
Having worked with the potash industry for many years, I have reviewed numerous geological reports for projects in Canada, Asia, Russia, and Africa. One of the curious things that I have seen is the reporting of resource grades in two different units; either as potassium oxide (K2O) or potassium chloride (KCl).
Is it K2O or KCl ?
Standard practice in the Saskatchewan industry is reporting ore grades using K2O units, with typical head grades in the range of 25% K2O. Many of the international projects, but not all, have decided to use the KCl units. Therefore when comparing potash resource grades between deposits, one must be vigilant for the units used since there is a significant difference.
The conversion from K2O to KCl is based on the formula K2O = 0.6317 x KCl. So a grade of 25% K20 is equal to 25/0.6317 = 39.6% KCl. The KCl grade value is significantly higher. The unit issue is relevant with low grade deposits, were an actual grade of 15% K2O may be reported as 23.7% KCl. One might see the ore grade in KCl and assume it is comparable to Saskatchewan potash grades, when in reality they are quite different.
Concentration Ratio is the Key
When looking at different potash projects, particularly those involving underground mining, a key economic factor is the concentration ratio. This ratio represents the tonnes of potash ore needed to produce a tonne of final saleable product.
Typically the final potash product has a grade of 60% K2O. Therefore a potash ore with a grade of 25% K2O would have a concentration ratio of about 2.4:1 (60%/25%). This means that 2.4 tonnes of potash must be processed to produce 1 tonne of product (ignoring the process recovery factor). For a lower grade ore with a head grade of say 15% K2O, the concentration ratio is 4:1 (60%/15%).
This gives a rough sense for the comparable operation size required to meet the same final product production levels. This also gives a indication for the relative amounts of salt tailings requiring disposal. Low grade ore can generate significant quantities of tailings, the disposal of which is becoming a larger permitting issue.
In the past gold grades have been reported as “oz/ton” or currently as “g/t”, but most geological reports today are consistent with “g/t”. Sometimes US based gold projects may use “oz/ton” however the magnitude in reported grades are fairly obvious between grams and ounces. That isn’t the case with potash grades.
The bottom line is that potash is one commodity that will use different units when reporting ore grades. Investors and reviewers must be aware of which units are being used.
If you are into potash mining, I have written a couple of blog posts about my brief, but interesting, time working at a potash mine in Saskatchewan. This was early in my career and I had roles that included mine engineer, chief mine engineer and production foreman. Each of these roles gave me a different perspective about a mining operation. In this two part blog, I share some stories relating to the uniqueness of potash mining. If interested, here is the link “Stories from 3000 Feet Down – Part 1“.
Note: If you would like to get notified when new blogs are posted, then sign up on the KJK mailing list on the website. Otherwise I post notices on LinkedIn, so follow me at: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kenkuchling/.



There are numerous factors that will influence the successful completion of a study. They can be related to the quality of the technical team, the budget, the time window, and direction from the Owner. However the key factor that I observed is the competency of the Study Manager (or Project Manager).
The Study Manager also needs to understand the objectives of the Owner and ensure the team is working towards those objectives.
Often the Environmental Impact Assessment is being conducted concurrently with an engineering study. The level of internal and external communication now becomes even more critical due to the large number of new technical disciplines involved.
The bottom line is that when a project Owner has received proposals for a study and is in the process of awarding that job, the most important consideration is who will be the Study Manager. If possible meet or chat about how they will manage the study and what their experience is. Check references if possible.
One of my past roles was as a mine engineer on the Diavik diamond mine team. Pit geotechnical and hydrogeology were under my domain during project design and permitting from 1997 to 2000.
The bottom line is that the directional drilling innovation makes a lot of sense and mine operators should take a look at it. It might help improve their pit dewatering systems.
Data rooms are typically created for due diligence exercises, or during advanced an engineering stage. Regardless of the purpose, it is helpful for all involved to have a document control person who understands what is in the data room, what is important, and what is non-essential.
Independent consultants will differentiate themselves from large engineering firms in several ways.





I have heard from geologist colleagues that financing grass-roots exploration is still extremely difficult. That is unless company management has had past successes or is well connected to the money scene.
The bottom line is that in order for a project (and the management team) to get serious attention from potential investors is to make sure there is a realistic view of the project itself and have a realistic path forward.
The two main nature-driven factors in the economics of a mining project are the ore grade and the ore tonnage. In simplistic terms, the ore grade will determine how much incremental profit can be generated by each tonne of rock processed.


Gather your team around their computers and fire up screen sharing software like Teams, GoToMeeting, Skype, or Zoom. Give control of the mouse to someone who knows the site well. Here are some of the things you can do on your group tour.
In my personal experience I find that larger consultants are best suited for managing the large scale feasibility studies. This isn’t because they necessarily provide better technical expertise. Its because they generally have the internal project management and costing systems to manage the complexities of such larger studies.
For certain aspects of a feasibility study, one may get better technical expertise by subcontracting to smaller highly specialized engineering firms. However too much subcontracting may become an onerous task. Often the larger firms may be better positioned to do this.
One of the purposes of an early stage study is to see if the project has economic merit and would therefore warrant further expenditures in the future. An early stage study is (hopefully) not used to defend a production decision. The objective of an early stage study is not necessarily to terminate a project (unless it is obviously highly uneconomic).