerns.

 

LOGO

strong price signal lead to

Source: CRU, 2022

Figure 16-7: CRU’s LT Base Case Envisages enough Supply to Meet 10-15 Weeks’ Worth of Global Stocks

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 205

 

 

The price response to this market deficit is naturally uncertain, but commodity markets historically have seen upward price responses to markets where supply struggles to meet demand. As such, if these market conditions eventuate, NdFeB magnet constituents – most notably Nd, Pr and Dy – are likely to respond to this relative scarcity by increasing in price. As shown in Figure 16-8, we expect our magnet basket to increase from US$90/kg today to US$100-115/kg (real) in the mid-2020s. The outlook longer term is less certain, but in a well-functioning market, we would expect this notable price growth to stimulate a supply response; should the supply gap be narrowly met (as in our base case) then real prices will revert to incentive prices required to stimulate new sources of supply (estimated at US$80/kg real in the long term).

 

LOGO

LHS: PrNd market balance,‘000 tonnes

Source: CRU, 2022

Figure 16-8: Magnet Material Prices will Need to Rise to Stimulate a Supply Response

However, the market conditions for non-magnet REEs in these conditions could be different. Non-magnet REE demand growth is expected to be very low over the forecast period compared to PrNd, and as such our current modelling suggests that despite the market deficits projected for PrNd, the REO market as a whole will remain in a significant oversupply over the forecast period at current extraction rates. Consequently, we have forecast La and Ce prices to not reach above US$2/kg (real US$ 2020) for the remainder of the forecast period, corresponding approximately to extraction and processing costs.

The low prices for La and Ce, which make up the bulk of the non-magnet REE basket – along with yttrium, which is also expected to average near historical lows of US$3/kg – therefore put a cap on the overall non-magnet basket price, which we see hovering between US$10-13/kg (real 2020) for the foreseeable future. Although elements such as scandium, terbium and lutetium may enjoy far higher price points (US$600-1200/kg), their scarcity and the very small size of their markets mean they have very little impact on the overall basket.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 206

 

 

Long Term Balance

The long-term market balance for the entire rare earths market looks like being in over supply due to the basket problem: Although deposits and mining regions do differ in their REO composition, rare earths are still largely mined as a group, and the global ratio is slow in responding to changes in demand for individual elements. Different elements have very different demand growth rates over the next two decades, and consequently we are likely to see a steady increase in oversupply for abundant, low-demand elements (like La and Ce) and market deficit for rarer, higher-demand elements (like Nd and Pr).

Figure 16-9 shows the rare earth market balance forecast.

 

LOGO

TREO market balance forecast, 2020 – 2055

Source: CRU, 2022

Figure 16-9: Rare Earth Market Balance Forecast

This emphasizes the importance of analyzing the rare earths market with appropriate care, as there remains substantial risk of market deficits over the 2020s in key magnet metals. The markets for cerium, lanthanum, and yttrium will be in relative oversupply as a result of the requirement to meet rapid demand growth for neodymium, praseodymium, dysprosium, and terbium. This will further shift the extent to which the magnet metals carry the cost of production.

16.3.3 Costs

Cost curves can be a highly useful tool in assessing commodity markets, but for the global REE industry, there are some methodological issues that need to be considered when examining cost data.

 

   

Cost curves are usually constructed to show the cost of production for a single metal. Where production systems are polymetallic, costs of joint production are either attributed by revenue stream (co-product costing) or the revenue from by-products is credited to the costs of the dominant product (by-product costing). REO is complicated further by the fact that some REE production is itself a by-product of other mining operations (e.g., mineral sands and iron) or has

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 207

 

 

 

other co-products (uranium, base metals). Both costing methods can be useful indicators of relative competitiveness, although by-product costing can be inappropriate if there are multiple significant revenue streams as it will make many individual product costs appear very low.

   

REE producers produce differing baskets of a mixture of REE. As such we treat costs to the basket level for each producer, rather than credit individual components of baskets to show costs for a particular REE. To reflect that basket compositions vary (which can lead to very different basket prices), we also show basket prices for producers. We also plot margin curves to reflect the competitive position of producers.

   

Producers do not have a consistent level of integration downstream, ranging from Chinese producers who are integrated downstream into magnet metal, producers such as Lynas which produce separate REO products and new emerging producers who will produce mixed REO concentrate (MREC) requiring further separation. For consistency, we have attempted to represent costs to the MREC stage of production.

Figure 16-10 shows the operations rare earths mining cost curve.

 

LOGO

Mountain pass

Source: CRU, 2022

Figure 16-10: Operational Rare Earths Mining Cost Curve, 2025, US$/kg REO

As a result of the aforementioned methodological issues with rare earth cost benchmarking, the mining cost curve for existing and incoming rare earth operations demonstrates significant variability. Higher cost producers on the curve tend to have higher grades of high value rare earths such as dysprosium and terbium, meaning that the economics of their operations are not necessarily poor. Provided that prices of dysprosium, terbium, and other heavy rare earths may often be very high (US$500/kg and higher), higher operational costs do not necessarily imply lower profitability. There remain some uncertainties as to the allocation of official costs for Chinese producers, and whether apparent costs include some downstream costs as well.

Past the mining stage, costs for beneficiation and separation appear to show a more horizontal line. Conversion costs for rare earth processing operations range from US$2/kg to US$9/kg, depending on the complexity of feedstock and distribution of rare earths. Operations skewed toward higher heavy rare

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 208

 

 

earth content -such as those consuming xenotime feedstock – will incur higher conversion costs due to the more complicated nature of separated heavy rare earths compared to light rare earths. MP Materials’ conversion costs appear fairly high, but this is compensated for by a higher than otherwise PrNd content. On a margin curve, they are placed more favorably.

 

16.4

Products and Markets

 

16.4.1

Mixed Rare Earth Concentrate

Market Overview

Concentrates are a first-stage beneficiation product in the rare earths supply chain. Rare earth concentrates vary from producer to producer due to the “basket problem”, where producers are forced to mine a mixed ore with a ‘basket’ of varying rare earth element composition. MREC are produced at a stage before any notable separation of rare earth elements from each other has been able to take place. As a result, MREC products are representative of the rare earth distribution found in the asset orebody.

Producers in China show varying levels of integration, with some major mining operations exhibiting direct links to sizable separation capacity under the same parent company. It is unclear to what extent these separation facilities operate as independent facilities. The geographic and corporate distribution of separation capacity, as well as variations in local concentrate prices indicate the existence of a liquid and active concentrate market within China.

The international, third-party trade in concentrates has been relatively limited to date. Some unofficial trade of concentrates produced in Southeast Asia have been shipped to China for separation. More significantly, MP Materials supply to China has grown official trade considerably, although this will wane as MP materials transitions to in-house separation for PrNd. It is likely that the custom separating market outside of China develops over time.

Figure 16-11 shows the mixed rare earth concentrate price forecast.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 209

 

 

LOGO

MREC price forecast

Note: this price forecast is based on MP Materials product specifications and sales terms achieved in 2021.

Source: CRU, 2022

Figure 16-11: Mixed Rare Earth Concentrate Price Forecast

CRU expects a mixed rare earth concentrate long term price at US$10/kg of contained REO out to 2031. The concentrate price will be principally driven by trends in PrNd and Dy, price swings of which will be mirrored by concentrates.

Buyers

Buyers are owners and operators of Chinese separation facilities, or even of second-stage beneficiation facilities. CRU notes the existence of at least 40 separate legal entities with notable separation capacity. These would purchase the concentrate, beneficiate it and separate it further into a desired production basket. This basket would likely take the form of separated PrNd oxides, lanthanum and cerium carbonates, and a mixed heavy rare earths carbonate and/or oxalate product.

Sellers

Sellers are rare earth mining operations beneficiating up to concentrate. At present, the only known significant mining operation supplying this market is MP Materials. In CRU’s view, it is unlikely new operations will beneficiate or otherwise refine only up to concentrate level before seeking to sell their product. The vast majority of incoming rare earths production capacity will aim to beneficiate their product up to at least carbonate stage, or even separate the product themselves.

Traders

Key traders for rare earth concentrates exist mainly within China, due to aforementioned lack of diversity in concentrate source outside of China. Shenghe is known as an active trader of mixed rare earth concentrates, which it distributes to processing and separation facilities in China.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 210

 

 

Required Product Specifications

In order to be economical, concentrate grades require a minimum % of high value element. Generally, an PrNd percentage above 10% is acceptable. Naturally, this depends on the entire basket distribution, as a xenotime concentrate would be more skewed toward heavy rare earths.

The REO grade for concentrates varies from around 30% to 73%.

Typical Sales Terms

Sales terms are based on the rare earth basket contained within the concentrate, minus a discount for implied conversion cost.

TC/RCs

Due to the nascent nature of the concentrate markets, the terms for treating concentrates are relatively uncertain and opaque. The number of transactions is relatively small, and the terms for custom concentrate treatment are continuing to evolve as suppliers and separators develop their plans. At present market generalizations are more difficult and more approximate than for other more mature mineral concentrate markets. As a broad guide, we understand that treatment terms on a rare earth oxide contained basis can be in the order of US$3-6/kg for LREE (although this can vary according to concentrate specifications, buyer and seller logistics and other considerations) and in the order of US$20-40/kg for HREE, from concentrate to separated material. As the custom concentrate market develops outside of China, these terms for both LREE and HREE may change.

Typical Penalty Adjustments

Penalty adjustments principally occur when concentrates have high levels of non-REE material. An example is thorium content in monazite concentrates. At above 0.2% thorium or uranium content per weight, monazite concentrates have to be exported under specific restrictions as they will be treated as radioactive material. The cost and operational risk of removing this material and subsequently disposing of it is high, and therefore incurs significant penalty adjustments.

There are further penalty adjustments for excessive moisture content and lacking purity. Below 60% grade, prices may be 10% lower when compared on a REO contained basis.

16.4.2 PrNd Oxide

Market Overview and Pricing

The market for PrNd oxides is broken down into two ‘baskets’, a magnet basket and a non-magnet basket, wherein the magnet basket is a major driver of growth. Magnet and non-magnet basket demand is expected to undergo at a CAGR of 7.1% and 1.9% respectively in the medium term (to 2026) This growth disparity will continue to solidify NdFeB permanent magnets as the primary end use for PrNd, which will ensure a close connection to e-mobility and wind energy growth.

Short term demand for PrNd oxide will be driven by growth in the electric vehicle market, with PrNd oxide used to produce the permanent magnet used in many of the motors of electric vehicles. Through to 2025, approximately 25% of demand for PrNd oxide is expected to come from electric vehicles. However, demand from electric vehicles is expected to be outpaced by PrNd oxide demand for wind energy in the longer term, as outlined below.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 211

 

 

Wind energy will take an increasingly significant market share over the long term. In line with a projected 1100% increase in wind energy capacity addition to 2040, NdFeB magnet demand from wind energy is expected to increase to 230 kt/y. Assuming a somewhat conservative ‘wind energy grade’ NdFeB price per kg of US$90-100/kg, this would mean magnet production for wind energy alone could become a market valued more than US$20 billion per year.

A drive to incentivize magnet production is expected to drive increased PrNd demand through tangible government support in the forms of VAT rebates and other subsidies if supply is sourced domestically. The impact of these subsidies is yet to be clarified as it depends on the structure and nature of the government support.

Although CRU anticipates sizable supply growth over the market forecast, it appears unlikely PrNd supply will be able to keep pace with demand in the short term, leading to market deficits that may persist for several years. This forecast is sensitive to production expansions in China, which are managed from the top-down, and may exceed expectations in its growth out to 2025.

Provided that PrNd is the key driver of rare earth mining economics, CRU expects the market to be balanced in the long term. Short term deficits will drive prices upward, through which new supply will be incentivized. This cause prices to drop down to incentive levels for new projects once new capacity is able to meet demand and rebuild stockpiles.

The PrNd oxide price forecast is shown in Figure 16-12.

 

LOGO

PrNd oxide price forecast

Source: CRU, 2022

Figure 16-12: PrNd Oxide Price Forecast

CRU forecasts a long-term price of US$95/kg for PrNd oxide. This forecast is based on the principle that PrNd carries the cost of rare earth production. When constructing an average non-China rare earths project, with an IRR hurdle rate of higher than 15%, long-run incentive price for PrNd is calculated at ~US$85/kg. Expectations of a potentially persistent market deficit, with PrNd prices staying well above US$100/kg out to 2028 lead to our forecast of US$95/kg.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 212

 

 

Buyers

Buyers of PrNd oxide are split amongst two principal types, downstream magnet producers and oxide to metal plants.

Consumption of PrNd oxide in NdFeB magnets requires at first stage a reduction of oxide to metal, such that an NdFeB alloy may be produced. Some magnet producers have oxide reduction capacity and are thereby able to purchase and consume oxides directly, whereas others have to purchase metal from reduction facilities. As there is no significant value add in achievable price moving from oxide to metal, it is likely the share of magnet producers with reduction capacity will grow.

At present, magnet production is centered within China, with potential growth in the United States due to the proposal of a magnet producing subsidy. Important Chinese producers (and buyers of PrNd) include Beijing Zhong Ke San Huan Hi-Tech, Tianhe Magnets, and Ningbo Yunsheng. Along with other REE magnet producers, Chinese magnet production makes up approximately 90% of global supply. Ex-China REE magnet producers include Hitachi Metals Ltd., Shin-Etsu Chemical Co., Ltd., Tokyo Denki Kagaku Kogyo K.K., all in Japan, and Vacuumschmelze, located in Germany.

CRU work in magnet making economics indicates that subsidies play a key role. This makes the future geographical spread of magnet making subject to Government incentives, and therefore dependent on policy and somewhat uncertain. Strong indications of policy support for magnet making in the EU and the USA indicate non-China magnet making will grow.

Due to anticipated persistent market tightness, some OEMs have suggested purchasing oxides directly, and supplying it to upstream magnet producers in order to increase the security of their access to the material.

Sellers

In the PrNd oxide market, miners and mineral processors act as direct sellers. Operating mines with in-house beneficiation and separation processing plants can directly produce and sell PrNd oxides to reduction or magnet making facilities. We understand that traders play a relatively limited role at present.

Key producers, and therefore sellers, of PrNd oxide are currently located in China for the most part, with China Northern Rare Earths Group (Beifang) and Baotou Rare Earth Magnetic Materials accounting for a significant share of Chinese PrNd oxide sales. By the mid-2020s the share of non-China PrNd production will have grown, meaning that Lynas and Neo Materials will probably have been joined by MP Materials and other market players in selling PrNd Oxides.

We understand that MP Materials will be the only producer of PrNd oxide within the USA in the near future.

Traders

The role of traders is relatively limited in the PrNd oxide market. As it stands, CRU understands buyers and sellers trade predominantly directly with no intermediate participant required.

Required Product Specifications

PrNd is sold as a mixed oxide, in a concentrated, powdered, form. Compositionally, PrNd oxide is sold at 25% Pr and 75% Nd in the most common form. The amount of Pr within the oxide can range between 20-30% but will remain close to 25% for most PrNd oxides sold.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 213

 

 

Minimum product specifications of PrNd mixed oxide is at least 95% REO purity.

Typical Sales Terms

PrNd oxide sales are typically contract based due to the importance of the raw materials to magnet making and the often-high degree of common ownership. Typical sales terms (beyond material pricing) in China are unclear. Due to the high value of the product per kilogram, we understand logistics costs factor little in final sales agreements.

TC/RCs

As stated above, due to the nascent nature of the concentrate markets, the terms for treating concentrates are relatively uncertain and opaque. The number of transactions is relatively small, and the terms for custom concentrate treatment are continuing to evolve as suppliers and separators develop their plans. At present market generalizations are more difficult and more approximate than for other more mature mineral concentrate markets. As a broad guide, we understand that treatment terms are on a rare earth oxide contained basis can be in the order of US$3-6/kg for LREE (although this can vary according to concentrate specifications, buyer and seller logistics and other considerations).

Typical Penalty Adjustments

Due to the product specifications, no specific penalty adjustments are identified for PrNd oxide. The typical 95+% specifications would mean anything below this purity would be scrutinized and face significant reductions in agreed price.

 

16.4.3

SEG+ Oxalate

Market Overview and Pricing

SEG oxalate is a mixed medium-heavy rare earths intermediate product. It generally contains mostly medium rare earths (Samarium, Europium, Gadolinium - SEG), with around 4% dysprosium and terbium. Most producers will opt to separate light rare earths and produce a mixed medium-heavy rare earths product such as a carbonate, oxalate, or chloride in order to center value on PrNd.

There is no defined market for the product SEG Oxalate other than its use as feedstock for further processing, after which the separated rare earth elements may be used in a wide variety of end uses. Prices and treatment terms are therefore relatively uncertain and opaque.

The end uses for rare earth elements in SEG oxalate range from NdFeB permanent magnets (SH grade and above) to phosphors, non-magnet electronics, and medicines. As a result, the ‘market’ for SEG+ oxalate is composite and aggregated with various important drivers to consider. End use demand growth is variable, and a market balance for SEG oxalate as a single product is not indicative of pricing or market dynamics. In fact, provided there is no substantial processing bottleneck – the market for SEG+ oxalate is driven entirely by its composite parts. The elements likely to drive pricing changes are dysprosium and terbium – two elements used in NdFeB permanent magnets with questionable supply responses in the coming years. Persistent market tightness may ensure these elements drive SEG+ oxalate prices to high levels.

As SEG+ oxalate contains a variety of elements, most of which will likely experience demand growth lower than magnet metals, the market for the combined SEG products as individual oxides will be in surplus in the long term. In fact, supply may exceed demand by double by 2050 at current trends. However, despite the market balance indicating a surplus market over the long term, prices may still be

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 214

 

 

favorable as markets for dysprosium and terbium may experience deficits over the coming decade. The capacity for these markets to remain supplied depends on the extent to which ionic adsorption clays in China are able to meet rapid demand growth.

The principal sources of supply for dysprosium and terbium as separated products are ionic adsorption clay mining operations, and the processing of MHREE carbonates or SEG+ oxalates.

The only notable ionic adsorption clay operations are in China and Myanmar. These operations are expected to face significant stress out to the mid-2020s due to concerns on environmental viability in China, and the legality of these operations in Myanmar. These stresses have led to closures in South China from 2019 onward, and are likely to increase pace.

The other commercial-scale operations capable of producing separated dysprosium and terbium products are separation facilities in China. Provided that these consume feedstock from bastnaesite and monazite ore bodies, the content of dysprosium and terbium is around 1%. Closures of ionic adsorption clay operations (usual DyTb content ~8%) may lead to deficits in the dysprosium and terbium markets.

The SEG oxalate price forecast is shown in Figure 16-13.

 

LOGO

Source: CRU, 2022

Figure 16-13: SEG Oxalate Price Forecast

CRU recognizes greater variation in the SEG+ oxalate price out to 2030 due to volatile dysprosium and terbium prices. As Chinese separation facilities have substantial bargaining power, it is presumed they will aim to be price participatory in nature. As a result, CRU forecasts the long term price of US$7.5/kg for an SEG oxalate with MP Materials specifications. This price is built up on internal modelling of Chinese separation facilities’ costs of production and required feedstock price (at which they would purchase the material) to meet profitability targets of 10%. It is unclear exactly how terms will develop over the coming years.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 215

 

 

Buyers

Key buyers of SEG oxalate products are Chinese separation facilities capable of separating heavy rare earths. As discussed in Section 16.4.1, CRU notes the existence of at least 40 separate legal entities with commercial capacity for rare earth separation through solvent extraction.

Over time, buyers may arise in other jurisdictions, such as Australia or the United Kingdom. It remains to be seen whether or not these buyers will have capacity to separate heavy rare earths into individual products.

Sellers

Sellers are typically facilities with separation capacity, consuming feedstock with too little DyTb to consider the additional cost of heavy rare earth separation economical. These facilities are likely to separate cerium, lanthanum, PrNd, and keep the rest in a mixed-heavy rare earth product.

This mixed heavy rare earths product may then be sold to separation facilities with heavy rare earth separation capacity.

Traders

CRU is not aware of any significant trading activity in the SEG+ market, as most visible trading is done on the basis of separated oxides.

Required Product Specifications

SEG+ oxalates, as a mixed rare earth product, demonstrate lacking fungibility in terms of product specifications. Costs of consuming SEG+ oxalates to produce individually separated products are high, and as such the SEG feedstock consumed has to contain enough elements of value to be profitable. Usually, this means a dysprosium and terbium content of at least 4% is required.

Typical Sales Terms

It is unclear under what sales terms SEG oxalates are sold today. It is unclear on what terms Chinese separation facilities currently process non-Chinese mixed heavy rare earth feedstock. As price participants, the product may be purchased on the basis of a percentage of total potential sales price.

TC/RCs

Provided that separation costs for heavy rare earths are particularly high, some quoted treatment and refining charges for products such as SEG oxalates may be six times as high as for separating light rare earth products.

As noted in Section 16.4.3, the treatment and refining charges are dependent on the structure of terms.

Typical Penalty Adjustments

Potential penalty adjustments may be made at the junction where the SEG product does not contain enough dysprosium and terbium, nor enough samarium, europium, and gadolinium to be considered economic for processing.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 216

 

 

16.4.4

La Carbonate

Market Overview and Pricing

La carbonate is small, niche market. Currently no La carbonate is produced in the USA, meaning domestic production may supplant existing imported supply. Estimates of imports of La carbonate into the USA are highly variable, though a five year history suggests a volume range of ~5 kt to ~16 kt, with only 2020 presenting an import volume below 12 kt over this period. Information regarding end use is relatively scarce, but there are a few key end uses to consider.

Two major markets for La carbonate are its use as a catalyst, and in the pharmaceutical sector, specifically in the sale of Fosrenol – which is made up of 100% La carbonate and is used in the treatment of end stage renal disease. Lanthanum carbonate’s use as a catalyst in petroleum cracking and car exhaust gas treatment accounts for the majority of its consumption in the United States. Lanthanum carbonate catalyzes the splitting of long-chain hydrocarbons into shorter chained species. Lanthanum carbonate is also used in semiconductors, Nickel metal hydride batteries, as a metallic alloy, high quality scopes and lenses, and in water treatment (phosphate removal) – more detail is provided for the water treatment marker in Section 16.4.5.

The market balance for lanthanum is heavily influenced by the basket problem faced when producing REO, in that the typical production basket is composed of 24.5% lanthanum. With PrNd demand expected to increase in the long term, the amount of basket produced lanthanum will increase in tandem.

The typical rare earths project contains around 25% lanthanum, meaning it is a key ‘loser’ in the long term as its demand outlook is negligible when compared by magnet metals. With PrNd demand expected to increase in the long term, the amount of basket produced lanthanum will increase in tandem.

As a result, in both the short term and long term the market for lanthanum is one of oversupply, with the extent of oversupply set to become serious over the long term with lacking demand growth. In the short term (2021-2026) the lanthanum market is expected to be oversupplied by a factor of 2, though as demand flattens and supply increases, the lanthanum market is expected to be oversupplied by a factor of 7.

Serious oversupply will ensure low achievable prices for lanthanum products, which will face continuous downward pressure as the rare earths market races to meet PrNd demand.

Figure 16-14 shows the lanthanum carbonate price forecast.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 217

 

 

LOGO

La carbonate price forecast

Source: CRU, 2022

Figure 16-14: La Carbonate Price Forecast

Lanthanum carbonate prices closely track oxide prices. CRU forecasts long term price of US$1.4/kg for La carbonate. This forecast is calculated on the basis of historic lanthanum carbonate relation to oxide prices. As a product in oversupply, the costs of production are ‘carried’ by PrNd, meaning that there is no real ‘incentive price’ for lanthanum.

Buyers

Buyers for lanthanum carbonate are varied, though most (such as those consuming lanthanum for use in lenses, as a medical product, in flame lighter flints) end uses require very little volume, and thereby do not provide a very large market. It is important to note that Fosrenol is restricted in many nations, such as the U.K – further reducing potential market size for this end use.

Sellers

Sellers of lanthanum carbonate are separation facilities. As lanthanum is one of the elements that requires separation before more valuable products such as PrNd may be separated, the vast majority of separation facilities will produce a lanthanum product of some sort. We believe MP Materials will be the only commercial scale lanthanum carbonate producer in the United States.

Current sellers of lanthanum carbonate in the US for sale downstream will struggle to compete against domestic consumption, as transport and logistics costs may account for up to 70% of their costs.

Traders

In the case of La carbonate, traders act as suppliers to sellers, whereby miners with in-house processing and treatment plants can produce La carbonate for sale to downstream consumers.

Most La carbonate is produced in China, making MP Materials the only domestic U.S. producer by 2024. Current sellers utilize imports of concentrates from China.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 218

 

 

Required Product Specifications

No specific product specification is provided for La carbonate, though based on end use within medicine it can be assumed that La carbonate is required in a pure form (>99%). Furthermore, La carbonate is required as a bulk concentrate (powder) to be used to produce chewable tablets, as well as being sold as a dehydrated product.

Typical Sales Terms

The sale of La carbonate is contract based as no official spot price is reported globally. Contracts likely include fixed supply periods between traders and sellers at a fixed rate. Transport costs are established on a total weight solution basis.

TC/RCs

As a light rare earth product in excess, it is unlikely La carbonate treatment charges would exceed sales prices of US$1.4/kg. As lanthanum is effectively a ‘by-product’, treatment charges for this product do not exist in isolation – the economics of magnet rare earths will factor in.

Typical Penalty Adjustments

Potential trade penalties may exist where La carbonate sold to a seller is below 99% purity and is not anhydrous.

16.4.5 Cerium Chloride

Market Overview and Pricing

The market for Cerium Chloride (CeCl3) largely consists of in-house raw material processing facilities selling material to downstream consumers as a packaged product. Buyers of CeCl3 are end users of CeCl3 products, sellers are those producing and packaging products for buyers, and traders are the producers of the bulk CeCl3 chemical at the most upstream levels within the value chain.

CeCl3 is classified as a coagulant, a substance which causes curdling and clotting of liquids – this chemical characteristic makes CeCl3 useful in the water treatment sector. CeCl3 is an alternative to traditional coagulants in the water treatment sector (such as ferric chloride), with a specific focus on phosphorous (P) removal. The U.S Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has issued guidelines to companies and water treatment facilities to maintain P levels of 0.05-0.1 mg/L, many traditional coagulants are struggling to maintain such low levels of P. As shown in Table 16-2, USEPA currently reports approximately 73,000 facilities required to monitor P levels, with over 2,000 facilities (3% of total facilities) enforcing limits on P levels.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 219

 

 

Table 16-2: Summary of U.S. Facilities Monitoring and Limiting P-levels

 

Facility

Type

  

Total Number

of Facilities

    

Total Discharge

(bn gallons per day)

     Facilities Required to Monitor Phosphorous      Facilities with Phosphorous Concentration Limits  
  

Number of

Facilities

    

Percentage

of Facilities

    

Sum of Design Flow

(Mgal/d)

    

Number of

Facilities

    

Percentage

of Facilities

    

Sum of Design Flow

(Mgal/d)

 

Municipal

     15,939        42        2,437        15        16,447        1,163        7        7,145  

Industrial

     50,599        na        2,379        5        16,950        877        2        9,336  

Federal

     1,119        na        110        10        113        50        5        51  

Other

     5,087        na        142        3        28        26        1        5  

Total

     72,744        2,380        5,068        7        33,538        2,116        3        16,537  

Source: CRU, 2022

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 220

 

 

In this regard, the market for CeCl3 can be considered part of the water treatment chemicals market, worth US$31 billion per annum globally. North American water treatment chemicals make up 25% of the global market, meaning an approximate domestic market size of US$8 billion per annum – with an expected CAGR of 3.2 % in the medium term. A further breakdown of the North American market indicates coagulants and flocculants make up 45% of the domestic market, meaning CeCl3 lies within a US$3.5 billion domestic market.

The Cerium market outlook is similar to that for lanthanum, with both short- and long-term market balance expected to be one of oversupply – again the result of excess basket supply from growing supply requirements for PrNd. Cerium typically accounts for around 48% of basket REO production. The market for cerium is and will continue to be in significant oversupply. The market for cerium thereby presents a similar picture as for lanthanum. However, as a phosphate removal product, cerium chloride is priced differently.

The CeCl3 market in the United States at present is supplied by firms having to import cerium and convert it into a chloride. A domestic rare earth mine able to produce cerium chloride directly will be able to price their product up to the costs of their competitors.

Figure 16-15 shows the CeCl3 price forecast.

 

LOGO

CeCI price forecast

Source: CRU, 2022

Figure 16-15: CeCl3 Price Forecast

Buyers

The importance of CeCl3 within the water treatment industry means buyers of CeCl3 lie within the same industry. Municipal water suppliers have the largest number of facilities treating P, therefore would be the typical buyers of CeCl3. The Upper Occoquan Service Authority (Virginia, USA) is one example of a municipal water facility working with CeCl3 to treat P within wastewater. Furthermore, industrial facilities (power, chemicals, and mining) are potential buyers of CeCl3, despite having fewer reported

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 221

 

 

facilities with concentration limits for P than municipal facilities, operations within these facilities are water intensive and would likely demand a greater volume of coagulant per facility.

The growing reliance upon P-based fertilizers in agriculture drives increased concentrations of P within adjacent water supplies, meaning buyers of CeCl3 would be in regions with the highest phosphate demand. In the U.S., phosphate fertilizer demand is the highest within North Carolina, Illinois, Kansas, and Arkansas, as such agricultural and municipal buyers of CeCl3 are expected to be located within these states.

Sellers

Sellers of CeCl3 do so in two ways, as a packaged chemical solution (in the same way ferric chloride is packaged), or as a salt to be dissolved in solution. Within the CeCl3 market, sellers typically create branded products for marketing purposes, though most products utilize CeCl3 in the same way.

Major sellers of water treatment chemicals are those well versed in providing solutions to the sewage and wastewater industries, companies such as Veolia, SUEZ, and Cortec. In the case of specialist P-removal products, Veolia and SUEZ both offer products with REE components – Neo Water Treatment (Estonia) also offer specialist REE-based P-removal products.

Traders

Traders of CeCl3 are make up the upstream component of the market, with typical traders including REE miners with in-house processing plants to process excess Cerium Oxides, or equivalent processing steps from specialist refineries and processors purchasing feedstock from mines.

In this regard, MP Materials would act as a trader, selling CeCl3 to intermediate sellers. However, MP Materials also has the option to act as both a trader and a seller in this market, bypassing intermediate sellers to sell products direct to buyers.

Required Product Specifications

CeCl3 products can be sold in solid or liquid form. Solid CeCl3 is sold as a pure CeCl3 salt or as granular lumps in totes. Liquid forms of CeCl3 involve hydrating CeCl3 through dissolving anhydrous (solid) CeCl3 salt in water to create a hydrated equivalent of CeCl3.

Given the steps required to separate CeCl3 from mixed REE chloride solutions, typically vapor separation, the product is unlikely to be 100% pure CeCl3. During the separation of LaCl3 (lanthanum chloride) from mixed REE chlorides, remnant LaCl3 is left in solution with CeCl3 to prevent cross contamination of LaCl3 with Ce – making CeCl3 product specifications accepting of a slight LaCl3 component (up to 20% in some cases).

Typical Sales Terms

The current value chain involves sourcing of Ce oxides to be converted to CeCl3, current U.S. market participants (sellers) import Ce oxides from Chinese producers (covering import costs) and pay U.S. plants for conversion.

Given the product specification, CeCl3 would be sold by traders on a $/weight solution basis. The weight element would likely be on a kg basis, though this may vary. As the product is not treated as a rare earth product, it is not priced on a rare earth content basis.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 222

 

 

TC/RCs

As a light rare earth product in excess, it is unlikely La carbonate treatment charges would exceed sales prices of US$1.4/kg. As lanthanum is effectively a ‘by-product’, treatment charges for this product do not exist in isolation – the economics of magnet rare earths will factor in.

Typical Penalty Adjustments

Domestic production of CeCl3 should not incur any penalties, favoring MP Materials, as CeCl3 is derived from processed Ce oxides. Furthermore, CeCl3 is not noted as being of strategic importance for national security, therefore the use of Chinese source material should not incur penalties.

Penalties typically incurred from VAT and export tariffs when importing material would be included in any price set by competitors, therefore no adjustment is necessary.

 

16.5

Specific Products

Forecasts for relevant rare earth product prices are presented in Section 16.4. A brief summary of price forecasts is presented in Table 16-3.

Table 16-3: Summary of Long Term Price Forecasts

 

Product

  

Long term price forecast, real 2020 US$/kg

  

Mixed Rare Earth Concentrate

  

US$10 per kg of contained REO

  

PrNd Oxide

  

US$95 per kg

  

SEG+ Oxalate

  

US$7.5 per kg

  

La Carbonate

  

US$1.4 per kg

  

Cerium Chloride

  

US$4.4 per kg

  

Source: CRU, 2022

All prices are modelled based on production costs and established market trends where they exist.

 

16.5.1

Concentrate

Typical Project Specifications

CRU understands MP Materials’ mixed rare earth concentrate is produced to a grade of roughly ~61% REO, with no less than ~15% PrNd.

Market Space

CRU understands that concentrates grades typically range from 58% to 75% REO and as such, MP Materials’ concentrate is considered within industry acceptable specifications.

Shipping

Shipment of rare earth concentrate products into China is a responsibility on the side of the producers, such as MP Materials. CRU notes other major players aim to trade mixed rare earth carbonate products.

Contract vs. Spot Sales

MP Materials obtains revenue from concentrate production entirely through a contractual obligation with Shenghe Resources though sales terms largely reflect spot market movements.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 223

 

 

Marketability

MP Materials’ mixed rare earth concentrate product is sold into the Chinese refining market. Provided considerable underutilized capacity within China, marketability for this product is not considered a risk.

Sales Terms

Mixed rare earth concentrate products are priced based on purity/penalties and the distribution of rare earths contained. MP Materials’ high PrNd content ensures favorable prices for produced concentrates.

The prices agreed upon with Shenghe Resources are based on established market benchmark for separated oxides. The concentrate price agreed contains an implicit treatment and refining charge.

Applied Penalties

Penalties may be applied to concentrates with high radioactive content, as explained in Section 16.4.1., high moisture content or purity below 60% may incur discounts of up to 10%.

 

16.5.2

PrNd Oxide

Typical Project Specifications

PrNd oxide will be produced to industry standard specifications, specifications being between 99.5% and 99.9% PrNd oxide. The ratio of Nd to Pr varies across producers, though a 75% to 25% ratio is most common, MP Materials will produce PrNd oxide at 3:1 +/-3%, therefore within the bounds of acceptable ratios.

Market Space

Variation in the ratio of PrNd is deemed acceptable if the Pr percentage does not fall below 20% and does not exceed 30%. MP Materials, producing an PrNd oxide product at 99.5% or 99.9% purity, will meet the going industry standards for PrNd.

Shipping

We understand that no contractual obligations are yet in place for the sale of PrNd oxide and, as such, the responsibility of shipping of material is unclear. If an agreement is made for intended Japanese consumers, then it can be expected the purchaser will be responsible for shipping.

Contract v Spot Sales

As we understand no contractual agreements are yet in place, the mixture of spot and contract sales is presently unknown. It is normal for minerals producers to secure the majority of their output under long-term contracts, leaving a small percentage for spot sales to cope with demand and supply fluctuations. For MP Materials to establish sales terms it is necessary to develop sufficient product samples bench and pilot scale tests of PrNd oxide produced. Testing will allow MP Materials to enter into memorandum of understanding (MOU) or letter of intent (LOI) agreements with end users.

Marketability

We understand that MP Materials intends on selling PrNd oxide to Japanese magnet producers. PrNd oxide is a globally traded commodity with growing demand due to REE magnets. We therefore believe the PrNd oxide planned to be produced is a marketable product.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 224

 

 

Sales Terms

PrNd oxide is a globally traded commodity, and we would expect sales terms to reflect known global prices. As contracts have yet to be agreed, minor elements of sales terms are not currently known. We understand that MP Materials does not expect to face penalties based on the quality of PrNd produced.

Applied Penalties

As PrNd oxide is a separated oxide in a highly pure form, MP Materials does not expect to incur any penalties.

 

16.5.3

SEG+ Oxalate

Typical Project Specifications

As a basket product, SEG oxalate will be produced to typical industry standards as a solid powder. No official standard is reported for SEG oxalate, though a DyTb content of 4% is most common, MP Materials will produce SEG oxalate with a higher DyTb content (>5%) – highly favorable.

Market Space

SEG oxalate sales are heavily weighted towards DyTb content, with the average content around 4%. In this regard, MP Materials would produce SEG+ oxalate at with DyTb contents above this average (typically above 5%), and as such can be deemed a desirable producer.

Shipping

No definitive shipping terms are in place for SEG+ oxalate sales as yet, purchasers will likely incur shipping costs of SEG+ oxalate.

Contract v Spot Sales

As we understand no contractual agreements are yet in place, the mixture of spot and contract sales is presently unknown. It is normal for minerals producers to secure the majority of their output under long-term contracts, leaving a small percentage for spot sales to cope with demand and supply fluctuations. Both contract and spot sales are likely for SEG+ oxalate.

Marketability

If the tight market balance CRU forecasts persists, we believe MP Materials should not face significant risk in the intention to sell SEG+ oxalate to Chinese separators – provided nameplate Chinese capacity remains underutilized.

Sales Terms

Sales of SEG+ oxalate are priced according to the amount of favorable material present, most commonly based on DyTb content. The DyTb content within SEG+ oxalate produced by MP Materials ensures prices will be favorable with respect to the separated oxide benchmarks used in SEG+ oxalate pricing.

Applied Penalties

SEG+ oxalates with lower DyTb contents than priced for would incur a penalty, MP Materials is not expected to incur penalties as DyTb content within produced SEG+ oxalate is above industry averages.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 225

 

 

16.5.4

La Carbonate

Typical Project Specifications

La carbonate is typically sold as a pure, concentrated powder, though no official standard exists. We understand MP Materials plans to sell La carbonate as a sold powder with a high purity (>99%). Powders can be dissolved into a solution if necessary.

Market Space

Demand for La carbonate is not significant globally and end uses are opaque. Due to the basket problem facing REE producers, La carbonate supply is likely to be abundant. However, we understand the La carbonate produced by MP Materials is high purity, giving it some competitive advantage in the market.

Shipping

Based on the market MP Materials is expected to enter for La carbonate, no overseas shipping is expected. Instead, domestic distribution is expected, with the purchaser expected to cover costs.

Contract vs. Spot Sales

It is unclear whether La carbonate will be sold on contractual or spot terms.

Marketability

As a producer of low cost La carbonate, MP Materials will have a competitive position from which to market their product.

Sales Terms

No defined sales terms exist for La carbonate at present, though high purity product (>99%) would ensure the most favorable prices for MP Materials. Any sales term would include treatment and refining charges.

Applied Penalties

The process of producing La carbonate involves selective removal of La from a mixed RE chloride solution, penalties may be incurred where Ce content within the La carbonate is excessive.

 

16.5.5

Cerium Chloride

Typical Project Specifications

Cerium chloride can be produced in two forms, hydrous or anhydrous, with the former involving dissolution in distilled water. As such Ce chloride can be sold as a concentrated solution (hydrated) or as a solid powder (anhydrous, most common). No industry standard exists for Ce chloride, though due to the nature of production, Ce chlorides are typically less pure as La chloride is often present, remnant from the separation process. MP Materials will sell Ce chloride in a solid form, with low levels of La chloride also present (<20%).

Market Space

Whilst demand for Ce chloride is not expected to grow significantly, in line with increases in supply, emerging markets for Ce chloride are appearing – such as the phosphate removal market. No domestic producers of Ce chloride exist within the U.S. at present, as such MP Materials will have some domestic logistics advantages.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 226

 

 

Shipping

No international shipping of Ce chloride is expected, MP materials will distribute Ce chloride domestically. Purchasers will cover costs.

Contract v Spot Sales

The nature of the emerging water treatment market for Ce chloride means MP Materials may look to utilize both contractual and spot sales, catering for smaller independent consumers and national-scale municipal consumers.

Marketability

Ce chloride use in the water treatment sector is a relatively new concept, with room for growth as a replacement for traditional chemicals used in this space. Given MP Materials will produce Ce chloride at high purities with La chloride (also a coagulant) contained within, there is a clear opportunity in terms of the marketability of Ce chloride. Risks faced would include the immature market for Ce chloride in the water treatment sector.

Sales Terms

Sales of Ce chloride are based on the purity of the chloride produced, with excessive La contents (>20%) likely to reduce the saleable price. Importantly, both spot and contractual sales would cover the cost of producing Ce chloride and the reagents used in this process.

Applied Penalties

As noted, excessive La content (>20%) would likely cause MP Materials to incur a penalty, as Ce chloride is sold based on being a more efficient coagulant than traditional chemicals. As MP Materials has flexibility to vary lanthanum content based on client demand, this penalty is not expected to be applied.

 

16.6

Conclusions

This report highlights key trends within the REE market, work outlined in this report indicates a degree of variation in the demand profiles for various REE and their associated products. A strong demand profile for PrNd oxide drives a weaker profile for Ce and La products, with the basket problem driving oversupplied Ce and La markets. The REE market is global with suppliers and potential suppliers emerging across the globe, though Chinese suppliers remain the dominant players in this market. A global market is also evidenced in market competitors, with Chinese and Australian players the most significant competitors. This report highlights the favorable position of many non-China producers on the projected (2025) production cost curve, owing to low costs of production relative to competitors. Products outlined in this report (PrNd oxide, SEG oxalate, La carbonate, and Ce chloride) are feasible from an economic perspective, provided market standards and requirements are met. Many of the risks facing players in the REE market are political, with previously observed disputes a potential problem, alongside the volatility of REE prices. Specific risks to products are highlighted, though indicated specifications and sales terms promote the conclusion that products are both desirable and marketable.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 227

 

 

16.7

Contracts

Some events have transpired past the effective date of this report and the collection, analysis and presentation of its data, such as (further) price increases and agreements by MP Materials regarding longer-term production plans with downstream market participants.

Information pertaining to contracts required for MP Materials both for the current and future operation of their business is based on conversations between CRU and MP Materials. As such, CRU can only comment on the status of contractual agreements based on the assertions by MP Materials of the status and terms of these agreements and CRU’s understanding of normal commercial practice and prevailing market conditions.

CRU understands MP Materials is an existing producer satisfying all contracts required for the functioning of current operations. Current production of mixed rare earth concentrates (hereafter “concentrates”) is sold under contract to an offtake partner (Shenghe). We understand that this agreement is with a related party in terms of the offtake partner being involved in the financing of the project (see below). We understand that this contractual commitment will be completed in Q1 2022, after which we understand sales will likely continue through this offtake partner on another basis with this agreement aimed to last up to the end of external concentrate sales by MP Materials. We understand that the pricing terms and other contractual arrangements of the existing contract are in line with broader global market terms. This, along with other contracts required to produce a concentrate, is the extent of MP Materials’ currently executed contracts.

After the development of internal separating capacity, we believe MP Materials aims to consume its own concentrate in the production of the following product mix:

 

   

PrNd oxides

   

SEG oxalates

   

Lanthanum carbonates

   

Cerium chlorides

CRU understands that MP Materials are in discussion with potential consumers of these separated products and aims to have these contracts in place prior to the ramp up of separating capacity. We believe the current state of negotiations is in line with normal industry practice for a minerals producer seeking to place a new product with customers. These separated products are more commonly traded than concentrates and we believe ongoing negotiations are likely to lead to expected and industry standard agreements and terms.

CRU understands that MP Materials’ present offtake partner (Shenghe) may reasonably be designated as an affiliated party due to Shenghe minority equity interest in MP Materials. Within CRU’s visibility, this is the only noted official affiliated partner for the purposes of this high-level review of commercial contracts. As noted, Shenghe has a pre-existing commercial arrangement with MP Materials, likely to be satisfied by the end of Q1 2022, after which a new commercial arrangement will likely take its place. This new arrangement is expected to take the shape of a standard commercial sales agreement in the rare earths concentrate market. Upon review of information seen by CRU it appears expected terms – albeit presently uncertain due to the ongoing nature of negotiations – will not disproportionally benefit either party involved through non-standard commercial terms. CRU understands current terms with Shenghe are reasonable and fair for offtake agreements with non-affiliated third parties, and that expected terms are similarly in line with expected sales terms for non-affiliated third parties.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 228

 

 

Based on advice provided by MP Materials, CRU understands MP Materials maintains various operational contracts with external parties to support the current operations. The operational contracts include, but are not limited to, a variety of services including those listed below.

 

   

Chemical reagent procurement

   

Industrial gas procurement

   

Natural gas procurement

   

Drilling services

   

Blasting services

   

Freight carrier services

   

Supplemental contract labor services

   

Equipment maintenance services

   

Equipment rental services

   

Environmental monitoring services

   

Analytical services

   

Security services

   

Insurance and risk management services

   

Information technologies and support services

In addition, CRU understands (based on advice provided by MP Materials) that MP Materials fulfils and maintains contracts services and any other requirements for functioning and recommissioning of its separation facility. These contracts have been understood as including:

 

   

Engineering, Procurement, and Construction (“EPC”)

   

Engineering services

   

Owner’s representation

   

Procurement services

   

Supplemental contract labor services

The existence and maintenance of these contractual arrangements is in line with CRU’s understanding of normal commercial practice for a company such as MP Materials at its current stage of development and production.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 229

 

 

17

 Environmental Studies, Permitting, and Closure

The following discussion of environmental studies, permitting, and community impacts presents an overview of recent environmental impact reports and active environmental permits.

 

17.1

 Environmental Study Results

In 2004, the previous owner completed an environmental assessment process to gain approval for a 30-year mine plan. The legal framework for the environmental assessment process was the California Environmental Quality Act, and the lead regulatory agency was San Bernardino County (SBC). The final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) described the proposed action and assessed baseline environmental conditions for aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, hydrology/water quality, and noise. This environmental assessment process included extensive public consultation as well as inter-agency (state and federal) collaboration. SBC certified the final EIR in 2004.

 

17.2

 Required Permits and Status

In 2004, the Land Use Services (LUS) Department of SBC (SBC-LUS) approved the 30-year open pit mine plan, including an ultimate open pit design. The SBC-LUS issued a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) based on mitigation measures identified in the final EIR. In 2010, the previous operator applied for a modification to the 2004 approved land use to accommodate process improvements and the elimination of 100 acres of evaporation pond area approved in the 2004 CUP. The SBC-LUS approved the Minor Use Permit (MUP) and issued the updated Mine and Reclamation Plan (2004M-02) in November 2010.

The previous owner revised the approved Mine and Reclamation Plan in 2015. The SBC approved the change of ownership to MP Mine Operations LLC (dba MP Materials) in 2017. In April 2021, MP Materials filed an application for Stage 2 Facilities Construction (previously approved under the 2010 MUP and vested under the Mining and Reclamation Plan). This application includes constructing, redesigning, improving and/or re-locating several processing facilities identified in the 2010 MUP. MP Materials received formal approval of the modification of the MUP to proceed with the Stage 2 Facilities Construction plan in April 2021.

The future mine plan expands the current permit boundary. The previous owner and MP Materials demonstrate a proactive and constructive dialogue with the SBC-LUS on previous modifications of the Mine and Reclamation Plan (e.g., 2010, 2015 and 2021). The change in the future open pit boundary is within the existing mine disturbance.

MP Materials plans to expand the North Overburden Stockpile (2026), relocate a stormwater diversion channel and relocate the primary crusher (2027). The stockpile expansion and primary crusher relocation will require a permit amendment. The proposed action for the stormwater diversion channel will be a minor amendment. Based on their recent record of permit applications and approvals with regulatory authorities, MP Materials estimates the longest duration of regulatory review and approval of an amendment to be less than 18 months. Minor amendments typically require less than 6 months. MP Materials schedules application submittal dates based on these durations.

The future mine plan also requires construction of a new, 89 million short ton East Overburden Stockpile (2035). The 2004 EIR considered a tailings storage facility on private property and east of the processing area. MP Materials will need to engage with the SBC-LUS and allow sufficient time to assess if a

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 230

 

 

negative declaration is possible or if additional data collection will be required before SBC-LUS will consider a new application.

Since 2017, MP Materials demonstrates a pro-active, working relationship with the SBC-LUS and other regulatory authorities. This relationship includes timely and successful permit amendments and approvals for current operations. SRK is of the opinion that MP Materials will continue to successfully engage regulatory authorities and gain approval for future amendments related to site operations within the private property boundary.

Table 17-1 presents a summary of current Mountain Pass environmental permits.

Table 17-1: Current Environmental Permits and Status

 

Permit    Agency            Expiration Date            
Right of Way for the Shadow Valley Fresh Water Pipeline CA12455    Bureau of Land Management    12/31/2041    
San Bernardino County Domestic Water Supply Permit #36000172 (Duplicate of PT0006375)    San Bernardino County Department of Public Health    No Expiration  
EPA Identification Number CAD009539321    US Environmental Protection Agency    No Expiration  
Hazardous Materials Certificate of Registration    US Department of Transportation    6/30/2022(1)  
NRC Export License XSOU8707/08    US Nuclear Regulatory Commission    12/31/2031  
NRC Export License XSOU8827/03 (2)    US Nuclear Regulatory Commission    12/31/2031  
Conditional Use Permit 07533SM2/DN953-681N    San Bernardino County Land Use Services Department    11/23/2042  
CUPA Annual Permit FA0004811    San Bernardino County Fire Protection District    9/30/2022  
LRWQCB Order 6-01-18 Domestic Wastewater System    Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board    No Expiration  
LRWQCB Order R6V-2005-0011On Site Evaporation Ponds    Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board    No Expiration  
LRWQCB Order R6V-2010-0047 - Mine and Mill Site, including paste tailings    Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board    No Expiration  
Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District - Permits to Operate    Mojave Desert AQMD    2/28/2022(3)  
Right-Of-Way Lease 6375.2    California State Lands Commission    1/19/2032  
Radioactive Materials License #3229-36 for ongoing operations and Paste Tailings    California Department of Public Health — Radiologic Health Branch    12/21/2020  
Right of Way for the Shadow Valley Fresh Water Pipeline CA12455    Bureau of Land Management    Active  
Minor Use Permit - Project Phoenix (Amended Reclamation Plan)    San Bernardino County    11/22/2042  

Source: MP Materials, 2021

(1): Renewed annually.

(2): New License replaces XSOU8708.

(3): Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District online records indicate the Mountain Pass operation (Facility ID 364) held approximately 272 individual air quality related permits within the last 22 years. This historical total includes discontinued unit operations. The permit record indicates timely renewals and approvals, including extensions.

 

17.3

 Mine Closure

Mine closure obligations consist of the Mine and Reclamation Plan administered by the SBC, groundwater and surface water measures administered by the LRWQCB, and decommissioning requirements by the California Department of Resource, Recycling and Recovery. SBC and LRWQCB permit authorizations also stipulate post-closure inspection, maintenance, and monitoring activities. Table 3-1 summarizes the current closure, reclamation, and post-closure obligations for the Mountain Pass property.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 231

 

 

18

 Capital and Operating Costs

Capital and operating costs are incurred and reported in US dollars and are estimated at a pre-feasibility level with an accuracy of approximately +/-25%.

 

18.1

 Capital Cost Estimates

The mine is currently operating and, as such, there is no initial capital expenditure other than for the modification and recommissioning of the separations facility, which is currently underway. Recommissioning capital expenditures for the water treatment plant and the combined heat and power (CHP) plant have largely been incurred in 2021, with both units in service as of the end of 2021. All other capital expenditure as contemplated by this report is expected to be sustaining capital. Sustaining capital expenditures include the sustaining capital cost associated with the mining fleet. Also included are sustaining capital cost provisions for planned paste tailings plant, crusher and water tank relocations and the “other” category, which captures all other sustaining capital costs.

 

18.1.1

Mining Capital Cost

The operation is being run as an owner mining operation. A contractor will perform all drilling and blasting operations.

Table 18-1 shows the estimated mining equipment capital cost forecast for the LoM timeframe

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 232

 

 

Table 18-1: Mining Equipment Capital Cost Estimate (US$000’s)

 

Capital Costs     2021       2022       2023       2024       2025       2026       2027       2028       2029       2030       2031       2032       2033       2034       2035       2036       2037       2038        
Mobile Equip. (Purchases)                                                                                                                                                  
Loading                                                                                                                                                  
Hauling                             1,453       1,453       1,453                                                                                                    
Other Ops (1)                                                                             1,058                               2,486       1,058                            
Support (2)                                     231       767               84               2,117       2,156       231       651                               315       231    
Subtotal Purchases                             1,453       1,684       2,220               84               3,174       2,156       231       651       2,486       1,058               315       231    
Mobile Equip. (Rebuilds)                                                                                                                                                  
Loading                                     158               309       309               315                                               1,237                    
Hauling                                             1,090       614                       218       218               3,012                       436               436    
Other             297       393               412       628       182               729       152       182       317       159                       317       282       250    
Support     137               426       275               578       275       303                                       289       137               578       275       303    
Subtotal Rebuilds     137       297       819       275       569       2,295       1,380       612       729       685       400       317       3,459       137               2,568       556       989    
Mining Equip. Total     137       297       819       1,728       2,253       4,515       1,380       696       729       3,859       2,556       548       4,110       2,623       1,058       2,568       871       1,220    
                                       

 

 
Capital Costs   2039     2040     2041     2042     2043     2044     2045     2046     2047     2048     2049     2050     2051     2052     2053     2054     2055     LoM
Total
       
Mobile Equip. (Purchases)                                                                                                                                                    
Loading                                                                                                                                                  
Hauling     2,047               1,453                                                                                                                       7,860    
Other Ops                             1,058                                       1,058               2,486                                                       9,202    
Support             1,852       1,010               1,146       1,146               84       651               231       1,120                                               14,024    
Subtotal Purchases     2,047       1,852       2,463       1,058       1,146       1,146               84       1,709               2,717       1,120                                               31,085    
Mobile Equip. (Rebuilds)                                                                                                                                                  
Loading                                             1,237                                       315                                               315       4,195    
Hauling     436       2,180                               743               436       436       218               614                               436       614       12,136    
Other Ops     317               881               182       317       722               182       317               159       317               282       408               8,384    
Support     275       275                       152                       137       137               275       275               275       275                       5,648    
Subtotal Rebuilds     1,028       2,454       881               334       2,297       722       573       755       535       590       1,047       317       275       556       844       929       30,364    
Mining Equip. Total     3,075       4,307       3,344       1,058       1,480       3,444       722       657       2,464       535       3,306       2,168       317       275       556       844       929       61,449    

Notes:

(1)

“Other Ops” includes dozers, water trucks, motor grader and excavator.

(2)

“Support” includes mobile equipment used in paste tailings operations, maintenance vehicles, light vehicles and pit dewatering pumps.

Source: SRK

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 233

 

 

 

18.1.2

Separations Facility Capital Cost

The separations facility is currently under construction, under MP Materials’ “Stage 2” program to recommission and retrofit the significant in-place separations plant and supporting infrastructure, leveraging the flow sheet as discussed in Section 14. Costs, as estimated by MP Materials and SGS, are primarily related to engineering, procurement of equipment, installation, and construction, and commissioning, and startup. The primary areas of investment include a new concentrate drying and calcining circuit, upgrades to the existing leaching circuit, upgrades to existing solvent extraction circuits, upgrades to existing brine purification assets, and a new salt crystallizer, as well as new and upgraded product finishing circuits.

Table 18-2 shows the estimated remaining initial capital costs for the separations facility.

Table 18-2: Estimated Remaining Separations Facility Capital Costs

 

Category   

Amount

(US$000’s)

      

Owner-procured equipment

     19,706     

Engineering, Procurement, and Construction

     143,552     

Owner’s costs

     13,608     

Escalation and Contingency

     33,491     

Total

     210,358     

Source: MP Materials / SGS

 

18.1.3

Other Sustaining Capital

Given MP Materials has only been operating for a relatively short period of time (approximately 4 years), steady state sustaining capital has not yet been realized for current operations. Further, the prior owner only operated the newly constructed facility (largely completed in 2013) for a short time (approximately two years) and was in commissioning/ramp up mode for that time, any historic capital expenditure from that period is not likely representative as well. Therefore, for the purposes of estimating total sustaining capital, SRK utilized the current capital depreciation for its pit optimization purposes which is approximately US$7.7 million per year. SRK views this value as a reasonable proxy for ongoing sustaining capital. Given that mining sustaining capital and other significant capital items were estimated from a first principals basis, for the purposes of the remaining sustaining capital, SRK subtracted the estimated average annual mining sustaining capital from the calculated mining sustaining capital number. Average mining sustaining capital is approximately US$1.8 million per year. This results in non-mining sustaining capital of US$6.0 million per year on average. In SRK’s opinion, this value is a reasonable estimate for long-term sustaining capital for the current operation other than the individually estimated capital items.

To calculate estimated sustaining capital for the separations facility, MP Materials and SGS used a first principles approach utilizing a proxy of a percentage of invested capital into the plant and accompanying facilities, including the CHP plant, to calculate a reasonable estimate for average required reinvestment. This yielded an estimate of US$16.3 million per year in long-term sustaining capital for the separations plant and accompanying facilities.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 234

 

 

18.1.4

Closure Costs

Closure costs are captured as a capital expenditure during the final year of mine operation in the financial model. The high-level closure cost categories are presented in Table 18-3.

Table 18-3: Closure Cost Estimates

 

Category    Unit      Amount       

End of Life Closure Costs

     US$ (Million)        24.65     

Post Closure Costs

     US$ (Million)        14.35     

Total Closure Costs

     US$ (Million)        38.99     

Source: MP Materials, 2021

 

18.1.5

Basis for Capital Cost Estimates

Mining Capital Cost

The mining equipment requirements were based on the mine production schedule, and estimates for scheduled production time, mechanical availabilities, equipment utilization, and operating efficiencies.

Estimates of annual operating hours for each type of equipment were made, and equipment units were utilized in the mining operations until a unit reached its planned equipment life, after which a replacement unit was added to the fleet, if necessary. Major mining equipment rebuild (overhaul) costs were included in the mining equipment capital cost estimates.

The mining equipment capital cost estimate was based on the following:

 

   

All replacement mining units are based on new equipment purchases.

   

Freight cost for mining equipment was generally estimated to be between 3% and 5%.

   

Allowances were made for on-site equipment erection costs for some units.

   

Mining equipment rebuilds were included at appropriate intervals in the mining capital costs.

   

No contingency was included in the mining equipment capital cost estimate.

Separations Facility Capital Cost

The capital cost estimate for remaining spending for the separations facility was based on an assumed project completion in 2022 and actual spending through September 30, 2021. SGS reviewed MP Materials’ existing purchase orders for long-lead owner-procured equipment, as well as the schedule of values for the remaining engineering, procurement, and construction work expected to be performed. The following assumptions informed the capital cost estimate:

 

   

Capitalized internal labor was incorporated at the average rate over 2021.

   

External owner’s representative costs were incorporated based on in-place agreements.

   

The estimate is based on the design and scope contemplated in the Scope of Work contained in the agreement between MP Materials Corp. and its EPC contractor and may change depending on allowances for agreed upon change orders with the EPC contractor.

   

A contingency and assumed escalation based on total estimated project costs was incorporated.

   

The estimate excludes inventory and working capital costs for initial commissioning of the facility.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 235

 

 

Other Capital Cost

Depreciation values were utilized as a proxy for other sustaining capital.

Closure Costs

Closure cost and post closure cost estimates were sourced from the most recent financial assurance estimates provided by MP Materials.

 

18.2

Operating Cost Estimates

Operating costs have been forecast based on the mine’s recent actual costs for concentrator, sales, general and administrative costs. For mining, the operating costs were estimated by SRK from a first principles basis. For crushing, concentrator and site general and administrative, SRK compared forecast operating costs to the historical cost data and believes the forecasts represent a reasonable outlook for the operation. For the separations facility under construction, SGS and MP Materials estimated the operating costs based on a first principles build-up

As with capital costs, operating costs are captured in US dollars and are estimated at a pre-feasibility level with an accuracy of approximately +/- 25%.

 

18.2.1

Mining Operating Cost

SRK estimated the required mining equipment fleet, required production operating hours, and manpower to arrive at an estimate of the mining costs that the mining operations would incur. The mining costs were developed from first principles and compared to recent actual costs. The mining operating costs are presented in the following categories:

 

   

Drilling (contractor)

   

Blasting (contractor)

   

Loading

   

Hauling

   

Other Mine Operations (dozing, grading, road maintenance operations, etc.)

   

Support Equipment Operations (equipment fueling, pit dewatering, pit lighting, etc.)

   

Miscellaneous Operations (various support operations, etc.)

   

Mine Engineering (mine technical personnel and technical consulting)

   

Mine Administration and Supervision (mine and maintenance supervision, etc.)

   

Freight (for equipment supplies and parts, excluding freight for fuel)

   

Contingency

A maintenance cost was allocated to each category that required equipment maintenance.

The mine operating cost estimate includes all mine functions to deliver material to the dumps, stockpiles, and primary crusher. The mining cost center also includes operating labor for the crusher and for loading, hauling, and dozing of paste tailings.

A summary of the LoM unit mine operating costs is presented in Table 18-4. The unit mining costs are presented both with and without long-term stockpile tons included in the divisor. “Per short ton mined” refers to the LoM mining cost divided by the number of short tons of ore and waste excavated from the open pit but excluding all re-handled ore. “Per short ton moved” refers to the LoM mining cost divided by the number of short tons of ore and waste excavated from the open pit, but also including

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 236

 

 

all ore re-handled from long term stockpiles and all fine ore transferred by trucks from the crusher to the mill.

Total LoM mining costs are estimated at US$599 million, with expected unit costs of US$2.77/st-mined and US$2.37/st-moved.

Table 18-4: Mining Operating Costs

 

LoM Short Tons Mined/Moved (000)      216,242     252,581       
Category   US$000      US$/st-Mined     US$/st-Moved       

Drilling/Blasting/Loading/Hauling

    331,370        1.533       1.312     

Other mining costs

    180,593        0.835       0.715     

Mine engineering and administration

    47,903        0.221       0.190     

Contingency (7%)

    39,191        0.180       0.155     

Total

    $599,057        $2.77       $2.37     

Source: SRK, 2021

Annual mining unit costs and annual material movement are presented in Figure 18-1.

 

LOGO

Unit Mining Cost short tons Mined

Source: SRK, 2021

Figure 18-1: Mining Unit Cost Profile

The basis for the mining operating cost estimates includes the following parameters:

 

   

Diesel fuel cost of US$2.92/US gallon (delivered to site)

   

Average density for waste of 0.0864 short ton /ft3 (2.77 t/m3)

   

Average density for ore of 0.0976 short ton /ft3 (3.13 t/m3)

   

Average moisture content for rock is 2%

   

Average swell factor of mined rock is 40% for loading and hauling estimation

   

Typical mining operations support equipment utilization of 1,629 to 3,258 operating hours per year (for track dozer, grader, water trucks, excavator, etc.)

   

All crusher ore feed re-handled in primary crusher RoM stockpiles

   

Estimated average tire lives of:

 

  o

Wheel loaders: 4,000 operating hours

 

  o

Haul trucks: 4,000 operating hours

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 237

 

 

  o

Other major mining equipment: 3,500 operating hours

   

5% freight cost on mining operating and maintenance supplies

   

7% contingency is included in the mining operating cost estimates.

Employee wages were based on normal hourly wages for surface mining operations in California (including appropriate overtime allowances), and wage burdens (33%) were based on information provided by MP Materials. The costs for maintenance supplies and materials were based on estimates presented in the current InfoMine mining cost service publications. Other mining related costs were provided by MP Materials.

Included in the mine operating cost estimate are the following:

 

   

Drilling contractor costs

   

Blasting contractor costs

   

Operating labor for the primary crusher

   

Loading, hauling, and dozing of paste tailings

   

Contractor and professional services

   

Memberships and subscriptions

   

Office and building costs

Excluded from the mine operating cost estimate are the following:

 

   

Mining equipment replacements and rebuilds (overhauls) which are included in the mining sustaining capital costs

   

Post-mining reclamation costs

   

Process related costs

   

General overheads outside of the mine

 

18.2.2

Processing Operating Cost

Crushing and Concentrating Cost

The forecast average LoM processing cost, inclusive of crushing costs, is US$52.76 per short ton of ore fed to the mill. This cost is based on actual costs incurred by MP Materials during the period January – September 2021, plus an additional 5% for increased labor costs and 3% for increased consumable costs.

The processing cost includes:

 

   

Crushing

   

Milling, Flotation, Tailings and Lab

   

Warehouse

   

Engineering

   

Utilities

   

Facilities,

   

Maintenance

   

Other Related Costs

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 238

 

 

Separations Facility Operating Cost

The operating cost estimate for the separations facility (currently under construction) is based on a first principles estimate developed by SGS and MP Materials. The costs are estimated at a pre-feasibility level with an accuracy of +/- 25%. Included in the separations facility operating cost is the net incremental cost to operate the on-site CHP power plant.

The basis for the separations cost estimates includes the following parameters:

 

   

Average plant load of approximately 14.5MW for the incremental separations facilities

   

Power costs of US$0.08 per kWh

   

Hydrochloric acid cost of US$0.08/kg, 36% w/w HCl solution basis

   

Sodium hydroxide cost of US$0.26/kg, 50% solution basis

   

Sodium carbonate cost of US$0.33/kg, dry basis

The separations cost includes:

 

   

Filtration and Drying

   

Calcining

   

Leaching, Thickening and Filtration

   

Impurity Removal Steps

   

Solvent Extraction

   

Product Finishing

   

Brine Purification and Salt Crystallization

   

Water Treatment Plant and Combined Heat and Power Plant costs

   

Incremental facilities and utilities expenses

   

Incremental maintenance expenses

   

Other Related Costs

Operations and labor were determined by MP Materials’ analysis of staffing needs by circuit, including operations, maintenance, and engineering. A significant proportion of supplies and services costs are reagents, which usage was estimated by MP Materials and SGS as derived from historical operations and records, pilot testing, and 3rd party analysis.

Table 18-5 shows the annual separations facility operating cost when treating approximately 72,500 metric tonnes of concentrate feed per year. In the economic model, adjustments to the annual separations operating costs were applied based on fixed costs (approximately $46.8 million) and variable costs (US$1,196 per metric tonne of concentrate) for periods when more or less concentrate is being treated. The fixed cost is factored in the final year of operations to account for a partial operational year.

Table 18-5: Separations Operating Costs

 

Category    US$000’s/year        

Operations and maintenance labor

     26,669      

Supplies and services

     52,673      

Utilities and fuel

     17,841      

Other related costs

     4,285      

Total

     $101,468      

Note: Based on approximately 72,500 metric tonnes of concentrate treated.

Source: MP Materials / SGS

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 239

 

 

18.2.3

Selling, General, and Administrative Operating Costs

SRK evaluated site general and administrative (G&A) expenses for the Mountain Pass operation on the basis that any additional SG&A costs associated with the separations facility are captured within the operating cost estimate for that facility provided by SGS (as the QP responsible for those costs). Actual G&A costs over the trailing 9 months (January 2021 to September 2021) are shown in in Table 18-6.

Table 18-6: Summary of MP Materials Site G&A Operating Costs

 

G&A Costs    Units       Trailing (9 Month Total        

G&A

     US$ (000)         14,579      

Source: MP Materials, 2021

Given the current inflationary environment, SRK views the most recent costs (i.e., 9 months trailing) as most reflective of the operation’s forward looking costs.

The Mountain Pass mining operation is in steady state and no significant changes are forecast with respect to G&A expenses other than those associated with the addition of the separations facility which are captured within that facilities operating costs and are not accounted for here. In SRK’s opinion, the steady state operation of the asset and lack of forecast significant changes to G&A spend indicate that material changes in G&A spend are unlikely and SRK is therefore comfortable extending this operating cost without modification. This results in G&A costs of US$19.4 million per year, which is treated as fully fixed for modeling purposes. This cost is factored in the first and final year of operations to account for a partial operational year.

As part of the net revenue calculation in the model, selling (i.e., shipping) costs are calculated separately from G&A costs. The modeled shipping costs are US$198.76 per metric tonne of product as provided by MP Materials. This is broadly in line with previous realized shipping costs at the operation and the current market environment.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 240

 

 

19

 Economic Analysis

 

19.1

 General Description

SRK prepared a cash flow model to evaluate Mountain Pass ore reserves on a real basis. This model was prepared on an annual basis from the reserve effective date to the exhaustion of the reserves. This section presents the main assumptions used in the cash flow model and the resulting indicative economics. The model results are presented in U.S. dollars (US$), unless otherwise stated.

All results are presented in this section on a 100% basis.

As with the capital and operating cost forecasts, the economic analysis is inherently a forward-looking exercise. These estimates rely upon a range of assumptions and forecasts that are subject to change depending upon macroeconomic conditions, operating strategy and new data collected through future operations.

 

19.2

 Basic Model Parameters

Key criteria used in the analysis are presented throughout this section. Basic model parameters are summarized in Table 19-1.

Table 19-1: Basic Model Parameters

 

Description    Value     

TEM Time Zero Start Date

   October 1, 2021   

Mine Life

   36 years (partial first and final years)   

Separations Facility Start-up

   2023   

Discount Rate

   6%   

Source: SRK, MP Materials

All costs incurred prior to the model start date are considered sunk costs. The potential impact of these costs on the economics of the operation is not evaluated. This includes contributions to depreciation and working capital as these items are assumed to have a zero balance at model start.

The selected discount rate is 6% as directed by MP Materials.

 

19.3

 External Factors

 

19.3.1

Pricing

Modeled prices are based on the prices developed in the Market Studies and Contracts section of this report (Section 16). The prices are modeled as:

 

   

Concentrate – US$10/kg contained REO (equivalent to US$6,000/t of 60% TREO concentrate)

   

Separated PrNd product – US$95/kg

   

Separated La product – US$1.4/kg

   

Separated Ce product – US$4.40/kg

   

Separated SEG+ product – US$7.50/kg

These prices are modeled as a CIF price and shipping costs are applied separately within the model.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 241

 

 

All product streams produced by the operation are modeled as being subject to the prices presented above.

Shipping costs are modeled at US$198.76/t material for both concentrate and separated material. A 13% VAT tax and 2.5% commission are applied to concentrate sold to outside parties to account product taxes and selling costs for concentrate per MP Materials.

 

19.3.2

Taxes and Royalties

As modeled, the operation is subject to a combined 26.84% (federal and state) income tax rate. This rate reflects reductions in tax rates resulting from depletion. This approach was recommended by MP Materials for modelling purposes. All expended capital is subject to depreciation over an 8 year period. Depreciation occurs via straight line method. No existing depreciation pools are accounted for in the model.

The model does not include approximately US$15 million in tax credits from the state of California. Incorporation of these credits would further reduce the tax burden for the operation.

SRK notes that the project is being evaluated as a standalone entity for this exercise (without a corporate structure). As such, tax calculations presented here may differ significantly from actuals incurred by MP Materials.

 

19.3.3

Working Capital

The assumptions used for working capital in this analysis are as follows:

 

   

Accounts Receivable (A/R): 30 day delay

   

Accounts Payable (A/P): 30 day delay

   

Zero opening balance for A/R and A/P

 

19.4

 Technical Factors

 

19.4.1

Mining Profile

The modeled mining profile was developed by SRK. The details of mining profile are presented previously in this report. No modifications were made to the profile for use in the economic model. The modeled profile is presented on a 100% basis in Figure 19-1.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 242

 

 

LOGO

Mining Profile short tons (million)

Source: SRK

Figure 19-1: Mining Profile

A summary of the modeled life of mine mining profile is presented in Table 19-2.

Table 19-2: LoM Mining Summary

 

Description    Units    Value       

Total Ore Mined

   dst (million)        30.53     

Total Waste Mined

   dst (million)      185.71     

Total Material Mined

   dst (million)      216.24     

Average Grade (Mill Feed)

Contained REO (Mill Feed)

LoM Strip Ratio

   %TREO dst (million) Num#     

6.37%
1.94
6.1 x
 
 
 
  

Source: SRK

 

19.4.2

Processing Profile

The concentrator processing profile was developed by SRK and results from the application of stockpile and binning logic to the mining profile external to the economic model. No modifications were made to the profile for use in the economic model other than for sensitivity analysis.

A summary of the modeled life of mine processing profile is presented in Table 19-3.

Table 19-3: LoM Processing Profile

 

Description    Units   Value       

LoM Ore Processed

Average Feed Grade

Concentrate Grade Target

   dst (million)
% TREO

% TREO

   

30.53
6.37%
60.00%
 
 
 
  

Concentrate Moisture

LoM Concentrate Produced

Avg Annual Concentrate Produced

   %

dmt (million)
wmt

   

9.00%
1.87
51,971
 
 
 
  

Source: SRK

The production profile was developed by SRK and results from the application of processing logic to the processing profile external to the economic model. No modifications were made to the profile for use in the economic model other than for sensitivity analysis. The modeled profile for concentrate production is presented in Figure 19-2 and the resulting separated product profile is presented in Figure 19-3.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 243

 

 

Once the separations facility construction is complete, the product from the concentrator is fed to the separations facility to produce separated materials for sale as per the descriptions contained within this report.

 

LOGO

Production profile concentrate produced

Source: SRK

Figure 19-2: Concentrate Production

 

LOGO

Separated Production Profile

Note: The C2 and C3 costs are higher for 2056 because the processing facilities operate for only three months and then the site commences closure activities.

Source: SRK

Figure 19-3: Separations Production Profile

 

19.4.3

Operating Costs

Operating costs modeled in US dollars and can be categorized as mining, processing and site G&A costs. No contingency amounts have been added to the operating costs within the financial model; however, the mining costs were imported from a first principles cost buildup that included 7% contingency. A summary of the operating costs over the life of the operation is presented in Figure 19-4.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 244

 

 

LOGO

Operating Cost (LOM) Mining cost G&A Cost

Source: SRK

Figure 19-4: Annual Operating Costs

The contributions of the different operating cost segments over the life of the operation are presented in Figure 19-5.

 

LOGO

Operating Cost (LOM)

Source: SRK

Figure 19-5: LoM Operating Costs

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 245

 

 

19.4.4

Mining

The mining cost profile was developed external to the model and was imported into the model as a fixed cost on an annual basis. The result of this approach is presented in Table 19-4.

Table 19-4: Mining Cost Summary

 

LoM Mining Costs    Units    Value       

Mining Costs

   US$ (million)        599.1     

Mining Cost

   US$/st mined        2.77     

Source: SRK

 

19.4.5

Processing

Processing costs were incorporated into the model as fixed and variable costs. Variable costs for the concentrator and a combination of fixed and variable costs for the separations facility. Variable concentrator costs are applied to the tonnage processed through the concentrator. Fixed costs for the separations facility were applied on an annual basis and variable costs are applied on a per ton of feed basis. Table 19-5 presents the cost on a per ton basis for the combined plants.

Table 19-5: Processing Cost Summary

 

LoM Processing Costs    Units    Value       

Processing Costs

   US$ (million)        5,259.7     

Processing Cost

   US$/st mined        172.9     

Source: SRK

 

19.4.6

G&A Costs

Site G&A costs were incorporated into the model as annual fixed costs as presented in Table 19-6.

Table 19-6: G&A Cost Summary

 

LoM G&A Costs    Units   Value       

G&A Costs

   US$ (million)       670.9     

G&A Cost

   US$/st mined       21.98     

Source: SRK

 

19.4.7

Capital Costs

As the operation is an existing mine, no initial capital has been modeled. Capital is modeled on an annual basis and is used in the model as developed in previous sections. No contingency amounts have been added to the sustaining capital within the model. Closure costs are modeled as capital and are captured as a one-time payment the year following cessation of operations. The modeled capital profile is presented in Figure 19-6.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 246

 

 

LOGO

Capital Profile General sustraining

Source: SRK

Figure 19-6: Capital Expenditure Profile

 

19.4.8

Results

The economic analysis metrics are prepared on annual after-tax basis in US$. The results of the analysis are presented in Table 19-7. The results indicate that, at modeled prices, the operation returns a pre-tax NPV at 6% of US$3.5 billion and an after-tax NPV at 6% of US$2.6 billion. Note, that because the mine is in operation and is valued on a total project basis with prior costs treated as sunk, IRR and payback period analysis are not relevant metrics. Annual project after tax cash flow is presented in Figure 19-7.

 

LOGO

Project Cashflow (unfinanced) revenue

Source: SRK

Figure 19-7: Annual Cash Flow

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 247

 

 

Table 19-7: Economic Result

 

LoM Cash Flow (unfinanced)    Units    Value       

Total Revenue

   US$ (Million)       15,271.08     

Total Opex

   US$ (Million)       (6,529.67)     

Operating Margin

   US$ (Million)      8,741.41     

Operating Margin Ratio

   %      57%     

Taxes Paid

   US$ (Million)      (2,075.10)     

Before Tax

          

Free Cash Flow

   US$ (Million)      7,595.68     

NPV at 6%

   US$ (Million)      3,478.59     

After Tax

          

Free Cash Flow

   US$ (Million)      5,520.59     

NPV at 6%

   US$ (Million)      2,556.82     

Source: SRK

 

19.4.9

 Sensitivity Analysis

SRK performed a sensitivity analysis to determine the relative sensitivity of the operation’s after-tax NPV to a number of key parameters (Figure 19-8). This is accomplished by flexing each parameter upwards and downwards by 10%. Within the constraints of this analysis, the operation appears to be most sensitive to, mined grades, commodity prices and recovery or mass yield assumptions within the processing plant. SRK cautions that this sensitivity analysis is for information only and notes that these parameters were flexed in isolation within the model and are assumed to be uncorrelated with one another which may not be reflective of reality. Additionally, the amount of flex in the selected parameters may violate physical or environmental constraints present at the operation.

 

LOGO

Sensitivity Analysis Grade Commodity Price

Source: SRK

Figure 19-8: After-Tax Sensitivity Analysis

 

19.4.10 

Cash Flow Snapshot

The annual cashflow, expressed in million U.S. dollars, is presented in Figure 19-9.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 248

 

 

                                                                                                                                                                                        

Calendar Year

            2021       2022       2023       2024       2025       2026       2027       2028       2029       2030       2031       2032       2033       2034       2035       2036       2037       2038       2039       2040       2041       2042       2043       2044       2045       2046       2047       2048       2049       2050       2051       2052       2053       2054       2055       2056  
   

Cashflow Waterfall

                                                                           
   

Income

                                                                           

Net Revenue

    15,271.1       69.8       311.4       461.9       556.7       568.9       560.6       565.3       555.5       544.2       547.8       541.7       476.3       456.8       454.4       463.5       483.8       453.0       470.6       450.6       479.6       496.2       455.6       412.8       399.1       432.7       445.4       388.2       402 0       343.5       324.0       310.9       355.1       379.4       363.4       243.8       46.6  
   

Operational Expenditure

                                                                           

Fixed

    (2,824.0     (8.9     (36.2     (83.8     (84.6     (85.1     (85.6     (85.8     (83.4     (83.7     (84.1     (84.3     (84.8     (85.0     (84.8     (85.2     (85.6     (83.9     (84.2     (83.9     (84.3     (84.5     (84.9     (85.0     (85.2     (85.5     (85.7     (85.9     (86.6     (83.8     (82.7     (79.6     (77.9     (77.4     (77.7     (77.0     (17.4

Variable

    (3,705.7     (9.6     (41.9     (87.7     (122.0     (128.1     (126.9     (127.5     (126.3     (124.5     (125.0     (124.2     (115.0     (112.1     (111.7     (113.0     (116.0     (111.5     (114.0     (111.2     (115.4     (117.7     (111.9     (105.8     (103.9     (108.6     (110.4     (102.3     (104.4     (95.9     (93.1     (91.2     (97.7     (101.0     (98.7     (81.7     (17.8

Royalty

    -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -      

Total

    (6,529.7     (18.5     (78.1     (171.5     (206.6     (213.1     (212.4     (213.3     (209.7     (208.2     (209.2     (208.5     (199.8     (197.1     (196.5     (198.2     (201.6     (195.4     (198.3     (195.1     (199.7     (202.2     (196.8     (190.8     (189.2     (194.1     (196.1     (188.1     (191.0     (179.7     (175.8     (170.9     (175.5     (178.4     (176.5     (158.7     (35.2
                                                                             

Working Capital Adjustment

    (0.0     (16.7     (2.5     (4.7     (4.8     (0.5     0.6       (0.3     0.6       0.7       (0.2     0.4       4.7       1.3       0.2       (0.6     (1.3     2.0       (1.2     1.4       (1.9     (1.2     2.9       3.0       1.0       (2.4     (0.9     4.0       (0.9     3.8       1.3       0.7       (3.2     (1.8     1.2       8.4       7.0  
   

Capital Costs

                                                                           

Mining Capital

    (61.4     (0.1     (0.3     (0.8     (1.7     (2.3     (4.5     (1.4     (0.7     (0.7     (3.9     (2.6     (0.5     (4.1     (2.6     (1.1     (2.6     (0.9     (1.2     (3.1     (4.3     (3.3     (1.1     (1.5     (3.4     (0.7     (0.7     (2.5     (0.5     (3.3     (2.2     (0.3     (0.3     (0.6     (0.8     (0.9    
-    
 

Other Capital

    (209.0     (7.6     (7.4     (6.9     (6.0     (5.5     (3.2     (6.3     (7.0     (7.0     (3.9     (5.2     (7.2     (3.6     (5.1     (6.7     (5.2     (6.9     (6.5     (4.7     (3.4     (4.4     (6.7     (6.2     (4.3     (7.0     (7.1     (5.3     (7.2     (4.4     (5.6     (7.4     (7.5     (7.2     (6.9     (6.8    
-    
 

Crusher Relocation

    (3.0     -           -           -           -           -           -           (3.0     -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -      

Water Tank Relocation

    (5.0     -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           (5.0     -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -      

Capital Closure

    (39.0     -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           (39.0

Tailings Storage Facility Expansion

    (10.0     -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           (10.0     -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -      

Paste Tailings Plant Relocation

    (70.0     -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           (70.0     -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -      

Separations Capital (Initial)

    (210.4     (27.4     (183.0     -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -      

Separations Capital (Sustaining)

    (537.9     -           -           (16.3     (16.3     (16.3     (16.3     (16.3     (16.3     (16.3     (16.3     (16.3     (16.3     (16.3     (16.3     (16.3     (16.3     (16.3     (16.3     (16.3     (16.3     (16.3     (16.3     (16.3     (16.3     (16.3     (16.3     (16.3     (16.3     (16.3     (16.3     (16.3     (16.3     (16.3     (16.3     (16.3    
-    
 

Total

    (1,145.7     (35.1     (190.7     (24.0     (24.0     (24.0     (24.0     (27.0     (24.0     (24.0     (24.0     (24.0     (24.0     (24.0     (24.0     (29.0     (94.0     (24.0     (24.0     (24.0     (24.0     (24.0     (34.0     (24.0     (24.0     (24.0     (24.0     (24.0     (24.0     (24.0     (24.0     (24.0     (24.0     (24.0     (24.0     (24.0     (39.0
                                                                             

Cashflow Before Tax

    7,595.7       (0.6     40.1       261.7       321.3       331.2       324.7       324.7       322.4       312.7       314.4       309.6       257.3       237.0       234.0       235.6       186.8       235.5       247.1       232.9       253.9       268.8       227.6       201.0       186.9       212.2       224.4       180.1       186.2       143.6       125.5       116.7       152.3       175.2       164.1       69.4       (20.6
                                                                             

Tax Paid

    (2,075.1     -           (13.7     (61.4     (70.4     (85.6     (86.3     (83.4     (83.7     (81.1     (77.7     (78.7     (82.9     (67.7     (63.2     (62.7     (64.6     (69.1     (60.2     (64.1     (59.6     (66.1     (69.9     (60.5     (50.3     (47.2     (57.3     (60.1     (46.9     (49.9     (37.2     (33.0     (31.1     (41.7     (47.5     (43.7     (16.4
                                                                             

Net Cashflow

    5,520.6       (0.6     26.4       200.3       250.9       245.6       238.4       241.2       238.7       231.6       236.7       230.9       174.4       169.3       170.9       172.9       122.2       166.4       186.9       168.7       194.3       202.6       157.7       140.5       136.6       165.0       167.1       120.0       139.3       93.7       88.3       83.7       121.1       133.5       116.6       25.7       (36.9

Note: 2021 is a partial year covering October 1st through December 31st.

Source: SRK

Figure 19-9: Mountain Pass Annual Cashflow (US$ millions)

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 249

 

 

20

 Adjacent Properties

The Mojave National Preserve is located to the north and southwest of the Mountain Pass property. The U.S. Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service administer the National Preserve as well as other public lands surrounding the property. SRK is not aware of any other active mining properties in the vicinity of Mountain Pass.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 250

 

 

21

 Other Relevant Data and Information

There are no additional relevant data or information that would be material to the mineral resources or reserves at the Mountain Pass Project, beyond what is discussed in the other sections of this report.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 251

 

 

22

 Interpretation and Conclusions

Based on the data available and the analysis described in this report, in SRK’s opinion, the Mountain Pass operation has a valid resource and reserve, as stated herein.

 

22.1

 Mineral Resource Estimate

The mineral resource estimate is constrained by a robust geological model and grade boundaries internal to the carbonatite shapes which define a higher grade TREO-rich core vs. an undifferentiated outer shell. The project features a simple Excel-based drilling “database”, most of which has no quality control. This drilling database has been revised significantly since previous iterations, which noted errors and omissions in the collection and integration of that information. This has been corrected for this disclosure. SRK supervised a historical drill core re-sampling and re-assaying program in 2009 through 2010 which demonstrated that, historically, the Mountain Pass laboratory underestimated grade. This is supported further by the fact that grade control and production grades are higher than predicted by the resource block model. The mine currently features positive reconciliations to previous modeling efforts as well as the current prediction of grade if based solely on exploration data. Consequently, SRK is confident that the resource block model is based on drilling data which has been demonstrated to be a robust, albeit conservative, representation of the TREO grade. Other elements such as phosphorus or the discrete LREO or HREO components have been variably analyzed and do not exist at the same density as the TREO information.

SRK has constrained and controlled the mineral resource estimation as a function of a robust geological model based on updated information collected as recently as 2020. TREO samples from drilling and blastholes have been composited for the purposes of use in estimation. Estimates of grade from both data sets have been made into a conventional block model, coded by lithology, resource domain, and a variety of other factors relevant to mining and reporting.

The block model has been constrained by an optimistic pit shell and reported above a nominal COG. Mineral resources have been reported in this report both inclusive of reserves, and exclusive of reserves. The latter should be considered final and authoritative for SK1300 disclosure purposes.

SRK has handled uncertainty and risk in the estimate by categorizing the mineral resources with respect to confidence in the estimate or underlying data supporting it. The mineral resources at the Mountain Pass deposit have been classified in accordance with the S-K 1300 regulations. The classification parameters are defined by both the distance to composite data, the number of drillholes used to inform block grades and a geostatistical indicator of relative estimation quality (kriging efficiency).

 

22.2

 Mineral Reserve Estimate

SRK developed a life-of-mine (LoM) plan for the Mountain Pass operation in support of mineral reserves. For economic modeling, 2022 production was assumed to be bastnaesite concentrate. From 2023 onward, it was assumed that MP Materials will operate a separations facility at the Mountain Pass site that will allow the Company to separate bastnaesite concentrate into four individual REO products for sale (PrNd oxide, SEG+ oxalate, La carbonate/La oxide, and Ce chloride). Forecast economic parameters are based on current cost performance for process, transportation, and administrative costs, as well as a first principles estimation of future mining costs. Forecast revenue

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 252

 

 

from concentrate sales and individual separated product sales is based on a preliminary market study commissioned by MP Materials.

From this evaluation, pit optimization was performed based on an equivalent concentrate price of US$6,139 per dry st of 60% TREO concentrate (net of the incremental benefits and costs related to REE separations.). The results of pit optimization guided the design and scheduling of the ultimate pit. SRK generated a cash flow model which indicated positive economics for the LoM plan, which provides the basis for the reserves. Reserves within the new ultimate pit are sequenced for the full 35 year LoM.

The costs used for pit optimization include estimated mining, processing, sustaining capital, transportation, and administrative costs, including an allocation of corporate costs. Processing and G&A costs used for pit optimization were based on 12-month rolling average actual costs from August 2020 – July 2021. Processing and G&A costs used for economic modeling were updated subsequent to pit optimization and are based on January 2021 – September 2021 actual costs.

Processing recovery for concentrate is variable based on a mathematical relationship to estimate overall TREO recovery versus ore grade. The calculated COG for the reserves is 2.49% TREO, which was applied to indicated blocks contained within an ultimate pit, the design of which was guided by economic pit optimization.

The optimized pit shell selected to guide final pit design was based on a combination of the revenue factor (RF) 0.45 pit (used on the north half of the deposit) and the RF 1.00 pit shell (used on the south half of the deposit). The inter-ramp pit slopes used for the design are based on geotechnical studies and range from 42° to 47°.

Measured resources in stockpiles were converted to proven reserves. Indicated pit resources were converted to probable reserves by applying the appropriate modifying factors to potential mining pit shapes created during the mine design process. Inferred resources present within the LoM pit are treated as waste.

The mine design process results in in situ open pit mining reserves of 30.45 million st with an average grade of 6.35% TREO, as of September 30, 2021, for the Mountain Pass mine (MP Materials mining engineers provided a month-end September 2021 topography as a reserve starting point).

The reserve estimate herein is subject to potential change based on changes to the forward-looking cost and revenue assumptions utilized in this study. It is assumed that MP Materials will produce and sell bastnaesite concentrate to customers in 2022. It is further assumed that MP Materials will ramp its on-site separations facilities (currently undergoing modification and recommissioning) as discussed in Section 10.4 and will transition to selling separated rare earth products starting in 2023.

Full extraction of this reserve is dependent upon modification of current permitted boundaries. Failure to achieve modification of these boundaries would result in MP Materials not being able to extract the full reserve estimated in this study. It is MP Materials’ expectation that it will be successful in modifying this permit condition. In SRK’s opinion, MP Materials’ expectation in this regard is reasonable.

A portion of the pit encroaches on an adjoining mineral right holder’s concession. This portion of the pit only includes waste stripping (i.e., no rare earth mineralization is assumed to be extracted from this concession). The prior owner of Mountain Pass had an agreement with this concession holder to allow this waste stripping (with the requirement that aggregate mined be stockpiled for the owner’s use). MP

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 253

 

 

Materials does not currently have this agreement in place, but SRK believes it is reasonable to assume that MP Materials will be able to negotiate a similar agreement.

 

22.3

 Metallurgy and Processing

 

22.3.1

Existing Crushing and Concentration Operations

 

   

MP Materials has operated a flotation concentrator since December 2017 to recover a bastnaesite concentrate that is currently shipped to China for further processing.

   

MP Materials has conducted flotation studies to evaluate TREO recovery versus ore grade and has developed a mathematical relationship to estimate overall TREO recovery versus ore grade, which has been used to estimate TREO recovery from lower grade ores later in the mine life.

   

Significant improvements in concentrator performance have occurred since May 2019, which are attributed primarily to the installation of a boiler that has enabled flotation to be conducted at a constant higher temperature, as well as new reagent testing and blending of historically problematic ores.

   

During 2020 TREO recovery averaged 66.8% into concentrates containing an average of 60.6% TREO.

   

During 2021 (January – September) TREO recovery has averaged 69.8% into concentrates averaging 61.2% TREO, reflecting ongoing operational improvements in the concentrator.

 

22.3.2

Modified and Recommissioned Separations Facility

MP Materials is in the process of modifying and recommission its on-site separations facility to produce individual rare earth products (PrNd oxide, SEG+ oxalate, La carbonate/La oxide, and Ce chloride). The incentive for this substantial process change is the enhancement of revenue that would be realized for producing individual rare earth products as compared to the current practice of producing a single rare earth containing flotation concentrate which is then sold to various entities that separate and market individual rare earth products. MP Materials has investigated the marketability of the proposed new products and has reached the conclusion that the process modifications specified herein should go forward and has made substantial technical and financial commitments to that end.

Consequently, based upon the value of the rare earth products defined in the table above, coupled with a site visit to the MP Materials installations at Mountain Pass, an interview with the manager of ongoing construction, and conversations with MP Materials engineers that will be directly involved with the commissioning efforts, it is the opinion of SGS that the Mountain Pass modification and modernization project has been performed in an expeditious and professional manner. It is likely that the project construction completion schedule presently anticipated to complete by year-end 2022 will be realized. It is also likely that the ramp schedule assumed for economic modeling purposes, which estimated feeding 50%, 90%, and 100% of concentrate production into the facility in 2023, 2024, and 2025, respectively, is conservative and will be achieved.

 

22.4

 Project Infrastructure

The Mountain Pass site has all facilities required for operation, including the open pit, concentrator, access and haul roads, explosives storage, fuel tanks and fueling systems, warehouse, security guard house and perimeter fencing, tailings filter plant, tailings storage area, waste rock storage area,

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 254

 

 

administrative and office buildings, surface water control systems, evaporation ponds, miscellaneous shops, truck shop, laboratory, multiple laydown areas, power supply, water supply, gas-fired boiler and support equipment, waste handling bins and temporary storage locations, and a fully developed communications system.

Access to the site, as well as site haul roads and other minor roads are fully developed and controlled by MP Materials. Outside services include industrial maintenance contractors, equipment suppliers and general service contractors. Access to qualified contractors and suppliers is excellent due to the proximity of population centers such as Las Vegas, Nevada as well as Elko, Nevada (an established large mining district) and Phoenix, Arizona (servicing the copper mining industry).

The site has a 12-kV electrical powerline capable of supplying the full power needs of the Project in its current configuration. Additionally, a Combined Heat and Power (CHP) facility is in the final stages of being recommissioned and is expected to provide for all the electricity and steam needs for all process areas of the site in early 2022, replacing the need for grid power and the rental boiler.

The LoM plan will require the relocation in 2036 of the paste tailings plant and the water tanks currently northeast of the pit highwall near the concentration plant. Additionally, the crusher will be relocated in 2027 to allow the pit to expand to the north.

The design capacity of the tailings storage facility is approximately 24 million st. The project has utilized approximately 3.6 million st of that space. The existing facility will have a remaining capacity of approximately 20.4 million st which will provide over 23 years of storage. MP Materials will expand the existing tailings facility to the northwest in approximately 2042 to provide an additional 13 years of storage capacity.

Site logistics are straightforward with the current concentrate product shipped in Super Sacks within a shipping container by truck approximately 4.5 hours to the port of Los Angeles. At the port, the containers are loaded onto a container ship and shipped to the final customers.

 

22.5

 Products and Markets

Separated REE products outlined in this report (PrNd oxide, SEG+ oxalate, La carbonate, and Ce chloride) are considered marketable from an economic perspective, provided market standards and requirements are met. CRU forecasts a long-term price of US$95/kg REO for PrNd oxide, US$7.5/kg REO for SEG+ oxalate, US$1.4/kg REO for Lanthanum carbonate, and US$4.4/kg REO for Cerium chloride. The mixed rare earth concentrate price of US$10/kg of contained REO will be principally driven by trends in PrNd and dysprosium, price swings of which will be mirrored by concentrates.

 

22.6

 Environmental, Closure, and Permitting

As of September 30, 2021, MP Materials holds the necessary operating permits, including conditional use and minor use permits from the County of San Bernardino (SBC), which currently allows continued operations of the Mountain Pass facility through 2042. The proposed mine plan extends the mine life to 2055. The future mine plan requires expansion of the current permitted boundary of the open pit, expansion of the North Overburden Stockpile and construction of a new East Overburden Stockpile.

MP Materials will need to engage with the SBC-LUS and other regulatory authorities and allow sufficient time to prepare the permit applications and gain the necessary approvals to implement the mine plan described herein. There is a risk that the timing for regulatory approvals may be longer than

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 255

 

 

anticipated. In this case, MP Materials may not be able to implement or follow the mine plan as currently proposed. SRK is of the opinion that MP Materials will continue to successfully engage regulatory authorities and gain approval for future amendments related to site operations within the private property boundary.

 

22.7

 Projected Economic Outcomes

The Mountain Pass operation consists of an open pit mine and several processing facilities fed by the open pit mine. The operation is expected to have a 36 year life with the first modeled year of operation a partial year to align with the effective date of the reserves. Under the forward-looking assumptions modeled and documented in this report, the operation is forecast to generate positive cashflow. As modeled for this analysis, the operation is forecast to produce 1.87 million dry metric tonnes of concentrate to be either sold or processed into separated materials. This results in a forecast after-tax project NPV at 6% of US$2.6 billion.

The analysis performed for this report indicates that the operation’s NPV is most sensitive to variations in the grade of ore mined, the commodity price received and processing plant performance.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 256

 

 

23

 Recommendations

As an operating mine, there are no further work programs or studies that are required to extract the reserve estimated herein. However, there remain opportunities for MP Materials to perform additional data collection or study to potentially benefit the operation.

Geology and Resources

SRK notes that ongoing drilling should be a part of further development of the Mountain Pass mine. As shown in recent reconciliations, modeling of short range variability in the resource will depend on additional information at relatively close spacings to characterize and better predict for short term planning. Such a program would involve continuous drilling of immediate near-term production, and should be considered an operational cost of the mine in the future. In addition, the resource locally remains open at depth and may benefit from additional drilling in more widely-spaced areas. SRK estimates a drilling program of 10,000 to 20,000 ft of drilling would improve confidence in the model and potentially convert existing Inferred resources to a higher category appropriate for conversion to reserves.

Beyond the additional drilling, there are minor recommendations which also may benefit the operation going forward.

 

   

Refinement of the existing structural model with additional data and mapping collected by structural geologists or rock mechanics experts to support the geological model and

   

A study of ore density versus ore grade, which can be completed using existing core in storage, could improve the accuracy of the block model grade and tonnage estimation.

   

Improved database architecture and validation of exploration and mine data. Currently, this is based almost entirely in digital spreadsheets.

   

Separate assaying of the light rare earth oxides and phosphorus through the carbonatite units and 20 ft into the hangingwall and footwall units should be implemented routinely for future drilling and further re-assaying of existing drill core. This should be extended to individual heavy rare earth oxides should the project strategy consider incorporating these as products in the future.

   

Phosphorus assays may help to refine the resource model by identifying monazite-rich zones. SRK also recommends creating a minimum of two (a high and low grade) site specific reference standards for QA/QC to be used in all future assaying programs. These reference standards should be certified through a multi-laboratory round-robin program to achieve industry best practice.

   

SRK also strongly recommends improving the QA/QC process to demonstrate that the internal laboratory and any external laboratories can be independently checked for precision and accuracy. Currently, the lack of commercial standards and a consistent approach to blank and duplicate insertion and analysis is not consistent with industry standards.

The estimated cost for the additional drilling and other recommendations is approximately US$3 million.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 257

 

 

Mining and Reserves

Geotechnical Recommendations:

 

   

Optionally, MP Materials could choose to update the current mine plan using the less conservative final pit slope recommendations provide by CNI in January 2022. This would represent an opportunity for optimization and is not required to extract the mineral reserve stated in this report. The estimated cost to update the mine plan and perform a geotechnical review of the revised pit design is approximately US$75,000.

   

Routine geotechnical slope monitoring, data collection, and analysis should continue. MP Materials should review geotechnical parameters and optimize the mine plan prior to starting new phases based on this review. This is an ongoing effort at Mountain Pass and costs are part of the mine operating costs that have been estimated for extraction of the mineral reserves.

Hydrogeology:

 

   

Conduct additional hydrogeological studies of the deep part of the bedrock to the elevation of the proposed bottom of the pit (3,000 ft amsl) by conducting packer isolated tests in three or four core holes defining bedrock permeability and dewatering targets (where and to what depth dewatering wells can be installed). Vibrated wire piezometers (similarly installed by CNI) are also recommended in these core holes).

   

Develop numerical groundwater flow to predict inflow to the proposed pit and better define:

  o

Dewatering requirements

  o

Pore-pressures in pit walls and the potential necessity to reduce them by installation of horizontal drain holes from pit benches (if required by geotechnical conditions of the slopes)

  o

Propagation of the drawdown cone during both mining and post-mining conditions (including pit lake infilling) to evaluate potential impact the groundwater system as a result of continued deepening of the open pit

   

The estimated cost to conduct the recommended hydrogeological studies and numerical groundwater modeling is approximately US$1.4 million.

Costs and Economics

 

   

Develop a more-detailed mid- and long-term sustaining capital expenditure estimate. SRK completed a long-term estimate for mining-related capital, and other components of the operation should generate a similar forecast to improve long-term budgeting. There would be no additional cost for this recommendation as the work would be performed by existing MP Materials staff.

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 258

 

 

24

 References

American Geological Institute (AGI) (1997). Dictionary of Mining, Mineral, and Related Terms, 2nd Ed.

Bieniawski, Z.T. (1976). Rock Mass Classification in Rock Engineering, in proceedings Symposium on Exploration for Rock Engineering, Johannesburg, South Africa, vol 1, p. 97-106.

Call & Nicholas Inc. (CNI) (2011). Slope Stability Study Mountain Pass Mine. Consultant’s report dated October 2011, 135 p.

Call & Nicholas Inc. (CNI) (2021) November 2021 Mountain Pass: power point presentation showing status of geotechnical study, November 2021

ENSR (1996), Molycorp Mountain Pass Mine Expansion Project Mountain Pass, California. Draft Environmental Impact Report, December 9.

Geo-Logic Associates (2021), First Semiannual 2021 Monitoring Report Mine and Mill Site Monitoring and Reporting Program: report prepared for MP Materials, July 30, 2021

Golder Associates (2002). Post Closure Stability Analyses, Mountain Pass Mine, California. Consultant’s Technical Memorandum dated November 5, 2002, 24 p.

Golder Associates (2009). Mountain Pass Mine Pit Slope Inspection. Consultant’s Report dated September 8, 2009, 50 p.

InfoMine USA, Inc., (2021). Mine and Mill Equipment Costs, Spokane Valley, Washington.

Molycorp Inc. (2005). Final Mine and Reclamation Plan for the Mountain Pass Mine, 2004M-02, CA Mine Id#91-36-0002, Submitted to County of San Bernadino, Finalized March 2005, 117p.

Nicholas & Sims, 2001, Collecting and Using Geologic Structure for Slope Design. Published in “Slope Stability in Surface Mining” ed Hustrulid, W.A., McCarter, M.K., & VanZyl D.: pp 11-26.

Read & Stacey (2009). Guidelines for Open Pit Slope Design, CRC Press, 510 p.

Ritchie, AM (1963). Evaluation of Rockfall and Its Control, Highway Research Record (17) 13-28.

Ryan & Pryor (2000). Designing Catch Benches and Interramp Slopes. In W. A. Hustrulid, M. K. McCarter, & D. J. Van Zyl (Eds.), Slope Stability in Surface Mining (pp. 27-38). Littleton, CO: Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration, Inc.

SRK (2010), Engineering Study for Re-Start of Mountain Pass Rare Earth Element Mine and Processing Facility Mountain Pass, California: report prepared for Molycorp Minerals, April 28.

SRK Consulting (2012). NI 43-101 Technical Report Mountain Pass Rare Earth Project, San Bernadino County, California, dated May 7, 2012, 251p.

SRK Consulting (2020). SEC Guide 7 Technical Report Resource and Reserve Statement, Mountain Pass, San Bernadino County, California, dated September 28, 2020, 214p.

Storey, A.W. (2010). Design Optimization of Safety Benches for Surface Quarries through Rockfall Testing and Evaluation, MS Thesis, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, 136p.

Vector Engineering Inc. (1995). Post Closure Pit Slope Analyses for the Mountain Pass Mine in San Bernadino County, California, Job No. 975003.00. December, 1995

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 259

 

 

25

 Reliance on Information Provided by the Registrant

The Qualified Person’s opinions contained herein is based on information provided to the Qualified Persons by MP Materials throughout the course of the investigations. Table 25-1 of this section of the Technical Report Summary will:

(i) Identify the categories of information provided by the registrant;

(ii) Identify the particular portions of the Technical Report Summary that were prepared in reliance on information provided by the registrant pursuant to Subpart 1302 (f)(1), and the extent of that reliance; and

(iii) Disclose why the qualified person considers it reasonable to rely upon the registrant for any of the information specified in Subpart 1302 (f)(1).

Table 25-1: Reliance on Information Provided by the Registrant

 

Category    Report Item/ Portion   

Portion of

Technical Report

Summary

  

Disclose why the Qualified

Person considers it reasonable

to rely upon the registrant

Claims List    3    3.2 Mineral Title    MP Materials provided SRK with a current listing of claims. The information was sourced from the Bureau of Land Management.
Marketing Agreements    16    16.5 Specific Products    MP Materials provided CRU with information regarding the product specifications intended for production both now and in future
Marketing Agreements    16    16.7 Contracts    MP Materials provided CRU with current marketing agreements and potential terms of agreements tied to future product sales and operations.
Marketing Plans    19    19 Economic Analysis    MP Materials provided SRK with input into the shipping points of sale and associated shipping costs used in the model.
Environmental Studies    17    17.1 Environmental Studies    SRK was provided with various environmental studies conducted on site. These studies were of a vintage that independent validation could not be completed.
Discount Rates    19    19 Economic Analysis    MP Materials provided SRK with discount rates based on the Company’s Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC).
Tax rates and government royalties    19    19 Economic Analysis    SRK was provided with income and applicable VAT tax rates by MP Materials for application within the model. These rates are in line with SRK’s understanding of the tax regime at the project location.

Source: SRK and CRU

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Page 260

 

 

Signature Page

This report titled “SEC Technical Report Summary, Pre-Feasibility Study, Mountain Pass Mine, San Bernardino County, California” with an effective date of September 30, 2021, was prepared and signed by:

 

SRK Consulting (U.S.) Inc.

  

(Signed) SRK Consulting (U.S.) Inc.

Dated at Denver, Colorado

February 16, 2022

 

SGS North America Inc.

  

(Signed) SGS North America Inc.

Dated at Tucson, Arizona

February 16, 2022

 

CRU International Limited

  

(Signed) CRU International Limited

Dated at London, United Kingdom

February 16, 2022

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Appendices

 

 

 

 

 

Appendices

 

 

 

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Appendices

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix A: Claims List

 

 

 

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Appendices

 

 

LOGO

MINING CLAIM CUSTOMER INFORMATION NO WARRANTY NY BLM

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Appendices

 

 

LOGO

MINING CLAIM CUSTOMER INFORMATION SECURE NATURAL RESOURCING LLC

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Appendices

 

 

LOGO

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Appendices

 

 

LOGO

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Appendices

 

 

LOGO

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Appendices

 

 

LOGO

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Appendices

 

 

LOGO

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Appendices

 

 

LOGO

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Appendices

 

 

LOGO

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Appendices

 

 

LOGO

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Appendices

 

 

LOGO

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Appendices

 

 

LOGO

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Appendices

 

 

LOGO

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Appendices

 

 

LOGO

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Appendices

 

 

LOGO

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Appendices

 

 

LOGO

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Appendices

 

 

LOGO

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Appendices

 

 

LOGO

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Appendices

 

 

LOGO

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Appendices

 

 

 

Appendix B: Grade Estimation Details

 

 

 

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Appendices

 

 

LOGO

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Appendices

 

 

LOGO

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Appendices

 

 

LOGO

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Appendices

 

 

LOGO

 

 

     February 2022


SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.

 

SEC Technical Report Summary – Mountain Pass Mine

  Appendices

 

 

LOGO

 

 

     February 2022