New interview with the Undersecretary of Mining, Willy. Here is...

New interview with the Undersecretary of Mining, Willy. Here is sticking to the same argument made in the end of October. Since his argument has not changed I am guessing it is still processing with the courts.

-Then that precept of concessions from before 1979 will prevail, since there is a controversy there.

-There is a controversy and that is why I make the distinction, since Corfo has explicitly established ownership of lithium, because in other salt flats there is controversy as to whether or not pre-79 concessions contained lithium and what needs to be seen to better understand this problem, You have to look at what the regulations were in force at the time these properties were constituted and these were constituted according to the mining code of the year 32, which was in force until the year 81, 82 and in that code a distinction was made between properties by metallic substances or not metallic and there is pre 79 mining property in other salt flats made up of salts, and lithium is metallic, and therefore the argument that feeds this controversy is that since the pre 79 property was made up of non-metallic substances it would not give right to lithium.That is the controversy that exists in the Maricunga salt flat but it does not apply to the Atacama because there Corfo has explicitly constituted ownership of lithium.