APPENDIX B · 2012. 5. 9. · VA101-343/6-2 Rev 0 January 27, 2011 APPENDIX B . SOUTH EMBANKMENT...

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

APPENDIX B

SOUTH EMBANKMENT DAM-TYPE SELECTION STUDY

(Pages B-1 to B-34)

KITSAULT PROJECTKITSAULT PROJECT

DAM DESIGN ALTERNATIVES STUDYDAM DESIGN ALTERNATIVES STUDYSOUTH DAM TMF15 OCTOBER 2010

B-1 of 34

OUTLINEOUTLINE

• Types of Water Retaining Damsyp g• Water Retaining Dams for TMF Site• ACRD Concept Familiarization

D E l d f S h D• Dams Evaluated for South Dam

B-2 of 34

TYPES OF WATER RETAINING DAMSY ES OF W E E N NG D MS

Concrete Faced Rockfill Dam (CFRD)Zoned Earthfill/Rockfill DamGeomembrane Faced Rockfill Dam (GFRD)Asphaltic Core Rockfill Dam (ACRD)Roller Compacted Concrete Dam (RCC)

B-3 of 34

CONCRETE FACED ROCKFILL DAMON E E F ED O KF LL D M

B-4 of 34

CFRD PROS AND CONSF D OS ND ONS

Pros Slope protection against waves and ice 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

ConsCons Design for leakage through opened joints and tension cracks. Large compression cracks can occur in high CFRD`s in narrow

llvalleys Cannot provide storage during construction Not a common construction practice in BC and Canadap

B-5 of 34

ZONED EARTHFILL/ROCKFILL DAMZONED EARTHFILL/ROCKFILL DAM

B-6 of 34

EARTHFILL DAM PROS AND CONSE HF LL D M OS ND ONS

Pros Wide earth core and filters provides safe dam earthquake Wide earth core and filters provides safe dam earthquake

resistance Earth core design most economic if suitable borrow areas are

within reasonable transportation distanceswithin 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 Known and common design in BC and CanadaCons 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 FACED ROCKFILL DAMGEOMEM NE F ED O KF LL D M

B-8 of 34

GFRD PROS AND CONSGF D OS ND ONS

Pros Rockfill zone is unsaturated and downstream slope can be 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 Plinth and grouting can take place independently of the other dam construction

Membrane flexibility to accommodate rockfill deformationsConsCons Vulnerable to impacts, ice loads, sabotage, effects of

weathering and aging. R i i l f ll d i l h Requires partial or fully covered protective layer that

increases cost Cannot provide storage during construction

B-9 of 34

ASPHALTIC CORE ROCKFILL DAMS H L O E O KF LL D M

B-10 of 34

ACRD PROS AND CONS

Pros Core exhibits ductile viscoelastic-plastic behavior and has the Core exhibits 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 sabotageand rockfalls and deterioration from weathering or sabotage. Allows reservoir storage during construction and simplified

coffer dam and water diversion designsConsCons Requires specialized asphalt paver, and asphalt plant Specialized contractor training Cost

B-11 of 34

ROLLER COMPACTED CONCRETE DAMROLLER COMPACTED CONCRETE DAM

B-12 of 34

RCC PROS AND CONS OS ND ONS

Pros Overtopping protection Overtopping protection Smallest dam volume

CCons Very expensive

B-13 of 34

DAM RELATIVE COSTSD M EL VE OS S

Earthfill core dam the most economic. ACRD and GFRD fits in between.CFRD and RCC the most expensive CFRD and RCC the most expensive.

B-14 of 34

FACTORS THAT DETERMINE WHICH DESIGN ALTERNATIVE TO USEDESIGN ALTERNATIVE TO USE

Construction costsWeather conditionsSafety Safety Total construction timeC t ti tiConstruction expertisePotential dam overtopping during

constructionMaintenance costs

B-15 of 34

WHY WAS AN ACRD DAM CONSIDERED?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 Core construction does not slow down

the rest of the embankment zones.Suitable natural fine grained low Suitable natural fine grained low

permeability material of substantial quantity for construction of a core zone quantity for construction of a core zone is not available close to siteR d ti i st ti s h d lReduction in construction schedule

B-16 of 34

ACRD HISTORYD H S O Y

Technology developed in the 1960’s in Germany.Dams built in Austria, Germany, Norway, , y, y,

China, Iran, South Africa, Spain, Saudi ArabiaDam construction underway in Canada

and Brazil.and Brazil.More than 100 dams have been built or

are under constructionare under construction.Highest is 170 m

B-17 of 34

EMBANKMENT ZONESFOR ACRDFOR ACRD

B-18 of 34

AC PAVER AT WORK WET WEATHERAC PAVER AT WORK WET WEATHER

B-19 of 34

AC BATCH PLANTAC BATCH PLANT

B-20 of 34

CORE PAVERCORE PAVER

B-21 of 34

CORE PAVER SCHEMATICO E VE S HEM

B-22 of 34

SIMULTANEOUS COMPACTION OF AC AND FILTERSAND FILTERS

B-23 of 34

LOADING OF AC AND FILTER INTO PAVERLOADING OF AC AND FILTER INTO PAVER

B-24 of 34

PLACING ASPHALT MASTIC ON CONCRETE PLINTHPLINTH

B-25 of 34

CROSSING THE AC ZONEOSS NG HE ONE

B-26 of 34

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

Relative merits of five embankment design alternatives were consideredalternatives were 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 t t d K l V id kk N ` j h lt KP contacted Kolo Veidekke, Norway`s major asphalt contractor and a subsidiary of Veidekke a leader in asphalt core dam construction to assist with the pACRD evaluation

KP provided a preliminary design concept to Helge Saxegaard(working on tenders in Quebec) who Saxegaard(working on tenders in Quebec) who provided a design review, cost estimate and construction schedule

B-27 of 34

KITSAULT SITE CONDITIONSK S L S E OND ONS

Considerable snow and sub-zero temperatures in December and JanuaryDecember 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.

A d h i ht f 125 t d th t Average dam height of 125 meters under the crest Dam starter crest is 805 meters Dam crest required elevation is 750 meters prior to Dam crest required elevation is 750 meters prior to

freshet

B-28 of 34

GFRD PLAN VIEW LAYOUTGFRD PLAN VIEW LAYOUT

B-29 of 34

ACRD PLAN VIEW LAYOUTACRD PLAN VIEW LAYOUT

B-30 of 34

GFRD vs ACRD CROSS SECTIONGF D s D OSS SE ON

B-31 of 34

MAJOR QUANTITY SUMMARY

ITEM AFRD GFRD

Foundation Preparation (m3) 150,000 200,000

Grouting (m) 2,900 4,500

Grout Trench/Concrete Plinth(m3)

2,800 1,200Plinth(m3)

Zone F/T (M m3) 0.5 0.8

R kf ll ( 3)Zone C Rockfill (M m3)Patsy Dump

Open Pit3.52.1

3.54.0

B-32 of 34

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

ITEM AFRD GFRDF und ti n P p ti n 1 5 2 0Foundation Preparation 1.5 2.0Grouting 1.2 1.8Grout Trench/Concrete Plinth 2.8 1.2Water Retention Zone 17.3 11.0Zone F/T 5.0 15.7Zone C Rockfillf

•Patsy Dump•Open Pit

14.921.9

14.940.0

Subtotal 64.6 86.6Engineering, Permitting (7%)Construction Management (4%)Contingency(30%)

4.52.619.4

6.13.5

26.0Total 91.1 122.2

B-33 of 34

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONSS MM Y ND ON L S ONS

50 years of successful experience with the performance of asphalt core embankmentsperformance of asphalt core embankments

No case of reported leakage through the asphalt core

d l d f GF Comparative study was completed for a GFRD and ACRD at the South Dam site.

ACRD was found to be a very competitive ACRD was found to be a very competitive design alternative

ACRD construction schedule is 70 to 90 days sh t th f GFRD st tishorter than for GFRD construction.

B-34 of 34

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

APPENDIX C

TMF SEEPAGE ASSESSMENT AND EMBANKMENT STABILITY ANALYSES

Appendix C1 TMF Seepage Assessment Appendix C2 TMF Embankment Stability Analyses

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

APPENDIX C1

TMF SEEPAGE ASSESSMENT

(Pages C1-1 to C1-11)

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 Piésold 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


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

SEEPAGE THORUGH FOUNDATION

SEEPAGE

THROUGH CORE2

Flux (m3/s/m) Flux (m3/s/m) Flow (m3/s) Flow (l/s)Flow (gpm)

Ultimate 14 861 856 446 7.09E-05 n/a 3.16E-02 32 5001 Water retaining starter 0 805 750 141 1.00E-04 n/a 1.41E-02 14 2202 Stage 1 with beach 2 805 800 236 2.98E-05 n/a 7.03E-03 7 1103 Ultimate with beach 14 861 856 446 4.21E-05 0 1.88E-02 19 3004 Water retaining starter (premature closure) 0 805 750 141 1.77E-04 n/a 2.50E-02 25 4005 Stage 1 (small beach) 2 805 800 236 9.07E-05 n/a 2.14E-02 21 3406 Ultimate (small beach) 14 861 856 446 4.96E-05 3.42E-07 2.23E-02 22 350

7 Stage 1 2 805 800 560 1.22E-06 n/a 6.81E-04 1 108a Ultimate with beach 14 861 856 1148 9.98E-06 2.40E-06 1.42E-02 14 2308b Ultimate with high k cyclone sand 14 861 856 1148 9.97E-06 2.55E-06 1.44E-02 14 2309 Water retaining starter (premature closure) 0 805 800 560 4.80E-06 n/a 2.69E-03 3 4010 Stage 1 (small beach) 2 805 800 560 2.64E-06 n/a 1.48E-03 1 2011 Ultimate (small beach) 14 861 856 1148 1 12E 05 7 23E 06 2 12E 02 21 340

Northeast

Expected

Expected

Base

Worst Case

Scenario

Worst Case

South

TABLE C1.1

AVANTI KITSAULT MINE LTDKITSAULT PROJECT

TMF SEEPAGE ANALYSIS

Year Ending

Embankment

SUMMARY OF RESULTS

Section

Print Jan/27/11 16:16:05

Crest El. (m)

Head Pond El.

(m)

Average Embankment

Length1 (m)

TOTAL SEEPAGE

Ref #

11 Ultimate (small beach) 14 861 856 1148 1.12E-05 7.23E-06 2.12E-02 21 340M:\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 15SEP'10 ISSUED FOR REPORT VA101-343/6-2 GL DY KJBDATE DESCRIPTION PREP'D CHK'D APP'DREV

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

Bedrock

Ground El. 670

Fractured Bedrock

Waste Rock1.5Pond El. 750

Crest El. 805

1

Ele

vatio

n (

m)

600

650

700

750

800

850

900

TAILINGS MANAGEMENT FACILITYSEEPAGE ANALYSIS

SOUTH EMBANKMENT - YEAR 0

FIGURE C1.1

AVANTI KITSAULT MINE LTD

KITSAULT PROJECT

REV0

P/A NO. VA101-343/6

REF NO.2

0 05OCT'10 GL DAYISSUED WITH REPORT KJB

DATE DESCRIPTION PREP'D CHK'D APP'DREV

680

700

720

740

Distance (m) (x 1000)

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 1.3500

550

C1-5 of 11


690

730

770

Bedrock

Ground El. 670

Tailings

Fractured Bedrock

Waste Rock

1.5

Pond El. 800 Crest El. 805

1

Ele

vatio

n (m

)

550

600

650

700

750

800

850

900



FIGURE C1.2


KITSAULT PROJECT

REV0

P/A NO. VA101-343/6

REF NO.2


DATE DESCRIPTION PREP'D CH'D APP'DREV


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 1.3500

C1-6 of 11


690

730 770

810

850

Bedrock

Ground El. 670

Tailings

Fractured Bedrock

Waste Rock

Cyclone Sand

1.5


1

Ele

vatio

n (m

)

550

600

650

700

750

800

850

900


SOUTH EMBANKMENT - ULTIIMATE

FIGURE C1.3


KITSAULT PROJECT

REV0

P/A NO. VA101-343/6

REF NO.2




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 1.3500

550

C1-7 of 11


Bedrock

Ground El. 792

Tailings

Fractured Bedrock

LinerPond El. 800 Crest El. 805

Waste Rock

Ele

vatio

n (m

)

700

725

750

775

800

825


NORTHEAST EMBANKMENT - YEAR 2

FIGURE C1.4


KITSAULT PROJECT

REV0

P/A NO. VA101-343/6

REF NO.2



Distance (m)

0 100 200 300 400650

675

700

C1-8 of 11


780

800 820

840

Bedrock

Ground El. 770

Tailings

Fractured Bedrock

Drains

Cyclone SandLiner

3


Waste Rock

1

Ele

vatio

n (m

)

700

725

750

775

800

825

850

875

900


NORTHEAST EMBANKMENT - ULTIMATE

FIGURE C1.5


KITSAULT PROJECT

REV0

P/A NO. VA101-343/6

REF NO.2



0

Distance (m)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700650

675

C1-9 of 11


100

200

300

400

500

10

15

20

25

30

35

Seep

age (g

pm

)

See

pag

e (l

/s)

Water impoundment for mill start-up

Initial seepage through fractured rock foundation

Seepage reduction due to tailings deposition blinding off fractures in foundation bedrock

Steady-state post closure seepage

00

5

-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Year of Operation

0 05OCT'10 ISSUED WITH REPORT GL BB KJB


Mill Startup

Seepage rate controlled by tailings permeability and head pond level

TAILINGS MANAGEMENT FACILITYTOTAL SEEPAGE DURING MINE OPERATIONS

SOUTH EMBANKMENT

FIGURE C1.6


KITSAULT PROJECT

REV0

P/A NO. VA101-343/6

REF NO.2

C1-10 of 11


100

200

300

400

500

10

15

20

25

30

35

Seep

age (g

pm

)

See

pag

e (l

/s)

Steady-state post closure seepageInitial seepage through

fractured rock foundation

Seepage reduction due to tailings deposition blinding off fractures in foundation bedrock

0

100

0

5

-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Year of Operation

0 05OCT'10 ISSUED WITH REPORT GL BB KJB


Mill Startup

Seepage rate controlled by tailings permeability and head pond level

TAILINGS MANAGEMENT FACILITYTOTAL SEEPAGE DURING MINE OPERATIONS

NORTHEAST EMBANKMENT

FIGURE C1.7


KITSAULT PROJECT

REV0

P/A NO. VA101-343/6

REF NO.2

C1-11 of 11

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

APPENDIX C2

TMF EMBANKMENT STABILITY ANALYSES

(Pages C2-1 to C2-11)

APPENDIX C2


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

Cycloned Sand (roller compacted) 18 35 0 Los Pelambres Copper Mine, ChileWaste Rock (traffic compacted) 20 Average Leps 0 See note 1

Tailings Deposit 18 - 0 See note 2Fractured Bedrock 20 33 3.5 See note 3

Bedrock (inpenetrable) - - - AssumedM:\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

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.

1. A RELATIONSHIP FOR FRICTION ANGLE AND EFFECTIVE NORMAL STRESS WAS DEVELOPED WAS BASED ON AVERAGE DENSITY OF ROCKFILL (LEPS, 1970) - SEE GRAPH 1.

3) FRACTURED ROCK PARAMETERS WERE ESTIMATED USING TYPICAL PROPERTIES FOR AVERAGE QUALITY ROCK MASS (ROCK ENGINEERING, 1995).

SourceCohesion

(MPa)Material Unit Wt. (kN/m³)

Effective Friction Angle (deg)

TABLE C2.1


TMF STABILITY ANALYSISSUMMARY OF STRENGTH PARAMETERS

Print Jan/27/2011 16:19:48

40

45

50

55

60

n A

ng

le,

(de

g)

Graph 1: Shear Strength of Rockfill (after Leps, 1970)

Average

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000

Fri

cti

on

An

gle

,

(de

g)

Normal Stress, n (kPa)

Graph 1: Shear Strength of Rockfill (after Leps, 1970)

Average

0 05OCT'10 GL GRGISSUED WITH REPORT VA101-343/6-2 KJB


C2-6 of 11

South at startup (deep seated slip circle) 1.5 1.5 OK

South at startup (shallow slip circle) 1.7 1.5 OK

South (Year 2) 1.6 1.5 OK

South (Ultimate) 1.5 1.5 OK

Northeast (Ultimate) 2.1 1.5 OK

South (Year 2) 1.6 1.2 OK

South (Ultimate) 1.5 1.2 OK

Northeast (Ultimate) 2.1 1.2 OK

Print Jan/27/11 16:21:05

TABLE C2.2


TMF STABILITY ANALYSIS

Static

Static

Post liquefaction

Post liquefaction

Post liquefaction

Static

Static

Static

Section

FACTOR OF SAFETY SUMMARY

ResultRequired

FoS2FoS1Loading Condition

NOTES:

1. FACTOR OF SAFETY CALCULATED USING SLOPE/W (MORGENSTERN-PRICE METHOD).

2. FOR TAILINGS EMBANKMENT ASSUMPTIONS REFER TO THE DESIGN BASIS.

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

0 05OCT'10 GL GRGISSUED WITH REPORT VA101-343/6-2 KJBDATE DESCRIPTION PREP'D CHK'D APP'DREV

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

Bedrock

Ground El. 670

Critical Factor of Safety = 1.5

Fractured Bedrock

Waste Rock1.5Pond El. 750

Crest El. 805

1

Ele

vatio

n (m

)

550

600

650

700

750

800

850

900



0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2500

TAILINGS MANAGEMENT FACILITYSTABILITY ANALYSIS

SOUTH EMBANKMENT - AT STARTUP

FIGURE C2.1


KITSAULT PROJECT

REV0

P/A NO. VA101-343/6

REF NO.2

0 05OCT'10 GL GRGISSUED WITH REPORT KJB


C2-8 of 11


Bedrock

Ground El. 670

Tailings

Fractured Bedrock

Critical Factor of Safey = 1.6

Waste Rock

1.5


1

Ele

vatio

n (

m)

500

550

600

650

700

750

800

850

900



FIGURE C2.2


KITSAULT PROJECT

REV0

P/A NO. VA101-343/6

REF NO.2




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 1.3500

C2-9 of 11


Bedrock

Ground El. 670

Tailings

Fractured Bedrock

Waste Rock

Cyclone Sand

1.5



1

Ele

vatio

n (

m)

600

650

700

750

800

850

900


SOUTH EMBANKMENT - ULTIMATE

FIGURE C2.3


KITSAULT PROJECT

REV0

P/A NO. VA101-343/6

REF NO.2




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 1.3500

550

C2-10 of 11


Bedrock

Ground El. 770

Tailings

Fractured Bedrock

Drains

Cyclone Sand

Liner

3

Pond El. 856 Cres t El. 861

Waste Rock

Critical Factor of Safey = 2.1

1

Ele

vatio

n (

m)

700

725

750

775

800

825

850

875

900


NORTHEAST EMBANKMENT - ULTIMATE

FIGURE C2.4


KITSAULT PROJECT

REV0

P/A NO. VA101-343/6

REF NO.2



Distance (m)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700650

675

C2-11 of 11

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

APPENDIX D

CONSTRUCTION SCOPE OF WORK AND METHODOLOGY

(Pages D-1 to D-6)

APPENDIX D


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 Contractor’s 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. 1.2.1 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:

D-1 of 6

a. Pioneer roads to the cofferdam locations and install temporary sediment and erosion control Best Management Practices (BMP’s);

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. 1.3.1 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

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.


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 (BMP’s). 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.


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 (BMP’s). 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

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

APPENDIX E

WATER BALANCE MODELING

(Pages E-1 to E-9)

APPENDIX E


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 MODEL ASSUMPTIONS

1.2.1 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 Piésold, 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 Piésold (2010). Avanti Kitsault Mine Ltd., Kitsault Project – Engineering Hydrometeorology Report. VA101-343/9-1, Rev 0, July 15, 2010.

E-4 of 9

Print Jan/27/11 13:33:59

Component Assumption

Mean Annual Precipitation (mm) 2000

Mean Annual Lake Evaporation (mm) 450

Daily Ore Production (dry metric tonnes) 40,000

Mine Life (years) 15

Freshwater requirement (m3/hr) 120

Tailings dry density (tonnes/m3) 1.4

Bulk tailings (95% by weight)

Bulk tailings solids content (% by weight) 33%

Bulk tailings specifc gravity 2.66

Cyclone Sand (bulk tailings)

Sand fraction (underflow) used for embankment construction

35%

Fine Tailings (overflow) to TMF 65%

Cylone sand slurry solids content (% by weight) 33%

Pyritic tailings (5% by weight)

P ritic tailings solids content (% b eight) 33%

TABLE E.1


WATER BALANCE INPUT PARAMETERS

Pyritic tailings solids content (% by weight) 33%

Pyritic tailings specific gravity 3.0

South Embankment Seepage (L/s)

Year 1 14

Year 3 7

Year 15 19

North Embankment Seepage (L/s) 32

Year 3 1

Year 15 14

Embankment Seepage Recycle rate 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 05NOV'10 ER JGCISSUED WITH REPORT VA101-343/6-2 KJB


E-5 of 9

Location Parameter Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Standard deviation (mm) 84 57 49 42 21 22 28 37 54 72 78 87

Mean (mm) 241 163 153 113 70 73 80 129 185 287 251 255

Coefficient of Variation 0.35 0.35 0.32 0.37 0.30 0.30 0.35 0.29 0.29 0.25 0.31 0.34M:\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/ MEAN2. THE COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION VALUES ARE BASED ON THE REGIONAL DATA RECORDED AT STEWART A AND NASS CAMP.

Project Site (el. 650 m)

Precipitation

TABLE E.2


MONTHLY STATISTICAL VALUES FOR WATER BALANCE MODELLING

Print Jan/27/11 13:33:59

0 05NOV'10 ER JGCISSUED WITH REPORT VA101-343/6-2 KJB


E-6 of 9

Print Jan/27/11 13:33:59

Runoff Coefficient

Year -1 Year 1 Year 7 Year 15 -

TMF Undisturbed Catchment 3.3 2.8 1.4 0.6 0.70

TMF Beach 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.70

TMF Pond 0.3 0.8 2.1 2.8 1.00

Other areas contributing to TMF 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 0.70

Open Pit 0.0 0.1 0.6 1.1 0.90

Undisturbed OP Catchment 1.4 1.4 0.9 0.3 0.70

East Waste Rock Management Facility 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.9 0.80

LocationArea (km2)

TABLE E.3


WATER BALANCE CATCHMENT AREAS

East Waste Rock Management Facility 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.9 0.80

Low Grade Stockpile 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 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 14DEC'10 ER JGCISSUED WITH REPORT VA101-343/6-2 KJB


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

Number Description1 Direct Precipition on the Open Pit2 Open Pit Catchment Runoff3 Pit Dewatering to Lime Creek4 Fresh Water Make-up5 Reclaim Water from TMF6 TMF Pond Evaporation7 TMF Catchment Runoff and Direct Precipitation8 TMF Seepage Collection and Recycle9 TMF Seepage10 Water trapped in the Tailings11 Tailings from Mill12 Pyritic Tailings to TMF (All year-round)13 B lk T ili t S d Pl t (J l N )

MILLCYCLONESAND PLANT

OPEN PIT

FRESH WATERSOURCE

214

11

13

14

13 Bulk Tailings to Sand Plant (Jul-Nov)14 Cyclone Overflow to TMF (Jul-Nov)15 Cyclone Sand Underflow to TMF embankment (Jul-Nov)16 Process Water to Sand Plant17 Water from Sand Cells18 Water Recycle from Sand Cells to TMF19 TMF Surplus to Water Box

MILLCYCLONESAND PLANT

OPEN PIT

FRESH WATERSOURCE

76

21

3

4

5

11

12

13

14

15

18

16

MILL

TAILINGS MANAGEMENT FACILITY

CYCLONESAND PLANT

OPEN PIT

FRESH WATERSOURCE

76

21

3

4

5

11

12

13

14

15

17

18

8910 AVANTI KITSAULT MINE LTD

16

19

MILL

TAILINGS MANAGEMENT FACILITY

CYCLONESAND PLANT

OPEN PIT

FRESH WATERSOURCE

76

21

3

4

5

11

12

13

14

15

17

18

8910

0 14DEC'10 ISSUED WITH REPORT ER JGC KJB


TAILINGS MANAGEMENT FACILITY WATER BALANCE SCHEMATIC

FIGURE E.1


KITSAULT PROJECT

REV0

P/A NO. VA101-343/6

REF NO.2

16

NOTES:

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.

19

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

2

4

6

8

10

Vo

lum

e (M

m3 )

TMF Pond - 95th Percentile Dry

TMF Pond - Median

TMF Pond - 95th Percentile Wet

Overflow - 95th Percentile Dry

Overflow - Median

Overflow - 95th Percentile Wet

0

2

-1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Year of Operation

TAILINGS MANAGEMENT FACILITYMONTHLY WATER BALANCE POND VOLUME

FIGURE E.2


KITSAULT PROJECT

REV0

P/A NO. VA101-343/6

REF NO2

0 11JAN'11 ISSUED WITH REPORT ER JGC KJB


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.

E-9 of 9

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

APPENDIX F

BASIS OF ESTIMATE (CAPEX)

Appendix F1 Basis of Estimate for Feasibility Study Appendix F2 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)

APPENDIX F


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-per-day mine development with conventional crushing, grinding and flotation processes. Knight Piésold 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 Surface Run-Off Diversion Systems o Seepage Collection and Sediment Control Ponds

North Water Management Ponds South Water Management Pond Low Grade Stockpile Seepage Collection Pond

o 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

1.5 OUTLINE OF BASIS OF ESTIMATE

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: Site Roads

Section 4: Pipeworks

Section 5: TMF Embankment Earthworks

Section 6: Water Management Ponds

Section 7: 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 COST BASIS

2.2.1 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 ASSUMPTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS

2.3.1 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

Bank (BCM) Swell

Factor

Loose (LCM) Shrink

Factor

Compacted (CCM)

(kg/m3) (kg/m3) (kg/m3)

ALL AREAS EXCLUDING THE PLANT SITE AND SERVICE ROADS 5, 6, 7 ,8 & 9

Pasty Waste Dump

2,300 1.15 2,000 1.04 2,400

Open Pit 2,700 1.35 2,000 0.89 2,400

SERVICE ROADS 5, 6, 7 ,8 & 9

Service Roads

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:

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. 3.2 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.

3.3 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.


3.4.1 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%. 3.4.2 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 4.1.1 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.

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 engineer’s 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, tee’s 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


4.4.1 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 AMEC’s 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 air-track 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.

5.3 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.


5.4.1 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.

F1-16 of 19

o An efficiency to assess real work time was handled in the estimate and not in the productivity factors (50 minute working hours)

Rates for Contractor’s 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:

Northeast Water Management Ponds 1 and 2

South Water Management Pond

Low Grade Stockpile Water Management Pond 6.2 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.


6.3.1 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:

TMF East Flowing Diversion Channel

TMF West Flowing Diversion Channel

Upper South Pit Wall Diversion Channel

South Pit Wall Bench Diversion Channel 7.2 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.


7.3.1 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

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

APPENDIX F2

INITIAL CAPEX ESTIMATE AND FEASIBILITY LEVEL COST ESTIMATE

(Pages F2-1 to F-2)

PROJECT LIFE: 14 YEARSPOWER COST: 40 $/MWh

CAPITAL COST Annual Maintenance and Replacement %

INITIAL POWER REQ.

FINAL POWER REQ.

YEAR YEAR YEAR YEAR YEAR YEAR YEAR YEAR YEAR YEAR YEAR YEAR YEAR YEAR

($CAD) (% of Capital) (MWh) (MWh) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 BULK TAILINGS DISTRIBUTION & CYCLONE SAND SYSTEMSPump Power Cost (See Note 1) ‐$ 0.0% ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ Cyclone Sand Tower Systems 1,080,000$ 10.0% 0 0 108,000$ 108,000$ 108,000$ 108,000$ 108,000$ 108,000$ 108,000$ 108,000$ 108,000$ 108,000$ 108,000$ 108,000$ 108,000$ 108,000$ 16" DR17 HDPE Cyclone Feed Line to NE Embankment 800,745$ 10.0% 0 0 80,074$ 80,074$ 80,074$ 80,074$ 80,074$ 80,074$ 80,074$ 80,074$ 80,074$ 80,074$ 80,074$ 80,074$ 80,074$ 80,074$ 16" DR17 HDPE Cyclone Feed Line to South Embankment 591,967$ 10.0% 0 0 59,197$ 59,197$ 59,197$ 59,197$ 59,197$ 59,197$ 59,197$ 59,197$ 59,197$ 59,197$ 59,197$ 59,197$ 59,197$ 59,197$ 28" DR17 HDPE Bulk Tailings Distribution Pipeline to NE Embankment 812 912$ 10 0% 0 0 81 291$ 81 291$ 81 291$ 81 291$ 81 291$ 81 291$ 81 291$ 81 291$ 81 291$ 81 291$ 81 291$ 81 291$ 81 291$ 81 291$

TABLE F2‐2

ITEM

CAPEX AND OPERATING EXPENDITURES ‐ FEASIBILITY LEVEL COST ESTIMATE

KITSAULT MINE PROJECTAVANTI KITSAULT MINE LTD.

TAILINGS MANAGEMENT FACILITY AND WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

Print : Nov/04/10 11:36:48

28 DR17 HDPE Bulk Tailings Distribution Pipeline to NE Embankment 812,912$ 10.0% 0 0 81,291$ 81,291$ 81,291$ 81,291$ 81,291$ 81,291$ 81,291$ 81,291$ 81,291$ 81,291$ 81,291$ 81,291$ 81,291$ 81,291$ 28" DR17 HDPE Bulk Tailings Distribution Pipeline to South Embankment 876,520$ 10.0% 0 0 87,652$ 87,652$ 87,652$ 87,652$ 87,652$ 87,652$ 87,652$ 87,652$ 87,652$ 87,652$ 87,652$ 87,652$ 87,652$ 87,652$ 12" DR17 HDPE Clean Tailings Line 238,464$ 10.0% 0 0 23,846$ 23,846$ 23,846$ 23,846$ 23,846$ 23,846$ 23,846$ 23,846$ 23,846$ 23,846$ 23,846$ 23,846$ 23,846$ 23,846$ 16" DR17 HDPE Cyclone Deposition Lines 25,775$ 10.0% 0 0 2,578$ 2,578$ 2,578$ 2,578$ 2,578$ 2,578$ 2,578$ 2,578$ 2,578$ 2,578$ 2,578$ 2,578$ 2,578$ 2,578$ 16" HDPE Elbows 10,517$ 10.0% 0 0 1,052$ 1,052$ 1,052$ 1,052$ 1,052$ 1,052$ 1,052$ 1,052$ 1,052$ 1,052$ 1,052$ 1,052$ 1,052$ 1,052$ 16" HDPE Tee's 8,196$ 10.0% 0 0 820$ 820$ 820$ 820$ 820$ 820$ 820$ 820$ 820$ 820$ 820$ 820$ 820$ 820$ 28" HDPE Elbows 35,922$ 10.0% 0 0 3,592$ 3,592$ 3,592$ 3,592$ 3,592$ 3,592$ 3,592$ 3,592$ 3,592$ 3,592$ 3,592$ 3,592$ 3,592$ 3,592$ 28" HDPE Tee's 9,552$ 10.0% 0 0 955$ 955$ 955$ 955$ 955$ 955$ 955$ 955$ 955$ 955$ 955$ 955$ 955$ 955$ 16" Off‐take Gate Valves 46,042$ 10.0% 0 0 4,604$ 4,604$ 4,604$ 4,604$ 4,604$ 4,604$ 4,604$ 4,604$ 4,604$ 4,604$ 4,604$ 4,604$ 4,604$ 4,604$ 28" Gate Control Valves 168,169$ 10.0% 0 0 16,817$ 16,817$ 16,817$ 16,817$ 16,817$ 16,817$ 16,817$ 16,817$ 16,817$ 16,817$ 16,817$ 16,817$ 16,817$ 16,817$ 16" Isolating Gate Valves 80,317$ 10.0% 0 0 8,032$ 8,032$ 8,032$ 8,032$ 8,032$ 8,032$ 8,032$ 8,032$ 8,032$ 8,032$ 8,032$ 8,032$ 8,032$ 8,032$ 12" Water Flush Butterfly Valves 22,822$ 10.0% 0 0 2,282$ 2,282$ 2,282$ 2,282$ 2,282$ 2,282$ 2,282$ 2,282$ 2,282$ 2,282$ 2,282$ 2,282$ 2,282$ 2,282$ 16" Diameter Flow Meters 22,257$ 10.0% 0 0 2,226$ 2,226$ 2,226$ 2,226$ 2,226$ 2,226$ 2,226$ 2,226$ 2,226$ 2,226$ 2,226$ 2,226$ 2,226$ 2,226$ 6" Spigot Isolating Gate Valves 31,342$ 10.0% 0 0 3,134$ 3,134$ 3,134$ 3,134$ 3,134$ 3,134$ 3,134$ 3,134$ 3,134$ 3,134$ 3,134$ 3,134$ 3,134$ 3,134$ 28" Isolating Gate Valves 252,253$ 10.0% 0 0 25,225$ 25,225$ 25,225$ 25,225$ 25,225$ 25,225$ 25,225$ 25,225$ 25,225$ 25,225$ 25,225$ 25,225$ 25,225$ 25,225$ 20" Breather Pipe Butterfly Valves 24,613$ 10.0% 0 0 2,461$ 2,461$ 2,461$ 2,461$ 2,461$ 2,461$ 2,461$ 2,461$ 2,461$ 2,461$ 2,461$ 2,461$ 2,461$ 2,461$ RECLAIM WATER SYSTEMPump Power Cost ‐$ 0.0% 17945 10191 695,646$ 673,491$ 651,337$ 629,183$ 607,029$ 584,874$ 562,720$ 540,566$ 518,411$ 496,257$ 474,103$ 451,949$ 429,794$ 407,640$ Floating Pump Barge ‐ Reclaim and Surplus Systems 8,393,000$ 7.5% 0 0 629,475$ 629,475$ 629,475$ 629,475$ 629,475$ 629,475$ 629,475$ 629,475$ 629,475$ 629,475$ 629,475$ 629,475$ 629,475$ 629,475$ 30" Steel Reclaim Pipeline 2,188,289$ 10.0% 0 0 218,829$ 218,829$ 218,829$ 218,829$ 218,829$ 218,829$ 218,829$ 218,829$ 218,829$ 218,829$ 218,829$ 218,829$ 218,829$ 218,829$ 30" Pipeline Concrete 50,397$ 0.0% 0 0 ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 30" Butterfly Control Valve 23,043$ 10.0% 0 0 2,304$ 2,304$ 2,304$ 2,304$ 2,304$ 2,304$ 2,304$ 2,304$ 2,304$ 2,304$ 2,304$ 2,304$ 2,304$ 2,304$ 30" Steel Elbow Fittings 21,862$ 10.0% 0 0 2,186$ 2,186$ 2,186$ 2,186$ 2,186$ 2,186$ 2,186$ 2,186$ 2,186$ 2,186$ 2,186$ 2,186$ 2,186$ 2,186$ 30" Steel Flange Fittings 10,940$ 10.0% 0 0 1,094$ 1,094$ 1,094$ 1,094$ 1,094$ 1,094$ 1,094$ 1,094$ 1,094$ 1,094$ 1,094$ 1,094$ 1,094$ 1,094$ SURPLUS WATER SYSTEMPump Power Cost ‐$ 0.0% 3724 1877 143,683$ 138,406$ 133,129$ 127,851$ 122,574$ 117,297$ 112,020$ 106,743$ 101,466$ 96,189$ 90,911$ 85,634$ 80,357$ 75,080$ Floating Pump Barge ‐ Reclaim and Surplus Systems (Covered in Reclaim System) ‐$ 7.5% 0 0 ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 22" Steel Surplus Line to top of TMF from Barge 3,307,338$ 10.0% 0 0 330,734$ 330,734$ 330,734$ 330,734$ 330,734$ 330,734$ 330,734$ 330,734$ 330,734$ 330,734$ 330,734$ 330,734$ 330,734$ 330,734$ 22" Butterfly Control Valve 14,572$ 10.0% 0 0 1,457$ 1,457$ 1,457$ 1,457$ 1,457$ 1,457$ 1,457$ 1,457$ 1,457$ 1,457$ 1,457$ 1,457$ 1,457$ 1,457$ 22" Steel Elbow Fittings 13,455$ 10.0% 0 0 1,345$ 1,345$ 1,345$ 1,345$ 1,345$ 1,345$ 1,345$ 1,345$ 1,345$ 1,345$ 1,345$ 1,345$ 1,345$ 1,345$ 22" Steel Flange Fittings 7,242$ 10.0% 0 0 724$ 724$ 724$ 724$ 724$ 724$ 724$ 724$ 724$ 724$ 724$ 724$ 724$ 724$ Surplus line vent 14,572$ 10.0% 0 0 1,457$ 1,457$ 1,457$ 1,457$ 1,457$ 1,457$ 1,457$ 1,457$ 1,457$ 1,457$ 1,457$ 1,457$ 1,457$ 1,457$ NORTHEAST WATER MANAGEMENT PONDS PUMP SYSTEMPump Power Cost ‐$ 0.0% 461 1103 20,274$ 22,109$ 23,943$ 25,777$ 27,611$ 29,446$ 31,280$ 33,114$ 34,949$ 36,783$ 38,617$ 40,451$ 42,286$ 44,120$ 300 HP Pump 154,049$ 7.5% 0 0 11,554$ 11,554$ 11,554$ 11,554$ 11,554$ 11,554$ 11,554$ 11,554$ 11,554$ 11,554$ 11,554$ 11,554$ 11,554$ 11,554$ 16" HDPE DR11 Seepage Collection Pipeline 228,336$ 15.0% 0 0 34,250$ 34,250$ 34,250$ 34,250$ 34,250$ 34,250$ 34,250$ 34,250$ 34,250$ 34,250$ 34,250$ 34,250$ 34,250$ 34,250$ 16" Butterfly Control Valve 16,100$ 15.0% 0 0 2,415$ 2,415$ 2,415$ 2,415$ 2,415$ 2,415$ 2,415$ 2,415$ 2,415$ 2,415$ 2,415$ 2,415$ 2,415$ 2,415$ 16" HDPE Elbows 5,258$ 15.0% 0 0 789$ 789$ 789$ 789$ 789$ 789$ 789$ 789$ 789$ 789$ 789$ 789$ 789$ 789$ 16" HDPE Tee's 1,366$ 15.0% 0 0 205$ 205$ 205$ 205$ 205$ 205$ 205$ 205$ 205$ 205$ 205$ 205$ 205$ 205$ Pump‐station Electrical Works 150,000$ 7.5% 0 0 11,250$ 11,250$ 11,250$ 11,250$ 11,250$ 11,250$ 11,250$ 11,250$ 11,250$ 11,250$ 11,250$ 11,250$ 11,250$ 11,250$ SOUTH WATER MANGEMENT POND PUMP SYSTEMPump Power Cost ‐$ 0.0% 3206 4097.5 130,787$ 133,334$ 135,881$ 138,429$ 140,976$ 143,523$ 146,070$ 148,617$ 151,164$ 153,711$ 156,259$ 158,806$ 161,353$ 163,900$ 2300 HP Pump 2,508,024$ 7.5% 0 0 188,102$ 188,102$ 188,102$ 188,102$ 188,102$ 188,102$ 188,102$ 188,102$ 188,102$ 188,102$ 188,102$ 188,102$ 188,102$ 188,102$ 24" Steel Pipe (1/4") Seepage Collection Pipeline 1,324,917$ 15.0% 0 0 198,738$ 198,738$ 198,738$ 198,738$ 198,738$ 198,738$ 198,738$ 198,738$ 198,738$ 198,738$ 198,738$ 198,738$ 198,738$ 198,738$ 24" Butterfly Control Valve 33,688$ 15.0% 0 0 5,053$ 5,053$ 5,053$ 5,053$ 5,053$ 5,053$ 5,053$ 5,053$ 5,053$ 5,053$ 5,053$ 5,053$ 5,053$ 5,053$ 24" Elbow Fittings 15,311$ 15.0% 0 0 2,297$ 2,297$ 2,297$ 2,297$ 2,297$ 2,297$ 2,297$ 2,297$ 2,297$ 2,297$ 2,297$ 2,297$ 2,297$ 2,297$ 24" Flange Fittings 8,108$ 15.0% 0 0 1,216$ 1,216$ 1,216$ 1,216$ 1,216$ 1,216$ 1,216$ 1,216$ 1,216$ 1,216$ 1,216$ 1,216$ 1,216$ 1,216$ 24" Weld Cap Fitting 1,659$ 15.0% 0 0 249$ 249$ 249$ 249$ 249$ 249$ 249$ 249$ 249$ 249$ 249$ 249$ 249$ 249$ Pump‐station Electrical Works 150,000$ 7.5% 0 0 11,250$ 11,250$ 11,250$ 11,250$ 11,250$ 11,250$ 11,250$ 11,250$ 11,250$ 11,250$ 11,250$ 11,250$ 11,250$ 11,250$ LOW GRADE STOCKPILE PUMP SYSTEMPump Power Cost ‐$ 0.0% 127.5 127.5 5,100$ 5,100$ 5,100$ 5,100$ 5,100$ 5,100$ 5,100$ 5,100$ 5,100$ 5,100$ 5,100$ 5,100$ 5,100$ 5,100$ 75 HP Pump 36,774$ 7.5% 0 0 2,758$ 2,758$ 2,758$ 2,758$ 2,758$ 2,758$ 2,758$ 2,758$ 2,758$ 2,758$ 2,758$ 2,758$ 2,758$ 2,758$ 8" HDPE DR13.5 Seepage Collection Pipeline 48,107$ 15.0% 0 0 7,216$ 7,216$ 7,216$ 7,216$ 7,216$ 7,216$ 7,216$ 7,216$ 7,216$ 7,216$ 7,216$ 7,216$ 7,216$ 7,216$ 8" HDPE Elbows 1,513$ 15.0% 0 0 227$ 227$ 227$ 227$ 227$ 227$ 227$ 227$ 227$ 227$ 227$ 227$ 227$ 227$ 8" Butterfly Control Valve 4,557$ 15.0% 0 0 684$ 684$ 684$ 684$ 684$ 684$ 684$ 684$ 684$ 684$ 684$ 684$ 684$ 684$ Pump‐station Electrical Works 150,000$ 7.5% 0 0 11,250$ 11,250$ 11,250$ 11,250$ 11,250$ 11,250$ 11,250$ 11,250$ 11,250$ 11,250$ 11,250$ 11,250$ 11,250$ 11,250$ CLARY LAKE FRESH WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMPump Power Cost ‐$ 0 0% 564 564 22 560$ 22 560$ 22 560$ 22 560$ 22 560$ 22 560$ 22 560$ 22 560$ 22 560$ 22 560$ 22 560$ 22 560$ 22 560$ 22 560$Pump Power Cost ‐$ 0.0% 564 564 22,560$ 22,560$ 22,560$ 22,560$ 22,560$ 22,560$ 22,560$ 22,560$ 22,560$ 22,560$ 22,560$ 22,560$ 22,560$ 22,560$ Freshwater 8" Diameter Steel Pipeline 1,329,690$ 15.0% 0 0 199,454$ 199,454$ 199,454$ 199,454$ 199,454$ 199,454$ 199,454$ 199,454$ 199,454$ 199,454$ 199,454$ 199,454$ 199,454$ 199,454$ Fresh Water Intake Structure (Allowance) 10,000$ 15.0% 0 0 1,500$ 1,500$ 1,500$ 1,500$ 1,500$ 1,500$ 1,500$ 1,500$ 1,500$ 1,500$ 1,500$ 1,500$ 1,500$ 1,500$ 150 HP Clary Lake Pump 102,299$ 7.5% 0 0 7,672$ 7,672$ 7,672$ 7,672$ 7,672$ 7,672$ 7,672$ 7,672$ 7,672$ 7,672$ 7,672$ 7,672$ 7,672$ 7,672$ 8" Butterfly Control Valve 4,557$ 15.0% 0 0 684$ 684$ 684$ 684$ 684$ 684$ 684$ 684$ 684$ 684$ 684$ 684$ 684$ 684$ 8" Steel Tee Fitting 1,327$ 15.0% 0 0 199$ 199$ 199$ 199$ 199$ 199$ 199$ 199$ 199$ 199$ 199$ 199$ 199$ 199$ 8" Steel Elbow Fittings 7,622$ 15.0% 0 0 1,143$ 1,143$ 1,143$ 1,143$ 1,143$ 1,143$ 1,143$ 1,143$ 1,143$ 1,143$ 1,143$ 1,143$ 1,143$ 1,143$ 8" Steel Flange Fittings 4,238$ 15.0% 0 0 636$ 636$ 636$ 636$ 636$ 636$ 636$ 636$ 636$ 636$ 636$ 636$ 636$ 636$ 8" Steel Weld Cap Fitting 466$ 15.0% 0 0 70$ 70$ 70$ 70$ 70$ 70$ 70$ 70$ 70$ 70$ 70$ 70$ 70$ 70$ Pump‐station Electrical Works 150,000$ 7.5% 0 0 11,250$ 11,250$ 11,250$ 11,250$ 11,250$ 11,250$ 11,250$ 11,250$ 11,250$ 11,250$ 11,250$ 11,250$ 11,250$ 11,250$

TOTAL ANNUAL OPEX: 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\Task 0700 (Cost)\[KP Summary, OPEX, SUS CAPEX‐ RevA.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 04NOV'10 JF GLSISSUED FOR INFORMATION -


F2-1 of 2

YEAR YEAR YEAR

0 7 14 ($/unit) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14SOUTH EMBANKMENTSOUTH EMBANKMENT ‐ FOUNDATION PREPARATIONSub‐drainage ‐ Supply and Install Geofabric 5,886 6544.8 7047 m2 3.55$ 335$ 335$ 335$ 335$ 335$ 335$ 335$ 255$ 255$ 255$ 255$ 255$ 255$ 255$ Sub‐drainage ‐ Supply and Install 6" Perf. Pipe 1,308 1454.4 1566 m 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$ Sub‐drainage ‐ Supply and Place Drain Gravel 1,308 1454.4 1566 m3 4.18$ 87$ 87$ 87$ 87$ 87$ 87$ 87$ 67$ 67$ 67$ 67$ 67$ 67$ 67$

SUSTAINING CAPITAL EXPEDITURES ‐ FEASIBILITY LEVEL COST ESTIMATE

CUMULATIVE QTY

ITEM

Print : Nov/04/10 11:36:54

YEAR YEAR YEAR YEAR YEAR

TABLE F2‐2

YEAR YEAR YEAR YEARUNIT

UNIT RATE YEAR YEAR YEAR YEAR YEAR

AVANTI KITSAULT MINE LTD.KITSAULT MINE PROJECT

TAILINGS MANAGEMENT FACILITY AND WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

SOUTH EMBANKMENT MATERIAL PROCESSINGProcess and Stockpile Zone F/T 0 186,300 372,600 LCM 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$ SOUTH EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTIONLoad, Haul, Spread, Dump & Compact Zone F/T 0 155250 310500 LCM 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$ Spread Cyclone Sand ‐ D7 Dozer ‐ 4 months of the year 0 7 14 Year 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$ NORTH EAST EMBANKMENTNORTHEAST EMBANKMENT ‐ FOUNDATION PREPARATIONSub‐drainage ‐ Supply and Install Geofabric 4,572 9918 10647 m2 3.55$ 2,715$ 2,715$ 2,715$ 2,715$ 2,715$ 2,715$ 2,715$ 370$ 370$ 370$ 370$ 370$ 370$ 370$ Sub‐drainage ‐ Supply and Install 6" Perf. Pipe 1,016 2204 2366 m 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$ Sub‐drainage ‐ Supply and Place Drain Gravel 1,016 2204 2366 m3 4.18$ 709$ 709$ 709$ 709$ 709$ 709$ 709$ 97$ 97$ 97$ 97$ 97$ 97$ 97$ Process and Stockpile ‐ Zone F (Stage 1C) ‐ Filter Zone4 Months Spread Cyclone Sand with D6 Dozer 0 7 14 Year 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$ BULK TAILINGS DISTRIBUTION & CYCLONE SAND SYSTEMSSupply and Install Booster Pump Year 10 0 0 1 L.S. N/A 1,500,000$ DIVERSION SYSTEMSMain Culvert Installation 1 1 1 L.S. 200,000.00$ 200,000.00$ Concrete Diversion Structures (Allowance) 1 1 1 L.S. 25,000.00$ 25,000.00$ Excavation ‐ Drill and Blast 42,400 42,400 42,400 BCM 5.26$ 222,854.40$ Shotcrete Fractured Zones (15% of Surface Area 7 cm thick) 121 121 121 m3 244 23$ 29 644 83$Shotcrete Fractured Zones (15% of Surface Area. 7 cm thick) 121 121 121 m3 244.23$ 29,644.83$

TOTAL ANNUAL SUSTAINING CAPEX: 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\Task 0700 (Cost)\[KP Summary, OPEX, SUS CAPEX‐ RevA.xlsx]Sustaining Capital

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 04NOV'10 JF GLSISSUED FOR INFORMATION -


F2-2 of 2

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

APPENDIX G

TAILINGS AND CYCLONE SAND DISTRIBUTION DESIGN STUDY

(Pages G-1 to G-23)

Knight Piésold

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 Page i Document KPV-5155 R01 Rev 0 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 5155-0-

001 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 South Dam

Operation Years 1 to 14 Years 1 to 14

Sand Generation Cycle 8 months per year 8 months per year

Maximum Sand Requirement 10.9% of total tailing 2.7% of total tailing

Required Pumping Year 101 (TBC) Year 101 (TBC)

Maximum Pipeline Length 2 912 m 2 065 m

Cyclone Sled Feed Flow Rate 953m3/h 953m3/h

1 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

Kitsault Mine Project Cyclone Station Feasibility Study Page ii Document KPV-5155 R01 Rev 0 October 2010

Cyclone Sled Feed HDPE Pipe 400 mm (16”) DR 17 HDPE 400 mm (16”) DR 17 HDPE

Whole Tailing HDPE Pipe 700 mm (28”) DR 15.5 HDPE 700 mm (28”) DR 15.5 HDPE

Maximum Required Availabilities 64.7% 16.3%

TERMS OF REFERENCE

This work has been conducted by Paterson & Cooke for Knight Piésold under Knight Piésold 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 Date Distribution / Revisions Prepared Reviewed Client

Approval

0 14 Oct 2010 Issued to Client CK RC

This report, and accompanying drawings, has been prepared by Paterson & Cooke for the exclusive use of Knight Piésold 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 Piésold 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

Kitsault Mine Project Cyclone Station Feasibility Study Page iii Document KPV-5155 R01 Rev 0 October 2010

CONTENTS

SUMMARY i

TERMS OF REFERENCE ii

DOCUMENT DISTRIBUTION, REVISION AND APPROVAL HISTORY ii

CONTENTS iii

1. INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Background 1

1.2 Scope 1

1.3 Reference Documents 1

1.4 Units 2

1.5 Abbreviations 2

2. PROCESS DESCRIPTION 2

3. EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION 3

3.1 Tailing Distribution Box 3

3.2 Tailing Distribution Pipeline 3

3.2.1 Hydraulic Design Criteria 3

3.2.2 Pipeline Selection 4

3.2.3 Valves 5

3.2.4 Pipeline Supports 5

3.2.5 Pipeline Anchors 5

3.2.6 HDPE Pipeline 5

3.3 Cyclone Sleds 5

4. CONTROL PHILOSOPHY 6

4.1 Overview 6

4.2 Flushing and Start-up 6

5. CYCLONE STATION COST ESTIMATE 7

6. CONCLUSIONS 8

7. FURTHER WORK 8

8. UNRESOLVED ISSUES 9

Appendix A – HYDRAULIC DESIGN CALCULATION RESULTS 10

G-4 of 23

Kitsault Mine Project Cyclone Station Feasibility Study Page 1 Document KPV-5155 R01 Rev 0 October 2010

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Mr Bruno Borntraeger of Knight Piésold (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 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, 29 July 2010, Email send by Greg Smyth, 4 August 2010

KPV E01

“Kitsault Tailings Info, Flowsheets and Questions” Email send by Greg Smyth, 4 August 2010

KPV E02

“RE: Cyclone Station Proposal” Email send by Greg Smyth, 4 August 2010 KPV E03

“SGS Minerals Services, Size Distribution Analysis, Project No 50034-002, Ro Scav Tail, Test No. LCT1A” Email send by Bruno Borntraeger, 26 August 2010

SGS D01

“Summary Cyclone Sand Requirements”, Email send by Bruno Borntraeger, 13 September 2010

KPV E04

B29 Progress Print 2010-09-13 – Fig – South Embankment Starter Tailings Pipeline Plan and Profile

KPV D01

B30 Progress Print 2010-09-13 – Fig – South Embankment Final Tailings Pipeline Plan and Profile

KPV D02

B31 Progress Print 2010-09-13 – Fig – Northeast Embankment Starter Tailings Pipeline Plan and Profile

KPV D03

B32 Progress Print 2010-09-13 – Fig – Northeast Embankment Final Tailings Pipeline Plan and Profile

KPV D04

P&C Technical Note 01, “Tailing Cyclone Classification Characterization”, 14 October 2010

PC TN01

G-5 of 23


P&C Drawing 5155-0-001 Rev 1, Process Flow Diagram 5155-0-001 Rev 1

P&C Drawing 5155-0-101 Rev 1, P&ID 5155-0-101 Rev 1

P&C Drawing 5155-0-701 Rev 1, Cyclone Sled – Equipment and Sled Design 5155-0-701 Rev 1

P&C Drawing 5155-0-702 Rev 1, Bulk Tailing Distribution Box 5155-0-702 Rev 1

1.4 Units

Metric units are used throughout the project.

1.5 Abbreviations

t/h metric ton per hour

t/d metric ton per day

kt/d kiloton per day

t/m3 metric ton per cubic meter

m3/h cubic meters per hour

%m solids percentage by mass

%v solids percentage by volume

amsl 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 -74µm 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


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. EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION

3.1 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 Value / Description Source / Comments

Medium description Rougher Scavenger Bulk Tailing SGS D01

Tailing production Nominal = 36,000t/d (metric)

Maximum = 40,000t/d (metric)

KPV E01

Embankment construction

period

Continuous for summer months (8 months of the year) KPV E01

Solids density 2.66 KPV E01

Solids concentration 36.4%m KPV E01

G-7 of 23


Whole tailings size distribution

Size (µm) Fraction Passing SGS D01

300 94.9%

212 82.1%

149 63.3%

106 47.8%

75 36.0%

53 26.6%

38 19.8%

Coarse fraction maximum settled bed concentration

42%v P&C assumption

Design cyclone sled feed tonnage

455 tph P&C design

Whole tailing to facility tonnage

Minimum = 1363 tph solids Maximum = 1818 tph solids

P&C design

Cyclone feed pressure required

69 kPa P&C design

Site elevations 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

KPV D01 to D04

Maximum pipeline lengths NE = 2 912 m S = 2 065 m

KPV D01 to D04

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

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 Pipe Selection

Cyclone feed pipelines 400 mm (16”) DR 17 HDPE

Whole tailing to facility pipelines 700 mm (28”) DR 15.5 HDPE

The hydraulic design calculation results are shown in Appendix A.

G-8 of 23


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


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


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.

3x Cyclone SledCivil & Structural $ 54,000

Tanks and Platework $ 61,000

Mechanical Equipment $ 102,000

Piping & Valves $ 11,000

Electrical $ 0

Control $ 0

$ 228,000

Spares $ 0

Preliminary and general 25% $ 57,000

Engineering $ 50,000

Administration $ 25,000

$ 360,000

Contingencies 20% $ 72,000

$ 432,000

3x Cyclone SledMaintenance $ 31,718

Electricity $ 0

Flocculant Cost $ 0

Water Cost $ 0

Labour Cost $ 0

$ 31,718

CAPITAL COSTS

OPERATING COSTS

Option

SUB TOTAL

TOTAL CAPITAL COST

DIRECT COSTS

Option

TOTAL OPERATING COST

G-11 of 23


6. CONCLUSIONS

6.1 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.

6.2 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.

6.3 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.

6.4 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.

6.5 The HDPE piping will be sufficient for the tailing lines to the TSF.

6.6 Flushing is not expected to be required for the system, but provision is made for it should it be

required.

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.

7.2 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.

7.3 A transient analysis of the system should be carried out.

7.4 A stress analysis of the system must be carried out, including the seismic loading for the system.

7.5 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.

7.6 The distributor box design requires a final process review.

7.7 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

G-12 of 23


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. UNRESOLVED ISSUES

8.1 None for this study level.

Christian Kujawa Robert Cooke

Manager Process Director

G-13 of 23


APPENDIX A – HYDRAULIC DESIGN CALCULATION RESULTS

C Kujawa KPV-5155J Stowe 23 Sep 10

INPUTS AND ASSUMPTIONSSs 2.66Sw 0.998Mu water (Pa.s) 0.0010

Section 1 Section 2 Pressurized Section 1 Section 2 PressurizedMin tonnage (tph) 455 455 455 1363 1363 1363Max tonnage (tph) 455 455 455 1818 1818 1818Cw 36.4% 36.4% 36.4% 36.4% 36.4% 36.4%d50 coarse (µm) 163.6 163.6 163.6 163.6 163.6 163.6Pf 36.0% 36.0% 36.0% 36.0% 36.0% 36.0%Cbmax 42.0% 42.0% 42.0% 42.0% 42.0% 42.0%Wall roughness (µm) 20 20 20 20 20 20Pipe Selection ID (m) 0.350 0.350 0.350 0.600 0.600 0.600

Cv 17.7% 17.7% 17.7% 17.7% 17.7% 17.7%Cvf 7.2% 7.2% 7.2% 7.2% 7.2% 7.2%Slurry SG 1.292 1.292 1.292 1.292 1.292 1.292Carrier Visc (Pa.s) 0.0012 0.0012 0.0012 0.0012 0.0012 0.0012Qmin (m³/h) 968 968 968 2899 2899 2899Qmax (m³/h) 968 968 968 3866 3866 3866

Gravity pipeline slope -1.90% -9.32% -1.90% -9.32%

Start Elevation (m) 908 908 908 908 908 908End Elevation (m) 864 864 864 859 859 859Pipeline Length (m) 2912 2912 2912 2912 2912 2912Cyclone feed pressure (kPa) 69 69 69 0 0 0

PRESSURE PIPELINE CALCULATIONS

Minimum ConditionsMinimum process velocity (m/s) 2.79 2.85Vdep 2.13 2.60Correlation Interp Interp

Minimum ConditionsProcess velocity (m/s) 2.79 2.848Pressure gradient (kPa/m) 0.201 0.113Hydraulic gradient (m/m) 0.016 0.009Pressure Required (kPa) 97.1 -293.3Head Required (m) 8 -23

Maximum ConditionsProcess velocity (m/s) 2.79 3.80Pressure gradient (kPa/m) 0.201 0.180Hydraulic gradient (m/m) 0.016 0.014Pressure Required (kPa) 97.1 -97.7Head Required (m) 8 -8

GRAVITY LAUNDER FLOW CALCULATIONS

Minimum ConditionsVelocity (m/s) 3.55 7.04 4.75 9.03y/D 73% 42% 58% 35%% filled 79% 40% 60% 32%Beta 2.059 1.407 1.729 1.272Deq (m) 0.420 0.310 0.654 0.467Hyd depth (m) 0.245 0.111 0.286 0.156Froude Number 2.290 6.761 2.834 7.311Vdep 2.28 2.03 2.69 2.37Correlation Interp Interp Interp Interp

Maximum ConditionsVelocity (m/s) 3.55 7.04 5.02 9.71y/D 73% 42% 71% 41%% filled 79% 40% 76% 39%Beta 2.059 1.407 2.000 1.398Deq (m) 0.420 0.310 0.714 0.527Hyd depth (m) 0.245 0.111 0.392 0.187Froude Number 2.290 6.761 2.556 7.163Vdep 2.28 2.03 2.79 2.48Correlation Interp Interp Interp Interp

WHOLE TAILSWHOLE TAILS CYCLONE FEED

Date:Checked:

P:\3 - Projects\KPV-5155 (Cyclone Station)\Design\Hydraulic\[KPV-5155 Sizing Calcs Rev

C.xls]Sheet1

1580 Lincoln Street, Suite 1000Denver, CO, 80203, USA

www.PatersonCooke.com

Kisault Flow Calcs - NE Dam Final Year AlignmentDate:Designed:Project No:Project Manager:

G-14 of 23

G-15 of 23

G-16 of 23

G-17 of 23

G-18 of 23

To: Knight Piesold Ltd From: Christian Kujawa

Attention: Bruno Borntraeger Tel No: +1 (303) 800 6614

E-mail address: [email protected] Fax No: +1 (303) 629 8789

Page 1 of 1 Email: [email protected]

Date: 14 October 2010 Project No: KPV-5155

File: Docs/P&C Circulation: RC, CK 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 Corporation’s

(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

KPV E01

“Kitsault Tailings Info, Flowsheets and Questions” Email send by Greg Smyth, 4 August 2010

KPV E02

“RE: Cyclone Station Proposal” Email send by Greg Smyth, 4 August 2010 KPV E03

“SGS Minerals Services, Size Distribution Analysis, Project No 50034-002, Ro Scav Tail, Test No. LCT1A” Email send by Bruno Borntraeger, 26 August 2010

SGS D01

G-19 of 23

14 October 2010 Communication to Bruno Borntraeger, Knight Piesold Page 2

1.2 Document Distribution, Revision and Approval History

Rev Date Distribution/ Revisions Prepared Reviewed Client

A 14 October 2010 Supplied to Client CK RC

1.3 Feasibility Battery Limits

The process battery limits are detailed in the table below:

Stream Battery Limits

Tailings feed From the feed into the Cyclone Station receiving tank

Cyclone underflow

(sand)

From the pump discharge flange leaving the Cyclone Station1

Cyclone overflow From the pump discharge flange leaving the Cyclone Station

Process dilution

water

Process water will be drawn from a point on the plant distribution system / ring

main

Potable water 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: cyclone overflow material

sand: cyclone underflow material

t/h metric ton per hour

t/d metric ton per day

t/m3 metric ton per cubic metre

m3/h cubic metres per hour

%m solids percentage by mass

%v solids percentage by volume

amsl above mean sea level

PSD particle size distribution

1 Provision is made in this proposal for assisting KPV with sizing the cyclone underflow and overflow pipelines

G-20 of 23


2. GENERAL PROCESS DESIGN CRITERIA

Item Value / Description Source / Comments

Medium description

Rougher Scavenger Tailing SGS D01

Solids density 2.66 KPV E01

Solids concentration

36.4% KPV E01

Medium temperature

20°C P&C Assumption

Whole tailings size distribution

Size (µm) Tailings percent passing SGS D01

300 94.9%

212 82.1%

149 63.3%

106 47.8%

75 36.0%

53 26.6%

38 19.8%

Sharpness of separation (Rosin Rammler)

2.903 P&C Assumption

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% -74µm fraction for the sand

G-21 of 23


(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 85µm and 105µm and a by-pass of less

than 20% will be required to achieve a sand quality of 15% -74µm or less.

Figure 2: Single Stage Cyclone Classification Characterization Curve for Cut Point

G-22 of 23


5. SUMMARY

5.1 The cyclone classification characterization of the flotation tailings shows the typical trade-off that

exists between quantity and quality of sand production.

5.2 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 -74µm fractions below 15%.

5.3 Sand quality will not be achievable for a single stage cyclone with a by-pass fraction of 20% or

more.

5.4 For the relatively large cyclone cut points of between 85µm to 105µm to achieve a sand quality of

15% -74µm and better, large cyclones would be required to achieve the quality by single stage

cyclone classification.

.

Yours sincerely,

Sent via email

Christian Kujawa

Process Manager

G-23 of 23

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

APPENDIX H

WATER QUALITY MONITORING RESULTS

(Pages H-1 to H-33)

APPENDIX H


WATER QUALITY

1.1 INTRODUCTION

Knight Piésold 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:

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. 1.2 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


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


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


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 Model Input Concentrations Table H.2 Rev 0 Maximum Yearly Predicted Concentrations for Operational Life of Mine Table H.3 Rev 0 Mean Yearly Predicted Concentrations for Operational life of mine Table H.4 Rev 0 Maximum Yearly Predicted Concentration Ratio Compared to BCWQG Table H.5 Rev 0 Mean Yearly Predicted Concentration Ratio Compared to BCWQG Table H.6 Rev 0 Maximum Yearly Predicted Concentration Ratio Compared to CCME Table H.7 Rev 0 Mean Yearly Predicted Concentration Ratio Compared to CCME Table H.8 Rev 0 Maximum Yearly Predicted Concentration Ratio Compared to MMER

H-4 of 33


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

Open Pit LG Stockpile & East Waste Rock Management

Facility

Tailings Management

FacilityLime Creek

Conservative Source Term Conservative Source Term Baseline Data

Conductivity µomhs/cm 1500 1000 76

Hardness mg/L CaCO₃ 850 550 31

pH median value 7.2 8.0 7.38

Total Suspended Solids mg/L 150 150 1

Total Alkalinity mg/L CaCO₃ 100 150 17

Dissolved Nitrate mg/L 10 10 0.025

Dissolved Sulphate mg/L 1000 500 18.0

Dissolved Fluoride mg/L 3.5 3.5 0.06

Dissolved Aluminum mg/L 0.10 0.10 0.030

Dissolved Antimony mg/L 0.005 0.05 0.00017

Dissolved Arsenic mg/L 0.005 0.005 0.0002

Dissolved Barium mg/L 0.20 0.20 0.0102

Dissolved Beryllium mg/L 0.005 0.00005 0.00005

Dissolved Bismuth mg/L 0.0003 0.00005 0.00025

Dissolved Boron mg/L 0.001 0.001 0.0008

Dissolved Cadmium mg/L 0.005 0.0010 0.000233

Dissolved Calcium mg/L 200 200 9.5

Dissolved Chromium mg/L 0.0005 0.0005 0.00015

Dissolved Cobalt mg/L 0.0002 0.005 0.00002

Dissolved Copper mg/L 0.02 0.50 0.0006

Dissolved Iron mg/L 0.2 0.05 0.011

Dissolved Lead mg/L 0.001 0.0010 0.00029

Dissolved Lithium mg/L 0.05 0.05 0.0005

Parameter Units

Print Jan/27/11 16:32:24

TABLE H.1

AVANTI KITSAULT MINE LTD.KITSAULT PROJECT

WATER QUALITY SUMMARYMODEL INPUT CONCENTRATIONS

Dissolved Lithium mg/L 0.05 0.05 0.0005

Dissolved Magnesium mg/L 80 20 1.8

Dissolved Manganese mg/L 1 1.0 0.00097

Dissolved Mercury mg/L 0.000004 0.000004 0.000004

Dissolved Molybdenum mg/L 5 1 0.0755

Dissolved Nickel mg/L 0.01 0.05 0.00091

Dissolved Phosphorus mg/L 0.01 0.005 0.005

Dissolved Potassium mg/L 10 30 0.25

Dissolved Selenium mg/L 0.005 0.005 0.0003

Dissolved Silicon mg/L 5 5 0.97

Dissolved Silver mg/L 0.0001 0.01 0.000025

Dissolved Sodium mg/L 5 30 0.7

Dissolved Strontium mg/L 5 6 0.109

Dissolved Thallium mg/L 0.00008 0.00008 0.000023

Dissolved Tin mg/L 0.05 0.0005 0.00005

Dissolved Titanium mg/L 0.02 0.02 0.0004

Dissolved Uranium mg/L 0.03 0.001 0.0001

Dissolved Vanadium mg/L 0.0002 0.0005 0.000023

Dissolved Zinc mg/L 0.5 0.10 0.0030

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:

7. BASELINE CONCENTRATION VALUES FOR LIME CREEK ARE ASSUMED TO REMAIN CONSTANT ALONG ALL REACHES.

6. ALL CONCENTRATION VALUES ARE ASSUMED TO REMAIN CONSTANT THROUGHOUT THE LIFE OF THE MINE.

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.

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.

0 26NOV'10 GSW GLSISSUED WITH REPORT VA101-343/6-2 KJB


H-6 of 33

Parameter UnitsOpen Pit LG Stockpile &

East Waste Rock

Management Facility (3)

Tailings Management

Facility(3)

Lime Creek Point A

Lime Creek Point B

Lime Creek Point C

Conductivity µomhs/cm 1500 1000 406 351 290

Hardness mg/L CaCO₃ 850 550 220 189 153

pH median value 7.2 8.0 7.5 7.4 7.4

Total Suspended Solids mg/L 150 150 42 35 27

Total Alkalinity mg/L CaCO₃ 100 150 46 41 36

Dissolved Nitrate mg/L 10 10 3 2 2

Dissolved Sulphate mg/L 1000 500 227 193 154

TABLE H.2


WATER QUALITY SUMMARYMAXIMUM YEARLY PREDICTED CONCENTRATIONS FOR OPERATIONAL LIFE OF THE MINE

Print Jan/27/11 16:34:31

Dissolved Fluoride mg/L 3.5 3.5 1.0 0.8 0.7

Dissolved Aluminum mg/L 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.04

Dissolved Antimony mg/L 0.005 0.05 0.008 0.006 0.005

Dissolved Arsenic mg/L 0.005 0.005 0.001 0.001 0.001

Dissolved Barium mg/L 0.20 0.20 0.06 0.05 0.04

Dissolved Beryllium mg/L 0.005 0.00005 0.001 0.001 0.001

Dissolved Bismuth mg/L 0.0003 0.00005 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002

Dissolved Boron mg/L 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001

Dissolved Cadmium mg/L 0.005 0.0010 0.001 0.001 0.001

Dissolved Calcium mg/L 200 200 62 53 43

Dissolved Chromium mg/L 0.0005 0.0005 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002

Dissolved Cobalt mg/L 0.0002 0.005 0.0007 0.0006 0.0005

Dissolved Copper mg/L 0.02 0.50 0.07 0.06 0.05

Dissolved Iron mg/L 0.2 0.05 0.0 0.0 0.0

Dissolved Lead mg/L 0.001 0.0010 0.000 0.000 0.000

Di l d Lithi /L 0 05 0 05 0 01 0 01 0 01Dissolved Lithium mg/L 0.05 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.01

Dissolved Magnesium mg/L 80 20 16 14 11

Dissolved Manganese mg/L 1 1.0 0 0 0

Dissolved Mercury mg/L 0.000004 0.000004 0.000004 0.000004 0.000004

Dissolved Molybdenum mg/L 5 1 1 1 1

Dissolved Nickel mg/L 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.01

Dissolved Phosphorus mg/L 0.01 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.01

Dissolved Potassium mg/L 10 30 5 4 4

Dissolved Selenium mg/L 0.005 0.005 0.002 0.001 0.001

Dissolved Silicon mg/L 5 5 2 2 2

Dissolved Silver mg/L 0.0001 0.01 0.0015 0.0012 0.0009

Dissolved Sodium mg/L 5 30 5 4 4

Dissolved Strontium mg/L 5 6 2 1 1

Dissolved Thallium mg/L 0.00008 0.00008 0.00004 0.00004 0.00003

Dissolved Tin mg/L 0.05 0.0005 0.01 0.01 0.01

Dissolved Titanium mg/L 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00Dissolved Titanium mg/L 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00

Dissolved Uranium mg/L 0.03 0.001 0.00 0.00 0.00

Dissolved Vanadium mg/L 0.0002 0.0005 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001

Dissolved Zinc mg/L 0.5 0.10 0.1 0.1 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:

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.

1. CONCENTRATION VALUES GENERATED BY THE MODEL ARE DISPLAYED TO THE SAME DECIMAL ACCURACY AS BASELINE VALUES PROVIDED BY AMEC.

0 26NOV'10 GSW GLSISSUED WITH REPORT VA101-343/6-2 KJBDATE DESCRIPTION PREP'D CHK'D APP'DREV

H-7 of 33

Parameter UnitsOpen Pit LG Stockpile &

East Waste Rock

Management Facility (3)

Tailings Management

Facility(3)

Lime Creek Point A

Lime Creek Point B

Lime Creek Point C

Conductivity µomhs/cm 1500 1000 359 311 257

Hardness mg/L CaCO₃ 850 550 193 165 134

pH median value 7.2 8.0 7.4 7.4 7.4

Total Suspended Solids mg/L 150 150 37 31 24

Total Alkalinity mg/L CaCO₃ 100 150 44 39 34

Dissolved Nitrate mg/L 10 10 2 2 2

Dissolved Sulphate mg/L 1000 500 193 163 130

TABLE H.3


WATER QUALITY SUMMARY MEAN YEARLY PREDICTED CONCENTRATIONS FOR OPERATIONAL LIFE OF THE MINE

Print Jan/27/11 16:36:00

Dissolved Fluoride mg/L 3.5 3.5 0.9 0.8 0.6

Dissolved Aluminum mg/L 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.04 0.04

Dissolved Antimony mg/L 0.005 0.05 0.007 0.006 0.005

Dissolved Arsenic mg/L 0.005 0.005 0.001 0.001 0.001

Dissolved Barium mg/L 0.20 0.20 0.06 0.05 0.04

Dissolved Beryllium mg/L 0.005 0.00005 0.001 0.001 0.000

Dissolved Bismuth mg/L 0.0003 0.00005 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002

Dissolved Boron mg/L 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001

Dissolved Cadmium mg/L 0.005 0.0010 0.001 0.001 0.001

Dissolved Calcium mg/L 200 200 56 48 39

Dissolved Chromium mg/L 0.0005 0.0005 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002

Dissolved Cobalt mg/L 0.0002 0.005 0.0007 0.0006 0.0004

Dissolved Copper mg/L 0.02 0.50 0.07 0.06 0.04

Dissolved Iron mg/L 0.2 0.05 0.0 0.0 0.0

Dissolved Lead mg/L 0.001 0.0010 0.000 0.000 0.000

Di l d Lithi /L 0 05 0 05 0 01 0 01 0 01Dissolved Lithium mg/L 0.05 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.01

Dissolved Magnesium mg/L 80 20 13 11 9

Dissolved Manganese mg/L 1 1.0 0 0 0

Dissolved Mercury mg/L 0.000004 0.000004 0.000004 0.000004 0.000004

Dissolved Molybdenum mg/L 5 1 1 1 1

Dissolved Nickel mg/L 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.01

Dissolved Phosphorus mg/L 0.01 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.01

Dissolved Potassium mg/L 10 30 5 4 3

Dissolved Selenium mg/L 0.005 0.005 0.001 0.001 0.001

Dissolved Silicon mg/L 5 5 2 2 2

Dissolved Silver mg/L 0.0001 0.01 0.0013 0.0011 0.0009

Dissolved Sodium mg/L 5 30 5 4 3

Dissolved Strontium mg/L 5 6 1 1 1

Dissolved Thallium mg/L 0.00008 0.00008 0.00004 0.00003 0.00003

Dissolved Tin mg/L 0.05 0.0005 0.01 0.00 0.00

Dissolved Titanium mg/L 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00Dissolved Titanium mg/L 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00

Dissolved Uranium mg/L 0.03 0.001 0.00 0.00 0.00

Dissolved Vanadium mg/L 0.0002 0.0005 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001

Dissolved Zinc mg/L 0.5 0.10 0.1 0.1 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.

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

ParameterOpen Pit LG Stockpile &

East Waste Rock Management Facility

Tailings Management

Facility

Lime Creek Point A

Lime Creek Point B

Lime Creek Point C

Conductivity na na na na na

Hardness na na na na na

pH 0.80 0.89 0.83 0.83 0.83

Total Suspended Solids na na na na na

Total Alkalinity na na na na na

Dissolved Nitrate 0.32 0.32 0.09 0.07 0.06

Dissolved Sulphate 10.00 5.00 2.27 1.93 1.54

TABLE H.4


WATER QUALITY SUMMARYMAXIMUM YEARLY PREDICTED CONCENTRATION RATIO COMPARED TO BCWQG

Print Jan/27/11 16:37:07

Dissolved Fluoride 11.67 11.67 3.35 2.83 2.24

Dissolved Aluminum 0.42 0.09 0.13 0.13 0.12

Dissolved Antimony na na na na na

Dissolved Arsenic 1.00 1.00 0.30 0.25 0.20

Dissolved Barium 0.04 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.01

Dissolved Beryllium 0.94 0.01 0.15 0.13 0.10

Dissolved Bismuth na na na na na

Dissolved Boron 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Dissolved Cadmium 90.91 18.18 19.29 16.80 16.03

Dissolved Calcium na na na na na

Dissolved Chromium na na na na na

Dissolved Cobalt 0.00 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.00

Dissolved Copper 1.06 26.46 3.89 3.21 2.84

Dissolved Iron 0.57 0.14 0.13 0.11 0.09

Dissolved Lead 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Di l d LithiDissolved Lithium na na na na na

Dissolved Magnesium na na na na na

Dissolved Manganese 0.40 0.40 0.11 0.09 0.08

Dissolved Mercury 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04

Dissolved Molybdenum 2.50 0.50 0.47 0.40 0.32

Dissolved Nickel 0.07 0.33 0.06 0.05 0.05

Dissolved Phosphorus na na na na na

Dissolved Potassium na na na na na

Dissolved Selenium 2.50 2.50 0.79 0.69 0.57

Dissolved Silicon na na na na na

Dissolved Silver 0.03 3.33 0.49 0.40 0.31

Dissolved Sodium na na na na na

Dissolved Strontium na na na na na

Dissolved Thallium 0.27 0.27 0.13 0.12 0.11

Dissolved Tin na na na na na

Dissolved Titanium na na na na naDissolved Titanium na na na na na

Dissolved Uranium na na na na na

Dissolved Vanadium 0.03 0.08 0.02 0.02 0.01

Dissolved Zinc 15.15 3.03 2.77 2.32 1.82

NOTES:

3. MAXIMUM PREDICTED HARDNESS WAS USED FOR CALCULATING BCWQG GUIDELINES, MAXIMUM HARDNESS IS ASSUMED TO NOT EXCEED 180 mg/L.


2. ALL RATIO VALUES GREATER THAN 1 EXCEED THE CONCENTRATIONS PRESCRIBED BY THE BCWQG AND ARE HIGHLIGHTED IN BLACK WITH WHITE FONT.

1. ALL VALUES OF "NA" INDICATE A NEGLIGIBLE CONCENTRATION OF THE SUBSTANCE WAS PRESENT OR IT IS NOT COVERED UNDER THE BCWQG.

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



H-9 of 33



Tailings Management

Facility

Lime Creek Point A

Lime Creek Point B

Lime Creek Point C



pH 0.80 0.89 0.83 0.83 0.82





TABLE H.5


WATER QUALITY SUMMARYMEAN YEARLY PREDICTED CONCENTRATION RATIO COMPARED TO BCWQG

Print Jan/27/11 16:38:21








Dissolved Boron 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00






Dissolved Iron 0.57 0.14 0.11 0.09 0.08

Dissolved Lead 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00



















Dissolved Zinc 15.15 3.03 2.20 1.84 1.44

NOTES:

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.


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

1. ALL VALUES OF "NA" INDICATE A NEGLIGIBLE CONCENTRATION OF THE SUBSTANCE WAS PRESENT OR IT IS NOT COVERED UNDER THE BCWQG.


H-10 of 33



Tailings Management

Facility

Lime Creek Point A

Lime Creek Point B

Lime Creek Point C



pH 0.80 0.89 0.83 0.83 0.83




Dissolved Sulphate na na na na na

TABLE H.6


WATER QUALITY SUMMARYMAXIMUM YEARLY PREDICTED CONCENTRATION RATIO COMPARED TO CCME

Print Jan/27/11 16:39:25

Dissolved Fluoride na na na na na




Dissolved Barium na na na na na

Dissolved Beryllium na na na na na


Dissolved Boron na na na na na



Dissolved Chromium 0.06 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.02

Dissolved Cobalt na na na na na


Dissolved Iron 0.67 0.17 0.15 0.13 0.11

Dissolved Lead 0.14 0.14 0.07 0.06 0.10



Dissolved Manganese na na na na na















Dissolved Vanadium na na na na na

Dissolved Zinc 16.67 3.33 3.04 2.56 2.01

NOTES:

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.


1. ALL VALUES OF NA INDICATE A NEGLIGIBLE CONCENTRATION OF THE SUBSTANCE WAS PRESENT OR IT IS NOT COVERED UNDER THE CCME.

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


H-11 of 33



Tailings Management

Facility

Lime Creek Point A

Lime Creek Point B

Lime Creek Point C



pH 0.80 0.89 0.83 0.83 0.82





TABLE H.7


WATER QUALITY SUMMARYMEAN YEARLY PREDICTED CONCENTRATION RATIO COMPARED TO CCME

Print Jan/27/11 16:40:31














Dissolved Iron 0.67 0.17 0.13 0.11 0.09

Dissolved Lead 0.14 0.14 0.07 0.06 0.10



















Dissolved Zinc 16.67 3.33 2.42 2.02 1.58

NOTES:

2. ALL RATIO VALUES GREATER THAN 1 EXCEED THE CONCENTRATIONS PRESCRIBED BY THE CCME AND ARE HIGHLIGHTED IN BLACK WITH WHITE FONT.



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

1. ALL VALUES OF NA INDICATE A NEGLIGIBLE CONCENTRATION OF THE SUBSTANCE WAS PRESENT OR IT IS NOT COVERED UNDER THE CCME.


H-12 of 33



Tailings Management

Facility

Lime Creek Point A

Lime Creek Point B

Lime Creek Point C



pH na na na na na

Total Suspended Solids na na 1.39 na na


Dissolved Nitrate na na na na na


TABLE H.8


WATER QUALITY SUMMARYMAXIMUM YEARLY PREDICTED CONCENTRATION RATIO COMPARED TO MMER

Print Jan/27/11 16:41:41


Dissolved Aluminum na na na na na







Dissolved Cadmium na na na na na





Dissolved Iron na na na na na

Dissolved Lead 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00




Dissolved Mercury na na na na na

Dissolved Molybdenum na na na na na




Dissolved Selenium na na na na na


Dissolved Silver na na na na na



Dissolved Thallium na na na na na





Dissolved Zinc na na 0.12 0.10 0.08

NOTES:

2. ALL RATIO VALUES GREATER THAN 1 EXCEED THE CONCENTRATIONS PRESCRIBED BY THE MMER AND ARE HIGHLIGHTED IN BLACK WITH WHITE FONT.



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

1. ALL VALUES OF NA INDICATE A NEGLIGIBLE CONCENTRATION OF THE SUBSTANCE WAS PRESENT OR IT IS NOT COVERED UNDER THE MMER.


H-13 of 33



Tailings Management

Facility

Lime Creek Point A

Lime Creek Point B

Lime Creek Point C



pH na na na na na

Total Suspended Solids na na 1.23 na na


Dissolved Nitrate na na na na na


TABLE H.9


WATER QUALITY SUMMARYMEAN YEARLY PREDICTED CONCENTRATION RATIO COMPARED TO MMER

Print Jan/27/11 16:43:28


Dissolved Aluminum na na na na na







Dissolved Cadmium na na na na na





Dissolved Iron na na na na na

Dissolved Lead 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00




Dissolved Mercury na na na na na

Dissolved Molybdenum na na na na na




Dissolved Selenium na na na na na


Dissolved Silver na na na na na



Dissolved Thallium na na na na na





Dissolved Zinc na na 0.10 0.08 0.06

NOTES:

2. ALL RATIO VALUES GREATER THAN 1 EXCEED THE CONCENTRATIONS PRESCRIBED BY THE MMER AND ARE HIGHLIGHTED IN BLACK WITH WHITE FONT.



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

1. ALL VALUES OF NA INDICATE A NEGLIGIBLE CONCENTRATION OF THE SUBSTANCE WAS PRESENT OR IT IS NOT COVERED UNDER THE MMER.

0 26NOV10 GSW GLSISSUED WITH REPORT VA101-343/6-2 KJBDATE DESCRIPTION PREP'D CHK'D APP'DREV

H-14 of 33



Tailings Management

FacilityLime Creek Point A Lime Creek Point B Lime Creek Point C

Conductivity 11.81 7.87 3.20 2.77 2.28

Hardness 3.21 3.21 3.21 3.21 2.74

pH 0.96 1.06 0.99 0.99 0.99

Total Suspended Solids 150.00 150.00 41.85 35.09 27.47

Total Alkalinity 4.55 6.82 2.09 1.87 1.63


Dissol ed S lphate 26 04 13 02 5 92 5 02 4 00

Print Jan/27/11 16:45:11

MAXIMUM PREDICTED YEARLY CONCENTRATION RATIO COMPARED TO MAXIMUM LIME

TABLE H.10


WATER QUALITY SUMMARY

CREEK BASELINE CONCENTRATION




Dissolved Antimony 20.00 200.00 30.65 25.37 19.57




Dissolved Bismuth 1.00 0.20 0.90 0.92 0.94

Dissolved Boron 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.36


Dissolved Calcium 12.27 12.27 3.79 3.26 2.66




Dissolved Iron 8.70 2.17 1.95 1.70 1.43

Dissolved Lead 1.82 1.82 0.88 0.82 0.75Dissolved Lead 1.82 1.82 0.88 0.82 0.75

Dissolved Lithium 100.00 100.00 28.14 23.65 18.59

Dissolved Magnesium 21.62 5.41 4.34 3.70 2.99





Dissolved Phosphorus 2.00 1.00 1.15 1.13 1.10

Dissolved Potassium 40.00 120.00 21.28 17.92 14.14


Dissolved Silicon 4.20 4.20 1.74 1.59 1.41


Dissolved Sodium 5.56 33.33 5.81 4.92 3.96

Dissolved Strontium 30.30 36.36 9.51 8.05 6.40


Dissolved Tin 1000.00 10.00 156.26 130.58 101.63

Dissolved Titanium 25.00 25.00 7.25 6.14 4.89

Dissolved Uranium 100.00 3.33 16.16 13.56 10.63


Dissolved Zinc 86.21 17.24 15.74 13.22 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



Tailings Management

FacilityLime Creek Point A Lime Creek Point B Lime Creek Point C

Conductivity 19.74 13.16 4.72 4.09 3.38

Hardness 5.81 5.81 5.81 5.32 4.32

pH 0.98 1.08 1.01 1.01 1.01

Total Suspended Solids 150.00 150.00 37.00 31.00 24.00

Total Alkalinity 5.88 8.82 2.59 2.29 2.00



Print Jan/27/11 16:47:04

CREEK BASELINE CONCENTRATION

TABLE H.11


WATER QUALITY SUMMARYMEAN PREDICTED YEARLY CONCENTRATION RATIO COMPARED TO MEAN LIME



Dissolved Antimony 29.41 294.12 42.29 35.24 27.35




Dissolved Bismuth 1.00 0.20 0.88 0.92 0.92

Dissolved Boron 0.63 0.63 0.88 0.88 0.88


Dissolved Calcium 21.05 21.05 5.91 5.06 4.14




Dissolved Iron 18.18 4.55 3.45 3.00 2.55

Dissolved Lead 3.45 3.45 1.59 1.48 1.38

Dissolved Lithium 100.00 100.00 25.20 21.00 16.40

Di l d M i 44 44 11 11 7 33 6 22 5 06Dissolved Magnesium 44.44 11.11 7.33 6.22 5.06





Dissolved Phosphorus 2.00 1.00 1.20 1.00 1.00

Dissolved Potassium 40.00 120.00 20.92 17.52 13.72


Dissolved Silicon 5.15 5.15 2.01 1.84 1.65


Dissolved Sodium 7.14 42.86 7.14 6.14 5.00

Dissolved Strontium 45.87 55.05 13.16 11.08 8.77


Dissolved Tin 1000.00 10.00 116.80 97.20 75.20

Dissolved Titanium 50.00 50.00 13.00 11.00 8.75

Dissolved Uranium 300.00 10.00 37.00 31.00 24.00

Dissolved Vanadium 8 70 21 74 4 57 3 96 3 26Dissolved Vanadium 8.70 21.74 4.57 3.96 3.26

Dissolved Zinc 166.67 33.33 24.20 20.23 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

Parameter January February March April May June July August September October November December

Conductivity 235 224 248 149 174 514 576 435 392 338 264 239

Hardness 123 117 131 74 88 280 315 236 211 181 139 125

pH 7.36 7.36 7.36 7.37 7.37 7.51 7.54 7.42 7.46 7.45 7.40 7.36

Total Suspended Solids 18 17 19 9 11 60 69 45 42 36 23 18

Total Alkalinity 27 26 27 22 23 62 70 47 48 44 32 27

Dissolved Nitrate 1.142 1.066 1.234 0.542 0.718 3.944 4.566 2.948 2.786 2.360 1.529 1.169

Dissolved Sulphate 128.0 120.5 137.1 68.9 86.2 282.6 316.8 247.5 212.0 177.4 139.4 130.6

Dissolved Fluoride 0.45 0.42 0.48 0.24 0.30 1.41 1.63 1.07 1.01 0.87 0.58 0.46

Dissolved Aluminum 0.038 0.038 0.039 0.034 0.035 0.058 0.062 0.051 0.050 0.047 0.041 0.038

Print Jan/27/11 16:48:15

TABLE H.12


WATER QUALITY SUMMARYPREDICTED MONTHLY CONCENTRATION AT LIME CREEK POINT A

Dissolved Antimony 0.00071 0.00067 0.00075 0.00042 0.00050 0.01298 0.01571 0.00682 0.00851 0.00764 0.00330 0.00072

Dissolved Arsenic 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0004 0.0005 0.0021 0.0024 0.0016 0.0015 0.0013 0.0009 0.0007

Dissolved Barium 0.0314 0.0300 0.0332 0.0200 0.0233 0.0847 0.0966 0.0658 0.0627 0.0546 0.0388 0.0319

Dissolved Beryllium 0.00060 0.00057 0.00065 0.00031 0.00039 0.00079 0.00084 0.00092 0.00065 0.00051 0.00053 0.00062

Dissolved Bismuth 0.00025 0.00025 0.00025 0.00025 0.00025 0.00020 0.00019 0.00023 0.00022 0.00022 0.00024 0.00025

Dissolved Boron 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0006 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007

Dissolved Cadmium 0.000767 0.000730 0.000811 0.000480 0.000564 0.001136 0.001218 0.001164 0.000930 0.000785 0.000738 0.000780

Dissolved Calcium 30.8 29.4 32.6 19.4 22.8 84.4 96.2 65.3 62.2 54.1 38.2 31.4

Dissolved Chromium 0.00019 0.00019 0.00019 0.00017 0.00017 0.00029 0.00031 0.00025 0.00025 0.00023 0.00020 0.00019

Dissolved Cobalt 0.00004 0.00004 0.00004 0.00003 0.00003 0.00125 0.00152 0.00063 0.00082 0.00074 0.00030 0.00004

Dissolved Copper 0.0028 0.0026 0.0030 0.0016 0.0020 0.1247 0.1517 0.0622 0.0807 0.0728 0.0292 0.0028

Dissolved Iron 0.032 0.031 0.034 0.021 0.024 0.049 0.053 0.049 0.040 0.034 0.031 0.033

Dissolved Lead 0.00037 0.00036 0.00037 0.00032 0.00034 0.00057 0.00061 0.00050 0.00048 0.00045 0.00039 0.00037

Dissolved Lithium 0.0060 0.0057 0.0065 0.0031 0.0039 0.0199 0.0230 0.0150 0.0142 0.0121 0.0080 0.0062

Dissolved Magnesium 10.6 10.0 11.3 5.9 7.2 18.0 19.6 17.7 14.1 11.7 10.4 10.8

Dissolved Manganese 0.11286 0.10519 0.12210 0.05272 0.07038 0.39350 0.45576 0.29369 0.27748 0.23482 0.15162 0.11552

Dissolved Mercury 0.000004 0.000004 0.000004 0.000004 0.000004 0.000004 0.000004 0.000004 0.000004 0.000004 0.000004 0.000004

Dissolved Molybdenum 0.6270 0.5893 0.6726 0.3306 0.4176 1.0402 1.1316 1.0528 0.8158 0.6642 0.6043 0.6402y

Dissolved Nickel 0.00193 0.00186 0.00201 0.00138 0.00154 0.01418 0.01690 0.00823 0.00965 0.00868 0.00442 0.00195

Dissolved Phosphorus 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.005 0.005 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.005 0.005 0.006

Dissolved Potassium 1.34 1.27 1.43 0.75 0.93 8.93 10.62 5.43 6.06 5.35 2.79 1.37

Dissolved Selenium 0.0008 0.0008 0.0009 0.0005 0.0006 0.0021 0.0024 0.0017 0.0016 0.0014 0.0010 0.0008

Dissolved Silicon 1.42 1.39 1.46 1.17 1.25 2.55 2.80 2.15 2.08 1.91 1.57 1.43

Dissolved Silver 0.000033 0.000033 0.000034 0.000029 0.000030 0.002456 0.002994 0.001199 0.001587 0.001438 0.000565 0.000034

Dissolved Sodium 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.9 1.0 8.5 10.1 4.9 5.8 5.2 2.7 1.2

Dissolved Strontium 0.656 0.619 0.702 0.362 0.448 2.273 2.632 1.658 1.618 1.395 0.900 0.669

Dissolved Thallium 0.000029 0.000029 0.000030 0.000026 0.000027 0.000045 0.000049 0.000040 0.000039 0.000036 0.000032 0.000029

Dissolved Tin 0.00564 0.00526 0.00611 0.00264 0.00352 0.00767 0.00812 0.00892 0.00617 0.00476 0.00494 0.00578

Dissolved Titanium 0.0026 0.0025 0.0028 0.0014 0.0018 0.0081 0.0093 0.0062 0.0058 0.0050 0.0034 0.0027

Dissolved Uranium 0.0035 0.0033 0.0038 0.0017 0.0022 0.0048 0.0051 0.0055 0.0039 0.0030 0.0031 0.0036

Dissolved Vanadium 0.000043 0.000041 0.000044 0.000032 0.000035 0.000165 0.000192 0.000110 0.000119 0.000107 0.000066 0.000043

Dissolved Zinc 0.0586 0.0548 0.0632 0.0287 0.0375 0.1012 0.1107 0.1020 0.0783 0.0629 0.0565 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:

2 CONCENTRATIONS CALCULATED USING MONTHLY FLOWS AVERAGED OVER THE ENTIRE OPERATIONAL LIFE OF THE MINE

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.



H-17 of 33


Conductivity 204 195 215 134 154 452 511 377 340 293 228 207

Hardness 105 100 111 65 77 245 278 203 182 155 119 107

pH 7.37 7.37 7.37 7.38 7.37 7.49 7.52 7.42 7.44 7.44 7.40 7.37







TABLE H.13

Print Jan/27/11 16:49:43

PREDICTED MONTHLY CONCENTRATION AT LIME CREEK POINT BWATER QUALITY SUMMARY

KITSAULT PROJECTAVANTI KITSAULT MINE LTD.






Dissolved Boron 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007






Dissolved Iron 0.028 0.027 0.029 0.019 0.021 0.043 0.047 0.043 0.035 0.030 0.028 0.028

Dissolved Lead 0.00035 0.00035 0.00036 0.00032 0.00033 0.00053 0.00057 0.00046 0.00045 0.00042 0.00037 0.00035















Dissolved Tin 0.00455 0.00424 0.00493 0.00210 0.00282 0.00659 0.00707 0.00749 0.00516 0.00395 0.00402 0.00466




Dissolved Zinc 0.0478 0.0446 0.0516 0.0234 0.0305 0.0873 0.0967 0.0860 0.0658 0.0525 0.0465 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


Conductivity 171 164 180 119 134 377 431 310 281 243 191 174

Hardness 86 82 91 56 65 202 233 165 148 126 97 88

pH 7.37 7.37 7.37 7.38 7.38 7.47 7.49 7.41 7.43 7.43 7.39 7.37







Print Jan/27/11 16:51:28

TABLE H.14


WATER QUALITY SUMMARYPREDICTED MONTHLY CONCENTRATION AT LIME CREEK POINT C






Dissolved Boron 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007






Dissolved Iron 0.024 0.023 0.025 0.017 0.019 0.037 0.040 0.036 0.030 0.026 0.023 0.024

Dissolved Lead 0.00033 0.00033 0.00034 0.00031 0.00032 0.00048 0.00052 0.00042 0.00041 0.00039 0.00035 0.00034















Dissolved Tin 0.00341 0.00317 0.00370 0.00156 0.00210 0.00529 0.00578 0.00585 0.00402 0.00305 0.00304 0.00350




Dissolved Zinc 0.0364 0.0340 0.0393 0.0180 0.0233 0.0706 0.0795 0.0678 0.0518 0.0411 0.0357 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

(m³/s) (m³/s) (%) (m³/s) (%) (m³/s) (%)

January 0.042 0.37236 11.20% 0.463 9.01% 0.620 6.73%

February 0.044 0.42106 10.43% 0.524 8.38% 0.703 6.25%

March 0.051 0.41741 12.12% 0.518 9.78% 0.692 7.32%

April 0.058 1.12773 5.18% 1.420 4.11% 1.927 3.03%

May 0.195 2.804 6.95% 3.517 5.54% 4.756 4.10%

June 1.511 3.845 39.29% 4.483 33.70% 5.591 27.02%

July 0.860 1.890 45.52% 2.171 39.63% 2.660 32.35%

August 0.202 0.690 29.30% 0.823 24.56% 1.054 19.17%

September 0.393 1.420 27.68% 1.701 23.11% 2.189 17.96%

October 0.465 1.988 23.41% 2.403 19.36% 3.126 14.88%

November 0.149 0.986 15.08% 1.214 12.24% 1.612 9.22%

December 0.052 0.455 11.47% 0.565 9.23% 0.756 6.90%

Print: 1/27/11 16:52

TABLE H.15


SURFACE WATER QUALITY MASS BALANCE CALCULATIONSPREDICTED AVERAGE MONTHLY EFFLUENT DISCHARGE INTO LIME CREEK

MineEffluent

Total Flow at Lime Creek

Point A

Percent Effluent at Lime Creek Point

A


Point B

Percent Effluent at Lime Creek

Point B


Point C

Percent Effluent at Lime Creek Point

CMonth

NOTES:1. AVERAGE MONTHLY FLOWS DO NOT INCLUDE YEAR -1 OF MINE OPERATION.

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



H-20 of 33

Operation Month January February March April May June July August September October November December

Open Pit 0.0287 0.0303 0.0347 0.0400 0.1310 0.3864 0.2008 0.0821 0.1153 0.1237 0.0648 0.0359

Tailings Management Facility 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.9326 0.5602 0.0803 0.2211 0.2803 0.0527 0.0000

Low Grade Stockpile 0.0007 0.0004 0.0018 0.0026 0.0215 0.0737 0.0357 0.0112 0.0178 0.0196 0.0073 0.0015

East Waste Rock Management Facility 0.0123 0.0133 0.0141 0.0158 0.0423 0.1181 0.0637 0.0285 0.0390 0.0417 0.0239 0.0148

Baseline Lime Creek (Near mouth) 0.5779 0.6592 0.6411 1.8690 4.5610 4.0802 1.7997 0.8523 1.7955 2.6611 1.4630 0.7038

Baseline Lime Creek Flow Near LG Stockpile 0.4209 0.4801 0.4670 1.3613 3.3219 2.9718 1.3108 0.6207 1.3077 1.9382 1.0656 0.5126

Baseline Lime Creek Near Open Pit 0.3307 0.3771 0.3668 1.0693 2.6095 2.3344 1.0296 0.4876 1.0273 1.5225 0.8370 0.4027

Total flows at mixing point A 0.3724 0.4211 0.4174 1.1277 2.8043 3.8452 1.8901 0.6897 1.4204 1.9878 0.9857 0.4548

Total flows at mixing point B 0.4626 0.5240 0.5176 1.4197 3.5167 4.4826 2.1712 0.8228 1.7009 2.4034 1.2142 0.5647Total flows at mixing point C 0.6197 0.7031 0.6917 1.9274 4.7558 5.5910 2.6601 1.0543 2.1887 3.1264 1.6117 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

NOTES:1. ALL FLOW RATES ARE IN m³/s.

Print: 1/27/11 16:54

TABLE H.16


SURFACE WATER QUALITY MASS BALANCE CALCULATIONSSUMMARY OF MONTHLY AVERAGE OPERATIONAL FLOW RATES



H-21 of 33

Print: 1/27/11 16:55

Operation Year -1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15Annual

AverageOpen Pit 0.0707 0.0731 0.0777 0.0824 0.0871 0.0921 0.0966 0.1014 0.1061 0.1111 0.1156 0.1203 0.1251 0.1301 0.1346 0.1388 0.106Tailings Management Facility 0.001 0.189 0.174 0.179 0.181 0.181 0.180 0.179 0.178 0.178 0.176 0.175 0.174 0.173 0.172 0.170 0.177Low Grade Stockpile 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.016East Waste Rock Management Facility 0.000 0.008 0.017 0.017 0.018 0.023 0.027 0.031 0.035 0.039 0.043 0.047 0.051 0.056 0.060 0.064 0.036Baseline Lime Creek (Near mouth) 1.805 1.805 1.805 1.805 1.805 1.805 1.805 1.805 1.805 1.805 1.805 1.805 1.805 1.805 1.805 1.805 1.805

Baseline Lime Creek Flow Near LG Stockpile 1.315 1.315 1.315 1.315 1.315 1.315 1.315 1.315 1.315 1.315 1.315 1.315 1.315 1.315 1.315 1.315 1.315Baseline Lime Creek Near Open Pit 1.033 1.033 1.033 1.033 1.033 1.033 1.033 1.033 1.033 1.033 1.033 1.033 1.033 1.033 1.033 1.033 1.033Total flows at mixing point A 1.119 1.318 1.317 1.327 1.335 1.344 1.352 1.360 1.368 1.377 1.384 1.392 1.400 1.409 1.416 1.423 1.368Total flows at mixing point B 1.401 1.600 1.599 1.609 1.617 1.626 1.634 1.642 1.650 1.659 1.666 1.674 1.682 1.691 1.698 1.705 1.650Total flows at mixing point C 1.892 2.090 2.090 2.099 2.108 2.117 2.124 2.132 2.140 2.149 2.156 2.164 2.172 2.181 2.188 2.195 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

NOTE:1. ALL FLOW RATES ARE IN m ³/s.

SUMMARY OF ANNUAL AVERAGE OPERATIONAL FLOW RATES

TABLE H.17


SURFACE WATER QUALITY MASS BALANCE CALCULATIONS



H-22 of 33

APPENDIX B · 2012. 5. 9. · VA101-343/6-2 Rev 0 January 27, 2011 APPENDIX B . SOUTH EMBANKMENT...

Documents

Transcript of APPENDIX B · 2012. 5. 9. · VA101-343/6-2 Rev 0 January 27, 2011 APPENDIX B . SOUTH EMBANKMENT...