POLY4 PRODUCT HANDBOOK

Transcription

1 POLY4 PRODUCT HANDBOOK

2 CONTENTS Introduction to POLY4 3 The POLY4 cornerstones 4 Effectiveness 5 Efficiency 6 Flexibility 7 Sustainability 8 POLY4 performance 9 China 10 Latin America 14 North America 18 Europe 22 Africa 26 Product characteristics 30 Nutrient content 31 Compatibility in blends and storage life 32 Critical relative humidity (CRH) 35 Crush strength 36 Spreader testing 37 Salt index 38 Solubility 39 POLY4 in soil 41 Nutrient delivery 42 Soil ph 43 Soil EC 44 Carbon footprint 45 The Project 46 References 48 Acronyms 50 Notes 51 2

3 INTRODUCTION TO POLY4 POLY4 is the trademark name of Sirius Minerals Plc s flagship polyhalite product. Polyhalite is a naturally occurring, low chloride multi-nutrient fertilizer containing four of the six essential macro nutrients required for plant growth. Using POLY4 as the source of potassium, sulphur, magnesium, and calcium is more efficient and effective for farmers, delivering flexible and more sustainable fertilizer practices. It allows farmers to maximise the economic potential of their land, in terms of crop yield, quality and soil structure with one simple product. K 2 SO 4 MgSO 4 2CaSO 4 2H 2 O K2O 14 S 19 MgO 6 CaO 17 3

4 THE POLY4 CORNERSTONES POLY4 has four key attributes that benefit farmers by increasing their profits in a sustainable way through improved yields, reduced costs or both. EFFICIENCY Improves fertilizer use efficiency by delivering greater nutrient uptake High nutrient density delivers four macro nutrients in one easy-to-use, cost-effective granular delivery system EFFECTIVENESS Improves both yield and quality Improves macro and micro nutrient uptake Minimises crop losses through disease resilience Has a desirable nutrient release profile Granular product that handles, stores, blends and spreads effectively FLEXIBILITY Low chloride and ph neutral product that can be used on all plants and soils in all growing climates Successful as a straight fertilizer or as a component of blend formulations No negative interactions with other fertilizers Allows a farmer to choose the timing of application SUSTAINABILITY Improves soil strength, structure and nutrient legacy Reduces agriculture s impact on the environment by improving fertilizer use efficiency, reducing erosion and nutrient loss Certified for organic use Excellent environmental profile 4

5 EFFICIENCY POLY4 IS AN EFFICIENT MULTI-NUTRIENT FERTILIZER: Improves fertilizer use efficiency by delivering greater nutrient uptake; High nutrient density delivers four macro nutrients in one easy-to-use, cost-effective granular delivery system. Trial results show that POLY4 delivers better nutrient uptake for both macro and micro nutrients. This is a key profit driver as more nutrients are used by the crop for yield and quality improvements. POLY4 s multi-nutrient properties help farmers to control costs by decreasing fertilizer and farm inputs, while reducing nutrient waste by delivering nutrients over a time frame, which more closely aligns with the needs of a plant. POLY4 s nutrient release profile supports the crop from establishment through to harvest compared to conventional fertilizers, which tend to be applied and deliver nutrients ahead of crop demand. IN THE FIELD* In this rice study, grain nutrient uptake indicative of a healthy plant was increased for both micro and macro nutrients in a recent study conducted with the Nanjing Institute of Soil Science. POLY4 application resulted in a 38% increase in potassium uptake which is key to the photosynthesis process, cell wall strength and a crop s resilience to disease. Nutrient uptake (kg ha -1 ) Increased uptake of other macro and micro nutrients also supports plant health, such as sulphur and calcium which can play an important role in combatting heavy metal uptake and toxicity. This is important in the low-oxygen environment around paddy rice roots, where the plant s ability to deal with toxic substances is often reduced. +2% +5% +38% +5% +1% +21% -26% POLY MOP Potentially toxic element N P K S Mg Ca Al FIGURE 2: Rice grain nutrient uptake (kg ha -1 ) 1 5

6 EFFECTIVENESS POLY4 IS AN EFFECTIVE MULTI-NUTRIENT FERTILIZER: Improves both yield and quality; Improves macro and micro nutrient uptake; Minimises crop losses through disease resilience; Has a desirable nutrient release profile; Granular product that handles, stores, blends and spreads effectively. IN THE FIELD* Introducing POLY4 into a fertilizer plan for corn increased grain yield and weight and decreased weed presence. For a farmer, the POLY4 blend delivered an extra US$247 per hectare compared to straight MOP. Even at an acceptable application rate of 14 kg ha -1, the plan delivers the same maximum yield plus a further US$23 per hectare. By improving the availability of a broad spectrum of nutrients for plants, POLY4 promotes yield, quality and nutritional health, which can minimise crop losses through disease. These macro and micro nutrients also become available over a longer timeline, which more closely meets the nutrient uptake pattern of the plant. Available in granulated, powdered or standard form, POLY4 is compatible with all major input sources for NPK blending, demonstrating both chemical and physical compatibility. In a small number of cases minor caking was observed after 17 months in storage, which far exceeds the practical storage period of a blend. POLY4 also spreads effectively, up to 36 metres, preventing uneven fertilizer distribution and subsequently reduction in crop yields Farmer return (US$ ha -1 ) ,662 Control +16% 1,597 1,845 MOP MOP+POLY4 6 FIGURE 1: Staples corn economics (US$ ha -1 ) 2 5

7 FLEXIBILITY POLY4 IS A FLEXIBLE MULTI-NUTRIENT FERTILIZER: Low chloride and ph neutral product that can be used on all plants and soils in all growing climates; Successful as a straight fertilizer or as a component of blend formulations; No negative interactions with other fertilizers; Allows a farmer to choose the timing of application. As a low chloride, multi-nutrient fertilizer, POLY4 avoids toxicity issues commonly associated with the application of potassium chloride (MOP) and other high-chloride fertilizer sources. Many crops benefit from a reduction of chlorides in the soil. POLY4 also has no detrimental effect on a soil s electrical conductivity or ph, both of which can be harmful to crops. POLY4 can be used directly or in an NPK blend to supply potassium, sulphur, magnesium, calcium and a range of valuable micro nutrients. Farmers can rely on POLY4 to maintain its granular physical integrity until it reaches the field and, as there are no negative interactions with other fertilizers, POLY4 is a beneficial yet safe addition to a blend. As a granular product, POLY4 s nutrients are readily available to the plant, and its release profile gives farmers the flexibility to choose the timing of application. IN THE FIELD* Trial work with Warwick University on barley found that the performance of POLY4 is maintained regardless of the timing of application. The timing of potassium application depends upon soil fertility and erosion potential. Soils requiring heavy applications are normally dressed in the autumn: soils requiring a maintenance dressing will normally be treated in the spring. Yield (t ha -1 ) Spring POLY4 Recommended application rate THE UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK Light soils, which are subject to winter erosion, will not be travelled during the winter season. Flexibility in timing of application allows farmers to reap the yield and quality benefits from using POLY4 without having to overcome practical application constraints. This flexibility can also have positive implications for a farm s workloads and economics. Autumn POLY Application rate (kg K 2 O ha -1 ) FIGURE 3: Barley yield (t ha -1 ) 6 8 7

8 SUSTAINABILITY POLY4 IS A SUSTAINABLE FERTILIZER: Improves soil strength, structure and nutrient legacy; Reduces agriculture s impact on the environment by improving fertilizer use efficiency, reducing erosion and nutrient loss; Certified for organic use; IN THE FIELD* Results from a long-term soil research programme continue to demonstrate POLY4 s positive effect on soil structure and compressive strength. For a farmer, higher tensile strength makes soil physically stable and less prone to erosion and nutrient loss. High values for Young s Modulus testing indicates that the soil structure has a greater resilience to compaction by farm machinery. 8 Excellent environmental profile. The calcium within POLY4 helps to increase a soil s resilience to compaction, erosion and runoff, which allows a plant to access the nutrients it needs to thrive and reduces nutrient waste into watercourses and beyond. Application of the broad spectrum of nutrients that POLY4 delivers can make soil-bound nutrients more available to the plant and prevent nutrient mining a common threat to sustainable crop production. Polyhalite is a naturally-occurring mineral which results in a low carbon footprint for POLY4, offering farmers an effective, yet responsible, fertilizer solution. The organically-certified POLY4 has no requirement for chemical processing, has the lowest CO 2 emissions and is more environmentally-friendly compared to most fertilizer products. POLY4 helps to rebalance and reconstruct the soil structure supporting sustainable land management Tensile strength (kpa) Young s modulus (MPa) % POLY4 application rate (t ha -1 ) +60% POLY4 application rate (t ha -1 ) FIGURE 4 (TOP): Soil tensile strength 1 FIGURE 5 (BOTTOM): Soil resilience to compaction (Young s Modulus) 1, 9

9 POLY4 PERFORMANCE 9

10 CHINA AGRICULTURAL DRIVER Zero growth fertilizer policy by FORECAST Farm consolidation supporting improved fertilizer practices. MARKET GROWTH Policy enforced changes in agricultural practice, encouraging balanced fertilizer use supporting nutrient use efficiency, and increased applications of secondary and micro nutrients. NEED FOR POLY4 Significant catch up potential in order to move to more balanced and sustainable fertilization practices to restore soil deficiencies. 10

11 REGIONAL SOIL CHALLENGES IN CHINA High agricultural activity and significant deficiencies Deficient in one nutrient supplied by POLY4 Deficient in two nutrients supplied by POLY4 Deficient in three nutrients supplied by POLY4 No data/deficiencies FIGURE 6: Regional soil challenges in China 10 11

12 TRIAL RESULT: CORN PARTNER: SICHUAN ACADEMY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE COMPARISON: POLY4 VS MOP* Balanced nutrition supplied by POLY4 increased crop biomass, plant height and cob height: all positive indicators of nutrient uptake and plant health. Results also showed a 71% reduction in the severity of sheath blight a soil-borne disease which affected the corn plants compared to MOP. For a farmer, POLY4 s effectiveness in this trial demonstrates its ability to increase yields and reduce costs associated with application and remedial action when tackling crop disease. TRIAL HIGHLIGHTS Same corn biomass with a 40% reduction in fertilizer application 9% increase in cob height Increased plant height at a range of application rates Enhanced photosynthetic capacity 71% reduction in disease severity Yield (t ha -1 ) % Same biomass ~40% less K 2 O MOP POLY4 Results support China s zero growth fertilizer policy Application rate (kg K 2 O ha -1 ) 12 FIGURE 7: Total corn biomass (t ha -1 ) 11

13 TRIAL RESULT: TEA PARTNER: SICHUAN ACADEMY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE COMPARISON: POLY4 VS SOP* In this NPK-balanced trial, POLY4 was compared to SOP as a low chloride alternative potassium source. POLY4 increased yield per hectare and leaf dry matter yield in both spring and summer harvests compared to SOP. POLY4 also improved quality drivers including the polyphenol/amino acid ratio, protein content and water extractable solids. In terms of soil amendments, POLY4 significantly reduced soil electrical conductivity (EC) which at high levels inhibits water uptake, germination, nutrient uptake and therefore yield. POLY4 also helped to stabilise the soil ph, compared to SOP. Some sulphur-containing fertilizers and rainwater can lower soil ph, reducing nutrient availability, so POLY4 can remove the potential cost of ph remedial action. Residual soil nutrients post-harvest were also increased for calcium, sulphur and magnesium which improved the soil nutrient status for future crops. TRIAL HIGHLIGHTS Up to 7% increase in leaf dry matter yield Improved quality drivers 9% reduction in the soil s electrical conductivity 7% increase in soil ph to a more stable level Improved soil legacy for future crops Dry weigtht yield (kg ha -1 ) Dry weigtht yield (kg ha -1 ) 383 Control 85 Control +3% SOP POLY4 +7% SOP POLY4 FIGURE 8 (TOP): Spring tea dry weight yield (kg ha -1 ) 1, 12, 13 FIGURE 9 (BOTTOM): Summer tea dry weight yield (kg ha -1 ) 1, 12, 13 13

14 BRAZIL AGRICULTURAL DRIVER The distribution of unexploited agricultural land around the world is extremely uneven, with the Latin American region specifically Brazil and Argentina standing out as having considerable future potential. FORECAST Brazil will become the single most important soybean producer by 2025 with production estimated to reach 135 million tonnes. MARKET GROWTH Sugarcane and cotton continue to be a source of growth for Brazilian agriculture through improved yields and expanded area. The total crop area is forecast to increase by 24%, with soybeans driving most of this expansion. NEED FOR POLY4 Many areas of the region are deficient in two or more nutrients contained in POLY4. 14

15 REGIONAL SOIL CHALLENGES IN BRAZIL High agricultural activity and significant deficiencies Deficient in one nutrient supplied by POLY4 Deficient in two nutrients supplied by POLY4 Deficient in three nutrients supplied by POLY4 No data/deficiencies FIGURE 10: Regional soil challenges in Latin America 14 15

16 TRIAL RESULT: SOYBEAN PARTNER: UNIVERSITY OF SÃO PAULO COMPARISON: POLY4 VS MOP* In Brazil, potassium-based fertilizers are often applied well in advance of soybean emergence to lower the negative impacts of chloride followed by an N+P blend comprised of SSP and TSP. In this trial, this common fertilizer plan was compared to POLY4 as the K source pre-planting and POLY4 as a substitute over SSP as the S source in the N+P blend. Results showed that a farmer can use 66% less K 2 O while satisfying a crop s demand for primary and secondary nutrients. Soil legacy was also improved, with increased amounts of potassium, calcium, magnesium and sulphur found across multiple soil horizons. This more efficient fertilizer plan delivered a US$31 ha -1 saving on input costs. TRIAL HIGHLIGHTS US$31 per hectare reduction of input costs 66% reduction in the K 2 O required to maintain yield Flexibility in application timing Improved residual nutrient content in the soil CI Ca S K 2 O P 2 O S N ($67) MOP pre-emergence ($69) Blend application 9% 9% 32% 50% 4 ($136) Total nutrient input Nutrient input (kg ha -1 ) Total input sources ($41) POLY4 pre-emergence ($64) ($105) Blend application 9% 20% 71% Total nutrient input CI Mg Ca S K 2 O P 2 O S N MAP TSP SSP MOP MAP TSP POLY4 16 FIGURE 11 (LEFT): MOP starter + Blend 2:28:0+7S top dress (as nutrient kg ha -1 and cost in US$) FIGURE 12 (RIGHT): POLY4 starter + POLY4 blend 2:28:6+7S top dress (as nutrient kg ha -1 and cost in US$) 15, 17 16, 17

17 TRIAL RESULT: POTATO PARTNER: UNIVERSITY OF SÃO PAULO COMPARISON: POLY4 VS MOP* This trial was balanced for N, P, K, Ca and S to compare nutrient sources and investigate the importance of POLY4 s micro-nutrient content. The POLY4 blend improved potato yield, with peak yield achieved with a significantly lower application rate. The alternative nutrient source, plus the provision of beneficial micro nutrients, also improved potato size and quality. Dry matter percentage is a key quality parameter as it contains the energy and nutrient value for the consumer and is a key determinate of fry quality. TRIAL HIGHLIGHTS 21% increase in potato yield 40 POLY4 blend 19 MOP+S+Ca blend 20 Peak yield achieved with a 60% decrease in the kg ha -1 of K 2 O required 35 Yield increases were seen across the size categories Percentage of tuber dry matter increased 13% more nutrients in the POLY4 blend Yield (t ha -1 ) % Reduction in input cost price Application rate (kg K 2 O ha -1 ) FIGURE 13: Potato yield results (t ha -1 ) 18, 21 17

18 NORTH AMERICA AGRICULTURAL DRIVER Sulphur, magnesium and potassium deficiencies in major agricultural areas. FORECAST Crop output from the region is expected to increase by 10%, led by corn and soybean. NEED FOR POLY4 Large regions of North America grow crops that are sensitive to chloride toxicity. Over eight million hectares of chloride sensitive crops are produced in the United States alone. POLY4 is a premium specification product that supplies essentially chloridefree potassium, along with sulphur, magnesium and calcium. 18

19 REGIONAL SOIL CHALLENGES IN NORTH AMERICA WA ME MT ND VT CA OR NV ID UT WY CO SD NE KS MN WI IA MO IL MI OH IN KY WV NH NY MA CT RI PA NJ MD DE VA NC TN AZ NM OK AR MS AL GA SC TX LA FL Deficient in one nutrient supplied by POLY4 Deficient in two nutrients supplied by POLY4 Deficient in three nutrients supplied by POLY4 No data/deficiencies FIGURE 14: Regional soil challenges in North America 22 19

20 TRIAL RESULT: TOMATO (DISEASE REDUCTION) PARTNER: UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA COMPARISON: POLY4 VS SOP VS MOP* Bacterial spot disease presents a challenge for 60% of the top ten tomato producers around the world. The infection leads to necrotic lesions and other visible symptoms which makes the crop unmarketable and can cause entire crop loss. This study compared the effect of different potassium fertilizers on inoculated tomato plants. Results show that POLY4 significantly outperformed SOP and MOP, lowering both initial and final disease incidence. This was also the case for disease severity, with POLY4 reducing the development of the disease by up to 89% compared to SOP. In addition to mitigating the risk to revenue posed by crop losses, POLY4 offers a sustainable alternative to costly remedial or preventative measures. TRIAL HIGHLIGHTS Significant reduction in the cost of disease control from the current US$217 per hectare price Up to 80% reduction in disease incidence 80 82% reduction in bacterial spot severity Benefits seen in leaf volume, fresh weight, plant height, root biomass and plant biomass Leaf spot incidence (Number of incidences) Days after planting % -45% d 72d 3.0 MOP SOP POLY4-48% d 20 FIGURE 15: Tomato leaf spot indices (number of incidences) 23, 24

21 TRIAL RESULT: CORN PARTNER: UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA COMPARISON: POLY4 VS MOP* This trial compared straight MOP to an MOP+POLY4 blend (75:25 K 2 O) to investigate the significance of K source and S application for corn plants. The inclusion of POLY4 delivered several yield-supportive results including an increase in plant population and decrease in weed presence. Quality parameters were also maintained including starch, protein, oil and fibre content in the corn. In terms of farm economics POLY4 is an effective substitution: using MOP+POLY4 at the recommended 28 kg S ha -1 rate returned an extra US$247 per hectare compared to MOP. Even at an acceptable application rate of 14 kg ha -1, the plan delivers the same maximum yield plus a further US$23 return. TRIAL HIGHLIGHTS % US$247 per hectare return increase 45% decrease in weed presence Up to 15% increase in grain yield Up to 9% increase in dry kernel weight Improved corn quality 12 9 Yield (t ha -1 ) Control MOP MOP+POLY4 (75:25 K 2 O) FIGURE 16: Staples grain yield (t ha -1 ) 1,

22 EUROPE AGRICULTURAL DRIVER Environmental regulations drive the European agriculture sector to seek an efficient, sulphur containing fertilizer suitable for organic production. FORECAST EU cereal demand could increase by 6% (333 million tonnes) by 2026, driven by feed demand (in particular for maize) and good export prospects (in particular for wheat). MARKET GROWTH Due to regulation, emission controls are in place creating widespread sulphur shortages. Policies are supportive of reducing leaching caused by fertilizers. NEED FOR POLY4 Yields are among the highest in the world with only small margins for improvement (4%) on average. Using POLY4 as the core of a fertilizer programme can improve production through improved Fertilizer Use Efficiency. 22

23 REGIONAL SOIL CHALLENGES IN EUROPE Deficient in one nutrient supplied by POLY4 Deficient in two nutrients supplied by POLY4 Deficient in three nutrients supplied by POLY4 No data/deficiencies FIGURE 17: Regional soil challenges in Europe 29 23

24 TRIAL RESULT: BARLEY PARTNER: UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK COMPARISON: POLY4 VS SOP VS MOP* EU barley yields have gradually increased over time and now rival that of wheat in economic terms. Key to barley s performance is establishment, over winter survival and plant nutrition. Results from this trial showed that POLY4 increased shoot number a key over-winter tactic to maintain yield in addition to significant increases in both macro and micro-nutrient uptake. SOP outperformed MOP in terms of yield by 125%: POLY4 increased yield by a further 10% vs SOP. The importance of timing for the application of POLY4 was also investigated. POLY4 maintained its yield performance in both autumn and spring. Farmers can now choose a more flexible fertilizer solution, without having to forego effectiveness or efficiency. TRIAL HIGHLIGHTS 147.5% yield increase compared to MOP 9% improvement in over-winter shoot survival Yield maintained regardless of application timing Significant improvements in macronutrient uptake Micro-nutrient uptake improvement Increase in leaf quality Reduced fertilizer input cost Yield (t ha -1 ) % +125% POLY Application rate (kg K 2 O ha -1 ) MOP SOP 24 FIGURE 18: Barley yield (t ha -1 ) 6, 30

25 TRIAL RESULT: POTATO PARTNER: SCOTTISH AGRICULTURE COLLEGE (SAC)/ COMMERCIAL PARTNER COMPARISON: RATE RESPONSE/Mg RESPONSE POLY4 improved yield by 16% over MOP. POLY4 also elevated dry matter content by up to 11% over MOP. Potassium is a key driver of yield in potatoes, but the dry matter content of tubers is often reduced by this nutrient due to high chloride levels found in fertilizers such as MOP. POLY4, a low chloride potassium source, supports both yield and quality. The difference in emergence rates was evaluated by measuring the ground cover percentage during early crop development. POLY4 supported the rapid establishment of the potato crop, outperforming other K sources in respect of ground cover. The more effective the crop can be in shading weed seedlings, the better its yield potential. TRIAL HIGHLIGHTS Up to 16% overall yield improvement % Improvements to nutrient uptake, dry matter content, ground cover, stand emergence and quality drivers Economic alternative for the farmer Flexibility of applications Rendimiento Yield (t ha (t -1 ) ha -1 ) Control Control+ Kieserite MOP MOP+POLY4 (75:25 K 2 O) POLY4 FIGURE 19: Potato yield (Mg response) 1, 31, 32 25

26 AFRICA AGRICULTURAL DRIVER Agriculture remains the critical sector of the economy in Sub-Saharan Africa, however soil nutrient degradation is among the major problems hindering agricultural production. FORECAST The outlook for agriculture in the region is broadly positive improved infrastructure, suitably adapted research and extension investments will improve access to markets and make much-needed inputs more widely available. MARKET GROWTH Requirement for a more balanced fertilization coupled with a necessity of nutrients increase to achieve better agricultural yields to sustain the higher fertilizer demand of the world s fastest growing market. NEED FOR POLY4 POLY4 can boost yields, even at low application rates, by providing balanced nutrition to a region where common fertilizer practice can be significantly improved. 26

27 REGIONAL SOIL CHALLENGES IN AFRICA Deficient in up to three nutrients supplied by POLY4 No data/deficiencies FIGURE 20: Regional soil challenges in Africa 33 27

28 TRIAL RESULT: TOBACCO PARTNER: TOBACCO RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF TANZANIA (TORITA) COMPARISON: POLY4 VS STANDARD BLEND* In this trial, three rates of K 2 O application (80, 120 and 150 kg K 2 O per hectare) were used to compare 10:18:24 blends. The POLY4 blend used less input materials to achieve the same composition. POLY4 maintained yield and improved quality parameters. For a farmer, these factors result in a 25% improvement in economic return compared to the standard 10:18:24 blend which translates into US$677 extra income per hectare. TRIAL HIGHLIGHTS POLY4 blend Standard blend US$677 extra income per hectare Maintained quality parameters Reduction in input materials 3% increase in yield compared to the standard blend Additional value (US$/ha) 2,705 2, ,491 3, Blend cost Economic output Quality value Farmer return FIGURE 21: POLY4 blend vs standard blend economic analysis (US$ ha -1 )

29 TRIAL RESULT: CORN PARTNER: AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE (UYOLE) AND MLINGANO AGRICULTURE RESEARCH INSTITUTE COMPARISON: POLY4 VS MOP* This multi-site programme established eight trials across Tanzania six in the Southern Highlands region and two in the Mlingano region. Two blends, POLY4 with N+P and MOP with N+P, were applied. In the Mlingano region, grain yield increases of 11 16% were gained from the POLY4 blend. Plant height, an expression of plant vigour, was improved by an average of 16% in addition to a 51% increase in crop biomass. Biomass is a key value indicator where the plant s vegetative parts are utilised as livestock feed. In the Southern Highlands region, the use of any fertilizer notably improved yields by over 73%. More importantly, there were different responses to K source with MOP showing a depression in yield whilst POLY4 improved yield compared to just N+P. In addition, POLY4 improved corn stover by as much as 10% and the chances of a vigour improvement by 60% across the region. TRIAL HIGHLIGHTS Yield increases at all sites Plant height improved by an average of 16% 51% average improvement in plant biomass Milundikwa Mbimba Isimani Kilindi Site Seatondale ARI-Mlingano Crop vigour improved by up to 35% Tanzania trial locations ARI-Uyole 10% improvement in corn stover Corn ARI-Mlingano/ARI-Uyole/Corn Suluti FIGURE 22: Tanzania trial locations 29

30 30 PRODUCT CHARACTERISTICS

31 NUTRIENT CONTENT POLY4 s four macro nutrients, as stated on its label, are 14% K 2 O, 17% CaO, 6% MgO and 19% S 38. Label declared analysis of a fertilizer is the minimum content of its nutrients or, in the case of undesirable elements, the maximum content of that element. It is most commonly expressed as a percentage by weight. POLY4 s chemical formula: K 2 SO 4 MgSO 4 2CaSO 4 2H 2 O. Nutrient content (%) N CaO MgO S K 2 O 10 0 POLY4 Potassium nitrate (NOP) Muriate of potash (MOP) Sulphate of potash magnesium (SOP-M) Sulphate of potash (SOP) FIGURE 23: Nutrient content of major potash fertilizers 31

32 COMPATIBILITY IN BLENDS AND STORAGE LIFE The compatibility of POLY4 is essential since many fertilizers are sold as blends. Incompatible products often result in caking, which is affected by air humidity, particle shape and size, composition, storage duration, temperature and pressure. Ejection pressure is an indication of the caking propensity for a fertilizer blend. Higher values are indicative of stronger, undesirable cakes that should be avoided. Table 1 provides an evaluation of the caking propensity of NPK 20:10:10 blends from a range of N, P and K sources. KEY DIFFERENCE 20:10:10 BLEND COMPOSITION N source AN+DAP+POLY4+MOP 56.8 AN+AS+DAP+MOP 73.8 K source Urea+DAP+POLY4+MOP 7.1 Urea+DAP+MOP 9.9 EJECTION PRESSURE (kpa) TABLE 1: Caking propensity of 20:10:10 blends with different N and K source 39 As shown, changing the N source can have a substantial effect on caking propensity. Furthermore, adding POLY4 into blends as a K source shows a reduction in caking propensity. 32

33 COMPATIBILITY (CONTINUED) The potential storage life of fertilizer blends can be estimated during the accelerated caking test 40. Figure 24 shows the responses during the caking test for four blends. The time taken to reach 90psi indicates the approximate delay until a cake is formed. The results show that POLY4 has little effect on caking propensity, rather N source is the dominant factor in NPK shelf life. Similarly, making nutrient equivalent NPK blends using different materials has an effect on storage life as shown by using MOP+urea compared to MOP+AN+AS in 20:10:10. Table 2 shows that 20:10:10 NPK blends with POLY4 have a longer storage life than those made with MOP which is desirable for blenders and growers. POLY4+AN 20:10:10 POLY4+Urea 20:10:10 MOP+AN+AS 20:10:10 MOP+Urea 20:10: Compression load (psi) Compression load (psi) Test time (seconds) Test time (seconds) FIGURE 24: Compression curves of 20:10:10 NPK blends made with POLY4 or MOP and different N fertilizers 33

34 COMPATIBILITY (CONTINUED) Blending fertilizers requires consideration of all components compatibility to prevent caking and ensure safety. Figure 25 expands the European Fertilizer Manufacturers Association guidelines for fertilizer compatibility (EFMA, 2006) with test results of POLY4. Through accelerated caking tests, POLY4 is shown to be compatible with a range of nitrogen and phosphorus sources for blending. No incompatibilities with POLY4 were shown amongst the products tested. POLY4 was chemically safe and only has minor caking with some fertilizers after 17 months in storage Ammonium nitrate Calcium ammonium nitrate Ammonium sulphate Urea Minor caking (caking propensity 1 exceeds 60 kpa) develops after 17 months storage Compatible Limited compatibility Incompatible Single/triple superphosphate 1 Monoammonium phosphate KEY DIFFERENCE 20:10:10 BLEND COMPOSITION APPROXIMATE STORAGE LIFE (MONTHS) Diammonium phosphate Potassium chloride N source AN+DAP+MOP+POLY4 23 AN+AS+DAP+MOP 15 Potassium sulphate Kieserite K source Urea+DAP+MOP+POLY4 12 Urea+DAP+MOP 9 34 TABLE 2: Approximate storage life of 20:10:10 blends with different N and K sources 39 FIGURE 25: POLY4 compatibility matrix 41, 42

35 CRITICAL RELATIVE HUMIDITY (CRH) Critical relative humidity (CRH) is the value of the relative humidity of the surrounding air, above which a fertilizer will absorb moisture and below which it does not absorb moisture. Water absorption influences caking propensity which is undesirable as it leads to difficulties in handling and spreading. A typical curve from which CRH is determined is shown in Figure 26 which compares uncoated POLY4 with coated MOP. CRH values of 70% for MAP, DAP, MOP and urea, and lower values near 55% for blends have been reported 43. Uncoated POLY4 has CRH of 70%. This is similar to other substitute products such as MOP (72%), giving blenders and growers confidence in the product s shelf life Uncoated POLY4 Coated MOP Moisture (%) Relative humidity (%) FIGURE 26: Plot of moisture content and relative humidity of uncoated POLY4 and coated MOP measured at 25 C 39 35

36 CRUSH STRENGTH The crush strength of a fertilizer determines its suitability for spreading by agricultural machinery. A crush strength greater than 3kgf is recommended 44 to ensure that the fertilizer will resist stress during transportation and spreading. POLY4 has a crush strength of 5.5kgf which should be optimal for handling, distribution and field application (Figure 27). This strength means POLY4 is spreadable using a spinner at speeds of up to 900rpm and also via boom spreaders Crush Strength (kgf) kgf crush strength AN 46 DAP 47 KIE 48 MOP 49 Fertilizer Urea POLY4 36 FIGURE 27: Crush strength of POLY4 and other fertilizers 45

37 SPREADER TESTING Fertilizer is often applied to fields using mechanical spreaders to ensure an even distribution of the required nutrients. Ineffective spreading leads to uneven fertilizer application, resulting in strips of nutrient-deficient crops and a subsequent loss of farmer income. POLY4 granules were tested using spreading machinery 50 set to a spreading width of 24m and 36m, a typical distance for fertilizer application. Figure 28 shows the results of the spreader testing to be within the 20% tolerance limits, outside which striping manifests within a crop. POLY4 s quality spread pattern reduces the risk of expensive corrective action. Relative contents (%) m 36m Distance from centre (m) FIGURE 28: Spreading results of POLY4 granules at 24m and 36m 37

38 SALT INDEX Most fertilizers are salts containing macro and micro nutrients which, when added to soil, cause an increase in the osmotic pressure of the soil solution. Fertilizers vary with regards to their osmotic effects and their potential for crop injury. They are measured in comparison to a (w/w) standard reference material, sodium nitrate, giving a ratio referred to as the salt index 51. The Jackson (1958) method 52 is the most recent employed and was used to assess a range of potash fertilizers. Results from seven independent laboratories show a lower salt index for POLY4 than MOP, SOP and SOP-M (Figure 29). POLY4 s relatively lower index supports a plant s ability to absorb water and the nutrients contained within the soil solution. Salt index 130±11 97±26 80±23 76±15 MOP SOP SOP-M POLY4 38 FIGURE 29: Salt Index (SI) +/- Standard Deviation for MOP, SOP, SOP-M and POLY4 using the Jackson (1958) method 53

39 SOLUBILITY All fertilizers are characterised by their solubility in water at a given temperature Urea AS MOP SOP POLY4 Gypsum The solubility of POLY4, determined in a standard test over a range of temperatures 54, is compared to the water solubility reported for common fertilizers in Figure 30. The water solubility of POLY4 is 27 g L -1 at 25 C corresponding to the amount of POLY4 that would dissolve in the plough layer of a moist, medium textured soil at a 10 t ha -1 application rate (Table 3). Dissolution rate characterises the transition of a solid fertilizer into a solution. Figure 31 shows POLY4 in comparison to MOP, SOP and SOP-M at 20 C. POLY4 s dissolution rate was similar to MOP, but slightly faster than SOP during the first 15 minutes. Since POLY4 is a mineral, dissolution results in simultaneous nutrient release. Both tests demonstrated that all nutrients are available, with near full dissolution of its nutrient content within six hours (Figure 32). Crops benefit from this characteristic as nutrients are delivered at a pace that is more compatible with their metabolic requirements. Solubility (g L -1 ) Temperature ( C) FIGURE 30: Solubility of POLY4 in water (g L -1 ) over a range of temperatures compared to other commercial fertilizers FERTILIZER SOLUBILITY AT 25 C (g L -1 ) POLY4 27 AS 750 MOP 264 SOP 120 Urea 1200 Gypsum 2.55 TABLE 3: Summary of commercial fertilizer solubility at 25 C

40 SOLUBILITY (CONTINUED) % dissolved POLY4 MOP SOP SOP-M Time (mins) FIGURE 31: Dissolution of granular POLY4 in water over time compared to other potassium-based fertilizers 60 at concentrations of 10 g L -1 % dissolved K 2 O MgO CaO SO Hours FIGURE 32: Dissolution patterns of the nutrients in POLY4 over time at 20 C 61 40

41 POLY4 IN SOIL 41

42 NUTRIENT DELIVERY A plant s nutrient requirements change as it develops so farmers must find a fertilizer solution that aligns with the needs of the plant. Common fertilizer practice tends to apply nutrients such as potassium, phosphorus and magnesium, at sowing. At this stage the plant demand is small so there are more nutrients available to the plant than it needs. Over time, these nutrients can be lost through erosion, runoff or leaching, and so become unavailable towards the end of the plant s life cycle where nutrient demand is at its highest. However, if a farmer uses POLY4 to supply potassium, magnesium, calcium and sulphur these nutrients become available over a longer timeline, which more closely meets the nutrient uptake requirements of the plant. Common fertilizer fertilizer practice practice Plant Plant nutrient requirement POLY4 POLY4 FIGURE 33: Nutrient release profile of POLY4 compared to common practice 42

43 SOIL ph Maintenance of soil ph, within suitable limits, is important for optimum nutrient availability and therefore plant growth (Figure 34). POLY4 has no expected effect on soil ph levels unless there are reducing conditions. For example, when sulphates are reduced to elemental sulphur or in soils with significant aluminium levels that can exchange with the cations and, upon release into the soil solution, enter into chemical reactions that affect ph. An example data set on the effect of fertilizer application on soil ph is provided in Figure 34 for field crop trials. Across a range of K 2 O rates, POLY4 is shown to have no effect on soil ph (Figure 35); none of the soil ph values are significantly different from the unfertilized soil. Supplied by POLY4 Strong acid Not supplied by POLY4 Medium Slightly acid acid Very slightly acid Very slightly alkaline Slightly alkaline Medium alkaline Strongly alkaline 7.5 Barley Soybean Tomato Nitrogen Phosphorus Potassium Sulphur Calcium Soil ph Magnesium Iron Manganese 6.0 Boron Copper and zinc Molybdenum POLY4 application (kg K 2 O ha -1 applied) FIGURE 34: Soil effect on nutrient availability 62 FIGURE 35: Soil ph in water post crop trial 63 43

44 SOIL ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY (EC) Fertilizers are soluble salts which can increase soil water salinity thereby increasing soil EC. In our studies, POLY4 and other fertilizers increased soil EC (as measured after harvest at the higher application rates), but in no instances were the increases sufficient to cause crop damage. An example of the effect of POLY4 application on soil EC for several crop trials is provided in Figure 36. The study shows that even at high K 2 O application rates, soil EC is well within the plant tolerance level for a range of sensitive crops. Depending on soil type and climate, the effect of POLY4 on soil EC appears to be limited. Corn Cabbage (2.8) Corn (3.2) Tomato (3.5) Soybean (5.5) Wheat (7.6) Barley (10) Tomato Cabbage Soybean Wheat Initial soil EC Post POLY4 trial soil EC 10% yield impediment threshold Soil EC (ds m -1 ) 44 FIGURE 36: The effect of POLY4 on soil EC for studies conducted on a range of salt sensitive crops 64 69

45 CARBON FOOTPRINT The world s population is predicted to hit nine billion by Over the next 35 years more food needs to be produced than has been to date in human history. In addition, new wealthy economies are emerging which demand more protein rich and higher quality diets. Sustaining increased livestock herds requires greater efficiency from grain production and arable land. This requires farmers and food producers to use balanced fertilization to increase yields. The situation has become even more challenging as there is increasingly less farm land available to grow the required crops. Application of fertilizer will form an integral part in satisfying this increased demand for food. However, the application of fertilizers is identified as a significant source of greenhouse gases (GHG) 71 and so with increased use there becomes an ever increasing need to improve the use efficiency of applied fertilizers and to use fertilizer species with lower GHG contributions. The estimated value of the global warming potential (GWP) of POLY4 is kg CO 2 e per kg of product 72. This is low compared with other fertilizers and considerably lower than other potassium (K) source fertilizers such as muriate of potash (MOP; kg CO 2 e kg -1 ) and common sulphur (S) source fertilizers such as ammonium sulphate (0.58 kg CO 2 e kg -1 ) 73. Figure 37 shows a comparison between the CO 2 emissions of common fertilizers and POLY4. CO 2 equivalent emission (kg t -1 fertilizer) POLY4 POLY4 (mitigado) 75 SSP TSP MOP MAP SOP DAP AS Urea CAN AN Fertilizer FIGURE 37: CO 2 emissions of common fertilizers 74 45

46 THE PROJECT The Project will involve the installation of simple and long-life infrastructure, which will enable low-cost and large-scale production. Polyhalite will be extracted at the Woodsmith Mine, located south of Whitby in North Yorkshire, from the largest (2.66 billion metric tonnes) high-grade known resource to be found anywhere in the world. The mine will have an initial production capacity of 10 million tonnes per annum (Mtpa) and full production of 20 Mtpa. All mined polyhalite will be transported underground to a materials handling facility on a low impact mineral transport system (MTS), incorporating a high-capacity conveyor belt system in a 37 km tunnel. Located in Teesside, the materials handling facility (MHF) will consist of the plant and equipment necessary to granulate the polyhalite and create the final product. 46

47 PROJECT OVERVIEW m 2 Average depth 250m Redcar mudstone 500m LINING DESIGN SOLUTION Product conveyor FORESHAFT EXCAVATION Safe haven REINFORCED CONCRETE SINGLE TUBBING WITH CONCRETE Maintenance vehicle CONCRETE BARREL WITH DEFORMABLE BACKING 800m Bunter sandstone 1050m 1300m Sylvinite Salt 1500m Polyhalite 6 Up to 70m thick Not to scale 1 SITE PREPARATION 3 MINERAL TRANSPORT SYSTEM (MTS) 35 HARBOUR FACILITY 37 OTHER CONSENTED SHAFTS 2 MINE SITE DEVELOPMENT (MSD) 4 MATERIALS HANDLING FACILITY (MHF) 46 MINING FIGURE 38: Project overview 47

48 REFERENCES *For full trial results and references, please visit poly4.com Page 5 1) Actual mean results from kg K 2 O ha -1 ; Initial soil analysis ph 8.17, EC 357 us cm -1, P 28.5 mg kg -1, K 56.5 mg kg -1, S 56.5 mg kg -1. Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 2) GENSTAT means; 3) MOP+POLY4 was used in a ratio of 75:25 K 2 O to meet K 2 O requirement; 4) Fertilizer prices based on US Mid-West 2015 annual prices: MOP (US$411/t), POLY4 (US$200/t); 5) Analysis accounts for yield changes and fertilizer application cost of US$16.16/t. 6) GENSTAT exponential regression; 7) GENSTAT ANOVA P=0.876; 8) RB209 HMSO 2010; Initial soil analysis: ph 6.7, N mg kg, P 30.0 mg kg -1, K 52.3 mg kg -1, SO 4 7 mg kg -1, Mg mg kg -1. 9) Young s Modulus is a measurement of the elasticity of solid materials. Page 11 10) Potassium Sulphates & Potassium Nitrate Market Outlook (2012) CRU, The Sulphur Institute, RISM Sulphur Corporation, Ming Xian Fan and D L Messick USDA. Page 12 11) GENSTAT exponential regression based on preliminary findings; Initial soil analysis P 13 mg kg -1, K 43 mg kg -1, Mg 37 mg kg -1, Ca 34 mg kg -1, S 27 mg kg -1. Page 13 12) All plots received 240 kg N ha -1 and 120 kg P 2 O 5 ha -1 from Urea and MAP with 169 kg K 2 O ha -1 from SOP or POLY4; 13) Initial soil analysis ph 4.56, K 57 mg kg -1 ; Ca 1602 mg kg -1 ; Mg 88 mg kg -1 ; S 126 mg kg -1 ; EC ms cm -1. Page 14 14) Fertilizer Use in Brazil (2003) FAO, Potassium Sulphates and Potassium Nitrate Market Outlook (2012) CRU, USTIC (United States International Trade Commission) Brazilian Agriculture Outlook April Page 16 15) Weight of MOP starter + Blend 2:28:0+7S was 200 kg MOP kg blend 2:28:0+7S = 400 kg total input; 16) Weight of POLY4 starter + POLY4 blend 2:28:6+7S was 203 kg POLY kg blend 2:28:6+7S S = 403 kg; 17) Fertilizer prices based on quoted CRU Brazil prices Q TSP (US$375/t), SSP (US$298/t), MAP (US$479/t), MOP (US$317/t), POLY4 price (US$200/t). Page 17 18) GENSTAT regression; 19) Made with MOP, Urea, TSP and SSP for 4:14:8; 20) Made with POLY4, Urea and MAP for 4:14:8; 21) Initial soil analyses ph 4.8; P 108 mg kg -1, K 128 mg kg -1, S 12 mg kg -1, Mg 72 mg kg -1, Ca 640 mg kg -1. Page 19 22) Potassium Sulphates & Potassium Nitrate Market Outlook (2012) CRU, USDA, TSI. Page 20 23) Mean results from kg K 2 O ha -1 applications by product, disease causal organism by Xanthomonas campestris pv. vesicatoria and early blight caused by Alternaria solani; Initial soil analysis ph 7.3, EC 98 us cm -1, Ca mg kg -1, K mg kg -1, Mg 177 mg kg -1, SO 4 31 mg kg -1, P 92.8 mg kg -1 soil. Page 21 24) All treatments received 224 N kg ha -1 and 70 P 2 O 5 kg ha -1 from UAN and DAP; 25) MOP+POLY4 was used in a ratio of 75:25 K 2 O to meet K 2 O requirement; 26) Average grain moisture was 17% at both sites; 27) Staples p = <0.001; St Charles p = ) Initial soil analysis at Staples: ph 7; Organic matter 0.23%, P 33 mg kg -1, K 86 mg kg -1, Mg 122 mg kg -1, Ca 1411 mg kg -1, S 1.65 mg kg -1 ; St Charles: ph 6.9; Organic matter 0.27%, P 9 mg kg -1, K 71 mg kg -1, Mg 300 mg kg -1, Ca 1504 mg kg -1, S 1.65 mg kg -1. Page 23 29) Potassium Sulphates & Potassium Nitrate Market Outlook (2012) CRU. Page 24 30) RB 209 HMSO 2010; Initial soil analysis; ph 6.7, N mg kg -1, P 30.0 mg kg -1, K 52.3 mg kg -1, SO 4 7 mg kg -1, Mg mg kg -1. Page 25 31) All plots received 220 kg N ha -1 from AN, 100 kg P 2 O 5 ha -1 from DAP and 300 kg K 2 O ha -1 from MOP and/or POLY4; 32) Initial soil analysis: P 28 mg kg -1, K 106 mg kg -1, Mg 46 mg kg -1. Page 27 33) Hengal et al (2015). 48

49 Page 28 34) Fertilizer prices based on European and North Africa 2015 annual prices: Urea (US$300/t), TSP (US$388/t), DAP (US$492/t), SOP (US$550/t), MOP (US$300/t), Kieserite (US$250/t), Gypsum (US$25/t), POLY4 (US$200/t); 35) Standard 10:18:24 blend consists Urea, DAP, SOP, MOP, Gypsum and Kieserite; 36) POLY4 blend 10:18:24 consists of Urea, DAP, SOP, MOP and POLY4; 37) Analysis based on improvement in yield and economic results presented trial results presented. Page 31 38) SGS France Analysis (Nov 2014), 95% confidence interval for potassium, magnesium, calcium, sulphur and chloride. Page 32 39) University of Limerick (2015). Page 33 40) Walker G.M., Holland C.R. Ahmad, M.N., Fox J.N. and Kells A.G. (1999). Granular Fertilizer Agglomeration in Accelerated Caking Tests. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res Page 34 41) EFMA (2006) Compatibility triangle shown with results from University of Limerick; 42) POLY4 compatibility based on caking propensity and approximate storage life from accelerated caking testing. Page 35 43) Clayton, W.E. (1984) Humidity Factors Affecting Storage and Handling of Fertilizers. International Fertilizer Development Center. Page 36 44) UN Fertilizer Manual (1998); 45) Current formulations as of July 2015 tested by University of Limerick and Mars Minerals; 46) Ammonium nitrate; 47) Diammonium nitrate; 48) Kieserite; 49) Muriate of potash. Page 37 50) SCS Spreader & Sprayer Testing Ltd (2013). Page 38 51) The ratio of the increase in osmotic pressure produced by a fertilizer to that produced by the same weight of sodium nitrate multiplied by 100 to give whole numbers is called the salt index or SI (Rader, L.F., Jr., White, L.M., and Whittaker, C.W. (1943) The Salt Index a measure of the effect of fertilizers on the concentration of the soil solution. Soil Science, V.55, No. 3, pp ; 52) Jackson W.L. (1958) Soil Chemical Analysis, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ; 53) Salt index is average of results from in 2013 from Thornton Laboratories, Spectrum Analytic Inc., Southern jesting, Midwest Laboratories, University of Florida, University of São Paulo and Shandong Agricultural University. Page 39 54) SGS, France (2013); 55) Elam, M., S. Ben-Ari, and H. Megan (1995) The dissolution of different types of potassium fertilizers suitable for fertigation; 56) Sohnel, O., and P. Novotny (1986) Densities of aqueous solutions of inorganic substances. Elsevier, Amsterdam; 57) IUPAC. (2014). IUPAC-NIST Solubility Database. Available online at [Accessed on November 2015] ; 58) American Chemical Society (2006) Reagent chemicals: specifications and procedures: American Chemical Society specifications, official from January 1, Oxford University Press. p ISBN ; 59) S. Gangolli (1999) The Dictionary of Substances and Their Effects: C. Royal Society of Chemistry. p.71. ISBN Page 40 60) SGS, France. (2013) (experiment using agitation); 61) Elam, M., S. Ben-Ari, and H. Megan. (1995). The dissolution of different types of potassium fertilizers suitable for fertigation. Page 43 62) Lucas, R.E. and Davis, J.F. (1961). Relationships between ph values of organic soils and availabilities of 12 plant nutrients. Soil Science. 92: ; 63) University of Warwick (2014)., University of Florida (2015). Page 44 64) Corn 300 kg K 2 O ha -1 Sichuan University (2014); 65) Tomato 175 kg K 2 O ha -1 University of Florida (2014); 66) Cabbage 200 kg K 2 O ha -1 University of Florida (2013); 67) Soybean 250 kg K 2 O ha -1 University of Florida (2013); 68) Wheat 80 kg K 2 O ha -1 SGS (2015); 69) FAO Irrigation & Drainage paper 61. (2002). Page 45 70) Food Matters; Towards a Strategy for the 21st Century. The Cabinet Office Strategy Unit. (July 2008); 71) Sam Wood and Annette Cowie. A Review of Greenhouse Gas Emission Factors for Fertiliser Production. Research and Development Division, State Forests of New South Wales. Cooperative Research Centre for Greenhouse Accounting (June 2004); 72) Demand for fertiliser and associated environmental impacts, Wiltshire, J., Ricardo-AEA Ltd, Gemini Building, Harwell, Didcot, UK (2014); 73) CO 2 emissions are estimated during fertilizer production; 74) SSP Single Super Phosphate, TSP Triple Super Phosphate, MOP Muriate of Potash, SOP Sulphate of Potash, MAP Monoammonium Phosphate, DAP Diammonium Phosphate, AS Ammonium Sulphate, CAN Calcium Ammonium Nitrate, AN Ammonium Nitrate; 75) 10% mitigation from renewable energy sources and 10% from tree planting offset. 49

50 ACRONYMS AN AS CAN CO 2 e CRH DAP GHG GWP MAP MHF MOP Mtpa MTS NOP SOP SOP-M SSP TSP Ammonium Nitrate Ammonium Sulphate Calcium Ammonium Nitrate CO 2 emissions Critical relative humidity Diammonium Phosphate Greenhouse gases Global warming potential Monoammonium Phosphate Materials handling facility Muriate of potash Million tonnes per annum Mineral transport system Potassium Nitrate Sulphate of potash Sulphate of potash magnesium Single superphosphate Triple superphosphate 50

51 NOTES 51

52 poly4.com siriusminerals.com Version: March 2018