in Copper Mining for 2017-2028³n Consumo EE 2017-202… · Consumo máximo Source: Cochilco....

|

Projection of Electrical Energy Consumption in Copper Mining for 2017-2028

DEPP 23/2017

Intellectual Property Registry © N° 285491

Abstract

The study forecasts electricity consumption in copper mining industry for the 2017-2028 period based on two factors: i) the portfolio of current mining projects and operations, and ii) the forecast of future projects. Thus, given the uncertainty associated to future production, electricity consumption estimations are based on three scenarios: expected, maximum, and minimum. Figure I shows the three consumption scenarios for each year of the projected period. The expected electricity consumption would increase from 21.1 TWh to 29.2 TWh (~2.7% yearly average). Over the first two years, a significant rise is forecasted from 21.1 TWh to 24.8 TWh (~8.4% yearly average), in order to then drop down towards the year 2024 (~2.7%) and decrease even further from this year until 2028 (~0.8%).

Figure I: National power consumption (TWh) of copper mining

Source: Cochilco.

Currently, the electricity supply matrix for copper mining is divided into the SING and SIC systems by the geographic area of the coverage. However, starting in 2018, the interconnection of both systems will be completed through the line between Cardones and Polpaico, which will create a single large interconnected system. For the purposes of this study, the projections are carried out taking into account the currently existing separation. Under these circumstances, it is forecasted that the largest supply of energy will come from SING, representing above 60% of the total amount during the study period. It is also expected that this relation will be larger by the end of the period due to the expected growth of 25% for SIC (~1.7% yearly average), and 44% for SING (~3.1%).

At the regional level, large variations in consumption participation are not forecasted. Antogafasta region will continue concentrating more than half of energy spent on copper mining, followed by Atacama, Tarapacá, and O’Higgins regions, with approximately 10% of the consumption forecasted for each at the beginning of the period. However, starting in 2024, Atacama is expected to increase its participation to over 12% and that O’Higgins to reduce to 6%. Tarapacá, on the other hand, is not forecasted to have significant variations.

In regards to the electrical power required to satisfy the expected electricity consumption, a 3.5 fold growth is expected for the SING system and a 12 fold growth for the SIC system between 2018 and 2028. This implies adding an electricity generation capacity of 1,177 MW for 2028, of which near 70% corresponds to SING.

On the other hand, focusing the analysis based on conditionality of current projects and operations, we find that, although by 2017 the existing operations concentrated practically all of the expected electricity consumption for copper mining, by 2028 potential, possible and probable projects will represent close to one fourth of the total amount. Likewise, analyzing by type or purpose of the project, we can see that the expansion, replacement, and especially new projects will acquire a growing importance, jointly going from representing close to 14% of the consumption expected in 2017 to 55% in 2028.

When reviewing the expected consumption by processes, we see that the Concentrator is by far the main source of expected consumption during the entire period, growing from 53% of the consumption in 2017 to 66% towards 2028. The use of seawater us another process for which an important increase is projected, going from 5% in 2017 to 12% in 2028, becoming the second process with highest intensity in electricity consumption after the Concentrator. For the leaching procedures, a significant decrease from 24% of the total amount in 2017 to 6% in 2028 is forecasted, while a slight decrease is expected for foundry processes, going from 7% in 2017 to 6% in 2028. Finally, the underground mining, refinery, and service processes will keep up their relatively low participations, and none surpasses 2% of the consumption during the study period.

23,5

35,2

21,1

29,2

17,0

22,1

Consumo máximo Consumo esperado

Projection of Electrical Energy Consumption in Copper Mining for 2017-2028 II

Comisión Chilena del Cobre

Table of Contents

Abstract .............................................................................................................................................. I

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 3

2. Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 4 2.1. Projects Considered ........................................................................................................... 4 2.2. Electricity Consumption by Operations and Processes ...................................................... 4 2.3. Electricity Consumption Scenarios ..................................................................................... 5 2.4. Expected National Consumption of Electricity in Copper Mining ...................................... 6

3. Projection of Yearly Electricity Consumption 2017-2028........................................................... 7 3.1. Nationwide Projection ....................................................................................................... 7 3.2. Projected Demand for Electric Power ................................................................................ 8 3.3. Projection by SING and SIC Systems................................................................................. 10 3.4. Projection by Region ........................................................................................................ 10

4. Analysis of the Expected Electricity Consumption by the Conditionality of the Projects ......... 11 4.1. Analysis at a Nationwide Level ......................................................................................... 11 4.2. Comparative Analysis of SING and SIC ............................................................................. 12 4.3. Regional Analysis ............................................................................................................. 13

4.3.1. Regions of SING ................................................................................................... 14

4.3.2. SIC Regions .......................................................................................................... 15

5. Analysis of Expected Electricity Consumption By Project Type ................................................ 16 5.1. Nationwide Analysis ......................................................................................................... 16 5.2. Comparative Analysis of SING and SIC ............................................................................. 16

6. Analysis of the Electricity Consumption Expected By the Process ........................................... 17 6.1. Distribution of Nationwide Expected Electricity Consumption ........................................ 17 6.2. Comparative Analysis of SING and SIC ............................................................................. 19

7. Final Observations ................................................................................................................... 21

8. Annexes ................................................................................................................................... 23 8.1. Chapter 2 Annexes: Methodology ................................................................................... 23

8.1.1. Mining Projects Considered in the Power Forecast ............................................. 23

8.1.2. Details of the Methodology to Calculate the Expected Electricity Consumption in Desalting Plants and Pumping Systems ............................................................... 29

8.2. Annexes with Expected Electricity Consumption Projection Numbers 2017– 2028 in Different Categories ........................................................................................................................ 31 8.2.1. Global Projection ................................................................................................. 31

8.2.2. Expected Electricity Consumption Based on Processes ....................................... 32

8.2.3. Expected Electricity Consumption Based on Condition ....................................... 32

8.2.4. Projection of Electricity Consumption per Type of Project .................................. 34

8.2.5. Projection of Electricity Consumption per Region ............................................... 35


3


1. Introduction Electrical energy is a strategic resource in copper mining because it is needed for its different production and service processes. In accordance with the estimations of Cochilco, its consumption represents approximately 9% of operational costs of national large-scale copper mining. Its impact on the country’s electricity consumption is also significant. On average, over the last 15 years, copper mining has participated in one third of the national electricity consumption, a situation that can be explained by three trends that have impacted the increase of consumption. These are:

A progressive decrease in copper grades, which is due to the ageing of mines and the increase in the mineral’s hardness. This situation has made it so that companies need to extract large and growing amounts of mineral to maintain the expected production of fine copper, which leads to an increase in energy requirements of processes like crushing and grinding.

Growing use of seawater due to the restrictions to use water from other sources and also because of the rising production of concentrates, which entail an intensive use of water. Because seawater most be pumped to mining operations from a greater distance, the demand for electricity grows.

A focus on the production of copper concentrates – a process that requires an intensive use of electricity. As a consequence, it is forecasted that the demand for electricity will also grow in the following years.

Within this context, considering the aforementioned trends, Cochilco has formulated its estimations for electricity consumption in copper mining until 2028, the year in which a large portion of the current projects portfolio could be operating. Thus, the results for the period 2017-2028 are shown identifying the following factors:

Expected electricity consumption by type of project, whether it is New, Expansion, Replacement, or Operation.

Expected electricity consumption by processes, whether they are Concentrator, Leaching, Foundry, Refinery, Seawater, Open Pit Mine, Underground Mine, or Services.

For each case, both a national and regional analysis is performed. Likewise, comparisons are made in regards to the Interconnected Systems SING and SIC and forecasts with expected amounts are provided, as well as the estimated minimum and maximum limits.


4


2. Methodology

2.1. Projects Considered The forecast of electricity consumption in copper mining considers currently operating sites, mining projects in the construction stage, and investment projects that have a possibility of materializing in the period 2017-2028, based on the report Investment in Chilean Mining – Projects Portfolio 2017-2028 published by Cochilco in August 2017. Likewise, gold and iron mining projects and operations are considered, which would have a significant co-production of copper during the mentioned period. In parallel to the above, in regards to the increasing use of seawater, the forecast of electricity consumption considers current operations and the launch of operations of seawater desalination and pumping during the period.

2.2. Electricity Consumption by Operations and Processes Since 1991, Cochilco has calculated the unit consumption rates by operation and process based on operation data provided by the mining companies in the country. Using this information, the rates for the 2017-2028 period are projected in a deterministic manner. In order to do this, a log-normal regression is performed based on the unit consumption of the period 2001-2016. The results of this extrapolation are shown in Table 1. It is important to mention that the structure of the rates implies two assumptions:

The unit consumption of electricity by processes grows over the period mainly due to the ageing of the mines and ore grades to process.

There will be no changes in technology that significantly affect mining processes. That is to say, possible innovations in energy efficiency that could be implemented in the future both in existing operations and new projects are not addressed, which would have an effect on lowering electricity consumption.

It must also be stated that from the year 2011, the energy unit rates in Services incorporate the consumption of electricity due to seawater. Therefore, the forecast for this item is done with rates estimated for the period 2001-2010 with the purpose of not creating a double forecast regarding the use of seawater, which is included as a distinct item in this report.

Table 1: Projection of unit consumption of electricity per process 2017 – 2028

Process 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028

Open Pit Mine KWh/ TMF Cu

191 192 193 194 196 197 197 198 199 200 201 202

Underground Mine KWh/ TMF Cu

632 639 646 652 659 664 670 675 681 686 690 695

Concentrator KWh/TM min. Proce.

22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 23 23

Foundry KWh/TM Conc. Proce.

332 332 332 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333

Refinery 364 365 365 366 366 367 367 368 368 368 369 369


5


KWh/ TMF Cu

LX/SX/EW KWh/ TMF Cu

3203 3217 3229 3241 3253 3264 3274 3284 3293 3303 3311 3320

Services KWh/ TMF Cu

163 164 164 165 165 165 166 166 167 167 167 168

Source: Cochilco.

For the desalination and pumping processes of seawater, the methodology described in the report Projection of Water Consumption in Copper Mining in Chile 2017-2028 to perform the calculations for the power and electrical energy that will be consumed in seawater desalinating plants and pumping systems.

2.3. Electricity Consumption Scenarios Given the numerous variability conditions in the existing production and consumption, three scenarios are defined, each with different assumptions:

Maximum electricity consumption scenario: it assumes that all operations continue according to plan and the possible, potential, and probable projects are initiated on the dates and in accordance with the production capacity currently estimated by their owners.

Most likely consumption scenario: it assumes that the operations do not achieve the results planned by the owners in the sense that there are considerable risks of delays and decreases in their actual production with regards to planning.

Minimum electricity consumption scenario: it adjusts the most likely scenario with lower numbers within reasonable technical criteria.

Then, for each scenario the electricity consumption of each operation and process is estimated. This can be represented through the following equation.

𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑗𝑘𝑡 = 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑑𝐸𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑗𝑡𝑃𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑖𝑘𝑡𝐶𝑜𝑒𝑓𝑈𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑗𝑡

Where,

𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑗𝑘𝑡: Electricity consumption (in TWh) in the operation i, in the process j, in accordance

with the condition/state k of the project, in the year t.

t: Period considered (years 2017-2028).

i: Mining operation considered.

j: Mining process considered.

k: Condition/state of the mining project considered1.

𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑑𝐸𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑗𝑡 : Estimated capacity process in accordance with design in operation i, in process j,

and condition/state k of the project in the period t.

𝑃𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑖𝑘: Weighting of the estimated production based on historical information in accordance with the conditions of a project k in a mining operation i in the period t. 𝑃𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑀𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑘𝑡 ∈ (0,1]

𝐶𝑜𝑒𝑓𝑈𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑗𝑡: Estimated electricity unit consumption in the process j in the period t. These are

the values reported in table 1.

1 The conditions/tastes of the projects that are established in this report are: Base, Probable, Possible-feasibility, Potential-feasibility, and Potential-pre-feasibility.


6


The modeling of the variations in each scenario depend on the variable 𝑃𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑖𝑘𝑡. As its values fluctuate between 0 and 1, the greater 𝑃𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑖𝑘𝑡, is, the greater the energy consumption. Thus, in the maximum scenario, where there are no risks in terms of production or delays, all the weightings are equivalent to 1, while in the most likely and minimum scenarios they are consequently inferior. In order to visualize the above, table 2 illustrates the matrix of production weightings for the most probable case. It is possible to appreciate, for example, that a project whose status is possible/feasible and that is planned by the owner to enter into operation in a specific year will only have 37% of its planned production for the first year. In this scenario, it is implied that a potential project in pre-feasibility stage takes two years to become feasible, then after two years it enters the possible category, and after another three years it becomes probable and two years from probable to base.

Table 2: production weightings for the most probable case

Condition/state of the project

Planned year of the project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Potential/Pre-feasibility 0,16 0,28 0,32 0,37 0,42 0,45 0,49 0,55 0,69 0,70 0,71 0,80 Potential/Feasibility 0,28 0,32 0,37 0,42 0,45 0,49 0,55 0,69 0,70 0,71 0,80 0,80 Possible/Feasibility 0,37 0,42 0,45 0,49 0,55 0,69 0,70 0,71 0,80 0,80 0,83 0,84 Probable 0,69 0,70 0,71 0,80 0,80 0,83 0,84 0,84 0,84 0,85 0,88 0,92 Base 0,71 0,80 0,80 0,83 0,84 0,84 0,84 0,85 0,88 0,92 0,92 0,93

Source: Cochilco.

2.4. Expected National Consumption of Electricity in Copper Mining Finally, once the maximum, minimum and most likely consumption is estimated, the expected consumption is estimated for each operation and process considered through a Montecarlo simulation as a function the values found. Thus, the yearly consumption is represented by:

𝐶𝑡 = ∑ ∑ 𝛽𝑖𝑗𝑘𝑡(𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑗𝑘𝑡𝑚𝑎𝑥 , 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑗𝑘𝑡

𝑀𝑃 , 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑗𝑘𝑡𝑚𝑖𝑛)

𝑗𝑖

Where,

𝐶𝑡: Electricity consumption (in TWh) in copper mining in the year t.

𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑗𝑘𝑡𝑚𝑎𝑥 , 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑗𝑘𝑡

𝑀𝑃 , 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑗𝑘𝑡𝑚𝑖𝑛: Maximum, most likely, and minimum consumption (in TWh)

respectively in operation i, in process j, in accordance with the conditions/state k of the project, in the year t.


7


3. Projection of Yearly Electricity Consumption 2017-2028

This chapter contains the global results of the projection of electricity consumption in copper mining in the period 2017-2028. The expected consumption is accompanied by the maximum and minimum consumption scenarios, as explained in the methodology.

Figure 1 projects future consumption, as well as its maximum and minimum limits for each year of study. During the full period, expected electricity consumption would grow from 21.1 TWh to 29.2 TWh (~2.7% yearly average). However, this growth is not uniform. In fact, a relatively high expected grow can be observed during the next two years, from 21.1 TWh to 24.8 TWh in 2019 (~8.4% yearly average), in order to then decrease until 2024 (~2.7%) and become stable from said year until 2028 (~0.8%).

3.1. Nationwide Projection Figure 1: National electricity consumption (TWh) of copper mining, 2017 - 2028

Source: Cochilco.

As we see in figure 1, in the expected case, which considers the uncertainties of the development of the projects, electricity consumption will grow by 38%, equivalent to a yearly average rate of 2.7% during the period 2017-2028. In the maximum scenario, on the other hand, consumption will grow by 50% at a yearly average rate of 3.3%. For the minimum consumption scenario, a growth of 30% is estimated, which is a yearly rate of 2.2%.

By dividing the period into three-year periods, we can see in table 3 that the strongest growth in consumption will occur during the first years, which is partly explained by there being less uncertainty in terms of the projects that will be executed. Thus, for the first three-year period, the expected increase in consumption is 17.4% in order to then fall to less than one third of this rate, with a 4.7% in the second period. The third period will experience the lowest growth in all scenarios, a situation that is particularly explained by less production in existing operations as well as in new projects that will be developed.

Table 3: Quarterly variation (%) of electricity consumption and mining production of copper mines in Chile, 2017 – 2028

Scenario Variable 17-19 20-22 23-25 26-28

Maximum

Consumption of electric power

18.9 8.9 1.4 2.2

Copper mine production 14.6 6.1 -0.9 0.5

Expected


17.4 4.7 0.9 2.9

Copper mine production 11.3 2.3 -1.7 1.4

Minimum


18.4 5.5 -1.0 0.3

Copper mine production 14.1 0.9 -3.4 -0.9

23,5

35,2

21,1

29,2

17,0

22,1

Consumo máximo Consumo esperado

Consumo mínimo


8


Source: Cochilco. It is also possible to observe that in all the three-year periods and scenarios, the variation of electricity consumption is greater than the variation in the mine’s production, which is mainly explained by the decrease in copper grades and the increasing use of seawater in operations. That said, as was mentioned above, eventual energy efficiency improvement that could reduce the projected growth of electricity consumption.

3.2. Projected Demand for Electric Power Due to the interconnection project of SING and SIC, starting from 2018 there will be a single system that will enable mining companies to use energy from different sources and geographic areas. As a consequence, later versions of this Cochilco study will re-formulate the analysis based on the need to evaluate the energy supply system as a whole. Regardless, for the purposes of this study, the consumption forecasts are shown separately per system. Figure 2 illustrates the forecast of the accumulated demand for electric power required to satisfy the expected electricity consumption of copper mining2 during the period 2018-2028. It is estimated that the yearly increase of 2019 will be the most relevant, with an increase of 95%for the Norte Grande Interconnected System (SING, by its Spanish initials) and 164% for the Central Interconnected System (SIC, by its Spanish initials). In general, the demand of SING will grow until the year 2023, while SIC’s will grow over practically the full period, with the exception of the years 2025 and 2026.

2 The annual increments of projected power are converted into demand for power generation assuming that the power plants must have on average a minimum load factor of 78.7% (6.9 gigawatt per hours of useful energy for each megawatt of power), considering that the plant must have regular maintenance periods, power circulating, in addition to the fact that the power generated is auto-consumed in the plant and another part dissipates during transmission. (Source: CDEC SING-SIC).


9


Overall, for the entire period 2018-2028, a growth of 3.5 times is estimated for SING and 12 times for SIC. Therefore, it will be necessary to add a power generation capacity of 1,177 MW, of which approximately 70%, equivalent to 823 MW, is estimated for SING and the remaining 30%, 354 MW, for SIC.

Figure 2: Projection of accumulated demand of electric power (MW) required by copper mining, 2018-2028

Source: Cochilco.

In relation to the expansion of the local generation and/or electricity transmission capacity, a series of projects have been promoted that are focused on optimizing the operation of the national electricity grid, which will make it possible to expand current capacity and access lower supply prices. Special mention goes to the interconnection of SIC and SING through the Mejillones-Cardones line (approximately 600 km long), as well as the Cardones-Polpaico line (784) km long), which is in its final stage of construction. In the report’s conclusion, the National Electricity Coordinator estimates that the connection of the segment Polpaico-Nueva Pan de Azucar, a part of the Cardones-Polpaico line, will remain pending and is expected to finalize during the first quarter of 2018. Once the interconnected system is functioning in full capacity, besides optimizing the use of the already existing generation resources, it will allow to better take advantage of Non-Conventional Renewable Energy (ERNC, by its Spanish initials), such as wind, solar, and geothermal power. These have a high potential in the north of the country but have dissimilar generation patterns. In fact, as Eduardo Andrade of Cigré Chile warns, although the energy generated through geothermal activity is comparable to that produced by coal or gas electricity plants, the production of electricity in photovoltaic or wind centrals depends on nature’s own circumstances, which creates uncertainty in terms of supply. As a consequence, considering that power supply must be stable and safe regarding consumption requirements, the incorporation of ERNC into the energy matrix depends largely on the capacity of the system as a whole to compensate natural variations in these types of energy. To achieve this, conventional centrals that can quickly vary their electricity generation in function of the instantaneous variations of ERNC must be present as an option. The centrals that are most suitable for this type of compensation are hydraulic stations (which are best represented in SIC) as they can generate loads very quickly, while carbon and gas based centrals (the foundation of SING), with a few exceptions, once they are generating, are not able to take on large additional volumes of load or may not do this quickly enough. Thus, the integration of the SIC and SING systems will allow the existing sources of energy to work jointly and also incentivize the adoption of a bigger offer of ERNC. Added to the above, in 2016 the Law of Electricity Transmission was approved, which is a legal framework that improved the competitiveness of the market, encouraging the arrival of new providers to the electricity system, as well as the integration and promotion of ERNC. This framework has already obtained positive results with lower average prices in the residential area, as well as a stark increase of projects awarded related to these types of energies in bids in 2016 and

0

400

800

1.200

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

SING SIC


10


2017. Because the mining companies have long term contracts with their providers, the effect has not been immediate but it is estimated that their electricity costs will progressively decrease over the coming years.

3.3. Projection by SING and SIC Systems The consumption projections separated into SIC and SING are shown in figure 3.

Figure 3: Consumo eléctrico (TWh) de la minería del cobre en SING y SIC, 2017-2028

SING

SIC

Source: Cochilco.

Two important points can be deduced when both systems are compared:

The highest use of energy comes from SING, and it will become even higher over time. In fact, in the year 2017, the expected consumption of SING is 57% higher than SIC, a situation that will increase to 95% until 2021 to then decrease to 74% in 2028.

In general, for the entire timeframe, it is forecasted that SIC consumption will grow by 23% (~1.7 yearly average), projecting the largest growth in the year 2023 (~7%). In SING, on the other hand, a total expected growth of 44% is expected (~3.1 yearly average), estimating its greatest growth at the start of the period, between 2017 and 2018 (~11% yearly average).

3.4. Projection by Region Figure 4 illustrates the participation in energy consumption of mining industry by region during 2017 and 2028. As can also be appreciated, in general no large variations are expected. As it can be seen, in general no large variations are expected. The region of Antofagasta concentrates more than half of the power use, which is expected to stay the same during the study period. The following regions are Atacama, Tarapacá, and O’Higgins with around 10% of the expected consumption each during 2017. Starting in 2024, it is forecasted that Atacama will slightly increase its participation by 12% and for O’Higgins to drop below 6%. Meanwhile, Tarapacá will maintain its participation.

14,4

22,4

12,9

18,6

10,5

14,1

9,1

12,8

8,2

10,7

6,5

8,0


11


Figure 4: Expected electricity consumption (%) by region in copper mining, 2017-2028

Nota: Arica and Parinacota region is omitted, which participates at around 0-0.2% during the period.

Source: Cochilco.

For the minimum and maximum scenarios, the behavior pattern in the electricity consumption forecast in these two cases is basically the same as in the forecast of expected consumption. Therefore, in both cases the regions Antofagasta and Atacama are the leaders in terms of electricity demands (see tables 20 and 22 of the annex).

4. Analysis of the Expected Electricity Consumption by the Conditionality of the Projects

As we previously saw in the methodology, expected electricity consumption has it most certain foundation in current operations and projects under construction. On the other hand, future electricity consumption of projects whose construction has not been approved yet has a degree of uncertainty that grows over time, which is why its magnitude depends on potential delays in its execution, as well as the eventual drops in production in regards to plans. In this context, this chapter us about the analysis of expected electricity consumption of copper mining projects in accordance with the conditions of its execution.

4.1. Analysis at a Nationwide Level Due to the structure of the methodology and considering that the level of uncertainty increases over time, the relevance of the projects that have not yet been approved for construction will be greater as years go by. Thus, as can be seen in figure 5, in 2017 it is expected that practically all of the power consumption forecasted for mining is by operations and projects that are already under construction (base). In regards to the probable possible and potential projects, we can see that they progressively acquire greater relevance until they represent around one fourth of the total expected consumption as of 2028.

O´HigginsMetropolitanaValparaíso

Coquimbo

Atacama

Antofagasta

Tarapacá

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


12


Figure 5: Projection of expected national electricity consumption (%) by the conditionality of operations and projects of copper mining, 2017-2028

Source: Cochilco.

Table 4 illustrates the projection in absolute terms (TWh). It can be observed that in the short term, towards the year 2020, the electricity demand will mainly grow due to the greater consumption of base operations. However, in the mid and long-term, starting in 2021, the demand grows due to the implementation of probable, possible, and potential projects that become more relevant. Base projects, however, progressively start to lose ground during this interval.

Because probable, possible, and potential projects are being studied, in the short term the contractual modality must be determined for the electricity supply. Thus, an important aspect that must be specified is that the active participation of the new offer that will be created by the electricity generation projects under development within a single interconnected system will be fundamental, wherein ERNC will play an increasingly important role. Table 4: Projection of expected national electricity consumption (TWh) by the conditionality of operations and projects

of copper mining, 2017-2028

Condition 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Base 21.0 22.2 23.7 23.3 23.3 22.5 22.5 22.4 21.5 21.3 21.1 21.3

Probable 0.1 0.7 1.0 1.8 2.2 2.5 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2

Possible 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.7 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.7

Potential 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.7 1.0 1.4 1.8 2.3 2.6 3.1

Total 21.1 22.9 24.8 25.6 26.3 26.9 27.8 28.3 28.0 28.4 28.6 29.2

Source: Cochilco.

4.2. Comparative Analysis of SING and SIC The behavior of electricity demand in both interconnected systems can be appreciated in figure 6.

Base

Probable

Posible

Potencial

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


13


Figure 6: Electricity consumption (TWh) of copper mining in SING and SIC by the conditionality of its operations and projects

SIC

SING

Source: Cochilco.

By comparing both systems, the following points can be observed:

In 2017, the electricity demand is mostly centered on SING with 12.9 TWh (~61% of the total) versus 8.2 demanded from SIC (~39% remaining). This trend will remain without significant variations as of 2028 when 16.1 TWh will be demanded from SING (~64% of the total) versus 10.2 from SIC (~36%).

Base consumption in SING shows an average yearly increase of 8.5% in the electricity demand until 2019, which will progressively decrease at an average yearly rate of 1.5% in the following years. The reason for this decline is the hydrometallurgy line (Cerro Colorado and Spence of BHP Billiton, Mantos Blancos of Mantos Copper, Quebrada Blanca of Teck, El Abra of Freeport McMoRan, among others), in addition to the open pit of Chiquicamata in the concentrates line. The base consumption in SIC will also increase towards 2019 (3.2% yearly average). Subsequently, it will start to decrease slightly and with some intermittence (0.7% yearly average) until 2028.

Because in general the base consumption in both systems undergoes slight variations, the expected growth in consumption is mostly explained by the mining projects that have a probable, possible, or potential condition, with SING being the one with the highest demand in proportional terms. Some of the most important future projects are Spence Growth Option of BHP Biliton, Distrito Centinela of Antofagasta Minerals, and Quebrada Blanca Hipógeno of Teck, among others.

4.3. Regional Analysis Given the relative importance that the projects will have for future electricity demand, the geographic location where the highest demand for electricity in mining is concentrated and its conditionality.

0

5

10

15

20

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 280

5

10

15

20

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


14


4.3.1. Regions of SING SING extends across the 15th Region of Arica and Parinacota, I Region of Tarapacá, and the II Region of Antofagasta. In this area, the main source of the expected demand is concentrated in the Antofagasta region (~85% of the total) and a significantly lower amount in Tarapacá (~15%). The consumption in the region of Arica and Parinacota, on the other hand, is practically insignificant. In figure 7, the consumption for the two first regions is illustrated.

Figure 7: Regional distribution of electricity consumption (TWh) of copper mining in SING by the conditionality of its operations and projects

Antofagasta

Tarapacá

Source: Cochilco.

The energy demands of the base operations in the Antofagasta region are significantly more relevant in relation to the demand of probable, possible, and potential projects. The base consumption would increase until the year 2019 until it reaches 13 TWh, equivalent to 93% if the regional power consumption of mining. Afterwards, it would gradually decrease to 10 TWh until the year 2028, representing 76% of the regional total. This drop in participation is largely explained by the growing activation of probable, possible, and potential projects in consumption. Among the main probable, possible, and potential projects, the Extension of Los Colorados of BHP Billiton, Sierra Gorda Expansion 230 KTPD of KGHM International, Desembotellamiento Mantos Blancos of Mantos Copper and Distrito Centinela of Antofagasta Minerals are considered. On the other hand, in the Tarapacá region, it is expected that the probable and potential projects start to acquire a mostly growing participation, reaching close to 40% of the total towards 2028. This will highly depend on the implementation of Quebrada Blanca Hipógeno of Teck, which intends to replace its current hydrometallurgy operation.

0

4

8

12

16

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

0

4

8

12

16

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


15


4.3.2. SIC Regions SIC extends from Taltal in the Antofagasta Region until the Los Lagos Region. The largest amount of consumption expected in the copper mining industry is by Atacama (~33% of the total), followed by Coquimbo and O’Higgins (~18% each), Valparaíso (~16%) and the Metropolitan Region (~14%). Due to the high relevancy of the Atacama region and the dispersion of consumption in the other regions, figure 8 shows the breakdown of expected energy consumption in Atacama and SIC excluding Atacama.

Figure 8: Regional distribution of electricity consumption (TWh) of copper mining in SIC by the conditionality of its operations and projects, 2017-2028

Atacama

SIC – Sin Atacama

Source: Cochilco.

First of all, it can be appreciated that in Atacama, base consumption starts to decrease in 2019 but at the same time probable, possible, and potential projects start to progressively become active. The above is mainly related to the implementation of Santo Domingo of Capstone Mining, Rajo Inca of Codelco, NuevaUnión Phase 1 of Teck and GoldCorp, and Candelaria 2030 of Ludin Mining, among others. Nonetheless, at the end of the study period, it is expected that these projects will represent close to 44% of the region’s consumption. For the rest of the SIC regions, however, a significant activation of new projects it not forecasted. In fact, towards 2028, it is estimated that they will represent only 11% of the consumption. For the consumption of base operations, it is estimated that they will stay relatively stable between 5.9 and 6 TWh during the entire period, representing around 93% of total consumption. In this regard, it is important to mention that, as has been stated in previous chapters, the operation of the SIC-SING Interconnection at the end of 2017 is an important step towards securing the supply, which in turn will especially allow less uncertainty for new projects that must negotiate long-term electricity contracts before beginning their operations. In this sense, the initiatives promoted by the State and private institutions to obtain a supply of electricity that is safe and at competitive prices is one of the variables that will favor the materialization of future mining projects.

0

2

4

6

8

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

0

2

4

6

8

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


16


5. Analysis of Expected Electricity Consumption By Project Type This chapter’s objective is to analyze the distribution of expected electricity consumption between current operations and projects by their type, that is to say, the purpose that companies pursue when they undertake them. That is why some projects are replacement projects to recover the production capacity that has decreased due to the deterioration of its mineral base. Others are expansion projects to sustain competitiveness through an improvement of the production scale and new projects, which are practically developed from zero. The analysis covers the global situation of the country as well as the comparative analysis of the SING and SIC areas.

5.1. Nationwide Analysis Figure 9 shows the electricity consumption expected from national copper mining distributed by operations and types of projects.

Figure 9: Projection of national electricity consumption (TWh) expected by the type of projects in copper mining

Source: Cochilco.

Figure 9 shows – first of all – that the expansion, replacement, and especially new projects become increasingly important over time. Thus, it is expected that the new projects transition from representing 10% of the expected consumption in 2017 to 30% in 2028. In absolute terms, this implies going from 1.9% TWh to 8.7 TWh. It is worth mentioning that new projects, although they are the most relevant next to those that are already operating, are the ones that face the highest degree of uncertainty in their development due to the eventual complexities in their construction, and also due to having to obtain the permits necessary to start them.

5.2. Comparative Analysis of SING and SIC The structure of electricity demands by operations and types of projects in both systems appears in the graph in figure 10.

Operando

Reposición

Expansión

Nuevo

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


17


Figure 10: Projection of expected electricity consumption (TWh) in SING and SIC by operations and type of projects of copper mining, 2017-2028

SING

SIC

Source: Cochilco.

In SING, expected electricity demand for current operations reaches its highest point in 2019 with 11.2 TWh (~64% of the total) in order to then drop progressively to 6.8 TWh in 2028 (~36%). It is important to mention the relative significance of new projects, which will go from demanding 1.6 TWh in 2017 (~12% of the total) to 6.5 in 2028 (~35%). In relation to SIC, the consumption of current operations is projected at 7.8-8 TWh for the period 2017-2028, which represents around 95% of the forecasted electricity consumption. Subsequently, it will decrease gradually until it reaches 6.4 TWh in 2028, equivalent to 61% of the consumption in the system. Just like in SING, new projects are those that acquire a greater importance during the period, going from 0.34 TWh in 2017, representing close to 4% of the total, to 2.13 in 2028, representing 20%.

6. Analysis of the Electricity Consumption Expected By the Process For the purposes of the electricity consumption analysis, Cochilco divides copper mining into eight processes that have an intensive use of electricity: use of seawater (desalination and/or pumping), underground mining, open pit mining, leaching (LX-SX-EW), concentrator, foundry, refinery, and services. Considering that each one uses different amounts of power, it is useful to separate them to understand their evolution in the future. As mentioned in the methodology, the expected consumption forecast is based on two assumptions. First, there will be no disruptive changes in mining technology that will significantly impact mining processes. Second, consumption of electricity units per processes grows over time, mainly due to the ageing of the mines and lower ore grades to process.

6.1. Distribution of Nationwide Expected Electricity Consumption The results of nationwide expected electricity consumption per process appears in figure 11.

0

5

10

15

20

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 280

5

10

15

20

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


18


Figure 11: Expected electricity consumption in copper mining in the country per process, 2017-2028

Source: Cochilco.

For 2017, it is expected that the highest rate of consumption of electricity will come from the Concentrator with 11.2 TWh, which represents 53% of the energy demanded. This relation will grow over time, reaching 19.22 TWh in 2028, representing 66%. This is because a large part of expansion and new projects are focused on obtaining copper concentrates and also because of lower ore grades, which implies a larger quantity of mineral that must be processed. Another factor related to the increase in participation in the Concentrator is the drop in SXEW cathodes production, which is reflected by the leaching processes decreasing from 5 TWh in 2017 to 1.8 TWh in 2028, going from representing 24% to 6& of the total at the end of the study period. Foundry processes will not have significant changes, going from 1.6 TWh to 1.8 TWh during the period, which is equivalent to a change from 7% to 6% towards 2028. Finally, underground mining, refinery, and service processes will maintain a relatively marginal participation, with none of them surpassing 2% of expected consumption during the entire study period. An aspect that has been and will become increasingly important in regards to electricity consumption in the north of the country is the use of seawater, specifically in terms of desalination and pumping to mining operations. This is because of the growth in concentrate operations, a process that requires high amounts of water, which is a resource that is especially limited in Antofagasta and Atacama. In fact, in its study “Projection of Water Consumption in Copper Mining 2017-2028” Cochilco estimates that the consumption of seawater will grow 290% between 2016 and 2028, an increase that is strongly driven by Antofagasta, particularly between 2017 and 2024 when several desalination plants are expected to initiate or expand their operations, like the Escondida and Spence plants of BHP Billiton, Distrito Norte of Codelco, Distrito Centinela of Antofagasta Minerals, and the extraction of water for the possible expansion of Sierra Gorda of KGHM. In second place, it is forecasted that Atacama will grow significantly starting in 2023, and the most important projects will be Santo Domingo of Capstone Mining and Nueva Unión of Goldcorp and Teck.

ServiciosRefineríaFundición

Concentradora

Lixiviación

Mina SubterráneaMina Rajo

Agua de Mar

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


19


Overall, it is estimated that the seawater process will grow from 1 TWh in 2017 to 3.4 TWh in 2028. This means that by the end of the period, seawater will be the process that consumes most power after the Concentrator.

6.2. Comparative Analysis of SING and SIC Electricity consumption forecasted per process for SING and SIC appears in figure 12.

Figure 12: Expected electricity consumption (TWh) by process in the SING and SIC Systems. SING

SIC

Source: Cochilco

Comparing the power consumption levels of SING and SIC, the following points stand out:

In both processes, concentration represents a majority and growing share in terms of consumption. In SING, it is expected that it transitions from 5.5 TWh in 2017, which represents 67% of the total, to 7.8%, equivalent to 73% of the total. In SIC, on the other hand, it is projected to grow from 5.6 TWh in 2017, 44% of total, to 11.5 TWh, equivalent to 62%, in 2028.

The growth of the Concentrators explains most of the increase in total electricity use in both systems. In fact, it is estimated that the consumption of SING to grow by 44%, an increase that is attributed to 97% of the growth in consumption in this process. This is explained largely by the expected production of concentrates in Chuquicamata of Codelco, as well as the implementation of a series of new projects, including the Extension of Los Colorados of BHP Billiton, Quebrada Blanca Hipógeno of Teck, and Distrito Centinela of Antofagasta Minerals, among others. In parallel, it is estimated that SIC will grow by 23%, an increase that is is by 90% attributed to the growth of the concentration processes. Among the most important new projects are the forecasted initiation of NuevaUnión Fase 1 of Teck and FoldCorp and Santo Domingo of Capstone Mining.

Servicios

RefineríaFundición

Concentradora

Lixiviación

Mina Subterránea

Mina Rajo

Agua de Mar

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

ServiciosRefinería

Fundición

Concentradora

Lixiviación

Mina RajoMina Subterránea

Agua de Mar

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20


20


In SING, the second process with highest electric power use at the start of the period is leaching with 4.4 TWh with 34% of total demand. However, a decrease of power consumption down to 1.7 TWh is forecasted for 2028, representing only 9%. The above is mainly explained by closing and/or expected reductions in production in Chuquicamata Mine Sur of Codelco, RT Sulfuros Fase I of Codelco, Radomiro Tomic Óxidos of Codelco and Quebrada Blanca of Teck, Tesoro of Antofagasta Minerals, Cerro Colorado of BHP Billiton, among others. In turn, no new or expansion projects are considered in the period 2017-2028 that involve the exploitation of oxidized minerals, which impacts idle SXEW generation capacity. Seawater, on the other hand, will grow from 1 TWh in 2017 to 3.4 TWh in 2028, positioning itself as the second process with the highest use of electricity in SING with 12% of the total by the end of the period.

In SIC, the second process with highest forecasted demand is Foundry, which fluctuates between 0.9 and 1.1 TWh during the entire period, representing between 10% and 12% of the electricity consumption estimated for the entire system. This is explained by the stability in production of the main foundries of the country, with the exception of Potrerillos of Codelco, for which an increase of around two thirds of its electricity consumption is estimated for the period 2017-2020. On the other hand, although the leaching process is not as important in terms of electric power consumption as in SING, a stark decline is also expected from 0.57 TWh in 2017, equivalent to 7% of the total for SIC, at 0.15 in 2028, representing only 1.5% of the total. Likewise, similar to SING, the water use process will gain an increasing importance, going from 0.08 TWh in 2017, equivalent to 1% of the total, to 0.43 TWh in 2028, 4% of the total.


21


7. Final Observations For the period 2017-2028, it is expected that the total amount of consumption of electric power in copper mining industry will increase by 38%, from 21.1 TWh, with continuous increments each year, with the single exception of an inter-annual drop of 1% projected for 2025. The leading region currently and in the future in terms of power consumption in copper mining is Antofagasta with over half of the total during the entire study period. The following regions are Atacama, Tarapacá, and O’Higgins with around 10% of the forecasted consumption each at the beginning of the period. However, starting in 2024, it is expected that Atacama will increase its participation above 12%, strengthening its position as the second most relevant region in terms of electricity consumption. O’Higgins, meanwhile, will decrease by 6% of participation and Tarapacá is not forecasted to undergo significant variations. When observing the consumption expected per process, there are two especially noteworthy points:

The Concentrator, which in 2017 is already the main source of consumption with over half of the expected demand of electric power for copper mining will continue to grow until it represents two thirds of the total in 2028. This is explained by the increase in the production of concentrates, a process that requires high amounts of power, but also due to a lower production of copper cathodes, which has as a counterpart a decline in the electricity demand for leaching processes, which will decrease their participation from 24% of the total consumption projected in 2017 to only 6% in 2028.

The use of seawater will see an important rise, going from 5% in 2017 to 12% in 2028, becoming the second process that demands most electric power. This is mainly because of future desalting plant projects located in the Antofagasta and Atacama Regions, which will imply a greater consumption of electricity to operate the plants, but mainly to pump the water towards mining operations.

That said, in the last years, the national copper industry has had to face several problems to satisfy its power requirements. In addition, the dependency on external sources, such as coal, oil, and gas to generate energy, it faces the progressive ageing of the main mines and the subsequent lowering of ore grades, which leads to higher energy requirements. Likewise, the future development of new projects is an additional factor that drives numbers up and adds to the problem of satisfying growing demands. Nevertheless, the capacity of offers to provide efficient solutions has not satisfied industrial aspirations, which has caused several industry analysts to call the power matrix a “bottleneck” for the development of national copper mining. In brief, this problem can be divided into two key challenges: in the first place, guaranteeing the necessary supply to satisfy the production, and in second place, maintain prices low so that the projects become more profitable and obtain a competitive position in the market. In this scenario, both the State and private agents have managed to make progress in terms of significant improvements.


22


In this scenario, both the State and private agents have managed to make significant progress regarding improvements. In first place, one thing that stands out is the development of the interconnection of the SING and SIC systems, a historical goal for national copper mining that will lower costs and create better sustainability in terms of power supply. Likewise, it will allow to take more advantage of ERNCs because in the great north of the country – where most of the mining activity is concentrated, and is currently supplied by the SING – there will be a greater capacity to compensate with hydraulic power (coming from the center and southern regions, which are currently covered by SIC), in the face of the possible variations inherent to solar or wind power, for example. In the same vein, in 2016 the Law of Electricity Transmission was approved, which has created significant changes in the market, as well as the way in which bids to provide electricity work. Thus, there are currently a greater number of providers, which translates into better power prices for regulated clients, and this situation will eventually have an effect on large mining contracts for the short-term. At the same time, the integration of ERNC has been favored. The new legal framework provided by this law has already achieved positive results with a strong increase in the awarding of ERNC projects in the bids of 2016 and 2017. Finally, another element that has become increasingly important in the last few years is the attainment of efficiency improvements in the use of power. In this regard, private entities and trade-unions, such as the Chilean Agency of Power Efficiency and the Mining Council have carried out several pilot projects, as well as a series of audits that intent to detect possible problems in order to detect possible problems to discover potential opportunities to optimize the use of power. In parallel, over the last years, the State has worked on the design of a power management system at the site of companies with high power demands, the establishment of an annual power efficiency plan with clear goals to reduce consumption over time, and the hiring of periodic external technical power audits that validate and verify the identified, evaluated, and implemented power efficiency measures together with the savings achieved. Once this law enters into force, Cochilco will have a solid foundation to identify the yearly power savings goal and include efficiency improvements estimated in subsequent versions of this study. In conclusion, considering the above, although the challenges in terms of power demands continue growing, the power matrix has made important progress that allows anticipating improvements in the certainty of electricity supply at progressively lower costs, which will improve the competitive position of the national copper industry.


23


8. Annexes

8.1. Chapter 2 Annexes: Methodology

8.1.1. Mining Projects Considered in the Power Forecast

Table 5: Current copper operations

Company Mine Region Stage of

development

Condition Product System

Mantos Copper Mantos Blancos Antofagasta Operation Base Concentrate SING

Mantos Copper Desembotellamiento

Mantos Blancos Antofagasta Feasibility Probable Concentrate SING

Mantos Copper Desarrollo

Mantoverde Atacama Feasibility Possible Concentrate SIC

Anglo American Chile El Soldado Valparaíso Operation Base Concentrate SIC

Anglo American Chile Los Bronces RM Operation Base Concentrate SIC

Antofagasta Minerals Esperanza Antofagasta Operation Base Concentrate SING

Antofagasta Minerals Actualización

Esperanza Antofagasta Operation Base Concentrate SING

Antofagasta Minerals Esperanza Sur Antofagasta Feasibility Probable Concentrate SING

Antofagasta Minerals Encuentro Sulfuros Antofagasta Feasibility Probable Concentrate SING

Antofagasta Minerals Los Pelambres Coquimbo Operation Base Concentrate SIC

Antofagasta Minerals Los Pelambres

Ampliación Marginal I Coquimbo Feasibility Probable Concentrate SIC

Antofagasta Minerals Los Pelambres

Ampliación Marginal II

Coquimbo Feasibility Possible Concentrate SIC

Antofagasta Minerals Los Pelambres Ampliación IV

Coquimbo Hypothetical Hypothetic

al Concentrate SIC

BARRICK Cerro Casale Atacama Hypothetical Hypothetic

al Concentrate SIC

BHP Billiton Escondida Antofagasta Operation Base Concentrate SING

BHP Billiton Escondida OGP I Antofagasta Operation Base Concentrate SING

BHP Billiton Extension Los

Colorados Antofagasta Feasibility Probable Concentrate SING

BHP Billiton Spence Growth

Option Antofagasta Feasibility Possible Concentrate SING

Capstone Mining Santo Domingo Atacama Feasibility Probable Concentrate SIC

CODELCO Chuqui Rajo Antofagasta Operation Base Concentrate SING

CODELCO Chuqui Subte Antofagasta Under

Execution Base Concentrate SING

CODELCO RT Sulfuros Fase I Antofagasta Operation Base Concentrate SING

CODELCO RT Sulfuros Fase II Antofagasta Under

Execution Base Concentrate SING

CODELCO Ministro Hales Antofagasta Operation Base Concentrate SING

CODELCO Ministro Hales Subte Antofagasta Pre-Fact. Potential Concentrate SING

CODELCO Salvador Atacama Operation Base Concentrate SIC

CODELCO Rajo Inca Atacama Pre-Fact. Potential Concentrate SIC

CODELCO Andina Valparaíso Operation Base Concentrate SIC

CODELCO Andina Exp. Fase II Valparaíso Pre-Fact. Potential Concentrate SIC

CODELCO El Teniente O'Higgins Operation Base Concentrate SIC

CODELCO Nuevo Nivel Mine y

Otros Proy O'Higgins

Under Execution

Base Concentrate SIC

Doña Inés de Collahuasi

Collahuasi Tarapacá Operation Base Concentrate SING


24



Collahuasi Optimization 170

ktpd Tarapacá Feasibility Probable Concentrate SING


Collahuasi Ampl. Fase III

Tarapacá Hypothetical Hypotheti

cal Concentrate SING

Freeport McMoRan El Abra Mill Project Antofagasta Feasibility Potential Concentrate SING

Glencore-Xstrata Lomas Bayas Sulfuros Antofagasta Hypothetical Hypotheti

cal Concentrate SING

Glencore-Xstrata Altos de Punitaqui Coquimbo Operation Base Concentrate SIC

KGHM INT. Sierra Gorda

Concentrados Antofagasta Operation Base Concentrate SING

KGHM INT. Sierra Gorda

Expansión 230 ktpd Antofagasta Feasibility Possible Concentrate SING

Lunding Mining Ojos del Salado Atacama Operation Base Concentrate SIC

Lunding Mining Candelaria Atacama Operation Base Concentrate SIC

Lunding Mining Candelaria 2030 Atacama Feasibility Probable Concentrate SIC

Pan Pacific Copper Caserones

Concentrados Atacama Operation Base Concentrate SIC

Teck Andacollo Hipógeno Atacama Operation Base Concentrate SIC

Teck Quebrada Blanca

Hipógeno Tarapacá Feasibility Potential Concentrate SING

Teck - Gold Corp NuevaUnión Fase 1 Atacama Pre-Fact. Potential Concentrate SIC

Teck - Gold Corp NuevaUnión Fase 2 Atacama Pre-Fact. Potential Concentrate SIC

Andes Iron SpA Dominga Coquimbo Feasibility Possible Concentrate SIC

Amerigo Res. Valle Central - Relaves

frescos O'Higgins Operation Base Concentrate SIC

Amerigo Res. Valle Central -

Colihues O'Higgins Cerrada Base Concentrate SIC

Amerigo Res. Valle Central

Expansión (Cauquenes)

O'Higgins Operation Base Concentrate SIC

CEM San Andrés San Andres Atacama Operation Base Concentrate SIC

Cerro Dominador Faride Antofagasta Cerrada Base Concentrate SING

Cerro Negro Cerro Negro Valparaíso Operation Base Concentrate SIC

COEMIN Carola Atacama Operation Base Concentrate SIC

Copec Diego de Almagro

Sulf. Atacama Feasibility Probable Concentrate SIC

Copper Bay Playa Verde Atacama Feasibility Probable Concentrate SIC

Don Alberto Plant Las Vacas Coquimbo Operation Base Concentrate SIC

ENAMI Matta Atacama Operation Base Concentrate SIC

ENAMI Vallenar Atacama Operation Base Concentrate SIC

ENAMI Delta Coquimbo Operation Base Concentrate SIC

Hot Chili Productra Atacama Pre-Fact. Potential Concentrate SIC

Las Cenizas Cabildo Valparaíso Operation Base Concentrate SIC

Las Cenizas Taltal Antofagasta Operation Base Concentrate SING

La Patagua Peumo y Don Jaime Valparaíso Operation Base Concentrate SIC

Linderos Linderos Coquimbo Operation Base Concentrate SIC

Nittetsu Mining Atacama Kozan Atacama Operation Base Concentrate SIC

Pan Aust Inca de Oro Atacama Hypothetical Hypotheti

cal Concentrate SIC

Pucobre San José Atacama Operation Base Concentrate SIC

Pucobre El Espino Conc Coquimbo Feasibility Probable Concentrate SIC

San Gerónimo Plant Talcuna Coquimbo Operation Base Concentrate SIC

SCM Tambillos Tambillos Coquimbo Operation Base Concentrate SIC

Talcuna Talcuna Coquimbo Operation Base Concentrate SIC

Varios Various Conc. plants No determ. Operation Base Concentrate No det.


25


Mantos Copper Mantos Blancos Antofagasta Operation Base SXEW SING

Mantos Copper Mantoverde Atacama Operation Base SXEW SIC

Anglo American CHILE El Soldado Valparaíso Operation Base SXEW SIC

Anglo American CHILE Los Bronces RM Operation Base SXEW SIC

Antofagasta Minerals Encuentro Óxidos Antofagasta Under

Execution Base SXEW SING

Antofagasta Minerals Michilla Antofagasta Cerrada Base SXEW SING

Antofagasta Minerals Tesoro Antofagasta Operation Base SXEW SING

Antofagasta Minerals Antucoya Antofagasta Operation Base SXEW SING

Antofagasta Minerals Zaldivar Antofagasta Operation Base SXEW SING

BHP Billiton Cerro Colorado Tarapacá Operation Base SXEW SING

BHP Billiton Spence Antofagasta Operation Base SXEW SING

BHP Billiton Escondida Óxidos Antofagasta Operation Base SXEW SING

BHP Billiton Escondida Biolix. Antofagasta Operation Base SXEW SING

Codelco Mine Sur Chuqui y

Otros Antofagasta Operation Base SXEW SING

Codelco R.Tomic Óxidos Antofagasta Operation Base SXEW SING

Codelco Ministro Hales Antofagasta Operation Base SXEW SING

Codelco Salvador Atacama Operation Base SXEW SIC

Codelco TTE. Recovery Cu O'Higgins Operation Base SXEW SIC

Codelco Andina SBL Valparaíso Proy.

Hypothetical Hypothetic

al SXEW SIC

Codelco Gabriela Mistral Antofagasta Operation Base SXEW SING


Collahuasi SxEw Tarapacá Operation Base SXEW SING

Freeport McMoRan El Abra Antofagasta Operation Base SXEW SING

Glencore-Xstrata Lomas Bayas HEAP Antofagasta Operation Base SXEW SING

KGHM International Sierra Gorda Óxidos Antofagasta Feasibility Probable SXEW SING

KGHM International Franke Antofagasta Operation Base SXEW SING

KGHM International Franke - Continuidad

Operacional Antofagasta

Under Execution

Base SXEW SING

Pan Pacific Copper Caserones Atacama Operation Base SXEW SIC

Teck Quebrada Blanca Tarapacá Operation Base SXEW SING

Teck Andacollo Óxidos Coquimbo Operation Base SXEW SIC

Teck Andacollo Lix Ripios Coquimbo Feasibility Probable SXEW SIC

CEMIN Dos Amigos Atacama Operation Base SXEW SIC

CEMIN Catemu Valparaíso Operation Base SXEW SIC

Cerro Negro Cerro Negro Valparaíso Operation Base SXEW SIC

Copec Diego de Almagro

Óxidos Atacama Feasibility Possible SXEW SIC

ENAMI Plant Matta Atacama Operation Base SXEW SIC

ENAMI Plant Vallenar Atacama Operation Base SXEW SIC

ENAMI Plant El Salado Atacama Operation Base SXEW SIC

ENAMI Plant J.A. Moreno

(Taltal) Antofagasta Operation Base SXEW SING

ENAMI Delta Coquimbo Operation Base SXEW SIC

Haldeman Sagasca Tarapacá Operation Base SXEW SING

Haldeman Sagasca cont. Operacional

Tarapacá Feasibility Probable SXEW SING

Las Cenizas Taltal Óxidos Antofagasta Operation Base SXEW SING

Mantos de la Luna Mantos de Luna Antofagasta Operation Base SXEW SING

Pucobre Pucobre Atacama Operation Base SXEW SIC

Pucobre El Espino Oxidos Coquimbo Feasibility Probable SXEW SIC

Vecchiola Tres Valles Coquimbo Operation Base SXEW SIC

Pampa Camarones Pampa Camarones Arica y

Parinacota Operation Base SXEW SING


26


Tocopilla Tocopilla Antofagasta Operation Base SXEW SING

Source: Investment in Chilean Mining – Project Portfolio 2017 -2028, Cochilco.


27


Table 6: Operations and projects considered with Use of Seawater, total or partially

Company Mine Region Stage of

development Condition System

Mantos Copper Desarrollo Mantoverde Atacama Feasibility Potential SIC

Antofagasta Minerals Centinela (Esperanza) Antofagasta Operation Base SING

Antofagasta Minerals Centinela (Actualización Esperanza) Antofagasta Operation Base SING

Antofagasta Minerals Esperanza Sur Antofagasta Feasibility Possible SING

Antofagasta Minerals Encuentro Sulfuros Antofagasta Feasibility Potential SING

Antofagasta Minerals Los Pelambres Ampliacion Marginal I Coquimbo Feasibility Probable SIC

Antofagasta Minerals Los Pelambres Ampliacion Marginal II Coquimbo Feasibility Possible SIC

BHP Billiton Escondida Antofagasta Operation Base SING

BHP Billiton Escondida OGP I Antofagasta Operation Base SING

BHP Billiton Extension Los Colorados Antofagasta Feasibility Probable SING

BHP Billiton Spence Growth Option Antofagasta Feasibility Possible SING

Capstone Mining Santo Domingo Atacama Feasibility Probable SIC

CODELCO Chuqui Subte Antofagasta Under

Execution Base SING

CODELCO RT Sulfuros Fase I Antofagasta Operation Base SING

CODELCO RT Sulfuros Fase II Antofagasta Under

Execution Base SING

CODELCO Ministro Hales Antofagasta Operation Base SING

Freeport McMoRan El Abra Mill Project Antofagasta Feasibility Potential SING

KGHM INT. Sierra Gorda Concentrados Antofagasta Operation Base SING

KGHM INT. Sierra Gorda Expansión 230 ktpd Antofagasta Feasibility Possible SING

Lunding Mining Ojos del Salado Atacama Operation Base SIC

Lunding Mining Candelaria Atacama Operation Base SIC

Lunding Mining Candelaria 2030 Atacama Feasibility Probable SIC

Teck Quebrada Blanca Hipógeno Tarapacá Feasibility Potential SING

Teck - Gold Corp NuevaUnión Fase 1 Atacama Pre-Feasibility Potential SIC

Teck - Gold Corp NuevaUnión Fase 2 Atacama Pre-Feasibility Potential SIC

Andes Iron SpA Dominga Coquimbo Feasibility Possible SIC

COPEC Diego de Almagro Sulf. Atacama Feasibility Probable SIC

Copper Bay Playa Verde Atacama Feasibility Probable SIC

Las Cenizas Taltal Antofagasta Operation Base SING

BHP Billiton Escondida Antofagasta Operation Base SING

BHP Billiton Escondida OGP I Antofagasta Operation Base SING

BHP Billiton Extension Los Colorados Antofagasta Feasibility Probable SING

Mantos Copper Mantoverde Atacama Operation Base SIC

Antofagasta Minerals Encuentro Óxidos Antofagasta Under

Execution Base SING

Antofagasta Minerals Michilla Antofagasta Closed Base SING

Antofagasta Minerals Antucoya Antofagasta Operation Base SING

KGHM International Sierra Gorda Óxidos Antofagasta Feasibility Probable SING


28


COPEC Diego de Almagro Óxidos Atacama Feasibility Possible SIC

ENAMI Plant J.A. Moreno (Taltal) Antofagasta Operation Base SING

Las Cenizas Taltal Óxidos Antofagasta Operation Base SING

Mantos de la Luna Mantos de Luna Antofagasta Operation Base SING

BHP Billiton Spence Antofagasta Operation Base SING

BHP Billiton Escondida Óxidos Antofagasta Operation Base SING

BHP Billiton Escondida Biolix. Antofagasta Operation Base SING

Source: Cochilco, 2017


29


8.1.2. Details of the Methodology to Calculate the Expected Electricity Consumption in Desalting Plants and Pumping Systems

Due to the nature of desalting seawater and pumping it, its consumption has its own treatment. The methodology implies estimating the electric power required by the plant and the Pumping system. Then, to calculate energy, an average rate of daily hours in which the power is applied is estimated. a) The assumptions used for this are the following:

Operating plants stay this way in accordance with the useful life of the operation they supply.

The volume flow of desalted/pumped water is in accordance with the forecast Cochilco makes for expected water consumption of each operation. The capacity of the plant is informed by the companies.

The same volume flow is considered for the desalting plant and its Pumping system in the cases that use desalted water.

All the projects in study or pre-feasibility phase begin to operate in function of the initiation of production of the associated mining project.

For the Pumping system, the power consumption was estimated based on the distance from the coast, calculating the number of pumps required.

For the desalting plant, electricity consumption was estimated by the amount of m3 to desalt.

Power plants function 24 hours per day, 360 days of the year.

Energy per m3 necessary to desalt: 3.4 KWh/m3.

Pump efficiency at 70%.

Horizontal load losses: 0.03 KWh/(m3/km)

Electricity consumption by distance level: 0.003 Kwh/(m3/m).

b) Calculation of power:

The power required by the desalting plants and then the power necessary to pump water using the following formula:

Table 7: Calculation of Power Required Consumption in Desalting Plants and Pumping Systems

Process Power (MW)

Seawater desalination 4𝐾𝑊ℎ

𝑚3 × 𝑄 ×3,6

1.000

Water pumping 𝑔 × 𝜌 × 𝑄 × 𝐻

1.000.000 × Ƞ𝑏 × Ƞ𝑚

Source: Cochilco.

Where:

g: Gravity acceleration, which is equal to 9.8 (m/s^2 ).

ρ: Density of water, which is equal to 1000 (kg/m^3 ).

H: Height (msnm).


30


Q: Water volume in cubic meters per second (m^3/s).

Ƞ𝑏: Pump performance (%).

Ƞ𝑚: Engine performance (%).

c) Calculation of the electricity that will be consumed, in accordance with the following formula:

𝐸𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔í𝑎 (𝑇𝑊ℎ) =𝑃𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑖𝑎 × 𝑑í𝑎𝑠 × ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑠

1.000.000

Where:

Power: expressed in MW.

days: 360 operating days per year

hours: 24 operating hours per day.

d) Generation of scenarios: Subsequently, yearly scenarios are generated for each desalting plant and Pumping system, applying the same weighting as the mining projects, as well as a factor of 100%, 90%, and 80% for the maximum, most probable, and minimum scenarios, respectively, to add variability to the amount of days and hours of operation of the plants and Pumping systems. With the scenarios generated, the Montecarlo method explained in the methodology is applied, obtaining a probabilistic distribution of annual power consumption for each desalting plant and Pumping system. Afterwards, the expected value of each of the probabilistic distributions was calculated like for the projection of electricity consumption by mining processes. The expected value of electricity consumption by this item can be added to the value expected of the consumption in mining.


31


8.2. Annexes with Expected Electricity Consumption Projection Numbers 2017– 2028 in Different Categories

8.2.1. Global Projection

Table 8: Maximum, minimum, and expected consumption (TWh) of Copper mining 2017-2028 in the country.

Scenario 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Maximum consumption

23.53 25.76 27.98 29.29 30.23 31.91 33.18 34.02 33.65 34.47 34.43 35.21

Expected consumption

21.12 22.93 24.80 25.65 26.25 26.86 27.81 28.34 28.05 28.41 28.59 29.24

Minimum consumption

16.98 18.52 20.10 20.51 21.30 21.63 22.19 22.47 21.96 22.00 21.81 22.05

Source: Cochilco.

Table 9: Maximum, minimum, and expected consumption (TWh) of Copper mining 2017-2028 in SING.

Scenario 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Maximum consumption

14.4 16.4 18.2 19.3 20.1 20.8 21.1 22.0 21.4 21.8 21.9 22.4


12.9 14.5 16.0 16.8 17.3 17.6 17.8 18.4 18.0 18.0 18.1 18.6

Minimum consumption

10.5 11.8 13.1 13.8 14.2 14.3 14.3 14.7 14.3 14.1 13.9 14.1

Source: Cochilco.

Table 10: Maximum, minimum, and expected consumption (TWh) of Copper mining 2017-2028 in SIC.

Scenario 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Maximum consumption

9.1 9.4 9.7 10.0 10.2 11.1 12.0 12.0 12.3 12.7 12.5 12.8


8.2 8.4 8.8 8.9 8.9 9.3 10.0 9.9 10.0 10.4 10.4 10.7

Minimum consumption

6.5 6.7 7.0 7.1 7.1 7.3 7.9 7.8 7.7 7.9 7.9 8.0

Source: Cochilco.


32


8.2.2. Expected Electricity Consumption Based on Processes

Table 11: Expected consumption of electricity (TWh) for the copper mining based on processes, country

Process 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Concentrator 11.18 12.46 13.63 14.23 14.50 15.29 16.21 17.38 17.50 18.03 18.21 19.22

Open Pit Mine 0.90 0.97 1.04 1.07 1.08 1.07 1.10 1.10 1.09 1.11 1.11 1.13

Underg. Mine 0.34 0.35 0.37 0.38 0.41 0.48 0.49 0.50 0.47 0.45 0.46 0.49

Foundry 1.56 1.70 1.73 1.77 1.81 1.78 1.82 1.79 1.79 1.78 1.81 1.79

Refinery 0.28 0.32 0.32 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34

Leaching 5.02 4.92 5.03 4.91 4.96 4.41 4.15 3.13 2.76 2.45 2.36 1.81

Services 0.86 0.92 0.98 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.05 1.05 1.03 1.04 1.04 1.06

Seawater 0.98 1.28 1.70 1.96 2.15 2.48 2.65 3.05 3.07 3.22 3.27 3.41

Total 21.12 22.93 24.80 25.65 26.25 26.86 27.81 28.34 28.05 28.41 28.59 29.24

Source: Cochilco.

Table 12: Expected consumption of electricity (TWh) for the copper mining based on processes SING

Process 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Concentrator 5.64 6.85 7.77 8.36 8.64 9.12 9.45 10.56 10.52 10.71 10.82 11.47

Open Pit Mine 0.62 0.68 0.74 0.77 0.77 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.72 0.71 0.72 0.73

Underg. Mine 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.08 0.19 0.21 0.22 0.24 0.22 0.21 0.22

Foundry 0.64 0.69 0.71 0.70 0.74 0.71 0.75 0.71 0.72 0.70 0.74 0.72

Refinery 0.10 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13

Leaching 4.45 4.35 4.42 4.32 4.33 3.79 3.54 2.66 2.34 2.06 2.00 1.66

Services 0.53 0.59 0.64 0.66 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.68 0.66 0.65 0.65 0.66

Seawater 0.90 1.19 1.59 1.80 1.97 2.23 2.34 2.70 2.69 2.83 2.87 2.98

Total 12.89 14.50 16.03 16.78 17.34 17.58 17.83 18.41 18.02 18.02 18.14 18.57

Source: Cochilco.

Table 13: Expected consumption of electricity (TWh) for the copper mining based on processes, SIC

Process 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Concentrator 5.54 5.61 5.86 5.87 5.86 6.17 6.75 6.81 6.98 7.32 7.39 7.75

Open Pit Mine 0.28 0.29 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.33 0.36 0.36 0.38 0.40 0.39 0.39

Underg. Mine 0.33 0.33 0.34 0.33 0.33 0.28 0.29 0.27 0.23 0.23 0.24 0.27

Foundry 0.92 1.01 1.01 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.08 1.07 1.07 1.06 1.07

Refinery 0.17 0.19 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20

Leaching 0.57 0.58 0.61 0.59 0.63 0.62 0.61 0.48 0.42 0.38 0.35 0.15

Services 0.33 0.33 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.35 0.38 0.37 0.38 0.39 0.39 0.40

Seawater 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.16 0.18 0.25 0.31 0.35 0.37 0.39 0.40 0.43

Total 8.23 8.43 8.77 8.86 8.91 9.28 9.98 9.93 10.03 10.39 10.44 10.67

Source: Cochilco.

8.2.3. Expected Electricity Consumption Based on Condition

Table 14: Expected electricity consumption (TWh) for the copper mining based on processes, country

Condition 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Base 20.99 22.24 23.68 23.34 23.28 22.52 22.50 22.40 21.54 21.29 21.08 21.28

Hypothetical 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Possible 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.48 0.72 1.11 1.29 1.44 1.52 1.58 1.67 1.68

Potential 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.10 0.72 1.01 1.44 1.78 2.33 2.62 3.13


33


Probable 0.13 0.70 0.97 1.80 2.16 2.51 3.01 3.06 3.21 3.21 3.22 3.15

Total 21.12 22.93 24.80 25.65 26.25 26.86 27.81 28.34 28.05 28.41 28.59 29.24

Source: Cochilco.

Table 15: Expected electricity consumption (TWh) for the copper mining based on processes, SING

Condition 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Base 12.76 13.89 15.04 14.83 14.90 14.39 14.26 14.40 13.75 13.28 13.04 13.19

Possible 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.37 0.54 0.78 0.90 1.03 1.06 1.08 1.18 1.16

Potential 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.50 0.80 0.85 1.27 1.52 1.83

Probable 0.13 0.61 0.84 1.58 1.90 2.11 2.17 2.17 2.36 2.39 2.41 2.39

Total 12.89 14.50 16.03 16.78 17.34 17.58 17.83 18.41 18.02 18.02 18.14 18.57

Source: Cochilco.

Table 16 Expected electricity consumption (TWh) for the copper mining based on processes, SIC

Condition 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Base 8.23 8.35 8.64 8.50 8.38 8.13 8.24 8.00 7.78 8.01 8.05 8.09

Possible 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.18 0.33 0.38 0.41 0.45 0.49 0.49 0.51

Potential 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.10 0.42 0.51 0.64 0.94 1.07 1.10 1.29

Probable 0.00 0.08 0.13 0.21 0.26 0.40 0.85 0.89 0.86 0.82 0.81 0.77

Total 8.23 8.43 8.77 8.86 8.91 9.28 9.98 9.93 10.03 10.39 10.44 10.67

Source: Cochilco.


34


8.2.4. Projection of Electricity Consumption per Type of Project

Table 17: Expected electricity consumption (TWh) for the copper mining based on projects, country

Tipo 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

New 1.90 1.97 2.27 2.99 3.45 4.39 5.43 6.96 7.11 7.57 7.78 8.67

Expansion 0.99 2.25 2.86 3.44 3.67 4.08 4.21 4.37 4.61 4.59 4.67 4.75

Replacement 0.06 0.27 0.42 0.45 0.77 1.48 1.84 2.10 2.45 2.57 2.61 2.57

Operation 18.16 18.43 19.24 18.77 18.36 16.91 16.33 14.90 13.89 13.68 13.53 13.26

Total 21.12 22.93 24.80 25.65 26.25 26.86 27.81 28.34 28.05 28.41 28.59 29.24

Source: Cochilco.

Table 18: Expected electricity consumption (TWh) for the copper mining based on projects, SING.

Condition 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

New 1.56 1.53 1.77 2.37 2.70 3.15 3.68 5.07 5.10 5.46 5.72 6.54

Expansion 0.96 2.21 2.81 3.31 3.46 3.70 3.82 3.96 3.93 3.94 3.96 3.96

Replacement 0.06 0.21 0.31 0.34 0.65 1.35 1.51 1.60 1.74 1.62 1.51 1.38

Operating 10.31 10.57 11.15 10.81 10.51 9.38 8.88 7.85 7.33 7.09 7.07 6.82

Total SING 12.89 14.52 16.04 16.83 17.32 17.59 17.89 18.48 18.10 18.12 18.25 18.70

Source: Cochilco.

Table 19: Expected electricity consumption (TWh) for the copper mining based on projects, SIC.

Condition 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

New 0.34 0.44 0.50 0.62 0.75 1.24 1.75 1.89 2.01 2.10 2.07 2.13

Expansion 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.12 0.21 0.38 0.39 0.41 0.67 0.66 0.71 0.79

Replacement 0.00 0.07 0.11 0.11 0.13 0.13 0.33 0.50 0.71 0.94 1.09 1.19

Operating 7.86 7.86 8.09 7.96 7.85 7.53 7.44 7.06 6.56 6.59 6.46 6.43

Total SIC 8.23 8.41 8.75 8.82 8.93 9.27 9.91 9.86 9.95 10.30 10.33 10.54

Source: Cochilco.


35


8.2.5. Projection of Electricity Consumption per Region

Table 20: Projection of maximum electricity consumption (TWh) of copper mining per region 2017-2028

Region 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Arica y Parinacota

0.05 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Tarapacá 2.26 2.19 2.18 2.36 2.43 3.27 3.45 3.95 3.84 3.84 3.78 3.79

Antofagasta 12.10 14.15 15.99 16.87 17.57 17.53 17.69 18.04 17.53 17.96 18.12 18.58

Atacama 2.55 2.78 2.96 3.15 3.27 4.24 4.77 4.67 4.73 4.83 4.73 4.87

Coquimbo 1.54 1.54 1.61 1.78 1.93 2.19 2.26 2.32 2.29 2.27 2.22 2.23

Valparaíso 1.44 1.47 1.57 1.47 1.39 1.41 1.59 1.58 2.01 2.28 2.12 2.29

Metropolitana 1.43 1.44 1.46 1.47 1.48 1.48 1.47 1.52 1.54 1.56 1.62 1.44

O´Higgins 2.17 2.13 2.15 2.13 2.09 1.79 1.94 1.93 1.71 1.72 1.85 2.02

Country Total 23.53 25.76 27.98 29.29 30.23 31.91 33.18 34.02 33.65 34.47 34.43 35.21

Source: Cochilco.

Table 21: Projection of expected electricity consumption (TWh) of copper mining per region 2017-2028

Region 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Arica y Parinacota

0.04 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Tarapacá 2.05 1.99 1.97 2.10 2.16 2.52 2.54 2.85 2.88 2.93 2.93 3.01

Antofagasta 10.80 12.47 14.01 14.63 15.14 15.05 15.29 15.56 15.14 15.09 15.21 15.57

Atacama 2.28 2.48 2.62 2.70 2.72 3.17 3.57 3.47 3.60 3.68 3.70 3.79

Coquimbo 1.39 1.39 1.46 1.58 1.70 1.87 1.92 1.98 1.97 1.96 1.93 1.95

Valparaíso 1.30 1.33 1.42 1.33 1.26 1.28 1.44 1.40 1.57 1.85 1.74 1.86

Metropolitana 1.29 1.30 1.32 1.33 1.34 1.34 1.34 1.38 1.39 1.42 1.47 1.31

O´Higgins 1.96 1.93 1.95 1.93 1.89 1.62 1.72 1.70 1.49 1.49 1.61 1.76

Country Total 21.12 22.93 24.75 25.65 26.25 26.86 27.81 28.34 28.05 28.41 28.59 29.24

Source: Cochilco.

Table 22: Projection of minimum electricity consumption (TWh) of copper mining per region 2017-2028

Region 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Arica y Parinacota

0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Tarapacá 1.62 1.57 1.56 1.68 1.73 1.97 1.90 2.04 2.01 2.01 1.99 2.00

Antofagasta 8.80 10.21 11.53 12.03 12.45 12.35 12.40 12.66 12.24 12.08 11.96 12.10

Atacama 1.83 2.00 2.12 2.18 2.17 2.47 2.78 2.64 2.63 2.63 2.59 2.58

Coquimbo 1.10 1.10 1.15 1.26 1.35 1.49 1.52 1.57 1.54 1.52 1.49 1.50

Valparaíso 1.03 1.05 1.12 1.05 1.00 1.01 1.14 1.10 1.21 1.42 1.32 1.40

Metropolitana 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.06 1.05 1.09 1.10 1.12 1.16 1.03

O´Higgins 1.55 1.52 1.54 1.52 1.50 1.28 1.39 1.38 1.23 1.23 1.32 1.45

Country Total 16.98 18.52 20.10 20.81 21.30 21.63 22.19 22.47 21.96 22.00 21.81 22.05

Source: Cochilco.


36


This report was created at the Office of Public Studies and Politics by

Javier Hernández Meza Analyst of Public Strategies and Politics

Andrés González Eyzaguirre Mining Market Analyst

Jorge Cantallopts Araya Director of Public Studies and Politics

November / 2017

in Copper Mining for 2017-2028³n Consumo EE 2017-202… · Consumo máximo Source: Cochilco....

Documents

Transcript of in Copper Mining for 2017-2028³n Consumo EE 2017-202… · Consumo máximo Source: Cochilco....