55918E Dams

APPENDIX B SOUTH EMBANKMENT DAM-TYPE SELECTION STUDY (Pages B-1 to B-34)
VA101-343/6-2 Rev 0 January 27, 2011
KITSAULT PROJECT
DAM DESIGN ALTERNATIVES STUDY SOUTH DAM TMF 15 OCTOBER 2010
B-1 of 34
OUTLINE
Types yp of Water Retaining g Dams Water Retaining Dams for TMF Site ACRD Concept Familiarization D Dams Evaluated E l d for f S South hD Dam
B-2 of 34
TYPES Y ES OF W WATER E RETAINING E N NG DAMS D MS Concrete Faced Rockfill Dam (CFRD) Zoned Earthfill/Rockfill Dam Geomembrane Faced Rockfill Dam (GFRD) Asphaltic Core Rockfill Dam (ACRD) Roller Compacted Concrete Dam (RCC)
B-3 of 34
CONCRETE ON E E F FACED ED ROCKFILL O KF LL DAM D M
B-4 of 34
CFRD F D PROS OS AND ND CONS ONS

Pros Slope protection against waves and ice Rockfill zone is unsaturated and slopes can be constructed steeper that earth fill dams(1:3H to 1:5H:1V versus 2H to 2 5H:1V) 2.5H:1V) Plinth and grouting can take place independently of the other dam construction Cons Design for leakage through opened joints and tension cracks. Large compression cracks can occur in high CFRD`s in narrow valleys ll Cannot provide storage during construction Not a common construction p practice in BC and Canada
B-5 of 34
ZONED EARTHFILL/ROCKFILL DAM
B-6 of 34
EARTHFILL E HF LL DAM D M PROS OS AND ND CONS ONS

Pros Wide earth core and filters provides safe dam earthquake resistance Earth core design most economic if suitable borrow areas are within reasonable transportation distances Earthfill dam have been used for many years and the efficiency of this type of dam is well documentted Known and common design in BC and Canada Cons Difficult to construct in rainy weather Largest quantity or fill required Foundation treatment in the core zone to avoid erosion of the core material along the fractured rock surface More vulnerable to overtopping during construction
B-7 of 34
GEOMEMBRANE GEOMEM NE FACED F ED ROCKFILL O KF LL DAM D M
B-8 of 34
GFRD GF D PROS OS AND ND CONS ONS

Pros Rockfill zone is unsaturated and downstream slope can be constructed steeper that earthfill dams(1:3H to 1:5H:1V versus 2H to 2.5H:1V) Plinth and grouting can take place independently of the other dam construction Membrane flexibility to accommodate rockfill deformations Cons Vulnerable to impacts, ice loads, sabotage, effects of weathering and aging. Requires R i partial i l or f fully ll covered d protective i l layer that h increases cost Cannot provide storage during construction
B-9 of 34
ASPHALTIC S H L CORE O E ROCKFILL O KF LL D DAM M
B-10 of 34
ACRD PROS AND CONS

Pros Core exhibits ductile ductile, viscoelastic-plastic behavior and has the ability to self heal. Core is protected from reservoir debris, impact loads from ice and rockfalls and deterioration from weathering or sabotage. sabotage Allows reservoir storage during construction and simplified coffer dam and water diversion designs Cons Requires specialized asphalt paver, and asphalt plant Specialized contractor training Cost
B-11 of 34
ROLLER COMPACTED CONCRETE DAM
B-12 of 34
RCC PROS OS AND ND CONS ONS

Pros Overtopping protection Smallest dam volume Cons Very expensive
B-13 of 34
DAM D M RELATIVE EL VE COSTS OS S
Earthfill core dam the most economic. ACRD and GFRD fits in between. CFRD and RCC the most expensive. expensive
B-14 of 34
FACTORS THAT DETERMINE WHICH DESIGN ALTERNATIVE TO USE
Construction costs Weather conditions Safety Total construction time Construction C t ti expertise ti Potential dam overtopping during construction Maintenance costs
B-15 of 34
WHY WAS AN ACRD DAM CONSIDERED?
Can be built with lower grade rockfill. Core can be built in rainy cold weather. Core construction does not slow down the rest of the embankment zones. Suitable natural fine grained low permeability material of substantial quantity for construction of a core zone is not available close to site Reduction R d ti i in construction st ti s schedule h d l
B-16 of 34
ACRD DH HISTORY S O Y
Technology developed in the 1960s in Germany. , Germany, y, Norway, y, Dams built in Austria, China, Iran, South Africa, Spain, Saudi Arabia Dam construction underway in Canada and Brazil. More than 100 dams have been built or are under construction. construction Highest is 170 m
B-17 of 34
EMBANKMENT ZONES FOR ACRD
B-18 of 34
AC PAVER AT WORK WET WEATHER
B-19 of 34
AC BATCH PLANT
B-20 of 34
CORE PAVER
B-21 of 34
CORE O E PAVER VE SCHEMATIC S HEM
B-22 of 34
SIMULTANEOUS COMPACTION OF AC AND FILTERS
B-23 of 34
LOADING OF AC AND FILTER INTO PAVER
B-24 of 34
PLACING ASPHALT MASTIC ON CONCRETE PLINTH
B-25 of 34
CROSSING OSS NG THE HE AC ZONE ONE
B-26 of 34
SOUTH SO H DAM D M ALTERNATIVE L E N VE DESIGN DES GN S STUDY DY

Relative merits of five embankment design alternatives were considered. considered CFRD, Earthfill dams and RCC were not practical alternatives for the South dam site ACRD and GFRD options were evaluated to determine the preferred dam design KP contacted t t d Kolo K l Veidekke, V id kk Norway`s N ` major j asphalt h lt contractor and a subsidiary of Veidekke a leader in asphalt p core dam construction to assist with the ACRD evaluation KP provided a preliminary design concept to Helge Saxegaard(working on tenders in Quebec) who provided a design review, cost estimate and construction schedule
B-27 of 34
KITSAULT K S L SITE S E CONDITIONS OND ONS

Considerable snow and sub-zero temperatures in December and January Asphalt and geomembrane work would be suspended in these two months. Thin weak overburden layer overlying bedrock, remove and found dam on rock. Average A d dam h height i ht of f 125 meters t under d th the crest t Dam starter crest is 805 meters Dam crest required elevation is 750 meters prior to freshet
B-28 of 34
GFRD PLAN VIEW LAYOUT
B-29 of 34
ACRD PLAN VIEW LAYOUT
B-30 of 34
GFRD GF D vs s ACRD D CROSS OSS SECTION SE ON
B-31 of 34
MAJOR QUANTITY SUMMARY
ITEM Foundation Preparation (m3) Grouting (m) Grout Trench/Concrete Plinth(m3) Zone F/T (M m3) Zone C Rockfill R kf ll (M ( m3) Patsy Dump Open Pit
AFRD 150,000 2,900 2,800 0.5 3.5 2.1
GFRD 200,000 4,500 1,200 0.8 3.5 4.0
B-32 of 34
COST OS SUMMARY S MM Y ($M ($MILLIONS) LL ONS)

ITEM F und ti n Preparation Foundation P p ti n Grouting Grout Trench/Concrete Plinth Water Retention Zone Zone F/T Zone C Rockfill f Patsy Dump Open Pit Subtotal Engineering, Permitting (7%) Construction Management (4%) Contingency(30%) Total AFRD 15 1.5 1.2 2.8 17.3 5.0 14.9 21.9 64.6 4.5 2.6 19.4 91.1 GFRD 20 2.0 1.8 1.2 11.0 15.7 14.9 40.0 86.6 6.1 3.5 26.0 122.2
B-33 of 34
SUMMARY S MM Y AND ND CONCLUSIONS ON L S ONS 50 years of successful experience with the performance of asphalt core embankments No case of reported leakage through the asphalt core Comparative study d was completed l d for f a GFRD GF and ACRD at the South Dam site. ACRD was found to be a very competitive design alternative ACRD construction schedule is 70 to 90 days sh t than shorter th for f GFRD construction. st ti
B-34 of 34
APPENDIX C TMF SEEPAGE ASSESSMENT AND EMBANKMENT STABILITY ANALYSES Appendix C1 Appendix C2 TMF Seepage Assessment TMF Embankment Stability Analyses
VA101-343/6-2 Rev 0 January 27, 2011
APPENDIX C1 TMF SEEPAGE ASSESSMENT (Pages C1-1 to C1-11)
VA101-343/6-2 Rev 0 January 27, 2011
APPENDIX C1 AVANTI KITSAULT MINE LTD KITSAULT PROJECT TMF SEEPAGE ANALYSIS 1.1 GENERAL
Steady state seepage analyses for the Tailings Management Facility (TMF) were carried out to estimate the amount of seepage through the embankments and foundation materials. The analyses were conducted using the finite element computer program SEEP/W (GEO-SLOPE International, Ltd.). Seepage rates were estimated for various embankment stages throughout the life of the mine. The South starter embankment will be constructed using rockfill material with a central asphalt concrete core. Rockfill placed downstream and a compacted cyclone sand core will be used during subsequent raises of the dam. The Northeast starter embankment will be constructed using rockfill with a liner on the upstream face. Compacted cyclone sand will be used during subsequent raises of the dam. The seepage rate through foundation materials and embankment fill zones is influenced by the following factors: Permeability of the embankment zones Permeability of the foundation materials The thickness and permeability of the tailings stored within the TMF Seepage gradients in the embankment and foundation zones, and The seepage area available (increases with time during operations) The seepage flow rate is expected to vary over the life of the TMF, as it is gradually filled with tailings. During operation of the TMF, the tailings deposit will increase in thickness and decrease in permeability due to on-going consolidation. Seepage analyses have been performed to predict seepage flows from the TMF for the following cases: Just prior to mill start-up, when the start-up pond is at El. 750 m and no tailings have been deposited within the TMF (embankment crest elevation = 805 m) Year 2 when the embankments are still water retaining and a suitable tailings beach has been developed (embankment crest elevation = 805 m) At the end of year 14 (end of mine operations), when the pond elevation is 856 m and the crest is at 861 m. Foundation conditions incorporated into the seepage analyses are based on information provided by the August 2010 site investigation program. The geotechnical drillholes were completed with in-situ packer permeability testing. The seepage analyses have been based on simplified cross-sections through the TMF, as shown on Figures C1.1 to C1.3 for the South Embankment and Figures C1.4 to C1.5 for the Northeast
C1-1 of 11
Knight Pisold
C O N S U L T I N G
Embankment. The seepage flow was calculated based on the seepage flux through the tailings embankments, and multiplied by the average crest length of the corresponding stage. 1.2 SUMMARY OF MATERIAL PERMEABILITIES
The saturated permeability values have largely been chosen in order to simplify calculations and provide a conservative estimate of the seepage. The permeability of the tailings embankment, tailings deposit and foundation materials are described below: To account for sub horizontal laminations (layers) formed from material segregation during deposition, the horizontal permeability of the tailings was considered to be one order of magnitude greater than the vertical permeability. Accordingly, the tailings deposit was assigned an anisotropic permeability of kv = 1.0 x 10-7 m/s and kh = 1.0 x 10-6 m/s, based on typical values from previous studies. Compacted cyclone sand was assigned a permeability of 5.0 x 10-6 m/s, based on similar experience with sand dam construction. The material was assumed to be isotropic. A zone of fractured bedrock was modelled and assigned an average permeability of 1.0 x 10-6 m/s, based on the in-situ packer permeability testing data. The data indicate slightly higher bedrock permeability towards the surface. The material was assumed to be isotropic. The bedrock beneath the fractured zone was assigned an average permeability of 1.0 x 10-7 m/s, based on the in-situ packer permeability testing data. The material was assumed to be isotropic. Waste rock shell zones of the embankments were assigned a permeability of 1 x 10-4 m/s. The results of the model revealed that these zones are essentially fully drained and do not affect the results of the analysis. The asphalt core for the South starter embankment and the upstream liner for the Northeast starter embankment were assumed to be impermeable material, in order to simplify the analysis. 1.3 BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
Boundary conditions used in the seepage analyses were selected to represent the hydrogeological conditions expected during operation of the TMF. The boundary conditions used in the analyses are summarised as follows: A total head boundary was used to represent the upstream head pond elevation. The water retained at mill start-up was estimated to be at an elevation of 750 m, based on 10 Mm3 of water impounded. As tailings are deposited from the embankments, it is anticipated that a gentle sloping beach will form several hundred metres wide from the embankment crest down to the pond elevation. Accordingly, a 200 m beach was assumed in the seepage analyses. A total head boundary was used to represent the phreatic surface at the downstream toe of the embankment, which was assumed to exist at the ground elevation for each case considered.
C1-2 of 11
Knight Pisold
C O N S U L T I N G
1.4
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
The SEEP/W Finite Element model is shown on Figures C1.1 to C1.5 for the South and Northeast embankments. The results of the seepage analyses are summarized in Table C1.1. 1.4.1 South Embankment
Prior to tailings deposition, the embankment will retain water to an elevation of 750 m. The expected seepage at mill start-up was estimated to be 14 l/s. Once mine operations begin, the fracture zones are expected to be blinded off by the low permeability tailings within approximately 6 months. From Years 1 to 14, the seepage is largely controlled by tailings permeability and pond level. The expected seepage for the embankment at the end of Years 2 and 14 when at capacity was estimated to be 7 l/s and 19 l/s, respectively. After Year 14 (post closure), the steady-state seepage rate is expected to remain approximately constant. The evolution of seepage rate for the South Embankment throughout the mine life are summarized on Figure C1.6. 1.4.2 Northeast Embankment
The tailings embankment is expected to retain a relatively small volume of water, as the initial operating pond (El. 750 m) is expected to be lower than the Northeast embankment foundation elevation. The seepage is not expected to exceed 3 l/s upon mine start-up. The tailings pond is expected to reach the Northeast embankment approximately 18 months after mill start-up, at which point the seepage is expected to be controlled by tailings permeability and pond level throughout the remainder of the mine life. The expected seepage for the embankment at the end of Years 2 and 14 when at capacity was estimated to be 1 l/s and 14 l/s, respectively. After Year 14 (post closure), the steady-state seepage rate is expected to remain approximately constant. The evolution of seepage rate for the Northeast Embankment throughout the mine life are summarized on Figure C1.7. It is anticipated that the majority of the seepage through both embankments will be recovered by seepage collection ponds located at the downstream toes. The flows calculated from seepage analyses do not include for water from cyclone sand operations.
C1-3 of 11
TABLE C1.1 AVANTI KITSAULT MINE LTD KITSAULT PROJECT TMF SEEPAGE ANALYSIS SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Print Jan/27/11 16:16:05
Embankment
Scenario
Ref #
Section
Year Ending
Crest El. (m)
Head Pond El. (m)
Average Embankment 1 Length (m)
SEEPAGE THORUGH FOUNDATION Flux (m3/s/m) 7.09E-05 1.00E-04 2.98E-05 4.21E-05 1.77E-04 9.07E-05 4.96E-05 1.22E-06 9.98E-06 9.97E-06 4.80E-06 2.64E-06 1 12E 05 1.12E-05
SEEPAGE 2 THROUGH CORE Flux (m3/s/m) n/a n/a n/a 0 n/a n/a 3.42E-07 n/a 2.40E-06 2.55E-06 n/a n/a 7 23E 06 7.23E-06
TOTAL SEEPAGE
Flow (m3/s) Flow (l/s) 3.16E-02 1.41E-02 7.03E-03 1.88E-02 2.50E-02 2.14E-02 2.23E-02 6.81E-04 1.42E-02 1.44E-02 2.69E-03 1.48E-03 2 12E 02 2.12E-02 32 14 7 19 25 21 22 1 14 14 3 1 21
Flow (gpm) 500 220 110 300 400 340 350 10 230 230 40 20 340
Base Expected South Worst Case 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8a 8b 9 10 11
Ultimate Water retaining starter Stage 1 with beach Ultimate with beach Water retaining starter (premature closure) Stage 1 (small beach) Ultimate (small beach) Stage 1 Ultimate with beach Ultimate with high k cyclone sand Water retaining starter (premature closure) Stage 1 (small beach) Ultimate (small beach)
14 0 2 14 0 2 14 2 14 14 0 2 14
861 805 805 861 805 805 861 805 861 861 805 805 861
856 750 800 856 750 800 856 800 856 856 800 800 856
446 141 236 446 141 236 446 560 1148 1148 560 560 1148
Expected Northeast Worst Case
M:\1\01\00343\06\A\Report\2-Tailings Storage Facility Report\Rev 0\Appendices\Appendix C - Seepage and Stability Assessments\C1\[Results.xlsx]Summary Table C1.1
NOTE:
1. AVERAGE LENGTH OF EMBANKMENT BASED ON VERTICAL AREA (TO POND EL.) DIVIDED BY DEPTH TO CUTOFF TO ACCOUNT FOR REDUCING SEEPAGE UP VALLEY SLOPES.
0 REV 15SEP'10 DATE ISSUED FOR REPORT VA101-343/6-2 DESCRIPTION GL PREP'D DY CHK'D KJB APP'D
C1-4 of 11
M:\1\01\00343\06\A\Data\Task 0600 (Tailings Management Facility Design)\Seepage Analysis\Asphalt core starter\[Results.xlsx]Figure C1.1
Print 27/01/2011 12:29 PM
900 850
Crest El. 805

800
Elevation (m)
Pond El. 750

750 700 650 600
0
1.5 1
Waste Rock
Ground El. 670 Fractured Bedrock Bedrock

680
74
7 00
500 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3
Distance (m) (x 1000)
720
550
AVANTI KITSAULT MINE LTD KITSAULT PROJECT

TAILINGS MANAGEMENT FACILITY SEEPAGE ANALYSIS SOUTH EMBANKMENT - YEAR 0
P/A NO. REF NO.
VA101-343/6 0 REV 05OCT'10 ISSUED WITH REPORT DATE DESCRIPTION GL DAY KJB
2
REV
PREP'D CHK'D APP'D
FIGURE C1.1
C1-5 of 11
Print 27/01/2011 12:29 PM
900 850
Pond El. 800

800
Waste Rock
Crest El. 805 1.5 1 Ground El. 670 Fractured Bedrock Bedrock
690
Elevation (m)
750 700 650 600
Tailings
730
550 500 0.0
0.1
0.2
770
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3

TAILINGS MANAGEMENT FACILITY SEEPAGE ANALYSIS SOUTH EMBANKMENT - YEAR 2
P/A NO. REF NO.
VA101-343/6 0 REV 05OCT'10 ISSUED WITH REPORT DATE DESCRIPTION GL PREP'D DAY CH'D KJB APP'D
2
REV
FIGURE C1.2
C1-6 of 11
Print 27/01/2011 12:31 PM
Cyclone Sand
900 850 800
Pond El. 856
Crest El. 861 1.5 Tailings 1 Waste Rock
Elevation (m)
750 700 650 600

850
690
Ground El. 670 Fractured Bedrock Bedrock

770
730
550 500 0.0
0.1
0.2
810
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3

TAILINGS MANAGEMENT FACILITY SEEPAGE ANALYSIS SOUTH EMBANKMENT - ULTIIMATE
P/A NO. REF NO.
2
REV
PREP'D CHK'D APP'D
FIGURE C1.3
C1-7 of 11
Print 27/01/2011 12:32 PM
825
Waste Rock Tailings Pond El. 800 Liner Crest El. 805 Ground El. 792 Fractured Bedrock
800
775
Elevation (m)
Bedrock
750
725
700
675
650 0 100 200 300 400
Distance (m)
TAILINGS MANAGEMENT FACILITY SEEPAGE ANALYSIS NORTHEAST EMBANKMENT - YEAR 2
P/A NO. REF NO.
2
REV
PREP'D CHK'D APP'D
FIGURE C1.4
C1-8 of 11
Print 27/01/2011 12:33 PM
900 875 850
Pond El. 856
Crest El. 861 Drains 3
825
Tailings
Liner
Cyclone Sand
Elevation (m)
800
Fractured Bedrock
775
Ground El. 770 Waste Rock
Bedrock
750 725
840
820
80 0
78 0
700 675 650 0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Distance (m)

TAILINGS MANAGEMENT FACILITY SEEPAGE ANALYSIS NORTHEAST EMBANKMENT - ULTIMATE
P/A NO. REF NO.
2
REV
PREP'D CHK'D APP'D
FIGURE C1.5
C1-9 of 11
Print 27/01/2011 12:34 PM
35
500
30
Water impoundment for mill start-up
25
Initial seepage through fractured rock foundation
400
Seepage (l/s)
20
Seepage (gpm)
300
Seepage reduction due to tailings deposition blinding off fractures in foundation bedrock
15
200
10
Steady-state post closure seepage
100
5
Seepage rate controlled by tailings permeability and head pond level
0 -1 0
Mill Startup
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Year of Operation

TAILINGS MANAGEMENT FACILITY TOTAL SEEPAGE DURING MINE OPERATIONS SOUTH EMBANKMENT
P/A NO. REF NO.
VA101-343/6 0 REV 05OCT'10 DATE ISSUED WITH REPORT DESCRIPTION GL PREP'D BB KJB
2
REV
CHK'D APP'D
FIGURE C1.6
C1-10 of 11
Print 27/01/2011 12:35 PM
35
500
30
25
400
Seepage (l/s)
20
Initial seepage through fractured rock foundation Steady-state post closure seepage
Seepage (gpm)
300
15
Seepage reduction due to tailings deposition blinding off fractures in foundation bedrock
200
10
100
5
Seepage rate controlled by tailings permeability and head pond level
0 -1 0
Mill Startup
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Year of Operation

TAILINGS MANAGEMENT FACILITY TOTAL SEEPAGE DURING MINE OPERATIONS NORTHEAST EMBANKMENT
P/A NO. REF NO.
VA101-343/6 0 REV 05OCT'10 DATE ISSUED WITH REPORT DESCRIPTION GL PREP'D BB KJB
2
REV
CHK'D APP'D
FIGURE C1.7
C1-11 of 11
APPENDIX C2 TMF EMBANKMENT STABILITY ANALYSES (Pages C2-1 to C2-11)
VA101-343/6-2 Rev 0 January 27, 2011
APPENDIX C2 AVANTI KITSAULT MINE LTD KITSAULT PROJECT TMF STABILITY ANALYSIS 1.1 GENERAL
Stability analyses of the South and Northeast embankments were carried out to investigate the slope stability under both static and seismic loading conditions. These comprised checking the stability of the embankment arrangement for each of the following cases: Static conditions Earthquake loading from the Operating Basis Earthquake (OBE) and the Maximum Design Earthquake (MDE), and Post-earthquake conditions using residual (post-liquefaction) tailings strengths. The analyses were carried out for the following embankment configurations: South Embankment with a crest elevation of 805 m (At Start-up) South Embankment with a crest elevation of 805 m (Year 2) South Embankment with a crest elevation of 861 m (Ultimate) Northeast Embankment with a crest elevation of 861 m (Ultimate) The stability analyses were carried out using the limit equilibrium computer program SLOPE/W. In this program a systematic search is performed to obtain the minimum factor of safety from a number of potential slip surfaces. Factors of safety have been computed using the Morgenstern-Price method. In accordance with the Canadian Dam Association (CDA) Dam Safety Guidelines (2007), the minimum acceptable factor of safety for the tailings embankment under static steady-state conditions is 1.5. A factor of safety of less than 1.0 is acceptable under earthquake loading conditions provided that calculated embankment deformations resulting from seismic loading are not significant and that the post earthquake stability of the embankment maintains a factor of safety greater than 1.2, implying there is no flow slide potential. The TMF would be expected to function in a normal manner after the OBE. Limited deformation of the tailings embankment is acceptable under seismic loading from the MDE, provided that the overall stability and integrity of the TMF is maintained and that there is no release of stored tailings or water (ICOLD, 1995). Some remediation of the embankment may be required following the MDE. The seismic stability assessment of the TMF has included estimation of seismically induced deformations of the dam from the OBE and MDE events. The OBE has been defined as the 1 in 475 year earthquake with a maximum bedrock acceleration of 0.08 g and design earthquake magnitude of 7.0. The MDE corresponds to the 1 in 10,000 year earthquake with a maximum acceleration of 0.36 g and design earthquake magnitude of 7.5. No amplification of ground motions through overburden was considered as it is assumed that embankments will be placed upon competent bedrock.
C2-1 of 11
1.2
MATERIAL PARAMETERS AND ASSUMPTIONS
The following parameters and assumptions were incorporated into the stability analyses: Bulk unit weights for the embankment and foundation materials were based on typical values for similar materials. The embankments were assumed to be founded upon average quality rock. An undrained shear strength was adopted to represent the tailings material strength for the static, seismic and post-earthquake cases, as described by the following relation: Su/p = 0.25 (static and seismic loading) Su/p = 0.05 (post liquefaction residual strength) where Su = undrained shear strength and p = effective vertical stress Effective strength parameters for the zoned embankment fill materials were estimated based on typical values for similar materials. The shear strength of the rockfill in the embankment is assumed to have zero cohesion and a friction angle that varies linearly with the log of the normal pressure. The shear strength relation for this type of material is developed from recommendations by Leps (1970) for average density rockfill, and is included graphically with Table C2.1. The phreatic surface used in the stability analysis was imported from seepage modelling (see Appendix C1) of the South and Northeast embankments. South embankment slopes are constructed at 1.5H:1V. Northeast starter embankment slopes are constructed at 2H:1V. Northeast ultimate embankment slopes are constructed at 3H:1V.
The material strength parameters adopted for the stability analyses are summarized in Table C2.1. 1.3 RESULTS OF STABILITY ANALYSES
The potential slip surfaces and calculated factors of safety for the static and post liquefaction loading conditions are summarized in Table C2.2 and shown on Figures C2.1 to C2.3 for the South embankment and on Figure C2.4 for the Northeast embankment. 1.3.1 Static Stability Analyses
The calculated factors of safety for each of the dam sections considered in this study exceed the minimum factor of safety requirement of 1.5 for static normal operating (steady-state) conditions. Deep seated and shallow slip surfaces were analysed on the upstream side of the starter embankment producing minimum factors of safety of 1.5 and 1.7, respectively. The minimum factor of safety calculated for the South starter embankment (El. 805 m) is 1.6. For the South ultimate embankment (El. 861 m) the minimum factor of safety is 1.5. For the Northeast ultimate embankment, the minimum static factor of safety is 2.1. The stability of the South embankment will increase further if waste rock is placed against the downstream face of the dam, within the proposed waste storage area. However, this is not a requirement in providing appropriate embankment stability and minimum factors of safety.
C2-2 of 11
1.3.2
Seismic Stability and Deformation Analyses
The seismic stability assessment of the TMF has included estimation of earthquake induced deformation of the embankment from the OBE and MDE events. The OBE has been defined as the 1 in 475 year earthquake with a maximum acceleration of 0.08 g and design earthquake magnitude of 7.0. The MDE has been conservatively taken as the 1 in 10,000 year earthquake with a peak ground acceleration (estimated mean average value) of 0.36 g and a design earthquake magnitude of 7.5. Embankment stability during earthquake loading has been assessed by performing a pseudo-static analysis, whereby a horizontal force (seismic coefficient) is applied to the embankment to simulate earthquake loading to determine the critical (yield) acceleration required to reduce the factor of safety to 1.0. The yield acceleration was determined by iterative stability analyses and varies depending on the embankment configuration. The estimated yield accelerations for the deep seated and shallow slip surfaces on the South embankment at mill start-up were 0.16 g and 0.3 g, respectively. The estimated yield acceleration for the South starter embankment (El. 805 m) with 2 years of tailings is 0.25 g and for the South ultimate embankment (El. 861 m), the estimated yield acceleration is 0.22 g. The estimated yield acceleration for the Northeast ultimate embankment (El. 861 m) is 0.29 g. Deformation of the embankment is predicted to occur if the yield acceleration is lower than the predicted average maximum ground acceleration along the potential slip surface from the design earthquake. Potential slide displacements under earthquake loading from the OBE and MDE have been estimated using the simplified methods of Newmark (1965) and Makdisi-Seed (1977). These two methods estimate displacement of the potential sliding mass based on the average maximum ground acceleration along the slip surface and the yield acceleration. Maximum embankment deformation calculated using the Newmark approach does not exceed 0.4 m for the South Embankment and 0.1 m for the Northeast Embankment, under the MDE. Average embankment deformation calculated using the Makdisi-Seed approach does not exceed 0.5 m for the South Embankment and 0.1 m for the Northeast Embankment, under the MDE. Maximum embankment deformation was also calculated using the Makdisi-Seed method and does not exceed 0.8 m for the South Embankment and 0.2 m for the Northeast Embankment, under the MDE. The displacements calculated using these methods do not impact embankment freeboard or result in any loss of embankment integrity. Predicted embankment deformations from the OBE are negligible (if any, as the calculated yield acceleration exceeds the estimated average maximum acceleration) and would not impact on-going operations at the TMF. The more recently published method of Bray (2007) was also used to predict seismically induced slide displacement of the embankment. In addition to the yield acceleration, this method considers the predominant period of response of the embankment under seismic loading and the corresponding spectral ground acceleration. The predominant period is related to the stiffness characteristics of the embankment fill and to the height of the embankment. Spectral accelerations were calculated using a set of five ground motion attenuation models published in 2008 (Earthquake Spectra, 2008). These include the relationships of Abrahamson and Silva, Boore and Atkinson, Campbell and Bozorgnia, Chiou and Youngs, and Idriss. These ground motion attenuation relationships are applicable to shallow crustal earthquakes in western North America. The spectral acceleration was estimated using the average of the median predictions calculated using the five ground motion attenuation models, with consideration of the
C2-3 of 11
expected foundation conditions (no overburden). Predicted embankment deformations from the OBE are negligible, if any. For the MDE, the predicted displacements for the South and Northeast embankments are minor and do not exceed 0.1 m. Some deformation of the embankment is expected to result from settlement of the fill materials during earthquake shaking. Potential settlement of the embankment crest has been estimated using the empirical relationship provided by Swaisgood (2003). This relationship was developed from an extensive review of case histories of embankment dam behaviour due to earthquake loading. Required inputs to the relationship are the earthquake magnitude, the maximum acceleration on rock at the site, the depth to rock (overburden thickness) and the embankment height. The embankment heights of the South starter, South ultimate and Northeast ultimate embankments were 135 m, 191 m and 91 m, respectively. The resulting predicted crest settlements for the OBE do not exceed 0.1 m. For the MDE, the predicted displacements did not exceed 0.5 m for the South embankment and 0.2 m for the Northeast Embankment. Post earthquake conditions, assuming complete liquefaction of the tailings deposit and using residual (post liquefaction) tailings strengths, were analysed for the South and Northeast embankments. Table C2.2 shows the results of the post liquefaction stability analyses. The calculated minimum factors of safety for each embankment section are the same as the static factor of safety because the critical potential slip surface does not pass through the liquefied tailings deposit. The factors of safety exceed the minimum requirement of 1.2 for acceptable post-liquefaction conditions. These results indicate that the embankments are not dependent on tailings strength to maintain stability, and are not susceptible to a flow slide or large deformations resulting from earthquake-induced liquefaction of the tailings deposit. The findings of the seismic stability analyses indicate that the TMF would function normally after the OBE and MDE. The ongoing increase in tailings strength and reduction in pore water pressures as the tailings consolidate will only improve the overall stability and integrity of the embankment after closure. 1.4 REFERENCES
Bray, J.D. and Travasarou, T., 2007, Simplified Procedure for Estimating Earthquake-Induced Deviatoric Slope Displacements, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 133, No. 4, April 2007, pp. 381-392. Canadian Dam Association (CDA) 2007, Dam Safety Guidelines, Edmonton, Alberta. Earthquake Spectra, 2008, Special Issue on the Next Generation Attenuation Project, Vol. 24, No. 1. International Committee on Large Dams (ICOLD) 1995, Tailings Dams & Seismicity, Bulletin 98. Leps, T.M., 1970, Review of Shearing Strength of Rockfill, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, Vol. 96, pp. 1159-1170.
C2-4 of 11
Makdisi, F.I., and Seed, B.H., 1977, A Simplified Procedure for Estimating Earthquake-Induced Deformations in Dams and Embankments, Earthquake Engineering Research Center Report No. UCB/EERC-77/19, University of California, Berkeley, California. Newmark, N.M., 1965, Effects of Earthquakes on Dams and Embankments, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 139 -159. Swaisgood, J.R., 2003, Embankment Dam Deformations Caused by Earthquakes, Proceedings from Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Christchurch, New Zealand, Paper No. 14.
C2-5 of 11
TABLE C2.1 AVANTI KITSAULT MINE LTD KITSAULT PROJECT TMF STABILITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY OF STRENGTH PARAMETERS
Print Jan/27/2011 16:19:48
Material Cycloned Sand (roller compacted) Waste Rock (traffic compacted) Tailings Deposit Fractured Bedrock Bedrock (inpenetrable)
Unit Wt. (kN/m) 18 20 18 20 -
Effective Friction Angle (deg) 35 Average Leps 33 -
Cohesion (MPa) 0 0 0 3.5 -
Source Los Pelambres Copper Mine, Chile See note 1 See note 2 See note 3 Assumed
M:\1\01\00343\06\A\Report\2-Tailings Storage Facility Report\Rev 0\Appendices\Appendix C - Seepage and Stability Assessments\C2\[SLOPE-W Results.xlsx]Materials- Table C2.1 1. A RELATIONSHIP FOR FRICTION ANGLE AND EFFECTIVE NORMAL STRESS WAS DEVELOPED WAS BASED ON AVERAGE DENSITY OF ROCKFILL (LEPS, 1970) - SEE GRAPH 1. 2. A RELATIONSHIP FOR SHEAR STRESS AND EFFECTIVE NORMAL STRESS (SU/P') WAS USED TO MODEL THE TAILINGS. THE SU/P' VALUES USED FOR THE ANALYSES WERE 0.25 FOR STATIC AND SEISMIC LOADING DURING OPERATIONS AND 0.05 FOR LIQUEFIED TAILINGS. 3) FRACTURED ROCK PARAMETERS WERE ESTIMATED USING TYPICAL PROPERTIES FOR AVERAGE QUALITY ROCK MASS (ROCK ENGINEERING, 1995).
Graph 1: Shear Strength of Rockfill (after Leps, 1970) 60 55

Friction n Angle, (deg)
50 45 40 35 30 25 20 10 100 1,000
Normal Stress, n (kPa)
Average
10,000
100,000
0 REV
05OCT'10 DATE
ISSUED WITH REPORT VA101-343/6-2 DESCRIPTION
GL PREP'D
GRG CHK'D
KJB APP'D
C2-6 of 11
TABLE C2.2 AVANTI KITSAULT MINE LTD KITSAULT PROJECT TMF STABILITY ANALYSIS FACTOR OF SAFETY SUMMARY
Print Jan/27/11 16:21:05
Section South at startup (deep seated slip circle) South at startup (shallow slip circle) South (Year 2) South (Ultimate) Northeast (Ultimate) South (Year 2) South (Ultimate) Northeast (Ultimate)
Loading Condition Static Static Static Static Static Post liquefaction Post liquefaction Post liquefaction
FoS1 1.5 1.7 1.6 1.5 2.1 1.6 1.5 2.1
Required 2 FoS 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.2 1.2 1.2
Result OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
M:\1\01\00343\06\A\Report\2-Tailings Storage Facility Report\Rev 0\Appendices\Appendix C - Seepage and Stability Assessments\C2\[SLOPE-W Results.xlsx]Summ
NOTES:
1. FACTOR OF SAFETY CALCULATED USING SLOPE/W (MORGENSTERN-PRICE METHOD). 2. FOR TAILINGS EMBANKMENT ASSUMPTIONS REFER TO THE DESIGN BASIS.
0 REV 05OCT'10 DATE ISSUED WITH REPORT VA101-343/6-2 DESCRIPTION GL PREP'D GRG CHK'D KJB APP'D
C2-7 of 11
M:\1\01\00343\06\A\Data\Task 0600 (Tailings Management Facility Design)\Stability Analysis\[SLOPE-W Results.xlsx]Figure C2.1
Print 27/01/2011 12:42 PM
Critical Factor of Safety = 1.7

900 850 800
Critical Factor of Safety = 1.5 Crest El. 805
Elevation (m)
Pond El. 750

750 700 650 600 550 500 0.0
1.5 1
Waste Rock Ground El. 670
Fractured Bedrock
Bedrock
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2

TAILINGS MANAGEMENT FACILITY STABILITY ANALYSIS SOUTH EMBANKMENT - AT STARTUP
P/A NO. REF NO.
VA101-343/6 0 REV 05OCT'10 ISSUED WITH REPORT DATE DESCRIPTION GL GRG KJB
2
REV
PREP'D CHK'D APP'D
FIGURE C2.1
C2-8 of 11
Print 27/01/2011 12:43 PM
900 850
Pond El. 800

800
Waste Rock Tailings
Crest El. 805 1.5 1 Critical Factor of Safey = 1.6
Elevation (m)
750 700 650 600 550 500 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Fractured Bedrock Bedrock
Ground El. 670
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3

TAILINGS MANAGEMENT FACILITY STABILITY ANALYSIS SOUTH EMBANKMENT - YEAR 2
P/A NO. REF NO.
2
REV
PREP'D CHK'D APP'D
FIGURE C2.2
C2-9 of 11
Print 27/01/2011 12:44 PM
Cyclone Sand
900 850 800
Pond El. 856
Crest El. 861 Critical Factor of Safety = 1.5 1.5 Tailings 1 Waste Rock Ground El. 670
Elevation (m)
750 700
Fractured Bedrock
650 600 550 500 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3
Bedrock

TAILINGS MANAGEMENT FACILITY STABILITY ANALYSIS SOUTH EMBANKMENT - ULTIMATE
P/A NO. REF NO.
2
REV
PREP'D CHK'D APP'D
FIGURE C2.3
C2-10 of 11
Print 27/01/2011 12:45 PM
900 875 850
Pond El. 856
Cres t El. 861 Drains 3
825
Cyclone Sand Tailings Liner 1
Critical Factor of Safey = 2.1
Elevation (m)
800
Fractured Bedrock
775
Ground El. 770 Was te Rock
750 725 700 675 650 0 100
Be drock
200
300
400
500
600
700
Distance (m)

TAILINGS MANAGEMENT FACILITY STABILITY ANALYSIS NORTHEAST EMBANKMENT - ULTIMATE
P/A NO. REF NO.
2
REV
PREP'D CHK'D APP'D
FIGURE C2.4
C2-11 of 11
APPENDIX D CONSTRUCTION SCOPE OF WORK AND METHODOLOGY (Pages D-1 to D-6)
VA101-343/6-2 Rev 0 January 27, 2011
APPENDIX D AVANTI KITSAULT MINE LTD KITSAULT PROJECT TMF CONSTRUCTION EXECUTION PLAN Section 1.0 - CONSTRUCTION SCOPE OF WORK 1.1 MOBILIZATION
The Work in this section comprises the establishment on the Site of all the temporary accommodation, Plant and equipment necessary for the successful performance and completion of the Work and shall include, but not necessarily limited to: a. Assemble all necessary Plant and equipment and transport it to the Site; b. Establish all the Contractors maintenance facilities, construction roads, temporary workshops, office accommodation and sanitation facilities on the Site; c. Maintain all Plant and services for the duration of the Work. The anticipated duration for the Contractor on site is approximately 24 months; and d. On completion of the Work, remove all Plant, temporary facilities and clean up and leave the site in a clean and tidy condition to the satisfaction of the Owner. 1.2 STAGE 1A TMF CONSTRUCTION SCOPE OF WORK
Construction for Stage 1A will focus on the following work areas: Pioneering construction access roads into Patsy Creek to allow for logging of merchantable timber in the disturbance area and to allow construction of the construction water management structures; Construction water management; Develop existing Patsy Dump for aggregate production; and Construct South Embankment to elevation 725 m. Pioneering Construction Access Roads and Logging Construction access roads will be pioneered into the South Embankment footprint area from the existing Patsy Dump to provide access to the embankment abutments and TMF basin area for logging of merchantable timber. This access will then be used to construct the construction water management structures. 1.2.2 Construction Water Management Construction water management will include construction dewatering activities as well as the installation of sediment and erosion measures as outlined below:
1.2.1
D-1 of 6
a. Pioneer roads to the cofferdam locations and install temporary sediment and erosion control Best Management Practices (BMPs); b. Strip the foundation areas for the coffer dams and construct the dams to the elevations shown; c. Install the temporary pumpstations and pipelines to transfer water from the cofferdams through the South Embankment footprint and into Patsy Creek; and d. Dewater the foundation along the Patsy Creek stream channel by excavating interceptor trenches to drain ponded water to sump pumpstations and ultimately into Patsy Creek. 1.2.3 Develop Existing Patsy Dump for Aggregate Production Development of the existing Patsy Dump borrow area for aggregate production will include the following activities: a. Construct collection and diversion ditches and an exfiltration pond for sediment and erosion control; b. Construct haul roads from the existing Patsy Dump area to the south embankment by upgrading the pioneer roads; c. Establish a crushing and screening plant to produce Zone F, Zone D, Zone T, riprap bedding layer material and concrete coarse and fine aggregates; and d. Establish an asphalt batch plant. 1.2.4 Construct South Embankment to Elevation 725 m Construction of the South Embankment will include the following activities: a. Clear and grub the footprint area of the embankment. Strip off topsoil and place in topsoil stockpile; b. Remove overburden materials and existing Patsy Dump materials in the Stage 1 embankment footprint area to expose foundation bedrock; c. Shape the bedrock foundation in the plinth area to remove any irregular protrusions or overhangs; d. Excavate plinth trench and clean with an air jet and slush grout rock surface. Remove and clean weak seams and shear zones with a high air/water pressure jet and backfill with slush grout or dental concrete. In closely jointed rock, cover with a concrete layer of at least 10 cm; e. Construct plinth and install anchor bars to provide uplift resistance against grouting operations; f. Create a grout curtain to increase the length of any potential seepage paths and to generally lower the bulk hydraulic conductivity of the weathered bedrock and structures within the rock using a single line curtain with primary, secondary and tertiary holes; g. Install a main collector foundation drain in the bottom of Patsy Creek. Additional foundation drains may be required to tie isolated springs and seeps within the embankment footprint area into this main collector foundation drain; and
D-2 of 6
h. Construct the asphaltic core rockfill dam to elevation 725 m according to the zoning as shown on the figures. 1.3 STAGE 1B TMF CONSTRUCTION SCOPE OF WORK
Construction for Stage 1B will focus on the following work areas: Construct access roads to the South Embankment, Northeast Embankment, and reclaim barge from the plant site area bench; Raise the asphalt core rockfill South Embankment from elevation 725 m to elevation 750 m; and Install a pump bypass system to lower water levels prior to freshet. Construct Access Roads to the South Embankment, Northeast Embankment and Reclaim Barge From The Plant Site Area Bench The access roads right-of-way will be logged of merchantable timber. Clearing, grubbing and topsoil will be removed and pushed into a brush barrier on the downhill side of the right-of-way. The roadway will then be constructed by excavating to the lines and grades shown on the figures. The majority of the roads will require drill and blast rock excavation. 1.3.2 Raise the Asphalt Core Rockfill South Embankment from 725 m to 750 m Construction water management will include construction dewatering activities as well as the installation of sediment and erosion control measures as outlined below: a. Extend the plinth trench up the abutments. Clean with an air jet and slush grout rock surface. Remove and clean weak seams and shear zones with a high air/water pressure jet and backfill with slush grout or dental concrete. In closely jointed rock, cover with a concrete layer of at least 10 cm; b. Construct plinth and install anchor bars to provide uplift resistance against grouting operations; c. Extend grout curtain up the abutments to increase the length of any potential seepage paths and to generally lower the bulk hydraulic conductivity of the weathered bedrock and structures within the rock using a single line curtain with primary, secondary and tertiary holes; d. Extend embankment drainage system up the abutments. Additional foundation drains may be required to tie isolated springs and seeps within the embankment footprint area into this main collector foundation drain; and e. Construct the asphaltic core rockfill embankment to elevation 750 m according to the zoning as shown on the figures. 1.4 STAGE 1C TMF CONSTRUCTION SCOPE OF WORK
1.3.1
Construction for Stage 1C will focus on the following work areas: Complete construction of the asphalt core rockfill South Embankment to elevation 805 m;
D-3 of 6
Pioneer construction access roads into the Northeast Embankment area to allow for logging of merchantable timber in the disturbance area and to allow construction of the construction water management structures; Construct water management structures; Develop rock borrow for aggregate and rockfill production; Construct the NE1 and NE2 water management ponds; and Construct the geomembrane faced rockfill Northeast Embankment to elevation 805 m. . 1.4.1 Complete Construction of the Asphalt Core Rockfill South Embankment to Elevation 805m Construction water management will include construction dewatering activities as well as the installation of sediment and erosion control measures as outlined below: a. Extend the plinth trench up the abutments. Clean with an air jet and slush grout rock surface. Remove and clean weak seams and shear zones with a high air/water pressure jet and backfill with slush grout or dental concrete. In closely jointed rock, cover with a concrete layer of at least 10 cm; b. Construct plinth and install anchor bars to provide uplift resistance against grouting operations; c. Extend grout curtain up the abutments to increase the length of any potential seepage paths and to generally lower the bulk hydraulic conductivity of the weathered bedrock and structures within the rock using a single line curtain with primary, secondary and tertiary holes; d. Extend embankment drainage system up the abutments. Additional foundation drains may be required to tie isolated springs and seeps within the embankment footprint area into this main collector foundation drain; and e. Construct the asphaltic core rockfill embankment to elevation 805 m according to the zoning as shown on the figures.
1.4.2
Pioneering Construction Access Roads and Logging Construction access roads will be pioneered into the NE1 and NE2 water management pond disturbance areas from the main access road to the plant site. This access will then be used to construct the construction water management structures.
1.4.3
Construction Water Management Construction water management will include construction dewatering activities as well as the installation of sediment and erosion control measures as outlined below: a. Pioneer roads to the cofferdam locations and install temporary sediment and erosion control Best Management Practices (BMPs). This will include temporary bypass pumping systems and pipelines; b. Strip the foundation areas for the coffer dams and construct the dams to the elevations shown; and
D-4 of 6
c.
Install the temporary pumpstations and pipelines to transfer water from the cofferdams through the Northeast Embankment footprint areas and into the downstream drainages.
1.4.4
Develop Rock Borrow for Aggregate and Rockfill Production Development of the rock borrow area for aggregate production will include the following activities: a. Construct collection and diversion ditches and an exfiltration pond for sediment and erosion control; b. Construct haul roads from the rock borrow area to the Northeast Embankments by upgrading the pioneer roads; and c. Establish a crushing and screening plant to produce Zone F, Zone D, Zone T and riprap bedding layer material.
1.4.5
Construction Water Management Construction water management will include construction dewatering activities as well as the installation of sediment and erosion control measures as outlined below: a. Pioneer roads to the cofferdam locations and install temporary sediment and erosion control Best Management Practices (BMPs). This will include temporary bypass pumping systems and pipelines; b. Strip the foundation areas for the coffer dams and construct the dams to the elevations shown; and c. Install the temporary pumpstations and pipelines to transfer water from the cofferdams through the Northeast Embankment footprint areas and into the downstream drainages.
1.4.6
Construct the NE1 and NE2 Water Management Ponds
Construction of the NE1 and NE2 water management ponds will include the following activities: a. Clear and grub the footprint area of the structures. Strip off topsoil and place in topsoil stockpile; b. Remove overburden materials in the pond and embankment footprint areas to expose foundation bedrock; c. Construct the rockfill embankments according to the zoning as shown on the figures; d. Install geosynthetic facing on upstream face of embankments; e. Install tapered wedge of rockfill against the geosynthetic lined embankment face; and f. Install pumpback system. 1.4.7 Construct Geosynthetic Faced Rockfill Northeast Embankment to Elevation 805 m
Construction of the Northeast Embankment will include the following activities:
D-5 of 6
a. Clear and grub the footprint area of the embankment. Strip off topsoil and place in topsoil stockpile; b. Remove overburden materials in the Stage 1C embankment footprint area to expose foundation bedrock; c. Install foundation and embankment drainage systems. Additional foundation drains may be required to tie isolated springs and seeps within the embankment footprint area into this main collector foundation drain; d. Construct the rockfill embankments according to the zoning as shown on the figures; e. Create a grout curtain to increase the length of any potential seepage paths and to generally lower the bulk hydraulic conductivity of the weathered bedrock and structures within the rock using a single line curtain with primary, secondary and tertiary holes; f. Excavate grout trench and clean with an air jet and slush grout rock surface. Remove and clean weak seams and shear zones with a high air/water pressure jet and backfill with slush grout or dental concrete. In closely jointed rock, cover with a concrete layer of at least 10 cm; g. Install geosynthetic facing on upstream face of embankments; and h. Install tapered wedge of rockfill against the geosynthetic lined embankment face.
D-6 of 6
APPENDIX E WATER BALANCE MODELING (Pages E-1 to E-9)
VA101-343/6-2 Rev 0 January 27, 2011
APPENDIX E AVANTI KITSAULT MINE LTD KITSAULT PROJECT SECTION 1.0 - OPERATIONAL MONTHLY STOCHASTIC WATER BALANCE MODEL
1.1
GENERAL
A stochastic analysis was carried out on the base case monthly operational mine site water balance using the GoldSim software package. The intent of the modelling is to estimate the magnitude and extent of any water surplus and/or deficit conditions in the tailings management facility (TMF) based on a range of possible climatic conditions. The modelling timeline includes one pre-production year (Year -1), and 15 years of operation (Years 1 to 15) at a rate of 40,000 dry metric tonnes per day. The model is shown schematically on Figure E.1 and incorporates the following major mine components: Open Pit Mill Tailings Management Facility (TMF) Waste Rock Management Facility (WRMF) Cyclone Sand Plant, and Low Grade (LG) Stockpiles.
Model assumptions and parameters are discussed in the following sections and summarized in Table E.1. 1.2 1.2.1 MODEL ASSUMPTIONS Average Climatic Conditions
The base case monthly operational water balance model was developed using average estimated values for precipitation. The MAP for the project site was determined to be approximately 2000 mm, with 45% of the annual precipitation falling as rain and the remainder as snow. The average snowmelt distribution for the project site was estimated to be 15% in April, 70% in May and 15% in June. The annual average long-term potential evapotranspiration for the Project site was estimated to be 450 mm. Complete details of the derivation of the climate inputs for the project site are outlined in the project Engineering Hydrometeorology Report (Knight Pisold, 2010). 1.2.2 Stochastic Inputs
The potential variability of climatic conditions was addressed by using a stochastic version of the water balance model, which involved Monte Carlo type simulation techniques and the modelling of monthly climatic parameters as probability distributions, rather than simply as mean values. The year-to-year variability of monthly precipitation values was quantified using coefficient of variation (Cv) values, which were derived from regional datasets. Table E.2 lists the monthly Cv values for precipitation, along with
E-1 of 9
the monthly mean and corresponding standard deviation values. The monthly mean and standard deviation values were used to develop monthly probability distributions, as required for a Monte Carlo simulation. The distributions of monthly precipitation were modelled assuming an underlying Gamma distribution. 1.2.3 Tailings Streams
The conceptual design of the TMF is based on the assumption that approximately 95% of the tailings will be geochemically innocuous material (bulk tailings) following pyrite separation. The remaining 5% of the tailings comprises potentially reactive pyritic tailings that will be discharged by a separate pipeline into the TMF. 1.2.4 Cyclone Sand Sleds
For six months of the year (July to November) the bulk tailings stream (95% of total tailings by weight) will be used to produce cyclone sand for embankment fill. During these months, the bulk tailings stream will be directed to the cyclone stations as slurry (estimated at 36.4% solids by weight). The cyclone underflow (sand fraction) will be discharged from the cyclone stations as slurry (estimated at 74.4% solids by weight) to construction cells along the downstream shell of the Northeast TMF embankment. The cyclone overflow material (fine fraction) will be discharged directly to the TMF as slurry (estimated at 22.2% solids by weight). Water will be recovered from the sand cells to the extent possible using decant boxes and will be pumped back to the TMF pond. Residual moisture draining from the fill in the construction cells will be collected in the downstream seepage collection system. 1.2.5 Mill Requirements
The amount of process water required for the tailings slurry and mill processing was provided by AMEC (email, September 23, 2010). The expected solids content (% by weight) of the tailings slurry was assumed to be 36.4%. The modelled mine production schedule is 40,000 tpd for 15 years of the mine life. The majority of the process water will be supplied by the TMF reclaim system, with the remainder coming from other sources which could include direct precipitation. The current water balance model includes a fresh water mill requirement of 120 m3/hr. Ongoing refinements will be made to the model throughout the feasibility design stage as additional information becomes available. 1.2.6 Pit Dewatering System
The water pumped from the open pit by the dewatering system includes pit wall runoff, undisturbed pit and catchment runoff. The current water balance model assumes that the pit dewatering systems will be discharged directly to Lime Creek if it is of suitable quality to do so. If the water quality is not suitable, the water will pumped to the TMF for use by the mill as process water make-up. 1.2.7 Catchment Areas
The relevant TMF catchment runoff coefficients are summarized in Table E.3.
E-2 of 9
1.2.8
Water Retained in Tailings Voids
The amount of water retained in the tailings is a function of the mine production schedule, and the dry density and specific gravity for the tailings. 1.2.9 Reclaim Water
The volume of water available for reclaim to the mill was estimated using the TMF water balance. The primary TMF inflows are: Water being pumped to the TMF from the mill as part of the tailings slurry Direct precipitation and runoff to the TMF, which includes runoff from the upslope catchments, and Sand cells water recovery. The primary TMF outflows are: Water retained in the tailings Evaporation, and Seepage. The water available for process use is assumed to be 100% of the difference between these inflows and outflows. 1.3 RESULTS
Model results were used to determine the likelihood of having a surplus of water in the TMF, as illustrated on Figure E.2. The figure presents the range of possible cumulative pond volumes available in the TMF over the life of the mine, as defined by the 95th percentile values (5% chance of being equalled or exceeded in any year). Overflow volume above the pond capacity of 10 million m3 was assumed to be discharged to the Water Box and ultimately to Lime Creek. The range of pond volumes can also be thought of as the required active, or live, storage capacity of the TMF pond for a reasonably large range of anticipated climatic conditions. For all cases, the TMF pond volume accumulates to 10 million m3 and begins to overflow to the Water Box in Year 1. The monthly variation in pond volume through the year is fairly consistent from year-to-year. The pond volume fluctuates between approximately 8 million m3 to maximum assumed capacity of 10 million m3 in a year. For the 95th percentile dry case, the pond volume only goes below 8 million m3 in Year 1. For all scenarios, the system (including the TMF and contributing catchments) is able to supply enough water to meet the process water mill requirements throughout the mine life, with a surplus (or overflow) of water to be discharged to the Water Box and Lime Creek in every year. It should be noted that the water balance results are very sensitive to the input values, which are best estimates based on currently available information, so changes to the inputs could result in substantial changes to the results.
E-3 of 9
1.4
REFERENCES
Knight Pisold (2010). Avanti Kitsault Mine Ltd., Kitsault Project Engineering Hydrometeorology Report. VA101-343/9-1, Rev 0, July 15, 2010.
E-4 of 9
TABLE E.1 AVANTI KITSAULT MINE LTD KITSAULT PROJECT WATER BALANCE INPUT PARAMETERS
Print Jan/27/11 13:33:59
Component Mean Annual Precipitation (mm) Mean Annual Lake Evaporation (mm) Daily Ore Production (dry metric tonnes) Mine Life (years) Freshwater requirement (m /hr) Tailings dry density (tonnes/m ) Bulk tailings (95% by weight) Bulk tailings solids content (% by weight) Bulk tailings specifc gravity Cyclone Sand (bulk tailings) Sand fraction (underflow) used for embankment construction Fine Tailings (overflow) to TMF Cylone sand slurry solids content (% by weight) Pyritic tailings (5% by weight) P ritic tailings solids content (% b Pyritic by weight) eight) Pyritic tailings specific gravity South Embankment Seepage (L/s) Year 1 Year 3 Year 15 North Embankment Seepage (L/s) Year 3 Year 15 Embankment Seepage Recycle rate
3 3
Assumption 2000 450 40,000 15 120 1.4 33% 2.66
35% 65% 33% 33% 3.0 14 7 19 32 1 14 50%
M:\1\01\00343\06\A\Data\Task 0500 (Site Wide Water Balance)\TSF WBM\GoldSim\Stochastic models\Results\[WBM_013.xlsx]Table_assump

0 REV 05NOV'10 DATE ISSUED WITH REPORT VA101-343/6-2 DESCRIPTION ER PREP'D JGC CHK'D KJB APP'D
E-5 of 9
TABLE E.2 AVANTI KITSAULT MINE LTD KITSAULT PROJECT MONTHLY STATISTICAL VALUES FOR WATER BALANCE MODELLING
Print Jan/27/11 13:33:59
Location Project Site (el. 650 m)
Parameter Standard deviation (mm) Precipitation Mean (mm) Coefficient of Variation
Jan 84 241 0.35
Feb 57 163 0.35
Mar 49 153 0.32
Apr 42 113 0.37
May 21 70 0.30
Jun 22 73 0.30
Jul 28 80 0.35
Aug 37 129 0.29
Sep 54 185 0.29
Oct 72 287 0.25
Nov 78 251 0.31
Dec 87 255 0.34
M:\1\01\00343\06\A\Data\Task 0500 (Site Wide Water Balance)\TSF WBM\GoldSim\Stochastic models\Results\[WBM_013.xlsx]Table_CV
NOTES:
1. COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION = STANDARD DEVIATION/ MEAN 2. THE COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION VALUES ARE BASED ON THE REGIONAL DATA RECORDED AT STEWART A AND NASS CAMP.
0 REV 05NOV'10 DATE ISSUED WITH REPORT VA101-343/6-2 DESCRIPTION ER PREP'D JGC CHK'D KJB APP'D
E-6 of 9
TABLE E.3 AVANTI KITSAULT MINE LTD KITSAULT PROJECT WATER BALANCE CATCHMENT AREAS
Print Jan/27/11 13:33:59
Location Year -1 TMF Undisturbed Catchment TMF Beach TMF Pond Other areas contributing to TMF Open Pit Undisturbed OP Catchment East Waste Rock Management Facility Low Grade Stockpile 3.3 0.0 0.3 2.3 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 Year 1 2.8 0.1 0.8 2.3 0.1 1.4 0.1 0.0
Area (km ) Year 7 1.4 0.2 2.1 2.3 0.6 0.9 0.4 0.2 Year 15 0.6 0.3 2.8 2.3 1.1 0.3 0.9 0.3
Runoff Coefficient 0.70 0.70 1.00 0.70 0.90 0.70 0.80 0.80
M:\1\01\00343\06\A\Data\Task 0500 (Site Wide Water Balance)\TSF WBM\GoldSim\Stochastic models\Results\[WBM_013.xlsx]Table_areas
0 REV
14DEC'10 DATE
ER PREP'D
JGC CHK'D
KJB APP'D
E-7 of 9
M:\1\01\00343\06\A\Data\Task 0500 (Site Wide Water Balance)\TSF WBM\GoldSim\Stochastic models\Results\WBM_013WBM_013
Print 27/01/20111:38 PM
FRESH WATER SOURCE 4 14
CYCLONE SAND PLANT
11 13
MILL
OPEN PIT
12 15 5 16 3
Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Description Direct Precipition on the Open Pit Open Pit Catchment Runoff Pit Dewatering to Lime Creek Fresh Water Make-up Reclaim Water from TMF TMF Pond Evaporation TMF Catchment Runoff and Direct Precipitation TMF Seepage Collection and Recycle TMF Seepage Water trapped in the Tailings Tailings from Mill Pyritic Tailings to TMF (All year-round) B Bulk lk T Tailings ili t to Sand S d Pl Plant t (Jul-Nov) (J l N ) Cyclone Overflow to TMF (Jul-Nov) Cyclone Sand Underflow to TMF embankment (Jul-Nov) Process Water to Sand Plant Water from Sand Cells Water Recycle from Sand Cells to TMF TMF Surplus to Water Box
18 6 7
17
TAILINGS MANAGEMENTFACILITY
19
10
NOTES:
TAILINGS MANAGEMENT FACILITY WATER BALANCE SCHEMATIC

1. DASHED LINES ILLUSTRATE WATER FLOW PATHS DURING SAND PLANT OPERATION FROM JULY TO NOVEMBER, WHEN BULK TAILINGS ARE DIRECTED TO THE SAND PLANT. 2. DURING DECEMBER TO JUNE, TAILINGS ARE DIRECTED TO THE TMF; 95% BULK TAILINGS AND 5% PYRITIC TAILINGS.
ISSUED WITH REPORT DESCRIPTION ER PREP'D JGC CHK'D KJB APP'D
P/A NO.
VA101-343/6 0 REV 14DEC'10 DATE
REF NO. 2
FIGURE E.1
REV 0
E-8 of 9
M:\1\01\00343\06\A\Data\Task 0500 (Site Wide Water Balance)\TSF WBM\GoldSim\Stochastic models\Results\WBM_013
Print 1/28/2011 8:33 AM
10
8 TMF Pond - 95th Percentile Dry Volume (Mm3) TMF Pond - Median 6 TMF Pond - 95th Percentile Wet Overflow - 95th Percentile Dry Overflow - Median Overflow - 95th Percentile Wet 4
0 -1
NOTE: 1. MAXIMUM TMF POND VOLUME ASSUMED TO BE 10 MILLION M3. EXCESS WATER OVER THE MAXIMUM POND VOLUME ASSUMED TO BE DISHCARGED TO THE WATERBOX.
10
11
12
13
14
15
Year of Operation
AVANTI KITSAULT MINE LTD KITSAULT PROJECT TAILINGS MANAGEMENT FACILITY MONTHLY WATER BALANCE POND VOLUME
P/A NO. REF NO 2
VA101-343/6 0 REV 11JAN'11 DATE ISSUED WITH REPORT DESCRIPTION ER PREP'D JGC CHK'D KJB APP'D
FIGURE E.2
E-9 of 9
REV 0
APPENDIX F BASIS OF ESTIMATE (CAPEX) Appendix F1 Appendix F2 Basis of Estimate for Feasibility Study Initial Capex Estimate and Feasibility Level Cost Estimate
VA101-343/6-2 Rev 0 January 27, 2011
APPENDIX F1 BASIS OF ESTIMATE FOR FEASIBILITY STUDY (Pages F1-1 to F1-19)
VA101-343/6-2 Rev 0 January 27, 2011
APPENDIX F AVANTI KITSAULT MINE LTD KITSAULT PROJECT BASIS OF ESTIMATE FOR FEASIBILITY STUDY SECTION 1.0 - INTRODUCTION 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Kitsault Project is a proposed re-development of a historical Molybdenum mine located in northwestern British Columbia. Avanti Kitsault Mine Ltd. (Avanti) acquired the Kitsault Property in October 2008 and has reactivated the project. Evaluation is underway for a proposed 40,000 tonnes-perday mine development with conventional crushing, grinding and flotation processes. Knight Pisold Ltd. (KP) has been commissioned to develop the feasibility design for the Tailings Management Facility (TMF) and water management systems. This document summarizes the cost estimate for the proposed design. The Tailings Management Facility (TMF) has been designed for secure and permanent storage of all tailings from the proposed mining operations in an impoundment created by two embankments constructed with a combination of local borrow materials, waste rock and cyclone sand from the mining operation. 1.2 PURPOSE OF ESTIMATE
This appendix presents the feasibility level cost estimate for the TMF and site wide water management systems. The purpose is to estimate the capital (initial and sustaining) and operating expenditures over the life of mine for the TMF and water management systems. 1.3 ESTIMATE METHODOLOGY
The cost estimate of the TMF and water management systems was broken down into the following elements: General Site Preparation Roads o Service Roads o Temporary Haul Roads Tailings Management Facility o South Embankment o Northeast Embankment o Bulk Tailings Distribution System o Cleaner Tailings Distribution System o Cyclone Sand Distribution System Water Management o Reclaim Water System o Surplus Water System
F1-1 of 19
o o
Surface Run-Off Diversion Systems Seepage Collection and Sediment Control Ponds North Water Management Ponds South Water Management Pond Low Grade Stockpile Seepage Collection Pond Clary Lake Fresh Water Supply System
In general, a scope of work was developed for each major element of the work breakdown structure (WBS) and a number of work activities were identified to achieve the scope. Where sufficient detail existed, estimates of quantities and unit costs were developed for a work activity, and multiplied to arrive at the estimated cost. Where insufficient detail existed for development of quantities and unit costs, lump sump allowances based on historical experience were used. The cost estimate was prepared at a feasibility level with a target level of accuracy of +20% / -20%. The estimate is calculated in 2010 Canadian dollars with no allowance for escalation beyond that time. The earthworks cost component of the TMF and water management systems, including roads, and diversion systems, were prepared by estimating the size and production rate of an appropriate equipment fleet. Assumptions regarding the location of the various construction materials, such as borrows, quarries or waste rock from the Open Pit were incorporated in the earthworks estimates. In addition, similar techniques were used to develop unit rates for construction of site roads required for the TMF and water management systems. All TMF Earthworks and Foundation Preparation, Tailings / Borrow Roads, Diversion Systems, and Seepage Collection and Sediment Control costs were included as either initial or sustaining capital costs in the estimate. Sustaining capital generally consisted of construction activities necessary to raise the TMF embankments. The capital (initial and sustaining) cost estimates for the Tailings Disposal and Reclaim, Surplus Water System and Fresh Water Supply, collectively referred to as Pipeworks, were generally estimated based on a mixture of vendor quotes and historical experience for similar work. Percentage based mark-ups for manpower and equipment were applied to the material costs to cover installation. Operating costs for Pipeworks included power and maintenance costs. Power was estimated based on pump sizes and a unit rate for power ($ per MWh). Annual maintenance costs were estimated as a percentage of the material component of the capital cost for the various components of the Pipeworks. 1.4 ESTIMATING TEAM
The estimating team included the following: Greg Smyth, Senior Project Manager Lead estimator Bruno Borntraeger, P.Eng., Specialist Engineer Quantities and cost for Tailings Disposal and Reclaim Violeta Martin, P.Eng., Senior Engineer Quantities for water management pumps and pipeworks Jeff FitzGerald, E.I.T, Staff Engineer Production factors and unit rate development Gareth Williams, E.I.T, Staff Engineer
F1-2 of 19
Quantities for Diversion Systems Abbas Nasiri, Senior CAD Technician Earthworks Quantities OUTLINE OF BASIS OF ESTIMATE
1.5
This basis of estimate is broken down into seven sections. Section 1 is the introduction, and Section 2 covers general aspects of the cost estimate, including indirects and assumptions / exclusion and allowances common to the various elements of the cost estimate. The remaining sections are broken down according to: Section 3: Section 4: Section 5: Section 6: Section 7: Site Roads Pipeworks TMF Embankment Earthworks Water Management Ponds Diversion Channels
F1-3 of 19
SECTION 2.0 - GENERAL 2.1 GENERAL
This section summarizes cost bases and assumptions/exclusions that are common to the majority of the work activities estimated for the TMF and water management systems. 2.2 2.2.1 COST BASIS Labour Cost for contractor labour was based on a blended labour rate of $92 per hour provided by AMEC and includes salary, benefits, scheduled overtime, supervision, allowance for small tools, office overhead and profit. 2.2.2 Equipment Where applicable, equipment rates were referenced from the 2010-2011 BC Blue Book Equipment Rental Rate Guide produced by the BC Road Builders and Heavy Construction Association. These rates include all ownership costs, insurance, repairs, and contractor profit. The rates used do not include the equipment operator costs, as this was handled separately. 2.2.3 Power A unit rate of $40/MWh was used for estimating the power portion of the annual operating expenditures of the pump-stations. 2.2.4 Indirects Indirects for the cost estimate included Construction Indirects, Engineering and Procurement, and Construction Management. Construction indirects include: Overhead staff and support facilities Bonding/insurance Health and safety Environmental monitoring and incidental sediment control Temporary site security Maintenance of construction roads, and Permitting fees. Engineering and Procurement includes: Engineering design and review Estimating and scheduling Purchasing/contracts Quality assurance Technical documentation, and
F1-4 of 19
Surveillance for Dam Safety.
Construction management includes the following items: Contract administration, including acceptance and management of change orders Schedule management Management of subcontractors Project controls (project management and support), and Field office, vehicles and living expenses from construction management staff. Construction Indirects were estimated as a fixed percentage of 8% of the direct costs of the TMF and Water Management costs based on past experience with similar work. Engineering and Procurement, as well as Construction Management, was estimated based on the duration and scope of the work, using other recently proposed or completed projects of similar scope and duration. No mark-up for indirects was applied to operating expenditures. 2.2.5 Contingencies and Management Reserve The following contingencies were applied to the direct costs of the various estimate sections to cover unforeseeable events and uncertainties due to inadequacies in project scope definition and to reflect the level of engineering design completed for this feasibility level estimate: General Site Preparation 10% Roads 25% TMF Earthworks and Foundation Preparation 25% Tailings Disposal and Reclaim 10% Seepage Collection and Sediment Control 10% Low Grade Stockpile 10% Diversion Systems 25% Fresh Water Supply 10%, and Indirects 5%. No allowance for management reserve to address changes in scope was included in the estimate. It is understood that a project-wide contingency may be used to replace that which is estimated here, to be determined by AMEC & Avanti. 2.2.6 Allowances Allowances have been included for activities for which there is little or no design basis; these are not considered contingency costs. Each allowance was broken down into labour, materials and equipment based on assumed fixed percentages estimated for the type of work. Cost items estimated based on an allowance are noted in the following sections for each WBS element.
F1-5 of 19
2.3 2.3.1
ASSUMPTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS Assumptions A general assumption for all elements of the cost estimate was that the work would be completed through a competitive tendering process and the successful contractor would be knowledgeable in the type of work involved.
2.3.2
Exclusions General exclusions to the cost estimate included the following: Camp costs for construction management staff, contractors and mine fleet performing operations related to the TMF and water management systems Costs for management of mine operations Mobilization of construction equipment (factored into unit rates for respective equipment) Closure costs, and Escalation.
2.3.3
Material Properties Material densities utilized in the estimate are as follows:
Applicable Areas
Material Source Pasty Waste Dump Open Pit Service Roads
Bank (BCM) (kg/m3) 2,300
Swell Factor
Loose (LCM) (kg/m3) 2,000
Shrink Factor
Compacted (CCM) (kg/m3) 2,400
ALL AREAS EXCLUDING THE PLANT SITE AND SERVICE ROADS 5, 6, 7 ,8 & 9
1.15
1.04
2,700
1.35
2,000
0.89
2,400
SERVICE ROADS 5, 6, 7 ,8 & 9
2,900
1.45
2,000
0.83
2,400
F1-6 of 19
SECTION 3.0 - SITE ROADS 3.1 SCOPE OF WORK
Site roads include the construction of temporary haul roads for the initial embankment construction and construction of the permanent pipeline service roads. Cost components include: 3.2 Clearing and grubbing of road corridors. Stripping of organics and topsoil. Construction of temporary haul roads using a dozer from the existing Patsy Waste Dump to the south embankment (Stages 1A and 1B). Construction of a temporary haul road from the edge of the open pit to the south embankment (Stage 1C), construction using a dozer, with some drill and blast and balancing of cuts and fills. Construction of a temporary haul road for the construction of the Northeast starter embankments (Stage 1C) using a dozer. Grubbing and removal of topsoil along the service road corridors. Construction of the pipeline service roads in rock by drilling and blasting and balancing of cuts and fills. Processing, stockpiling and spreading a crushed pit rock wearing course on all pipeline services roads. Construction and armouring of stream crossing locations. COST BASIS Temporary haul road construction within the existing Patsy Waste Dump and the area near the Northeast starter embankment was estimated by assuming the use of a CAT D10 Dozer to move material. Production rates were referenced from the CATEPILLAR Handbook. Correction factors to account for climatic conditions and material type were applied to the ideal dozer production assuming a D10 with an average distance of 60 m pushes (twice the width of the haul road). Grubbing operations were estimated using a production rate of 1 hectare per 12 hour shift, with an equipment fleet consisting of an excavator, dozer and three 40 tonne trucks. Grubbed stumps and logging remnants are assumed to be stockpiled and burned. Stripping of organics and topsoil is assumed to be performed by a 200 HP dozer with an average production rate of 200 m3/hr, pushing material to localised stockpiles or windrow. Drill and blasting costs were estimated using a quote received from Pacific Drilling and Blasting in the spring of 2010 in $/BCM (Bank Cubic Metre). Road construction via balancing of the cuts and fills from drilling and blasting operations uses an equipment fleet consisting of 4 CAT 740 trucks to haul material, a CAT 365 Excavator to load material, a CAT D9 Dozer and D6 dozer to assist in loading and spreading operations and a compactor. Production is based on a 4 month construction period with an average 1 km haul distance and a variety of inefficiency factors to account for single lane traffic on the haul road and a difficult working environment.
F1-7 of 19
Wearing course costs include drilling and blasting in the open pit, costs to operate a screening plant (with waste factor included) and placement costs. Placement costs include loading, hauling and placing assuming an average 3.5 km haul from the open pit, and placement using a CAT 740 truck and grader. ALLOWANCES A $10,000 allowance per stream crossing was included for the pipeworks access roads. An allowance of $100 per metre was included for road barriers on the pipeworks roads, for safety berms and to confine movement of the pipelines. ASSUMPTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS Assumptions Quantity estimates assume all materials excavated for the Open Pit/TMF haul road was used as road fill material and is assumed to be non-Potentially Acid Generating (non-PAG). All additional fill for the road was obtained from the Open Pit (non-PAG waste rock). Roads for pipeworks were estimated assuming 100% constructed through rock requiring drilling and blasting. Screening and stockpiling losses were assumed to be 20%.
3.3
3.4 3.4.1
3.4.2
Exclusions Closure costs for haul roads. Mining and haul costs for waste rock utilized in haul roads. Maintenance costs, including grading, snow clearing and resurfacing.
F1-8 of 19
SECTION 4.0 - PIPEWORKS 4.1 SCOPE OF WORK
This section accounts for costs associated with the TMF and water management pipeworks including the supply and install of all pipes, valves, fittings, pipe anchoring, pumps, pump stations and electrical interconnection for the following systems: Bulk Tailings Distribution System Cleaner Tailings Distribution System Cyclone Sand Distribution System Reclaim water system Surplus water system Northeast Embankment Seepage Collection System South Embankment Seepage Collection and East Waste Rock Dump Run-Off System Clary Lake Fresh water system Low Grade Stockpile run-off system Bulk Tailings Distribution Bulk tailings from the mill are discharged through a bulk tailings pipeline into the TMF. The flow is by gravity. Discharge from the pipelines into the TMF is through large diameter knife gate valves installed at intervals around the TMF South and Northeast embankment crests. With each embankment raise, the lines are also raised, extended as required and provided with additional spigots as appropriate. Tailings discharge is managed to develop and maintain beaches against the embankment and sections along the south and northeast sides of the TMF. 4.1.2 Cyclone Sand Distribution System Cyclone sand distribution will occur via two cyclone sand sled systems and pipelines along the Northeast Embankment and one cyclone sand sled system and pipeline along the South Embankment. Discharge from the pipelines into the TMF is through large diameter knife gate valves installed at intervals around the TMF South and Northeast embankment crests. With each embankment raise, the lines are also raised, extended as required, and provided with additional spigots as appropriate. Cyclone sand discharge is managed to develop and maintain beaches against the embankment and sections along the south and northeast sides of the TMF. 4.1.3 Reclaim Water System Water for processing is recovered from the TMF supernatant pond using a floating barge reclaim pump-station. The water is pumped via a single reclaim pipeline to a head tank at the mill for reuse in the process. The barge pump will contain all necessary pump station and electrical interconnection works associated with the system.
4.1.1
F1-9 of 19
4.1.4
Surplus Water System Throughout the year surplus water from the TMF will be released into Lime Creek, either directly or after treatment. The surplus water will be pumped from a secondary pump on the floating barge pump-station via a pipeline to the top of the south embankment, where the water will then flow by gravity to the water box and from there down to Lime Creek for release.
4.1.5
Northeast Embankment Seepage Collection System Seepage, surface runoff and supernatant water from the cyclone overflow from the Northeast embankment will be collected via two water management ponds and pumped back into the TMF via separate pipelines. Each pond location will contain a pump-station and necessary controls for operation.
4.1.6
South Embankment Seepage Collection and East Waste Rock Dump Run-Off System Seepage through the South embankment and run-off from the east waste rock dump pile will be collected via a water management pond downstream of the South Embankment. Water will be pumped from a pump-station to either the TMF or allowed to overflow to the Patsy Creek diversion system in the south wall of the Open Pit.
4.1.7
Clary Lake Fresh Water System A single fresh water pipeline connects Clary Lake to a freshwater tank at the mill to provide clean water for process use, fire water and potable water. An intake structure and a fixed pump-station are required at the lake.
4.1.8
Low Grade Stockpile Run-Off System Run-off from the low grade stockpile will be collected in a small pond and pumped via a single pipeline to the water box before release into Lime Creek.
4.2
COST BASIS Production installation rates, crew sizes and equipment for the installation of steel pipelines, valves and fittings is based on data from the 2010 RS Means Heavy Construction Cost Data Book and past KP job experience. Production installation rates for the installation of HDPE pipelines is based on typical butt fusion welding rates as specified by Ferguson industries for SDR 11 pipe. Crew sizes and equipment is based on data from the 2010 RS Means Heavy Construction Cost Data Book and past KP job experience. Production installation rates, crew sizes and equipment for the installation of HDPE pipe fittings is based on data from the 2010 RS Means Heavy Construction Cost Data Book and past KP job experience.
F1-10 of 19
Production installation rates, crew sizes and equipment for the installation of butterfly and gate valves is based on data from the 2010 RS Means Heavy Construction Cost Data Book and past KP job experience. Material prices for steel pipe and steel fittings of standard wall thickness are based on quotes received from ACORN Commerical Trading limited in September 2010. An additional 10% was added to these quotes to cover freight to the project site. Material prices for HDPE pipe are based on quotes received from KWH pipe in September 2010. An additional 10% was added to these quotes to cover freight to the project site. Material and supply prices for HDPE pipe fittings is based on 2010 RS Means cost data with an applied location factor to Prince George and a $1.03 USD to CAD exchange rate. Material and supply prices for butterfly and gate valves is based on 2010 RS Means cost data with an applied location factor to Prince George and a $1.03 USD to CAD exchange rate. Supply and install of the Reclaim and Surplus Floating Barge Pump-System is based a quote received from Chamco Industries Ltd. The quote from Chamco includes supply, installation and commissioning of the system including all electrical interconnection (transformer and controls). Cyclone sand system quantities and sled costs were received in an engineers estimate by Paterson and Cooke. Supply and install costs for water pumps (seepage collection and fresh water supply) were estimated using October 2010 material quotes, an assumed 15% freight charge, an install production of 1 pump per shift, with a crew size of 3 labour, 1 pipefitter and 1 operator for a CAT 966 loader. Pumpstation civil works were estimated based on similar experience from past projects. The estimates account for the construction of concrete foundations, a control house, a concrete sump, an inlet pipe and minor earthwork operations. Operating expenditures were estimated based on a fixed percentage of capital costs to cover maintenance and operation of the various components. The fixed percentages were 10% for pipes, valves and fittings and 7.5% for pump-stations (excluding civil works). Annual power usage was calculated assuming the pump-stations would be running 92% of the time.
4.3
ALLOWANCES An allowance for reinforced concrete guide blocks spaced every 100 m was included in the estimate. The concrete quantity is based on the pipe diameter and a minimum of 30 cm concrete thickness surrounding the pipe in a cube. Quantities of pipe fittings for elbows, tees and weld caps were approximated, as no bill of quantities existed at the time of the estimate. Lump sum allowances were made to estimate the costs for the inlet box, drain valve, holding tank, and cyclone sand distribution box. Costs were derived from similar experience on past projects. An allowance for electrical interconnection for the transformer, PLC and MCC was added for each pump-station.
F1-11 of 19
4.4 4.4.1
ASSUMPTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS Assumptions Any necessary earthworks are completed under the road construction tasks. All steel pipework is of standard wall thickness. Production rates for HDPE 21 are applicable for thicker walled pipe. HDPE pipes with Flange ends for valve installation are of negligible cost increase over the length of the entire pipeline. Steel pipes will require 2 welded flanges per control valve.
4.4.2
Exclusions Decommissioning costs for the pipework is not included.
F1-12 of 19
SECTION 5.0 - TMF EMBANKMENT EARTHWORKS 5.1 SCOPE OF WORK
The TMF impoundment contains two starter embankments of different design type. The south embankment will be comprised of an Asphaltic Core Rock Fill Dam (ACRD), whereas the northeast embankment will be a Geomembrane Faced Rock Fill Dam (GFRD). The initial capital expenditure cost estimate covers the construction of the initial embankments until the start of operations (Year 1). Cost estimates for ongoing dam raises throughout mine production until closure is covered in the sustaining capital cost section. 5.1.1 South Embankment The south embankment ACRD consists of an asphaltic core supported by filter zones and rockfill. After the initial embankment construction, dam raises will be carried out via mine waste rock on the downstream slope of the dam and compacted cyclone sand on the upstream slope, with appropriate filter and transition zones, as needed. 5.1.1.1 Construction Dewatering Construction dewatering for the initial embankment construction will occur in 2 stages. The first stage will have a single cofferdam located near the toe of the Stage 1A embankment. The second stage will have 2 cofferdams located further upstream for the construction of Stage 1B and 1C. Pumps will be sized to handle the maximum 1 in 10 year flow event. Cofferdams will be an earth embankment with processed and compacted fill material. 5.1.1.2 Foundation Works Foundation works at the south embankment will include: Clearing and Grubbing. Stripping of topsoil and organics. Foundation preparation down to a clean rock surface for the area under the concrete plinth. Drilling and grouting of a single line grout curtain. Construction of a reinforced concrete plinth. Construction of a sub-drainage system with a collection drain running along the concrete plinth and an outlet drain running beyond the toe of the ultimate embankment slope. The drainage system will be comprised of 6 inch perforated pipe in a 0.5 m x 0.5 m trench lined with geotextile and drain gravel.
5.1.1.3 Asphaltic Core The asphaltic core runs from the reinforced concrete plinth to the stage 1 embankment crest and will be raised along with the filter zone and rockfill slopes of the dam. Asphalt will be produced from an asphalt plant and transported to the embankment in trucks where it will be dumped, spread and compacted. The estimate contains costs to produce the asphalt, load, place, haul, spread and compact the material.
F1-13 of 19
5.1.1.4 Filter/Transition Zone The filter/transition zone was calculated as 0.5 m thick on either side of the asphaltic core. Material will be processed from blasted pit rock in a screening plant located in the open pit. The estimate contains costs to drill and blast pit rock, process, stockpile and load, haul, place, spread and compact the filter/transition zone. 5.1.1.5 Zone C Rockfill Initial rockfill quantities for the south embankment will be sourced from the existing Patsy Waste Dump located just downstream of the embankment, afterwards material will be sourced from blasted rock in the open pit. The estimate includes costs to load, place, haul, spread and compact material sourced from the Patsy Waste Dump and costs to spread and compact the material sourced from the open pit. Costs associated with transporting to the embankment site is under AMECs scope of the project cost estimate. 5.1.1.6 Dam Raises During mine production the south embankment crest will be raised each year. Waste rock will be transported to the embankment site under the AMEC scope of the project cost estimate. The KP sustaining cost estimate has included items to cover the spreading of cyclone sand quantities and the processing, stockpiling, loading, hauling, spreading and compacting of a filter/transition zone. In addition to the earthworks, costs associated with additional sub-drainage construction have been included in the sustaining capital costs.
5.1.2
Northeast Embankment The northeast embankment GFRD consists of a rockfill dam with an upstream filter/transition zone covered by an impermeable HDPE liner. The HDPE liner is anchored into a liner trench and covered by an ice-protective layer similar to that of the filter/transition zone. An additional ice protective layer will be placed on the HDPE liner.
5.1.2.1 Construction Dewatering Construction dewatering for the northeast Stage 1C embankment construction will have two cofferdams and pump sets upstream of the construction sites. Pumps will be sized to handle the maximum 1 in 10 year flow event. Cofferdams will be an earth embankment with processed and compacted fill material. 5.1.2.2 Foundation Works Foundation works at the northeast embankment will include: Clearing and Grubbing. Stripping of topsoil and organics. Foundation preparation down to a clean rock surface for the area under the concrete plinth. Drilling and grouting of a single line grout curtain. Construction of an HDPE liner anchor trench and filling with concrete Construction of a sub-drainage system with a collection drain running along the concrete plinth and an outlet drain running beyond the toe of the ultimate embankment slope. The drainage
F1-14 of 19
system will be comprised of 6 inch perforated pipe in a 0.5 m x 0.5 m trench lined with geotextile and drain gravel. 5.1.2.3 Geomembrane Face The geomembrane upstream face will be comprised of an 80 mil HDPE liner. The liner will be anchored into the anchor trench and mass concrete poured in the trench. 5.1.2.4 Filter/Transition Zone and Ice Protective Layer The filter/transition zone was calculated as 0.5 m thick on the upstream face of the dam, and the ice protective layer as 0.5 m at the crest tapering down at a 3H:1V (Horizontal to Vertical) slope. Material will be processed from blasted pit rock in a screening plant located in the open pit. The estimate contains costs to drill and blast pit rock, process, stockpile and load, haul, place, spread and compact the filter/transition and ice protective layers. 5.1.2.5 Zone C - Rockfill Initial rockfill quantities will be sourced from a local quarry within close proximity to the dam. The pipeline service roads are of insufficient width to mass haul material from the open pit to the Northeast embankment. The estimate includes costs to drill and blast this material from the quarry and to load, haul, place, spread and compact the material at the embankment site. 5.1.2.6 Dam Raises During mine production the Northeast embankment crest will be raised each year. Dam raises will be carried out with rockfill and cyclone sand. The KP sustaining capital cost estimate has included items to cover the drilling, construction of embankment sub-drainage and spreading the cyclone sand. 5.2 COST BASIS Cofferdam construction was estimated assuming a processed fill used to construct the embankments. Costs for grubbing the foundations and stripping the organics were also included. Cofferdam dimensions were assumed to be 6 m high with an 8 m crest and 1.5 horizontal to 1 vertical side slope over a length of 150 m. Construction dewatering costs were assessed assuming pumping the average 1 in 10 wet year flow over the embankment height (25 m for the South and 10 m for the Northeast) for the duration of the initial construction works (13 months for the South and 6 months for the Northeast). Pumps were sized to handle the maximum 1 in 10 year wet flow and rental rates were taken from the 2010/2011 BC Blue book. Power costs were assessed by assuming a pumping and piping efficiency of 60% and a power generation efficiency of 90% with a diesel generation consumption rate of 0.34 L/KWh, and a diesel cost of $1.10 per litre. Costs assume 0.5 full time labour on day shift to maintain the pumps at the South embankment and 0.5 full time labour for the Northeast pumps. Clearing and grubbing assumes costs for clearing are recovered by the holder of the timber licence, and only costs for grubbing are incurred. The rate is based on grubbing with fleet of one 65-ton excavator, one dozer (CAT D9), three 40-ton off-road trucks and one pickup. Stripping was estimated based on removal and stockpile of 0.5 m depth of overburden. Rates were based on 200 HP dozer pushing material on average 300 feet to localised stockpiles.
F1-15 of 19
Costs for grouting were developed assuming work completed with 2-person crew and a 900 cfm airtrack drill. Unit rates for concrete and reinforcing steel price were based on experience from similar work with location adjustments. The HDPE liner trench and sub-drainage trench excavation is based on a CAT 320 hydraulic excavator with hammer attachment excavating the trench. Production rates are based on past KP project experience. Installation of sub-drainage perforated pipe, geotextile and drain gravel is based on production rates and material costs found in the 2010 RS Means heavy construction cost data book. Drill and blasting costs were estimated using a quote received from Pacific Drilling and Blasting in the spring of 2010 in $/BCM (Bank Cubic Metre). Load, haul, place, spread and compact operations were based either a fleet of CAT 740 trucks or CAT 777 trucks. The number of trucks was determined based on the required timeline and quantity of material to be moved for each stage. Support equipment to load the trucks included a CAT 365 excavator for CAT 740 fleets or a Hitachi EX1900 for CAT 777 fleets and a CAT D6 dozer to assist. Support equipment to spread and compact consisted of a CAT D9 dozer and compactor. Methodology for costing these operations was referenced from the Caterpillar Handbook. Costs associated with the construction of the Asphaltic Core for Stages 1a, 1b & 1c of the South Embankment were based on an estimate received from Kolo Veidekke AS (a Norweigian Company specializing in Asphaltic Core Dams who has worked in Quebec). Costs associated with the Stage 1C construction of the HDPE Liner for the Northeast Embankment were based on RS means production rates and material costs to place an 80 mil thick HDPE liner. ALLOWANCES An allowance of $1000 per month was included in the dewatering costs to account for minor material costs associated with operating expenses for hoses and pipework. ASSUMPTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS Assumptions Stripping depth of 0.6 m for organics and topsoil. Engineering material take-offs based on neat line quantities derived from Civil3D are adequate for estimating purposes and the contingency section will cover the potential differences between estimated and actual. Screening and stockpiling losses were assumed to be 20%. Material properties as per the table in Section 2.0. Productivity of haul operations estimates were based on the methodology described in the Caterpillar Performance Handbook (37th Ed.) The following efficiency factors were incorporated into productivity estimates: o Operator Efficiency = 95% (large project in remote region) o An efficiency to assess real work time was handled in the estimate and not in the productivity factors (50 minute working hours) o Machine Availability = 90% to account for down-time for repairs and servicing.
5.3
5.4 5.4.1
F1-16 of 19
An efficiency to assess real work time was handled in the estimate and not in the productivity factors (50 minute working hours)
Rates for Contractors equipment based on All Found Less Operator rate in the B.C. Road Builders & Heavy Construction 2010-2011 Equipment Rental Rate Guide (The Blue Book). All Found Less Operator rate includes all ownership costs, operating costs, insurance and profit. No royalty payments for fill materials obtained from borrow and quarries located within the claim boundary.
5.4.2
Exclusions Closure and reclamation costs for all areas, including the TMF, borrows, and quarry, and Permitting costs for quarries/borrows.
F1-17 of 19
SECTION 6.0 - WATER MANAGEMENT PONDS 6.1 SCOPE OF WORK Retaining structures will be constructed downstream of the TMF embankments, the low grade stockpile and the east waste rock dump to retain seepage and run-off for sediment control purposes. The retaining structures will be created with GFRD embankments. The construction methodology will be the same as the northeast embankment excluding the single line grout curtain and ongoing raises beyond initial construction. A rock cut or rip rap lined spillway will be required to pass storm events without failing of the embankment. This scope of work applies to the following water management items: 6.2 Northeast Water Management Ponds 1 and 2 South Water Management Pond Low Grade Stockpile Water Management Pond
COST BASIS The retaining structures were estimated using the same methodology as the northeast GFRD. Spillway structures were assumed to be a 1m x 1m drill and blast rock cut over an approximate length to take flow beyond the toe of the downstream embankment. Sediment control in the borrows and quarries was also estimated as an allowance.
6.3 6.3.1
ASSUMPTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS Assumptions Grouting is not required to control seepage underneath embankments.
6.3.2
Exclusions Closure and reclamation costs for all areas, including the TMF, borrows, and quarry, and Permitting costs for quarries/borrows.
F1-18 of 19
SECTION 7.0 - DIVERSION SYSTEMS 7.1 SCOPE OF WORK
Surface water diversion channels will divert water away from the TMF and Open Pit areas. The channels will be constructed in a similar manner to the permanent pipeline service roads. Construction activities will include: Clearing and grubbing diversion channel corridors Stripping of organics to windrow Drill and blasting channels Balancing of cuts and fills Shotcreting cracks
The following diversion channels are planned: 7.2 TMF East Flowing Diversion Channel TMF West Flowing Diversion Channel Upper South Pit Wall Diversion Channel South Pit Wall Bench Diversion Channel
COST BASIS The same costing methodology used on the permanent service roads applies to the diversion channels for clearing, grubbing, stripping, drilling, blasting, and material movement operations. Shotcrete operations were assessed assuming a crew of 5 with a shotcrete rig having a production rate of 10 CY per hour with a wet mix at 3000 PSI. The quantity of shotcrete is based on an assumed 7 cm thickness over 15% of the final channel surface area.
7.3 7.3.1
ASSUMPTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS Assumptions Open air diversion channels can be constructed on the valley side slopes.
7.3.2
Exclusions Closure costs for diversion channels.
F1-19 of 19
APPENDIX F2 INITIAL CAPEX ESTIMATE AND FEASIBILITY LEVEL COST ESTIMATE (Pages F2-1 to F-2)
VA101-343/6-2 Rev 0 January 27, 2011
TABLEF22 AVANTIKITSAULTMINELTD. KITSAULTMINEPROJECT TAILINGSMANAGEMENTFACILITYANDWATERMANAGEMENTSYSTEMS CAPEXANDOPERATINGEXPENDITURESFEASIBILITYLEVELCOSTESTIMATE

PROJECTLIFE: POWERCOST: 14 40 YEARS $/MWh
Print:Nov/04/1011:36:48 CAPITALCOST ($CAD) BULKTAILINGSDISTRIBUTION&CYCLONESANDSYSTEMS PumpPowerCost(SeeNote1) CycloneSandTowerSystems 16"DR17HDPECycloneFeedLinetoNEEmbankment 16"DR17HDPECycloneFeedLinetoSouthEmbankment 28"DR17HDPEBulkTailingsDistributionPipelinetoNEEmbankment 28 28"DR17HDPEBulkTailingsDistributionPipelinetoSouthEmbankment 12"DR17HDPECleanTailingsLine 16"DR17HDPECycloneDepositionLines 16"HDPEElbows 16"HDPETee's 28"HDPEElbows 28"HDPETee's 16"OfftakeGateValves 28"GateControlValves 16"IsolatingGateValves 12"WaterFlushButterflyValves 16"DiameterFlowMeters 6"SpigotIsolatingGateValves 28"IsolatingGateValves 20"BreatherPipeButterflyValves RECLAIMWATERSYSTEM PumpPowerCost FloatingPumpBargeReclaimandSurplusSystems 30"SteelReclaimPipeline 30"PipelineConcrete 30"ButterflyControlValve 30"SteelElbowFittings 30"SteelFlangeFittings SURPLUSWATERSYSTEM PumpPowerCost FloatingPumpBargeReclaimandSurplusSystems(CoveredinReclaimSystem) 22"SteelSurplusLinetotopofTMFfromBarge 22"ButterflyControlValve 22"SteelElbowFittings 22"SteelFlangeFittings Surpluslinevent NORTHEASTWATERMANAGEMENTPONDSPUMPSYSTEM PumpPowerCost 300HPPump 16"HDPEDR11SeepageCollectionPipeline 16"ButterflyControlValve 16"HDPEElbows 16"HDPETee's PumpstationElectricalWorks SOUTHWATERMANGEMENTPONDPUMPSYSTEM PumpPowerCost 2300HPPump 24"SteelPipe(1/4")SeepageCollectionPipeline 24"ButterflyControlValve 24"ElbowFittings 24"FlangeFittings 24"WeldCapFitting PumpstationElectricalWorks LOWGRADESTOCKPILEPUMPSYSTEM PumpPowerCost 75HPPump 8"HDPEDR13.5SeepageCollectionPipeline 8"HDPEElbows 8"ButterflyControlValve PumpstationElectricalWorks CLARYLAKEFRESHWATERSUPPLYSYSTEM PumpPowerCost Freshwater8"DiameterSteelPipeline FreshWaterIntakeStructure(Allowance) 150HPClaryLakePump 8"ButterflyControlValve 8"SteelTeeFitting 8"SteelElbowFittings 8"SteelFlangeFittings 8"SteelWeldCapFitting PumpstationElectricalWorks $ $ 1,080,000 $800,745 $591,967 $812,912 812 912 $876,520 $238,464 $25,775 $10,517 $8,196 $35,922 $9,552 $46,042 $168,169 $80,317 $22,822 $22,257 $31,342 $252,253 $24,613 $ $ 8,393,000 $ 2,188,289 $50,397 $23,043 $21,862 $10,940 $ $ $ 3,307,338 $14,572 $13,455 $7,242 $14,572 $ $154,049 $228,336 $16,100 $5,258 $1,366 $150,000 $ $ 2,508,024 $ 1,324,917 $33,688 $15,311 $8,108 $1,659 $150,000 $ $36,774 $48,107 $1,513 $4,557 $150,000 $ $ 1,329,690 $10,000 $102,299 $4,557 $1,327 $7,622 $4,238 $466 $150,000 AnnualMaintenance INITIALPOWER andReplacement% REQ. (%ofCapital) 0.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10 0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 0.0% 7.5% 10.0% 0.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 0.0% 7.5% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 0.0% 7.5% 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% 7.5% 0.0% 7.5% 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% 7.5% 0.0% 7.5% 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% 7.5% 0 0% 0.0% 15.0% 15.0% 7.5% 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% 7.5% (MWh) FINALPOWER REQ. (MWh) YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 $ $ 108,000 $80,074 $59,197 $ 81,291 81 291 $87,652 $23,846 $2,578 $1,052 $820 $3,592 $955 $4,604 $16,817 $8,032 $2,282 $2,226 $3,134 $25,225 $2,461 $ 607,029 $ 629,475 $ 218,829 $ $2,304 $2,186 $1,094 $ 122,574 $ $ 330,734 $1,457 $1,345 $724 $1,457 $27,611 $11,554 $34,250 $2,415 $789 $205 $11,250 $ 140,976 $ 188,102 $ 198,738 $5,053 $2,297 $1,216 $249 $11,250 $5,100 $2,758 $7,216 $227 $684 $11,250 YEAR 6 YEAR 7 YEAR 8 $ $ 108,000 $80,074 $59,197 $ 81,291 81 291 $87,652 $23,846 $2,578 $1,052 $820 $3,592 $955 $4,604 $16,817 $8,032 $2,282 $2,226 $3,134 $25,225 $2,461 $ 540,566 $ 629,475 $ 218,829 $ $2,304 $2,186 $1,094 $ 106,743 $ $ 330,734 $1,457 $1,345 $724 $1,457 $33,114 $11,554 $34,250 $2,415 $789 $205 $11,250 $ 148,617 $ 188,102 $ 198,738 $5,053 $2,297 $1,216 $249 $11,250 $5,100 $2,758 $7,216 $227 $684 $11,250 $ 22,560 22 560 $ 199,454 $1,500 $7,672 $684 $199 $1,143 $636 $70 $ 11,250 YEAR 9 YEAR 10 YEAR 11 YEAR 12 YEAR 13 YEAR 14
ITEM
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17945 0 0 0 0 0 0 3724 0 0 0 0 0 0 461 0 0 0 0 0 0 3206 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 127.5 0 0 0 0 0 564 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10191 0 0 0 0 0 0 1877 0 0 0 0 0 0 1103 0 0 0 0 0 0 4097.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 127.5 0 0 0 0 0 564 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
$ $ $ $ $ 108,000 $108,000 $108,000 $108,000 $80,074 $80,074 $80,074 $80,074 $59,197 $59,197 $59,197 $59,197 $ 81,291 81 291 $ 81,291 81 291 $ 81,291 81 291 $ 81,291 81 291 $87,652 $87,652 $87,652 $87,652 $23,846 $23,846 $23,846 $23,846 $2,578 $2,578 $2,578 $2,578 $1,052 $1,052 $1,052 $1,052 $820 $ 820 $ 820 $ 820 $3,592 $3,592 $3,592 $3,592 $955 $ 955 $ 955 $ 955 $4,604 $4,604 $4,604 $4,604 $16,817 $16,817 $16,817 $16,817 $8,032 $8,032 $8,032 $8,032 $2,282 $2,282 $2,282 $2,282 $2,226 $2,226 $2,226 $2,226 $3,134 $3,134 $3,134 $3,134 $25,225 $25,225 $25,225 $25,225 $2,461 $2,461 $2,461 $2,461 $ 695,646 $673,491 $651,337 $629,183 $ 629,475 $629,475 $629,475 $629,475 $ 218,829 $218,829 $218,829 $218,829 $ $ $ $ $2,304 $2,304 $2,304 $2,304 $2,186 $2,186 $2,186 $2,186 $1,094 $1,094 $1,094 $1,094 $ 143,683 $138,406 $133,129 $127,851 $ $ $ $ $ 330,734 $330,734 $330,734 $330,734 $1,457 $1,457 $1,457 $1,457 $1,345 $1,345 $1,345 $1,345 $724 $ 724 $ 724 $ 724 $1,457 $1,457 $1,457 $1,457 $20,274 $22,109 $23,943 $25,777 $11,554 $11,554 $11,554 $11,554 $34,250 $34,250 $34,250 $34,250 $2,415 $2,415 $2,415 $2,415 $789 $ 789 $ 789 $ 789 $205 $ 205 $ 205 $ 205 $11,250 $11,250 $11,250 $11,250 $ 130,787 $133,334 $135,881 $138,429 $ 188,102 $188,102 $188,102 $188,102 $ 198,738 $198,738 $198,738 $198,738 $5,053 $5,053 $5,053 $5,053 $2,297 $2,297 $2,297 $2,297 $1,216 $1,216 $1,216 $1,216 $249 $ 249 $ 249 $ 249 $11,250 $11,250 $11,250 $11,250 $5,100 $5,100 $5,100 $5,100 $2,758 $2,758 $2,758 $2,758 $7,216 $7,216 $7,216 $7,216 $227 $ 227 $ 227 $ 227 $684 $ 684 $ 684 $ 684 $11,250 $11,250 $11,250 $11,250 $ 22,560 22 560 $ 22,560 22 560 $ 22,560 22 560 $ 22,560 22 560 $ 199,454 $199,454 $199,454 $199,454 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $7,672 $7,672 $7,672 $7,672 $684 $ 684 $ 684 $ 684 $199 $ 199 $ 199 $ 199 $1,143 $1,143 $1,143 $1,143 $636 $ 636 $ 636 $ 636 $70 $ 70 $ 70 $ 70 $ 11,250 $ 11,250 $ 11,250 $ 11,250
$ $ $108,000 $108,000 $80,074 $80,074 $59,197 $59,197 $ 81,291 81 291 $ 81,291 81 291 $87,652 $87,652 $23,846 $23,846 $2,578 $2,578 $1,052 $1,052 $820 $ 820 $3,592 $3,592 $955 $ 955 $4,604 $4,604 $16,817 $16,817 $8,032 $8,032 $2,282 $2,282 $2,226 $2,226 $3,134 $3,134 $25,225 $25,225 $2,461 $2,461 $584,874 $562,720 $629,475 $629,475 $218,829 $218,829 $ $ $2,304 $2,304 $2,186 $2,186 $1,094 $1,094 $117,297 $112,020 $ $ $330,734 $330,734 $1,457 $1,457 $1,345 $1,345 $724 $ 724 $1,457 $1,457 $29,446 $31,280 $11,554 $11,554 $34,250 $34,250 $2,415 $2,415 $789 $ 789 $205 $ 205 $11,250 $11,250 $143,523 $146,070 $188,102 $188,102 $198,738 $198,738 $5,053 $5,053 $2,297 $2,297 $1,216 $1,216 $249 $ 249 $11,250 $11,250 $5,100 $5,100 $2,758 $2,758 $7,216 $7,216 $227 $ 227 $684 $ 684 $11,250 $11,250
$ $ $ 108,000 $108,000 $80,074 $80,074 $59,197 $59,197 $ 81,291 81 291 $81,291 81 291 $87,652 $87,652 $23,846 $23,846 $2,578 $2,578 $1,052 $1,052 $820 $ 820 $3,592 $3,592 $955 $ 955 $4,604 $4,604 $16,817 $16,817 $8,032 $8,032 $2,282 $2,282 $2,226 $2,226 $3,134 $3,134 $25,225 $25,225 $2,461 $2,461 $ 518,411 $496,257 $ 629,475 $629,475 $ 218,829 $218,829 $ $ $2,304 $2,304 $2,186 $2,186 $1,094 $1,094 $ 101,466 $96,189 $ $ $ 330,734 $330,734 $1,457 $1,457 $1,345 $1,345 $724 $ 724 $1,457 $1,457 $34,949 $36,783 $11,554 $11,554 $34,250 $34,250 $2,415 $2,415 $789 $ 789 $205 $ 205 $11,250 $11,250 $ 151,164 $153,711 $ 188,102 $188,102 $ 198,738 $198,738 $5,053 $5,053 $2,297 $2,297 $1,216 $1,216 $249 $ 249 $11,250 $11,250 $5,100 $5,100 $2,758 $2,758 $7,216 $7,216 $227 $ 227 $684 $ 684 $11,250 $11,250 $ 22,560 22 560 $22,560 22 560 $ 199,454 $199,454 $1,500 $1,500 $7,672 $7,672 $684 $ 684 $199 $ 199 $1,143 $1,143 $636 $ 636 $70 $ 70 $ 11,250 $11,250
$ $ $ $ $ 108,000 $108,000 $108,000 $108,000 $80,074 $80,074 $80,074 $80,074 $59,197 $59,197 $59,197 $59,197 $81,291 81 291 $81,291 81 291 $ 81,291 81 291 $ 81,291 81 291 $87,652 $87,652 $87,652 $87,652 $23,846 $23,846 $23,846 $23,846 $2,578 $2,578 $2,578 $2,578 $1,052 $1,052 $1,052 $1,052 $820 $ 820 $ 820 $ 820 $3,592 $3,592 $3,592 $3,592 $955 $ 955 $ 955 $ 955 $4,604 $4,604 $4,604 $4,604 $16,817 $16,817 $16,817 $16,817 $8,032 $8,032 $8,032 $8,032 $2,282 $2,282 $2,282 $2,282 $2,226 $2,226 $2,226 $2,226 $3,134 $3,134 $3,134 $3,134 $25,225 $25,225 $25,225 $25,225 $2,461 $2,461 $2,461 $2,461 $ 474,103 $451,949 $429,794 $407,640 $ 629,475 $629,475 $629,475 $629,475 $ 218,829 $218,829 $218,829 $218,829 $ $ $ $ $2,304 $2,304 $2,304 $2,304 $2,186 $2,186 $2,186 $2,186 $1,094 $1,094 $1,094 $1,094 $90,911 $85,634 $80,357 $75,080 $ $ $ $ $ 330,734 $330,734 $330,734 $330,734 $1,457 $1,457 $1,457 $1,457 $1,345 $1,345 $1,345 $1,345 $724 $ 724 $ 724 $ 724 $1,457 $1,457 $1,457 $1,457 $38,617 $40,451 $42,286 $44,120 $11,554 $11,554 $11,554 $11,554 $34,250 $34,250 $34,250 $34,250 $2,415 $2,415 $2,415 $2,415 $789 $ 789 $ 789 $ 789 $205 $ 205 $ 205 $ 205 $11,250 $11,250 $11,250 $11,250 $ 156,259 $158,806 $161,353 $163,900 $ 188,102 $188,102 $188,102 $188,102 $ 198,738 $198,738 $198,738 $198,738 $5,053 $5,053 $5,053 $5,053 $2,297 $2,297 $2,297 $2,297 $1,216 $1,216 $1,216 $1,216 $249 $ 249 $ 249 $ 249 $11,250 $11,250 $11,250 $11,250 $5,100 $5,100 $5,100 $5,100 $2,758 $2,758 $2,758 $2,758 $7,216 $7,216 $7,216 $7,216 $227 $ 227 $ 227 $ 227 $684 $ 684 $ 684 $ 684 $11,250 $11,250 $11,250 $11,250 $22,560 22 560 $22,560 22 560 $ 22,560 22 560 $ 199,454 $199,454 $199,454 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $7,672 $7,672 $7,672 $684 $ 684 $ 684 $199 $ 199 $ 199 $1,143 $1,143 $1,143 $636 $ 636 $ 636 $70 $ 70 $ 70 $11,250 $11,250 $ 11,250 $ 22,560 22 560 $199,454 $1,500 $7,672 $ 684 $ 199 $1,143 $ 636 $ 70 $ 11,250
$ 22,560 22 560 $ 22,560 22 560 $ 22,560 22 560 $ 199,454 $199,454 $199,454 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $7,672 $7,672 $7,672 $684 $684 $ 684 $199 $199 $ 199 $1,143 $1,143 $1,143 $636 $636 $ 636 $70 $ 70 $ 70 $ 11,250 $ 11,250 $ 11,250
TOTALANNUALOPEX: $3,448,518 $3,425,468 $3,402,418 $3,379,368 $3,356,318 $3,333,268 $3,310,218 $3,287,168 $3,264,118 $3,241,068 $3,218,018 $3,194,968 $3,171,918 $3,148,868
M:\1\01\00343\06\A\Data\Task0700(Cost)\[KPSummary,OPEX,SUSCAPEXRevA.xlsx]OPEX
NOTES:
1. AN ALLOWANCE FOR A CYCLONE SAND BOOSTER PUMP POWER COSTS HAS BEEN INCLUDED IN THE YEAR 10 SUSTAINING CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE.
A REV 04NOV'10 DATE ISSUED FOR INFORMATION DESCRIPTION JF PREP'D GLS CHK'D APP'D
F2-1 of 2
TABLEF22 AVANTIKITSAULTMINELTD. KITSAULTMINEPROJECT TAILINGSMANAGEMENTFACILITYANDWATERMANAGEMENTSYSTEMS SUSTAININGCAPITALEXPEDITURESFEASIBILITYLEVELCOSTESTIMATE

Print:Nov/04/1011:36:54 CUMULATIVEQTY ITEM SOUTHEMBANKMENT SOUTHEMBANKMENTFOUNDATIONPREPARATION SubdrainageSupplyandInstallGeofabric SubdrainageSupplyandInstall6"Perf.Pipe SubdrainageSupplyandPlaceDrainGravel SOUTHEMBANKMENTMATERIALPROCESSING ProcessandStockpileZoneF/T SOUTHEMBANKMENTCONSTRUCTION Load,Haul,Spread,Dump&CompactZoneF/T SpreadCycloneSandD7Dozer4monthsoftheyear NORTHEASTEMBANKMENT NORTHEASTEMBANKMENTFOUNDATIONPREPARATION SubdrainageSupplyandInstallGeofabric SubdrainageSupplyandInstall6"Perf.Pipe SubdrainageSupplyandPlaceDrainGravel ProcessandStockpileZoneF(Stage1C)FilterZone 4MonthsSpreadCycloneSandwithD6Dozer BULKTAILINGSDISTRIBUTION&CYCLONESANDSYSTEMS SupplyandInstallBoosterPumpYear10 DIVERSIONSYSTEMS MainCulvertInstallation ConcreteDiversionStructures(Allowance) ExcavationDrillandBlast ShotcreteFracturedZones(15%ofSurfaceArea. Area 7cmthick) YEAR 0 YEAR 7 YEAR 14 UNIT UNITRATE ($/unit) YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 YEAR 6 YEAR 7 YEAR 8 YEAR 9 YEAR 10 YEAR 11 YEAR 12 YEAR 13 YEAR 14
5,886 1,308 1,308 0 0 0
6544.8 1454.4 1454.4 186,300 155250 7
7047 1566 1566 372,600 310500 14
m2 m m3 LCM LCM Year
$ 3.55 $335 $ 335 $ 335 $ 335 $ 335 $ 335 $ 335 $ 255 $255 $255 $ 255 $ 255 $ 255 $ 255 $ 66.79 $1,397 $ 1,397 $ 1,397 $ 1,397 $ 1,397 $ 1,397 $ 1,397 $ 1,065 $1,065 $1,065 $ 1,065 $ 1,065 $ 1,065 $ 1,065 $ 4.18 $87 $ 87 $ 87 $ 87 $ 87 $ 87 $ 87 $ 67 $67 $67 $ 67 $ 67 $ 67 $ 67 $ 13.37 $ 355,833 $355,833 $355,833 $355,833 $355,833 $355,833 $355,833 $355,833 $ 355,833 $ 355,833 $355,833 $355,833 $355,833 $355,833 $3.49 $77,403 $ 77,403 $ 77,403 $ 77,403 $ 77,403 $ 77,403 $ 77,403 $ 77,403 $77,403 $77,403 $ 77,403 $ 77,403 $ 77,403 $ 77,403 $561,440 $ 561,440 $561,440 $561,440 $561,440 $561,440 $561,440 $561,440 $561,440 $ 561,440 $ 561,440 $561,440 $561,440 $561,440 $561,440
4,572 1,016 1,016 0 0

1 1 42,400 121
9918 2204 2204 7 0

1 1 42,400 121
10647 2366 2366 14 1

1 1 42,400 121
m2 m m3 Year L.S. L.S. L.S. BCM m3
$ 3.55 $2,715 $ 2,715 $ 2,715 $ 2,715 $ 2,715 $ 2,715 $ 2,715 $ 370 $370 $370 $ 370 $ 370 $ 370 $ 370 $ 66.79 $11,336 $ 11,336 $ 11,336 $ 11,336 $ 11,336 $ 11,336 $ 11,336 $ 1,546 $1,546 $1,546 $ 1,546 $ 1,546 $ 1,546 $ 1,546 $ 4.18 $709 $ 709 $ 709 $ 709 $ 709 $ 709 $ 709 $ 97 $97 $97 $ 97 $ 97 $ 97 $ 97 $561,440 $ 561,440 $561,440 $561,440 $561,440 $561,440 $561,440 $561,440 $561,440 $ 561,440 $ 561,440 $561,440 $561,440 $561,440 $561,440 N/A $ 200,000.00 $ 25,000.00 $ 5.26 $244.23 244 23 $ 200,000.00 $25,000.00 $ 222,854.40 $29,644.83 29 644 83 $1,500,000
TOTALANNUALSUSTAININGCAPEX: $2,050,194 $1,572,695 $1,572,695 $1,572,695 $1,572,695 $1,572,695 $1,572,695 $1,559,515 $1,559,515 $3,059,515 $1,559,515 $1,559,515 $1,559,515 $1,559,515 M:\1\01\00343\06\A\Data\Task0700(Cost)\[KPSummary,OPEX,SUSCAPEXRevA.xlsx]SustainingCapital
NOTES:
1. ESTIMATE ASSUMES THAT ZONE C WILL BE CONSTRUCTED UNDER AMEC SCOPE OF WORK. 2. CYCLONE SAND OPERATIONS ASSUME A D7 DOZER OPERATING 20 HOURS/DAY FOR 4 MONTHS OF THE YEAR AT EACH EMBANKMENT. 3. AN ALLOWANCE FOR A CYCLONE SAND BOOSTER PUMP SUPPLY, INSTALL AND POWER COSTS HAS BEEN INCLUDED IN THE YEAR 10 COSTS. 4. CONSTRUCTION OF THE SOUTH WALL DIVERSION HAS BEEN INCLUDED IN THE YEAR 1 COSTS.
A REV 04NOV'10 DATE ISSUED FOR INFORMATION DESCRIPTION JF PREP'D GLS CHK'D APP'D
F2-2 of 2
APPENDIX G TAILINGS AND CYCLONE SAND DISTRIBUTION DESIGN STUDY (Pages G-1 to G-23)
VA101-343/6-2 Rev 0 January 27, 2011
Knight Pisold
Kitsault Mine Project Cyclone Station Feasibility Study
Report Number: KPV-5155 R01 Rev 0
October 2010
G-1 of 23
Kitsault Mine Project Cyclone Station Feasibility Study Document KPV-5155 R01 Rev 0
Page i October 2010
SUMMARY Paterson & Cooke (P&C) have carried out most of the process and hydraulic design for the Kitsault Mine Project Tailing System feasibility study. Although the scope of work pertained only to the tailing Cyclone Station, in the end because of the intertwined nature, the work also included the design of the tailing distribution pipeline system apart from the major equipment duty specification. Early work had identified that the rougher scavenger tailing was coarse enough that the sand quality can be achieved by single stage cyclone, therefore making it possible to spigot off the crest. This simplifies the tailing system dramatically, essentially eliminating the need for dedicated cyclone stations. It however resulted in the design interdependency between the cyclone sleds and the tailing distribution system. The Process Flow Diagram (PFD) for the tailings distribution system is presented on P&C Drawing 5155-0001 Rev 1. The drawing demarcates the battery limits which had to be applied for the process design, as well as the Scope of Work battery limits of the feasibility study. Tailing from the plant reports to a distribution tank from which constant volumetric flow tailing, controlled by pinch valve, is fed by gravity to one of two cyclone sleds on the North Eastern dyke or the one cyclone sled on the Southern dyke. The remaining tailing overflow is piped by gravity as whole tailing for deposition on either the North Eastern or Southern impoundments. It is estimated that after the ninth year, the feed to the cyclone sleds will have to be pumped by variable speed drive pumps under volumetric flow control. Initial calculations have shown that the whole tailing deposition should be possible by gravity throughout the planned fourteen year life of the Tailing Storage Facility (TSF), provided no deposition is envisaged beyond the ends of the North Eastern or Southern dykes. The major design results are presented in Table S.I.
Table S.I: Design Results Summary North East Dam Operation Sand Generation Cycle Maximum Sand Requirement Required Pumping Maximum Pipeline Length Cyclone Sled Feed Flow Rate Years 1 to 14 8 months per year 10.9% of total tailing Year 101 (TBC) 2 912 m 953m3/h South Dam Years 1 to 14 8 months per year 2.7% of total tailing Year 101 (TBC) 2 065 m 953m3/h
The exact date at which pumping of feed to the cyclone sleds on the crest will be required was not computed.
G-2 of 23
Page ii October 2010
Cyclone Sled Feed HDPE Pipe Whole Tailing HDPE Pipe Maximum Required Availabilities
400 mm (16) DR 17 HDPE 700 mm (28) DR 15.5 HDPE 64.7%
400 mm (16) DR 17 HDPE 700 mm (28) DR 15.5 HDPE 16.3%
TERMS OF REFERENCE This work has been conducted by Paterson & Cooke for Knight Pisold under Knight Pisold VA1010034306. The proposal for this work was presented in P&C Proposal KPV-5155 C01 Rev A dated 15 July 2010.
DOCUMENT DISTRIBUTION, REVISION AND APPROVAL HISTORY

Rev 0 Date Distribution / Revisions Prepared Reviewed CK RC Client Approval
14 Oct 2010 Issued to Client
This report, and accompanying drawings, has been prepared by Paterson & Cooke for the exclusive use of Knight Pisold for the Kitsault Mine Project, and no other party is an intended beneficiary of this report or any of the information, opinions and conclusions contained herein. The use of this report shall be at the sole risk of the user regardless of any fault or negligence of Knight Pisold or Paterson & Cooke. Paterson & Cooke accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions or actions based on this report. Note that this report is a controlled document and any reproductions are uncontrolled and may not be the most recent version.
G-3 of 23
Page iii October 2010
CONTENTS SUMMARY TERMS OF REFERENCE DOCUMENT DISTRIBUTION, REVISION AND APPROVAL HISTORY CONTENTS 1. 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 2. 3. 3.1 3.2 INTRODUCTION Background Scope Reference Documents Units Abbreviations PROCESS DESCRIPTION EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION Tailing Distribution Box Tailing Distribution Pipeline 3.2.1 Hydraulic Design Criteria 3.2.2 Pipeline Selection 3.2.3 Valves 3.2.4 Pipeline Supports 3.2.5 Pipeline Anchors 3.2.6 HDPE Pipeline Cyclone Sleds CONTROL PHILOSOPHY Overview Flushing and Start-up CYCLONE STATION COST ESTIMATE CONCLUSIONS FURTHER WORK UNRESOLVED ISSUES i ii ii iii 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 7 8 8 9 10
3.3 4. 4.1 4.2 5. 6. 7. 8.
Appendix A HYDRAULIC DESIGN CALCULATION RESULTS
G-4 of 23
Page 1 October 2010
1. 1.1
INTRODUCTION Background Mr Bruno Borntraeger of Knight Pisold (KP) has requested that Paterson & Cooke (P&C) provide assistance with a tailing cyclone stations for the Kitsault Mine Project feasibility study. This includes the process design and major equipment duty specification for the cyclone station. In order to execute such, P&C had to look at the process design of the complete tailing distribution system.
1.2
Scope This feasibility study also presents the system description of the Kitsault Mine Project tailings transportation system. This includes: Process description Equipment description Control philosophy.
1.3
Reference Documents
Document P&C Proposal Cyclone Station Feasibility Design, KPV-5155 C01 Rev A, 15 July 2010 Kitsault Tailings Info, Flowsheets and Questions by Bruno Borntraeger, 29 July 2010, Email send by Greg Smyth, 4 August 2010 Kitsault Tailings Info, Flowsheets and Questions Email send by Greg Smyth, 4 August 2010 RE: Cyclone Station Proposal Email send by Greg Smyth, 4 August 2010 SGS Minerals Services, Size Distribution Analysis, Project No 50034-002, Ro Scav Tail, Test No. LCT1A Email send by Bruno Borntraeger, 26 August 2010 Summary Cyclone Sand Requirements, Email send by Bruno Borntraeger, 13 September 2010 B29 Progress Print 2010-09-13 Fig South Embankment Starter Tailings Pipeline Plan and Profile B30 Progress Print 2010-09-13 Fig South Embankment Final Tailings Pipeline Plan and Profile B31 Progress Print 2010-09-13 Fig Northeast Embankment Starter Tailings Pipeline Plan and Profile Abbreviation PC P01 KPV E01 KPV E02 KPV E03 SGS D01
KPV E04 KPV D01 KPV D02 KPV D03
B32 Progress Print 2010-09-13 Fig Northeast Embankment Final Tailings Pipeline KPV D04 Plan and Profile P&C Technical Note 01, Tailing Cyclone Classification Characterization, 14 October 2010 PC TN01
G-5 of 23
Page 2 October 2010
P&C Drawing 5155-0-001 Rev 1, Process Flow Diagram P&C Drawing 5155-0-101 Rev 1, P&ID P&C Drawing 5155-0-701 Rev 1, Cyclone Sled Equipment and Sled Design P&C Drawing 5155-0-702 Rev 1, Bulk Tailing Distribution Box
5155-0-001 Rev 1 5155-0-101 Rev 1 5155-0-701 Rev 1 5155-0-702 Rev 1
1.4
Units Metric units are used throughout the project.
1.5
Abbreviations
t/h t/d kt/d t/m3 m3/h %m %v amsl metric ton per hour metric ton per day kiloton per day metric ton per cubic meter cubic meters per hour solids percentage by mass solids percentage by volume above mean sea level
2.
PROCESS DESCRIPTION The Process Flow Diagram (PFD) for the tailing distribution system is presented on P&C Drawing 5155-0-001 Rev 1. The low sand requirement and the coarseness of the bulk flotation tailing permit the use of a single cyclone stage to produce quality sand at a -74m fraction of less than 15% by mass with a single or two large diameter cyclones. This makes it possible to spigot off the dyke crest, which eliminates the need for a more complex two stage cyclone cluster arrangement in favor of a much smaller cyclone sled located directly on the crest. The Tailing Storage Facility (TSF) has two embankments, one Northeast and one South of the concentrator plant. Embankment construction using sand and compaction is to happen during the eight warmer months in the year. During the rest of the year and when not producing sand for embankment construction whole tailing will be deposited along the length of the two dykes. The tailing distribution system therefore will require lines for whole tailing flow and cyclone feed flow for each embankment. A feed distribution tank is necessary to condition the feed to the cyclone sleds, which require dedicated feed pipeline with constant volumetric flow so that sand quality can be controlled
G-6 of 23
Page 3 October 2010
adequately. The tank is designed such that the constant volume supply to the cyclones is ensured, the remaining whole tailing flow is channeled through either of the two main use whole tailing lines. The topography will allow gravity flow for both the whole tailing and cyclone feed during the initial years. Calculations have shown that the cyclone feed will have to be pumped during the last years. The whole tailing pipelines run down to and along the beach side of the crest of the dykes, with a number of single point discharges along the length of the dyke. The cyclone feed delivery pipelines will run along the crest of the dykes, closer to the embankment side, with a number of connection points for the cyclone sleds. The cyclone sleds will be located, and be moved up and down, in the corridor between the embankment and the cyclone feed line. Sand discharge will be straight down the embankment, while cyclone overflow is routed over to the beach.
3. 3.1
EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION Tailing Distribution Box The distribution box detail is presented in P&C Drawing 5155-0-702 Rev 1. The tank is designed to ensure mixing using the incoming energy with the objective of ensuring that all discharges see a very similar size distribution. A residence time of one minute is provided. This is considered more than sufficient as only distribution is envisaged. The flow to the cyclones will be controlled by pinch valve. Knife gate isolation valves are located up stream of the pinch valves so that maintenance can be performed on the pinch valves at any stage independent of plant operation.
3.2
Tailing Distribution Pipeline
3.2.1 Hydraulic Design Criteria The table below presents the design criteria used for the hydraulic design and pipeline selection.
Table I: Hydraulic Design Criteria Item Medium description Tailing production Value / Description Rougher Scavenger Bulk Tailing Nominal = 36,000t/d (metric) Maximum = 40,000t/d (metric) Source / Comments SGS D01 KPV E01
Embankment construction Continuous for summer months (8 months of the year) KPV E01 period Solids density Solids concentration 2.66 36.4%m KPV E01 KPV E01
G-7 of 23
Page 4 October 2010
Whole tailings size distribution
Size (m) 300 212 149 106 75 53 38
Fraction Passing 94.9% 82.1% 63.3% 47.8% 36.0% 26.6% 19.8%
SGS D01
Coarse fraction maximum 42%v settled bed concentration Design cyclone sled feed tonnage Whole tailing to facility tonnage Cyclone feed pressure required Site elevations 455 tph Minimum = 1363 tph solids Maximum = 1818 tph solids 69 kPa Plant = 908 amsl NE final cyclone feed = 864 amsl NE final whole tailing deposition = 859 amsl S final cyclone feed = 864 amsl S final whole tailing deposition = 859 amsl
P&C assumption P&C design P&C design P&C design KPV D01 to D04
Maximum pipeline lengths NE = 2 912 m S = 2 065 m Pipeline slopes Plant to NE chainage 1 050 m = -1.90% NE chainage 1 050 m to final embankment = -9.32% Plant to S chainage 700 m = -3.10% S chainage 750 m to final embankment = -6.12%
KPV D01 to D04 KPV D01 to D04
3.2.2 Pipeline Selection The pipe selection is based on maintaining turbulent flow during normal operation and ensuring velocities above the estimated deposition velocity during normal operation. Table II provides the pipe selection for the cyclone feed and whole tailings deposition pipelines.
Table II: Pipe Selection Pipeline Cyclone feed pipelines Whole tailing to facility pipelines Pipe Selection 400 mm (16) DR 17 HDPE 700 mm (28) DR 15.5 HDPE
The hydraulic design calculation results are shown in Appendix A.
G-8 of 23
Page 5 October 2010
3.2.3 Valves Valve sizes are shown in the P&ID in P&C Drawing 5155-0-101 Rev 1. 3.2.4 Pipeline Supports The deposition pipelines are exposed to loads during normal operation. The most significant effects are due to the expansion and contraction of the pipeline due to temperature changes. The pipeline must therefore be installed to accommodate these loads so that they do not result in excessive pipeline movement or damage to the pipeline or associated components. The pipeline support design and detailed stress analysis were not part of the scope of work and must be carried out at the detailed design phase. 3.2.5 Pipeline Anchors A pipeline anchor is required for all pipelines leaving the pump station to isolate loads generated in the overland pipeline from the slurry pumps. A pipeline anchor is installed for each pipeline at the exit from the pump station. 3.2.6 HDPE Pipeline The majority of the system piping is HDPE. HDPE has a high coefficient of expansion, but also flexibility to accommodate expansion and uneven installation. The HDPE pipeline is installed directly on the ground. The movement of the HDPE pipeline is constrained posts installed at a regular spacing. Where the pipeline has long (>50 m) straight runs it is installed with a slight undulating curvature to allow for expansion and contraction during temperature changes. No additional pipeline support is required. 3.3 Cyclone Sleds The preliminary cyclone sled design is presented in P&C Drawing 5155-0-701 Rev 1. The cyclone throughput capacity was chosen in such a way that achievable cyclone availabilities could be maintained during the envisaged eight month embankment construction period. The minimum availabilities that have to be achieved according to design are 64.7% for the Northeast embankment construction and 16.3% for the South embankment construction. Alternatively, the equipment could be used to achieve the embankment construction objective in a shorter time domain. The cyclone capacity was also matched such that sufficient redundancy in terms of equipment exists. The Northeast embankment, which has a higher sand demand at a maximum of 10.9% of total arising tailing, was assigned two cyclone sleds, while the South embankment with a much lower maximum sand demand of only 2.7% of total arising tailing was assigned a single cyclone sled. However, all three cyclone sleds are identical and can act as stand-in for each other. Spares would be common.
G-9 of 23
Page 6 October 2010
Initial calculations have shown that a single large cyclone treating the same amount of tailing per sled is likely sufficient. However, in order to allow room for change in the particle size distribution and to provide some conservative pricing at the feasibility level, tandem cyclone sleds with smaller cyclones were chosen.
4.
CONTROL PHILOSOPHY The required instrumentation for the tailings distribution system is shown on the Piping and Instrumentation Diagram (P&ID) presented in P&C Drawing 5155-0-101 Rev 1. This section describes the general operation of the system, but detailed operating procedures have not been developed.
4.1
Overview The distribution tank for the tailing stream is a passive device. Allowance should be made for make-up or flush water addition to the distributor tank. Make-up water would ensure that a constant volumetric flow to the cyclone sleds is assured at all times, although given the low ratio of cyclone sled feed to whole tailing, it will be unlikely that the make-up water will be often required. Initially pinch valves, during the last years pumps, are used to control the flow rate to a cyclone sled. At the TSF the tailing is discharged at a single point for each operating pipeline. The discharge point is controlled with isolation valves along the pipeline directing flow to the appropriate point. The discharge points are located to allow for beach development in the case of whole tailings or feed to the cyclone sled in the case of cyclone feed.
4.2
Flushing and Start-up Based on the tailings test work, the pipelines can be restarted full of tailings after a shut down. Flushing is therefore not considered necessary for the system. However, during the initial operation (years 1 to 9), the discharge pipelines run down a gradual slope to the tailings beach. When the pipeline is shut down the tailings will drain from the pipeline. Provided the pipeline profile is evenly graded no problems are expected. If the pipeline contains a number of low points the pipeline may partially drain and leave a number of plugs in the pipeline which may result in a blockage when the system is restarted. The pipeline route must therefore be graded to provide a smooth profile. Should problems of this nature be encountered during operation then the pipelines must be flushed prior to shut down. The provision of flushing water is included on the P&IDs.
G-10 of 23
Page 7 October 2010
5.
CYCLONE STATION COST ESTIMATE Due to the elimination of a more formal two stage cyclone station system in favor of a single stage cyclone system with few large diameter cyclones, much of the original Scope of Work has been reduced. Remaining in the scope are the three cyclone sleds, shown in preliminary format in P&C Drawing 5155-0-701 Rev 1.
CAPITAL COSTS
Option
Civil & Structural Tanks and Platework Mechanical Equipment Piping & Valves Electrical Control DIRECT COSTS Spares Preliminary and general Engineering Administration SUB TOTAL Contingencies 20% 25%
3x Cyclone Sled
$ 54,000 $ 61,000 $ 102,000 $ 11,000 $0 $0 $ 228,000 $0 $ 57,000 $ 50,000 $ 25,000 $ 360,000 $ 72,000
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
$ 432,000
OPERATING COSTS
Option
Maintenance Electricity Flocculant Cost Water Cost Labour Cost
3x Cyclone Sled
$ 31,718 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL OPERATING COST
$ 31,718
G-11 of 23
Page 8 October 2010
6. 6.1
CONCLUSIONS The tailing distribution system requires a distribution box in the plant so that whole tailing and cyclone feed tailing can be proportioned correctly to either the Northeast or South embankment. The system has three identical cyclone sleds, two for the Northeast and one for the South embankment. Only one cyclone sled is anticipated to be in operation at any time. Whole tailing deposition by gravity will likely be possible through life of the TSF as long as no deposition beyond the ends of either the Northeast or South embankment are required. Cyclone feed will have to be pumped at controlled volumetric flow rate during the last years of life of the TSF. Pinch valves control volumetric flow to the cyclone sled on the crest in the years before that. The HDPE piping will be sufficient for the tailing lines to the TSF. Flushing is not expected to be required for the system, but provision is made for it should it be required.
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5 6.6
7.
FURTHER WORK This section identifies further work that should be carried out prior to or during basic engineering.
7.1
Rheological tests on representative tailing sample are recommended to fully map out the tailing slurry rheology. The pipeline route must be reviewed and optimized to reduce pipeline length, maintain a constant grade and eliminate high and low points as far as possible. A transient analysis of the system should be carried out. A stress analysis of the system must be carried out, including the seismic loading for the system. The exact date, at which pumping of feed to the cyclone sleds will be required will have to be computed for a more accurate operations plan. The distributor box design requires a final process review. Initial calculations have shown that the use of a single but larger cyclone for each sled should be sufficient to produce the required sand quality for the embankment construction. This is however subject to the tailing particle size distribution remaining similar to the one provided for this feasibility
7.2
7.3 7.4 7.5
7.6 7.7
G-12 of 23
Page 9 October 2010
study. It is understood that de-sulphurisation of the bulk rougher scavenger tailing by flotation is still to be added, which could change the nature of the tailing particle size distribution.
8. 8.1
UNRESOLVED ISSUES None for this study level.
Christian Kujawa Manager Process
Robert Cooke Director
G-13 of 23
Page 10 October 2010
APPENDIX A HYDRAULIC DESIGN CALCULATION RESULTS
1580 Lincoln Street, Suite 1000 Denver, CO, 80203, USA www.PatersonCooke.com
P:\3 - Projects\KPV-5155 (Cyclone Station)\Design\Hydraulic\[KPV-5155 Sizing Calcs Rev C.xls]Sheet1 Project No: Date: Date: KPV-5155 23 Sep 10
Kisault Flow Calcs - NE Dam Final Year Alignment INPUTS AND ASSUMPTIONS Ss Sw Mu water (Pa.s)
Project Manager: Designed: Checked:
C Kujawa J Stowe
2.66 0.998 0.0010 WHOLE TAILS CYCLONE FEED Section 2 Pressurized 455 455 455 455 36.4% 36.4% 163.6 163.6 36.0% 36.0% 42.0% 42.0% 20 20 0.350 0.350 17.7% 7.2% 1.292 0.0012 968 968 -1.90% 908 864 2912 69 17.7% 7.2% 1.292 0.0012 968 968 -9.32% 908 864 2912 69 908 864 2912 69 WHOLE TAILS Section 2 Pressurized 1363 1818 36.4% 163.6 36.0% 42.0% 20 0.600 17.7% 7.2% 1.292 0.0012 2899 3866 -9.32% 908 859 2912 0 908 859 2912 0
Section 1 Min tonnage (tph) Max tonnage (tph) Cw d50 coarse (m) Pf Cbmax Wall roughness (m) Pipe Selection ID (m) Cv Cvf Slurry SG Carrier Visc (Pa.s) Qmin (m/h) Qmax (m/h) Gravity pipeline slope Start Elevation (m) End Elevation (m) Pipeline Length (m) Cyclone feed pressure (kPa) PRESSURE PIPELINE CALCULATIONS Minimum Conditions Minimum process velocity (m/s) Vdep Correlation Minimum Conditions Process velocity (m/s) Pressure gradient (kPa/m) Hydraulic gradient (m/m) Pressure Required (kPa) Head Required (m) Maximum Conditions Process velocity (m/s) Pressure gradient (kPa/m) Hydraulic gradient (m/m) Pressure Required (kPa) Head Required (m) GRAVITY LAUNDER FLOW CALCULATIONS Minimum Conditions Velocity (m/s) y/D % filled Beta Deq (m) Hyd depth (m) Froude Number Vdep Correlation Maximum Conditions Velocity (m/s) y/D % filled Beta Deq (m) Hyd depth (m) Froude Number Vdep Correlation
Section 1 455 455 36.4% 163.6 36.0% 42.0% 20 0.350 17.7% 7.2% 1.292 0.0012 968 968 1363 1818 36.4% 163.6 36.0% 42.0% 20 0.600 17.7% 7.2% 1.292 0.0012 2899 3866 -1.90% 908 859 2912 0
1363 1818 36.4% 163.6 36.0% 42.0% 20 0.600 17.7% 7.2% 1.292 0.0012 2899 3866
2.79 2.13 Interp
2.85 2.60 Interp
2.79 0.201 0.016 97.1 8
2.848 0.113 0.009 -293.3 -23
2.79 0.201 0.016 97.1 8
3.80 0.180 0.014 -97.7 -8
3.55 73% 79% 2.059 0.420 0.245 2.290 2.28 Interp
7.04 42% 40% 1.407 0.310 0.111 6.761 2.03 Interp
4.75 58% 60% 1.729 0.654 0.286 2.834 2.69 Interp
9.03 35% 32% 1.272 0.467 0.156 7.311 2.37 Interp
3.55 73% 79% 2.059 0.420 0.245 2.290 2.28 Interp
7.04 42% 40% 1.407 0.310 0.111 6.761 2.03 Interp
5.02 71% 76% 2.000 0.714 0.392 2.556 2.79 Interp
9.71 41% 39% 1.398 0.527 0.187 7.163 2.48 Interp
G-14 of 23
G-15 of 23
G-16 of 23
G-17 of 23
G-18 of 23
To: Knight Piesold Ltd Attention: Bruno Borntraeger E-mail address: bborntraeger@kightpiesold.com Page 1 of 1 Date: 14 October 2010
File: Docs/P&C Circulation: RC, CK
From: Christian Kujawa Tel No: +1 (303) 800 6614 Fax No: +1 (303) 629 8789 Email: Christian.Kujawa@PatersonCooke.com Project No: KPV-5155 Reference: KPV-5155 TN01 Rev A
Dear Bruno, KITSAULT MINE PROJECT FEASIBILITY STUDY TECHNICAL NOTE 01 TAILINGS CYCLONE CLASSIFICATION CHARACTERIZATION
1.
INTRODUCTION Knight Piesold of Vancouver (KPV) has enlisted Paterson & Cooke (P&C) to carry out a feasibility level design and cost estimate (15% accuracy) for a 40,000t/d Cyclone Station producing sand for tailing facility embankment construction at Avanti Mining Corporations (AMC) envisaged Kitsault mine operation. Mr. Bruno Borntraeger of KPV requested that P&C investigate upfront whether the tailing material could be classified in a single cyclone stage, and thus make classification by mobile cyclone station on the crest possible. KPV are also interested in knowing what fraction of the tailing stream would be available for the embankment construction. A cyclone classification characterization analysis of the flotation tailing stream was done to answer the above questions.
1.1
Reference Documents
Document Abbreviation
P&C Proposal Cyclone Station Feasibility Design, KPV-5155 C01 Rev A, 15 July 2010 PC P01 Kitsault Tailings Info, Flowsheets and Questions by Bruno Borntraeger, 29July2010, Email send by Greg Smyth, 4 August 2010 Kitsault Tailings Info, Flowsheets and Questions Email send by Greg Smyth, 4 August 2010 RE: Cyclone Station Proposal Email send by Greg Smyth, 4 August 2010 KPV E01 KPV E02 KPV E03
SGS Minerals Services, Size Distribution Analysis, Project No 50034-002, Ro Scav Tail, SGS D01 Test No. LCT1A Email send by Bruno Borntraeger, 26 August 2010
G-19 of 23
14 October 2010
Communication to Bruno Borntraeger, Knight Piesold
Page 2
1.2
Document Distribution, Revision and Approval History

Rev A Date Distribution/ Revisions Prepared CK Reviewed RC Client
14 October 2010 Supplied to Client
1.3
Feasibility Battery Limits The process battery limits are detailed in the table below:
Stream Tailings feed Cyclone underflow (sand) Cyclone overflow Process dilution water Potable water Battery Limits From the feed into the Cyclone Station receiving tank From the pump discharge flange leaving the Cyclone Station1 From the pump discharge flange leaving the Cyclone Station Process water will be drawn from a point on the plant distribution system / ring main Potable water will be drawn from a point on the plant distribution system / ring main (Potable water will most likely be required for pump seals)
1.4
Terminology and Abbreviations The following terminology and abbreviations are used in this document:
fines: sand: t/h t/d t/m3 m3/h %m %v amsl PSD cyclone overflow material cyclone underflow material metric ton per hour metric ton per day metric ton per cubic metre cubic metres per hour solids percentage by mass solids percentage by volume above mean sea level particle size distribution
Provision is made in this proposal for assisting KPV with sizing the cyclone underflow and overflow pipelines
G-20 of 23
14 October 2010
Page 3
2.
GENERAL PROCESS DESIGN CRITERIA

Item Medium description Solids density Solids concentration Medium temperature Whole tailings size distribution Value / Description Rougher Scavenger Tailing 2.66 36.4% 20C Size (m) 300 212 149 106 75 53 38 Sharpness of separation (Rosin Rammler) 2.903 Tailings percent passing 94.9% 82.1% 63.3% 47.8% 36.0% 26.6% 19.8% P&C Assumption Source / Comments SGS D01 KPV E01 KPV E01 P&C Assumption SGS D01
3.
METHODOLOGY The analysis relies on the fact that the corrected and reduced cyclone efficiency curve is fairly consistent. A sharpness of separation coefficient of 2.903 (Rosin Rammler), representing reasonable cyclone performance, was used for the analysis. The effect of by-pass of feed to underflow was treated as a variable. A 10% to 20% by-pass is deemed to be achievable. While this method is not exact and does not replace the more detailed simulation for cyclones, which allows optimization at the same time, it gives a fairly good overview of the nature of the material stream and its likely response to classification by cyclone.
4.
FINDINGS The single stage cyclone classification characterization curve for the material at hand is shown in Figure 1. The curve shows the typical trade-off that exists between quality and quantity of the sand that is producible. It also shows that the quality objective of 15% -74m fraction for the sand
G-21 of 23
14 October 2010
Page 4
(see solid black line) should be possible in the 55% to 68% mass recovery window (achievable operating window shown in red).
Figure 1: Single Stage Cyclone Classification Characterization Curve for Sand Recovery
Figure 2 shows that a cyclone cut point size of between 85m and 105m and a by-pass of less than 20% will be required to achieve a sand quality of 15% -74m or less.
Figure 2: Single Stage Cyclone Classification Characterization Curve for Cut Point
G-22 of 23
14 October 2010
Page 5
5. 5.1
SUMMARY The cyclone classification characterization of the flotation tailings shows the typical trade-off that exists between quantity and quality of sand production. The rougher scavenger tailing stream is relatively coarse in nature indicated by the relatively large sands recovery of some 68% achievable at sand qualities of a -74m fractions below 15%. Sand quality will not be achievable for a single stage cyclone with a by-pass fraction of 20% or more. For the relatively large cyclone cut points of between 85m to 105m to achieve a sand quality of 15% -74m and better, large cyclones would be required to achieve the quality by single stage cyclone classification.
5.2
5.3
5.4
Yours sincerely, Sent via email
Christian Kujawa Process Manager
G-23 of 23
APPENDIX H WATER QUALITY MONITORING RESULTS (Pages H-1 to H-33)
VA101-343/6-2 Rev 0 January 27, 2011
APPENDIX H AVANTI KITSAULT MINE LTD KITSAULT PROJECT WATER QUALITY 1.1 INTRODUCTION
Knight Pisold Ltd. (KPL) has prepared a mass balance mixing model for the surface water regime in the vicinity of the proposed Kitsault Project (the Project). The purpose of the model is to assess the resultant water quality that will discharge from the project area throughout operations and facilitate a comparison with relevant provincial and federal water quality guidelines. Under the current scenario, contact water associated with mine development will derive from the following sources: Low Grade Stockpile (LG) East Waste Rock Management Facility (EWRMF) Open Pit, and Tailings Management Facility (TMF).
Surplus water from the Project site will be directed to a single discharge point west of the Open Pit, in the remnants of Patsy Creek, just upstream of the confluence with Lime Creek. Upon entering Lime Creek, flows from the Project site will mix with baseflows from non-impacted areas of the Lime Creek watershed to ultimately discharge to Alice Arm, approximately 6 km downstream. The mass balance model is used to predict water quality during operations at three discrete locations on Lime Creek, as shown on Figure H.1. The three mixing points are located as follows: 1.2 Mixing Point A Confluence of Patsy Creek and Lime Creek, approximately 100 m west of the Open pit. Mixing Point B Lime Creek approximately 1500 m west of the Low Grade Stockpile. Mixing Point C Lime Creek immediately upstream of Alice Arm. METHODOLOGY
A simple mass balance mixing model was developed to estimate the concentration of several water quality parameters including physical parameters, anions, nutrients, and dissolved metals, at three mixing points downstream of the Project site. The generalized mass balance equation is as follows:
CNew =
CA x QA + CB x QB (QA + QB)
Where
CNew = mixed concentration (mg/L)
H-1 of 33
Knight Pisold
C O N S U L T I N G
CA = concentration of stream A (mg/L) QA = flow rate of stream A (m3/s) CB = concentration of stream B (mg/L) QB = flow rate of stream B (m3/s) A conceptualized mass balance model for the Project is shown on Figure H.2. This schematic shows that the combined flow from the LG Stockpile, Open Pit, and EWRMF catchments, and flows from the TMF catchment, mix with Lime Creek baseline flows at Mixing Point A. At this point all flows discharging from the Project site are accounted for, and the combined Project site and Lime Creek baseline flows are assumed to be well mixed. Additional hydrological inputs from the Lime Creek catchment contribute to the overall flow regime downstream on Lime Creek at Mixing Points B and C. Additional model assumptions include the following: All flows from the four mining zones discharge to a single point, west of the Open Pit in the remnants of Patsy Creek, just upstream of Lime Creek. Annual flows in Lime Creek remain constant from year to year. The flow immediately downstream of a merge point is equal to the sum of the two incoming flows. Complete mixing between two water bodies is assumed to occur instantaneously. Model input parameter concentrations for each flow source remain constant over the life of the mine. Model input concentrations remain constant for all Lime Creek reaches.
Baseline Lime Creek flows were derived by subtracting the disturbed mine site areas from the total catchment area at a given mixing point. It was assumed that catchments 1A, 1B, 2A, and 3A (see Figure H.1) are not impacted by mining development activities. Seepage from the TMF south embankment flows downgradient to the EWRMF and therefore contributes to the overall flows in the EWRMF catchment. 1.3 WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS AND FLOW RATES
Water quality parameters used for the analysis are listed in Table H.1 along with their respective input concentrations. Baseline Lime Creek concentrations were provided by AMEC Consulting and are based on average concentrations from six sampling events (April to June 2010) on Lime Creek at a location approximately 500 m upstream of Alice Arm. Conservative estimates for the Open Pit, TMF, EWRMF and LG input concentrations were provided by SRK Consulting, and seasonal flow distributions were derived from the KPL report entitled Kitsault Project Hydrometeorology Report, VA101-343/9-1, Rev.0, July 15, 2010. Annual hydrographs for each of the flow sources and the relative contribution of flows from the Project site to the overall hydrologic regime in lower Lime Creek are illustrated on Figures H.3 and H.4. 1.4 RESULTS
Maximum and average yearly concentrations were derived for the three Lime Creek Mixing Points during the operational period. As shown in Tables H.2 and H.3, these concentrations are highest at Mixing Point A and generally decrease downstream on Lime Creek. The addition of baseflows from an increasingly larger catchment area results in a dilution effect on the discharge as it travels downstream, thereby reducing overall concentrations from Points A to C.
H-2 of 33
Knight Pisold
C O N S U L T I N G
Monthly and yearly mixing models were developed to assess the effect of seasonal flow variations on overall water quality and to predict resultant water quality based on average annual flow rates. The monthly mixing model was used to predict seasonal variability in water quality due to variable baseflow conditions in the Lime Creek catchment, and also average monthly variability in runoff and overflow associated with development of the mine facilities. The yearly mixing model assessed water quality over the operational period to reflect the changing hydrology of the Project site in response to mine development; with Lime Creek baseflows remaining constant. Predicted concentrations were compared to the British Columbia Water Quality Guidelines (BCWQG), the Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life (CEQG), and the Metal Mining Effluent Regulations (MMER). A series of ratios comparing the average or maximum predicted concentrations to each specific guideline limit; where values higher than one indicate a guideline exceedance are provided in Tables H.4 through H.9. Predicted concentrations were also compared to baseline Lime Creek concentrations as a means of assessing the magnitude of change from baseline conditions. This relationship is shown in Tables H.10 and H.11. Average monthly concentrations were predicted for all three mixing points on Lime Creek, and months with the highest concentrations were highlighted, as shown in Tables H.12 through H.14. Generally, concentrations for most parameters are highest during the summer months when conditions are drier and baseflows in the Lime Creek catchment are typically lowest, thus allowing chemicals to concentrate in these smaller water volumes. The increased proportion of effluent to the overall hydrological regime during these drier months is evident in Table H.15. The predicted average monthly and yearly operational flow rates are provided in Tables H.16 and H.17 for reference. 1.4.1 Lime Creek Mixing Point A
The catchment area at Mixing Point A is approximately 16.8 km2 or 1680 hectares. Analysis of the mixing model at Point A included flows from the TMF, combined flows from the EWRMF, Open Pit, and LG, and also baseline flows from Lime Creek. Flows from the TMF and LG will be discharged via a pipe from the water box while flows from the Open Pit and the EWRMF will discharge via a hydraulic channel. Water quality predictions at Mixing Point A indicate that the highest concentrations occur during the low flow summer months when constituent chemicals are effectively concentrated in smaller water volumes. Predicted average monthly concentrations of sulphate and fluoride exceed the BCWQG for most of the year while dissolved concentrations of cadmium, copper, molybdenum, selenium, silver and zinc exceed the more protective CEQG during several months of the year. Predicted average and maximum concentrations satisfy the MMER criteria except for total suspended solids, which exceeds the 30 mg/L MMER limit during several months of the year. 1.4.2 Lime Creek Mixing Point B
The catchment area at Mixing Point B is approximately 21.4 km2 or 2140 hectares. The mass balance calculations at this location incorporate the concentrations upstream at Point A, as well as an additional contribution from Lime Creek baseline flows between Mixing Points A and B. Predicted concentrations at
H-3 of 33
Knight Pisold
C O N S U L T I N G
Point B were lower than Point A due to the addition of baseline flows; however CEQG and BCWQG exceedances were noted for the same parameters as at Mixing Point A. 1.4.3 Lime Creek Mixing Point C
The catchment area at Mixing Point C is approximately 29.4 km2 or 2940 hectares. The mass balance calculations at this location incorporate the concentrations upstream at Point B, as well as an additional contribution from Lime Creek baseline flows between Mixing Points B and C. The results of this preliminary mass balance water quality model indicate the following guideline exceedances (based on average yearly concentrations) at Mixing Point C: Dissolved Sulphate is 1.3 times the BCWQG; Dissolved Fluoride is 2.0 times the BCWQG; Dissolved Cadmium is 13.5 times the BCWQG & CEQG; Dissolved Copper is 2.7 times the BCWQG and 14.5 times the CEQG; Dissolved Molybdenum is 7.0 times the CEQG; Dissolved Silver is 8.6 times the CEQG; and Dissolved Zinc is 1.4 times the BCWQG and 1.6 times the CEQG.
The monthly predicted concentrations of these parameters are presented graphically on Figures H.5 through H.11. 1.6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The results of this mass balance model indicate some exceedances of generic provincial and federal water quality guidelines for the protection of aquatic life. While overall water quality tends to improve with increasing distance downstream of the Project site due to mixing effects, several parameters are predicted to exceed the BCWQG and CEQG on Lime Creek near Alice Arm (Mixing Point C) during operations. Sulphate and fluoride ions are expected to exceed the BCWQG, and the dissolved metals cadmium, copper, molybdenum, silver, and zinc are predicted to exceed one or both of the BCWQG and CEQG. Ongoing water quality monitoring will be required during operations to ensure the MMER criteria and any other site specific water quality objectives are satisfied prior to discharging effluent from the Project site.
Enclosures:
Table H.1 Rev 0 Table H.2 Rev 0 Table H.3 Rev 0 Table H.4 Rev 0 Table H.5 Rev 0 Table H.6 Rev 0 Table H.7 Rev 0 Table H.8 Rev 0
Model Input Concentrations Maximum Yearly Predicted Concentrations for Operational Life of Mine Mean Yearly Predicted Concentrations for Operational life of mine Maximum Yearly Predicted Concentration Ratio Compared to BCWQG Mean Yearly Predicted Concentration Ratio Compared to BCWQG Maximum Yearly Predicted Concentration Ratio Compared to CCME Mean Yearly Predicted Concentration Ratio Compared to CCME Maximum Yearly Predicted Concentration Ratio Compared to MMER
H-4 of 33
Knight Pisold
C O N S U L T I N G
Table H.9 Rev 0 Mean Yearly Predicted Concentration Ratio Compared to MMER Table H.10 Rev 0 Maximum Predicted Yearly Concentration Ratio Compared To Maximum Lime Creek Baseline Concentration Table H.11 Rev 0 Mean Predicted Yearly Concentration Ratio Compared To Mean Lime Creek Baseline Concentration Table H.12 Rev 0 Predicted Monthly Concentration at Lime Creek Point A Table H.13 Rev 0 Predicted Monthly Concentration at Lime Creek Point B Table H.14 Rev 0 Predicted Monthly Concentration at Lime Creek Point C Table H.15 Rev 0 Predicted Average Monthly Effluent Discharge into Lime Creek Table H.16 Rev 0 Summary of Monthly Average Operational Flow Rates Table H.17 Rev 0 Summary of Annual Average Operational Flow Rates Figure H.1 Rev 0 Mass Balance Mixing Point Locations on Lime Creek Figure H.2 Rev 0 Feasibility Study Conceptual Mass Balance Model Figure H.3 Rev 0 Average Monthly Effluent and Creek Flows Figure H.4 Rev 0 Mine Effluent at Lime Creek Point C Compared with Total Flow Figure H.5 Rev 0 Average Monthly Dissolved Sulphate Concentrations at Point C Figure H.6 Rev 0 Average Monthly Dissolved Fluoride Concentrations at Point C Figure H.7 Rev 0 Average Monthly Dissolved Cadmium Concentrations at Point C Figure H.8 Rev 0 Average Monthly Dissolved Copper Concentrations at Point C Figure H.9 Rev 0 Average Monthly Dissolved Molybdenum Concentrations at Point C Figure H.10 Rev 0 Average Monthly Silver Concentrations at Point C Figure H.11 Rev 0 Average Monthly Zinc Concentrations at Point C
H-5 of 33
TABLE H.1 AVANTI KITSAULT MINE LTD. KITSAULT PROJECT WATER QUALITY SUMMARY MODEL INPUT CONCENTRATIONS
Print Jan/27/11 16:32:24
Parameter
Units
Open Pit LG Stockpile & East Waste Rock Management Facility Conservative Source Term
Tailings Management Facility Conservative Source Term 1000 550 8.0 150 150 10 500 3.5 0.10 0.05 0.005 0.20 0.00005 0.00005 0.001 0.0010 200 0.0005 0.005 0.50 0.05 0.0010 0.05 20 1.0 0.000004 1 0.05 0.005 30 0.005 5 0.01 30 6 0.00008 0.0005 0.02 0.001 0.0005 0.10
Lime Creek Baseline Data 76 31 7.38 1 17 0.025 18.0 0.06 0.030 0.00017 0.0002 0.0102 0.00005 0.00025 0.0008 0.000233 9.5 0.00015 0.00002 0.0006 0.011 0.00029 0.0005 1.8 0.00097 0.000004 0.0755 0.00091 0.005 0.25 0.0003 0.97 0.000025 0.7 0.109 0.000023 0.00005 0.0004 0.0001 0.000023 0.0030
Conductivity Hardness pH Total Suspended Solids Total Alkalinity Dissolved Nitrate Dissolved Sulphate Dissolved Fluoride Dissolved Aluminum Dissolved Antimony Dissolved Arsenic Dissolved Barium Dissolved Beryllium Dissolved Bismuth Dissolved Boron Dissolved Cadmium Dissolved Calcium Dissolved Chromium Dissolved Cobalt Dissolved Copper Dissolved Iron Dissolved Lead Dissolved Lithium Dissolved Magnesium Dissolved Manganese Dissolved Mercury Dissolved Molybdenum Dissolved Nickel Dissolved Phosphorus Dissolved Potassium Dissolved Selenium Dissolved Silicon Dissolved Silver Dissolved Sodium Dissolved Strontium Dissolved Thallium Dissolved Tin Dissolved Titanium Dissolved Uranium Dissolved Vanadium Dissolved Zinc
omhs/cm mg/L CaCO median value mg/L mg/L CaCO mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L
1500 850 7.2 150 100 10 1000 3.5 0.10 0.005 0.005 0.20 0.005 0.0003 0.001 0.005 200 0.0005 0.0002 0.02 0.2 0.001 0.05 80 1 0.000004 5 0.01 0.01 10 0.005 5 0.0001 5 5 0.00008 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.0002 0.5
M:\1\01\00343\06\A\Report\2-Tailings Storage Facility Report\Rev 0\Appendices\Appendix H - Water Quality Model\[Kitsault FS Mass Balance - Rev B_RP.xlsx]Table 1-Input Conc
NOTES:
1. CONCENTRATION VALUES FOR THE OPEN PIT, LOW GRADE STOCKPILE, EAST WASTE ROCK AND TAILINGS MANAGEMENT FACILITIES WERE PROVIDED BY SRK. 2. CONCENTRATION VALUES FOR LIME CREEK WERE PROVIDED BY AMEC AND ARE PRESENTED AS AN AVERAGE OF 6 WATER QUALITY SAMPLES TAKEN ON: APR-20-2010, MAY-26-2010, JUN-2-2010, JUN-9-2010, JUN-16-2010 AND JUN-22-2010. 3. CONCENTRATION VALUES PREDICTED TO BE LESS THAN THE MDL ARE EXPRESSED AS 1/2 MDL AND ARE PRESENTED IN A BLUE FONT. 4. CONCENTRATION VALUES NOT PROVIDED BY SRK FOR THE TAILINGS MANAGEMENT FACLITY WERE GIVEN THE SAME VALUE AS THE OPEN PIT, LG STOCKPILE & EAST WASTE ROCK MANAGEMENT FACILITY AND ARE PRESENTED IN A RED FONT. 5. ALL CONCENTRATION SIGNIFICANT FIGURES ARE PRESENTED AS THEY WERE SUPPLIED BY SRK OR AMEC. 6. ALL CONCENTRATION VALUES ARE ASSUMED TO REMAIN CONSTANT THROUGHOUT THE LIFE OF THE MINE. 7. BASELINE CONCENTRATION VALUES FOR LIME CREEK ARE ASSUMED TO REMAIN CONSTANT ALONG ALL REACHES.
0 REV
26NOV'10 DATE
GSW PREP'D
GLS CHK'D
KJB APP'D
H-6 of 33
TABLE H.2 AVANTI KITSAULT MINE LTD. KITSAULT PROJECT WATER QUALITY SUMMARY MAXIMUM YEARLY PREDICTED CONCENTRATIONS FOR OPERATIONAL LIFE OF THE MINE
Print Jan/27/11 16:34:31
Parameter Conductivity Hardness pH Total Suspended Solids Total Alkalinity Dissolved Nitrate Dissolved Sulphate Dissolved Fluoride Dissolved Aluminum Dissolved Antimony Dissolved Arsenic Dissolved Barium Dissolved Beryllium Dissolved Bismuth Dissolved Boron Dissolved Cadmium Dissolved Calcium Dissolved Chromium Dissolved Cobalt Dissolved Copper Dissolved Iron Dissolved Lead Di Dissolved l d Lithi Lithium Dissolved Magnesium Dissolved Manganese Dissolved Mercury Dissolved Molybdenum Dissolved Nickel Dissolved Phosphorus Dissolved Potassium Dissolved Selenium Dissolved Silicon Dissolved Silver Dissolved Sodium Dissolved Strontium Dissolved Thallium Dissolved Tin Dissolved Titanium Dissolved Uranium Dissolved Vanadium Dissolved Zinc
Units omhs/cm mg/L CaCO median value mg/L mg/L CaCO mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L /L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L
Open Pit LG Stockpile & East Waste Rock Management Facility (3) 1500 850 7.2 150 100 10 1000 3.5 0.10 0.005 0.005 0.20 0.005 0.0003 0.001 0.005 200 0.0005 0.0002 0.02 0.2 0.001 0 0.05 05 80 1 0.000004 5 0.01 0.01 10 0.005 5 0.0001 5 5 0.00008 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.0002 0.5
Tailings Management Facility(3) 1000 550 8.0 150 150 10 500 3.5 0.10 0.05 0.005 0.20 0.00005 0.00005 0.001 0.0010 200 0.0005 0.005 0.50 0.05 0.0010 0 0.05 05 20 1.0 0.000004 1 0.05 0.005 30 0.005 5 0.01 30 6 0.00008 0.0005 0.02 0.001 0.0005 0.10
Lime Creek Point A 406 220 7.5 42 46 3 227 1.0 0.05 0.008 0.001 0.06 0.001 0.0002 0.001 0.001 62 0.0002 0.0007 0.07 0.0 0.000 0 0.01 01 16 0 0.000004 1 0.01 0.01 5 0.002 2 0.0015 5 2 0.00004 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.0001 0.1
Lime Creek Point B 351 189 7.4 35 41 2 193 0.8 0.05 0.006 0.001 0.05 0.001 0.0002 0.001 0.001 53 0.0002 0.0006 0.06 0.0 0.000 0.01 0 01 14 0 0.000004 1 0.01 0.01 4 0.001 2 0.0012 4 1 0.00004 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.0001 0.1
Lime Creek Point C 290 153 7.4 27 36 2 154 0.7 0.04 0.005 0.001 0.04 0.001 0.0002 0.001 0.001 43 0.0002 0.0005 0.05 0.0 0.000 0.01 0 01 11 0 0.000004 1 0.01 0.01 4 0.001 2 0.0009 4 1 0.00003 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.0001 0.1
M:\1\01\00343\06\A\Report\2-Tailings Storage Facility Report\Rev 0\Appendices\Appendix H - Water Quality Model\[Kitsault FS Mass Balance - Rev B_RP.xlsx]Table 2-Calc MaxConc NOTES: 1. CONCENTRATION VALUES GENERATED BY THE MODEL ARE DISPLAYED TO THE SAME DECIMAL ACCURACY AS BASELINE VALUES PROVIDED BY AMEC. 2. CONCENTRATIONS CALCULATED USING MONTHLY FLOWS AVERAGED OVER ENTIRE YEAR. 3. OPEN PIT, EAST WASTE ROCK, LOW GRADE STOCKPILE AND TAILINGS MANAGEMENT FACILITY CONCENTRATION VALUES ARE NOT MAXIMUM VALUES BUT CONSERVATIVE SOURCE TERMS SUPPLIED BY SRK.
0 REV 26NOV'10 DATE ISSUED WITH REPORT VA101-343/6-2 DESCRIPTION GSW PREP'D GLS CHK'D KJB APP'D
H-7 of 33
TABLE H.3 AVANTI KITSAULT MINE LTD. KITSAULT PROJECT WATER QUALITY SUMMARY MEAN YEARLY PREDICTED CONCENTRATIONS FOR OPERATIONAL LIFE OF THE MINE
Print Jan/27/11 16:36:00
Units omhs/cm mg/L CaCO median value mg/L mg/L CaCO mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L /L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L
Open Pit LG Stockpile & East Waste Rock Management Facility (3) 1500 850 7.2 150 100 10 1000 3.5 0.10 0.005 0.005 0.20 0.005 0.0003 0.001 0.005 200 0.0005 0.0002 0.02 0.2 0.001 0 0.05 05 80 1 0.000004 5 0.01 0.01 10 0.005 5 0.0001 5 5 0.00008 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.0002 0.5
Tailings Management Facility(3) 1000 550 8.0 150 150 10 500 3.5 0.10 0.05 0.005 0.20 0.00005 0.00005 0.001 0.0010 200 0.0005 0.005 0.50 0.05 0.0010 0 0.05 05 20 1.0 0.000004 1 0.05 0.005 30 0.005 5 0.01 30 6 0.00008 0.0005 0.02 0.001 0.0005 0.10
Lime Creek Point A 359 193 7.4 37 44 2 193 0.9 0.05 0.007 0.001 0.06 0.001 0.0002 0.001 0.001 56 0.0002 0.0007 0.07 0.0 0.000 0 0.01 01 13 0 0.000004 1 0.01 0.01 5 0.001 2 0.0013 5 1 0.00004 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.0001 0.1
Lime Creek Point B 311 165 7.4 31 39 2 163 0.8 0.04 0.006 0.001 0.05 0.001 0.0002 0.001 0.001 48 0.0002 0.0006 0.06 0.0 0.000 0.01 0 01 11 0 0.000004 1 0.01 0.01 4 0.001 2 0.0011 4 1 0.00003 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0001 0.1
Lime Creek Point C 257 134 7.4 24 34 2 130 0.6 0.04 0.005 0.001 0.04 0.000 0.0002 0.001 0.001 39 0.0002 0.0004 0.04 0.0 0.000 0.01 0 01 9 0 0.000004 1 0.01 0.01 3 0.001 2 0.0009 3 1 0.00003 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0001 0.0
M:\1\01\00343\06\A\Report\2-Tailings Storage Facility Report\Rev 0\Appendices\Appendix H - Water Quality Model\[Kitsault FS Mass Balance - Rev B_RP.xlsx]Table 3-Calc MeanConc Op
NOTES:
1. CONCENTRATION VALUES GENERATED BY THE MODEL ARE DISPLAYED TO THE SAME DECIMAL ACCURACY AS BASELINE VALUES PROVIDED BY AMEC. 2. CONCENTRATIONS CALCULATED USING MONTHLY FLOWS AVERAGED OVER ENTIRE YEAR. 3. OPEN PIT, LOW GRADE STOCKPILE, EAST WASTE ROCK AND TAILINGS MANAGEMENT FACILITY CONCENTRATION VALUES ARE NOT MEAN VALUES BUT CONSERVATIVE SOURCE TERMS SUPPLIED BY SRK.
H-8 of 33
TABLE H.4 AVANTI KITSAULT MINE LTD. KITSAULT PROJECT WATER QUALITY SUMMARY MAXIMUM YEARLY PREDICTED CONCENTRATION RATIO COMPARED TO BCWQG
Print Jan/27/11 16:37:07
Open Pit LG Stockpile & East Waste Rock Management Facility na na 0.80 na na 0.32 10.00 11.67 0.42 na 1.00 0.04 0.94 na 0.00 90.91 na na 0.00 1.06 0.57 0.00 na na 0.40 0.04 2.50 0.07 na na 2.50 na 0.03 na na 0.27 na na na 0.03 15.15
Tailings Management Facility na na 0.89 na na 0.32 5.00 11.67 0.09 na 1.00 0.04 0.01 na 0.00 18.18 na na 0.05 26.46 0.14 0.00 na na 0.40 0.04 0.50 0.33 na na 2.50 na 3.33 na na 0.27 na na na 0.08 3.03
Lime Creek Point A na na 0.83 na na 0.09 2.27 3.35 0.13 na 0.30 0.01 0.15 na 0.00 19.29 na na 0.01 3.89 0.13 0.00 na na 0.11 0.04 0.47 0.06 na na 0.79 na 0.49 na na 0.13 na na na 0.02 2.77
Lime Creek Point B na na 0.83 na na 0.07 1.93 2.83 0.13 na 0.25 0.01 0.13 na 0.00 16.80 na na 0.01 3.21 0.11 0.00 na na 0.09 0.04 0.40 0.05 na na 0.69 na 0.40 na na 0.12 na na na 0.02 2.32
Lime Creek Point C na na 0.83 na na 0.06 1.54 2.24 0.12 na 0.20 0.01 0.10 na 0.00 16.03 na na 0.00 2.84 0.09 0.00 na na 0.08 0.04 0.32 0.05 na na 0.57 na 0.31 na na 0.11 na na na 0.01 1.82
M:\1\01\00343\06\A\Report\2-Tailings Storage Facility Report\Rev 0\Appendices\Appendix H - Water Quality Model\[Kitsault FS Mass Balance - Rev B_RP.xlsx]Table 4-BCWQG
NOTES:
1. ALL VALUES OF "NA" INDICATE A NEGLIGIBLE CONCENTRATION OF THE SUBSTANCE WAS PRESENT OR IT IS NOT COVERED UNDER THE BCWQG. 2. ALL RATIO VALUES GREATER THAN 1 EXCEED THE CONCENTRATIONS PRESCRIBED BY THE BCWQG AND ARE HIGHLIGHTED IN BLACK WITH WHITE FONT. 3. MAXIMUM PREDICTED HARDNESS WAS USED FOR CALCULATING BCWQG GUIDELINES, MAXIMUM HARDNESS IS ASSUMED TO NOT EXCEED 180 mg/L. 4. CONCENTRATIONS CALCULATED USING MONTHLY FLOWS AVERAGED OVER ENTIRE YEAR.
H-9 of 33
TABLE H.5 AVANTI KITSAULT MINE LTD. KITSAULT PROJECT WATER QUALITY SUMMARY MEAN YEARLY PREDICTED CONCENTRATION RATIO COMPARED TO BCWQG
Print Jan/27/11 16:38:21
Open Pit LG Stockpile & East Waste Rock Management Facility na na 0.80 na na 0.32 10.00 11.67 0.42 na 1.00 0.04 0.94 na 0.00 90.91 na na 0.00 1.06 0.57 0.00 na na 0.40 0.04 2.50 0.07 na na 2.50 na 0.03 na na 0.27 na na na 0.03 15.15
Tailings Management Facility na na 0.89 na na 0.32 5.00 11.67 0.09 na 1.00 0.04 0.01 na 0.00 18.18 na na 0.05 26.46 0.14 0.00 na na 0.40 0.04 0.50 0.33 na na 2.50 na 3.33 na na 0.27 na na na 0.08 3.03
Lime Creek Point A na na 0.83 na na 0.08 1.93 3.00 0.12 na 0.26 0.01 0.12 na 0.00 16.00 na na 0.01 3.58 0.11 0.00 na na 0.10 0.04 0.38 0.06 na na 0.70 na 0.44 na na 0.12 na na na 0.02 2.20
Lime Creek Point B na na 0.83 na na 0.07 1.63 2.53 0.12 na 0.22 0.01 0.10 na 0.00 14.00 na na 0.01 2.97 0.09 0.00 na na 0.08 0.04 0.32 0.05 na na 0.65 na 0.37 na na 0.11 na na na 0.02 1.84
Lime Creek Point C na na 0.82 na na 0.05 1.30 2.00 0.11 na 0.18 0.01 0.08 na 0.00 13.48 na na 0.00 2.65 0.08 0.00 na na 0.07 0.04 0.26 0.05 na na 0.50 na 0.29 na na 0.11 na na na 0.01 1.44
M:\1\01\00343\06\A\Report\2-Tailings Storage Facility Report\Rev 0\Appendices\Appendix H - Water Quality Model\[Kitsault FS Mass Balance - Rev B_RP.xlsx]Table 5-BCWQG
NOTES:
1. ALL VALUES OF "NA" INDICATE A NEGLIGIBLE CONCENTRATION OF THE SUBSTANCE WAS PRESENT OR IT IS NOT COVERED UNDER THE BCWQG. 2. ALL RATIO VALUES GREATER THAN 1 EXCEED THE CONCENTRATIONS PRESCRIBED BY THE BCWQG AND ARE HIGHLIGHTED IN BLACK WITH WHITE FONT. 3. MAXIMUM PREDICTED HARDNESS WAS USED FOR CALCULATING BCWQG GUIDELINES, MAXIMUM HARDNESS IS ASSUMED TO NOT EXCEED 180 mg/L. 4. CONCENTRATIONS CALCULATED USING MONTHLY FLOWS AVERAGED OVER ENTIRE YEAR.
H-10 of 33
TABLE H.6 AVANTI KITSAULT MINE LTD. KITSAULT PROJECT WATER QUALITY SUMMARY MAXIMUM YEARLY PREDICTED CONCENTRATION RATIO COMPARED TO CCME
Print Jan/27/11 16:39:25
Open Pit LG Stockpile & East Waste Rock Management Facility na na 0.80 na na 0.77 na na 1.00 na 1.00 na na na na 90.91 na 0.06 na 5.00 0.67 0.14 na na na 0.15 68.49 0.07 na na 5.00 na 1.00 na na 0.10 na na na na 16.67
Tailings Management Facility na na 0.89 na na 0.77 na na 1.00 na 1.00 na na na na 18.18 na 0.06 na 125.00 0.17 0.14 na na na 0.15 13.70 0.33 na na 5.00 na 100.00 na na 0.10 na na na na 3.33
Lime Creek Point A na na 0.83 na na 0.21 na na 0.49 na 0.30 na na na na 19.29 na 0.03 na 18.40 0.15 0.07 na na na 0.15 12.96 0.06 na na 1.59 na 14.60 na na 0.05 na na na na 3.04
Lime Creek Point B na na 0.83 na na 0.18 na na 0.46 na 0.25 na na na na 16.80 na 0.03 na 15.18 0.13 0.06 na na na 0.15 10.99 0.05 na na 1.38 na 12.07 na na 0.04 na na na na 2.56
Lime Creek Point C na na 0.83 na na 0.14 na na 0.43 na 0.20 na na na na 16.03 na 0.02 na 15.54 0.11 0.10 na na na 0.15 8.77 0.05 na na 1.14 na 9.30 na na 0.04 na na na na 2.01
M:\1\01\00343\06\A\Report\2-Tailings Storage Facility Report\Rev 0\Appendices\Appendix H - Water Quality Model\[Kitsault FS Mass Balance - Rev B_RP.xlsx]Table 6-CCME M
NOTES:
1. ALL VALUES OF NA INDICATE A NEGLIGIBLE CONCENTRATION OF THE SUBSTANCE WAS PRESENT OR IT IS NOT COVERED UNDER THE CCME. 2. ALL RATIO VALUES GREATER THAN 1 EXCEED THE CONCENTRATIONS PRESCRIBED BY THE CCME AND ARE HIGHLIGHTED IN BLACK WITH WHITE FONT. 3. MAXIMUM PREDICTED HARDNESS WAS USED FOR CALCULATING CCME GUIDELINES, MAXIMUM HARDNESS IS ASSUMED TO NOT EXCEED 180 mg/L. 4. CONCENTRATIONS CALCULATED USING MONTHLY FLOWS AVERAGED OVER ENTIRE YEAR.
H-11 of 33
TABLE H.7 AVANTI KITSAULT MINE LTD. KITSAULT PROJECT WATER QUALITY SUMMARY MEAN YEARLY PREDICTED CONCENTRATION RATIO COMPARED TO CCME
Print Jan/27/11 16:40:31
Open Pit LG Stockpile & East Waste Rock Management Facility na na 0.80 na na 0.77 na na 1.00 na 1.00 na na na na 90.91 na 0.06 na 5.00 0.67 0.14 na na na 0.15 68.49 0.07 na na 5.00 na 1.00 na na 0.10 na na na na 16.67
Tailings Management Facility na na 0.89 na na 0.77 na na 1.00 na 1.00 na na na na 18.18 na 0.06 na 125.00 0.17 0.14 na na na 0.15 13.70 0.33 na na 5.00 na 100.00 na na 0.10 na na na na 3.33
Lime Creek Point A na na 0.83 na na 0.19 na na 0.47 na 0.26 na na na na 16.00 na 0.03 na 16.90 0.13 0.07 na na na 0.15 10.42 0.06 na na 1.40 na 13.28 na na 0.05 na na na na 2.42
Lime Creek Point B na na 0.83 na na 0.16 na na 0.44 na 0.22 na na na na 14.00 na 0.02 na 14.05 0.11 0.06 na na na 0.15 8.82 0.05 na na 1.30 na 11.05 na na 0.04 na na na na 2.02
Lime Creek Point C na na 0.82 na na 0.12 na na 0.41 na 0.18 na na na na 13.48 na 0.02 na 14.47 0.09 0.10 na na na 0.15 7.04 0.05 na na 1.00 na 8.57 na na 0.04 na na na na 1.58
M:\1\01\00343\06\A\Report\2-Tailings Storage Facility Report\Rev 0\Appendices\Appendix H - Water Quality Model\[Kitsault FS Mass Balance - Rev B_RP.xlsx]Table 7-CCME M
NOTES:
1. ALL VALUES OF NA INDICATE A NEGLIGIBLE CONCENTRATION OF THE SUBSTANCE WAS PRESENT OR IT IS NOT COVERED UNDER THE CCME. 2. ALL RATIO VALUES GREATER THAN 1 EXCEED THE CONCENTRATIONS PRESCRIBED BY THE CCME AND ARE HIGHLIGHTED IN BLACK WITH WHITE FONT. 3. MAXIMUM PREDICTED HARDNESS WAS USED FOR CALCULATING CCME GUIDELINES, MAXIMUM HARDNESS IS ASSUMED TO NOT EXCEED 180 mg/L. 4. CONCENTRATIONS CALCULATED USING MONTHLY FLOWS AVERAGED OVER ENTIRE YEAR.
H-12 of 33
TABLE H.8 AVANTI KITSAULT MINE LTD. KITSAULT PROJECT WATER QUALITY SUMMARY MAXIMUM YEARLY PREDICTED CONCENTRATION RATIO COMPARED TO MMER
Print Jan/27/11 16:41:41
Open Pit LG Stockpile & East Waste Rock Management Facility na na na na na na na na na na 0.01 na na na na na na na na 0.04 na 0.00 na na na na na 0.01 na na na na na na na na na na na na na
Tailings Management Facility na na na na na na na na na na 0.01 na na na na na na na na 1.11 na 0.00 na na na na na 0.07 na na na na na na na na na na na na na
Lime Creek Point A na na na 1.39 na na na na na na 0.00 na na na na na na na na 0.16 na 0.00 na na na na na 0.01 na na na na na na na na na na na na 0.12
Lime Creek Point B na na na na na na na na na na 0.00 na na na na na na na na 0.13 na 0.00 na na na na na 0.01 na na na na na na na na na na na na 0.10
Lime Creek Point C na na na na na na na na na na 0.00 na na na na na na na na 0.10 na 0.00 na na na na na 0.01 na na na na na na na na na na na na 0.08
M:\1\01\00343\06\A\Report\2-Tailings Storage Facility Report\Rev 0\Appendices\Appendix H - Water Quality Model\[Kitsault FS Mass Balance - Rev B_RP.xlsx]Table 8-MMER M
NOTES:
1. ALL VALUES OF NA INDICATE A NEGLIGIBLE CONCENTRATION OF THE SUBSTANCE WAS PRESENT OR IT IS NOT COVERED UNDER THE MMER. 2. ALL RATIO VALUES GREATER THAN 1 EXCEED THE CONCENTRATIONS PRESCRIBED BY THE MMER AND ARE HIGHLIGHTED IN BLACK WITH WHITE FONT. 3. MAXIMUM PREDICTED HARDNESS WAS USED FOR CALCULATING CCME GUIDELINES, MAXIMUM HARDNESS IS ASSUMED TO NOT EXCEED 180 mg/L. 4. CONCENTRATIONS CALCULATED USING MONTHLY FLOWS AVERAGED OVER ENTIRE YEAR.
H-13 of 33
TABLE H.9 AVANTI KITSAULT MINE LTD. KITSAULT PROJECT WATER QUALITY SUMMARY MEAN YEARLY PREDICTED CONCENTRATION RATIO COMPARED TO MMER
Print Jan/27/11 16:43:28
Open Pit LG Stockpile & East Waste Rock Management Facility na na na na na na na na na na 0.01 na na na na na na na na 0.04 na 0.00 na na na na na 0.01 na na na na na na na na na na na na na
Tailings Management Facility na na na na na na na na na na 0.01 na na na na na na na na 1.11 na 0.00 na na na na na 0.07 na na na na na na na na na na na na na
Lime Creek Point A na na na 1.23 na na na na na na 0.00 na na na na na na na na 0.15 na 0.00 na na na na na 0.01 na na na na na na na na na na na na 0.10
Lime Creek Point B na na na na na na na na na na 0.00 na na na na na na na na 0.12 na 0.00 na na na na na 0.01 na na na na na na na na na na na na 0.08
Lime Creek Point C na na na na na na na na na na 0.00 na na na na na na na na 0.10 na 0.00 na na na na na 0.01 na na na na na na na na na na na na 0.06
M:\1\01\00343\06\A\Report\2-Tailings Storage Facility Report\Rev 0\Appendices\Appendix H - Water Quality Model\[Kitsault FS Mass Balance - Rev B_RP.xlsx]Table 9 -MMER
NOTES:
1. ALL VALUES OF NA INDICATE A NEGLIGIBLE CONCENTRATION OF THE SUBSTANCE WAS PRESENT OR IT IS NOT COVERED UNDER THE MMER. 2. ALL RATIO VALUES GREATER THAN 1 EXCEED THE CONCENTRATIONS PRESCRIBED BY THE MMER AND ARE HIGHLIGHTED IN BLACK WITH WHITE FONT. 3. MAXIMUM PREDICTED HARDNESS WAS USED FOR CALCULATING CCME GUIDELINES, MAXIMUM HARDNESS IS ASSUMED TO NOT EXCEED 180 mg/L. 4. CONCENTRATIONS CALCULATED USING MONTHLY FLOWS AVERAGED OVER ENTIRE YEAR.
0 REV 26NOV10 DATE ISSUED WITH REPORT VA101-343/6-2 DESCRIPTION GSW PREP'D GLS CHK'D KJB APP'D
H-14 of 33
TABLE H.10 AVANTI KITSAULT MINE LTD. KITSAULT PROJECT WATER QUALITY SUMMARY MAXIMUM PREDICTED YEARLY CONCENTRATION RATIO COMPARED TO MAXIMUM LIME CREEK BASELINE CONCENTRATION
Print Jan/27/11 16:45:11
Parameter Conductivity Hardness pH Total Suspended Solids Total Alkalinity Dissolved Nitrate Dissol ed S lphate Dissolved Sulphate Dissolved Fluoride Dissolved Aluminum Dissolved Antimony Dissolved Arsenic Dissolved Barium Dissolved Beryllium Dissolved Bismuth Dissolved Boron Dissolved Cadmium Dissolved Calcium Dissolved Chromium Dissolved Cobalt Dissolved Copper Dissolved Iron Dissolved Lead Dissolved Lithium Dissolved Magnesium Dissolved Manganese Dissolved Mercury Dissolved Molybdenum Dissolved Nickel Dissolved Phosphorus Dissolved Potassium Dissolved Selenium Dissolved Silicon Dissolved Silver Dissolved Sodium Dissolved Strontium Dissolved Thallium Dissolved Tin Dissolved Titanium Dissolved Uranium Dissolved Vanadium Dissolved Zinc
Open Pit LG Stockpile & East Waste Rock Management Facility 11.81 3.21 0.96 150.00 4.55 400.00 26 04 26.04 31.82 1.49 20.00 25.00 13.99 100.00 1.00 0.25 10.25 12.27 3.33 4.00 22.22 8.70 1.82 100.00 21.62 515.46 1.00 26.04 8.00 2.00 40.00 16.67 4.20 4.00 5.56 30.30 3.20 1000.00 25.00 100.00 8.00 86.21
Tailings Management Facility 7.87 3.21 1.06 150.00 6.82 400.00 13 02 13.02 31.82 1.49 200.00 25.00 13.99 1.00 0.20 0.25 2.05 12.27 3.33 100.00 555.56 2.17 1.82 100.00 5.41 515.46 1.00 5.21 40.00 1.00 120.00 16.67 4.20 400.00 33.33 36.36 3.20 10.00 25.00 3.33 20.00 17.24
Lime Creek Point A 3.20 3.21 0.99 41.85 2.09 110.38 5 92 5.92 9.13 0.74 30.65 7.40 4.35 16.28 0.90 0.35 2.17 3.79 1.64 14.91 81.78 1.95 0.88 28.14 4.34 141.67 1.00 4.93 6.89 1.15 21.28 5.29 1.74 58.40 5.81 9.51 1.54 156.26 7.25 16.16 4.30 15.74
Lime Creek Point B 2.77 3.21 0.99 35.09 1.87 92.29 5 02 5.02 7.71 0.69 25.37 6.30 3.75 13.75 0.92 0.35 1.89 3.26 1.53 12.35 67.49 1.70 0.82 23.65 3.70 118.32 1.00 4.18 5.80 1.13 17.92 4.58 1.59 48.29 4.92 8.05 1.44 130.58 6.14 13.56 3.74 13.22
Lime Creek Point C 2.28 2.74 0.99 27.47 1.63 71.90 4 00 4.00 6.11 0.64 19.57 5.06 3.07 10.90 0.94 0.36 1.58 2.66 1.41 9.54 51.82 1.43 0.75 18.59 2.99 92.00 1.00 3.33 4.61 1.10 14.14 3.78 1.41 37.19 3.96 6.40 1.32 101.63 4.89 10.63 3.11 10.38
M:\1\01\00343\06\A\Report\2-Tailings Storage Facility Report\Rev 0\Appendices\Appendix H - Water Quality Model\[Kitsault FS Mass Balance - Rev B_RP.xlsx]Table 10-Baseline Max
NOTE:
1. CONCENTRATIONS CALCULATED USING MONTHLY FLOWS AVERAGED OVER ENTIRE YEAR.
H-15 of 33
TABLE H.11 AVANTI KITSAULT MINE LTD. KITSAULT PROJECT WATER QUALITY SUMMARY MEAN PREDICTED YEARLY CONCENTRATION RATIO COMPARED TO MEAN LIME CREEK BASELINE CONCENTRATION
Print Jan/27/11 16:47:04
Parameter Conductivity Hardness pH Total Suspended Solids Total Alkalinity Dissolved Nitrate Dissolved Sulphate Dissolved Fluoride Dissolved Aluminum Dissolved Antimony Dissolved Arsenic Dissolved Barium Dissolved Beryllium Dissolved Bismuth Dissolved Boron Dissolved Cadmium Dissolved Calcium Dissolved Chromium Dissolved Cobalt Dissolved Copper Dissolved Iron Dissolved Lead Dissolved Lithium Di Dissolved l d Magnesium M i Dissolved Manganese Dissolved Mercury Dissolved Molybdenum Dissolved Nickel Dissolved Phosphorus Dissolved Potassium Dissolved Selenium Dissolved Silicon Dissolved Silver Dissolved Sodium Dissolved Strontium Dissolved Thallium Dissolved Tin Dissolved Titanium Dissolved Uranium Dissolved Vanadium Dissolved Zinc
Open Pit LG Stockpile & East Waste Rock Management Facility 19.74 5.81 0.98 150.00 5.88 400.00 55.56 58.33 3.33 29.41 25.00 19.61 100.00 1.00 0.63 21.46 21.05 3.33 10.00 33.33 18.18 3.45 100.00 44.44 44 44 1030.93 1.00 66.23 10.99 2.00 40.00 16.67 5.15 4.00 7.14 45.87 3.48 1000.00 50.00 300.00 8 70 8.70 166.67
Tailings Management Facility 13.16 5.81 1.08 150.00 8.82 400.00 27.78 58.33 3.33 294.12 25.00 19.61 1.00 0.20 0.63 4.29 21.05 3.33 250.00 833.33 4.55 3.45 100.00 11.11 11 11 1030.93 1.00 13.25 54.95 1.00 120.00 16.67 5.15 400.00 42.86 55.05 3.48 10.00 50.00 10.00 21 74 21.74 33.33
Lime Creek Point A 4.72 5.81 1.01 37.00 2.59 98.56 10.74 15.00 1.57 42.29 6.50 5.55 12.40 0.88 0.88 3.78 5.91 1.60 34.50 112.67 3.45 1.59 25.20 7.33 7 33 252.85 1.00 10.08 9.14 1.20 20.92 4.67 2.01 53.12 7.14 13.16 1.61 116.80 13.00 37.00 4 57 4.57 24.20
Lime Creek Point B 4.09 5.32 1.01 31.00 2.29 81.92 9.08 12.67 1.47 35.24 5.50 4.76 10.40 0.92 0.88 3.30 5.06 1.47 28.50 93.67 3.00 1.48 21.00 6.22 6 22 209.86 1.00 8.53 7.75 1.00 17.52 4.33 1.84 44.20 6.14 11.08 1.48 97.20 11.00 31.00 3 96 3.96 20.23
Lime Creek Point C 3.38 4.32 1.01 24.00 2.00 63.40 7.23 10.00 1.37 27.35 4.50 3.90 8.20 0.92 0.88 2.78 4.14 1.33 22.00 72.33 2.55 1.38 16.40 5.06 5 06 162.05 1.00 6.81 6.20 1.00 13.72 3.33 1.65 34.28 5.00 8.77 1.39 75.20 8.75 24.00 3 26 3.26 15.83
M:\1\01\00343\06\A\Report\2-Tailings Storage Facility Report\Rev 0\Appendices\Appendix H - Water Quality Model\[Kitsault FS Mass Balance - Rev B_RP.xlsx]Table 11-Baseline Mean
NOTE:
1. CONCENTRATIONS CALCULATED USING MONTHLY FLOWS AVERAGED OVER ENTIRE YEAR.
H-16 of 33
TABLE H.12 AVANTI KITSAULT MINE LTD. KITSAULT PROJECT WATER QUALITY SUMMARY PREDICTED MONTHLY CONCENTRATION AT LIME CREEK POINT A
Print Jan/27/11 16:48:15
Parameter Conductivity Hardness pH Total Suspended Solids Total Alkalinity Dissolved Nitrate Dissolved Sulphate Dissolved Fluoride Dissolved Aluminum Dissolved Antimony Dissolved Arsenic Dissolved Barium Dissolved Beryllium Dissolved Bismuth Dissolved Boron Dissolved Cadmium Dissolved Calcium Dissolved Chromium Dissolved Cobalt Dissolved Copper Dissolved Iron Dissolved Lead Dissolved Lithium Dissolved Magnesium Dissolved Manganese Dissolved Mercury Dissolved Molybdenum y Dissolved Nickel Dissolved Phosphorus Dissolved Potassium Dissolved Selenium Dissolved Silicon Dissolved Silver Dissolved Sodium Dissolved Strontium Dissolved Thallium Dissolved Tin Dissolved Titanium Dissolved Uranium Dissolved Vanadium Dissolved Zinc
January 235 123 7.36 18 27 1.142 128.0 0.45 0.038 0.00071 0.0007 0.0314 0.00060 0.00025 0.0007 0.000767 30.8 0.00019 0.00004 0.0028 0.032 0.00037 0.0060 10.6 0.11286 0.000004 0.6270 0.00193 0.006 1.34 0.0008 1.42 0.000033 1.2 0.656 0.000029 0.00564 0.0026 0.0035 0.000043 0.0586
February 224 117 7.36 17 26 1.066 120.5 0.42 0.038 0.00067 0.0007 0.0300 0.00057 0.00025 0.0007 0.000730 29.4 0.00019 0.00004 0.0026 0.031 0.00036 0.0057 10.0 0.10519 0.000004 0.5893 0.00186 0.006 1.27 0.0008 1.39 0.000033 1.2 0.619 0.000029 0.00526 0.0025 0.0033 0.000041 0.0548
March 248 131 7.36 19 27 1.234 137.1 0.48 0.039 0.00075 0.0007 0.0332 0.00065 0.00025 0.0007 0.000811 32.6 0.00019 0.00004 0.0030 0.034 0.00037 0.0065 11.3 0.12210 0.000004 0.6726 0.00201 0.006 1.43 0.0009 1.46 0.000034 1.2 0.702 0.000030 0.00611 0.0028 0.0038 0.000044 0.0632
April 149 74 7.37 9 22 0.542 68.9 0.24 0.034 0.00042 0.0004 0.0200 0.00031 0.00025 0.0007 0.000480 19.4 0.00017 0.00003 0.0016 0.021 0.00032 0.0031 5.9 0.05272 0.000004 0.3306 0.00138 0.005 0.75 0.0005 1.17 0.000029 0.9 0.362 0.000026 0.00264 0.0014 0.0017 0.000032 0.0287
May 174 88 7.37 11 23 0.718 86.2 0.30 0.035 0.00050 0.0005 0.0233 0.00039 0.00025 0.0007 0.000564 22.8 0.00017 0.00003 0.0020 0.024 0.00034 0.0039 7.2 0.07038 0.000004 0.4176 0.00154 0.005 0.93 0.0006 1.25 0.000030 1.0 0.448 0.000027 0.00352 0.0018 0.0022 0.000035 0.0375
June 514 280 7.51 60 62 3.944 282.6 1.41 0.058 0.01298 0.0021 0.0847 0.00079 0.00020 0.0007 0.001136 84.4 0.00029 0.00125 0.1247 0.049 0.00057 0.0199 18.0 0.39350 0.000004 1.0402 0.01418 0.006 8.93 0.0021 2.55 0.002456 8.5 2.273 0.000045 0.00767 0.0081 0.0048 0.000165 0.1012
July 576 315 7.54 69 70 4.566 316.8 1.63 0.062 0.01571 0.0024 0.0966 0.00084 0.00019 0.0006 0.001218 96.2 0.00031 0.00152 0.1517 0.053 0.00061 0.0230 19.6 0.45576 0.000004 1.1316 0.01690 0.006 10.62 0.0024 2.80 0.002994 10.1 2.632 0.000049 0.00812 0.0093 0.0051 0.000192 0.1107
August 435 236 7.42 45 47 2.948 247.5 1.07 0.051 0.00682 0.0016 0.0658 0.00092 0.00023 0.0007 0.001164 65.3 0.00025 0.00063 0.0622 0.049 0.00050 0.0150 17.7 0.29369 0.000004 1.0528 0.00823 0.006 5.43 0.0017 2.15 0.001199 4.9 1.658 0.000040 0.00892 0.0062 0.0055 0.000110 0.1020
September 392 211 7.46 42 48 2.786 212.0 1.01 0.050 0.00851 0.0015 0.0627 0.00065 0.00022 0.0007 0.000930 62.2 0.00025 0.00082 0.0807 0.040 0.00048 0.0142 14.1 0.27748 0.000004 0.8158 0.00965 0.006 6.06 0.0016 2.08 0.001587 5.8 1.618 0.000039 0.00617 0.0058 0.0039 0.000119 0.0783
October 338 181 7.45 36 44 2.360 177.4 0.87 0.047 0.00764 0.0013 0.0546 0.00051 0.00022 0.0007 0.000785 54.1 0.00023 0.00074 0.0728 0.034 0.00045 0.0121 11.7 0.23482 0.000004 0.6642 0.00868 0.005 5.35 0.0014 1.91 0.001438 5.2 1.395 0.000036 0.00476 0.0050 0.0030 0.000107 0.0629
November 264 139 7.40 23 32 1.529 139.4 0.58 0.041 0.00330 0.0009 0.0388 0.00053 0.00024 0.0007 0.000738 38.2 0.00020 0.00030 0.0292 0.031 0.00039 0.0080 10.4 0.15162 0.000004 0.6043 0.00442 0.005 2.79 0.0010 1.57 0.000565 2.7 0.900 0.000032 0.00494 0.0034 0.0031 0.000066 0.0565
December 239 125 7.36 18 27 1.169 130.6 0.46 0.038 0.00072 0.0007 0.0319 0.00062 0.00025 0.0007 0.000780 31.4 0.00019 0.00004 0.0028 0.033 0.00037 0.0062 10.8 0.11552 0.000004 0.6402 0.00195 0.006 1.37 0.0008 1.43 0.000034 1.2 0.669 0.000029 0.00578 0.0027 0.0036 0.000043 0.0600
M:\1\01\00343\06\A\Report\2-Tailings Storage Facility Report\Rev 0\Appendices\Appendix H - Water Quality Model\[Kitsault FS Mass Balance - Rev B_RP.xlsx]Table 12-Monthly Conc A
NOTES:
1. THE HIGHEST MONTHLY VALUE FOR EACH PARAMETER ARE HIGHLIGHTED IN BLACK WITH WHITE FONT, SHOULD MORE THAN ONE MONTH SHARE THE HIGHEST VALUE THEN ALL APPLICABLE MONTHS ARE HIGHLIGHTED. 2 CONCENTRATIONS CALCULATED USING MONTHLY FLOWS AVERAGED OVER THE ENTIRE OPERATIONAL LIFE OF THE MINE 2. MINE.
H-17 of 33
TABLE H.13 AVANTI KITSAULT MINE LTD. KITSAULT PROJECT WATER QUALITY SUMMARY PREDICTED MONTHLY CONCENTRATION AT LIME CREEK POINT B
Print Jan/27/11 16:49:43
January 204 105 7.37 14 25 0.924 106.5 0.37 0.037 0.00060 0.0006 0.0273 0.00050 0.00025 0.0007 0.000663 26.7 0.00018 0.00003 0.0024 0.028 0.00035 0.0050 8.9 0.09103 0.000004 0.5194 0.00173 0.005 1.13 0.0007 1.33 0.000032 1.1 0.550 0.000028 0.00455 0.0022 0.0028 0.000039 0.0478
February 195 100 7.37 13 24 0.861 100.3 0.35 0.036 0.00057 0.0006 0.0261 0.00046 0.00025 0.0007 0.000633 25.5 0.00018 0.00003 0.0022 0.027 0.00035 0.0046 8.4 0.08472 0.000004 0.4883 0.00167 0.005 1.07 0.0007 1.30 0.000031 1.1 0.519 0.000028 0.00424 0.0021 0.0026 0.000038 0.0446
March 215 111 7.37 16 25 1.000 114.0 0.40 0.037 0.00064 0.0006 0.0287 0.00053 0.00025 0.0007 0.000699 28.1 0.00018 0.00004 0.0025 0.029 0.00036 0.0053 9.5 0.09866 0.000004 0.5571 0.00180 0.005 1.20 0.0008 1.36 0.000032 1.1 0.587 0.000028 0.00493 0.0023 0.0031 0.000040 0.0516
April 134 65 7.38 7 21 0.435 58.4 0.20 0.033 0.00037 0.0003 0.0180 0.00025 0.00025 0.0007 0.000429 17.4 0.00016 0.00003 0.0014 0.019 0.00032 0.0025 5.0 0.04207 0.000004 0.2781 0.00128 0.005 0.65 0.0005 1.13 0.000028 0.9 0.310 0.000025 0.00210 0.0012 0.0014 0.000030 0.0234
May 154 77 7.37 9 22 0.578 72.4 0.25 0.034 0.00044 0.0004 0.0207 0.00032 0.00025 0.0007 0.000497 20.1 0.00017 0.00003 0.0017 0.021 0.00033 0.0032 6.1 0.05632 0.000004 0.3483 0.00141 0.005 0.79 0.0006 1.19 0.000029 1.0 0.380 0.000026 0.00282 0.0015 0.0018 0.000033 0.0305
June 452 245 7.49 51 56 3.387 245.0 1.22 0.054 0.01116 0.0018 0.0741 0.00069 0.00021 0.0007 0.001008 73.7 0.00027 0.00108 0.1070 0.043 0.00053 0.0172 15.7 0.33769 0.000004 0.9031 0.01229 0.006 7.70 0.0019 2.33 0.002110 7.4 1.965 0.000042 0.00659 0.0070 0.0042 0.000145 0.0873
July 511 278 7.52 60 63 3.978 278.1 1.42 0.058 0.01369 0.0021 0.0854 0.00073 0.00020 0.0007 0.001090 85.0 0.00029 0.00133 0.1322 0.047 0.00057 0.0201 17.3 0.39688 0.000004 0.9949 0.01483 0.006 9.27 0.0022 2.56 0.002609 8.9 2.305 0.000046 0.00707 0.0082 0.0045 0.000171 0.0967
August 377 203 7.42 38 43 2.475 210.4 0.91 0.047 0.00575 0.0013 0.0568 0.00078 0.00023 0.0007 0.001014 56.3 0.00024 0.00053 0.0522 0.043 0.00046 0.0127 15.2 0.24633 0.000004 0.8947 0.00704 0.006 4.60 0.0015 1.96 0.001009 4.2 1.407 0.000037 0.00749 0.0052 0.0046 0.000096 0.0860
September 340 182 7.44 35 43 2.331 180.0 0.86 0.046 0.00714 0.0013 0.0540 0.00055 0.00022 0.0007 0.000815 53.5 0.00023 0.00068 0.0675 0.035 0.00045 0.0119 12.1 0.23189 0.000004 0.6937 0.00821 0.006 5.10 0.0014 1.90 0.001329 5.0 1.369 0.000036 0.00516 0.0050 0.0033 0.000103 0.0658
October 293 155 7.44 30 39 1.956 149.8 0.73 0.044 0.00635 0.0011 0.0469 0.00043 0.00023 0.0007 0.000690 46.4 0.00022 0.00061 0.0603 0.030 0.00042 0.0101 10.0 0.19437 0.000004 0.5624 0.00733 0.005 4.47 0.0012 1.75 0.001194 4.5 1.172 0.000034 0.00395 0.0042 0.0025 0.000092 0.0525
November 228 119 7.40 19 30 1.246 116.5 0.48 0.039 0.00271 0.0007 0.0334 0.00044 0.00024 0.0007 0.000643 32.8 0.00019 0.00025 0.0238 0.028 0.00037 0.0066 8.8 0.12326 0.000004 0.5048 0.00376 0.005 2.31 0.0009 1.46 0.000464 2.3 0.751 0.000030 0.00402 0.0028 0.0025 0.000058 0.0465
December 207 107 7.37 15 25 0.946 108.7 0.38 0.037 0.00061 0.0006 0.0277 0.00051 0.00025 0.0007 0.000673 27.1 0.00018 0.00004 0.0024 0.028 0.00035 0.0051 9.0 0.09322 0.000004 0.5302 0.00175 0.005 1.15 0.0007 1.34 0.000032 1.1 0.560 0.000028 0.00466 0.0022 0.0029 0.000039 0.0489
M:\1\01\00343\06\A\Report\2-Tailings Storage Facility Report\Rev 0\Appendices\Appendix H - Water Quality Model\[Kitsault FS Mass Balance - Rev B_RP.xlsx]Table 13-Monthly Conc B
NOTES:
H-18 of 33
TABLE H.14 AVANTI KITSAULT MINE LTD. KITSAULT PROJECT WATER QUALITY SUMMARY PREDICTED MONTHLY CONCENTRATION AT LIME CREEK POINT C
Print Jan/27/11 16:51:28
January 171 86 7.37 11 23 0.696 84.1 0.29 0.035 0.00049 0.0005 0.0229 0.00038 0.00025 0.0007 0.000554 22.3 0.00017 0.00003 0.0019 0.024 0.00033 0.0038 7.1 0.06821 0.000004 0.4069 0.00152 0.005 0.91 0.0006 1.24 0.000030 1.0 0.438 0.000027 0.00341 0.0018 0.0021 0.000035 0.0364
February 164 82 7.37 10 22 0.648 79.4 0.28 0.035 0.00047 0.0005 0.0220 0.00036 0.00025 0.0007 0.000531 21.4 0.00017 0.00003 0.0018 0.023 0.00033 0.0036 6.7 0.06339 0.000004 0.3832 0.00148 0.005 0.86 0.0006 1.22 0.000030 1.0 0.414 0.000026 0.00317 0.0017 0.0020 0.000034 0.0340
March 180 91 7.37 12 23 0.755 89.9 0.31 0.035 0.00052 0.0005 0.0240 0.00041 0.00025 0.0007 0.000582 23.5 0.00018 0.00003 0.0020 0.025 0.00034 0.0041 7.5 0.07407 0.000004 0.4358 0.00157 0.005 0.96 0.0006 1.26 0.000030 1.0 0.466 0.000027 0.00370 0.0019 0.0023 0.000036 0.0393
April 119 56 7.38 6 20 0.327 47.8 0.17 0.032 0.00031 0.0003 0.0159 0.00020 0.00025 0.0007 0.000378 15.3 0.00016 0.00002 0.0012 0.017 0.00031 0.0020 4.2 0.03125 0.000004 0.2248 0.00118 0.005 0.55 0.0004 1.09 0.000027 0.8 0.257 0.000025 0.00156 0.0010 0.0010 0.000028 0.0180
May 134 65 7.38 7 21 0.434 58.2 0.20 0.033 0.00037 0.0003 0.0179 0.00025 0.00025 0.0007 0.000428 17.3 0.00016 0.00003 0.0014 0.019 0.00032 0.0025 5.0 0.04190 0.000004 0.2773 0.00128 0.005 0.65 0.0005 1.13 0.000028 0.9 0.309 0.000025 0.00210 0.0012 0.0014 0.000030 0.0233
June 377 202 7.47 41 48 2.720 200.0 0.99 0.049 0.00898 0.0015 0.0615 0.00056 0.00022 0.0007 0.000854 61.0 0.00024 0.00087 0.0859 0.037 0.00048 0.0139 12.9 0.27093 0.000004 0.7390 0.01004 0.006 6.22 0.0016 2.06 0.001697 6.0 1.597 0.000038 0.00529 0.0057 0.0034 0.000121 0.0706
July 431 233 7.49 49 55 3.251 230.3 1.17 0.053 0.01121 0.0017 0.0716 0.00061 0.00021 0.0007 0.000933 71.1 0.00026 0.00109 0.1080 0.040 0.00052 0.0165 14.5 0.32411 0.000004 0.8259 0.01227 0.006 7.62 0.0018 2.27 0.002134 7.4 1.901 0.000041 0.00578 0.0068 0.0037 0.000143 0.0795
August 310 165 7.41 30 37 1.937 168.2 0.72 0.044 0.00452 0.0011 0.0465 0.00062 0.00023 0.0007 0.000842 46.0 0.00022 0.00042 0.0409 0.036 0.00042 0.0100 12.2 0.19245 0.000004 0.7148 0.00570 0.006 3.64 0.0012 1.74 0.000793 3.4 1.122 0.000034 0.00585 0.0042 0.0037 0.000080 0.0678
September 281 148 7.43 28 37 1.817 143.9 0.68 0.043 0.00558 0.0010 0.0443 0.00044 0.00023 0.0007 0.000685 43.7 0.00021 0.00054 0.0526 0.030 0.00041 0.0094 9.8 0.18043 0.000004 0.5559 0.00658 0.005 4.02 0.0011 1.69 0.001039 4.0 1.088 0.000033 0.00402 0.0039 0.0026 0.000085 0.0518
October 243 126 7.43 23 34 1.510 119.3 0.57 0.041 0.00492 0.0009 0.0384 0.00034 0.00023 0.0007 0.000584 37.9 0.00020 0.00048 0.0465 0.026 0.00039 0.0079 8.1 0.14965 0.000004 0.4498 0.00585 0.005 3.49 0.0010 1.57 0.000924 3.6 0.926 0.000031 0.00305 0.0033 0.0020 0.000076 0.0411
November 191 97 7.39 15 27 0.945 92.2 0.38 0.037 0.00208 0.0006 0.0277 0.00034 0.00024 0.0007 0.000542 27.1 0.00018 0.00019 0.0181 0.023 0.00035 0.0051 7.1 0.09311 0.000004 0.3989 0.00305 0.005 1.80 0.0007 1.34 0.000355 1.9 0.592 0.000028 0.00304 0.0022 0.0019 0.000049 0.0357
December 174 88 7.37 11 23 0.713 85.8 0.30 0.035 0.00050 0.0005 0.0232 0.00039 0.00025 0.0007 0.000562 22.7 0.00017 0.00003 0.0020 0.024 0.00034 0.0039 7.2 0.06989 0.000004 0.4152 0.00154 0.005 0.92 0.0006 1.24 0.000030 1.0 0.446 0.000027 0.00350 0.0018 0.0022 0.000035 0.0373
M:\1\01\00343\06\A\Report\2-Tailings Storage Facility Report\Rev 0\Appendices\Appendix H - Water Quality Model\[Kitsault FS Mass Balance - Rev B_RP.xlsx]Table 14-Monthly Conc C
NOTES:
H-19 of 33
TABLE H.15 AVANTI KITSAULT MINE LTD. KITSAULT PROJECT SURFACE WATER QUALITY MASS BALANCE CALCULATIONS PREDICTED AVERAGE MONTHLY EFFLUENT DISCHARGE INTO LIME CREEK
Print: 1/27/11 16:52
Month
Mine Effluent (m/s)
Total Flow at Percent Effluent at Total Flow at Lime Creek Lime Creek Point Lime Creek Point A A Point B (m/s) 0.37236 0.42106 0.41741 1.12773 2.804 3.845 1.890 0.690 1.420 1.988 0.986 0.455 (%) 11.20% 10.43% 12.12% 5.18% 6.95% 39.29% 45.52% 29.30% 27.68% 23.41% 15.08% 11.47% (m/s) 0.463 0.524 0.518 1.420 3.517 4.483 2.171 0.823 1.701 2.403 1.214 0.565
Percent Effluent at Lime Creek Point B (%) 9.01% 8.38% 9.78% 4.11% 5.54% 33.70% 39.63% 24.56% 23.11% 19.36% 12.24% 9.23%
Total Flow at Percent Effluent at Lime Creek Lime Creek Point Point C C (m/s) 0.620 0.703 0.692 1.927 4.756 5.591 2.660 1.054 2.189 3.126 1.612 0.756 (%) 6.73% 6.25% 7.32% 3.03% 4.10% 27.02% 32.35% 19.17% 17.96% 14.88% 9.22% 6.90%
January February March April May June July August September October November December
0.042 0.044 0.051 0.058 0.195 1.511 0.860 0.202 0.393 0.465 0.149 0.052
M:\1\01\00343\06\A\Report\2-Tailings Storage Facility Report\Rev 0\Appendices\Appendix H - Water Quality Model\[Kitsault FS Mass Balance - Rev B_RP.xlsx]Table 15-% effluent
NOTES:
1. AVERAGE MONTHLY FLOWS DO NOT INCLUDE YEAR -1 OF MINE OPERATION.
H-20 of 33
TABLE H.16 AVANTI KITSAULT MINE LTD. KITSAULT PROJECT SURFACE WATER QUALITY MASS BALANCE CALCULATIONS SUMMARY OF MONTHLY AVERAGE OPERATIONAL FLOW RATES
Print: 1/27/11 16:54
Operation Month Open Pit Tailings Management Facility Low Grade Stockpile East Waste Rock Management Facility Baseline Lime Creek (Near mouth) Baseline Lime Creek Flow Near LG Stockpile Baseline Lime Creek Near Open Pit Total flows at mixing point A Total flows at mixing point B Total flows at mixing point C
NOTES:
1. ALL FLOW RATES ARE IN m/s.
0 REV 26NOV'10 DATE ISSUED WITH REPORT VA101-343/6-2 DESCRIPTION GSW PREP'D
January 0.0287 0.0000 0.0007 0.0123 0.5779 0.4209 0.3307 0.3724 0.4626 0.6197
February 0.0303 0.0000 0.0004 0.0133 0.6592 0.4801 0.3771 0.4211 0.5240 0.7031
March 0.0347 0.0000 0.0018 0.0141 0.6411 0.4670 0.3668 0.4174 0.5176 0.6917
April 0.0400 0.0000 0.0026 0.0158 1.8690 1.3613 1.0693 1.1277 1.4197 1.9274
May 0.1310 0.0000 0.0215 0.0423 4.5610 3.3219 2.6095 2.8043 3.5167 4.7558
June 0.3864 0.9326 0.0737 0.1181 4.0802 2.9718 2.3344 3.8452 4.4826 5.5910
July 0.2008 0.5602 0.0357 0.0637 1.7997 1.3108 1.0296 1.8901 2.1712 2.6601
August 0.0821 0.0803 0.0112 0.0285 0.8523 0.6207 0.4876 0.6897 0.8228 1.0543
September 0.1153 0.2211 0.0178 0.0390 1.7955 1.3077 1.0273 1.4204 1.7009 2.1887
October 0.1237 0.2803 0.0196 0.0417 2.6611 1.9382 1.5225 1.9878 2.4034 3.1264
November 0.0648 0.0527 0.0073 0.0239 1.4630 1.0656 0.8370 0.9857 1.2142 1.6117
December 0.0359 0.0000 0.0015 0.0148 0.7038 0.5126 0.4027 0.4548 0.5647 0.7559
M:\1\01\00343\06\A\Report\2-Tailings Storage Facility Report\Rev 0\Appendices\Appendix H - Water Quality Model\[Kitsault FS Mass Balance - Rev B_RP.xlsx]Table 16-Month Flow Rates
GLS CHK'D
KJB APP'D
H-21 of 33
TABLE H.17 AVANTI KITSAULT MINE LTD. KITSAULT PROJECT SURFACE WATER QUALITY MASS BALANCE CALCULATIONS SUMMARY OF ANNUAL AVERAGE OPERATIONAL FLOW RATES
Print: 1/27/11 16:55
Operation Year Open Pit Tailings Management Facility Low Grade Stockpile East Waste Rock Management Facility Baseline Lime Creek (Near mouth) Baseline Lime Creek Flow Near LG Stockpile Baseline Lime Creek Near Open Pit Total flows at mixing point A Total flows at mixing point B Total flows at mixing point C
NOTE:
1. ALL FLOW RATES ARE IN m /s.
0 REV 26NOV'10 DATE ISSUED WITH REPORT VA101-343/6-2 DESCRIPTION GSW PREP'D
-1 0.0707 0.001 0.015 0.000 1.805 1.315 1.033 1.119 1.401 1.892
1 0.0731 0.189 0.015 0.008 1.805 1.315 1.033 1.318 1.600 2.090
2 0.0777 0.174 0.015 0.017 1.805 1.315 1.033 1.317 1.599 2.090
3 0.0824 0.179 0.015 0.017 1.805 1.315 1.033 1.327 1.609 2.099
4 0.0871 0.181 0.016 0.018 1.805 1.315 1.033 1.335 1.617 2.108
5 0.0921 0.181 0.016 0.023 1.805 1.315 1.033 1.344 1.626 2.117
6 0.0966 0.180 0.016 0.027 1.805 1.315 1.033 1.352 1.634 2.124
7 0.1014 0.179 0.016 0.031 1.805 1.315 1.033 1.360 1.642 2.132
8 0.1061 0.178 0.016 0.035 1.805 1.315 1.033 1.368 1.650 2.140
9 0.1111 0.178 0.016 0.039 1.805 1.315 1.033 1.377 1.659 2.149
10 0.1156 0.176 0.016 0.043 1.805 1.315 1.033 1.384 1.666 2.156
11 0.1203 0.175 0.017 0.047 1.805 1.315 1.033 1.392 1.674 2.164
12 0.1251 0.174 0.017 0.051 1.805 1.315 1.033 1.400 1.682 2.172
13 0.1301 0.173 0.017 0.056 1.805 1.315 1.033 1.409 1.691 2.181
14 0.1346 0.172 0.017 0.060 1.805 1.315 1.033 1.416 1.698 2.188
15 0.1388 0.170 0.017 0.064 1.805 1.315 1.033 1.423 1.705 2.195
Annual Average 0.106 0.177 0.016 0.036 1.805 1.315 1.033 1.368 1.650 2.140
M:\1\01\00343\06\A\Report\2-Tailings Storage Facility Report\Rev 0\Appendices\Appendix H - Water Quality Model\[Kitsault FS Mass Balance - Rev B_RP.xlsx]Table 17-Year Flow Rates
GLS CHK'D
KJB APP'D
H-22 of 33

55918E Dams

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

55918E Dams

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

APPENDIX B SOUTH EMBANKMENT DAM-TYPE SELECTION STUDY (Pages B-1 to B-34)

VA101-343/6-2 Rev 0 January 27, 2011

CONCRETE ON E E F FACED ED ROCKFILL O KF LL DAM D M

CFRD F D PROS OS AND ND CONS ONS

ZONED EARTHFILL/ROCKFILL DAM

EARTHFILL E HF LL DAM D M PROS OS AND ND CONS ONS

GEOMEMBRANE GEOMEM NE FACED F ED ROCKFILL O KF LL DAM D M

GFRD GF D PROS OS AND ND CONS ONS

ASPHALTIC S H L CORE O E ROCKFILL O KF LL D DAM M

ACRD PROS AND CONS

ROLLER COMPACTED CONCRETE DAM

RCC PROS OS AND ND CONS ONS

DAM D M RELATIVE EL VE COSTS OS S

FACTORS THAT DETERMINE WHICH DESIGN ALTERNATIVE TO USE

WHY WAS AN ACRD DAM CONSIDERED?

EMBANKMENT ZONES FOR ACRD

AC PAVER AT WORK WET WEATHER

CORE O E PAVER VE SCHEMATIC S HEM

SIMULTANEOUS COMPACTION OF AC AND FILTERS

LOADING OF AC AND FILTER INTO PAVER

PLACING ASPHALT MASTIC ON CONCRETE PLINTH

CROSSING OSS NG THE HE AC ZONE ONE

SOUTH SO H DAM D M ALTERNATIVE L E N VE DESIGN DES GN S STUDY DY

KITSAULT K S L SITE S E CONDITIONS OND ONS

GFRD PLAN VIEW LAYOUT

ACRD PLAN VIEW LAYOUT

GFRD GF D vs s ACRD D CROSS OSS SECTION SE ON

MAJOR QUANTITY SUMMARY

AFRD 150,000 2,900 2,800 0.5 3.5 2.1

GFRD 200,000 4,500 1,200 0.8 3.5 4.0

COST OS SUMMARY S MM Y ($M ($MILLIONS) LL ONS)

VA101-343/6-2 Rev 0 January 27, 2011

APPENDIX C1 TMF SEEPAGE ASSESSMENT (Pages C1-1 to C1-11)

VA101-343/6-2 Rev 0 January 27, 2011

Crest El. (m)

Head Pond El. (m)

Average Embankment 1 Length (m)

Base Expected South Worst Case 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8a 8b 9 10 11

Expected Northeast Worst Case

Print 27/01/2011 12:29 PM

Crest El. 805

Pond El. 750

Ground El. 670 Fractured Bedrock Bedrock

Distance (m) (x 1000)

AVANTI KITSAULT MINE LTD KITSAULT PROJECT

PREP'D CHK'D APP'D

Print 27/01/2011 12:29 PM

Pond El. 800

750 700 650 600

550 500 0.0

Distance (m) (x 1000)

AVANTI KITSAULT MINE LTD KITSAULT PROJECT

Print 27/01/2011 12:31 PM

Pond El. 856

Crest El. 861 1.5 Tailings 1 Waste Rock

750 700 650 600

Ground El. 670 Fractured Bedrock Bedrock

550 500 0.0

Distance (m) (x 1000)

AVANTI KITSAULT MINE LTD KITSAULT PROJECT

PREP'D CHK'D APP'D

Print 27/01/2011 12:32 PM

650 0 100 200 300 400