2011-03 - Stage 2 Design Letter - Draft PDF

21 June 2011
Scott Douglas
Breakwater Resources Ltd.
95 Wellington St. West
Suite 950
Toronto, Ontario
M5J 2N7
Canada
RE: El Mochito, Soledad Tailings Storage Facility – Stage 2 Design Engineering
Dear Mr. Douglas :
This letter documents the design engineering performed by Tetra Tech (Tt) for Phase 2
of the Soledad tailings storage facility (TSF) located at Breakwater Resources, Ltd.’s
(Breakwater) El Mochito Mine in Honduras (operated locally by American Pacific
Honduras – AMPAC). This design letter updates the design presented in a similar letter
dated 09 February 2007 (titled: “El Mochito Soledad Tailings Facility – Stage 2 Design
Engineering,” prepared by Tt).
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This letter documents the detailed design engineering completed by Tt for the Stage 2
expansion of the Soledad TSF. The work was completed between June 2010 and March
2011 and included the following tasks:
 Up-date base maps using recent field surveys and available as-built surveys for
the Stage 1 construction.
 Borrow source delineation and grading.
 Performance evaluation of the Soledad overdrain system.
 Impoundment grading.
 Stabilization of the Guard Shack Slide (GSS).
 Performance evaluation of the Soledad basin over-drain system.
 Stage 2 dam layout and underdrain expansion.
 Stage 2 dam zoning and evaluation design.
 Seepage and stability analyses for Stage 2 dam.
 Stage 2 impoundment zoning.
 Liner design for each impoundment zone.
 Up-date impoundment storage capacity curves.
 Up-date impoundment water balance.
 Volumetrics and quantities.
 Construction plans and specification.
The original design criteria established for the facility are documented in a report titled
“Mina El Mochito – Soledad tailings Disposal Facility, Final Design Report” (issued by
Vector and dated September 2004.) The Stage 2 design presented herein follows the
Tetra Tech
Address, City ST ####ZIP
Tel ###.###.### Fax ###.###.### www.tetratech.com
Up-dated Soledad Stage 2 Design Engineering
March 22, 2010
original design criteria unless otherwise noted. The Soledad Stage 1 construction is
documented in an interim completion report titled Soledad Tailings Disposal Facility
Stage I Construction Interim Report, dated June 29, 2005 and a final report titled
Soledad Tailings Dam Phase I Final Construction Report, dated July 2006 prepared by
Vector and issued to AMPAC.
The current design approach for Stage 2 incorporates knowledge gained during Stage 1
construction, experience gained during the years of facility operation, facility
performance, and field observations. The primary changes from the previous Stage 2
design engineering presented herein include the following:
 The exploitation of borrow sources within the Soledad basin to increase storage
capacity.
 The grading of the GSS for stabilization of the slide mass.
 The return to a seal zone and chimney drain dam zoning based on the availability
of clay materials available in the GSS grading.
 Grading zonation of the Soledad basin to limit the extents of Stage 2 lining.
 Liner zonation of the Soledad impoundment to provide adequate liner strength for
each zone.
 The return to LLDPE as the primary liner of choice to facilitate Stage 2 liner
connection to the existing LLDPE liner.
 The addition of a sacrificial geotextile layer to liner areas extended above the
Stage 2 dam elevation.
 The decommissioning of the overdrain system.
 The addition of overliner protection system for the impoundment to mitigate
against potential future liner damage from run-on flows.
2.0 IMPOUNDMENT GRADING

Impoundment grading for Stage 2 of the Soledad TSF included the mitigation of the
GSS, exploitation of a borrow source located on the north abutment of the Stage 1 dam,
a small fill in the north canyon, and impoundment slope grading to establish Stage 2, 3,
and/or 4 benches to facilitate liner installation.
2.1 GSS Stabilization

Whereas, construction of Stage 2 of the Soledad tailings storage facility (TSF) will
require lining the toe of the Guard Shack Slide (GSS) and future movement of the GSS
will likely result in significant operational and environmental consequences, Breakwater
Resources, Ltd. (Breakwater) requested Tetra Tech (Tt) to provide a mitigation solution
for the GSS.
A thorough description of the GSS as well as mitigation options are provided in the
Guard Shack Slide Mitigation Report prepared by Tt (2008). In that report, Tt identified
strict surface water control and the construction of a toe buttress as the most positive
means of mitigating future movement of the landslide (refer to Table 3.5 in the
referenced report). Slope re-grading was considered as a secondary option based on
the original screening process due to the fact that it was believed that re-grading could
potential result in a higher risk of future movement of adjacent slopes when compared
2
March 22, 2010
with the construction of a toe buttress. However, the removal of fill from the Stockpile
slide (SPS) and the slope monitoring data collected over the past two years indicate that
while the GSS has continued to experience slope movement, no movement has
occurred along the SPS. Therefore, it is currently believed that the two slides are
independent and the risk of future movement of the SPS was largely mitigated through
the removal of the stockpiled soils.
Stage 2 of the Soledad TSF requires significant fill volumes for the construction of the
embankment raise, including clay for use as a seal zone material. The area of the GSS
was identified as a potential borrow source for clay during the feasibility study and
subsequent Stage1 design of the Soledad TSF (VCL, 2003). Due to current material
needs, it is preferable to mitigate the GSS through re-grading rather than the
construction of a toe buttress which would require the exploitation of additional borrow
sources.
Tt evaluated the GSS re-grading mitigation option in a two-fold process: first, a back
analysis was conducted to determine the shear strength properties of the slip surface in
the GSS under current conditions and second, the results of the back analysis were
utilized in the stability analyses conducted to evaluate potential grading options.
Based on construction material needs for the Soledad embankment, slope performance
data for the GSS and SPS from the past two years, and our experience, Tt recommends
mitigating the GSS through re-grading the slope and installing a groundwater collection
system. The proposed grading includes 10-m wide benches at the 782 m, 792 m, and
802 m elevations (corresponding to Stage 1, 2, and 3 crest elevations) with 3:1 (H:V)
inter-bench angles. The proposed grading also includes a 15-m wide bench at the 807 m
(Stage 4) elevation. French drains, constructed at the toe of each inter-bench slope will
intercept groundwater and direct the flow to the facilities underdrain system. Positive
slope grading will direct surface water to drainage swales that will flow to the adjacent
geoweb-protected overliner channels.
In addition to mitigating the GSS, the re-grading of the slope also provides additional
storage capacity for the Soledad TSF.
The details of the GSS mitigation evaluation and grading recommendations are provided
in a Technical Memorandum dated 02 March 2011 (Tt). This memorandum is provided in
Attachment A.
2.2 North Borrow Exploitation

Stage 2 of the Soledad TSF requires significant fill volumes for the construction of the
embankment raise. Tt identified the slopes immediately northwest of the Stage 1 dam as
a potential borrow source for dam fill materials. In addition to providing the required dam
fill materials, the exploitation of the North Borrow also increases the storage capacity of
the Soledad TSF during Stages 2 through 4.
3
March 22, 2010
2.3 North Canyon Fill

The topography of the North Canyon is steep, with side slopes approaching 1:1 (H:V).
Due to this steep topography, benches for the tailings delivery line and liner anchor
trenches for Stages 2 and 3 of the Soledad TSF cannot be constructed, requiring lining
of the canyon to the 807 m (Stage 4) bench elevation.
In an effort to reduce the extents of geomembrane liner to be placed during the Stage 2
expansion of the Soledad TSF, provide an access bench for the tailings delivery pipeline
and Stage 2 anchor trench, and provide continuity of the Stage 2 bench around the north
side of the impoundment (at least to the decant), Tt recommends constructing a small
berm in the North Canyon. The small volume of storage capacity lost through the
construction of this berm is more than offset by the capacity gains provided by the
grading of the GSS and the exploitation of the North Borrow.
2.4 Impoundment Slope Grading

Impoundment grading was optimized to include benches at each stage of the facility,
where possible. This grading, consisting of both cut and fill, will minimize the extent liner
placement required during Stage 2 and subsequent expansions.
3.0 STAGE-STORAGE CURVE AND WATER BALANCE

3.1 Stage Storage Curve
Tt revised the stage-storage curve for the Soledad TSF based on recent impoundment
surveys, as-built surveys of the Stage 1 construction, and the proposed impoundment
grading. A comparison of the storage capacity given the proposed grading and the
original design grading are provided in Table 1.
Table 1 – Storage Capacity Summary

Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative
Stage Capacity at Capacity at Capacity Gained
Facility Elevation Original Design Proposed Grading Through Proposed
Stage (m) Grading (m3) (m3) Grading (m3)
2 792 1,341,670 1,439,800 98,130
3 802 2,578,945 2,809,115 230,170
4 807 3,386,140 3,680,990 294,850
The results indicate that positive (up to 294,850 cubic meters) of storage capacity gains
are provided based on the proposed Stage 2 grading.
The storage capacity curves for each grading condition are provided in Attachment B.
3.2 Water Balance

Tt updated the facility water balance based on up-dated tailings properties, proposed mill
output, and the capacity curves generated for both the original design grading and the
proposed grading. The results of the water balance updates are provided in Table 2.
4
March 22, 2010
Table 2 – Summary of Water Balance Results

Probable End-of-Life Storage Capacity
Stage Gained Through
Facility Elevation Original Design Proposed Grading
Stage (m) Grading Proposed Grading (months)
2 792 July 2014 February 2015 7
3 802 January 2020 January 2021 12
4 807 July 2023 October 2024 15
The water balance model results indicate that positive (up to 15 months) of storage
capacity gains are provided based on the proposed Stage 2 grading.
A technical memorandum documenting the updated water balance model is provided in

Attachment C.
4.0 IMPOUNDMENT LINER EXPANSION

4.1 Stage 1 Construction
The starter facility was constructed with a LLDPE geomembrane liner to elevation 782m
in the impoundment basin and the upstream face of the dam.
Due to the steep impoundment side slopes, staged clearing of the impoundment area
was considered impractical. Therefore, the ultimate impoundment area was cleared
during the construction of the starter dam. Due to the steep slopes and the intense
rainfall during the wet season, it was recommended that once the impoundment basin
slopes are cleared they should be lined in order to prevent erosion of the subgrade and
possible saturation and instability of the slopes. As a result, the Stage 1 design included
clearing and lining of the ultimate impoundment area to elevation 807m with two
intermediate anchor benches at elevations 782m and 792m. However, a decision was
made by AMPAC to clear the entire basin to elevation 807m but construct the liner to
elevation 782m during Stage 1 construction and extend the liner to 807m during Stage 2
construction. The intermediate anchor bench at elevation 792m was also eliminated by
AMPAC. Given the observed erosion and instability of the denuded slopes above the
installed liner, it is important to maintain strict surface water control and re-vegetate all
slopes that will not receive liner during Stage 2 construction.
4.2 Stage 2 Design Considerations

The liner selection for Stage 1 construction was based on several primary criteria
including UV resistance, tensile strength and elongation properties. Lining the entire
impoundment area early in the facility life poses particular design challenges. The upper
portions of the liner system will be exposed to weathering (UV radiation, wind uplift
forces, thermal expansion and contraction, etc.) for many years before being covered
with tailings. This exposure will reduce the tensile strength and elongation properties of
the liner over time. In addition, the liner subgrade is expected to experience some
differential settlement over time due to the difficulties involved in liner subgrade
5
March 22, 2010
preparation and compaction. To overcome these design challenges, 60 mil LLDPE

Textured (single sided) was selected for its high elongation properties, good resistance
to UV degradation, high puncture resistance, and high liner to subgrade friction angle
(textured side down).
This liner system has performed well for Stage 1 facility; however, extension of the liner
to Stage 2 liner limits poses particular design concerns and construction challenges that
require amendments to the existing liner system (LLDPE liner and 12-oz. non-woven
geotextile). Certain zones within the impoundment consist of rough or rocky subgrades
that require the inclusion of additional puncture resistance to the liner system.
Additionally, other zones of the impoundment require lining steep, blocky, limestone
slopes which necessitate additional liner elements to stabilize the slope and provide
additional puncture resistance. Furthermore, portions of the Stage 2 liner extents will be
deployed to elevations in excess of the Stage 2 crest elevation, 792 m. Those lined
areas will be exposed to weathering and will require additional protection from the
elements.
4.3 Stage 2 Liner Selection

In addition to LLDPE, alternative geomembrane materials were considered to address
the identified design considerations. The alternative geomembrane included polyvinyl
chloride (PVC), ethylene propylene diene terpolymer (EPDM), reinforced polypropylene
(RPP), and chlorosulfonated polyethylene (Hypalon).
Given the irregular slopes to be lined, high tensile strength and tearing resistance should
be the primary design criteria along with UV resistance, ease of deployment and
seaming/welding reliability on difficult terrain. Based on these design considerations,
LLDPE and RPP were identified as the preferred geomembrane liners.
Tt facilitated an on-site meeting with several geomembrane installers in January 2011.

The purpose of this meeting was to develop a comprehensive geotechnical design
solution that will result in a cost effective and environmentally compliant lining system
that can be installed safely and within the time constraints of the construction seasons of
Honduras. The meeting attendees performed a site walk to familiarize themselves with
the physical conditions of the Soledad TSF and participated in a discussion of potential
lining methods, including the designation of geomembrane type. Based on the project
design criteria, the outlined design considerations, the physical constraints of the site,
and the constructability of the system, LLDPE was selected as the liner of choice for the
following reasons:
 High tensile strength
 High tearing resistance
 Good UV resistance
 Lightweight compared to HDPE
 Pre-welded panels can be deployed, limiting welding on steep slopes
 Ability to weld directly to the existing liner system without the use of a complex
and un-proven mechanical connection.
6
March 22, 2010
4.4 Design Details and Construction Considerations

A survey of the slopes within the Soledad impoundment was completed in November
2010. The survey was conducted from the Stage 1 liner anchor bench at an elevation of
782 meters. The slopes were evaluated in 25-meter stationing along the 782 bench.
Stationing is measured clockwise around the impoundment starting with 0+000 at the
south abutment of the embankment.
Based on the slope survey, each section of the impoundment was classified according to
the relative slope treatment/lining section required. Each section was classified as either
liner Zone 1, 2, or 3. Zone 1 represents slopes that require minimal slope grading and
may be lined using conventional liner sections (prepared soil subgrade, geotextile, and
geomembrane liner. Zone 2 represents sections of the impoundment with steeper slopes
(greater than 1.5:1) and/or occasional rock outcrops that require additional subgrade
preparation prior to liner installation. Zone 3 represents those portions of the
impoundment with exposed, near vertical rock slopes that require significant subgrade
preparation and unconventional lining technology.
4.4.1 Subgrade Preparation

Subgrade preparation requirements and methods are similar for each of the zones and
include, but are not limited to, the following:
 Clearing and grubbing.
 Grading to stabilize slopes and remove abrupt irregularities.
 Removal of large rocks near the surface.
Surface preparation activities in Zone 3 will also include the following:

 Cleaning and scaling of loose rock from behind the existing chain link fence.
 Removal of failed rock bolts.
 Repairing damaged sections of the existing chain link fence.
 Rock bolting in preparation for the installation of a permanent, active rockfall
retention system.
Final approval of the liner subgrade preparation methods and final surface is required by
a Tt representative in the field during construction.
4.4.2 Proposed Liner Sections
It is anticipated that lining of Zones 1 and 2 may be accomplished with conventional

lining methodologies. Portions of Zone 2 may require additional subgrade preparation
and liner protection. However, a complete geotechnical solution is required for Zone 3
that incorporates slope stabilization and lining technologies coupled with efficient
construction methods.
Descriptions of the general liner sections developed for each of the zones follow.
Zone 1
The liner section for Zone 1 consists of the following:

7
March 22, 2010
1. Prepared soil subgrade

2. 12-oz. non-woven geotextile
3. 60-mil LLDPE geomembrane, single textured
Zone 2

1. Liner subgrade (compacted soil, sandbags, etc.)
2. 32-oz. non-woven geotextile
Zone 3

1. Prepared subgrade (as discussed previously)
2. Tensar MineGrid 200x200 rock fall fencing
3. Skaps TN220 Geocomposite (with 8 oz-geotextile)
The proposed liner sections should be supplemented with a sacrificial 6-oz, non-woven
geotextile for additional UV protection for all liner installed above the Stage 2 crest
elevation (792 m.).
4.5 Overliner Protection

An overliner protection system was incorporated into the Stage 2 design to mitigate
against potential future liner damage from basin run-on flows. The design parameters
for the system include:
 Providing protection of the geomembrane liner within the flow area during the
peak flow during the 50% PMP storm event, plus 0.5 meters of freeboard.
 Providing protection for the overdrain system (filter strips and collection
pipework) and not disrupt their operation.
 Remaining stable under self-weight with an appropriate factor of safety against
traction failure without anchorage.
 Providing hard durable liner protection against potential debris flow damage.
 Being constructible over the installed geomembrane with reasonable assurance
of no damage to the liner during construction.
The preferred option for overliner protection is concrete-filled Geoweb cells. This
material has been successfully deployed within the Stage 1 facility and has performed
satisfactorily. Tt recommends the continued use of this product in future stages of the
Soledad TSF.
Details concerning the design and construction of the Geoweb overliner system are
documented in the original Stage 2 design letter (Tt, 2007).
8
March 22, 2010
4.6 Decommissioning of the Overdrain System

The Soledad overdrain system was designed to provide a drainage layer underlying the
tailings to expedite consolidation and reduce the potential for hydraulic head build-up
adjacent to the liner, as detailed in the following paragraphs from the Final Design
Report for the tailings facility (VCL, 2004):
“In order to reduce the head against the geomembrane liner, and thereby
minimize seepage losses, a liner overdrain system consisting of
geocomposite strip drains and perforated pipes was designed to collect
and covey seepage fluids to a sump located at the upstream toe of the
embankment. Seepage collected from the liner overdrain will be returned
to the surface of the impoundment via a pump system...
Design of the overdrain system was based on results of computer

modeling to simulate the filling and ongoing consolidation process of the
tailings. The computer program FSCONSOL was utilized for this design
task. The model assumed a doubly drained condition to simulate a
continuous drainage boundary below the tailings mass. The results of the
model were used to determine the required strip drain spacing. An
iterative process was used to vary the spacing until a fully double drained
condition was achieved ...”
The overdrain sump, as designed, provides approximately 42 cubic meters of total

volume. Assuming an average porosity of 40 percent for gravel, the sump provides
approximately 16.8 cubic meters of water storage.
A series of pump tests were performed in September 2009 and again in November
2010. The pump tests were conducted by AMPAC personnel. The following conclusions
may be drawn from the pump test results:
 The system is currently functioning, but at a diminished capacity than originally
designed.
 The capacity of the overdrain collection sump has decreased from 16.8 m3 to
approximately 1.3 m3 over the life of the facility.
 Recharge of the available capacity of the collection sump is achieved within 24-
hours.
Wheras the overdrain is currently operating at approximately 7 percent of the originally

available capacity, it is Tt’s opinion that the performance of the overdrain system will
condition to diminish over the coming years. Furthermore, with its reduced capacity and
flux rates, the overdrain system no longer effectively provides the drainage conditions
necessary to perform its original design intent nor will the expansion of the system in
future phases of TSF development provide for accelerated tailings consolidation or the
reduction of head pressures on the facility liner. Therefore, Tt recommends the
decommissioning of the overdrain system. As such, the sump discharge pipes should be
sealed during the construction of Stage 2 of the Soledad TSF.
9
March 22, 2010
Strict tailings management must be employed to ensure tailings are beached on the
facility liner and maximum free water depths within the impoundment are not exceeded.
A technical memorandum detailing the performance evaluation of the Soledad overdrain

system is provided in Attachment D.
5.0 STAGE 2 DAM RAISE

5.1 Stage 1 Construction
The starter dam was constructed with an upstream clay “seal zone” and geomembrane
liner. The original design incorporates extension of these materials to the ultimate dam
height with staged construction using downstream methods.
5.2 Stage 2 Design Considerations

Due to the apparent lack of seal zone materials in the Soledad basin, the original stage 2
design letter (Tt, 2007) included the termination of the seal zone and sand chimney drain
at the Stage 1 crest elevation and its replacement in the Stage 2 dam raise with a
geocomposite drain layer and double geomembrane liner system.
The area of the GSS was identified as a potential borrow source for clay during the
feasibility study and subsequent Stage 1 design of the Soledad TSF (VCL, 2003).
Whereas it is proposed to re-grade the GSS, the clay materials excavated from the site
could be used for the construction of a clay seal zone in the dam raise. Based on the
probable availability of clay materials and the high costs associated with a double
geomembrane plus geocomposite drainage layer system, Tt recommends constructing
the Stage 2 dam raise as originally proposed in the Soledad TSF design report (VCL,
2004) with a clay seal zone and a sand chimney drain.
5.3 Engineering Analysis

Tt evaluated the geotechnical performance of the Stage 2 dam using seepage and
stability models of the maximum dam section based on the proposed changes to the
liner system (i.e. return to single liner system underlain by a seal zone and sand
chimney drain).
5.3.1 Geotechnical Modeling

A coupled seepage/stability model was evaluated using SEEP/W and SLOPE/W
programs developed by GEO-SLOPE International, Ltd. SEEP/W is a general seepage
analysis program that models both saturated and unsaturated flow using soil water
characteristic curves (SWCC) and user defined boundary conditions. The program
requires that a finite element mesh be generated, material properties assigned, and
boundary conditions selected. SLOPE/W utilizes the pore pressure data from the
SEEP/W model and incorporates search routines to determine the critical, lowest factor
of safety failure surface. The analyses were performed on the critical two-dimensional
cross-section of the embankment using the method of slices to solve both force and
moment equilibrium. The program evaluates the available shearing resistance on the
basis of Mohr-Coulomb failure criteria.
10
March 22, 2010
Table 2 summarizes the material properties applied to the geotechnical models.
Table 2 – Material Property Summary

Coefficient of
Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Hydraulic
Material (kN/m3) (kN/m2) Angle (deg.) Conductivity (cm/s)
Seal Zone 19.6 14.4 23 2.5x10-6
Sand Filter 22.8 0 25 4.3x10-4
Structural Fill 22 0 30 2.0x10-6
Gravel Underdrain 19.6 0 38 4.3x10-4
Foundation Soils 21.2 26.3 31 7.0x10-8
Bedrock Impenetrable 7.0x10-8
To add a degree of conservatism to the geotechnical models, a ruptured liner condition

(assuming a 1m2 hole in the liner) was applied to the seepage model. The increased
seepage through the rupture would result in a slightly elevated phreatic level in the dam,
decreasing the shear strength of the embankment materials.
A static slope stability analysis was used to determine the factor of safety against critical
failure of the design section under the absence of externally applied forces (i.e. no
earthquake). This factor of safety is calculated as the sum of the forces resisting failure
divided by the sum of the forces driving failure. Resisting forces are primarily driven by
the internal strength of embankment materials, whereas driving forces are primarily the
result of self-weight and the phreatic surface.
The stability of the dam under seismic loading conditions was evaluated using a
simplified deformation process. The seismic design criteria, as documented in the
original design report (VCL, 2004), require design for a peak ground acceleration of
0.46g associated with a maximum credible earthquake of magnitude 6.1 occurring along
the fault comprising the eastern margin of the Lago de Yojoa Graben. The
methodologies used in the analysis are outlined in an Earthquake Engineering Research
Report (EERC) entitled “A Simplified Procedure for Estimating Earthquake-Induced
Deformations in Dams and Embankments” (Makdisi and Seed, 1977) as well papers
entitled “Earthquake Induced Ground Displacments” (Ambraseys and Menu, 1988),
“Permanent Displacements of Earth Embankments by Newmark Sliding Block Analysis”
(Franklin and Chang, 1977), “Rationalizing the Seismic Coefficient Method” (Hynes-
Griffin and Franklin, 1984), and “Embankment Dam Deformations Caused by
Earthquakes” (Swaisgood, 2003).
5.3.2 Results
The geotechnical model results indicate that the Stage 2 dam is stable under static
conditions, even with the conservative assumption of a ruptured liner. The calculated
factor of safety under operating conditions is 1.59. The results of the seepage and
stability models are provided in Attachment E.
11
March 22, 2010
The results of the simplified seismic deformation analysis are summarized in Table 3.
Table 3 – Results of Simplified Deformation Models

Estimated Vertical
Dam Crest
Method Deformation (cm)
Ambrayses and Menu <10
Franklin and Chang <10
Hynes-Griffen and Franklin <10
Swaisgood 10
The simplified deformation results indicate that minor permanent deformation will occur
as the result of the design earthquake in the Lago de Yojoa graben. However, these
displacements are considered acceptable provided the required freeboard of 1m
(minimum) is maintained within the tailings impoundment.
6.0 CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS AND QUANTITIES

Tt has prepared construction documents, including construction-level drawings and
technical specifications, for the earthworks/grading and geomembrane lining associated
with the Stage 2 expansion of the Soledad TSF. These construction documents are
issued under separate covers. Estimated construction quantities for Stage 2 are
presented on the respective drawing sets.
7.0 LIMITATIONS
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of AMPAC and Breakwater
Resources for specific application to the area within this report. Any use which a third
party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions made based on it, are the
responsibility of such third parties. Tetra Tech accepts no responsibility for damages, if
any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this
report. It has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted engineering
practices. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made.
Sincerely,
Tetra Tech
Jared Purdy, P.E.

Senior Geotechnical Engineer
12
March 22, 2010
Attachments: References
Attachment A: Technical Memorandum – GSS Mitigation
Attachment B: Storage Capacity Curves
Attachment C: Technical Memorandum – Up-dated Water Balance
Attachment D: Technical Memorandum – Soledad Overdrain
Decommissioning
Attachment E: Seepage and Stability Model Results
13
REFERENCES
Ambraseys, N.N. and J.M. Menu, 1988. Earthquake Induced Ground Displacements.
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 16. John Wiley and
Sons, Ltd.
Franklin, A.G. and F.K. Chang, 1977. Earthquake Resistance of Earth and Rockfill
Dams. Miscellaneous Paper S-71-17, US Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg,
Mississippi.
Hynes-Griffin, Mary Ellen and Arley G. Franklin, 1984. Rationalizing the Seismic
Coefficient Method, Miscellaneous Paper GL-84-13, US Army Corps of
Engineers, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Makdisi, F.I. and H.B. Seed, 1977. “A simplified Procedure fir Estimating Earthquake-
Induced deformations in Dams and Embankments.” Report No. 77/19,
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley.
Swaisgood, J.R., 2003. “Embankment Dam Deformations caused by Earthquakes.”
2003 Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering, New Zealand Society of
Earthquake Engineers, Canterbury, Chrsitchurch, New Zealand.
Tt, 2007. “El Mochito Soledad Tailings Facility – Stage 2 Design Engineering,” letter
prepared for Breakwater Resources Ltd., dated 09 February 2007.
Tt, 2008. “Guard Shack Slide Mitigation Report.” Report prepared for Breakwater
Resources Ltd., dated December 2008.
VCL, 2003. “Mina El Mochito – New Tailings Facility, Feasibility Design Report.” Report
prepared for Breakwater Resources Ltd., dated August 2003.
VCL, 2004. “Mina El Mochito – Soledad Tailings Disposal Facility, Final Design Report.”
Report prepared for Breakwater Resources Ltd., dated September 2004.
VCL, 2005. “Soledad Tailings Disposal Facility – Stage 1 Construction Interim Report.”
Report prepared for AMPAC, dated 29 June 2005.
VCL, 2006. “Soledad Tailings Dam – Phase 1 Final Construction Report.” Report
prepared for AMPAC, dated July 2006.
ATTACHMENT A
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – GSS MITIGATION
350 Indiana Street, Suite 500
Golden, CO 80401
Tel (303) 217-5700 Fax (303) 217-5705
www.tetratech.com
Technical Memorandum
To: Scott Douglas From: Jiny Carrera and Jared Purdy

Company: Breakwater Resources, Ltd. Date: 02 March 2011
Re: Soledad – Guard Shack Slide (GSS) Project #: 114-290129
Mitigation Recommendations
CC: Matt Fuller (Tt), Troy Meyer (Tt)
1.0 Introduction
Whereas, construction of Stage 2 of the Soledad tailings storage facility (TSF) will require lining the
toe of the Guard Shack Slide (GSS) and future movement of the GSS will likely result in significant
operational and environmental consequences, Breakwater Resources, Ltd. (Breakwater) requested
Tetra Tech (Tt) to provide a mitigation solution for the GSS.
A thorough description of the GSS as well as mitigation options are provided in the Guard Shack
Slide Mitigation Report prepared by Tt (2008). In that report, Tt identified strict surface water control
and the construction of a toe buttress as the most positive means of mitigating future movement of
the landslide (refer to Table 3.5 in the referenced report). Slope re-grading was considered Option 2
based on the original screening process due to the fact that it was believed that re-grading could
potential result in a higher risk of future movement of adjacent slopes when compared with the
construction of a toe buttress. However, the removal of fill from the Stockpile slide (SPS) and the
slope monitoring data collected over the past two years indicate that whereas the GSS has continued
to experience slope movement, no movement has occurred along the SPS. Therefore, it is currently
believed that the two slides are independent and the risk of future movement of the SPS was largely
mitigated through the removal of the stockpiled soils.
In conjunction with the design of Stage 2 of the Soledad TSF, Tt reviewed the available options for
mitigating the GSS detailed in the referenced report. The construction of Stage 2 of the Soledad TSF
requires significant fill volumes for the construction of the embankment raise, including clay for use
as a seal zone material. The area of the GSS was identified as a potential borrow source for clay
during the feasibility study and subsequent Stage1 design of the Soledad TSF (VCL, 2003). Due to
current material needs, it is preferable to mitigate the GSS through re-grading rather than the
construction of a toe buttress which would require the exploitation of another borrow source.
Technical Memorandum Page 2
Based on construction material needs for the Soledad embankment, slope performance data for the
GSS and SPS from the past two years, and our experience, Tt recommends mitigating the GSS
through re-grading the slope and installing a groundwater collection system.
Tt evaluated the GSS re-grading mitigation option in a two-fold process: first, a back analysis was
conducted to determine the shear strength properties of the slip surface in the GSS under current
conditions and second, the results of the back analysis were utilized in the stability analyses
conducted to evaluate potential grading options.
The cross section (A-A’) utilized in the stability analysis was cut across the most critical section of the
GSS. The soil and bedrock stratigraphy applied to the critical section is based on the results of a
geotechnical investigation performed in September 2008 and the drilling performed for the
installation of an inclinometer in the GSS area in March 2010.
2.0 Design Criteria

There are no published design criteria for landslide stabilization. Conventional design criteria applied
to the design of fill slopes, dams, or any slope that has not yet experienced failure inherently include
conservatism to account for the lack of understanding about material properties, location of a
potential slip surface, shape of the potential slip surface, future ground water conditions, etc. When
these design criteria are applied to the analysis of an existing landslide, they tend to be overly
conservative when applied to a landslide for the following reasons:
 The location and geometry of the landslide can be determined.
 The groundwater conditions can be evaluated.
 The factor of safety for a landslide may be considered 1.0 at the start of landslide
movement.
 A back-analysis can be performed to determine the material strengths of the failure surface.
Provided that a geotechnical evaluation of the landslide is conducted and the information in the list
above is known, then the landslide and potential remediation measures may be designed with a
higher degree of reliability than can a conventional slope. Subsequently, design criteria with lower
factors of safety are applicable.
Current technical consensus for the selection of an appropriate factor of safety for landslide
mitigation is based on site-specific variables, including the type of landslide movement, the level of
study performed, the size of the landslide, the potential consequences of future instability, and the
experience of the geotechnical consultant(s) involved (Cornforth, 2005). A qualitative over-view of
the selection process is shown in Table 1.
GSS Mitigation 02 March 2011 Project No. 114-290129

Table 1: Qualitative Design Criteria Selection Criteria
Factor of Safety Should be Relatively
Variable Higher (FS≈1.5) Lower (FS≈1.15)
Type of Landslide Movement Very fast Very Slow
Level of Study Performed Minimal Sophisticated
Size of Landslide Small Large
Potential Consequences of Future Instability Very Significant Insignificant
Experience of Geotechnical Consultant(s) Limited Very Experienced
The GSS is considered a slow-moving, medium sized landslide with significant consequences of
failure (for failure consequences, refer to the draft Geologic Hazard Risk Assessment for the El
Mochito Mine currently under preparation by Stantec). Tt conducted a moderate level of study of the
landslide, including multiple borings, an inclinometer, soil sampling, and groundwater readings.
Additionally, Tt is very experienced in dealing with landslides occurring in tropical regions. A
thorough description of the GSS as well as the primary geotechnical investigation are detailed in the
GSS Mitigation Report (Tt, 2008).
Based on the site-specific conditions, geotechnical investigations, Tt’s experience, and the
qualitative selection criteria discussed in Table 1, Tt selected a factor of safety of 1.4 for static
loading conditions and 1.0 for pseudo-static loading conditions. The more conservative nature of the
static factor of safety selected is largely a function of the potential consequences of future instability.
The selected engineering design criteria are summarized in Table 2.
Table 2: Selected Engineering Design Criteria
Criteria Value
Static Factor of Safety 1.4
Pseudo-Static Factor of Safety 1.0
Pseudo-Static Ground Acceleration 0.18g
3.0 Methods of Analysis

The seepage and stability analyses were conducted on a two-dimensional cross section of the GSS
using Slope/W component of GeoStudio 2007 by Geo-Slope International, Ltd (1991). Potential
failure surfaces utilized the General Limit Equilibrium (GLE) method, which satisfies both force and
moment equilibrium. The Slope/W program incorporates a search routine to locate those failure
surfaces with the least factor of safety within user defined search limits. The failure surfaces were
defined with the block specified parameters, resulting in a range of possible locations to search for
the most critical (lowest factor of safety) potential failure surface. Analyses were performed using the
Mohr-Coulomb failure criteria for the materials.
Pseudo-static analyses were also performed to evaluate the performance of the slide under seismic
conditions. Pseudo-static analyses subject the two-dimensional sliding mass to a horizontal
acceleration equal to an earthquake coefficient multiplied by the acceleration of the gravity. The
horizontal seismic load used for the pseudo-static evaluations was 0.18g.
Static and pseudo-static conditions were used to evaluate the selected maximum cross section of
the GSS.
4.0 GSS Cross Section
4.1 Existing Conditions

The GSS is an existing landslide located at the southwest corner of the Soledad TSF. The slide mass
is approximately 95 m wide by 100 m along the slope, with an approximate volume of 62,800 m3.
The subsurface materials encountered during the drilling programs performed during September
2008 (Tt, 2008) and March 2010, are described as clay, decomposed shale, shale and bedrock.
During drilling, a shear plane in the slide was encountered between 15 to 17 meters below the
existing ground surface, corresponding to the interface between weathered shale and competent
shale bedrock. An inclinometer installed in the GSS area on March 2010 was pinched at
approximately 15 meters below ground, further indicating the presence of a shear plane at that
location. No readings are being currently taken at this inclinometer, since it sheared off sometime
after the last reading (28 May 2010).
Phreatic conditions utilized in the stability analyses for the existing conditions are based on
measurements collected in the field.
4.2 Proposed Grading

In order to improve the stability of the GSS area, a proposed re-graded configuration was developed.
The re-graded cross section consists of removing most of the decomposed shale material from the
landslide. The proposed configuration consists of benching the re-graded slope at specific elevations
corresponding to Soledad Stage 1 (782m), 2 (792m), 3 (802m), and 4(807m) crest elevations. Each
of the benches will be 10 meters wide, with the exception of the bench at elevation 807 being 15
meters wide to facilitate future construction work. The intra-bench slopes are 3H:1V.
The proposed mitigation measures also include the installation of a groundwater collection system
along each of the benches to intercept water and direct it to the Soledad under drain system (this is
described in greater detail in Section 8.0). The phreatic level used in the stability analyses for the re-
graded slopes is based on the assumption that the groundwater collection system is installed and
operating. Lower factors of safety will result if the system is not installed.
5.0 Material Properties

The material properties used in the stability analysis were based on previous reports (VCL, 2003)
and experience with similar materials. It is important to note that the material properties used in the
VCL report did not include drilling or laboratory testing of the soils in the GSS area, so representative
data were chosen based on data available for similar materials.
A back analysis was performed to calculate the shear strength along the failure surface. The back
analysis was performed based on the known failure surface geometry (developed based on the
location of the landslide head scarp, toe, inclinometer readings, slip surfaces observed in the borings
drilled, and groundwater conditions). The shear strength of the slip surface was varied until a factor
of safety of approximately 1.0 was achieved for the current slope configuration. Mitigation options
were then evaluated using a stability model that included the known slip surface and its
corresponding shear strength.
The material properties used in the analyses are summarized in Table 3.
Table 3: Material Properties
Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Angle

Material (kN/m3) (kPa) (degrees) Source
Decomposed Shale 19 15 22 VCL, 2003
Shale 22 0 28 VCL, 2003
Slip Surface 19 0 24 Back Analysis
Bedrock Impenetrable NA
6.0 Results
The slope stability results indicate that the proposed mitigation re-grading of the GSS improves the
factors of safety to comply with the minimum design criteria established for this landslide. Results of
the stability analysis are presented in Table 4. The corresponding stability figures are attached to this
document.
Table 4: Slope Stability Results
Factor of Safety
Case
Static Pseudo-static
Actual 0.97 0.62
Proposed 1.88 1.01
It is important to note that the stability of the GSS mitigation will ameliorate with time as the Soledad
TSF continues to operate and deposited tailings buttress the toe of the slope, providing additional
forces restraining slope movement.
7.0 Effect of Mitigation on Adjacent Slopes

Initial investigations of the GSS indicated that its movement may be coincident with the Stockpile
Slide (SPS) located up-slope (i.e. the GSS and SPS represent a single, compound retrogressive slope
failure). However, since movement in the SPS was first recorded in 2008, AMPAC has removed the
majority of the fill from the stockpile. Also notable is that whereas the GSS has continued to move
over the past two years there is no evidence of movement in the area of the SPS.
The proposed grading of the GSS will remove a significant portion of the slide mass as well as native
soils immediately adjacent to the slide mass. Tt does not anticipate that the proposed grading will
undermine the stability of the adjacent slopes, most notable the SPS. Care should be taken during
grading operations to disturb as little of the natural slopes and vegetation outside the limits of the
GSS to reduce the potential for future slope instability resulting from slope de-nudement, increased
erosion, and surface water run-on/run-off.
8.0 Additional Mitigation Recommendations

Ground water is one of the primary contributors to movement associated with the GSS. The
additional hydrostatic pressures increase the driving forces within the landslide and saturate the slip
surface, reducing the shear strength of the materials. The mitigation of the GSS should include both
surface and subsurface drainage measures to reduce the impact of water on the stability of the
slope. We recommend positive surface water drainage off of the GSS to prevent ponding and
infiltration. We further recommend the installation of French drains on each bench of the proposed
grading to intercept ground water and divert it to the under drain system of the Soledad TSF.
Whereas no measurement of the groundwater flows currently exists, the design of the French drain
system should be consistent with the design of the secondary under drain system designed for the
Soledad TSF. The benefit of the French drain system lies in its ability to transport water through both
the perforated pipe and the encapsulating granular media.
Tt anticipates the design of the French drain system provided in the Stage 2 earthworks (grading)
construction documents will provide sufficient drainage capacity from within the GSS mitigation area
and will not overwhelm the adjacent under drain system to which it will connect as the under drain
system already carries the groundwater flow originating from within the GSS mitigation area.
9.0 Mitigation Design

The mitigation design recommendations proposed in this memorandum will be incorporated into the
Soledad, Stage 2 earthworks (grading) construction documents.
10.0 References
Cornforth, D.K. (2005). Landslides in Practice: Investigation, Analysis, and
Remedial/Preventative Options in Soils. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New Jersey, USA.
Tetra Tech (2008). El Mochito Guard Shack Slide – Geotechnical Investigation Report. Report
prepared for Breakwater Resources, Ltd. November 12, 2008.
Vector Colorado, LLC (2003). Mina El Mochito New Tailings Facility Feasibility Design Report.
Report prepared for Breakwater Resources, Ltd. 2003.

EL MOCHITO - SOLEDAD
Guard Shack Slide
860
Method: GLE
Slip Surface Option: Block
840
Phreatic 0.97
Surface
Name: Shale
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
INC-10-01
820 Decomposed Shale Unit Weight: 22 kN/m³
Cohesion: 0 kPa
Phi: 28 °
SDD-1
Elevation (m)
Shale
Name: Bedrock
SDD-4
800 Bedrock Model: Bedrock (Impenetrable)
Name: Decomposed Shale

Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 19 kN/m³
780 Cohesion: 15 kPa
Phi: 22 °
Name: Slip Surface

Model: Mohr-Coulomb
760
Cohesion: 0 kPa
Phi: 24 °
740
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
Distance (m)
Guard Shack Slide
860
Method: GLE
Horz Seismic Load: 0.18
840
Phreatic 0.62
Surface
Name: Shale
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
INC-10-01
820 Decomposed Shale Unit Weight: 22 kN/m³
Cohesion: 0 kPa
Phi: 28 °
SDD-1
Elevation (m)
Shale
Name: Bedrock
SDD-4
Name: Decomposed Shale

Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Phi: 22 °
Name: Slip Surface

Model: Mohr-Coulomb
760
Cohesion: 0 kPa
Phi: 24 °
740
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
Distance (m)
Guard Shack Slide
860
Method: GLE
840
Phreatic
Surface Existing Ground 1.88
Name: Shale
Surface
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
INC-10-01
820 Unit Weight: 22 kN/m³
3H:1V Cohesion: 0 kPa
Phi: 28 °
SDD-1
Elevation (m)
Shale 15 m 807 m
10 m 802 m Name: Bedrock
SDD-4
10 m 792 m
Decomposed Shale Name: Decomposed Shale
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
10 m 782 m Unit Weight: 19 kN/m³
Phi: 22 °
Name: Slip Surface

Model: Mohr-Coulomb
760
Cohesion: 0 kPa
Phi: 24 °
740
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
Distance (m)
Guard Shack Slide
860
Method: GLE
840
Phreatic
Surface Existing Ground 1.01
Name: Shale
Surface
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
INC-10-01
820 Unit Weight: 22 kN/m³
3H:1V Cohesion: 0 kPa
Phi: 28 °
SDD-1
Elevation (m)
Shale 15 m 807 m
10 m 802 m Name: Bedrock
SDD-4
10 m 792 m
Decomposed Shale Name: Decomposed Shale
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
10 m 782 m Unit Weight: 19 kN/m³
Phi: 22 °
Name: Slip Surface

Model: Mohr-Coulomb
760
Cohesion: 0 kPa
Phi: 24 °
740
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
Distance (m)
ATTACHMENT B
STORAGE CAPACITY CURVE
ATTACHMENT C
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – UP-DATED WATER
BALANCE
136 East South Temple, Suite 910
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Tel (801) 364-1064 Fax (801) 364-2021
www.tetratech.com
To: Scott Douglas From: Gene Bosley

Company: Breakwater Resources, Ltd. Date: April 11, 2011
Re: El Mochito Mine Soledad TSF Water Project #: 114-290129
Balance (Graded and Existing Basins)
CC: Troy Meyer (Tt), Matt Fuller (Tt), Jared
Purdy (Tt)
As part of the design for the Stage 2 dam raise for the Soledad tailings facility at the El Mochito
Mine, Tetra Tech produced two water balances to assist in the operational planning of the facility,
and to evaluate the effects of basin grading. The first water balance (“Existing Basin”) was
developed based on the May 2010 facility survey and additional surveys received in February 2011,
and represents conditions at the facility if future dam raises are performed, but no additional in-
basin grading is undertaken. The second water balance was for the “Graded Basin” based on the
grading plan for the future stages of the facility (Stage 2 Earthwork plan set). The water balances
were used to predict monthly pool and tailings levels and were compared to determine the effects
the basin grading had on the life of the facility.
Each water balance computes the inflows, outflows, and accumulated tailings and water volumes for
each month to determine the remaining available storage as well as the required dam crest
elevation. The current water balance models were created by modifying the water balance and risk
analysis spreadsheet that was produced in June 2010 for the facility to help determine the
probability of failure due to a storm event in a given month. The June 2010 water balance was
expanded to compute values through the end of facility life (Stage 4, dam crest elevation 807m), to
facilitate comparison with the updated water balances.
Available Data
Available data included the following:
 Site survey, completed in May 2010,
 Tailings deposition rates provided by mine in March 2011,
 Tailings properties from mine received in March 2011,
 Existing risk analysis and water balance spreadsheet,

 Additional site survey received in February 2011, and
 Future stage-area-capacity tables based on grading design prepared in AutoCAD Civil 3D, as
depicted in Soledad Tailings Facility, Stage 2 Earthwork, Revision 0, issued February 18,
2011.
Water Balance Development

The risk analysis and water balance spreadsheet from 2010 was updated to reflect current
conditions. The risk analysis portion was not modified. The water balance included the following
components, all tracked monthly:
 Inflows – whole and desanded tailings solids, slurry water, precipitation, and upland runoff,
 Outflows – evaporation, decant (sufficient to maintain 45,000 m3 pool), reclaim (assumed to

be zero),
 Storage – Tailings solids, entrained water, free water, and
 Required Crest Elevation (sufficient to store accumulated tailings, 45,000 m3 operational

pool, and runoff from the half-PMP with 1 meter of residual freeboard).
Updated values for inflow rates and slurry water content for whole and desanded tailings were
provided by the mine in March 2011 and are listed below in Table 1.
Table 1. March 2011 Soledad Tailings Facility Input Values
Input Description Unit Value
Annual Tonnes Milled (Dry Weight Basis) Tonnes/Year 738,022
Mass Pull of Concentrates % 12%
Fraction to Sand Backfill operation % 40%
Specific Gravity of Whole Tails NA 3.2
Percent Solids of Whole Tails % 35%
Whole Tails Volume as a Percent of Total Tailings to Tailings Facility % 60%
Specific Gravity of Slimes NA 3.6
Percent Solids of Slimes % 17%
Slimes as a Percent of Total Tailings to Tailings Facility % 40%
Resultant Total Tailings Production (Dry Solids) Tonnes/day 1,779
Resultant Tailings Directed to Sand Backfill (Dry Solids) Tonnes/day 712
Resultant Total Tailings Deposition Rate to Facility (Dry Solids) Tonnes/day 1,067
The previously-used dry density of 1.68 tonnes/m3 was retained for the current analysis. The design
values above were used to determine the average daily tonnage of whole tailings and slimes to be
deposited in the facility. The daily production rates and material properties were then used to
calculate the volume of the entrained water, supernatant water, and deposited solids on a monthly
basis.
The additional storage capacity required in the basin for upland runoff was computed based on a
failed condition for the existing diversions at the facility; with runoff volumes computed using the
Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Curve Number (CN) method and a half-PMP
El Mochito – Soledad Water Balance April 2011 Project No.114-290129

(Probable Maximum Precipitation) storm event. The following Curve Numbers (adjusted to
Antecedent Moisture Condition 3) were used for the model:
 CN = 98 for disturbed areas (area located between diversion and existing liner limits)
 CN = 89 forested areas (areas above the existing diversions)

Pond evaporation was computed from the pool surface area and updated average monthly pan
evaporation from the site, with a pan coefficient of 0.72. Monthly decant volume was computed
iteratively to maintain a 45,000 m3 free water pool, while reclaim was assumed to be zero.
Elevation-area-volume tables were developed with the use of Civil3D for tracking variations in tailings
storage as the impoundment fills. Tables were developed for various tailings beach elevations, along
with the stage storage data for the respective empty (before tailings deposition) basin contour data
for each of the basins modeled. The variations in tailings storage in the tables for each model were
developed by assuming a one percent tailings beach slope away from the upstream dam face, and
developing a new tailings surface at successive elevations. The water balance computes the surface
area and elevation of both tailings and free water by interpolating within the resulting tables. For
each month the required dam crest elevation is calculated based on the total volumes for tailings,
free water, and half-PMP runoff volume plus one meter of freeboard. The timeline for the stage
raises and total life of the facility was determined for each of the models based on the required dam
crest elevations. Figures 1 and 2 show the accumulation of tailings and water in the facility, along
with the decant volumes and estimated stage raise timeline for the Existing Basin and the Graded
Basin, respectively, under the current analysis.
For comparison, below is listed the input data for each successive water balance:
Previous Analysis – June 2010 Water Balance:
 Deposition rate 869 tonnes/day (dry solids)
 Total facility volume = 3,416,803 m3 (airspace at elevation 807m)
 Existing aerial topo plus May 2010 facility survey
 No benches included in projected future dam raises
 Future embankment upstream slopes graded at preliminary slope of 2:1 (H:V) not at the
(2.3:1) (H:V) used in the final design
Existing/Ungraded Basin – 2011 Analysis
 Deposition rate 1,067 tonnes/day (dry solids)
 New topo data from 2011 surveys of GSS and north abutment area incorporated into surface
 Julio Canal topo survey incorporated into surface (adding this reduced the facility volume vs.
the 2010 analysis, unlike other 2011 survey data - GSS and north abutment area)
 Embankment side slopes at 2.3:1 (H:V)

 Dam centerline shifted to allow for 1 meter bench at each stage
 Basin grading not included.
Graded Basin – 2011 Analysis
 Deposition rate 1,067 tonnes/day (dry solids)
 New topo data from 2011 incorporated into surface
 Julio Canal topo survey incorporated into surface (adding this reduced the facility volume vs.
the 2010 analysis, unlike other 2011 survey data - GSS and north abutment area)
 Embankment side slopes at 2.3:1 (H:V)
 Dam centerline shifted to allow for 1 meter bench at each stage
 Basin grading for future stages incorporated into surface.

Soledad Tailings Storage Facility - Existing / Ungraded Basin Mass Balance Results
810 300,000
Stage 4 Dam Crest = 807m
805
250,000
800
Dry Tailings Mass (tonnes x 10)

795 200,000
Water Volume (m^3)

Elevation (m)
790
150,000
785

780 100,000
775
50,000
770
765 0
May-10 Oct-10 May-11 Nov-11 May-12 Nov-12 May-13 Nov-13 May-14 Nov-14 May-15 Nov-15 May-16 Nov-16 May-17 Nov-17 May-18 Nov-18 May-19 Nov-19 May-20 Nov-20 May-21 Nov-21 May-22 Nov-22 May-23
Time
Tails Elev. at Dam Face Water Pool Elev. Min. Required Dam Crest Elev.
Actual Dam Crest Elev. Water Pool Volume Decant Volume
Figure 1. Existing/Ungraded Basin Mass Balance

Soledad Tailings Storage Facility - Graded Basin Mass Balance Results

810 300,000
805
250,000
800
Dry Tailings Mass (tonnes x 10)

795 200,000
Water Volume (m )
3
Elevation (m)
790
150,000
785

780 100,000
775
50,000
770
765 0
May-10 Oct-10 May-11 Nov-11 May-12 Nov-12 May-13 Nov-13 May-14 Nov-14 May-15 Nov-15 May-16 Nov-16 May-17 Nov-17 May-18 Nov-18 May-19 Nov-19 May-20 Nov-20 May-21 Nov-21 May-22 Nov-22 May-23 Nov-23 May-24
Time
Tails Elev. at Dam Face Water Pool Elev. Min. Required Dam Crest Elev.
Actual Dam Crest Elev. Water Pool Volume Decant Volume
Figure 2. Graded Basin Mass Balance

Water Balance Results and Comparison

Based on the water balances for the Existing Basin and the Graded Basin, the end of life for each
stage and basin is listed below. It is estimated that the Graded Basin will provide an additional 15
months of capacity over the life of the facility when compared to the capacity of the Existing Basin.
Reported dates represent the end of the useful life of the listed stage, e.g., the month during which
the required dam crest elevation will first exceed the current crest. Figure 3 depicts the airspace
(e.g., level-pool) volume versus elevation for each of the three scenarios below.
Existing Basin / Previous Analysis (June 2010 Water Balance) – End of Life:
 Stage 2 (792m) – March 2015
 Stage 3 (802m) – February 2022
 Stage 4 (807m, end of facility life) – September 2025
 Ultimate tailings capacity = 4,893,427 tonnes (dry) / 1,409,875 m3 (dry) / 2,912,754 m3
(as-deposited, 1.68 tonnes/m3 dry density) at ultimate beach elevation 806.4
Note that results based on the June 2010 water balance are not directly comparable with the current
analysis, due to differing tailings deposition rates, less accurate (aerial) survey data used to develop
the stage-storage curve, and use of only early-stage liner and watershed areas in computing runoff
volumes for the 2010 water balance.
Existing Basin / Current Analysis– End of Life:

 Stage 2 (792m) – July 2014
 Stage 3 (802m) – January 2020
 Stage 4 (807m, end of facility life) – July 2023
(as-deposited) at ultimate beach elevation 805.2
Graded Basin / Current Analysis – End of Life:

 Stage 2 (792m) – February 2015 (7 additional months of capacity)
 Stage 3 (802m) – January 2021 (12 additional months of capacity)
 Stage 4 (807m, end of facility life) – October 2024 (15 additional months of capacity)
(as-deposited) at ultimate beach elevation 805.3

4.0
June 2010
3.5 Ungraded - 2011
Graded - 2011
3.0
6
Airspace Volume, m x 10
3
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
782 787 792 797 802 807
Elevation, m
Figure 3. Facility Capacity Comparison

ATTACHMENT D
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – SOLEDAD
OVERDRAIN DECOMMISSIONING
350 Indiana Street, Suite 500
Golden, CO 80401
Tel (303) 217-5700 Fax (303) 217-5705
www.tetratech.com
To: Scott Douglas From: Jared Purdy

Company: Breakwater Resources, Ltd. Date: 09 March 2011
Re: Soledad – Overdrain Performance Project #: 114-290129
and Recommendations for Stage 2
CC: Matt Fuller (Tt), Troy Meyer (Tt)
1.0 Introduction
This technical memorandum summarizes the performance of the Soledad overdrain system.
2.0 Overdrain Design Intent

The Soledad overdrain system was designed to provide a drainage layer underlying the tailings to
expedite consolidation and reduce the potential for hydraulic head build-up adjacent to the liner, as
detailed in the following paragraphs from the Final Design Report for the tailings facility (VCL, 2004):
“In order to reduce the head against the geomembrane liner, and thereby minimize seepage
losses, a liner overdrain system consisting of geocomposite strip drains and perforated pipes
was designed to collect and covey seepage fluids to a sump located at the upstream toe of
the embankment. Seepage collected from the liner overdrain will be returned to the surface
of the impoundment via a pump system...
Design of the overdrain system was based on results of computer modeling to simulate the
filling and ongoing consolidation process of the tailings. The computer program FSCONSOL
was utilized for this design task. The model assumed a doubly drained condition to simulate
a continuous drainage boundary below the tailings mass. The results of the model were
used to determine the required strip drain spacing. An iterative process was used to vary
the spacing until a fully double drained condition was achieved ...”
Future stages of the Soledad TSF included the extemsion of the overdrain collection system
(geocomposite strip drains).
3.0 Overdrain Sump Capacity

The Soledad overdrain sump, as designed, provides approximately 42 cubic meters of total volume.
Assuming an average porosity of 40 percent for gravel, the sump provides approximately 17 cubic
meters of water storage.
4.0 History
During a large rain event on 21 August 2006, a debris flow entered the impoundment causing
extensive damage to the geomembrane liner in the impoundment valley bottom. Contributing
factors to the debris flow are believed to be a paleo-landslide upstream of the access road (“Mitch”
slide) that was re-activated by two consecutive 2-inch rainfall events within a 72-hour period,
resulting in a collapsed culvert at the access road and resulted in the flow being diverted over the
road and in to the lined impoundment. An initial assessment was conducted by Matt Fuller of Vector
(VCL) and Shiu Nam Kam of Golder Associates in August 2006 and recommendations for mitigation
against further liner damage were provided, including roadside drainage improvements, culvert
installations and gabion wall debris retention dam construction, at designated locations (Fuller Trip
Report 25-28 September). These measures were completed by AMPAC.
Upon commissioning of the TSF, it was discovered that the overdrain appeared to have been
damaged during the event as evidenced by the reduced flow measured in the sump. At the time, it
was unclear if the pipework was filled with sediment or simply damaged during the event.
5.0 Pump Tests

A series of pump tests were performed in September 2009 and again in November 2010. The pump
tests were conducted by AMPAC personnel. Table 1 summarizes the results of the pump tests, as
reported to Tetra Tech (Tt). Figures 1 and 2 present a comparison of the volume pumped from the
sump versus the recharge interval (time between subsequent pump tests).
Table 1: Summary of Pump Test Results
Approx. Recharge Recharge Rate Pumped

Interval (hours) Volume Pumped (m3/hr) Volume/Sump
Date (m3) Volume
22 September 2009 24 2.76 0.12 16.4%

November 2010 ~10,440 1.23 NM 7.3%
November 2010 24 1.32 0.06 7.9%
November 2010 12 0.95 0.08 5.6%
November 2010 12 0.95 0.08 5.6%
November 2010 6 0.76 0.13 4.5%
November 2010 6 0.76 0.13 4.5%
NM – Not Meaningful
Soledad Overdrain 09 March 2011 Project No. 114-290129

Figure 1: Sump Discharge Volume v. Recharge Time
Figure 2: Sump Discharge Volume v. Recharge Time (<24 hours)
6.0 Conclusions
The following conclusions may be drawn from the pump tests:
 The system is currently functioning, but at a diminished capacity than originally designed.
 The capacity of the overdrain collection sump has decreased from 16.8 m3 to approximately
1.3 m3 over the life of the facility.
 Recharge of the available capacity of the collection sump is achieved within 24-hours.
Each of these conclusions will be discussed in further detail below.

Conclusion 1 – The system is currently functioning, but at a diminished capacity than originally
designed.
Whereas pump tests have expressed water from the overdrain collection sump, it may be concluded
that the system is currently functioning, facilitating the consolidation of the overlying tailings mass;
however, the volume of water reporting to the sump has decreased with time. This decrease in water
volume reporting to the sump (i.e. seepage flux) is likely the result of consolidation of the overlying
tailings. As the tailings consolidate, their permeability decreases, resulting in a decrease in the water
flux through the consolidated layer. Tt anticipates the water flux will continue to decrease over the
life of the facility as the overlying tailings continue to consolidate.
Conclusion 2 – The capacity of the overdrain collection sump has decreased from 16.8 m3 to
approximately 1.3 m3 over the life of the facility.
The results presented in Table 1 indicate that the volume of water pumped from the collection sump
has decreased over the past year from approximately 16 percent of the originally available storage
volume to approximately 7 percent of the available storage volume. System damage (resulting from
previous debris flow and sinkhole events) is the most likely factor affecting the performance of the
sump. Seepage flows are likely transporting tailings and materials deposited in the area of the sump
through the damaged system and into the gravel bed, filling void spaces, and decreasing the
available water storage capacity.
Conclusion 3 – Recharge of the available storage capacity of the collection sum is achieved in 24-
hours.
Approximately the same volume of water was expressed from the sump following a 24-hour recharge
of the system as was pumped from the sump after a recharge of more than a year (refer to Figure 1
and the first two pump test results for November 2010 provided in Table 1). In fact, the recharge
rate (volume pumped/recharge time) for the collection sump for periods of 6- to 24-hours is linear
(see Figure 2). Any additional recharge beyond 24-hours is negligible. This indicates that the
available storage capacity of the collection sump is filled within 24-hours. Therefore, under current
conditions, approximately 1.2 m3 of water could be pumped from the overdrain sump on a daily
basis (equating to approximately 7 minutes of daily pump operation).
7.0 Recommendations
Wheras the overdrain is currently operating at approximately 7 percent of the originally available
capacity (and regardless of the actual combination of factors contributing to its diminished
performance since the commencement of facility operations), it is Tt’s opinion that the performance
of the overdrain system will condition to diminish over the coming years. Furthermore, with its
reduced capacity and flux rates, the overdrain system no longer effectively provides the drainage
conditions necessary to perform its original design intent nor will the expansion of the system in
future phases of TSF development provide for accelerated tailings consolidation or the reduction of
head pressures on the facility liner. Therefore, Tt recommends the abandonment of the overdrain

system. As such, the sump discharge pipes should be sealed during the construction of Stage 2 of
the Soledad TSF.
Strict tailings management must be employed to ensure tailings are beached on the facility liner and
maximum free water depths within the impoundment are not exceeded.
8.0 Reference
VCL (2004). Mina El Mochito – Soledad Tailings Disposal Facility Final Design Report. Report
prepared for American Pacific Honduras, S.A. de C.V. Dated September 2004. VCL
Project No. 03-3003.00.

ATTACHMENT E
SEEPAGE AND STABILITY MODEL RESULTS
Model: Saturated / Unsaturated
K-Function: Clay/Silt, Ksat = 2.5e-08 m/s
Vol. WC. Function: Clay/Silt
K-Ratio: 1
K-Direction: 0 °
Name: #2 - Structural Fill

Breakwater
El Mochito K-Function: Very Fine Sand, Ksat = 2.0e-08 m/s
Soledad TSF Stage 2 Vol. WC. Function: Very Fine Sand
Section C K-Ratio: 1
K-Direction: 0 °
Name: #3 - Sand Chimney Drain

K-Function: Fine sand, Ksat=4.3e-06m/s
Vol. WC. Function: Fine sand
800 K-Ratio: 1
K-Direction: 0 °
Name: #4 - Bedrock/Foundation Soil

K-Function: Well-Graded #3 (high clay), Ksat = 7.0e-10 m/s
Vol. WC. Function: Well-Graded #3 (high clay)
K-Ratio: 1
780 #2 K-Direction: 0 °
Name: #5 - Gravel Underdrain

K-Function: Fine sand, Ksat=4.3e-06m/s
Elevation (m)
K-Ratio: 1
K-Direction: 0 °
760
#5
#1 #3
740
#4
720
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
Distance (m)
Directory: T:\Clients\Breakwater 033003\El Mochito\Soledad\Soledad Stage 2\Geotechnical\Slope Stability\File Name: EM_SOL_SectionC_SEEP_TM_03-15-11.gsz
Name: #1 - Clay Seal Zone
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 19.6 kN/m³
Cohesion: 14.4 kPa
Breakwater
Phi: 23 °
El Mochito
Soledad TSF Stage 2 Name: #2 - Structural Fill
Section C - Static Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Slope Stability Analysis Cohesion: 0 kPa
Method: Morgenstern-Price Phi: 30 °
Slip Surface Option: Entry and Exit
1.59 Name: #3 - Sand Chimney Drain
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
800 Unit Weight: 22.8 kN/m³
Cohesion: 0 kPa
Phi: 25 °

Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Cohesion: 26.3 kPa
780 #2 Phi: 31 °

Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Elevation (m)
Cohesion: 0 kPa
Phi: 38 °
760
#5
#1 #3
740
#4
720
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
Distance (m)
Directory: T:\Clients\Breakwater 033003\El Mochito\Soledad\Soledad Stage 2\Geotechnical\Slope Stability\File Name: EM_SOL_SectionC_S_TM_03-15-11.gsz
Name: #1 - Clay Seal Zone
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Cohesion: 14.4 kPa
Breakwater
Phi: 23 °
El Mochito
Soledad TSF Stage 2 Name: #2 - Structural Fill
Section C - Pseudostatic Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Slope Stability Analysis Unit Weight: 22 kN/m³
Method: Morgenstern-Price Cohesion: 0 kPa
Slip Surface Option: Entry and Exit Phi: 30 °
0.94 Name: #3 - Sand Chimney Drain
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
800 Unit Weight: 22.8 kN/m³
Cohesion: 0 kPa
Phi: 25 °

Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Cohesion: 26.3 kPa
780 #2 Phi: 31 °

Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Elevation (m)
Cohesion: 0 kPa
Phi: 38 °
760
#5
#1 #3
740
#4
720
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
Distance (m)
Directory: T:\Clients\Breakwater 033003\El Mochito\Soledad\Soledad Stage 2\Geotechnical\Slope Stability\File Name: EM_SOL_SectionC_PS_TM_03-15-11.gsz

2011-03 - Stage 2 Design Letter - Draft PDF

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

2011-03 - Stage 2 Design Letter - Draft PDF

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

21 June 2011

RE: El Mochito, Soledad Tailings Storage Facility – Stage 2 Design Engineering

Dear Mr. Douglas :

2.0 IMPOUNDMENT GRADING

2.1 GSS Stabilization

2.2 North Borrow Exploitation

2.3 North Canyon Fill

2.4 Impoundment Slope Grading

3.0 STAGE-STORAGE CURVE AND WATER BALANCE

Table 1 – Storage Capacity Summary

3.2 Water Balance

Table 2 – Summary of Water Balance Results

A technical memorandum documenting the updated water balance model is provided in

4.0 IMPOUNDMENT LINER EXPANSION

4.2 Stage 2 Design Considerations

preparation and compaction. To overcome these design challenges, 60 mil LLDPE

4.3 Stage 2 Liner Selection

Tt facilitated an on-site meeting with several geomembrane installers in January 2011.

4.4 Design Details and Construction Considerations

4.4.1 Subgrade Preparation

Surface preparation activities in Zone 3 will also include the following:

4.4.2 Proposed Liner Sections

It is anticipated that lining of Zones 1 and 2 may be accomplished with conventional

The liner section for Zone 1 consists of the following:

1. Prepared soil subgrade

The liner section for Zone 2 consists of the following:

The liner section for Zone 3 consists of the following:

4.5 Overliner Protection

4.6 Decommissioning of the Overdrain System

Design of the overdrain system was based on results of computer

The overdrain sump, as designed, provides approximately 42 cubic meters of total

Wheras the overdrain is currently operating at approximately 7 percent of the originally

A technical memorandum detailing the performance evaluation of the Soledad overdrain

5.0 STAGE 2 DAM RAISE

5.2 Stage 2 Design Considerations

5.3 Engineering Analysis

5.3.1 Geotechnical Modeling

Table 2 summarizes the material properties applied to the geotechnical models.

Table 2 – Material Property Summary

To add a degree of conservatism to the geotechnical models, a ruptured liner condition

Table 3 – Results of Simplified Deformation Models

6.0 CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS AND QUANTITIES

Jared Purdy, P.E.

To: Scott Douglas From: Jiny Carrera and Jared Purdy

2.0 Design Criteria

GSS Mitigation 02 March 2011 Project No. 114-290129

Table 1: Qualitative Design Criteria Selection Criteria

Factor of Safety Should be Relatively

Variable Higher (FS≈1.5) Lower (FS≈1.15)

Type of Landslide Movement Very fast Very Slow

Level of Study Performed Minimal Sophisticated

Size of Landslide Small Large

Potential Consequences of Future Instability Very Significant Insignificant

Experience of Geotechnical Consultant(s) Limited Very Experienced

Table 2: Selected Engineering Design Criteria

Static Factor of Safety 1.4

Pseudo-Static Factor of Safety 1.0

Pseudo-Static Ground Acceleration 0.18g

3.0 Methods of Analysis

4.0 GSS Cross Section

4.1 Existing Conditions

4.2 Proposed Grading

5.0 Material Properties