1 MACKENZIE VALLEY LAND AND WATER BOARD GAHCHO KUE …mail.tscript.com/trans/mvlwb/feb_12_14/MVLWB-gahcho-tech... · 2014. 5. 12. · DE BEERS CANADA INCORPORATED MV2005L2-0015 AND

1

MACKENZIE VALLEY LAND

AND WATER BOARD

GAHCHO KUE MINE

WATER LICENCE AND LAND USE PERMIT APPLICATIONS

DE BEERS CANADA INCORPORATED

MV2005L2-0015 AND MV2005C0032

TECHNICAL SESSION

Chairperson Neil Hutchinson

HELD AT:

Yellowknife, NT

February 12, 2014

Day 2 of 3

MVLWB re GAHCHO KUE TECH 02-12-2014

DIGI-TRAN INC. 1-800-663-4915 or 1-403-276-7611 Serving Clients Throughout Canada

2

1 APPEARANCES

2 Neil Hutchinson )MVLWB Chairperson

3 Zabey Nevitt )MVLWB staff

4 Kathy Racher )

5 Lindsey Cymbalisty )

6 Kathy Racher )

7 Rebecca Chouinard )

8 Angela Love )

9 Jen Potten )

10 Shannon Shaw )pHase Geochemistry

11

12 Veronica Chisholm )De Beers Canada

13 Bill Horne )

14 Craig Blackie )

15 Sarah McLean )

16 Allan Rodel )

17 Peter Chapman )

18 Terri-Lee Oleniuk )

19 Andrew Williams )

20 Ken DeVos )Golder Associates

21 Don Chorley )

22 Kristine Mason )

23 Michael Herrell )

24 Rainie Sharpe )

25 Shannon Hayden )



3

1 APPEARANCES (Con't)

2 Tasha Hall )Golder Associates

3 Allison Laidlow )

4 Tim Barrett )

5 Nathan Schmidt )

6 Dan Johnson )JDS Energy &

7 Mining

8 Bill Horne )EBA Engineering.

9

10 Rick Walbourne )AANDC

11 Patrick Kramers )

12 Nathen Richea )

13 John Brodie )Brodie Consulting

14 Dave Huebert )Stantec Consulting

15

16 Sarah-Lacey McMillan )Environment Canada

17 Anne Wilson )

18 Reg Ejeckam (by phone) )

19

20 Patrick Clancy )ENR

21 Sean Whitaker )

22

23 Veronique'Amours-Gauthier )DFO

24

25 Russell Teed )GNWT



4

1

2 APPEARANCES (Con't)

3

4 David Alexander )CanNor

5

6 Todd Slack )YKDFN

7

8 Eric Binion )North Slave Metis

9 )Alliance

10

11 Noel Bishop )Tlicho Government,

12 Sean Richardson )

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



5

1

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS

3 Page No.

4 Information Requests 6

5 Commitments 8

6

7 Opening Comments 11

8

9 AEMP Workshop Presentation

10 by De Beers Canada Inc. 15

11 Question Period 19

12

13 Geochemistry of Mine Rock Presentation



16

17 Processed Kimberlite and Mine Rock Presentation



20

21 Closure and Reclamation Presentation



24

25 Certificate of Transcript 232



6

1

2 INFORMATION REQUESTS

3 Number Description Page Number

4 7 De Beers to provide a steady

5 state model over the three year

6 discharge period for Lake N11

7 by February 24 27

8 8 AANDC to provide a list of AEMP

9 questions by February 24 for De

10 Beers to answer as part of the

11 next AEMP workshop 37

12 9 De Beers to provide a Standard

13 Operating Procedure for the

14 placement of construction rock

15 by February 24 84

16 10 De Beers to provide a sensitivity

17 analysis around the source terms

18 chosen for the water quality model

19 including comparing seepage

20 observation at the Ekati waste

21 rock piles by February 24 124

22 11 De Beers to provide preliminary

23 closure criteria for restoring

24 flow between Kennady Lake and Area

25 8 by February 24 217



7

1 INFORMATION REQUESTS (Con't)


3 12 De Beers to review the Ekati Site

4 Specific Water Quality Objective

5 to see if this is appropriate for

6 Gahcho Kue by February 24 226

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



8

1 COMMITMENTS


3 5 De Beers commits to providing a

4 detailed Standard Operating

5 Procedure for placement of rock

6 during operations 84

7 6 De Beers commits to undertaking

8 field trials in related to contact

9 water in regards to the SNP

10 (details to be hammered out and

11 submitted under the Geochemical

12 Characterize Plan) 100

13 7 De Beers will commit to review

14 options of storing overburden

15 (need to identify areas where

16 overburden can be stockpiled) and

17 to incorporate this into their

18 operations plans 127

19 8 De Beers will commit to listen

20 and have an open conversation with

21 organizations (but not committing

22 to something that has not been

23 talked about yet � change in end

24 use) � C&R plan 136

25



9

1 COMMITMENTS (Con't)


3 9 De Beers is committed to

4 participating in a Closure and

5 Reclamation working group 138

6 10 De Beers will confirm the cover

7 characteristics on the figures

8 submitted (CP vs. FPK) 169

9 11 De Beers commits to submitting

10 information (extract tables

11 from the EIR) on Water Quality

12 Input of their model to the MVLWB

13 and to AANDC 191

14 12 De Beers commits to gather and use

15 existing information on best

16 practices for reclamation

17 (specific to vegetation restoration

18 and vegetation trials) 201

19 13 De Beers to confirm that information

20 is on the public registry (YKDFN

21 comments on C&R) 205

22 14 De Beers to update the Closure and

23 Reclamation Plan to reflect the

24 suggestions (1-3) outlined in the

25 EIR 207



10

1 COMMITMENTS (Con't)


3 15 De Beers commits to providing a

4 reference to the location to the

5 pit wall stability as a part of

6 the EIR by Feb 13 223

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



11

1 --- Upon commencing at 9:06 a.m.

2

3 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Welcome,

4 everyone. I want to start -- start. And for those

5 who don't know, the Canadian women's hockey team beat

6 USA three (3) two (2) this morning. Go, team. So --

7 so we can start the day on a -- on a good note.

8 Last night, Angela emailed the

9 participants the Information Requests from yesterday.

10 Please, if you have any edits or suggested wording

11 changes, respond back to Angela and she will edit

12 them and put them together. And then we'll put them

13 all up for -- for public discussion Thursday at the

14 end of the sessions.

15 So today we -- we've talked a bit

16 about schedule. We're going to start on the AEMP

17 today and then move into the mine rock and

18 geochemistry portions. And before we do that,

19 though, De Beers are going to -- Veronica's going to

20 provide its responses to some of the questions that

21 were raised yesterday.

22 Veronica...?

23 MS. VERONICA CHISHOLM: Veronica

24 Chisholm, from De Beers. Thank you, Neil.

25 Unfortunately, Todd Slack isn't here, but I'm going



12

1 to email this information to the Board and also to

2 him as well so he has it.

3 He asked a question regarding the --

4 the baseline numbers within Lake N11 and the water

5 management in -- within Kennady Lake. So the -- I'm

6 going to tell him where the information is so it's on

7 the record that he can look up.

8 The maximum predicted concentration in

9 the water management pond is in Table 2.2-1. This is

10 all in the draft EQC report that we submitted in

11 December 2013. The baseline concentrations for Lake

12 N11 and the Kirk Lake watershed are in Appendix C of

13 Table C-1, all in the EQC report.

14 Predicted concentrations in the mixing

15 zone boundary is in Appendix E, Table E-4. A

16 comparison of predicted concentrations in Lake N11

17 with the baseline water quality is also presented in

18 Table E-4. So it's all in EQC reports.

19 So as a follow-up, again, I will email

20 that to Angela for the registry and also to Todd

21 Slack so he has the information.

22 The second question that we had was

23 from -- from AANDC regarding the baseline water

24 quality in Lake N11. And the question -- and -- and

25 correct if I'm wrong, it's -- it was around when did



13

1 we sample, what times of the year we sampled within

2 Lake N11.

3 So Lake N11 was sampled for the winter

4 water quality -- water quality samples collected and

5 profile data in 1998, 2011, and in 2013; open water

6 in three (3) years. So for -- there was an open-

7 water period where it was measured in 2010, 2011, and

8 2013. The 1998 and 2010 sampling were summarized in

9 Annex 1 of the 2010 EIS submitted to the Mackenzie

10 Valley Land and Water Board in December 2010.

11 I'll pull all those information out

12 from the Environment Impact Review and put this onto

13 the public registry as part of the Mackenzie Valley

14 Land and Water Board.

15 It was Appendix -- sorry. Oh,

16 Appendix I -- Annex I. That's right. We had annexes

17 and appendices and various other things.

18 The 2011 sampling, so this is again

19 for N11, was summarized in the 2011 Water Quality and

20 Sediment Quality Supplemental Monitoring Report. It

21 is a Golder 2012 document. It was also submitted to

22 the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Review Board

23 registry in -- on March 16, 2012. Again, I'll pull

24 that out.

25 The 2013 report is currently being



14

1 compiled and we'll have -- it should be in within the

2 next week or so. For those that are interested in

3 the 2013, when I submit it to the public registry I

4 will also cop -- copy individuals on that

5 presentation. And I know that's you, Nathen.

6 And those were the -- the commitments

7 from yesterday that I said I would provide

8 information and get back to folks. So I'll clear

9 this up and send it off to the Review Board. I'll

10 try and get it to you probably tonight. Thank you.

11 THE CHAIRPERSON: Neil Hutchinson,

12 for the Board. Thank you very much, Veronica. Nice

13 that you not only identified it, but you're going to

14 provide it to everybody. Any questions arising from

15 that? Okay.

16 And just a reminder, also today at --

17 from 12:30 -- at twelve o'clock we break for lunch.

18 At 12:30 we reconvene here, those who want to discuss

19 EQC derivation and the formulae for dilution that De

20 Beers have done for Lake N11. That'll be from 12:30

21 to 1:15 in here. And notes will taken, and it will

22 be posted to the record for the session.

23 So no more opening comments.

24 Everybody did a good job of responding to Lindsey's

25 sign to state your name yesterday, so we'll continue



15

1 doing that today. And De Beers are going to open

2 then with a summary of the AEMP workshop that took

3 place on Monday.

4

5 (BRIEF PAUSE)

6

7 AEMP WORKSHOP PRESENTATION BY DE BEERS CANADA INC.:

8 MR. CRAIG BLACKIE: Good morning,

9 everyone. Craig Blackie, from De Beers. We hosted a

10 -- a workshop for the AEMP, the Aquatic Effects

11 Monitoring Program, on Monday. It was the second

12 workshop of it -- of its -- of this kind that we've

13 hosted for this program. The first one was in March

14 of 2013.

15 I -- most of the people in the room

16 here were -- were in attendance on Monday. It was

17 great to -- to see that everyone was able to -- to

18 make the time to come out, and we appreciate everyone

19 participating. And thanks to the Board for being

20 flexible with the schedule and allowing us to hold

21 this workshop prior to the technical sessions.

22 Overall it was a -- a productive

23 workshop. We covered a number of topics, ranging

24 from the -- the overall AM -- AEMP design plan, which

25 of course plays into what we discussed yesterday with



16

1 the -- the project description. So, of course, that

2 during dewatering, monitoring will look differently

3 than when the lake is -- or the control area is -- is

4 cut off from the -- the downstream environment. So

5 obviously monitoring at that point will change: a

6 different set of lakes, different set of, sort of

7 questions or -- or uncertainties, I guess, that would

8 need to be -- need to be resolved.

9 The components of the AEMP were

10 discussed; and so hydrology, plankton, benthics,

11 fish, fish health, fish toxicity.

12 We also got into the -- the response

13 framework. And, you know, basically how it works,

14 discussion on the action levels that -- that we're

15 proposing for -- for the program.

16 This led into a discussion, finally,

17 on the weight of evidence approach. So how it works,

18 what it informs, how -- how it fits in with the --

19 the response framework within the AEMP.

20 So we heard a -- a lot of feedback

21 from -- from folks in -- in the audience, in -- in

22 the group, ranging from our baseline data set. And

23 Nathen touched on this yesterday. So we've got some

24 good news. The base -- baseline synthesis document

25 that we discussed on Monday will be available Monday



17

1 for -- for people to review. And I think that will

2 clarify and -- and put into context, I guess, the --

3 some of the -- the uncertainties and questions

4 surrounding what -- what data we have.

5 We talked about the raised D/E lakes.

6 So during dewatering, the lakes that are -- that are

7 raised and, to a lesser extent, N11, as well. But

8 the -- the D/E lakes, we -- we discussed some of the

9 hydrology issues, some concerns about mercury in --

10 in fishes. And -- and that also led into a

11 conversation on the reference lakes. And so one (1)

12 of the follow-up items on the next slide here is --

13 is a further discussion on -- on our reference lakes.

14 Methodology for the various components

15 was discussed. So for sediment -- the -- the

16 sediment compo -- component, you know, looking at

17 core -- core samples versus grabs. In the case of

18 fish, you know, some questions about whether small-

19 versus large-bodied fish should be applied. And --

20 and so we had a good discussion on that.

21 And then plankton, you know, the

22 sampling frequency, what you can actually, you know,

23 tell from the plankton component alone. You know,

24 there's seasonal variability to contend with and

25 that, so the discussion on that.



18

1 We also looked at the spatial extent

2 of where response framework triggers would be --

3 would be triggered. So there was some -- some

4 question about say, for example, wou -- would we wait

5 until, say, water quality or other indicators were

6 noted down at Kirk Lake before we acted. And, of

7 course, the answer is 'no' to that; much sooner than

8 that.

9 And then some -- some misconceptions

10 on the -- the weight of evidence approach and how

11 it's applied. And so I -- I think Peter and others

12 gave, I think, a good ex -- explanation how and what

13 the weight of evidence approach really -- really

14 does.

15 So in terms of some of the key

16 outcomes, as I mentioned, we've got this baseline

17 synthesis document that'll be made available to -- to

18 people Monday, you know, further discussion on the

19 reference lakes, obviously further refining the --

20 the benchmarks and action levels for the response

21 framework.

22 And then, as well, and it's a fairly

23 new one to -- to AEMPs, as Nathen pointed out, and

24 that is that, you know, the physical aspect,

25 including hydrology and -- and including some



19

1 physical action levels with respect to hydrology. So

2 we'll be working on that.

3 And so, I guess, the commitment is

4 that De Beers will host another workshop prior to --

5 prior to the public hearing, where we'll further this

6 along. And I think this was Nathen's comment here,

7 that this AEMP is more developed than others at this

8 -- at -- than other projects at this stage. And so

9 we're -- we're encouraged by the participation with

10 everyone, all the -- the parties and the -- you know,

11 the positive step forward that we're making.

12 So with that, we can turn it over to

13 questions.

14

15 QUESTION PERIOD:

16 THE CHAIRPERSON: Neil Hutchinson

17 here. Thanks very much, Craig. Any questions around

18 the room on the AEMP workshop?

19 Okay, Neil here. I did have one (1)

20 question, Craig. One of the questions that was asked

21 on Monday was, in the past, the action levels and

22 response framework has been developed as an outcome

23 after the water licensing process. And just to

24 clarify, I believe the intent was that De Beers would

25 like to see the action levels approved as part of the



20

1 water licence this time.

2 Is that correct?


4 Chisholm, from De Beers. Yeah, that's correct, Neil.

5 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, Neil here.

6 Thanks very much. So that's just a reminder that for

7 the hearing De Beers would, therefore, be submitting

8 any revised action levels that came out of these

9 workshops. And then people would have a chance to

10 respond to them in their interventions, so.

11 Has any discussion happened on when

12 the date of the next workshop might be, or is that

13 just going to be left to the participants to sort

14 out?


16 Chisholm, from De Beers. There's been discussions.

17 We want to provide some options to folks because it's

18 a very busy March, I think, for people. And -- and

19 so we'll gather together and we'll distribute an

20 email that provides some -- some opportunities to

21 select that final date.

22 THE CHAIRPERSON: Neil Hutchinson.

23 Thanks very much, Veronica. Okay, so we're going to

24 move into then a discussion of the AEMP that we

25 didn't get to yesterday. And was there a



21

1 presentation to start this off, Veronica?


3 Chisholm, from De Beers. It was our understanding we

4 were just going to do an update of the outcomes from

5 the workshop as a presentation, but not a

6 presentation itself since a lot of the technical

7 material had been covered in the workshop. However,

8 we're -- the team is here to answer questions or

9 follow-ups from the Monday workshop, so if we can

10 proceed with that.

11 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. That

12 would be great. So we'll start with any questions to

13 De Beers on the AEMP. AANDC...?

14 MR. NATHEN RICHEA: Thank you. It's

15 Nathen Richea, AANDC. I just want to agree. I think

16 we had a productive meeting on -- on Monday. There

17 was a lot of things that we went through and

18 discussed. There are some aspects of the program

19 that we had some, I guess, comments on. I don't want

20 to go over them all again. We spent the whole day on

21 it, so I don't think we have enough time.

22 But what I did agree to do was to

23 summarize some of the suggestions and some feedback

24 on the AEMP and provide that to the -- the -- to De

25 Beers as soon as I could. Probably won't be till



22

1 next week, but I will do that. And then I think I

2 would like to CC the Board on that so at least the

3 Board's aware that something is happening on the

4 AEMP.

5 I generally support the idea of having

6 action levels set for the licence. There may be some

7 challenges logistically and time-wise, trying to get

8 an AEMP working group meeting in before interventions

9 and then a revised set of action levels before

10 interventions, being that time is getting short. But

11 I do support the idea and trying to work to achieve

12 that. We'll see how well we can progress on that.

13 But as mentioned in the -- in the

14 presentation, it's -- and the AEMP is actually --

15 it's conceptual and it's a draft for feedback. But

16 it's -- it's pretty detailed and there's a lot of

17 good information in there and -- and, you know -- you

18 know, pretty good understanding of what is being

19 proposed for the monitoring program for operations.

20 There are some areas, like the

21 hydrology that you mentioned, that I think we could

22 probably work together to sort out. Seeing that's

23 something knew, we don't have a lot of the hydrology

24 stuff in other AEMPs that we currently have in the

25 North.



23

1 The one (1) thing that I think I do

2 want to focus on for right now is the reference lake

3 concern and -- and the fact that, within the

4 watershed -- so the Kirk Lake watershed -- there's

5 quite a bit of variability, I guess, in some of the

6 receiving lakes. And then it just makes it more

7 challenging to find an appropriate reference or

8 potentially two (2) different reference lakes.

9 So that was something that we

10 discussed on Monday, and it's something I -- I do

11 want to continue to work on as part of the working

12 group. But it may require that additional -- well,

13 the baseline data stuff that you will provide on

14 Monday will help, but it may require some more data

15 collection this year in 2014, depending on what the

16 results of that baseline compilation document

17 indicates for the reference lakes.

18 So I don't really have too much to say

19 on that at this point, but I'll look at the baseline

20 compilation document that's going to be prepared and

21 submitted on Monday. And if I have some suggestions,

22 I'll definitely send them along to De Beers.

23 From my perspective, the time is now

24 to collect this baseline. I would like to see it

25 done. If -- if there are gaps that need to be



24

1 filled, particularly for the reference lakes, because

2 the methodology for the AEMP is contingent on having

3 a reference if you're going to do reference exposure.

4 If the reference lakes aren't suitable, then you have

5 to go with a different type of design, which impacts

6 the progression of the AEMP development.

7 So I think that's all I have for right

8 now.

9 MR. DAVID HUEBERT: Dave Huebert,

10 from AANDC. Could -- could you refresh my memory?

11 What volumes of discharge are you anticipating during

12 the operational phases into N11? I -- I seem to

13 recall it was like 2 million cubic metres a year.

14 Is that -- or fifteen hundred (1,500)?

15 MR. BILL HORNE: Bill Horne, EBA. Up

16 to the initial dewatering, the -- the discharge to

17 N11 would be about 3 1/2 million cubic metres a year.

18 MR. DAVID HUEBERT: Dave Huebert,

19 from AANDC. We had -- we got some information

20 yesterday that -- that I was mulling over last night.

21 The -- the volume of the lake, of Lake N11, is

22 approximately 20 cubic -- 20 million cubic metres.

23 The watershed yield is about 20 million cubic metres.

24 So the residence time, if I remember

25 my -- my Wetzel correctly, it should be about six (6)



25

1 months. So it's -- it's the time it takes to replace

2 50 percent of the volume. The -- the time it takes

3 to replace the entire lake volume, assuming mixing,

4 would be about two (2) years.

5 So the lake system, based on the

6 yield, is -- is highly responsive to change, and so I

7 don't think the mixing zone concept is particularly

8 useful in this context. I think what you need to do

9 is look at the relationship between the yield and the

10 -- the discharge.

11 So the 3 1/2 million cubic metres,

12 that's about -- about 15 percent of the -- of the

13 natural yield. And so the steady-state concentration

14 of N11 after about two (2) years should be about 15

15 percent of the discharge concentration. So that's

16 quite a bit less than forty-two (42).

17 I'm just wondering if De Beers has

18 considered the long-term steady-state concentration

19 rather than simply looking at a mixing zone model,

20 which I don't think is particularly useful in this

21 situation?


23 for the Board. Before we get into a lengthy

24 discussion of this, David, is this is something that

25 we could talk about in the breakout session at



26

1 lunchtime when we're talking specifically about

2 mixing zones and -- and...?

3 MR. DAVE HUEBERT: I -- I have to

4 apologize, I have to leave at -- at noon. I have

5 another commitment.

6 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. So is this

7 something that De Beers could provide a -- a response

8 to right now, or -- or...?

9

10 (BRIEF PAUSE)

11


13 Chisholm, from De Beers. This comes as a bit of a

14 surprise to us. This is -- this is the fundamental

15 plan that we had proposed in the water licence. It

16 didn't come through in any of the comments that I

17 recall. And I can be corrected on that.

18 And so we -- we responded to the

19 comments and AANDC was given the opportunity to

20 provide those comments on our design. And so it's

21 difficult for us in this -- in this to -- in this

22 session here right now to give a -- an answer. I

23 think we may have to take on something as an

24 Information Request.

25 We'd like some time to think about it,



27

1 because it is -- it's coming as a bit of a surprise

2 to us at this point. And certainly, we want to be

3 able to address this, because it's a fundamental part

4 of our -- of our mine plan, is the movement of water

5 into Lake N11. And it's what's we've studied, and

6 it's what we've presented, and it's what we evaluated

7 in our Impact Assessment.

8 So I -- I guess I would request that

9 the Board give us some time to think about what would

10 be an appropriate response to that in order to

11 provide AANDC with the information that they need.

12 THE CHAIRPERSON: Neil, for the

13 Board. And thank you, Veronica. I think that's a

14 very good idea. So if -- if -- if AANDC was -- was

15 acceptable, could you -- can we formulate that as an

16 Information Request number 7, that De Beers provide a

17 steady-state model of conservative -- conservative

18 ions in Lake N11 over the three (3) year dis --

19 discharge period?

20 Would that cover your concern, David,

21 if we ra -- phrase it that way?

22 MR. DAVE HUEBERT: Yeah, I think that

23 -- that would be useful, yeah.

24

25 --- INFORMATION REQUEST NO. 7:



28

1 De Beers to provide a steady state

2 model over the three year discharge

3 period for Lake N11 by February 24

4


6 Chisholm, from De Beers. We'd just like to look at

7 the -- the wording of the IR, like you've given us an

8 opportunity from yesterday, and see whether it's

9 appropriate. And we'll provide that feedback on the

10 record.


12 for the Board. Yes, that's-- that's assumed,

13 Veronica. Thank you.

14

15 (BRIEF PAUSE)

16


18 for the Board. Any -- any other questions relating

19 to AEMP? Dave...?

20 MR. DAVE HUEBERT: This is Dave

21 Huebert, from AANDC. When -- when I first read the

22 AEMP, I -- I was -- it was my understanding that the

23 -- the response framework and the -- and the weight

24 of evidence were two (2) separate activities. But

25 I've since noticed, and it's been pointed out to me,



29

1 that -- that within the response framework, one (1)

2 of the action levels is to -- is to revisit the --

3 re-evaluate the benchmarks and revise if necessary.

4 I was a bit surprised to read that.

5 Perhaps that's standard practice in the North. I --

6 I've never -- generally when you have a regulatory

7 limit, that's what the limit is. And if your

8 operations don't meet that, then you're considered

9 noncompliant and you have to adjust your operations

10 or -- or find some solution. You don't change the

11 benchmarks.

12 I -- I was just wondering if -- if --

13 if that's a -- if -- if De Beers could comment, if

14 that's a standard way that -- that they run their

15 operations, if that's...

16 Maybe the Board can comment if -- if

17 that's an acceptable approach to -- to, you know,

18 maintaining the regulatory requirements. Thank you.

19 MR. ZABEY NEVITT: We're in the

20 middle of an intu -- Zabey Nevitt, with the Board.

21 We're in the middle of an -- a process. We're not

22 actually going to comment on what's appropriate at

23 this point.

24 MR. PETER CHAPMAN: Peter Chapman.

25 Dave, I'm a little surprised that you think it's



30

1 unusual, because if you look at CCME, as you're

2 aware, the Canadian Council of Ministers of the

3 Environment, they develop water quality guidelines

4 that are conservative, and they give the option to

5 develop site specific.

6 So right there in the national you

7 have the option to start off with something

8 conservative. And if it turns out that that's

9 perhaps too conservative, to see if you can get --

10 you can adjust and become site specific, still

11 providing environmental protection without undue

12 penalty to industry because the different limit is

13 still going to be as protective. You're just being

14 site specific.

15 MR. DAVE HUEBERT: Dave Huebert, from

16 AANDC. Yes, I -- I -- I agree, but generally the

17 site-specific water quality guidelines would be -- I

18 -- I would think would be developed after your

19 modelling if you determine that it's an appropriate

20 thing to do, not as a response to an unexpected

21 regulatory limit exceedance. That is not part of the

22 action plan, but actually part of the -- the planning

23 of the -- of the entire process so that -- that once

24 you determine those site-specific limits, they

25 wouldn't change.



31

1 DR. KATHY RACHER: Kathy Racher, for

2 the Board. As Zabey said, like, we can't say what

3 would be ac -- acceptable in this case or whatever,

4 but I can say in -- in other licences where we have

5 the response framework built into the conditions for

6 the AEMP, what it -- what the licences say is that if

7 an action level is exceeded, then -- then the Company

8 has to submit a response plan to the Board.

9 And at that stage, I mean, the

10 Proponent is free to recommend the responses that

11 they think are appropriate, like changing an action

12 level if they think that's the right thing to do in

13 that particular case with rationale.

14 What, you know, the Board ends up

15 doing or -- or getting the Company to do will be

16 based on the evidence before it, so it's not -- we --

17 we've said this. The Wek'eezhii Board has -- has

18 dealt with response frameworks and other AEMPs, and -

19 - and the companies do put in the sort general kinds

20 of actions that they think they might take, and --

21 and that's fine, but that doesn't -- that doesn't

22 bind the Board to -- to take that action. That --

23 that's been recommended as a general action in -- or

24 general response in the -- in the framework.

25 So it just -- I just wanted to clarify



32

1 that.

2 MR. NATHEN RICHEA: It's Nathen

3 Richea, AANDC. Excuse me. There was some degree of

4 discussion, I think, particularly on one (1) figure,

5 on Monday. The people that were here probably

6 remember. This kind of goes along the lines of --

7 and I think, Veronica, you actually stepped into the

8 meeting at that point, where evaluating the -- the

9 benchmarks as a first action level was something that

10 we weren't very comfortable with.

11 And -- and that at the time, when we

12 were explaining the conversation, you said, Well, if

13 we had things that we could do to mitigate that trend

14 from increasing, a low-level action has been

15 triggered. We would definitely do that.

16 And I think you were going to try to

17 clarify the AEMP, or change it or whatever, to at --

18 to at -- at least include that part. So I think that

19 would be the first step to help alleviate our

20 concern.

21 But Dave's point is -- is relevant, I

22 think, particularly when we were talking yesterday

23 when Todd Slack was sort of saying on Monday that the

24 water quality is -- is to be protected, too, from a

25 Aboriginal group point of view, and it's not always



33

1 just the biological responses. The first thing

2 that's going to change is your water quality. I

3 understand that from a science perspective.

4 To assess what the changes are, you

5 tend to look at biology and -- and see what's

6 happening in the aquatic ecosystem. However, just

7 defaulting to that level immediately without

8 considering the changes and the impacts to potential

9 of the water quality, per se, sometimes causes

10 concern for some of the groups.

11 And I think it's -- it's also

12 described in CCME where it says if you have waters of

13 superior quality, you're supposed to protect them.

14 So I know there's different aspects of CCME that talk

15 about how you can change site-specific water quality

16 objectives and -- and things like that, but it also

17 says that, if you have exceptional water, that you

18 should try to do whatever you can to protect it.

19 So if -- if you can just -- I'll put

20 it in my comments that I send to you on the AEMP

21 framework or AEMP document. But if the low-level

22 triggers could include mitigation, if -- if you can

23 identify what the cause is or what's the source of

24 that potential accedence, we'd like to see that. So

25 I'll send that over.



34

1 THE CHAIRPERSON: De Beers...?


3 Chisholm, from De Beers. I appreciate the question.

4 Some of this was evaluated as part of the

5 environmental impact review process. We had

6 discussions on narrative statements. We talked about

7 traditional knowledge being included in our

8 objectives. We talked about the ability -- or

9 anything that we would have, is that there would be

10 water to drink, and fish to catch, and fish to eat.

11 And those were core values that we were protecting

12 from a traditional knowledge point of view.

13 And so everything that we're -- we've

14 oriented our program around has been vetted through

15 the review process so that core values could be

16 protected, because that had been communicated to us

17 from a traditional knowledge point of view. And

18 that's the -- the underlying premise of our entire

19 water management and follow-up monitoring program, is

20 to protect that core value.

21 And so that's a fundamental underlying

22 principle of our plan. I think it's important to be

23 stated, because that was something that was very

24 carefully considered in -- by the Review Board with

25 our project, and through the environmental assessment



35

1 process.

2 So -- so I appreciate the comments. I

3 look forward to the clarity that AANDC will provide

4 on the AEMP. But I'm -- I'm a bit worried we're into

5 environmental assessment type of questions on our

6 projects at the -- at the regulatory stage. And --

7 and so we're -- we're just going to be cognizant and

8 reflect back to any decisions that were made through

9 the review process. That process is concluded, and

10 now we're into a regulatory phase.

11 And so it's just a bit -- I'm just

12 going to put that as a -- a bit of a concern that I

13 see creeping in at this stage in the review process.

14 So we'll reflect on that as well in some of the

15 responses we provide to the registry in -- in any of

16 the IRs. Thank you.


18 Nathen Richea, AANDC. I'm just trying to think how I

19 could respond to that. I -- I agree with the

20 statements. From the impact review, there were no

21 measures specifically to narrative statements or

22 site-specific water quality objectives. We tried,

23 but there were no measures specifically to that.

24 As part of the environmental

25 assessment process, typically EQC in -- in the past,



36

1 EQC and SSWQOs were -- are something that the Board

2 has sort of deflected to the regulatory Board to --

3 to address, which is why we're sort of in this

4 discussion again, although we've had sort of -- we've

5 had discussions on this in the past.

6 And regarding the Aquatic Effects

7 Monitoring Program and triggers, the level of detail

8 during the environmental assessment doesn't get into

9 this type of -- in the -- in the weeds type work that

10 we're working on right now. That's what the

11 regulatory process is for.

12 So that just happens to be where we're

13 at right now, so that's my response to that.


15 for the -- for the Board. I -- we have a -- a

16 fundamental disagreement here, and both -- both sides

17 have good points. And we are going to be -- the

18 action levels -- proposed action levels will be

19 submitted by De Beers for review as part of the

20 hearings. So I think we can hold off on further

21 discussion now.

22 But, Nathen, you -- you -- you've

23 talked about submitting these questions to De Beers

24 and to the Board. Just for the sake of clarity,

25 would you consider submitting them as an IR, so we



37

1 could -- so everybody could have a -- have a look at

2 the questions that you have for De Beers?


4 Richea, AANDC. When's the deadline?

5

6 (BRIEF PAUSE)

7

8 THE CHAIRPERSON: It's the 24th.

9 MR. NATHEN RICHEA: Nathen Richea,

10 AANDC. February 24th. When's the Fortune hearing?

11 MR. SEAN WHITAKER: The 24th to the

12 27th.

13

14 (BRIEF PAUSE)

15


17 AANDC. Okay.

18


20 AANDC to provide a list of AEMP

21 questions by February 24 for De Beers

22 to answer as part of the next AEMP

23 workshop

24

25 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. I'm



38

1 sure you have them -- Neil, for the Board. I'm sure

2 you have them written down somewhere, Nathen, and

3 just -- just for the sake of all, so we know what the

4 questions are. Thank you.

5

6 (BRIEF PAUSE)

7

8 THE CHAIRPERSON: All right. Any

9 other discussion items, moving around the table, on

10 the AEMP from -- from any parties? No more comments?

11 Dave...?

12 MR. DAVE HUEBERT: It -- it's Dave

13 Huebert, again. I -- I just wanted to -- to -- to

14 maybe clarify. I -- I think the use of site-specific

15 water quality guidelines is a very sound practice.

16 In our experience, CCME guidelines, the generic ones,

17 are sort of screening-level guidelines. And maybe

18 Environment Canada would disagree with that, but

19 that's our point of view as consultants.

20 But that wasn't really my point. My

21 point was that once you develop your site-specific

22 water quality guidelines, I don't think they should

23 change, and that was the point I was trying to make.

24 And I know Golder has -- has a document outlining

25 some of the site-specific water quality guidelines



39

1 that they've developed for various compounds, and --

2 and I -- I think that was -- I think in my review two

3 (2) years ago, I said that was really well done. So

4 -- so that work has been done. That's not the -- the

5 question.


7 for the Board. And also understanding that the

8 action level's not necessarily a site-specific water

9 quality objective either, so, okay. I think we've --

10 we can move on, and De Beers were going to present

11 something on mine rock management next.


13 Chisholm, from De Beers. Yes, we'll just set that

14 up. Ken DeVos -- it's -- the focus of this

15 presentation will be on the geochemistry of mine

16 rocks. We had a number of questions. We want to

17 allow some time for that.

18

19 (BRIEF PAUSE)

20

21 GEOCHEMISTRY OF MINE ROCK PRESENTATION BY DE BEERS

22 CANADA INC.:

23 MR. KEN DEVOS: Ken DeVos, with

24 Golder Associates. So I've -- I put together just a

25 few slides to start the discussion. The slides don't



40

1 go through every aspect of the geochemical program.

2 There's a -- a lot of data and information, but they

3 do go through a few things that -- that have come up

4 in the IRs, so hopefully it'll address some of the

5 questions and then I'm looking forward to continuing

6 the discussion.

7 So what I'll talk briefly about with

8 respect to the slides are the sum -- a brief summary

9 of sample locations and numbers, mine rock ABA

10 sensitivity analysis, placement criteria, and the

11 monitoring program, and if anyone's interested in

12 looking at the details, they're in Appendix 8.2 of

13 the 2012 EIS supplement, Appendix 8.3 of the 2010

14 EIS, and the 2013 ML/ARD Update Report. That's Metal

15 Leaching/Acid Rock Drainage Update Report, and that

16 was submitted in January of 2014.

17 So this next slide just shows the

18 sample drill hole locations. So with Hearne, 5034,

19 and Tuzo Pit, the primary sampling program was

20 conducted between 2004 and 2008, and from these

21 holes, they collected samples on either initially at

22 6-metre intervals, so across the 6 metre interval,

23 followed by 12-metre intervals in the latter part of

24 the sampling program.

25 So from this, there's a -- a -- it



41

1 demonstrates that there's a fairly reasonable spatial

2 distribution of samples, and the purpose of the 2004

3 to 2008 program was to obtain those representative

4 samples from across the various pit zones from the

5 waste zones from those pits.

6 So Slide 4, if we look at the amount

7 of test work that was done on these samples, in terms

8 of static tests, there were five hundred twenty-eight

9 (528) samples of kimberlite and a hundred and twenty-

10 six (126) sample analysis for the processed

11 kimberlite. There were twelve (12) kinetic tests

12 performed on the kimberlite and thirty-four (34) on

13 processed kimberlite.

14 And some of those were from a -- a

15 supplemental program that was initiated in 2011 to

16 address some phosphorus that we had seen in one (1)

17 of the test samples. So we did eighteen (18)

18 supplemental tests on the -- I believe it was

19 eighteen (18). I can check the specific number, but

20 -- and of those supplemental, humidity cell, and

21 subaqueous column tests, we could not replicate the

22 high phosphorus values that we had in the one (1)

23 sample.

24 And I guess to address Nathen --

25 Nathen's question from -- from yesterday



42

1 specifically, in terms of the source of phosphorus,

2 we did a number of mineralogy tests, including

3 mineral deportation studies, that showed that there

4 were apatite and monzonite minerals supplying the

5 phosphorus for -- within the -- the kimberlite itself

6 at fairly low levels.

7 But the one (1) sample that we had

8 higher phosphorus values, that sample had an unknown

9 iron titanium phosphorus mineral, so we suspect there

10 may have been some sample contamination in that

11 particular sample.

12 And those are, I believe, in Appendix

13 3 of the 2013 update report, if you want to look at

14 all of the detailed min -- mineralogy on those

15 samples.

16 So in terms of number of samples from

17 mine rock, I think it's important to first understand

18 what we mean by granite, granodiorite, altered

19 granitoids, diabase. These rocks all look very

20 similar. So in terms of geological classification,

21 for the most part, the data set is undifferentiated

22 in terms of what these materials are.

23 So although we have eleven hundred and

24 eighty-eight (1,188) samples of granite, there are pr

25 -- likely altered granites in there, diabase in



43

1 there. There's likely some granodiorites in there.

2 So the -- really the data set -- and -- and some

3 samples were -- depending on the geologist who did

4 the classification, we have a few samples where

5 they've actually classified them as these various

6 other rock types.

7 So when we think about mine rock,

8 we're really talking about almost a single unit of

9 granite in various states. So we treat that as a

10 single unit. So we have twelve hundred and fifty-

11 four (1,254) samples of tho -- those materials, and

12 we've conducted twenty-four (24) kinetic tests on --

13 on those materials.

14 So one of IRs that -- that came

15 through was around doing some additional -- looking -

16 - looking a little bit more closely at the NP to AP

17 ratios rather than just total sulphur.

18 So I pulled out -- up the -- the file

19 and did a little bit more looking at that, because I

20 think it's important to understand that -- that when

21 you blast and place these materials, they will get

22 very well blended together. So there's not, you

23 know, one (1) zone where there's a whole bunch of

24 sulphide minerals kicking around. It's kind of

25 distributed through the deposit.



44

1 So when we look at a blended pile,

2 whether it's -- well, you know, if we look at a

3 blended mine rock pile and we look at the -- the

4 neutralization potential, or NP, to the acid

5 potential, or AP, the ratios in -- in almost all

6 instances indicate this -- that the pile, when

7 blended, is going to be non-acid-generating with

8 excess neutralizing capacity.

9 So we don't expect this pile is going

10 to generate acidity even if we were just to take the

11 rock and dump it in big piles and not even worry

12 about where the -- how much sulphur we encountered.

13 Well, we -- we want to worry about it, but we want to

14 -- we want to deal with it appropriately.

15 But if we look at the median NP to AP

16 ratio, it's eight point three two (8.32). So we have

17 three (3) -- eight (8) times as much neutralization

18 potential as acid potential, and when we do a

19 sensitivity analysis on this we look at the carbonate

20 NP to AP ratio.

21 We have -- which -- and -- and

22 carbonate is a little bit more readily available to

23 buffer acidity if that acidity happens to be

24 produced. We have more than two (2) times the

25 buffering capacity in the form of carbonates than we



45

1 do acid production potential.

2 If we start looking at sensitivity,

3 we'll say, Okay, well, what happens if we use the

4 75th percentile acid potential. We still have more

5 than enough carbonate neutralization potential to

6 buffer the acid potential.

7 So -- and you may notice that the 75th

8 percentile ratio is higher than the mean ratio. And

9 that's simply because there are few samples that were

10 collected that had -- in very few samples had higher

11 sulfide content, so that skews the mean a little bit

12 high for that and -- and lowers the ratio.

13 So the -- the -- you know, the -- the

14 important point to take away from this slide is that

15 the overall rock pile is expected to be non-acid

16 generating with excess neutralizing potential.

17 So I apologize for this slide, because

18 some of it got lost in formatting when we were trying

19 to get the format to the slide sorted out, so we're

20 missing part of a line in this slide, but I'll --

21 I'll talk you through it.

22 So the key considerations when we --

23 we're starting to manage this -- this rock in terms

24 of thinking about putting together the piles, the

25 logistics of -- of sampling and -- and moving rock



46

1 around, how much of other materials we have to build

2 piles. We need to think about, you know,

3 understanding that the overall pile is non-acid

4 generating; well, how much rock are we dealing with?

5 If we use total sulphur as a -- as a

6 criteria to differentiate potentially acid-generating

7 rock from non-potentially acid-generating rock, then

8 about 7.5 percent of the samples, so ninety-three

9 (93) out of the twelve hundred and thirty-eight

10 (1,238), I believe. If we use -- if -- that -- that

11 doesn't quite give the full picture, however, because

12 for some of those samples with greater than .1

13 percent total sulphur content there's also a

14 neutralization potential that acts to buffer any

15 potential acidity that could be produced.

16 So when we look at a combination of

17 both the total sulphur content being greater than .l

18 percent and the NP to AP ratio being less than 2,

19 what we find is about 4.8 percent of the rock sample.

20 So -- so this is the -- the line that was lost in

21 translation, or in -- in formatting here, that should

22 read, the second bullet under the -- the second sub-

23 bullet under the first bullet should read: 4.8

24 percent of rock samples have total sulphur greater

25 than 0.1 weight percent and the NP or -- an NP to AP



47

1 ratio of less than two (2).

2 So, again, when -- even when combined,

3 this -- this pile is going to be no -- non-acid

4 rating -- acid generating with excess NP. And the

5 humidity cell test data that we -- we look at, we

6 have very low metal leaching concentrations, and that

7 holds true even for -- we have -- have an acidic --

8 some acidic samples. We did some pre-leaching of --

9 well, there was some pre-leaching done on the granite

10 samples with subsequent humidity cell tests. And

11 there was one (1) sample with a sulfide content of

12 0.1 percent total sulphur that was submitted for

13 humidity cell testing that had had a moderately

14 acidic pH of five point five (5.5).

15 Even under those conditions, the

16 concentrations were -- were low, which indicates that

17 this material will have a low acid generation

18 potential. So even if there is some minor sulfide or

19 trace of sulfide minerals in the -- in the materials,

20 we don't expect there to be significant metals coming

21 off of the materials.

22 So the last bullet. With respect to

23 how we treated this data, in the EIS water quality

24 predictions and impact assessment, we assumed that 5

25 percent of the material in the pile was acid



48

1 generating. In fact, we used the leachate water

2 quality of the acid generating cell in the assignment

3 of water quality inputs.

4 We -- we even used the maximum of

5 either that acidic leachate, or the other leachates

6 that were observed in the neutral cells. So we just

7 picked the -- the greater of -- of those numbers and

8 used that for -- to assign to that 5 percent of the

9 pile.

10

11 (BRIEF PAUSE)

12

13 MR. KEN DEVOS: So I'll talk briefly

14 about some mine rock management, in terms of

15 requirements that -- that -- what we're suggesting

16 and proposing for mine rock management. Materials

17 with less than 0.1 weight percent total sulphur, we

18 consider those as appropriate for general

19 construction purposes. Whereas, materials with

20 greater than 0.1 weight percent total sulphur, we may

21 need to place those within the -- the body of the

22 mine rock pile.

23 What we're suggesting -- or what we're

24 proposing is that we do not place materials with

25 greater than 0.1 weight percent total sulphur within



49

1 15 metres of the pile edge. And it's not because we

2 feel that that would be -- that we would result in

3 poor water quality; it's just that it gives an extra

4 layer of protection in terms of increasing the

5 distance that oxygen would have to migrate, reducing

6 the rate of oxidation of the materials. And in

7 general, it's -- it would be good practice to have

8 that procedure in effect.

9 Now, if we find zones of -- of -- you

10 know, larger zones of -- of greater than 0.1 percent

11 total sulphur we could preferentially, and -- and we

12 recommend that -- that they preferentially be placed

13 near the base of the pile, because those piles will

14 flood up and the base of those piles will remain

15 saturated over time. Or, we could place those

16 materials at the base of mined-out open pits, because

17 again, those materials will flood up over time. And

18 when those materials flood up they -- you -- you're

19 going to reduce the oxygen penetrating to those rocks

20 and essentially eliminate the chance of additional

21 oxidation.

22 So the other thing to keep in mind is

23 that -- that De Beers does not plan just to put this

24 rock there with no follow-up. There will be a

25 monitoring program and a management plan. Monitoring



50

1 is going to consist of testing the blast hole

2 material at a rate of eight (8) samples per 100,000

3 tonnes of material blasted. That's currently in the

4 plan. That would be for total sulphur content. And

5 we'd be looking at using that information to confirm

6 that the environmental assessment predictions are

7 being -- you know, we're seeing them with the same

8 materials that we've used in the assumptions for

9 those predictions.

10 You know, where we observe material

11 with greater than .1 weight percent total sulphur, we

12 may do some additional ABA testing to determine if

13 ARD is expected, and to determine whether that rock

14 needs to be treated differently. If the rock is --

15 is determined to be non-acid generating then it may

16 be used for general construction purposes as well.

17 And De Beers will be develop --

18 further developing a standard operating procedure in

19 terms of flagging material, how to move the materials

20 to the different locations. In addition to that,

21 twice per year there will be an inspection performed

22 by a geochemist under the supervision of a

23 professional geologist in the Northwest Territories.

24 And that's going to consist of a site inspection to

25 confirm materials are being placed where -- where



51

1 they're supposed to be, the addition of any

2 additional seepage sampling locations if required,

3 and collection of supplemental samples, which will be

4 submitted for additional static testing to make sure

5 that the materials -- the geochemical materials are -

6 - or the materials have the geochemical properties

7 that we would expect based on the initial testing in

8 the EIS.

9 That's all I have for slides.

10

11 QUESTION PERIOD:


13 Thank you very much, Ken. I guess we'll just start

14 around the table with any questions for De Beers,

15 starting with AANDC, as usual.

16

17 (BRIEF PAUSE)

18

19 MR. JOHN BRODIE: It's John Brodie

20 speaking, for AANDC. I -- I guess I could go on with

21 questions for a long time, so I'm just trying to

22 organize my thoughts to be concise and make sure that

23 others have opportunity to answer -- ask questions,

24 as well.

25 I guess I'd like to start with kind of



52

1 a generic question. Could you describe wha...

2

3 (BRIEF PAUSE)

4

5 MR. JOHN BRODIE: I'm wondering if

6 you could just describe for us where you would expect

7 to see the higher sulphur type mineral -- mineralized

8 rock. The -- I'm presuming the altered granodi --

9 altered granodiorite is the higher sulphur material.

10 And where in the deposit would expect

11 to see those kinds of materials?

12 MR. KEN DEVOS: Ken Devos, with

13 Golder Associates. There's -- there's no -- in terms

14 of higher sulfide minerals, if we're talking about,

15 you know, samples with greater than .1 percent

16 sulfide as our definition, really that's not very

17 high in terms of sulfide content.

18 And they may be a little bit more

19 associated with the diorite dikes or with -- or

20 sorry, with the diabase dikes or where there is some

21 structure. But in terms of the overall data set,

22 there's not one (1) specific location or a number of

23 locations that are showing higher sulfide content

24 rela -- relative to others. And, in fact, if you --

25 we -- we looked at the distribution even by pit, and



53

1 the distribution is -- is fairly consistent across

2 the deposit.

3 So it's -- it's not like there's one

4 (1) zone that we found that is going to -- going to

5 have a huge amount of sulphur content. I mean, if

6 you look at -- at the types of granites we're talking

7 about, these are the types of granites that you would

8 use for counter tops, right. They're the types of

9 granites that you would quarry for road beds.

10 You know, this is really -- could be

11 considered a very large aggregate deposit, for all

12 intents and purposes.

13

14 (BRIEF PAUSE)

15


17 again. So -- so there's no preferential

18 concentration of the sulfide-type materials? It's

19 uniform through the entire waste rock mass? Is that

20 what you're trying to describe then?

21

22 (BRIEF PAUSE)

23

24 MR. ANDREW WILLIAMS: Andrew

25 Williams, De Beers Canada. John, the sulfide



54

1 minerals are scattered throughout the location, but

2 they're not uniformly distributed. There are small

3 pockets of sulfide minerals that may occur in various

4 locations, as Ken as mentioned earlier, sometimes on

5 -- on lineaments or fracture zones, sometimes in --

6 in some of the altered granite material that can be

7 seen, but it's not uniformly distributed. It -- it

8 is nuggety effect, I think, is -- for want of a

9 better word.

10 MR. JOHN BRODIE: It's John Brodie.

11 Thank you. That's kind of what I had -- had in mind,

12 was that there was zones that would be rocks of con -

13 - of geochemical concern. Which I -- I believe

14 that's what you've just confirmed to me, is that

15 there are these zones that we would see as, as being

16 mined, that would be higher in sulphur, whatever the

17 geologic means for that formation, but they are --

18 there are zones of -- of rock of geochemical concern.

19 Is that -- is that a fair statement?


21 Williams, De Beers Canada. John, I think what you --

22 what you'll see is isolated mineral in a rock, so

23 very small occurrences. And when we're logging the

24 drill core we rarely see, for example, sulfide

25 minerals. And so it's -- they're small occurrences,



55

1 and they're located in various places throughout the

2 -- throughout the rock mass. Hence, the -- the

3 sampling program that Ken described earlier, which is

4 essentially to try and determine if in any particular

5 volume there is any sulfide minerals present.

6 MR. JOHN BRODIE: It's John Brodie,

7 again. When you say "small occurrences," is that an

8 occurrence that's a rock mass of -- of tens of metres

9 in all directions, or it small occurrences, you know,

10 half a cubic metre, and then it changes again?


12 Williams, De Beers Canada. It would be more the

13 latter. Recently, we -- we had one (1) sample out of

14 -- one (1) drill hole out of forty-nine (49) where we

15 detected slightly elevated sulphur. We then did a

16 number of -- I think it was four (4) -- four (4)

17 holes around that particular site, and we sent that

18 off for AB -- ABA testing.

19 The spacing of the original drill

20 holes would have been in the order of a few metres.

21 MR. JOHN BRODIE: I'm going to leave

22 that for now. It's John Brodie again. In -- in one

23 (1) of your slides you just presented, you said that

24 you used the -- 5 percent of the pile as acid-

25 generating material and you used the humidity cell



56

1 leachate from that in your impact predictions.

2 Two (2) comments on that, or

3 questions. Is -- is humidity cell leachate

4 concentrations not fairly dilute compared to what

5 would actually occur on a water-to-mass basis in the

6 field? I'll let you answer that question first.

7

8 (BRIEF PAUSE)

9


11 Golder Associates. It's -- John, it's not

12 necessarily the case. It's -- it's very site

13 specific and it depends on the environment that it's

14 in, the end-use and the -- the end configuration of

15 the pile.


17 again. I guess I -- I -- in my experience, it's been

18 more typical to convert humidity cell leachates into

19 a release rate in terms of -- of milligrams per

20 kilogram per week, say, and use that for predictions

21 which typically results in different concentrations

22 than just applying humidity cell leachate. So I'm --

23 I'm surprised that -- that you would have done that.

24 And -- and I guess the follow onto

25 that is that, if 5 percent of the pile is acid



57

1 generating, overall that would represent about 15

2 million tons of PAG material at this site. And --

3 and I'm surprised that your predictions would show

4 that adverse conditions aren't arising from -- if we

5 just had 15 million tons of PAG material exposed on

6 the ground at this site, I would expect impacts to be

7 detectable. And -- and you're not predicting that.

8 So I'm -- I'm wondering if you could

9 just elaborate on -- on how that's been done.

10 MR. KEN DEVOS: John -- Ken DeVos --

11 can you repeat the first part of the question? We'll

12 likely be handling those two (2) questions

13 separately.

14 MR. JOHN BRODIE: It'S John Brodie.

15 The first part of that question was relating to the

16 prediction drainage water qualities using leachate,

17 humidity cell concentrations versus release rate

18 concentrations, and -- and why did you chose to use

19 humidity cell versus the more conventional release

20 rate type concentrations?

21

22 (BRIEF PAUSE)

23

24 MR. MICHAEL HERRELL: It's Mike

25 Herrell, from Golder Associates. Yeah, we -- we did



58

1 consider the -- the loading base approach, too. We

2 didn't take that approach on this particular project.

3 My professional experience with that approach is

4 there's -- there's a few -- it introduces a lot of

5 uncertainty in your model. Particularly, you have to

6 go down the pathway of scaling your results to a much

7 lower water-to-rock ratio, and you often over-predict

8 concentrations.

9 And we -- we actually had a -- a

10 poster presentation on this issue at the ICARD

11 conference in 2012. So I refer you to that paper for

12 the differences that can result.

13 The reason we consider it appropriate

14 to use the humidity cell results at this particular

15 site, is it's a non-acid generating -- the bulk --

16 the bulk acid-generating properties of the -- the

17 waste rock, it's non-acid generating. So the

18 solutions are going to be controlled by solubility

19 and not sulfide oxidation. So we -- we deemed it

20 appropriate to -- to use the humidity cell --

21 humidity cell results to represent solutions that

22 would be controlled by solubility.

23 And I just want to -- I want to add to

24 that. In terms of the conservatism built into the

25 model, I just want to provide a little bit more



59

1 background with respect to how we use that

2 information in the model and -- we -- we consider a

3 first flush in a steady-state concentration based on

4 -- on the humidity cell. The -- the first flush in

5 the humidity cell was put into the model as an analog

6 for freshet. And the -- if you're familiar with

7 humidity cells, often what we seen in the -- the

8 concentrations that come out of humidity cells is you

9 have a peak concentration and then a decrease in

10 concentrations.

11 And -- and generally -- the -- the

12 reason for that is -- when you -- when the test is

13 started, a lot of soluble oxidation products are

14 washed off at the beginning of the test and then you

15 reach steady-state reaction rates in your cell as the

16 -- the test procedure moves forward.

17 Now, we had several humidity cells of

18 granite material -- or individual materials of -- of

19 the waste rock and we looked at the first flush to

20 represent freshet. And based on the water balance

21 modelling that was done, the freshet accounts for 50

22 percent of the total runoff. So we scaled the -- the

23 results -- the source term up to the site condition

24 by applying basically a -- a mass per unit volume up

25 to -- up to the field conditions where we have a



60

1 water balance that simulates that.

2 So we took the maximum of the humidity

3 cells for each unit and put that into the -- the

4 humidity cell -- or into the -- into the water

5 quality model to represent freshet during -- during

6 the month of June, which will be about more than 50

7 percent of the load that's then being released into -

8 - into the system.

9 So we -- we consider that we've been

10 conservative in the -- the water quality predictions.

11 As to it being a more conventional approach to use

12 loading rates and -- and scaling up to some service

13 area, we see that on a lot of projects, but both --

14 both approaches are -- are acceptable. And we

15 received an IR on this from the Tlicho Government.

16 It's TG-10. I referred to that for -- for additional

17 details on the response in defence of this approach.


19 Golder Associates. I just want to add a little bit

20 more with respect to conservatism and with respect to

21 additional data that -- that -- with reg -- regards

22 to the approach.

23 You know, we're -- there's a benefit,

24 I guess, with Ekati starting first in that they have

25 more than -- than ten (10) to twelve (12) years of



61

1 data. So they've put together rock piles and they've

2 monitored rock piles. You know -- and the rock that

3 is expected to be encountered at GK is similar to the

4 rock that you would expect in Ekati in terms of the -

5 - the granatic rock types. Not so much so with

6 respect to Diavik where there's mud stones.

7 So if -- but if we look at Ekati as a

8 -- as an analog, some of the piles, they've been

9 monitoring seepage from those piles as they've been

10 building those piles for the last twelve (12) years.

11 And I'm thinking specifically the -- well, you can

12 look at all of the -- all of the seepage monitoring

13 results.

14 You don't see an increase in

15 concentrations. That information is publically

16 available. They -- they have a 2012 ML/ARD Report

17 that's -- that's available on the registry. The -- I

18 believe it's the Wek'eezhi registry for that one.

19 And when you look at -- at the

20 concentrations that they're -- they're measuring at

21 the base of those mine rock piles, they're very

22 steady, if not declining slightly over time. Even

23 the rock piles that do have some -- some potentially

24 acid-generating materials, although the rock pile

25 itself is -- is non-AG as a whole.



62

1 So that's a very good analog for what

2 we would expect at this site and we simply don't see

3 those values increasing, so we feel that we've used

4 the correct approach for this -- this particular

5 site. The other level of conservatism is that when

6 we take the humidity cell leachate results, we don't

7 -- we're not applying any -- any factors to reduce

8 those concentrations. So we're not applying

9 temperature correction factors, we're just applying

10 the leachate concentrations. We're not using

11 Arrhenius's relationship to bring those down, you

12 know. And we're not accounting and we're not relying

13 on the pile to be frozen, so we assume that -- that

14 water's going to make it through.


16 again. Thank you for that. I'm going to move on to

17 another one of your slides. In terms of mine rock

18 management, you suggested that the material that has

19 higher than .1 weight percent sulphur would be placed

20 not closer than 15 metres to the side or top of the -

21 - the rock piles.

22 How would you actually do that towards

23 the end of the mine life, in terms of if you

24 encounter these materials? How -- how do you put

25 them underneath the -- the last layer of rock in the



63

1 rock pile?

2 MR. DAN JOHNSON: Dan Johnson, JDS.

3 Yeah, after -- after year 4, John, all of the mine

4 rock goes into the mined-out pits, or either the

5 Hearne Pit or the 5034 Pit. So we expect the mine

6 rock piles to be completed in elevation. And you

7 always have the option to be completing elevation by

8 about -- probably about year 6 or 7. And then you

9 always have an option to put material in those last

10 couple years in one (1) of the mined out pits.


12 again. Obviously, putting material under water in

13 the -- in the pits will -- will address the oxidation

14 issue. And -- and I -- I'm fully in support of that

15 kind of concept.

16 If you did encounter material in say

17 year 4 that is not going to fit in the -- within that

18 15 metre boundary on the rock pile, would you

19 stockpile it and -- and place it later in the pit in

20 order to ensure that it's not within the outer zone

21 of the rock pile?


23 Golder Associates. I mean, that's -- that's the

24 reason that we'll be monitoring the rock, is to

25 ensure that the rock that's going into the pile is



64

1 appropriate for -- for the -- the management plan for

2 that rock.

3 You know, that would be a contingency

4 if there is -- if we do find those zones. But the --

5 you know, the sampling to date, the -- the over

6 twelve hundred (1,200) samples suggest that that's

7 not going to be -- be the case. We'll indicate that

8 that's not going to be the case.

9

10 (BRIEF PAUSE)

11


13 again. Just -- just so I'm -- I'm clear then, that

14 if that material was encountered as a contingency,

15 then you would take measures to put that material

16 aside and -- and re-handle it into a pit later, so

17 that it would not be in the outer zone of the rock

18 pile?

19 MR. DAN JOHNSON: Yeah. While you're

20 building the last pile, the west pile, you always

21 have the Hearne Pit to put material in. So any acid-

22 generating potential you -- acid-generating rock can

23 be put in the Hearne Pit. And then after year 7, the

24 5034 pit becomes available. And, therefore, all of

25 the mine rock after year 7 goes into the mined-out



65

1 pit.

2 So you have the option before you

3 finish the final zones of your -- of your rock to

4 have a location to put any suspect material in one of

5 the mined-out pits there.


7 Chisholm, from De Beers. I just want to clarify.

8 The answer is: Yes, we can do that. We can

9 segregate, and then move them into the pit if that's

10 unclear. I want to make the commitment clear.


12 Thank you for that. That was kind of what I was

13 hoping, was -- to hear, was -- was either, yes, you'd

14 segregate it or re-handle it. You know, I -- I could

15 be comfortable if you said, No, we'll build the pile

16 in a way that there's always a hole in the middle of

17 it, and we could just put that suspect material in

18 the hole in the middle of the pile and cover it

19 later.

20 The -- there are options. I'm just

21 looking to see that one (1) of those options would be

22 em -- employed simply because the other two (2)

23 mitigations that you described, limiting oxygen and

24 flooding the base of the piles, I don't think either

25 of those are -- are realistic mitigations in this



66

1 situation.

2 Temperature and ultimate freezing

3 makes more sense than talking about limiting oxygen

4 entry into a -- a pile of granite, and the base of

5 the piles -- the -- the water's only going to flood

6 the bottom 2 metres of these piles. So those are not

7 mitigations. So if you're prepared to segregate and

8 -- and somehow ensure that problem material is deep

9 in the pile, then that -- that makes good sense to

10 me.

11 I have only one (1) more question

12 relating to the monitoring and sampling of the

13 material as you're mining. You -- you proposed eight

14 (8) samples per 100,000 tonnes of material. If you

15 took those eight (8) samples, what would -- how would

16 you use that information?

17 In other words, are you going to use

18 the average of those eight (8), or would you -- if

19 you saw one (1) sample above .1 percent, how -- how

20 would you manage that sampling into a decision

21 criteria?

22

23 (BRIEF PAUSE)

24




67

1 Golder Associates. I -- the -- the answer to that

2 question is dependent on -- on what the -- the end

3 location of that material will be. You know, if the

4 material -- if there's lots of room in the pile and

5 the material will be in the centre of the pile, then

6 -- then we would probably just take that -- that

7 information and use it in our biannual checkup, if

8 you will, on -- on where material's being placed.

9 If the intention is that that area of

10 blasting and that area of rock will -- would be used

11 for construction or within 15 metres of the outer

12 edge of the pile, then additional testing and

13 sampling would be done surrounding that -- that rock,

14 such as Andrew described earlier. So that -- that

15 rock could be -- could be segregated out and -- and

16 would not be used for construction, nor within 15

17 metres of the edge of the pile.


19 again. I -- I -- I'm still a bit confused, then. If

20 you collected eight (8) samples per 100,000 tonnes,

21 and one (1) of them showed sulphur above. 1 percent,

22 what would you do?

23 Deem the average of those eight (8) to

24 be less than point one (.1) if that was the

25 mathematical average, or would you do additional



68

1 sampling to address the extent of the material that's

2 above point one (.1)?

3

4 (BRIEF PAUSE)

5


7 Golder Associates. Yeah. I mean, we would do -- in

8 -- in terms of -- of the treatment of those sample

9 results, there's -- there's the one (1) step of what

10 do you do with the rock right away, which I just

11 described, and then there's how do you assess the im

12 -- implications of that one (1) sample with respect

13 to the overall characteristics of the pile.

14 And to do that, we would do something

15 similar to what we -- we just did with the NP to AP

16 sensitivity. So we would look at all the samples.

17 We would look at, you know, where those samples came

18 from, how many samples there were that -- that were

19 potentially acid generating. We'd look at the NP to

20 AP balance of the pile for that -- that half of year

21 or, you know, in between the geochemical reports, and

22 make a determination as to whether additional

23 mitigation might be required based on that or whether

24 we need to adjust the sampling program based on the

25 amount of sulfide that we're seeing.



69

1 But as I -- I stated earlier, you

2 know, we don't -- don't believe that will be the

3 case. Based on the sampling that's been conducted to

4 date and the understanding of the geology of the

5 deposit, you know, we don't expect to see a lot of

6 sulfide minerals in this deposit.

7

8 (BRIEF PAUSE)

9

10 MR. JOHN BRODIE: This is John Brodie

11 again. I guess I can envision, based on what you

12 just provided in that answer, the -- if -- if you

13 just take the -- that -- look at it how it relates to

14 the overall deposit approach, you'd end up going back

15 to your slide ABA sensitivity analysis and conclude

16 that on a large enough scale, that all of the pile is

17 not -- would fit into one of those criteria as not

18 being potentially acid generating, and, therefore,

19 you don't have to do anything.

20 And -- and I'm somewhat concerned that

21 there's potential that some of these zones might be

22 sufficiently large to be -- be a geochemical problem,

23 and that we could have hot spots in these piles that

24 could be acid generating. So I -- I'm not

25 really hearing a criteria for deciding what to do



70

1 with it. I'm hearing a -- a way to use the

2 mathematics to say that on an overall basis none of

3 it's a problem, and I -- and I -- I don't agree with

4 that.

5 So can you somehow take that sampling

6 criteria and describe how that becomes a decision-

7 making method?

8

9 (BRIEF PAUSE)

10


12 Chisholm, from De Beers. Appreciate the question and

13 I think -- I think what we're missing here is as

14 we're sampling and doing the monitoring, we're

15 evaluating. So that happens on a biannual basis.

16 If we see a trend, John, that's

17 straying away from the 5 percent then, yes, we're

18 going to have to consider some alternative management

19 actions. If we start to see zones where we'd have to

20 do some additional testing to better delineate those

21 zones, we would do that.

22 We're referencing back to what we have

23 as terms of our base data set that's providing the

24 fundamental direction for our program to date. I'm

25 not trying to hide behind the mathematics. We're



71

1 just laying out a monitoring program, and that

2 monitoring program includes the testing that we

3 described, the biannual monitoring, the reflecting on

4 the data, and making management decisions based and

5 informed on the data that we're collecting at the

6 site at the time that we're working on it.

7 So I hope I've cleared that up.


9 Richea, AANDC, here. I think I'll start with -- I

10 had a similar concern. I -- I was reviewing the

11 draft Geochemical Characterization Plan, and I --

12 it's AANDC number 31 in the comment table. And it

13 was unclear to me in the plan, because at different

14 parts of the plan it talked about different sampling

15 frequencies, the eight (8) sampling per 100 (sic)

16 tonnes of rock versus the scheduled total number of

17 sampling of thirty (30) samples per year.

18 And then in response to, I guess, my

19 comment, it seems like the eight (8) samples per

20 100,000 tonnes will be sulphur analysis only, and

21 then in response to the thirty (30) samples per year,

22 there'll be thirty (30) samples that will undergo ABA

23 testing. I think that's what it says here in the

24 response.

25 Getting to John's point, for the --



72

1 for the waste rock pile there's a plan that you won't

2 put PAG rock in the outside zone of 15 metres has

3 been set. So you have these thresholds that -- that

4 you will use, and we're not disputing the thresholds.

5 It's just how are you going to make decisions on

6 whether this material from this blast pattern needs

7 to go in this part of the waste rock pile versus that

8 part of the waste -- waste rock pile.

9 And I think our concern is are you

10 sampling in enough frequency to indicate whether or

11 not that decision can be made where it goes in the

12 rock pile, or in the pit, or whether it needs to be

13 stockpiled to go into the pit?

14

15 (BRIEF PAUSE)

16


18 Golder Associates. I -- there's -- there's two (2)

19 parts, at least, to that question. So let me -- let

20 me answer the first part first and then I may ask you

21 again to repeat the second part.

22 I guess with respect to the -- the

23 sampling programs, the -- the eight (8) samples per

24 100,000 tonnes are general. Basically, it's just

25 routine monitoring. So those are total sulphur



73

1 samples. And if we would -- would -- if we saw a

2 sample at -- at higher than -- than a -- a point --

3 0.1 percent total sulphur, then -- then we would

4 either ensure that that rock ends up inside the pile

5 at the base of an open pit for the -- for the whole

6 blast or, if we wanted to use that blast for

7 construction, then we would have to do some

8 additional testing around that.

9 So the -- the second set of analysis,

10 so the thirty (30) samples, that would be collected

11 at the discretion of -- of the -- the geochemist

12 doing the site inspection. So those samples would

13 not necessarily be general samples. They might be

14 samples from rock piles. They might be samples of

15 specific zones that -- that we're seeing in the drill

16 core.

17 So those -- and I believe that, you

18 know, there's unbiassed sampling and biassed

19 sampling. So if we talk about unbiassed sampling,

20 the eight (8) samples per 100,000 tonnes are

21 unbiassed samples. They just get taken at regular

22 intervals as we move through the deposit.

23 The thirty (30) samples that would be

24 submitted for additional analysis are really to find

25 out what's happening on the site. If there's



74

1 something that we see that doesn't quite -- that --

2 that we need a further explanation on, then we would

3 investigate that further. And that's -- that was the

4 purpose of setting aside those thirty (30) samples

5 per year, just to investigate those various aspects

6 that might be happening on the site.

7 So we would certainly submit those

8 thirty (30) -- thirty (30) samples for ABA testing.

9 We'd probably do additional static testing, and we

10 may do additional mineralogy. So it all kind of

11 depends on -- on what we're seeing and what -- what

12 we need to understand better with respect to those

13 samples, so, and...


15 Nathen Richea, AANDC. No, I -- thank you for

16 clearing that up. I -- that addresses AANDC 31.

17 I think John's point now is so for the

18 eight (8) samples that will be collected for sulphur

19 analysis on the 100,000 tonnes of rock, if one (1) of

20 those samples showed greater than .1 percent sulphur

21 content, what amount of material goes into the area

22 of the pile that would be PAG potential? Like, how

23 do you make the cut -- what's the cutoff? What's the

24 decision criteria?

25 If you have eight (8) samples and only



75

1 your sixth sample showed greater than point one (.1),

2 how much material needs to go where in the pile?

3 Like, how -- or does it average out to be non-PAG

4 material?

5

6 (BRIEF PAUSE)

7

8 MR. KEN DEVOS: Ken DeVos, Golder

9 Associates. It -- it really would depend on the

10 distribution of samples, Nathen, and, you know,

11 there's lots of room in these piles. So I expect for

12 the most part, if you get a hit, it just goes to the

13 centre of the pile and you move on to the next blast

14 so that you're not wasting time and effort trying to

15 delineate little, small zones.

16 I mean, the exception to that might be

17 during a construction phase of the project, right,

18 where, you know, you need to use that rock. So then

19 you would -- you would do an additional pattern of

20 possibly drilling and sampling around where you got

21 that hit, to make sure that you're not using that

22 zone for construction or -- or in the outer shell of

23 the pile.


25 for AANDC. So am I correct in understanding that, if



76

1 you took those eight (8) samples and one (1) of those

2 samples showed greater than .1 percent sulphur, you

3 would treat all of the material represented by those

4 eight (8) samples as PAG material and put it in the

5 centre of the pile?

6 Or you would do additional sampling to

7 delineate within that 100,000 tonnes?

8

9 (BRIEF PAUSE)

10


12 Golder Associates. It's not that we would treat it

13 all as if it were PAG rock because it's not PAG rock.

14 We would treat it all as if it were mine rock, just

15 like any other blast that we would put in the pile.

16 The only thing that we would -- we

17 would confirm -- that De Beers would have to confirm,

18 is that it does not end up as construction rock and

19 it does not end up on the outer fifteen (15) edges of

20 the pile. So basically, that's the information we

21 would use on a -- on a biannual basis, or even more

22 frequently, depending on what we're seeing, to

23 evaluate whether our pile is being constructed as

24 were pla -- as is planned.




77

1 for the Board. If I could just interject here. What

2 I'm hearing is is a back and forth discussion of --

3 of two (2) parties that one (1) party has an idea of

4 what they -- they're going to do, and the other party

5 is not quite clear what they're going to do.

6 We do have Waste Rock Characterization

7 Plans and -- and documents there. I note that Board

8 staff have similar concerns. So I wonder if we could

9 take a break, and then maybe the Board staff could

10 raise their concerns after break and maybe we could

11 come up with an IR or way to resolve this, or we're

12 going to be talking back and forth about what to do

13 for a long time. Is -- is -- is that okay?

14 Okay, so we'll take a break. Come

15 back at 10:45.

16

17 --- Upon recessing at 10:25 a.m.

18 --- Upon resuming at 10:42 a.m.

19

20 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Neil, here

21 for the Board. Thanks everyone. We had an ongoing

22 discussion there. I know that Shannon Shaw has -- ha

23 -- has comments on a similar concern, so I'd like

24 Shannon to raise her comments now and then maybe we

25 can find a way to resolve them. Shannon...?



78

1 MS. SHANNON SHAW: Yeah, Shannon

2 Shaw, for the Board. And I did have a number of

3 similar comments, but I think in part they've been

4 answered, and maybe I'll just summarize what I think

5 I heard and get you to qualify that as needed.

6 I think I understand now that there's

7 really two (2) tiers of testing. One is really the

8 routine monitoring that goes with your mine rock

9 management, which is designed to in -- to identify

10 the PAG and manage it in a -- an efficient manner.

11 And the other tier, which is probably where a lot of

12 the concern is coming up, is the ability to ensure

13 that non-PAG rock is used for your construction rock

14 and that outer 15 metres of rock in the mine rock

15 pile.

16 And maybe I'll just see -- see if I've

17 got that right first, and then I'll go on.


19 Chisholm, from De Beers. That -- we have a similar

20 understanding, so continue.

21 MS. SHANNON SHAW: Thanks. Shannon

22 Shaw, for the Board. So I think that -- that what

23 might be missing and maybe is an IR or a -- a request

24 of when a standard operating procedure might come is

25 that definition of that second tier of sampling for



79

1 ensuring non-PAG rock is used in construction.

2 And I think that's in -- your response

3 to our item number 31 was that:

4 "The refinement of this in relation

5 to the number of samples in terms of

6 blast holes will deb -- be developed

7 in consultation with mine planners."

8 Which makes a lot of sense. And the -

9 - the question really would be: Have they been

10 engaged in this yet?

11 Or is that something that can be done

12 in a timely manner where we can get a -- as an IR,

13 perhaps, a more detailed program of how that sampling

14 end testing would be done and the testing component

15 would really reflect whether there's an on-site

16 analysis capability or an off-site lab that would be

17 relied upon for results within that context?

18

19 (BRIEF PAUSE)

20


22 Chisholm, with De Beers. So there's a -- I think

23 there is a few questions in there, but it -- it rolls

24 up into our standard operating procedures.

25 You know, De Beers will commit to



80

1 providing the standard operating procedures, the

2 detailed mine planning. We're doing the detailed

3 mine planning, of course, for construction, but after

4 you get to the blast, that'll happen at that time.

5 And so that communication with the -- the mine

6 engineers, et cetera, would happen at that time

7 depending on where things are. But there would be an

8 overarching procedure that we would develop that

9 would govern our decision-making process with respect

10 to any PAG rock encountered when we blast.

11 And -- and it's something we have now.

12 We have a -- an overarching one that we'd refine. I

13 -- I -- we could add that as a condition to our

14 licence to submit that, because it would be further

15 refined in the process as we do the detailed mine

16 planning.

17 MS. REBECCA CHOUINARD: Rebecca

18 Chouinard, with the Board. Just so we're clear, if -

19 - if you're proposing it as a condition, do you

20 envision that -- them being -- submitting this plan

21 prior to use of that construction material?

22 Just because I think what we're

23 hearing is that folks want to know how -- how you're

24 sampling and what your procedures are before that

25 material is used, and then linked to that is the



81

1 timing of getting those results.


3 Chisholm, from De Beers. So I want to be clear, what

4 we have is a standard operating procedure for when we

5 encounter PAG for construction that we will provide

6 to the Board.

7 We will evolve the standard operating

8 procedure based on the activities of blasts. So once

9 we get to mining within the pits, there will

10 obviously be some refinements because we no longer

11 would need that material necessarily for

12 construction.

13 So then -- so there's two (2) st --

14 standard operating procedures based on what -- what

15 phase you are in the mine, so we can provide the one

16 for standard operating procedure for comment for

17 construction.

18 MS. SHANNON SHAW: Shannon Shaw.

19 Could you comment now on whether or not you've made a

20 decision about an on-site versus off-site lab for the

21 construction phase?

22 The concern being, if you are relying

23 on off-site labs, that you may not get results timely

24 enough to effectively manage your -- your rock for

25 construction.



82


2 Chisholm, from De Beers. We'll be using an off-site

3 lab, but the procedure would be if we encounter rock

4 -- like, we're drilling in advance to detect any PAG

5 rock in advance of utilizing the materials for

6 construction.

7 If we would happen to encounter a

8 sample that equals the 0.1 percent weight of sulphur,

9 total sulphur, that area would be flagged off. It

10 would be marked. We would then be able to --

11 depending on the results around it, be able to

12 utilize other material.

13 And then we would further delineate

14 that zone and do additional subsequent testing to

15 determine whether we would be able to utilize

16 material or what material we could use for

17 construction. This has all been included in -- in

18 our plans, but we can clarify that as part of the

19 standard operating procedure.

20 And then we do the advanced drilling

21 before we take the material to crush it to use it for

22 construction periods. So the drill goes out in

23 advance of -- of the site. So we -- currently, in

24 what we're -- what we're currently doing on site,

25 we've had enough time between the sample testing and



83

1 getting the results back from the lab. It's

2 generally about less than a week. We get results

3 back, we look at the results, we determine our path

4 forward based on that.

5

6 (BRIEF PAUSE)

7


9 Chouinard, with the Board. Just then to clarify the

10 commitments then made is -- were you then able to

11 produce the -- the procedures for construction as an

12 IR, and then the -- the second one for mining

13 operations later as -- as part of the conditions of a

14 water licence?

15 Is that -- is that what I heard, just

16 to confirm that?


18 Chisholm, from De Beers. Yes, we will provide the

19 standard operating procedures for construction, and

20 later we'll provide the standard operating procedures

21 when we're mining.


23 Chouinard, for the Board. Great, and just then also

24 to confirm with respect to timing, what we've heard

25 is there'll be no placement of rock material until



84

1 lab results are -- are confirmed with off-site

2 sampling -- with off-site lab testing.


4 Chisholm, from De Beers. Yes, that's the plan.

5

6 --- COMMITMENT NO. 5: De Beers commits to

7 providing a detailed

8 Standard Operating

9 Procedure for placement of

10 rock during operations

11


13 for the Board. Then -- so we -- that De Beers will

14 provide construction procedures for management of

15 potential PAG rock as an Information Request. Does

16 that capture that?


18 Chisholm, from De Beers. Yes, I think so. I'll look

19 at the final language to see, but, yes, that --

20 that's definitely what we can provide.

21


23 De Beers to provide a Standard

24 Operating Procedure for the placement

25 of construction rock by February 24



85

1 THE CHAIRPERSON: And Neil here.

2 Back to Rebecca then -- and then the operational

3 procedures during operations, you said a later date.

4 Is your intention that this is a -- a requirement of

5 the licence, or what did you mean by 'later date'?


7 Chouinard, with the Board. Just following up on, I

8 think, what Veronica had suggested originally was

9 that that could be linked into a condition or -- or

10 make up part of the Geochemical Characterization Plan

11 is -- is probably where it's most appropriate.


13 Chisholm, from De Beers. It would likely be part of

14 the Geochemical Characterization Monitoring Plan

15 submission.


17 for the Board. Thank you. John Brodie, does that

18 address your con -- your concerns?


20 Yes, I think so.

21 THE CHAIRPERSON: Did you have any

22 more questions right now, Shannon, or do you want to

23 go back to AANDC or...?

24 Okay, any -- next question from AANDC,

25 then.



86


2 Richea, AANDC. We don't have any more questions on

3 geochemistry.

4 THE CHAIRPERSON: Let's move -- Neil

5 Hutchinson, for the Board. Let's move -- move down

6 the table, then. Any questions from other parties,

7 ENR, on geochemical? Yeah.

8 MS. SARAH-LACEY MCMILLAN: Hi. It's

9 Sarah-Lacey, with Environment Canada. I just wanted

10 to let you guys know that Reg Ejeckam's on the phone

11 right now, and he had concerns about blending of the

12 waste rock pile, but between all the discussions

13 that's already happened this morning, most of those

14 have been dealt with.

15 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Did we

16 want to ask him if he has any more comments while --

17 while we have him? Yeah. Hello, Reg. Are you on

18 the phone?

19 MR. REG EJECKAM (BY PHONE): Yes, I

20 am. Reg Ejeckam, Environment Canada. My question

21 then now would be regarding the -- the samples and

22 the -- the way these sample are divided. Looking at

23 the updated report, one (1) section was referring to

24 samples that were started in 2010, and the mine

25 samples were chosen, and they were divided into



87

1 coarse and fine -- fine fractions. And within those

2 group there were combinations that make it a

3 composite sample.

4 So now they are referring to the total

5 number of samples at twenty-one (21), when in that

6 process, you only have nine (9) samples, and these

7 are the ones that duplicated. So the new samples you

8 are doing, then, is that the same process you're

9 using to sample them, individual samples?

10 Are you dividing them up and getting

11 two (2) coarse and fra -- small fractions and they're

12 composite, and they're regarded as the total number

13 of samples?

14 MR. KEN DEVOS: Ken DeVos. Ken

15 DeVos, with Golder Associates. Yeah, I mean, we were

16 limited in the amount of material that we had with

17 respect to fine and coarse PK. If you look at the

18 samples of kimberlite and the samples of rock, those

19 are individual samples. But in terms of fine and

20 coarse PK, we were looking to -- to test various

21 scenarios and characteristics based on the materials

22 that we had available to us. So -- so we did do some

23 composite samples for those and we split out those

24 composite samples to try and best represent those

25 materials.



88

1 In terms of -- of routine sampling on

2 site, those will each be individual samples, both for

3 the -- the kimberlite and for the -- the mine rock.

4 When we're talking about the -- the thirty (30)

5 samples selected by the geochemist, we would still

6 likely be taking individual samples, but depending on

7 -- on the characteristics that we're trying to define

8 or depending on the uncertainties that we

9 encountered, we may again do some splits to -- to

10 determine if there's differences in -- you know, to

11 test various mitigation strategies, to test various

12 conditions that we might encounter in the pile.

13 So the short answer is we'll be using

14 individual samples for the -- the bulk of the testing

15 during mining.

16 MR. REG EJECKAM (BY PHONE): Okay.

17 If I can pull up -- I think when you do this, I think

18 it's important to indicate that it is individual

19 samples, because when you have divided your samples

20 into different parts or combined them into a

21 composite, and then the total number samples seems

22 pretty high, and then when you look at the results of

23 those individual samples separately or together, then

24 that kind of skews your results rather than just take

25 the nine (9) samples or the initial individual



89

1 samples that's used.

2 The other comment I wanted to make

3 when the discussion was going on -- on the -- the --

4 the waste rock pile, during presentation, I think you

5 made a comment about the -- the pile, when that pile

6 would be non-acid-generating. I was a bit concerned

7 about that, because when you put out the pile you

8 don't blend the whole pile together, because you --

9 making that statement implied that if you mix all

10 your rocks, you'll be non-acid-generating.

11 But I'm kind of encouraged that you

12 separate the -- the samples based on the -- the total

13 sulphur -- sulphur. Although, you know, even as low

14 as zero point one (0.1), if you don't have enough

15 neutralization potential, you still generate acid.

16 So just using the sulphur content alone, I don't

17 think it's enough criteria to decide that the -- the

18 rock group or rock unit is non-acid-generating.

19 Thank you.


21 Golder Associates. Yeah, you know, those -- those

22 are all considerations, and -- and we -- that -- that

23 we include discussion on in the ML/ARD Report,

24 including sample numbers, splits, how all that was

25 developed. And I encourage anyone who's further



90

1 interested to look into those appendices and look at

2 how that was developed. And thanks for your -- your

3 questions and comments.

4 MR. REG EJECKAM (BY PHONE): Am I

5 still on?

6 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Sorry.

7 Are -- was that all the questions that you had, Reg?

8

9 (BRIEF PAUSE)

10

11 THE CHAIRPERSON: I guess so. Neil

12 here, for the Board. Moving on around. Other

13 comments?

14 Shannon...?

15 MS. SHANNON SHAW: Yeah. Shannon

16 Shaw. I -- a number of them have already been

17 touched on and answered, and a number of our comments

18 also in your responses pointed us to the right spots

19 in your report, so thanks for that.

20 I did want to loop back to the source

21 terms a little bit for a discussion on that, if I

22 could. So it relates probably most closely to the

23 Board's comment number 27, if you wanted that for

24 reference.

25 So I -- I now understand that the --



91

1 the approach you took to the source terms was one of

2 using concentrations from humidity cell tests, which

3 is one approach that's used in the industry.

4 I think I'm with John on the fact that

5 I think more conservatively, people would use the

6 milligram per kilogram per week out of a humidity

7 cell, which is designed to monitor release rates

8 rather than maximum concentrations.

9 But I do accept that -- that

10 concentration-based source terms are used and

11 accepted in some cases, and that within that

12 approach, you are conservative. I don't know that it

13 is the conservative approach to use.

14 So my -- I'm -- I'm wondering whether

15 you did sensitivities around source terms to look at

16 whether the assumptions and approach you used would

17 have a different effect on your list of parameters of

18 potential concern and the resulting EQCs that are

19 derived if you were -- if you used a different

20 approach or if the PAG proportion of the rock was

21 more acidic than your test program has results for.

22 And that really is recognizing that

23 there was only one (1) sample with a sulphur content

24 equal to .1 percent, not above, which is, you know, a

25 factor of -- of the deposit being a low-sulphur



92

1 deposit. I noticed that the pre-leached samples all

2 had sulphur of point zero two (.02) to point zero six

3 (.06), so I'm not sure those reflect PAG rock either.

4 So I'm not sure that the proportion of

5 -- the proportion, even if it's low, of 5 percent,

6 was given a very conservative concentration because

7 you just don't have the results for it, which isn't

8 necessarily a problem with the program. It's just

9 the limitations of predictions for this type of

10 deposit.

11 So again, I guess the question would

12 be whether you did some sensitivities around your

13 source terms and, if so, what those were.

14

15 (BRIEF PAUSE)

16


18 Golder Associates. I -- I guess I -- I see a few

19 questions in there or uncertainties in there, so --

20 so I'll -- I'll address at least one (1) of them, and

21 then come back to me if I haven't addressed the one

22 you're looking for.

23 I guess with respect to sensitivity

24 analysis, the answer is we -- we -- we looked at

25 sensitivities on the approach that we -- we used. We



93

1 looked at other approaches to determine which

2 approach was appropriate for this site and the

3 uncertainties that would be associated with using a

4 different approach in consideration of the climate

5 here, the fact that there's enough carbonate

6 neutralization potential that this pile wouldn't

7 become acidic.

8 When we looked at selecting samples,

9 or -- or the samples that were selected for testing,

10 you know, there's -- there's simply not a lot of

11 samples that have higher than .1 percent sulfide

12 content. So if we -- if we wanted to test that type

13 of material, we wouldn't be looking at 5 percent of

14 the pile; we would be looking at some small fraction

15 of 5 percent of the pile. So, you know, is it

16 possible we might get a small pocket of material

17 that's -- that's -- has a greater sulfide content?

18 You know, when you do a blast and --

19 and we look at the construction rock. We look at all

20 of the materials that we have. I mean, when you

21 blast rock, it -- it blends and mixes together pretty

22 good. So unless you have large zones of sulfide

23 minerals, you're already getting a -- a dilution

24 effect as a result of that blast in terms of the

25 sulfide content.



94

1 So we feel that the .1 percent is an

2 appropriate humidity cell to use for the acidic

3 values. And, you know, we don't feel that for this

4 particular -- you know, using a milligram per

5 kilogram per week and scaling that and introducing

6 uncertainties, such as grain size, distribution, and

7 temperature, and everything else. We felt that that

8 was actually a more uncertain approach than the --

9 than the approach we used, because then we're --

10 we're starting to pick arbitrary factors to reduce

11 the concentrations by to, you know, come into some

12 agreement with our humidity cell testing and what --

13 what other field cell -- or other tests and locations

14 in the North are -- are doing.

15 So, you know, we feel we used the

16 appropriate approach. We did a fair bit of

17 sensitivity -- or evaluated and looked at the

18 differences in concentrations as a result of that

19 approach, and we used a conservative approach -- a --

20 a -- a conservative understanding of the inputs

21 regarding that approach.


23 Thanks for that. I -- I'm curious though. The

24 humidity cell tests are not designed to replicate

25 concentrations. They're designed to measure release



95

1 rates.

2 So using a concentration from a

3 humidity cell would probably require some comparison

4 or sensitivity around those concentrations. And I

5 understand you've -- you suggested Ekati is a good

6 analog for concentrations that you're expecting at --

7 at this property. Would you -- do you -- can you say

8 how the input concentrations you've used compare to

9 seepage chemistry at Ekati?

10 I don't -- I know that's putting you

11 on the spot for numbers you may not have close at

12 hand, but if you've got a comment on that, it would

13 be appreciated.

14

15 (BRIEF PAUSE)

16


18 Golder Associates. I'll -- I'll answer the first

19 part, and then Mike will answer a -- a little bit

20 more. I guess with respect to comparison to

21 Ekati, there is a section in the report that we

22 compare the results from Snap Lake, Diavik, Ekati,

23 and these samples. Now, that doesn't include the --

24 the ongoing monitoring seepage results at the Ekati

25 site. So I think Mike's going to speak a little bit



96

1 more to some of the other ways that we've -- we've

2 built in conservatism in -- in the model, so.

3

4 (BRIEF PAUSE)

5


7 Herrell, from Golder Associates. I just want to

8 comment that we -- we recognize that it's a water

9 quality prediction and there is a lot of uncertainty

10 built into -- and I -- I think that's where your

11 concern is coming from. And we've heard a lot from

12 Bill, and Veronica, and others yesterday about the

13 Water Management Plan at this particular site.

14 So an SNP program has been designed to

15 validate those predictions. And if -- if there are

16 trends that the -- the operational water quality is

17 trending away from what was predicted, there -- there

18 is flexibility in the Water Management Plan to -- to

19 address that and apply adaptive management throughout

20 operations.

21 But on that note, I do believe we have

22 been conservative in the model, just in terms of the

23 source terms we have selected. And I do want to

24 comment, we're focussed a little bit on the -- the

25 waste rock pile. There are other components of this



97

1 -- of this mine. There's the fine PK and -- and --

2 and the pit inflows, and at different points in the

3 mine time there's going to -- one (1) component's

4 going to be more of an influence than the other. And

5 we have addressed that in -- in our water quality

6 predictions.

7 So there's conservatism not just built

8 into the mine -- mine rock pile source terms, but

9 also into the -- the fine PK, and those -- those --

10 the -- the source time -- source terms for all of

11 those sources, they're selected to be the best --

12 what we consider the best representation on the

13 available data the -- at the time when we were doing

14 the -- the water quality predictions.


16 Thanks. I think I agree that you've got conservatism

17 built into your model with the approach you've

18 chosen, but I'm not sure that that approach is the

19 most conservative. And where that becomes an issue

20 is that the concern would be that we're perhaps

21 missing a parameter that could be a potential

22 concern, probably on closure. It's probably not, you

23 know, the -- the time frame where you're discharging.

24 It's probably more a closure issue.

25 But that list of parameters is also



98

1 driving your EQCs. So the request, I suppose, would

2 be whether you'd consider doing some sensitivities

3 around the source term inputs for all of your mine

4 waste storage, including fine PK and coarse PK, even

5 on a cursory level to ensure that there aren't

6 additional parameters that might come up if you're

7 even more conservative in an approach that is fairly

8 standard in the industry, just to ensure that we're

9 not missing parameters that may otherwise be a

10 concern with a -- another approach, and whether this

11 could be an Information Request within the time

12 frame?

13

14 (BRIEF PAUSE)

15


17 Chisholm, from De Beers. We're just -- we're trying

18 to understand the scope and the time frame, Shannon.

19 So if -- if possible, we would like to request that

20 we just have some time at lunch to consider this and

21 then -- and then come back with what we can deliver

22 in terms of Information Requests or information to

23 help address your -- your questions and your

24 concerns.

25 So if you could just allow us to have



99

1 that time over lunch, we'd appreciate that. Thank

2 you.


4 Board. Thank you very much. We'd certainly like

5 that. And just to confirm, my understanding that

6 this is an IR question about would -- would De Beers

7 complete a sensitivity analysis of the humidity cell

8 tests for all source terms?

9 Is -- is that the general gist? We're

10 well -- well out of my area of expertise. Shannon,

11 give us a -- a verbal.

12 MS. SHANNON SHAW: Sure. Shannon

13 Shaw. It's -- the request be a sensitivity analysis

14 around the -- the source terms chosen for the water

15 quality predictions, not the test work that -- that

16 provides those terms, yeah.


18 Golder. Thank you, Shannon. And -- and, you know,

19 more specifically, it would be around doing a

20 comparison with the seepage coming off the waste rock

21 piles at Ekati relative to our source terms.


23 Thanks. I -- I think that would go a long way in

24 providing some confidence. And I just have one (1)

25 other little one that kind of relates, and it's --



100

1 you mentioned that SNP program which would monitor

2 kind of the -- the overall predicted water quality.

3 And one (1) of our questions was about

4 -- number 35 was about some field tests to verify the

5 source terms in particular. So the more contact

6 water quality associated with your waste streams and

7 whether or not that -- in the context of verifying

8 those water quality predictions, whether some field

9 test work could be committed to.

10

11 (BRIEF PAUSE)

12


14 Chisholm, from De Beers. We can commit doing those

15 field tests. We currently do them at our Snap Lake

16 site, and we could do them at our Gahcho Kue site.

17 So we -- we can capture that as a commitment. We'll

18 flesh out the specific details, and that will be

19 captured in the Geochemical Characterization Plan,

20 what that would look like at Gahcho Kue. But we --

21 we -- overall, we'll agree to -- to undertaking those

22 field trials.

23


25 undertaking field trials



101

1 in related to contact

2 water in regards to the

3 SNP (details to be

4 hammered out and submitted

5 under the Geochemical

6 Characterize Plan)

7


9 Chouinard, for the Board. I just had one (1)

10 question, a point of clarification as it comes up

11 throughout the Geochem Plan with respect to quarries.

12 And I note in some of your responses, thirty (30) --

13 Board 36, I believe, and then MV-5 is another one,

14 and it comes up in some of the other responses, too.

15 There's just a -- just requesting some

16 clarification on whether or not this application has

17 quarries scoped into it. I know your response in

18 thirty-six (36) says that quarries are not part of

19 this application, and then another response is -- it

20 says that they are.

21 So just a point of clarification.


23 Chisholm, from De Beers. Yeah, I apologize. There

24 has been inconsistencies, and -- and I'll acknowledge

25 that, but I want to be clear. Where we're looking to



102

1 do quarry work would be along our winter road, access

2 road, to do portage upgrades, and so that is a Quarry

3 Management Plan that we would do.

4 We have intentions to use quarry.

5 We're not use -- planning on doing quarrying at site

6 for -- throughout the mining. But for the winter

7 road, particularly for portage upgrades, that would

8 be a requirement and that would be something we would

9 add, so the scope of that would be limited primarily

10 to that.


12 Chouinard, with the Board. So just so I'm clear, the

13 -- the land use permit for mining, your -- your

14 intent is that it's scoped to include the quarrying

15 along the winter road and any maintenance associated

16 with that, or are you intending to keep that separate

17 as a different land-use permit?

18 MS. VERONICA CHISHOLM: My intention

19 is to update the current one that we have submitted

20 to include the winter road as part of the mining and

21 milling land-use permit. And that came up as a

22 response to the Yellowknives Dene.

23 So we will have to file an update to

24 our land-use permit to ensure that that quarrying and

25 the winter road is including in the mining and



103

1 milling land-use permit application.

2

3 (BRIEF PAUSE)

4


6 Chouinard, with the Board. I just had one (1) last

7 question, and it's in relation to MV-38 with your

8 weight of evidence approach. And this, I think, is

9 linked to the adaptive management fram -- framework.

10 And, Kathy, please add on any questions you have to -

11 - to mine.

12 But in your response, you -- you

13 stated that you'll be observing any increasing trends

14 of ARD and metal leaching. That would be -- an

15 increasing trend would be the trigger to evaluate if

16 adjustments are needed.

17 I'm just wondering if you can clarify

18 what constitutes a trend and what would initiate this

19 reevaluation.

20

21 (BRIEF PAUSE)

22


24 Chisholm, from De Beers. So we'll be monitoring to

25 determine -- we've made an assessment, and we



104

1 determined that, overall, we're approaching about 5

2 percent PAG, for example. And we'd be monitoring

3 both in the geochemistry and the SNP.

4 If we're seeing and if we're detecting

5 through our -- our analysis of -- of PAG material of

6 ARD that that's approaching or exceeding that 5

7 percent, we're going to have to look at that. And --

8 and that would essentially form a basis for change in

9 terms of our overall approach.

10 So -- so I think that's consistent

11 with the overall weight of evidence; we use different

12 benchmarks. But in this particular case, which is

13 relating to the geochemical characterization, we'd be

14 looking at that 5 percent.

15

16 (BRIEF PAUSE)

17


19 Chouinard, with the Board. I guess I'm just

20 wondering if you have any more clarity in terms of

21 approaching or exceeding, if -- if it's one or the

22 other, or is this sort of as far as we're going to

23 get today?

24

25 (BRIEF PAUSE)



105


2 Chisholm, for De Beers. So our prediction if 5

3 percent. If we exceed the 5 percent, which will be

4 mapping out the amount, we'll be calculating the

5 proportion of rock that we're doing and the

6 proportion of PAG that we're doing. If we have an

7 exceedance of that 5 percent, that would trigger some

8 -- maybe some different action, or at least some

9 clarification over what that means, overall.

10

11 (BRIEF PAUSE)

12


14 Chouinard, with the Board. Okay, thanks. We might

15 get more into this discussion, I think, tomorrow with

16 adaptive management under that context, but I think

17 that's it for now.

18

19 (BRIEF PAUSE)

20

21 THE CHAIRPERSON: Last round for geo

22 -- geochemistry questions? Sean...?

23 MR. SEAN WHITAKER: Sean Whitaker,

24 Environment and Natural Resources. I opened up your

25 2013 update and it's sort of falling on the Board's



106

1 IR for the comparison between Ekati and Gahcho Kue.

2 You only chose selected parameters so it's aluminum

3 and then MMER, arsenic, copper, and nickel, lead,

4 zinc.

5 Could you also include all the other

6 parameters, or provide a comment on why you chose

7 only those selected parameters?

8

9 (BRIEF PAUSE)

10

11 MR. SEAN WHITAKER: And for where

12 that is. Sean Whitaker, from ENR. It's Table 34,

13 Section 4.3.7 of the 2013 update.

14 MR. KEN DEVOS: Ken DeVos with Golder

15 Associates. So there's -- there's a couple of things

16 there.

17 1. We're -- we're limited by the

18 publically available data is -- is one (1) of them.

19 That said, there's more information on -- on the --

20 the public record than those -- those few parameters.

21 But those are the key parameters that we believe

22 would be influenced by acid rock drainage. So that's

23 another reason for a selection of -- of key

24 parameters.

25 But what we will do is we'll be



107

1 looking at over lunch what's available in the

2 publically available 2012 ML/ARD Report by Ekati and

3 what we can compare relative to -- to what's

4 available in that report.


6 Environment and Natural Resources. Thanks, that -- I

7 just wanted to clarify that.

8 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thanks. Neil, from

9 the Board. So that's a question you'll get -- you'll

10 reply to after lunch, Ken?

11 MR. KEN DEVOS: Yeah.

12 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

13 MR. KEN DEVOS: Ken DeVos, yes.

14

15 (BRIEF PAUSE)

16

17 THE CHAIRPERSON: All right. If

18 we're done on geochemistry, we have half-an-hour to

19 go be -- before lunch and I think it was mine rock

20 management in general was the next topic, Veronica?


22 Chisholm, from De Beers. Yes, that's correct. We're

23 going to -- we're going to go through the processed

24 kimberlite and mine rock plans and -- and speak to

25 closure. So Bill Horne will speak to that.



108

1 THE CHAIRPERSON: And there's a

2 presentation for that, right?


4 Chisholm, from De Beers. Yeah, that's correct.

5 We're just -- Craig will set that up.

6

7 (BRIEF PAUSE)

8

9 PROCESSED KIMBERLITE AND MINE ROCK PRESENTATION BY DE

10 BEERS CANADA INC.:

11 MR. BILL HORNE: Bill Horne, from

12 EBA. There we go. Is that better?

13

14 (BRIEF PAUSE)

15


17 EBA. We're just going to go through a fairly general

18 presentation for the -- for the processed kimberlite

19 facility and mine rock management. We've talked a

20 lot -- a lot about the details here, so this -- it'll

21 -- just ties in. And also we'll talk how the -- the

22 facilities are going to be closed. Later this

23 afternoon we'll talk more about closure.

24 This is the -- the fine PK facility.

25 So basically, it's a facility designed similar to the



109

1 Ekati mine, Jericho mine, with some differences.

2 Well, the big difference between this facility and --

3 and the Ekati mine is -- is our whole facility is

4 equal to about one (1) year's discharge of the Ekati

5 mine facility. So it's -- it's a different magnitude

6 of scale.

7 The facility will only be used in year

8 1 to 4. After that the fine PK will be deposited in

9 the Hearne Pit. So there'll -- there'll be a central

10 discharge -- we're going to construct a berm right

11 through the centre of the facility.

12

13 (BRIEF PAUSE)

14

15 MR. BILL HORNE: So we'll construct a

16 berm in the centre of the facility and discharge off

17 the berm north/south, and then towards Dike L. There

18 will be a water pond at this end of the facility. It

19 will get smaller throughout the life of this

20 facility.

21 Dike L is basically a filter dike with

22 some 20 millimetre crush acting as -- as the filter,

23 so it's a permeable dike. We do have a Dike A1 on

24 this side. Fine PK may butt up to the edge of the

25 dike. And we have Dike D at this side. I'll go back



110

1 to A1, Dike A1 here.

2 This is really keeping the water from

3 coming into the facility. This is Lake A1. Its

4 natural discharge was -- was through here. So this

5 dike is -- is keeping the water out of the facility.

6 Dike -- Dike D, the same thing. It's

7 -- it's actually keeping water out of the facility.

8 So originally the -- we had a small amount of water

9 coming from this watershed up here into -- into Area

10 2. So Dike 2 keeps the water out, and eventually

11 tailings will butt up to this -- this dike. That's -

12 - that's all I'm going to say on that.

13 This is a cross section through the

14 facility. And we have Dike -- Dike L. Dike L's

15 there. Like I say, it is a filter dike. That would

16 be our water pond. At closure, we will put a layer

17 of coarse PK over the entire facility and we will

18 push the coarse PK into what's remaining in the water

19 pond and basically displace the water. And then,

20 finally, we will put a layer of -- of mine rock over

21 the -- the whole facility.

22 There was some questions about

23 permafrost in the facility. We do expect that

24 permafrost will develop into the fine PK as it has

25 done at other mines. This -- this site is -- is



111

1 slightly warmer than the Ekati mine and Diavik mine.

2 We're not relying on permafrost for any of our

3 geochem modelling, but it will -- it will form in

4 there.

5 Global warming. It may -- it may

6 disappear based on some of the predictions we -- we

7 did a thermal analysis of this facility, which was

8 put in -- on the record during the EA process.

9 Mine rock piles. Basically, they have

10 a height about 120 metres, a hundred, 110, 120

11 metres, maximum elevation 555, overall slope of -- of

12 two point four (2.4) on one (1). So there is no --

13 no intent to put any cover on the mine rock piles at

14 closure. Steeper slopes will be graded, but they'll

15 basically just be closed. That's a west pile. South

16 pile, very similar configuration.

17 There is a geotechnical analysis for

18 the stability of the piles, that's in the Mine Rock

19 Management Plan. We can discuss that.

20 A lot of talk about PAG this morning.

21 This just gives a summary of -- of where we can put

22 the PAG if -- if we want to put the PAG rock under

23 water. The submerged west mine rock pile, one (1)

24 side of it is overtop of the existing lake.

25 So we have about -- we have storage



112

1 capacity for about 2 -- 2.4 million tonnes in there.

2 That is actually usable space, especially when we're

3 building the south rock mine pile, because it's -- it

4 will be constructed later. So we could reserve that

5 area for PAG rock for year 1 to 4. It -- we go back

6 and talk about the quantity of PAG rock, as was

7 mentioned this morning, if we use 5 percent PAG rock,

8 that's 15 million tonnes.

9 So two point four (2.4) could go in

10 the west mine rock pile and stay submerged. That's

11 below the original lake level. So, yes, it will be

12 exposed -- partially exposed during the mine life.

13 We also have a submerged area in the

14 south mine rock pile, but not all of it's available

15 for storage, because that -- it covers a large

16 portion of the pile and that pile will be built up

17 faster than that 4.2 million tonnes of -- of PAG rock

18 would -- would be available to go in there.

19 The mined out Hearne Pit, 16 million

20 tonnes. That's after year 4, and mined out 5034 pit,

21 86 million tonnes after year 7. So it's really the -

22 - it's the -- it's the volume of PAG between year 1

23 and four (4). Like I say, the long and short of it

24 is we've got 2.4 million tonnes of storage capacity

25 for the west mine rock pile, so there is going to be



113

1 some excess that goes up into the piles as we talked

2 about this morning.

3 And this is just a -- a figure showing

4 the -- the -- the submerged areas in the south mine

5 rock pile and west mine -- mine rock pile.

6 On closure covers, we mentioned

7 there's going to be a -- a cover of mine rock, and of

8 course, PK on the fine PK facility. The coarse PK

9 will have an additional cover of 1 metre of mine

10 rock. I didn't really discuss that. It's a fairly

11 simply pile with -- with 4:1 slopes. Mine rock, no

12 additional cover on that.

13 So I guess we're ready for any

14 questions.

15

16 QUESTION PERIOD:

17 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. So we -

18 - we do have some general questions on mine rock

19 management, but let's focus on the processed

20 kimberlite and mine rock management plan for the

21 first round, so we'll start with AANDC.

22

23 (BRIEF PAUSE)

24

25 MR. DAVE HUEBERT: Dave Huebert, from



114

1 AANDC. I -- I'm just curious to know what your

2 expectations of revegetation are for the mine rock

3 over time?


5 Chisholm, from -- from De Beers. Our current plan is

6 not to revegetate the mine rock piles. That's not in

7 the current plan. We know that we'll go through

8 several iterations -- or a few iterations of interim

9 closure planning, but currently that is not the

10 intent to revegetate the mine rock plans -- piles.

11 MR. JOHN BRODIE: This is John

12 Brodie, for AANDC. I -- I think I'd like to start my

13 questions by going back to the question yesterday

14 about the quantity of overburden, and you did provide

15 a -- a response referencing the Table 721 in the

16 updated project description which summarizes the

17 quantities of overburden material.

18 And -- and that table is the same as

19 what I had and was -- had reviewed previously in

20 thinking of my questions, and in reading that table,

21 my interpretation is that after accounting for

22 overburden used in -- in various construction

23 purposes, that there's about 2.4 million cubic metres

24 of overburden that is not scheduled for any specific

25 construction purposes and is basically flagged for



115

1 placement in the waste rock piles.

2 And without trying to jump ahead too

3 much, I note that in your commitments to closure is

4 to recover as much soil as practical for use in

5 reclamation purposes, and it seems to me that 2.4

6 million cubic metres of overburden would be a -- a

7 pretty good material to look at covering rock piles

8 with in terms of producing a -- a better land form at

9 the end of the mine life.

10 So I guess my question is: Why is the

11 overburden not stockpiled separately for use as a

12 reclamation material?

13

14 (BRIEF PAUSE)

15


17 Chisholm, from De Beers. So we evaluated and we

18 undertook our -- our closure planning. We didn't --

19 we didn't look at revegetating the mine rock piles.

20 The -- the till material or the overburden material

21 is pretty -- is pretty -- it's not like we have a --

22 a nice, defined soil material. It's pretty patchy

23 with -- with rock, and so that'll be actually

24 included within the mine rock pile because it's the

25 first to be cleared, and then the mine rock pile



116

1 would develop around it, and we have no intentions to

2 use that for revegetating the mine rock pile.

3

4 (BRIEF PAUSE)

5


7 for AANDC. I'm -- that's a curious answer. This is

8 the same undesirable material for reclamation, but

9 it's desirable for use in con -- construction of --

10 of dikes, et cetera. It seems like an inconsistent

11 answer, but I've not reviewed in detail the drilling

12 and surficial geology, you know, the material

13 parameters of -- of this material.

14 So I guess, as a question, could you

15 direct me to where I could look at what the

16 geotechnical characterization of those materials is?

17 Is that in your reports that I could review that?

18

19 (BRIEF PAUSE)

20

21 MS. VERONICA CHISHOLM: Thanks, John.

22 Some of that information is included as baseline

23 information that we submitted as part of the

24 Environmental Impact Statement, so I will look up

25 those key references so that you can look at the soil



117

1 and surficial geology and the information, and you

2 can glean some understanding from that.

3 So I'll -- I'll endeavour, hopefully

4 by the end of the day. If not, it might be tomorrow.

5 I just need to go back to the EIS and find some of

6 that information, and then certainly if there's other

7 questions back and forth, happy for a formal response

8 onto the registry that we can respond to on that.


10 for AANDC again. Pending review of that information,

11 I'm wondering if that material did have soil

12 properties that were suitable for supporting

13 vegetation, is there an opportunity to stockpile that

14 material for reclamation, or is -- well, maybe I'll

15 just leave it as -- as that question.

16

17 (BRIEF PAUSE)

18


20 Chisholm, from De Beers. The answer is, yes, we'll

21 look for -- that wasn't our plan, John. I'm going to

22 be -- it wasn't our plan. We were going to put it in

23 the mine rock piles. We've gone back and forth on

24 the stockpiling, overburden material. We will --

25 I'll make the commitment, and it will probably be



118

1 reflected in the next -- we'll look for opportunities

2 to stockpile that or windrow that where it makes

3 sense to do so, to incorporate that into the

4 Reclamation Plan.

5

6 (BRIEF PAUSE)

7


9 Brodie. Thank you for that. I'd like to then move

10 on to a couple of questions about the waste rock

11 piles and the storage of PAG material at the bottom,

12 and with reference to the presentation we just gave

13 in Slides 4, 5, and 6 of that presentation.

14 You suggested that 2.4 million tonnes

15 in the west pile and 4.2 million tonnes in the south

16 pile could be stored underwater, and of course the

17 volume is -- is available in the -- the rock pile.

18 But it seems to me that the schedule of the physical

19 rise of those rock piles would make that void space

20 essentially unavailable, other than maybe the first,

21 very short period of -- at the beginning of the mine

22 life, the first six (6) months or something like

23 that, which -- which makes me think that this is kind

24 of a -- a -- a misleading presentation here, to

25 suggest that that storage capacity is available for



119

1 that material.

2 So my question is: What is the

3 schedule of -- of rise of that rock pile, and -- and

4 when is that storage capacity above the flood

5 elevation of the lake already filled?

6 MR. BILL HORNE: This is Bill Horne,

7 from EBA. I -- I -- I guess -- I -- I tried to -- to

8 explain exactly what you just said in -- in the --

9 about -- I tried to explain that in my presentation,

10 exactly what you just said. The -- although we have

11 4.2-million-tonne storage capacity in the south rock

12 mine pile, it's not -- it's not really available.

13 Only a small portion will be available during the

14 initial stripping.

15

16 (BRIEF PAUSE)

17

18 MR. BILL HORNE: But -- so that's the

19 south pile, but the -- the west storage of 2.4

20 million tonnes is available because the west pile

21 will be constructed at a later date. Does that --

22 MR. KEN DEVOS: Ken --

23 MR. BILL HORNE: -- clarify?

24 MR. KEN DEVOS: Ken DeVos, with the

25 Golder Associates, and -- and we talked about this in



120

1 the ARD presentation as well. I mean, this is one of

2 the reasons we went back and looked at the ARD

3 potential in more detail, and, you know, as was

4 discussed in the -- in the presentation and the

5 previous questions, you know, it -- it's -- it's not

6 -- it's -- it would be a good practice if we have

7 that storage and we can place the materials there,

8 but it's not required from a -- from a -- a materials

9 management perspective on site. You know, we just

10 don't want that rock in construction zones or within

11 the outer 15 metres of the -- the mine rock pile.


13 -- it's Nathen Richea, AANDC. Thank you for your

14 response. I -- I guess we'll work on it from a -- to

15 try and get a sense of the progression and the design

16 of the rock piles. During the im -- impact

17 assessment, there was some discussion over having the

18 PAG below the surface of the water with a metre of

19 till overtop of that to sort of help with the --

20 prevent -- prevent -- preventing air and oxygen from

21 getting in.

22 And then there's been some pro --

23 progression, obviously, in the designs of the piles,

24 and -- and specifically, we're just trying to ke --

25 keep up to date with the changes and -- and we



121

1 understand that there is some rationale for the

2 changes.

3 In response to AANDC 14, there was

4 some description of detailed mine rock plans and

5 cross-sections, at closure are attached, and I'm

6 assuming that's online probably with the response to

7 our Information Request.

8 But what I was looking for

9 specifically was sort of a time sequence of the

10 design of the pile over time, and that kind of gets

11 to John's question. Like, if -- if rock is going to

12 be placed underwater, or even the sequence between

13 the south pile and then the -- and the west pile,

14 just to understand how if you could put wat -- rock

15 underwater, and how that's going to work, knowing

16 that, you know, we're also a bit confused because

17 we're trying to keep up with the design changes, and

18 we don't get all the -- all the -- all the

19 information in between the changes to the design, so.

20 Thanks.

21

22 (BRIEF PAUSE)

23

24 MR. DAN JOHNSON: Yes, and -- and --

25 Dan Johnson, JDS. In the project description, Table



122

1 7.3.1, has a gross summary of the waste rock location

2 to each pile there, and -- and there indicates that -

3 - on a mass basis, that the west rock pile doesn't

4 start until year 3 of operation or -- in year 3.

5 Partway through year 3 you'd be placing all of your

6 waste rock in the west rock pile.

7 So I think what -- what Bill's

8 previous presentation, the -- the base layer of that

9 would be open for that two and a half (2 1/2) year

10 period to be able to selectively put any material

11 into the base layer which would be under water there.

12 And that kind of gives you the sequence, obviously:

13 the shape of the piles, the -- -- the number of

14 benches raise per year as you go up the pile; much

15 more quantity on the bottom benches as at the top

16 benches, that I think it's roughly two (2) benches

17 per year as you proceed up -- up the pile, would be

18 an average.

19 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, Neil here,

20 the Chair. It is twelve o'clock. We do have a tight

21 schedule for lunch, so maybe Nathen can ponder that

22 answer over lunchtime.

23 We'll be reconvening back here at

24 12:30 for the discussion on the EQC modelling and

25 back at 1:15 for those who want to come in for the



123

1 rest of the afternoon sessions. Thanks.

2

3 --- Upon recessing at 11:49 a.m.

4 --- Upon resuming at 1:10 p.m.

5


7 here, for the Board. We had kind of left a half-

8 formulated Information Request in the air prior to

9 lunch. De Beers are going to confirm what parameters

10 they had looked at in the Ekati comparison for the

11 seepage analysis. So could you -- do you have

12 something to report on that, Veronica?

13

14 (BRIEF PAUSE)

15


17 Golder Associates. So I -- I've -- we will -- we

18 will do a take on an IR. I believe the wording would

19 be that we will compare our source terms for the

20 modelling of the mine rock with a representative

21 sample -- or representative information from seepage

22 data collected at the base of representative Ekati

23 stockpiles -- mine rock stockpiles.


25 here, for the Board. So -- so just to make sure I



124

1 got that right, Ken, an Information Request that De

2 Beers will compare the source terms -- terms they use

3 for modelling of mine rock with representative

4 seepage data from the Ekati waste rock piles? Did I

5 get that?


7 Chisholm, from De Beers. From representative Ekati

8 mine rock piles, but --

9 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

10 MS. VERONICA CHISHOLM: -- yes,

11 that's correct.

12 THE CHAIRPERSON: And -- and we can

13 wordsmith that later. We just wanted to get the --

14 the tone of it now.

15 MS. VERONICA CHISHOLM: That's

16 correct. Thank you.

17 THE CHAIRPERSON: And I'll turn that

18 back to Shannon. Does that capture your concerns?


20 Yeah, it does.

21


23 De Beers to compare source terms for

24 the modelling of the mine rock with

25 representative information from



125

1 seepage data collected at the base

2 of representative Ekati mine rock

3 stockpiles

4

5 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. And then

6 another kind of semi-finished business -- Neil

7 Hutchinson here -- from before lunch was Nathen's

8 request for time sequencing of pile development, to

9 see the availability of subaqueous storage for PAG

10 rock.

11 De Beers had referred Nathen to a

12 table in the project description Table 731. Did that

13 address your question, Nathen, or have you looked at

14 it yet?


16 AANDC. I didn't look at it yet. Let me just confirm

17 with John Brodie.

18

19 (BRIEF PAUSE)

20


22 Nathen Richea, AANDC. I think it's -- that's fine.

23 We -- we -- yeah, it suits our needs. Thanks.

24 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Neil,

25 for the Board. Okay, now I'd like to flip right back



126

1 up to the top of the agenda for today because we went

2 right into geochemistry this morning and into PK, and

3 I want to make sure people had opportunities to ask

4 questions about mine rock management in general.

5 I think YKDFN had some questions and

6 AANDC had questions on Dike Construction Management

7 Plan and -- and closing planning. So, Todd...?

8 MR. TODD SLACK: Thanks. Todd Slack,

9 staff with the Yellowknives. I'm wondering if we can

10 start off where -- where John -- John Brodie ended up

11 there. And if they -- we -- I can draw your

12 attention to YKDFN-12 and the project response.

13 So this morning we heard that the

14 overburden was going to be within the pile and not

15 available. The response here says that the

16 overburden would be stockpiled and would provide some

17 access.

18 Now, I'm just looking to understand --

19 looking for some clarity because to me, if it's under

20 the rock pile, that doesn't really provide much

21 access. So what is the De Beers's commitment to make

22 the overburden available for closure activities?

23

24 (BRIEF PAUSE)

25



127


2 Chisholm, from De Beers. So just to be clear on the

3 commitment -- and, actually, I appreciate the

4 question, Todd, because it allows us to be really

5 clear on the record around our commitment for that,

6 we will look for opportunities to stockpile

7 overburden material.

8 The -- the gap that we have is that I

9 need to identify a location for that stockpile

10 material because it is an evolving commitment, I

11 would say, an update in response to parties, which is

12 what these technical sessions, I think, are supposed

13 to be about.

14 So I will have to identify areas where

15 we're going to have stockpile that it can be

16 accessed, but the commitment is to look for

17 opportunities to stockpile overburden material.

18

19 --- COMMITMENT NO. 7: De Beers will commit to

20 review options of storing

21 overburden (need to

22 identify areas where

23 overburden can be

24 stockpiled) and to

25 incorporate this into



128

1 their operations plans

2

3 MR. TODD SLACK: Okay. Thanks for

4 that. I'll -- I'll skip ahead to YKDFN-14. I'm

5 pretty sure that at Ekati they're using 5 metres of

6 rock overtop of the -- the processed kimberlite.

7 And, please, if I'm incorrect, someone straighten me

8 out. De Beers is only going to use two (2) layers.

9 Considering that Ekati seems to have a

10 pretty good and well advanced closure plan, what's

11 the rationale in moving from two (2) to fi -- or from

12 five (5) to two (2) in this case?


14 EBA. Ekati, for their fine PK, I think their interim

15 closure reclamation plan is still evolving, but the

16 last time I reviewed it they weren't actually even

17 going to cover all the fine PK with waste rock. They

18 were going to do a herringbone type pattern to -- to

19 stop erosion and -- and vegetate the -- the fine PK.

20 MR. TODD SLACK: Okay. So -- and I

21 acknowledge that perhaps I'm -- I'm incorrect on

22 that. But -- sorry?

23 MR. JOHN BRODIE: Yeah. It's John

24 Brodie for AANDC. Yeah, I -- I can put a little

25 clarity to that.



129

1 At Ekati they have proposed 5 metres

2 of rock cover at the Misery rock pile over PAG rock.

3 And on the tailings fine PK area they have proposed,

4 originally, a -- I believe it was a 2 metre cover.

5 And they've since modified that, as you just

6 described, to a herringbone pattern with vegetation,

7 but with rock cover close to the pond, and over the

8 uppermost beach area where it's too coarse for

9 vegetation.

10 So it -- it's a little bit flexible as

11 to exactly what they're going to do, depending on the

12 area. But they are proposing much -- their rock

13 covers and -- and not as much rock cover as

14 originally.

15 MR. TODD SLACK: I know we're going

16 to come to -- to closure again later, but sticking to

17 the rock piles and the -- the PK, given the vision

18 that -- and I appreciate the -- the clarity that

19 we're hearing this morning, because I think that this

20 has been there a while and it just hasn't been

21 totally transparent.

22 If the De Beers's objective -- and I'm

23 -- sorry, I'm looking for the exact wording as I

24 talk, if -- oh, here it is. If the overall goal is

25 to create self-sustaining ecosystems that don't



130

1 require maintenance, what kind of ecosystems should

2 we be expecting to see as -- after closure on the

3 rock pile on the processed kimberlite? Is anything

4 going to grow there?

5

6 (BRIEF PAUSE)

7


9 Chisholm from De Beers. So the mine rock pile,

10 looking at opportunities to revegetate that, I don't

11 know whether we want to encourage vegetation on mine

12 rock piles. I don't know whether we want to

13 encourage that to be wildlife habitat. That's not

14 currently in our plan. It's actually not what I

15 heard. In some of the engagement activities that

16 I've done on closure plan is to encourage that to be

17 wildlife habitat.

18 So there isn't an encouragement based

19 on an end land use that I've heard to date, based on

20 two (2) community meeting sessions in 2012 and 2013,

21 as well as site visits. It hasn't been stressed to

22 me that re-vegetating the mine rock pile is -- is

23 something that's supported in the Aboriginal

24 communities, at least those communities that

25 expressed that to me in those community meetings.



131

1 So we didn't look at that as an

2 alternative to date. I will -- I will say that our

3 closure plan in the -- will evolve over time and

4 there will be ongoing engagement on our closure plan.

5 And in fact, in the closure plan I did include a

6 commitment for a workshop at site in 2014, with

7 representatives from the Aboriginal parties, to visit

8 the Gahcho Kue site, go and look at the areas, the

9 baseline areas where these mine rock piles, coarse

10 PK, fine PK, piles will be situated. So we can

11 document some base-line traditional knowledge on

12 those specific locations, and have a discussion on

13 the end land uses or the preferred end land uses,

14 relative to a base line environment.

15 And so based on the outcomes of that

16 workshop, I would expect that there may be some

17 updates to our goals and objectives and our end land

18 uses for the closure plan.

19 MR. TODD SLACK: Todd Slack with the

20 Yellowknives. Well -- and it's good to start the --

21 see the end use as being part of the focus here, and

22 not just to create the self-sustaining ecosystem,

23 whatever that may be, 'cause Giant has a self-

24 sustaining ecosystem, but it's probably not the one

25 we want there.



132

1 In terms of refining the -- the

2 commitment for the closure plan -- or the openness,

3 if the conse -- and so the con -- at the other sites

4 the consensus has emerged that the folks would prefer

5 if these are -- are wildlife friendly or wildlife

6 habitat, these types of areas, at Diavik and Ekati.

7 If that consensus, or that majority,

8 comes out at the -- this workshop that you're talking

9 about, is De Beers going to accept that and modify

10 the closure plan such that it would address those

11 desires?


13 Chisholm, from De Beers. The commitment is

14 listening, and engaging, and understanding, and

15 having an open conversation of the end land uses as

16 well as what we can do from a practical point of view

17 as part of our De Beers's Mine Plan, and the -- and

18 the design that we have for those mine rock piles.

19 I'm not in a position to commit to an outcome of a

20 conversation I have yet to have.

21 So my commitment is to have the

22 conversation and understand the perspectives of the

23 Aboriginal parties that will be representative of the

24 workshop. And to have that discussion about what is

25 and is not practical given our specific mine plan,



133

1 which is different than Ekati and Diavik's.

2 MR. TODD SLACK: Todd Slack, with the

3 Yellowknives. Well, with respect, it's not that much

4 different. There are issues within it, like small

5 things, how you're doing it, that are different. But

6 you're going to have mine rock piles, you're going to

7 have proc -- the majority of the bul -- the bulk of

8 the issues are -- are still the same. And I -- if

9 you want to disagree with that, that's -- it's fine.

10 So I didn't hear a yes to that. So --

11 that the -- the Company would be open to responding

12 to those desires. And in -- in here we talk about --

13 in the Yellowknives's submission we talk about

14 options. And so if these aren't options, and I'm

15 going to be quite clear, and I think the evidence

16 would back it up, the Yellowknives have been pursuing

17 the vegetation conversation for a long time now, and

18 it's been put off, and put off, and put off. And now

19 we're here and we're still having it.

20 If things are already out of the --

21 out of the range of options, like let's say all the

22 overburden had been -- and potential material for

23 vege -- re-vegetation, if that had been buried, and

24 it's good to see that it's not, you know, you are

25 removing options from the table. And what I would



134

1 hope to hear is that, Yes, if we hear this desire for

2 the end land use we're going to make it within

3 practicality; not just economic practicality, but,

4 you know, actual material. Like, you can't make the

5 -- make water run up hill, for instance, right.

6 Nobody's going to ask for that.

7 But if folks want to see this, the

8 Company could do it. Ekati and Diavik are doing it.

9 So it -- it's just frustrating and a little

10 disappointing to see the Company isn't open to

11 wildlife habitat as an end-use.


13 Chisholm, from De Beers. I didn't say we weren't

14 open. What I said was our commitment is to have the

15 workshop, have the engagement. And I want to be

16 clear, we've had engagement not only with the

17 Yellowknives, but with the five (5) other Aboriginal

18 parties to this file, on reclamation. We've asked

19 the questions about reclamation starting in February

20 2012 when we visited each one of the communities.

21 We've had the conversation on

22 reclamation when we had our site visits in August of

23 2012. We had a conversation on closure when we

24 provided a workshop in each of the communities in May

25 and June of 2013. And again, we provided opportunity



135

1 for comment on closure in August of 2013. And we've

2 made the commitment in our engagement plan to

3 undertake additional community meetings in 2014, as

4 well as site visits in 2014, and a workshop on

5 closure in the summer of 2014 to look at the baseline

6 information.

7 So engagement will continue. We've

8 made that commitment in our engagement plan. We've

9 made that commitment, and we're following up on the

10 information that's been provided to date. That

11 included those with the Yellowknives that have

12 participated, or were available to participate in the

13 discussion. We've always been open to listening to

14 the Aboriginal parties, and any party with written

15 comments and submissions, on our closure plan, and

16 that will continue.

17 So in response to your question, we'll

18 continue the engagement activities. The -- those

19 have not been explicitly expressed. They have by

20 you, Mr. Slack, and we appreciate that. And we'll

21 continue, and we're open to -- to the conversation.

22 And I'm not going to prejudge outcomes of

23 conversations, particularly on this closure workshop

24 that I haven't had yet.

25



136

1 --- COMMITMENT NO. 8: De Beers will commit to

2 listen and have an open

3 conversation with

4 organizations (but not

5 committing to something

6 that has not been talked

7 about yet � change in end

8 use) � C&R plan

9

10 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very

11 much. Neil Hutchinson here. Any other comments? I

12 think AANDC had comments on this particular section.

13 MR. NATHEN RICHEA: Hi. It's -- it's

14 Nathen Richea, AANDC. I know closure was a bit later

15 in the day, but I just have a general comment that

16 might help. One (1) of the things that we

17 recommended, and we recommended for all projects that

18 are in development of closure plan, or in the closure

19 planning process, or in the process for iterative

20 ICRPs, so interim closure and reclamation plans, that

21 a working group be established to help on those --

22 develop of those plans, similar like we asked for

23 typically a working be developed for or prepared for

24 Aquatic Effects Monitoring Program preparation.

25 The two (2) projects are -- one (1) is



137

1 monitoring the effects of the operation, and -- and

2 two (2) is -- is the planning for closure. And --

3 and the day -- the landowners and the people that

4 traditional -- have traditional use of the area will

5 be the ones left with the site at the end.

6 So we'd like to have like working

7 groups established to help in the -- the planning of

8 -- of those submissions. So that -- that's the only

9 recommendation I have, I guess, for that right now.

10 And I'm happy to see that working group -- a working

11 group meeting will be held at site, and I hope that

12 continues.

13 One (1) of the recommendations that

14 we'll have is that a working group be established for

15 the planning of the Closure and Reclamation Plan. I

16 don't really have anything else at closure right now.

17 I don't know if we should speak to closure or wait

18 until the agenda.


20 Board. I think we just had one (1) comment up here

21 on planning for closure, AANDC number 14, under the

22 mine rock management. And then we had a comment for

23 Dike Construction Management Plan, AANDC number 3.

24 And then there was a full closure discussion later on

25 this afternoon.



138


2 Chisholm, from De Beers. You may recall that in our

3 response to AANDC number 46 to the comment that --

4 and I'll read it:

5 "De Beers is open to participating

6 in a closure and reclamation working

7 group."

8 So we've made that commitment on the

9 record. And -- and AANDC had asked that question,

10 and we'd certainly be open to that.

11

12 --- COMMITMENT NO. 9: De Beers is committed to

13 participating in a Closure

14 and Reclamation working

15 group

16

17 MR. NATHEN RICHEA: Than you. It's

18 Nathen Richea, AANDC. No, and I agree. We're just

19 highlighting it. For AANDC-14, I think we've sort of

20 addressed it. I guess what I was looking for in 14

21 was the -- the sequence of the mine rock pile

22 development, but we've al -- we've already addressed

23 that.

24 In AANDC-3, in response -- I guess the

25 question was about the potential for dike



139

1 construction management plans. That's what I was

2 asking for in my comment. In response, De Beers

3 indicated that they will be providing sixty (60) days

4 prior to construction of any dike, a final design

5 drawing, or design details.

6 Where I was going with my comment was

7 thank you for making that commitment. We'd like to

8 see designs. But also, during construction there are

9 mitigations that are going to be proposed, filter

10 dikes and -- and things like that, to manage TSS and

11 -- and things. And what I was looking for, I guess,

12 from my comment was at what point -- what sort of

13 monitoring will be done? Like you can potentially

14 use surveillance network program monitoring or -- or

15 something.

16 But when are actions -- like, during

17 the construction of the dikes? Like the design

18 speaks to design details and the engineering, it's

19 very te -- technical and detailed. My question was

20 more along the lines of how do we make decisions for

21 adaptively managing the construction if TSS becomes

22 an issue, or there's a problem during the

23 construction activities? And the management plan

24 idea was what I was sort of looking for. It would be

25 a general plan that could apply to all dikes during



140

1 construction.

2 So that's sort of what I was touching

3 on. So thank you for the -- the detailed design

4 sixty (60) days prior, but how are you going to

5 address sort of the adaptive management principle

6 when you're constructing the dikes?

7

8 (BRIEF PAUSE)

9


11 Chisholm, from De Beers. And I'm -- I'm wondering,

12 Nathen, if you'd had a chance to look at the Sediment

13 and Erosion Management Plan that we submitted on the

14 record that speaks somewhat to the inspection of the

15 -- the dike.

16 So that's part of the monitoring

17 component, but I think -- I'm just -- I'll pause on

18 that and see if you -- if you had a chance to review

19 that particular report.


21 Nathen Richea, AANDC. Yeah, I had a quick look at

22 the Sediment and Erosion Management Plan. I guess

23 this is the similar comment I had yesterday on -- I

24 can't remember what -- the wat -- it might have been

25 the Water Management Plan. But having a



141

1 construction-specific -- or, sorry -- Dewatering

2 Management Plan, I think, is what I was looking for -

3 - having it separate -- the dike construction phase,

4 which is the start of the operation, from my point of

5 view, is -- is a pretty significant undertaking in

6 its own. And where I was coming from is -- is

7 separate plan specifically for that dike construction

8 and -- and pre-operation, and then a transition into

9 operations which has its own specific things that

10 will have to be looked at and mitigated specific to

11 the operational components.

12 So the Water Management Plan has

13 details for dewatering, but I -- I guess what I was

14 looking for is maybe a split between the Dewatering

15 Management Plan and then the Water Management Plan

16 for operations.

17 Similarly, for the construction of

18 dikes. The Sediment and Erosion Man -- Management

19 Plan is fine. You know, it has information in there,

20 but, because of the aspects of the -- the activities

21 that are going to start pre-operation, it might be

22 better to have a specific Dike Construction

23 Management Plan that talks about how things are going

24 to be handled during that period, and then Sediment

25 and Erosion Management Plan for the operations.



142

1 It's something to consider. I don't

2 have a final recommendation on that, but that's where

3 I was going with, I guess, my comments yesterday and

4 today.

5

6 (BRIEF PAUSE)

7


9 Chisholm, from De Beers. The -- the comment I have,

10 and -- and, you know, we're -- we're open to things,

11 Nathen, as you know, is that, you know, just for

12 clarification, the dikes are built within a

13 controlled area. So the interior dikes -- there's

14 some perimeter dikes that are keeping the water back

15 from flowing into the lake or -- or flowing into the

16 Water Management Plan (sic).

17 It is all within -- it's all contained

18 within the controlled area. I think it's just an

19 important distinction to consider. And that, you

20 know, in our Water Management Plan, about the release

21 of water, it will only be, you know, during the first

22 three (3) years of operation.

23 So in terms of management decision --

24 so this is -- we're considering that in the layout of

25 our Management Plan in under -- trying to understand



143

1 how that information would provide parties with some

2 assurance.

3 And so that's where I'm looking for

4 some help or some guidance on what you're looking

5 for, specifically.


7 Nathen Richea, AANDC. Well, I -- I think I need to

8 clarify; the dikes will be what will be used to

9 create a water management plan -- our water

10 management area.

11 So the dikes, during construction,

12 won't be in the controlled area; they'll be creating

13 the controlled area. So I guess there's a bit of a

14 difference in thought there.

15 But I guess what I'm thinking about is

16 Diavik's licence when they first were authorized had

17 a -- a dike management plan. No, I understand

18 there's differences in the dikes for -- for Diavik

19 and Gahcho Kue.

20 However, the dike construction is --

21 is a major component to -- to assist in -- in the

22 mine becoming operational and it isn't -- if the

23 dikes weren't put in place, there would be some --

24 probably some problems for operation.

25 So I'm looking at the things in two



144

1 (2) different steps. First would be creation of the

2 dikes in -- in the water management areas and

3 dewatering and things like that. And then it's the

4 operations, so I -- that's some context, I guess, to

5 my concerns.

6 I obviously can think more about this

7 and we can have further back and forth on it moving

8 forward. But, yeah, that's generally what I was

9 thinking.

10 THE CHAIRPERSON: Neil here. I think

11 I just heard some form of a commitment to think some

12 more about this.

13 MS. VERONICA CHISHOLM: Me, too.


15 Nathen Richea, AANDC. That's why I purposely ignored

16 -- ignored that AANDC-3 off the start. But I think

17 it's important to raise anyway, so we talked about

18 it.

19 I can move on to some other PK

20 comments that we had raised in our comment table?

21 Okay.

22 So AANDC-13 talked about the deposit

23 of fine PK in the management area. I'm trying to

24 collect my thoughts on exactly what I want to say

25 here.



145

1 In year 4 of operations, I had a --

2 another comment, looking at potential concentrations,

3 and I don't remember if it was TDS or chloride. I

4 can't remember off the top of my head. But the

5 response that we got back from De Beers was

6 approximately 3,100 milligrams per litre.

7 Now, I don't know if that was chloride

8 or TDS, right off the top of my head, but I know, as

9 part of the operational plan, the water used in the

10 processing plant could be the pit water that reports

11 to the pits. So I guess where I'm going with my

12 thoughts is, if that water with high TDS or chloride

13 is used in the processing of -- of processed

14 kimberlite, and that kimberlite is deposited as a

15 slurry to the -- the facility to handle processed

16 kimberlite, my guess -- my concern is the potential

17 for ice lenses and cryoconcentration of that already

18 high chloride or TDS water, and then the potential

19 impacts for thermal modelling on the PKC over time

20 with high concentrations of chlorides or -- existing

21 in that facility.

22 So I guess I'll stop there.

23

24 (BRIEF PAUSE)

25



146


2 Any -- any reclaim from the pits that would have pit

3 water in it, would be done after the tailings, would

4 be going into the pit. So it'd be recycling the same

5 water back to the pit. You wouldn't set up your

6 reclaim water from the pit and then pump it out to

7 the facility.

8 So it's a scenario really describing

9 after year 4 type of operation.


11 Herrell, from Golder Associates. Nathen, I just want

12 to add to that that our water quality modelling, when

13 we do get that high TDS water, that is considered in

14 the -- the processed water. So there is -- there is

15 a component of free water that settles from the fine

16 PK when it's deposited in the pits that will have a

17 composition of that high TDS, and that's accounted

18 for in the water quality predictions.


20 Nathen Richea, AANDC. I guess where I'm thinking is,

21 if a pit is available for the -- for the water that

22 reports to the pits in year 4 or 5, I don't remember

23 the schedule, if that water could actually report to

24 Hearne Pit as a management action, and then fre --

25 well, not fresh water, but water from your water



147

1 management pond, be used for the processing, which

2 could alleviate the circuit of -- of potentially high

3 TDS water through your -- your water management pond,

4 which may cause complications later in the mine life.

5

6 (BRIEF PAUSE)

7


9 Chisholm, from De Beers. Sorry, Nathen, was there a

10 question, or was that a comment? I'm just -- I got a

11 little lost there.


13 Nathen Richea, AANDC. If you take it as a comment,

14 that's fine. Perfect.

15 I guess my question is: Will you

16 consider not using the pit water for processing?

17 Later in the year is when there's a pit available for

18 that water to report to. And then use water from

19 your water management pond for the processing

20 component fro -- PK.

21

22 (BRIEF PAUSE)

23

24 MR. BILL HORNE: Bill Horne, EBA. So

25 later in the mine life we have said we -- we can't --



148

1 we would use some pit water in the -- in the process

2 plant. But that water is going to report to the pit

3 anyways as -- as -- in the form of fine PK. So I'm

4 not quite sure -- it -- it's going to end up in the

5 pits regardless. Yeah.


7 Chisholm, from De Beers. So after year 4, we're not

8 depositing fine processed kimberlite in the fine

9 processed kimberlite facility. The fine processed

10 kimberlite, PK, is going into the pits.

11 MR. NATHEN RICHEA: Thank you.

12 Nathen Richea, AANDC. Ah-ha. I had an ah-ha moment.

13 Yeah, okay, that makes -- that makes sense. I

14 understand the -- the response.

15 Okay. I think I'll collect my

16 thoughts on a couple other questions, but I think

17 John Brodie might have some.


19 for AANDC. I have a couple of questions on the fine

20 PK area. The first question: You showed in the

21 slides and described that after the end of placement

22 of fine PK material in the on-land facilities that

23 you would fill the balance of the void with -- with

24 coarse PK material in order to create a surface that

25 you could reclaim. I understand from somewhere else



149

1 in the project description that the coarse PK

2 material might be reprocessed at the end of

3 operations, which would mean it probably isn't going

4 to get put in the fine PK area.

5 So could you describe, or -- or at

6 least clarify that I've got the correct understand,

7 and what your contingency plan would be for the

8 closing of that -- or fill -- finishing of the

9 filling of the -- the fine PK area, if that is

10 correct?

11

12 (BRIEF PAUSE)

13


15 The initial coarse PK is stockpiled next to Area 4,

16 and -- and to see if there is any value or process of

17 potentially reprocessing that recovery of a small

18 diamonds. But the plan is -- is that is unlikely,

19 and -- and the later years, the coarse PK is -- is

20 used, as you mentioned, for reclamation, or put in

21 the waste rock piles, or whatever, so.

22 So there's the potential for the

23 initial, I think it's 6 million tonnes worth, to be -

24 - to be used for -- for examination of reprocessing.

25 But if it doesn't pan out that -- there -- there's no



150

1 plans to reprocess; it's just initially stockpiled

2 there for that one (1) potentiality.

3

4 (BRIEF PAUSE)

5


7 Brodie, for AANDC. So you may or may not put that

8 material in the fine PK, I guess is what I heard. If

9 you don't, what -- what other strategy would you use

10 to create a re -- a reclamation surface for that fine

11 PK area?

12

13 (BRIEF PAUSE)

14


16 I guess that's -- reprocessing coarse PK generates

17 more coarse PK. It's not like you're going to grind

18 it all down into a -- to a fine PK. You still end up

19 with the same high volume of coarse material to come

20 out of the product. You still end up with a coarse

21 PK waste product out of your process plant, which is

22 the dominant -- dominant amount of material coming

23 out, roughly 70 percent of that, so.

24 MR. JOHN BRODIE: John Brodie, for

25 AANDC. Thank you.



151

1 Have -- have you looked at or -- or

2 conducted thermal modelling of the fine PK after

3 closure as a result of the planned progressive

4 reclamation strategy? I'm picking that up now,

5 because you -- you showed the slide of that now, and

6 it's an operational activity, the progressive

7 reclamation. So I'm not trying to jump the gun on,

8 later this afternoon, on closure activities.

9 MR. BILL HORNE: Bill Horne, EBA.

10 I'm -- I'm sorry, what kind of modelling you're

11 saying?

12 MR. JOHN BRODIE: Thermal modelling --

13 MR. BILL HORNE: Oh.

14 MR. JOHN BRODIE: -- to look at the -

15 - sorry, it's John Brodie. Have you looked at

16 thermal modelling, or the predicted thermal evolution

17 of the core -- fine PK area after closure?

18 MR. BILL HORNE: Yeah. Bill Horne,

19 EBA. We did do some thermal modelling of the fine PK

20 area, and as mentioned, it was attached to one of the

21 IR requests in the EA process. There's a report

22 written on it. And what we found was the extent of

23 permafrost in there is highly dependent on -- on the

24 snow cover at the facility and -- and our global

25 warming estimates.



152

1 So, because the site is fairly warm,

2 the model predicted permafrost evolution in the

3 facility with the permafrost -- depending on our

4 assumptions of snow cover, the -- the permafrost

5 aggradation really slowed down due to global warming

6 after some time. So it -- it's -- because it is a

7 fairly warm site, it's really on the -- on the edge

8 of whether we're going to get permafrost or not.

9 That's why all the modelling and that was done

10 assuming that we just didn't have it, to be

11 conservative.


13 for AANDC. So, in the long term, you're uncertain

14 about whether or not it's going to be frozen, but in

15 the short term, you're anticipating that it will

16 freeze and it could potentially thaw again in the --

17 in the future, but the short term, you expect it'll

18 freeze.

19 Is that correct?

20 MR. BILL HORNE: That's -- that's

21 correct.

22

23 (BRIEF PAUSE)

24




153

1 for AANDC. I don't think I have more questions. I -

2 - I do have more questions, but they're -- they

3 really belong in the -- in our closure discussion

4 later, so I'll -- I'll hold those for now. Thank

5 you.


7 for the Board. Any other questions then on the fine

8 PK management waste rock? Do I see a nod over there?

9 No.

10 MS. SHANNON SHAW: It's Shannon Shaw,

11 for the Board. I just have one (1) kind of follow-up

12 question on the mine rock management, and that's kind

13 of relating to your slide, I think it's 8, your PAG

14 rock storage locations table.

15 And I'm wondering then -- I think I

16 heard this morning that your sampling, testing, and

17 monitoring is really, other than for construction

18 rock and that 15 metre fringe around the rock pile,

19 not catered towards identifying, segregating PAG rock

20 on an operational basis. It's more monitoring and

21 verification of current understandings.

22 And so, if that's the case, how would

23 you propose to identify PAG for prefer --

24 preferential placement when the storage locations are

25 available?



154

1 (BRIEF PAUSE)

2


4 Chisholm, from De Beers. I think some of that,

5 Shannon, would be covered off in the standard

6 operating procedures that I'm going to submit, that

7 I've already taken on as an IR this morning. So

8 that's good. It adds some additional context that --

9 what we need to address in that standard operating

10 procedure.


12 Okay. Thank you. That's it for me.


14 here. Last -- last go-round on mine rock management,

15 geochemistry, processed kimberlite, dike

16 construction?

17 Great. Okay. So we now move on to

18 closure and reclamation, and do De Beers have a

19 presentation, Veronica, to make on this one?

20

21 CLOSURE AND RECLAMATION PRESENTATION BY DE BEERS

22 CANADA INC.:


24 Chisholm, from De Beers. Yes, and I had just -- I

25 just remembered to email it to Angela, and so I'll



155

1 just put it onto a flash drive here and we can load

2 it on. So if people can give me about five (5)

3 minutes.

4

5 (BRIEF PAUSE)

6


8 Chisholm, from De Beers. I think I'm -- I'm -- I

9 think I'm ready to proceed. There were copies of the

10 presentations at the back, so if anybody is

11 interested in a copy, they're -- they're at the back.

12 So as part of the -- Veronica

13 Chisholm, from De Beers. So, as part of the -- the

14 water licence and land use permit application, we did

15 submit a conceptual closure plan as requested by the

16 Board in the update to the environmental impact

17 review, in a letter that defined the types of plans

18 and monitoring plans and reports that were required

19 for the land use permit and water licence.

20 And I'm just going to start with

21 looking at some of the -- the guiding principles that

22 we had for our closure and reclamation plan. And --

23 and these, I think, are fairly standard and

24 consistent with other plans and consistent with the

25 guidelines.



156

1 So the following guidelines are -- are

2 incorporated into our closure and reclamation plan,

3 and it's to avoid, if practical, long-term active

4 care with minimal long-term passive care of

5 activities on our land forms, our closure landscape.

6 We wanted to ensure that the closure

7 objectives are measurable and achievable, and that

8 the Closure and Reclamation Plan was developed and

9 refined with meaningful input of regulators and

10 Aboriginal groups, or Aboriginal parties, over time

11 through an engagement process.

12 And we recognize we're early on in the

13 process, but we -- we wanted to provide that

14 opportunity to discuss closure activities through the

15 engagement programs that we had in 2012 and in 2013,

16 and at the site. And we certainly do look forward to

17 the 2014 closure workshop that we will be hosting

18 onsite this year that will add more information on

19 that. And it will continue to evolve with

20 engagement.

21 With these overarching principles

22 within our closure and reclamation plan, there's very

23 specific things we need to achieve with the closure

24 landforms, and that is physical stability of all the

25 features, chemical stability of the site, minimize



157

1 the need for any long-term care of any of the

2 landforms, and that the end land-use that is

3 compatible, where practical, with future traditional

4 land uses. And, Todd, that's -- that's incorporated

5 into the overarching goals of the plan.

6

7 (BRIEF PAUSE)

8

9 MS. VERONICA CHISHOLM: I apologize

10 for some of the formatting issues with these slides.

11 I'll try and cover them off as thoroughly as I can.

12 So a lot of questions that came up

13 through the comments on the closure plan dealt with

14 our short-term and long-term objectives of our

15 closure plan, and I look forward to the discussion

16 that we have today. But, just as a basis for review,

17 I want to state what they were and what they are in

18 the plan.

19 So apply with complic -- applicable

20 standards and guidelines. We know that the Closure

21 and Reclamation Plan guidelines evolve over time, and

22 so -- and so will our closure plan.

23 Give preference to closure solutions

24 that do not require subsequent maintenance. So we

25 want to have a walk-away, self-sustaining ecosystems;



158

1 that's how I would define it, that they are in walk-

2 away condition and don't require long-term

3 maintenance.

4 Whenever possible, the closure of

5 facilities would be progressive and spaced out over

6 the operational life of the mine. So in the one (1)

7 example that we can give is on the processed

8 kimberlite after year 4. We no longer have to

9 deposit processed kimberlite into the processed

10 kimberlite facility. That provides an opportunity at

11 operational year 4 to advance progressive reclamation

12 on that particular site.

13 Two (2) important concepts that were

14 incorporated were -- were both designing from clo --

15 designing for closure as well as progressive

16 reclamation, and so demonstrating that we can be

17 successful with our reclamation as we're carrying on

18 our operations.

19 Short-term reclamation objectives

20 include, again, progressively reclaiming the sites,

21 minimizing the risk of erosion and sediment loss as a

22 result of any site runoff, stabilizing slopes on all

23 structures, so they're designed to have stable slope

24 structures, of course.

25 At closure we want to restore the



159

1 natural drainage patterns where it's possible to do

2 that.

3 Remove and dispose of site

4 infrastructure and material, as appropriate, when no

5 longer required as part of our progressive actions.

6 Remove or breach the dikes when it's

7 safe to do so.

8 Refill Kennady Lake as quickly as

9 possible; that's been something that's communicated

10 to us in -- in -- in a number of the community

11 meetings, is look for opportunity. That's why we're

12 using a supplemental flow from Lake N11 to help

13 reduce the amount of refilling time of Kennady Lake.

14 Cover ground to prevent soil drifting

15 and dust where that is practical to do so.

16 And from the long-term closure

17 objectives, return the site to a state that is

18 similar to other habitats in the region and time

19 period that are affected by the mine. Restore

20 and replace the local fish habitat that may have been

21 lost, altered, and disturbed as a result of the mine.

22 We know that there is. That's within Kennady Lake.

23 We can see that.

24 Restore the navigational routes.

25 That's a requirement. So we don't have any dikes



160

1 that breach navigation when we reach out end-land

2 use.

3 Return Kennady Lake that's similar to

4 a baseline condition, such that it will support a

5 functioning aquatic ecosystem and populations such as

6 lake trout, northern pike, Arctic grayling,

7 traditional and non-traditional uses.

8 And in one (1) of the comments from --

9 from AANDC: Will the lake trout, after we refill

10 Kennady Lake, be established in that lake? Probably

11 not. The lower trophics will. And -- and the fish

12 will move in over time. But we can start to see the

13 establishment of a number of lower trophics in that

14 system as we refill and we'll be monitoring for that.

15 And -- and to create, to the extent

16 practical, a final landscape that's compatible with

17 end uses of the site. We've said that in our closure

18 plan that's what we want to do, and that's what the

19 engagement activities are designed to do for our

20 closure plan.

21 So, keeping in line with those

22 objectives, we've made the following commitments, and

23 these commitments will continue to evolve and change

24 over time as -- as I suspect they've happened at

25 other mines.



161

1 But our commitments to date is

2 minimize, to the extent practical, the total amount

3 of area disturbed by mine activities at any one (1)

4 time. So keep the footprint minimal. That's

5 reflected in our decision report on the Environmental

6 Impact Review.

7 Recover as much as soil as practical

8 for use in reclamation activities. I think I've

9 confirmed some of that commitment here this morning.

10 Develop a fish compensation plan that

11 meets no net loss. I know it's -- I believe that

12 under Fisheries and Oceans it's called an offset

13 plan. We're -- we -- we're developing an offset

14 plan. We put in a draft compensation plan. We know

15 there's some additional work that needs to be done on

16 that plan.

17 Conduct reclamation trials in response

18 to the Yellowknives Dene comments on the closure

19 plan. De Beers has confirmed the commitment to do

20 vegetation trials at -- at Gahcho Kue.

21 Seek opportunities to reclaim Area 7

22 earlier. That was an outcome from our environmental

23 impact review process; that was a commitment that we

24 made on the record for Area 7, where we can look for

25 opportunities to restore that particular area



162

1 earlier.

2 Engage actively with the Aboriginal

3 parties in the development of each iteration of the

4 closure and reclamation plan. I think what speaks to

5 that is the commitment to do the closure workshop at

6 site this summer in 2014.

7 Actively liaise with other mine

8 operators to look for best management practices,

9 essentially. So De Beers is doing that. And we

10 certainly would look forward to discussing and

11 looking at the successes that have come out of the

12 other northern diamond mines, including Ekati and

13 Diavik. We currently know what kind of works and

14 what doesn't work, but that's going to evolve over

15 time as these mines evolve over time. And -- and it

16 is important that the -- and particularly in

17 reclamation, that those lessons learned, that we take

18 advantage of those, and so that kind of engagement on

19 closure continue.

20 So I recognize this is an extremely

21 difficult slide to see, and I apologize for that.

22 But I'm just going to step through the closure land

23 forms and our -- this our mine footprint. So we have

24 our fine processed kimberlite facility. We have our

25 coarse kimberlite facility. The mine rock, that's a



163

1 south mine rock pile, the west mine rock pile. This

2 is our Hearne deposit -- our Hearne pit. That's the

3 first pit we're going to be closing off, followed by

4 5034 and Tuzo. These are the dikes that we'll be

5 constructing in the area. This is our Dike A, the

6 one that we talked about that connects to our

7 airstrip.

8 And Dan -- our engineers always tell

9 me, remind people that in Area 7, during operations,

10 there's not a lot of water that would be collected in

11 that area. The water would be in Area 8 on this

12 side. So this dike is actually keeping the clean

13 water from entering into Area 7, as opposed to the

14 other way, particularly during the operations.

15 But what we've always said is that

16 we'd be testing the water quality within Kennady Lake

17 throughout construction, and operation, and closure,

18 'cause it will take twelve (12) years plus to refill

19 that lake before we would breach Dike A.

20 In terms of what the closure plan

21 would be, we do know what the closure landforms would

22 be, because we have the processed kimberlite facility

23 that we've discussed and that Bill Horne went through

24 on the closure cover, et cetera. We'll have the

25 coarse processed kimberlite. We'd have the south



164

1 mine rock pile, and the west mine rock pile. The

2 lake would be refilled. And as I mentioned, that

3 Dike A would only be breached once we were sure of

4 the water quality within Kennady Lake.

5 In terms of a time line, we took -- we

6 keep reflecting back on the time line, and I -- what

7 I want to highlight here is that there are

8 opportunities within the mine plan to begin

9 reclamation and progressive reclamation over time,

10 particularly around the processed kimberlite

11 facilities and -- and the mine rock piles, because

12 we'll be utilizing some of the backfilling into the

13 pits as they become available. And so this is the

14 closure timeline that we're working with, and that's

15 defined in the closure plan and submitted as part of

16 the closure plan.

17 This is a fairly short presentation,

18 because I think there's a lot of questions on closure

19 and we wanted to give opportunities for parties to

20 answer those questions, so we're available to answer

21 those. Thank you.

22

23 QUESTION PERIOD:

24 THE CHAIRPERSON: Neil here. Thank

25 you very much, Veronica. We will start some



165

1 questioning on closure.

2 AANDC...?


4 for AANDC. First question, a short and easy one, I

5 think: If it was the result of discussions about

6 creating vegetated surfaces on rock piles using

7 overburden, what sort of thickness of overburden

8 cover would you envision on the rock piles?

9

10 (BRIEF PAUSE)

11


13 Chisholm, from De Beers. So -- so currently,

14 although we -- we have made the commitment to

15 evaluate our closure plan and our end-land uses based

16 on the engagement over time, the current plan does

17 not have a re-vegetation over the mine rock pile. So

18 I -- I don't want to speculate on what that thickness

19 would be at this time, John, because it's not

20 currently in the plan.

21

22 (BRIEF PAUSE)

23


25 AANDC. I'm going to move on past that. That's -- I



166

1 don't think that line of discussion's going to go

2 anywhere.

3 The fine PK area, in your presentation

4 on the -- not -- not the closure presentation, but

5 the one just before that, you showed a cover over the

6 fine PK and described it as a metre of -- of coarse

7 PK and 2 metres of -- of rock overtop of that.

8 Is that correct?

9 MR. BILL HORNE: That's correct,

10 yeah. Yeah, Bill Horne.

11 MR. JOHN BRODIE: Okay. The -- the

12 reason I asked that is that the drawing that you

13 showed as part of that presentation shows, unless I'm

14 misreading the elevations, a cover that looks like

15 it's maybe a half a metre or three quarters of a

16 metre thick, just judging by the scale. I'm not

17 measuring the -- the drawing. But if -- if you could

18 bring the drawing up I think you'd see wha -- the --

19 the discrepancy that I'm -- I'm wondering about.

20 MR. NATHEN RICHEA: Further -- it's

21 Nathen Richea, AANDC. Maybe I misheard, but I -- I

22 think it's 2 metres of coarse PK and 1 metre of waste

23 rock, not...

24 MR. BILL HORNE: Bill Horne. That's

25 -- that wha -- what was in the presentation.



167

1 MR. NATHEN RICHEA: Yeah, thanks.

2 Because it -- I was just looking at one (1) of the

3 responses to one (1) of my questions, and it was

4 stated here 2 metres of coarse PK and 1 metre of

5 waste rock. And I think John, inadvertently, mixed

6 them: 2 metres of waste rock and 1 metre of coarse

7 PK. But I may have misheard that, but that's --

8 that's what I thought I heard.

9 But to correct the record, I think

10 it's 2 metres of coarse PK and 1 metre of waste rock

11 for the cover.

12 MR. BILL HORNE: That -- that's what

13 was in the presentation. I think there -- there

14 might be some inconsistencies in some of the

15 responses.

16

17 (BRIEF PAUSE)

18

19 MS. VERONICA CHISHOLM: So Vero --

20 we'll -- we'll put up -- I'm -- I just would have to

21 switch over to the other presentation, but I'll read

22 it right from the slide that everybody has, which is

23 the last slide.

24 So the closure covers that we had in

25 the presentation, approximately 2 metres of mine rock



168

1 over 1 metre of coarse PK. Coarse PK would be

2 covered by 1 metre of mine rock, and the mine rock

3 piles, obviously, would have no cover. That's in the

4 current proposed plan.

5

6 (BRIEF PAUSE)

7


9 Chisholm, from De Beers. We -- we recognize the

10 contradiction, Nathen, in -- in the comments and can

11 certainly put something on the record now that says

12 this is -- this is what we have in terms of our

13 closure plan, so.


15 for AANDC. If -- if that's specifically what you're

16 -- you're stating, which -- which is fine, can you

17 just state then that the drawing is -- is inaccurate

18 and would also be corrected in an update?


20 Chisholm, from De Beers. Yes, we'll update the --

21 the drawing to reflect the closure covers that we

22 have here.


24 we'll just document that as a commitment, that De

25 Beers will -- will confirm the cover characteristics



169

1 on the presentation.

2 MS. VERONICA CHISHOLM: Yeah. Yes,

3 John. So, we'll -- we'll confirm the cover

4 commitments and, if required, will update, which I

5 suspect they will be on the figures that we

6 submitted.

7

8 --- COMMITMENT NO. 10: De Beers will confirm the

9 cover characteristics on

10 the figures submitted (CP

11 vs. FPK)

12


14 Nathen Richea, AANDC. For me, just so I can wrap my

15 head around it, what is the cover -- or do you have

16 the -- the proposed cover -- like, what you want to

17 have as the cover?

18 Can you explain that on the record?

19

20 (BRIEF PAUSE)

21


23 I think just the intent of the cover -- it's -- the

24 coarse PK is just to allow a -- a transition layer so

25 equipment can traffic across it and -- and the



170

1 mine...

2

3 (BRIEF PAUSE)

4


6 The -- the coarse PK layer is just a transition layer

7 to separate -- keep the fine PK in place, more or

8 less, and -- and allow traffic to -- and I think

9 we've always said is be a minimum layer of mine rock

10 on top it.

11 So the thickness of the dike depends

12 on -- to ensure that you don't have the fine PK

13 breaking out and -- and being a -- a nuisance from a

14 dust erosion control basis.


16 Nathen Richea, AANDC. I should probably preface all

17 my comments here on closure in relation to

18 preparation of a reclamation security. So a lot of

19 the questions or comments that we have today will be

20 sort of focussed on 1) what is the plan for closure;

21 and 2) We'll look at the technical aspects of that;

22 but, 3) it will be to help us in the estimation of

23 reclamation costs. So we kind of need the specifics

24 on what the layer thickness is, because then that

25 means how much volume of material we need to move,



171

1 and then we have to cost that.

2 So we kind of needed a definite answer

3 of how much we -- how -- how many -- how much volume

4 of processed kimberlite, coarse PK, that will be put

5 on the PKC. How much volume of rock -- mine rock --

6 are going to be put on the cover so then we can

7 actually cost it. We can't just use general terms.

8 I understand, you -- you want to have PK -- coarse PK

9 -- to stop in -- and increase the trafficability, but

10 we need to know how much and -- and stuff like that.

11 So that's just the preface to a lot of

12 our comments.


14 Chisholm, from De Beers. We understand that, and

15 we'll proceed on that basis in trying to quantify

16 that. And, of course, all of that would be captured

17 in the reclamation security estimate that we'd be

18 putting onto the public record.

19 We're currently in discussions with

20 Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada on

21 that closure security estimate to ensure its

22 completeness, to ensure that we have documented the

23 appropriate information, and we're seeking guidance

24 on that, and that will eventually be placed onto the

25 public record.



172


2 for AANDC. Just so we're clear then, the cover that

3 you're proposing for the fine PK is basically to

4 provide physical containment or physical stability of

5 that -- that final tailings surface.

6 Is that correct?


8 Chisholm, from De Beers. Yes, that's correct.


10 AANDC. On that basis, the cover probably is -- seems

11 about right, in terms of needing a separating layer

12 between the fine PK and -- and a rock layer overtop

13 of it. And the thicknesses are probably about right,

14 in terms of constructability aspects.

15 And given that geometry, I expect that

16 the rock will, at least to some extent, enhance

17 freezing of that material, at least in the early

18 years. And so my question is: Did you consider the

19 freezing effects on the fine PK, in terms of how it

20 would undergo frost heave processes, and how it would

21 result in cryoconcentration and expulsion of pore

22 water?

23

24 (BRIEF PAUSE)

25



173

1 MR. BILL HORNE: Bill Horne, EPA. So

2 as I mentioned, we -- we do expect the facility to

3 freeze initially. The -- we also reviewed some of

4 the -- the frost heave tests that were done for other

5 diamond mines, and the frost heave tests basically

6 took water in, so it was a heaving material versus an

7 expulsion material. So we -- we got ice lenses in

8 the -- in the fine PK.

9

10 (BRIEF PAUSE)

11

12 MR. BILL HORNE: Okay. So the -- the

13 frost heave tests done on fine PK from other mines

14 showed that the -- the material was a frost heaving

15 material, not -- it didn't expel water except at the

16 very -- the very start of the -- the test, like

17 within the next -- within a number of hours it

18 expelled material, but the rest of the test, it

19 sucked water in, it didn't expel material.

20 The -- the chemistry components --

21 I'll turn to...

22

23 (BRIEF PAUSE)

24




174

1 Golder Associates. What's been accounted for in

2 terms of the -- the mass load is -- is an average

3 concentration. So we do account for loading from the

4 PK. What we haven't done in the model is -- is focus

5 that and release it periodically in one (1) or two

6 (2) events or in a few events.

7 You know, we consider that -- that --

8 basically, that -- the -- it's -- it's a large area

9 in terms of the lake volume -- or, sorry, a large

10 volume in terms of the lake, and any amount of water

11 that would come out of that -- that pile would be

12 relatively small. So, you know, we do account for

13 the loadings in our -- in our overall estimates, but

14 they're averaged out.


16 Herrell, from Golder Associates. I'd -- I'd like to

17 add something to that just in terms of the design of

18 the model. I think Bill indicated earlier today that

19 the model doesn't consider a permafrost condition.

20 One (1) of the key issues at closure

21 are the phosphorous concentrations coming out of the

22 saturated fine PK. So in not considering that

23 condition, what actually happens through that

24 facility is you have more water coming into contact

25 with the fine PK and being released, the source term



175

1 that's associated with the fine PK. So keeping that

2 in context, the -- the water quality predictions are

3 actually conservative by not considering permafrost

4 in the facility.


6 for AANDC. I'm not sure I -- I agree with that. I -

7 - I picture this frost front moving downwards into

8 the -- the fine PK material. But on one (1) side of

9 that body of -- of PK material we have a lake, and

10 that will be an unthawed surface. So as the frost

11 front moves down, cryoconcentrated fluids have

12 opportunity to migrate laterally towards the -- the

13 lake as a -- an expelled volume of water that is

14 concentrated between five (5) and ten (10) times the

15 concentrations as it's discharged from the plant. In

16 other words, the cryoconcentrated concentrations

17 could be in the order of five (5) to ten (10) times

18 what the discharge from the plant was as original

19 pore water, and that front could be moving laterally

20 towards the pond, because the pond won't be frozen --

21 or the pond -- I mean, Kennady Lake.

22 So it seems to me that there -- there

23 is a potential for a significant load to be removed

24 from this material and -- and moved into the lake

25 after closure. I'm wondering if maybe as -- as a --



176

1 as an Information Request, if you could at least look

2 at what that rate of emission might be and whether or

3 not that changes your predictions for the lake.


5 Golder Associates. I think what's really important

6 to understand here is that cryoconcentration is -- is

7 a very slow process. So in our current model

8 estimates, we just take the infiltration rate and

9 release the water. So if we're looking at total

10 loadings, when we look at a very low release rate,

11 even though the concentrations may be higher, the

12 total load is likely to be lower if we start to

13 account for something like permafrost and aggradation

14 of permafrost into the pile.


16 Nathen Richea, AANDC, here. As part of the

17 reclamation research at Ekati -- and I'll speak to

18 Diavik in a second -- the pore water concentrations

19 in the LLCF have increased, if I remember correctly,

20 about eight (8) times in the twelve (12) year

21 history, or I guess how long the LLCF has been in

22 place, so it does happen. It takes some time,

23 obviously, but there is some reclamation research out

24 there that shows the cryoconcentration of pore water,

25 particularly at LLCF and Ekati.



177

1 I did want to touch a bit on Diavik's

2 reclamation research. In 2012, they released a

3 research submission, I guess, that talked about the

4 active layer thickness in straight mine rock, and

5 then tail covered mine rock piles. The active layer

6 in their research in straight mine rock -- mine rock

7 was about 7 metres. And then the active layer with

8 mine rock with a cover of till, and I don't remember

9 the cover thickness of the till, but that was about 4

10 metres. So I understand that there would be about a

11 3 metre cover on the PKC, but it's something to

12 consider in the design of the covers.

13 But, yeah, I just wanted to give you

14 that background.

15

16 (BRIEF PAUSE)

17


19 for AANDC. Just following on Ken's comment that the

20 frost aggradation process, et cetera, is quite slow.

21 I presume then that it wouldn't be very difficult to

22 demonstrate through a simple model that the impacts

23 to the lake would be quite small.

24 Is it possible for you to do that?

25



178

1 (BRIEF PAUSE)

2


4 Golder Associates. Hopefully I can answer this

5 question for you. If we were to do a model run like

6 that, it would presuppose that the pile is frozen and

7 that we would have a frost layer coming down. If

8 that were the case, then the model conditions would

9 change. The assumptions of the model would change

10 and we would more runoff coming off of that pile,

11 then infiltrating and moving through the pile.

12 So, you know, the important thing to

13 consider here is that -- that we're talking about

14 loadings. So the overall loadings actually would --

15 would decrease under those assumptions in that --

16 that scenario, because we'd have -- you know, in

17 terms of water flowing through ice, it just doesn't

18 flow. So we would have higher concentrations of it,

19 but they would be coming out at orders of magnitude

20 lower rates.


22 for AANDC. I guess I would agree with that if your

23 thermal-modelling was showing us that the top of the

24 active layer was not in the fine PK material.

25 But with the cover that's described,



179

1 based on what we've seen for other sites, the active

2 layer is probably going to go down into the fine PK

3 every year. So there will be some water that's going

4 to infiltrate from -- from surface and contact fine

5 PK material, probably travel laterally and there will

6 be some deeper movement of water associated with the

7 frost processes in that pile.

8 So it seems to me that it -- it's --

9 it's not all frozen or freezing so slowly and

10 isolated from -- from precipitation. I -- I still

11 think that there's a -- a question here that we

12 haven't seen, that the containment of that

13 phosphorous is going to be done well enough to slow

14 the migration out of that pile. And I think it would

15 be useful for others to see the predictions as to

16 show that, rather than a discussion that says, Well,

17 we don't think so and we don't want to do an

18 analysis.

19

20 (BRIEF PAUSE)

21


23 Williams, De Beers Canada. John, in -- in response

24 to your question, I just want to set the scene

25 perhaps a little bit and then, Ken, if he needs to



180

1 add any technical areas.

2 In assessing the -- the phosphorous,

3 as we mentioned yesterday, and we discussed at some

4 length during the Environmental Impact Review

5 process, we obtained one (1) sample that indicated we

6 may obtain high phosphorous. We then collected a

7 large number -- well, a number of other samples, none

8 of which replicated that initial result. However, in

9 doing our modelling, we took the conservative

10 approach of including that outlier, the high

11 phosphorous sample, in the model.

12 And in addition to that, we took on

13 additional conservative approach in assuming that

14 there will be no other restrictions to the migration

15 of water through the fine PK pile, so that it was

16 done in the absence of any frost to inhibit the

17 infiltration of precipitation. And we see that as

18 the worst case, in terms of leaching of materials out

19 of the fine PK facility, so any development of frost

20 would, in fact, limit less than what we have

21 predicted in terms of the loadings that are going to

22 come out of the fine PK. Thanks. MR. KEN

23 DeVOS: Ken DeVos, with Golder. I guess the only

24 thing that I would add to that is -- is, you know,

25 these -- these predictions and the methodology for



181

1 the predictions were provided for the EIS documents

2 and the EIS documentation. So, you know, and on -- a

3 assessment of the conservatism and the potential for

4 impact was all done as -- as part of that process as

5 well, so.


7 Nathen Richea, AANDC. I don't know, I -- I think we

8 have to have some more discussion on this. We did

9 make a reference to phosphorous and, obviously, we

10 had a lengthy discussion yesterday about phosphorous

11 and the potential for it be -- to be over-

12 conservative in the estimates. However, the

13 cryoconcentration could have happened for metals; it

14 can also happen for chlorides. Increased

15 concentration of the chlorides can enhance thawing of

16 the pile or the PKC.

17 So I'm -- I -- I don't think we're at

18 a final solution yet on -- on this, but I don't know

19 how much further we're going to get today. It would

20 be nice if we could get some more analysis done on

21 this, and we had a request, but there's going to be -

22 - it's going to be required to help us in the

23 estimation of the reclamation security, so we don't

24 have a lot of time and we have to work on this

25 together. So I don't know what the answer is, but



182

1 maybe you have one.

2 THE CHAIRPERSON: Neil here. Nathen,

3 we don't know what the answer is, but do we have a

4 firm question that might inform an answer?

5

6 (BRIEF PAUSE)

7


9 for AANDC. Just discussing briefly with Nathen. We

10 -- we are concerned that there is potential for

11 migration of the dissolves' constituents in the poor

12 water in the fine PK and have that move over time,

13 whether it's by infiltration from surface, or whether

14 it's due to frost processes and cryoconcentration.

15 And that -- those processes, either independently, or

16 possibly together, could result in elevated

17 concentrations in the lake, and we would like to see

18 some evaluation of that.

19 I don't think that we're comfortable

20 with the discussion that says it probably isn't,

21 without seeing something. Have said that, we also

22 find ourselves reluctant to propose the method, or

23 the calculation, or specifically describe the

24 assumptions and methodology under which that

25 modelling should be done. We think that that's the



183

1 responsibility of -- of De Beers.

2 So we're kind of stuck with how do we

3 ask further the question. We can't. We're kind of

4 stuck at this point. That -- that's really more of a

5 comment than a question. I'm sorry.


7 for the Board. And again, my understanding is that

8 De Beers have modelled movement of solutes out of the

9 fine PK into the waste management pond and the lake

10 after closure. But the item of concern is whether

11 that model is conservative enough, in that does it

12 account for a cryoconcentration and permafrost

13 aggradation into the fine PK in a proper manner.

14 I think I've heard De Beers say that

15 it doesn't matter if -- if it -- cryoconcentrates or

16 not, because they've assumed total flushing of the

17 fine PK volume in a loading basis, and that fine PK

18 might slow the movement of water into the fine --

19 into the fine PK, the permafrost would, and, yes, you

20 would get cryoconcentration, but the loading wouldn't

21 be any higher.

22 Now, maybe I'm going to ask De Beers

23 if I heard that properly. I think I've just heard

24 two (2) sides of -- if the model is conservative

25 enough and accounting for permafrost. And I just



184

1 want to make sure if this would help inform a

2 question.

3

4 (BRIEF PAUSE)

5


7 Chisholm, from De Beers. So we do believe we our --

8 our models are conservative. We've -- we've used a

9 conservative case and that we're going to be doing

10 monitoring throughout operations and closure, and

11 that we can mitigate that su -- should those model

12 predictions, or should the impact predictions deviate

13 from -- or should -- sorry, should the conditions

14 that we're monitoring deviate from the impact

15 predictions.

16 And so -- so on tho -- that basis, I

17 guess that's why we're sort of digging in our heels

18 here, is that we -- we understand our models to be

19 very conservative. We took one (1) sample result

20 where we had elevated sof -- phosphorus. We've

21 included that in there. The other assumptions

22 provide a very conservative amount, so we have

23 confidence in our models and that we're going to

24 monitor to validate whether the models are accurate.

25 And we can mitigate, should we be required to do so.



185


2 Thank you, and I -- I understand those elements of

3 conservatism. I think the question on conservatism

4 here is -- is whether the model you use accounts --

5 is more or less conservative than -- than putting

6 cryoconcentration and permafrost into the model.

7 Like, do you have an opinion on that?

8

9 (BRIEF PAUSE)

10


12 Herrell. I'll just -- can basically repeat what Ken

13 said, that the -- the -- the model accounts for the

14 total load coming out of the facility. So if

15 cryoconcentration were to be considered, that load --

16 the increased concentrations would come out of the

17 pile -- pile as John and Nathen had indicated, but

18 the -- the flows will just be at a smaller rate.

19 So the -- the total loading would --

20 the net loading would be the same coming out of the

21 pile.


23 So -- so, yeah, that -- that -- that's how I thought

24 I understood it, that -- that the cryoconcentration

25 would increase the concentration of solutes but



186

1 decrease the volume coming out so that the loading

2 would not increase. I think that's what I took from

3 this discussion. Does AANDC need to hear anything

4 else on that matter or...?

5 I guess my other question is -- is --

6 is what -- maybe De Beers could describe the form of

7 mitigation they propose.

8 MR. NATHEN RICHEA: Yeah, it -- it's

9 Nathen Richea here. I guess -- like I said, I don't

10 know how much further we'll get on -- get on this

11 today, but if operationally there'll be monitoring

12 that occurs in -- in -- I know there's temperature --

13 or thermistor strings that will be put in the

14 processed kimberlite area.

15 Hopefully, there's some wells that

16 will be put in to -- to measure pore water, so on and

17 so forth. However, what are the contingencies

18 available to De Beers in the event that

19 concentrations are higher and the loadings are higher

20 than they -- what they modelled?

21 I guess where we're coming from, from

22 a security perspective, would be a thicker cover or a

23 le -- less-permeable cover until the results

24 demonstrate that a thicker cover or an imperviable

25 cover is not required, and then we can adjust



187

1 accordingly at that time.


3 Golder Associates. I think there's a -- you know, we

4 -- we've talked about conservatism in the modelling,

5 but one (1) of the things we haven't mentioned is

6 that we allow all of the freshet flow to go down and

7 into that pile.

8 You know, and there's a lot of water

9 at freshet. There's -- there's inner flow, there's -

10 - there's certainly surface sheeting runoff. So I do

11 believe that we are -- we're being very conservative.

12

13 In terms of mitigation, a -- a more

14 saturated material, it's not -- not necessarily a

15 change in -- in the thickness of the cover, but a

16 more saturated material will end up with a -- a

17 shorter active layer.

18 So, you know, this is definitely

19 something that -- that will be monitored. There are

20 other mine sites right now that are monitoring this.

21 The information on this in the database is available

22 to -- to look at in terms of -- of dealing with this.

23

24 We'll grow over -- over a period of

25 time. There will be ample time to -- to look at this



188

1 and to adjust if necessary during operations.

2 THE CHAIRPERSON: Neil here. I don't

3 -- not sure I heard an answer to my question about

4 what mitigation could be used.


6 Golder Associates. It would be a -- well -- hang on.

7 Ken DeVos, with Golder Associates.

8 Really, I think a -- a -- a primary mitigation would

9 be to either change the cover thickness, and that can

10 be done at -- at any point in time, or to adjust the

11 properties of that cover to reduce the active layer

12 thickness.


14 for AANDC. If there is an endpoint on this, ma --

15 maybe this question will help us get there. You --

16 you've said that in your modelling you've assumed the

17 entire freshet flow goes through the -- the fine PK

18 material.

19 So I guess what -- what I'm getting at

20 is there's a -- a mass of -- of -- or a total volume

21 of fine PK material deposited in this facility.

22 There's a certain pore water associated with that.

23 And if I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying

24 that you're taking that entire pore volume chemical

25 load and move -- flushing that out of the -- the fine



189

1 PK in your model.

2 Is that correct?


4 Herrell, from Golder Associates. Just to provide

5 additional clarity around what's happening there at

6 closure, so the way the -- the model is designed is

7 the -- the -- the fine PK facility at closure, it's a

8 combination of different materials. There's

9 saturated fine PK, mine rock, and coarse PK in the

10 cover, and then saturated mine rock.

11 Each -- each of those materials is

12 assigned a -- a different source term in the model,

13 and based on the water balance -- there was a seepage

14 analysis done by EBA that identified the -- the

15 volumes of water. On an annual basis, it's about

16 309,000 metres cubed of water coming out of that

17 pile, and that -- that volume of water was then

18 proportioned among each of those materials from that

19 seepage analysis, and then mixed based on the source

20 term assigned for -- for each of those -- those

21 materials, and then flushed out into the pile.

22 What Ken was, I guess, alluding at

23 there is the -- the fine PK would have a source term,

24 but the -- during freshet, we assume that all that

25 water, or a portion of that water, will infiltrate



190

1 into the saturated fine PK and be assigned that

2 source term rather than just run off over the pile

3 into the -- the water management pond.

4

5 (BRIEF PAUSE)

6

7 MR. BILL HORNE: It's Bill Horne,

8 from EBA. I -- I just want to add one (1) -- one (1)

9 point that we -- we got out of the thermal analysis,

10 and -- and that is that most of the frost

11 penetration, the -- the majority of the frost

12 penetration occurs during the mine operation life and

13 the closure period.

14 After -- after that period of time,

15 depending on your -- your model assumptions, the --

16 we get very little additional freezing in the fine

17 PK.


19 Golder Associates. So, you know, based on that and

20 the monitoring that we'll be doing, we're going to

21 know what's happening in that pile before De Beers

22 leaves that site, of -- you know, with respect to

23 closure.

24 MR. JOHN BRODIE: It's -- it's John

25 Brodie, for -- for AANDC. That helps. I -- I -- I'm



191

1 understanding better what you've modelled. And I --

2 I'd like to just think it over a little bit, but now

3 that I'm understanding better, I think probably you

4 have been conservative enough in the way you've

5 approached this.

6 Having said that, I want to just look

7 -- look at the numbers and work through it, which

8 I'll have to do outside of this session, of course.

9 But my -- my sense now, based on your replies, is

10 that it has been conservative enough.


12 Herrell, from Golder Associates. Thanks for that,

13 John. I just want to point you to the -- where the

14 appendix is where you can find all that information

15 easily. So if you go to the 2012 EIS supplement, it

16 is Appendix 8.2, where all of the -- the model inputs

17 are summarized there.


19 Chisholm, from De Beers. We can extract those tables

20 and provide them to the Mackenzie Valley Land and

21 Water Board and to you and AANDC, John, if that will

22 make it easier on your search.

23


25 submitting information



192

1 (extract tables from the

2 EIR) on Water Quality

3 Input of their model to

4 the MVLWB and to AANDC

5


7 for AANDC. Yes, that would be very helpful. Thank

8 you.

9 THE CHAIRPERSON: Neil here. Thanks,

10 and so that's a commitment. Thank you very much, De

11 Beers. And thank you for -- I think we've almost

12 resolved something here. That's good. Let's move

13 around the table. I think Yellowknives had some

14 questions on closure.

15 MR. TODD SLACK: Yeah, thanks. Todd

16 Slack, for the Yellowknives. I -- I've got a number

17 of questions, so feel free to cut me off when it's

18 time to move on to another party.

19 We... I guess, ju -- just in terms of

20 the starting point, can the Company just let us know

21 when they see -- when they believe the first ICRP

22 should be submitted?


24 Chisholm, from De Beers. When it's required as part

25 of our licence, and I think that's two (2) to three



193

1 (3) years. I'd -- I'd like to seek some clarity from

2 the -- the regulators, obviously.

3 MR. TODD SLACK: Okay. I've just

4 seen some companies pushing for five (5) years, but I

5 -- I'm not hearing that, so that's fine.

6 And again, as a point of

7 clarification, in the presentation, Slide 5, you

8 talked about progressive reclamation of the rock

9 piles. Can you describe what that is for me?

10

11 (BRIEF PAUSE)

12

13 MS. VERONICA CHISHOLM: So --

14 Veronica Chisholm from De Beers. So -- so one

15 example might be, Todd, is that we can do the

16 recontouring of the slope so that it doesn't look

17 like a benched slope, which is how they'll be

18 constructed. So there'll be some -- some

19 recontouring on the -- on the mine rock pile slopes,

20 but still ensuring the stability of those piles.

21 MR. TODD SLACK: Okay. Thanks. Just

22 because it may -- the -- the time period in between

23 the ICRP and the initiation of the reclamation would

24 be very short. Having been involved with these

25 processes, I can easily see the -- the ICRP process



194

1 going beyond your anticipated timeline here.

2 So in -- on Slide 3, into the closure

3 and reclamation, it says that the -- the final

4 landscape will be compu -- compatible with the end

5 use of the site, and that you guys have been -- you

6 also mentioned that you've been designing for

7 closure.

8 Can you just sort of talk about what

9 you had in mind, in terms of end uses, as you

10 designed this plan?


12 Chisholm from De Beers. So -- so the end land uses

13 that we considered, fundamentally, Todd, is -- is

14 what the existing conditions are around Kennady Lake.

15 We want to, certainly within the lake itself, focus

16 on establishing an aquatic ecosystem that's similar

17 to the baseline conditions. And -- and in part,

18 that's the basis of our reclamation plan within the

19 lake itself.

20 And within the -- the land form

21 features, you know, the fine PK, the coarse PK,

22 obviously we want it to be compatible, to align with

23 the existing land form and landscape structures to

24 the best that we can. And these are going to be

25 larger -- large rock -- mine rock piles, and they'll



195

1 be elevated -- elevated coarse PK. But where there

2 can be alignment of the existing landscape, that's

3 part of what we're looking at.

4 When -- on your question in speaking

5 on how we're -- how we're thinking about closure at

6 the beginning of the design, I think that's where we

7 can say where we're trying to close out the fine

8 processed kimberlite after year 4 and utilize the --

9 the mine rock piles so that we can begin progressive

10 reclamation as soon as possible, where we can close

11 out a mine rock pile, and begin the closure

12 activities during operations.

13 Those are, I -- in my opinion, some

14 examples where we are considering closure as part of

15 the overall closure plan, and it's integrated with

16 the mine plan.

17 MR. TODD SLACK: I'll just ask that -

18 - sorry, Todd Slack, with the Yellowknives. I'll ask

19 the question in -- in a little bit of a different

20 way.

21 How -- what land uses did you see

22 occurring in this area as part of your closure

23 vision?


25 Chisholm, from De Beers. Believe that people will



196

1 still be able to utilize the area to hunt and fish,

2 and if -- if they can gain access to it, certainly.

3 That those opportunities, that's part of our closure

4 commitments, that that would be available.

5 MR. TODD SLACK: Okay, good. And

6 thank you for that. And that's an important point of

7 clarity because in Yellowknives -- one of the

8 Yellowknives' comments, we -- we sought to seek this

9 clarity, and the Company response was, We'll discuss

10 it. So getting that out in the open as one of the

11 endpoints, I think that's very important.

12 And just to -- to seek a little more

13 clarity, also on Slide 3, you -- and -- and what you

14 just said, you talked about returning the site to a

15 state similar to the other habitats.

16 Can you just quickly describe how the

17 Company sees the surrounding area and, in a really

18 short way, what those habitats are?


20 Chisholm, from De Beers. This was presented as part

21 of the Environmental Impact Assessment. It's more

22 than just a vision. We actually had biologists go

23 out and document the components of the landscape and

24 the land form in order to determine the habitat that

25 existed around Kennady Lake. I can -- I can



197

1 certainly -- I'll have to look those up specifically,

2 those baseline reports and the various annexes.

3 So we know -- we've documented from a

4 biological point of view what those baseline

5 conditions are. One of the things that we've always

6 said was as the traditional knowledge reports have

7 come in, we hoped that they would help to inform us.

8 And we're certainly anxiously awaiting for the

9 Yellowknives Dene traditional knowledge report to

10 come in, in the hopes that some of that information

11 can help inform our closure plan.

12 And -- and that we think through the

13 ongoing engagement -- but if you'd like, I can -- we

14 have the documented baseline from a biological point

15 of view, Todd, what those habitats are.

16 MR. TODD SLACK: No, I -- I would --

17 can we just paraphrase it as taiga/tundra caribou

18 habitat?

19 MS. VERONICA CHISHOLM: I think

20 that's probably a safe assumption, Todd. I'm not a

21 wildlife biologist myself, but I think from a -- I'm

22 a vegetation ecologist. I think that's a safe

23 assumption.

24 MR. TODD SLACK: Okay. Thanks for

25 that. Can you -- so at -- with the plan at present,



198

1 can you describe what areas in particular are going

2 to be revegetated?

3

4 (BRIEF PAUSE)

5


7 Chisholm, from De Beers. It's a good question, Todd,

8 because -- and I think you know the answer to it.

9 What I've made the commitment to, to the Yellowknives

10 Dene and certainly in this technical session, is that

11 we'd be undertaking vegetation trials.

12 Currently where we're looking at

13 revegetation opportunities is where -- the roads and

14 infrastructure, the airstrip area, the process plant.

15 Those facilities we'd be looking to -- to -- for

16 opportunities to undertake some active vegetation,

17 potentially some areas around Kennady Lake itself,

18 where we can do some active vegetation.

19 But for those closure land form

20 features, it currently is not in our plan to do

21 active revegetation on those -- on those closure land

22 forms. And that's specifically the processed

23 kimberlite, the coarse processed kimberlite, or the

24 mine rock piles.

25 MR. TODD SLACK: Todd Slack, for the



199

1 Yellowknives. That's -- it's good to hear. In --

2 and in YKDFN 20 we asked the same question and you

3 just responded with, We agree to discuss this.

4 Having just discussed it, can I repeat

5 what I just heard, that we'll be seeing active -- the

6 Company believes that the -- there will be active

7 vegetation in the -- in the camp area, the roads?

8 Would you like to flush that out a

9 little bit?


11 Chisholm, from De Beers. So also in the closure

12 plan, we'll be incorporating the best management

13 practices and we'll have to look at the outcomes of

14 our vegetation trials. I mean, we want to be able to

15 demonstrate that we're going to have success with

16 active vegetation.

17 So part of the caveat I -- I have on

18 that commitment is -- is the outcome from the

19 vegetation trials to ensure that I can gain success

20 on those areas in terms of revegetation, and I -- I

21 think the Yellowknives Dene can appreciate that as a

22 -- as the caveat on the revegetation plan.


24 Yellowknives. Can you describe what those best

25 management practices for revegetation are? These are



200

1 described in YKDFN 11, but there's no references or

2 any sort of background to that.


4 Chisholm, from De Beers. So some of the information

5 that will help inform us is certainly the

6 revegetation trials that are currently being

7 undertaken at Snap Lake. That's some of the easily

8 accessible information for us.

9 We'll also be looking at any of the

10 research or outcomes at the other diamond mines and

11 certainly in the North, and -- and looking at the

12 closure facilities. I'll be happy to pull together a

13 list for you, Todd, of the information that we'd be

14 looking at, but this is an ongoing engagement.

15 We're early in the -- in -- in our --

16 in the -- in the process, and we'd be looking to

17 actively engage on those mine sites that have been

18 out there for ten (10) years, people like Ekati and

19 Diavik, and to look at the relative success of their

20 vegetation trials. Also, some of the vegetation --

21 revegetation practices that they've used at some of

22 the other mine site.

23 It's very difficult at times; and I'm

24 sure you can appreciate this. It's not always public

25 information. But in -- certainly in discussions with



201

1 other biologists that I've had, they've had certain

2 success with some species, in terms of transplanting

3 and replanting, than they have in others, and that

4 oftentimes what I hear is they're in the process of

5 developing papers around that.

6 MR. TODD SLACK: I'm wondering if we

7 can either get that as a commitment or some kind of

8 follow-up, the -- the list of references and best

9 management practices that you intend to follow.


11 Chisholm, from De Beers. Yeah, I'll pull together

12 the list and -- and also pull together some of the

13 information that Anne Nate (phonetic) had provided me

14 from the University of Alberta who's engaged in a

15 number of reclamation work in other areas, including

16 the North. And I'm -- I'm happy to pull that

17 together for you on what's available.

18

19 --- COMMITMENT NO. 12: De Beers commits to gather

20 and use existing

21 information on best

22 practices for reclamation

23 (specific to vegetation

24 restoration and vegetation

25 trials)



202


2 Yellowknives. Thanks for that. Sorry, two (2) more

3 questions. The one is in regards to the objectives

4 that are used within the -- the closure plan. And a

5 number of these objectives simply talk about doing

6 physical work, that the area will be graded to

7 promote vegetation.

8 Does the project understand the -- the

9 Yellowknives' concern that they would want to see not

10 just the physical action, but the 'why' that is

11 behind that action? Why are you grading? You're

12 grading to re-establish vegetation.

13 And shouldn't that be the objective?


15 Chisholm, from De Beers. And, you know -- and this

16 is why I appreciate these conversations, because

17 sometimes when I read comments, I'm a little

18 uncertain as to what parties would particularly like

19 to see. So this helps clarify.

20 Other -- when the comment was written

21 -- and I'll have to look up the specific number, Todd

22 -- but I was struggling to understand when you said -

23 - one -- one of the comments from the Yellowknives

24 Dene was that the objectives missed the point, and

25 without an example.



203

1 And so that provides a very useful

2 example which I can respond to that we can certainly

3 provide some clarity around the objectives, in terms

4 of how they're framed, in order to address concerns.

5 So we look forward to receiving those

6 kind of more detailed comments from the Yellowknives

7 Dene so we're able to present it in a form that

8 provides the type of information that parties are

9 looking for.

10 MR. TODD SLACK: Todd Slack, with the

11 Yellowknives. But just to be clear, the -- the

12 Company is satisfied with the objectives as they're

13 currently written?


15 Chisholm, from De Beers. Those objectives -- I think

16 the intent is they would be revisited as part of the

17 interim closure process, and certainly as an outcome

18 of the engagement activity that we currently have

19 planned and will have planned, that it's --

20 potentially, it's conceivable that some of the

21 objectives may be altered over time.

22 I know that they have in other mines,

23 and so that's not -- that's not something that I'm

24 going to exclude. But currently, those are the

25 objectives that we have in our closure plan in this



204

1 iteration.

2 MR. TODD SLACK: Okay. That's --

3 that's good to hear. Todd Slack, with the

4 Yellowknives. And I'm just wondering if the project

5 can describe for the particular contaminants of

6 concern -- and I know that they -- they modelled

7 this, and I forget the elements.

8 But if you -- as with yesterday, can

9 you describe or submit something that describes the

10 difference between baseline water quality as it

11 exists now and the post-closure water quality and the

12 degree of difference between these? Within Kennady

13 Lake, sorry.

14 MS. VERONICA CHISHOLM: Veronica --

15 Veronica Chisholm, from De Beers. Absolutely.

16 That's our in -- that's a large portion of our

17 Environmental Impact Statement and the information

18 that we provided. But we can provide you with the

19 specific references to where we undertook that,

20 because that was the foundation for our Environmental

21 Assessment.

22 MR. TODD SLACK: Thank you. If the

23 project could submit that to the registry before the

24 -- whatever date, was it the 24th? That would be

25 good. Thank you.



205


2 Chisholm, from De Beers. So that is on the registry.

3 We put in the references to our Environmental Impact

4 Statement onto the registry. So I can verify this

5 with Angela. So maybe it's just a quick check at a

6 break to make sure, but I think a lot of that

7 information is already on there, Todd. So let's do a

8 quick check.


10 for the -- for the Board. Yeah, that sounds like we

11 don't need an IR out of that. That might just be a

12 commitment that you'll provide the specific

13 references to those sections, Veronica?


15 Chisholm, from De Beers. Someone's just in --

16 indicated they're going to give me everything in five

17 (5) minutes. But I'll just say that, yeah, we'll --

18 we'll just verify that information, that it's -- it's

19 all on the -- on the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water

20 Board public record and is accessible, and we'll

21 provide that reference.

22

23 --- COMMITMENT NO. 13: De Beers to confirm that

24 information is on the

25 public registry (YKDFN



206

1 comments on C&R)

2

3 THE CHAIRPERSON: Neil -- thank you -

4 - for the Board. And you actually have fifteen (15)

5 minutes because it's break time. Reconvene at 3:30.

6

7 --- Upon recessing at 3:10 p.m.

8 --- Upon resuming at 3:36 p.m.

9

10 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Neil

11 Hutchinson, for the Board. Thanks, everyone. We'll

12 just carry on with closure.

13 Todd, were you finished your round of

14 questions from that one?


16 Yellowknives. All -- one (1) more question came to

17 me while I was away -- or on break there.

18 And I am wondering if the Proponent is

19 amenable to adding a section to the Closure Plan,

20 such as it is, that specifically addresses the

21 suggestions in the MVEIRB report, suggestions 1, 2,

22 and 3? One of them was about Lake N11, one of them

23 was about full lake mixing, and the other one was

24 speeding the fill process.

25 And just if you could directly address



207

1 those suggestions, it would be a useful thing.


3 Chisholm, from De Beers. I think we probably did

4 indirectly, Todd, and it's just a matter of doing a

5 reference to the suggestion. Is that sort of what

6 you're -- you're -- the request is?

7 MR. TODD SLACK: Yeah. I -- I seem

8 to remember in the YKDFN responses, the Company says,

9 Yes, we did address these things. But I was hoping

10 to see it as a specific section or paragraph that

11 says, Hey, here's the suggestion, and this is what

12 we're doing about it.


14 Chisholm, from De Beers. So -- so we can certainly

15 do that. I mean, it's -- it's included in the -- in

16 the Closure Plan, certainly the refilling and the

17 justification around the refilling.

18 But the cross-referencing back to the

19 Environmental Impact Review decision report is not in

20 there, and you're correct in that. And -- and we can

21 update that to include that.

22

23 --- COMMITMENT NO. 14: De Beers to update the

24 Closure and Reclamation

25 Plan to reflect the



208

1 suggestions (1-3) outlined

2 in the EIR

3

4 THE CHAIRPERSON: Great then. And

5 Neil here. We'll move on to -- to ENR.


7 Environment and Natural Resources. First, because no

8 one's actually said it, ENR commends the Proponent so

9 far on its draft conceptual plan for closure. We do

10 like this first step, and we look forward to working

11 with the Proponent to build this plan further.

12 Some things -- I just reiterate

13 everything that AANDC and YKDFN said, establishing

14 final land uses. I provided all my comments and you

15 said you'd work with us, and we're very appreciative

16 of that.

17 One of the things, and I'm not sure if

18 it's now I should bring it up or the Waste Management

19 Plan tomorrow. It's the timing of final closure for

20 your infrastructure. You say you're going to be

21 putting it in your inert materials landfill and

22 that's going to be on land -- I'm assuming that's

23 your waste rock storage piles -- but also in the

24 pits, and then you're going to be covering it in the

25 pits.



209

1 And just in the timing and how that's

2 all going to work, if you can provide further detail

3 as this gets developed. That's something we are

4 looking for. That's more of a comment, I guess. You

5 can comme -- like provide an answer to that. If you

6 want to work on that in -- in this draft or in --

7 when you go to the ICRP. We're -- we're not that

8 concerned.

9 We just want to start looking at

10 actual detailed pieces, and that builds into the

11 Waste Management Plan comments for tomorrow, and

12 detailed segregation method, and how you're going to

13 do that.


15 Chisholm, from De Beers. Absolutely, we'll be either

16 including that in this updated Closure Plan -- we'll

17 try and make reference to it and then it will be

18 further refined in the interim closure plans as we

19 proceed, Sean.


21 Environment and Natural Resources. Thank you for

22 that response. We are looking forward to that. And

23 the same with hazardous waste management. All of the

24 same comments that we apply to your operating plans,

25 we would look to see how you can -- will be



210

1 segregating stuff. Like if you're going to be

2 storing broken equipment on site, where all that will

3 be and where it's going to go at closure, all those

4 pieces.

5 Yeah, thank you. And we look forward

6 to working with you.


8 Thank you. For the Board. Moving along. Any --

9 anything else on -- Board staff? Let's come back to

10 AANDC then.


12 Nathen Richea, AANDC. I just want to touch on a

13 response to our AANDC number 40. I guess it's kind

14 of similar in nature to maybe some of the comments

15 that Todd had.

16 The conceptual Closure Plan touched on

17 the objectives and, you know, the overall closure

18 goal for the mine. Although a lot of the

19 information, specifically like the actions and -- and

20 the closure activities that will be undertaken to

21 meet the closure goals and objectives, were a bit

22 sparse, I guess.

23 So we had some concern over the

24 progressive reclamation. We would be -- encourage

25 progressive reclamation. So we want that to happen.



211

1 But we had some concern being that in year 5 of

2 operation some -- some of the components will start

3 to be progressively reclaimed. Typically in a water

4 licence and ICRP will be required a short time after

5 the issuance. And -- and then there's a review

6 period for that.

7 But then the next iteration of the

8 ICRP usually is required three (3) years after that

9 first submission. And then, you know, if -- if we're

10 doing progressive reclamation in year 5, we -- it

11 could -- there's some time that we need to start to

12 prepare the plans for specific facilities,

13 particularly the processed kimberlite area.

14 In response to AANDC number 40,

15 basically De Beers submitted that more detailed

16 figures and descriptions will be provided prior to

17 the technical sessions. I'm assuming that was

18 provided to the Board?

19 I don't think I saw anything

20 specifically -- like I didn't see anything sent to

21 me, but I wonder if -- was that provided to the

22 Board?


24 Chisholm, from De Beers. Yeah, we provided cross-

25 sections, similar to what you've seen on those



212

1 slides. And I'm not sure if that fulfills AANDC's

2 requirement, but that's the level of detail that we

3 submitted to the Board. I think it was on February

4 7th or so comes to mind. And I'm looking at Angela

5 in a confirmation of submission, because I've been

6 submitting a lot to them lately and I don't always

7 remember the dates. So Feb -- I'm getting a thumbs

8 up that it was on Friday the 7th, Nathen.

9 And have a look at those as a starting

10 point, and then if more details or comments on the

11 level of detail you require.

12 MR. NATHEN RICHEA: All right. Thank

13 you. It's Nathen Richea, AANDC. So the Friday that

14 -- like last -- like Friday, last week?

15 MS. VERONICA CHISHOLM: Friday,

16 February 7th, I believe.

17 MR. NATHEN RICHEA: Yeah, okay. All

18 right. I'll move on to my next question. With the

19 refilling of Kennady Lake in the Impact Review and as

20 part of the submission in the Closure Plan, there's

21 some time that will be required for the -- the lake

22 to return back to its natural or normal state.

23 I noticed in the presentation on

24 closure, year 24 is sort of the last year of active

25 closure, I guess, active activities. But there's no



213

1 -- there's no mention in the Closure Plan the

2 anticipated post-closure monitoring period that may

3 be required for Kennady Lake after it's filled and,

4 you know, the site has been sort of reclaimed. And

5 it's important for us to understand what that

6 potential monitoring period may be in the costing of

7 -- of security.

8 So I was just wondering if you had a

9 perspective on how long that post-closure monitoring

10 period may be. Thanks.


12 Chisholm, from De Beers. I guess, Nathen, because

13 we'll be refilling over a twelve (12) to twenty (20)

14 year period and monitoring during that time, that

15 helps to inform what additional post-closure

16 monitoring would be.

17 And so it's difficult for me, at this

18 time, to speculate in the absence of that long record

19 of monitoring data in order to determine precisely

20 how many years post-closure we'd be monitoring.

21 However, I recognize that something

22 needs -- perhaps needs to be required for the

23 security estimates, so I might have to take that back

24 and sort of give that some more thought. And there

25 may be some additional discussions or conversations.



214

1 But how I see it unfolding is,

2 hopefully, throughout all that monitoring, we'll have

3 an opportunity to refine that timeline, whatever --

4 whatever it is. And maybe we wouldn't even need to.


6 Nathen Richea, AANDC. Yeah, and -- and I think the -

7 - in the response to -- and I'm trying to find which

8 one it is and I can't find it right now. But there's

9 a certain time period that has been estimated for the

10 phytoplankton to return and then the zooplankton to

11 return and then the fish species to return.

12 And I think it's in the order of ten

13 (10) to fifty (50) years, so -- I can't find the

14 number here, so, anyway, I'll just leave it at that.

15 MS. VERONICA CHISHOLM: It's AANDC

16 number 38.

17 MR. NATHEN RICHEA: Oh, okay. So,

18 yeah, so using that as a -- as a guide, potentially,

19 I guess post-closure monitoring may be required up --

20 for up to fifty (50) years at a reduced frequency.

21 Is that safe, or do you have any

22 thoughts on that particular...


24 Chisholm, from De Beers. I was just informed, I

25 think Ekati has committed to something like ten (10)



215

1 years post-closure as part of their estimate.

2 I -- honestly, Nathen, I -- I guess I

3 want to take that back as something to consider and

4 ponder on, in terms of what might be suitable for --

5 for Kennady Lake, given the -- the size of the lake

6 and the length of time for refilling of Kennady Lake,

7 in order to provide that estimation.


9 Nathen Richea, AANDC. Question I had too for -- the

10 criteria that will be used to for -- to reconnect

11 Kennady Lake post-closure, the conceptual plan

12 doesn't really touch on -- it says the water will

13 have to be suitable, but there's no real definition

14 of what 'suitable' is.

15 Have you proposed, or will you

16 prepare, some criteria for acceptance of water

17 quality or aquatic environment in Kennady Lake prior

18 to reconnecting it with the downstream?


20 Chisholm, from De Beers. So as part of the

21 Environmental Impact Statement, we did a risk-based

22 assessment and predictions at closure. And so they

23 will help inform the decision. And perhaps that

24 should have been something I referenced. But they

25 provide, I think, a bit of a guideline on something



216

1 that we can refer back to and reference back to, in

2 terms of ecological and human health risk assessment

3 predictions post-closure.


5 Nathen Richea, AANDC. With the option of moving the

6 water from the water management area to Tuzo Pit and

7 then refilling with water from Lake N11, is it safe

8 to -- to say that the SSWQOs or the water quality

9 objectives or benchmarks -- I don't remember what

10 we're calling them -- for Lake N11 would be

11 acceptable for Kennady Lake post-closure?


13 Chisholm, from De Beers. I -- I'm not in a position

14 to -- to make that leap just yet, Nathen. But I can

15 -- I'll -- I think I'd take that back and I can

16 provide some better clarity on that. So that may be

17 an Information Request and on what those -- what

18 those closure criteria may be for the reconnection of

19 Dike A. And so I'm -- I'm -- certainly, I

20 don't want to rush into making a commitment on

21 something that I haven't -- haven't fully thought

22 about. So if you could allow me that. And then I'd

23 say by February 24th, I -- I'd come up with what I

24 would call preliminary criteria post-closure.

25 THE CHAIRPERSON: Neil here. So we



217

1 have a -- a IR, I think it's Number 11, for De Beers

2 to provide closure criteria for restoring natural

3 flow between Kennady Lake and Area 8.

4


6 De Beers to provide preliminary

7 closure criteria for restoring flow

8 between Kennady Lake and Area 8 by

9 February 24

10

11 THE CHAIRPERSON: And -- and sorry,

12 Neil here. But I thought, Nathen, you had also had a

13 -- a comment about moving water from the water

14 management pond at a Tuzo Pit.

15 Did you -- did you get an answer to

16 that?


18 Nathen Richea, AANDC. I -- I think it's the plan. I

19 guess I could -- it sort of spills into the next sort

20 of comment or question I had.

21 I guess where I'm thinking is in the

22 event that the mine plan changes, say, later in the

23 years of operation, so you know, we -- we discharge

24 water from the water management pond for the first

25 three (3) years, we manage water internally within



218

1 the controlled area from year 4 to year 11.

2 But, say, in year 9 or year 10 there's

3 more resource identified in Tuzo Pit, and the

4 potential exists to go underground in Tuzo Pit. In

5 the water balance that was shown earlier, probably

6 yesterday, it's the later year of -- years of the

7 operational life where the capacity within the water

8 management pond is reduced.

9 And then that's okay if the water's

10 going to be moved to Tuzo Pit in year 11. However,

11 if the mine life is expanded, spe -- specifically in

12 Tuzo Pit, that water obviously can't go into Tuzo

13 Pit.

14 So what sort of contingencies are

15 available to De Beers in the event that the mine life

16 is expanded for some -- for some years past year 11,

17 but the water management area is sort -- sort of at

18 its capacity?

19

20 (BRIEF PAUSE)

21


23 Chisholm, from De Beers.

24 It's a good question, Nathen. I mean,

25 we'll be drilling the whole time, you know. That's



219

1 certainly in the plan, to -- to better define the ore

2 bodies. I mean, we understand the depths that we can

3 go in Hearne and 5034. But there is additional work

4 probably around the year 6 in Tuzo where there may be

5 a decision where there may be some resources farther

6 down, based on those drilling results.

7 However, I guess, in terms of

8 speculating about that, we'd prepare and application

9 that we sure would hope would be a water licence

10 amendment application at that time, and which we

11 could -- could look at some of -- further, some of

12 those contingencies. And certainly there'd be some

13 things that we could do up until the point in order

14 to create some additional contingencies within

15 Kennady Lake. But that would be subject to that

16 application process.


18 Nathen Richea, AANDC. Yeah. Well, we look forward

19 to that time, I guess. What -- I guess what I was

20 thinking about, though, is the potential for the

21 water management plan -- or pond to the controlled

22 area to maintain its volume, but the potential --

23 because the pit volumes are relatively low for the

24 inflows. So the potential for water treatment, if --

25 if you -- if you got to that stage. But that's for



220

1 another day.

2 So my last question, and I'm sure I'm

3 going to make this my last one unless it's -- I've

4 got some follow-up. I hope I don't. In response to

5 AANDC 45, during temporary closure, there was a

6 description in the conceptual Closure Plan about

7 maintaining pit wall stability in the event of a

8 short-term temporary shutdown.

9 One of the concerns that we've raised

10 at other operations that will rely on meromictic

11 conditions post-closure to maintain the water quality

12 in refilled lakes is the concern for pit wall

13 stability.

14 And in your response to AANDC 45, I

15 think you, you know, sufficiently addressed Hearne

16 Pit and 5034. But Tuzo Pit is obviously the last

17 one, and that's where all the water is supposed to

18 report to, I hope, from the water management pond or

19 area.

20 In the event of pit wall instability

21 in Tuzo Pit post-closure, what sort of contingencies

22 are available? Like will there be some sort of

23 geotechnical assessment done prior to putting all

24 that water into Tuzo Pit?

25 Or sort of what options are available



221

1 to De Beers in that situation?

2

3 (BRIEF PAUSE)

4


6 Chisholm, for -- with De Beers. So a pit wall

7 stability is done on an annual basis. It's required

8 under the Mine Safety Act. So that stability

9 assessment would be undertaken, you know, on each of

10 the pits on an annual basis, which is a requirement.

11 So that's what we'd be doing to ensure the stability.


13 Richea, AANDC. I don't want to follow up, but no one

14 else is jumping up. So during operational, the pit

15 wall stability, is that from a shorter-term time

16 period, or is that -- the pit wall stability for like

17 a long-term post-closure scenario?

18 Obviously, people working in the pits

19 is -- is obviously a safety concern, so you want to

20 make sure that that stability assessment is complete

21 and thorough. But is it a longer-term stability

22 assessment, or is it relatively contingent on the

23 operational mine life? I'm just not sure.

24 If you can clarify it.

25



222

1 (BRIEF PAUSE)

2


4 Chisholm, from De Beers. We -- you know, it's all

5 coming back to me. We did address this in an

6 Information Request on the stability of meromixis and

7 -- and on pit stability. And -- and I guess -- I

8 mean, I'm sorry, I can't put my finger on our exact

9 response for that.

10 But I'd like to refer back to that,

11 and I think I could report back tomorrow morning and

12 just reference that because that's already been on

13 the -- on the record. So we've answered that, and I

14 just want to -- I want to reflect on what we've

15 already said publicly on the record as part of the

16 impact review process and I'm being consistent in our

17 response and commitments around that.

18 So if you can allow me to sort of look

19 at that one and then report back in the morning, that

20 would be really helpful.

21 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Neil

22 here. Just so we have a commitment that you'll

23 provide reference to the previous Information

24 Requests on meromixis and pit wall stability tomorrow

25 morning. Great.



223


2 providing a reference to

3 the location to the pit

4 wall stability as a part

5 of the EIR by Feb 13

6


8 Chisholm, from De Beers. I think we're ready to

9 proceed. That is our commitment. I'll -- I'll

10 reference back to that IR and -- that we responded to

11 AANDC as part of the Environmental Impact Review

12 process and provide that reference back. Thank you.

13 THE CHAIRPERSON: Great. Neil, here.

14 Thank you. Any questions from ENR? Any follow-up on

15 -- on closure planning, general security? No?

16 Any questions from Board staff?

17 Anything else from AANDC?

18 We are at the time reserved for

19 further discussion as needed, one (1) minute ahead of

20 schedule. This is awesome. Is there anything

21 anybody else wants to go back on from earlier today,

22 or are we -- are we missing anything from today?


24 Chisholm, from De Beers. We're always available to

25 answer questions, and we'll continue on to five



224

1 o'clock if there's questions that are raised.

2 THE CHAIRPERSON: Well, here's an

3 open call for questions then. We'll start with

4 AANDC.

5

6 (BRIEF PAUSE)

7


9 Richea, AANDC. I don't think I have anymore

10 questions. I'm exhausted.

11

12 (BRIEF PAUSE)

13

14 THE CHAIRPERSON: Neil, here. Well -

15 - well, it looks if -- if we've finished the

16 questions for today, Angela will review the

17 commitments that were made today. And she says we

18 have an opportunity to be lumpers or splitters and

19 reduce the number of commitments, so. Angela...?

20

21 (BRIEF PAUSE)

22

23 THE CHAIRPERSON: Neil, here. While

24 Angela's collecting her thoughts, Sean has a

25 question, so.



225


2 Environment and Natural Resources. I went back and I

3 reviewed my question about the nitrate and the site-

4 specific derivation that was done as an IR request

5 yesterday. And the reason it was excluded was that

6 it was -- because it was overly conservative.

7 And I was wondering if De Beers is

8 comfortable with that overly conservative number for

9 the SSWQO for nitrate for the Ekati site and whether

10 they would like to go back and revisit that? And

11 that was the reason for the decision for it being

12 excluded.

13 And I just -- I -- even if it's an

14 Information Request for De Beers to revisit that

15 number, I just want you to be comfortable with your

16 nitrate number.

17

18 (BRIEF PAUSE)

19


21 Chisholm, from De Beers. Thank you for that offer.

22 And I think we -- we'd like to consider that, given

23 the outcome. I've just been trying to get informed

24 on the Fortune case -- or the Fortune submissions.

25 So, yeah, we'll -- we'll -- I would appreciate that.



226


2 Environment and Natural Resources. I guess that

3 would be another Information Request, for De Beers to

4 review their nitrate SSWQO. And it's in the Gahcho

5 Kue specific and whether they're comfortable with

6 using that number.

7

8 (BRIEF PAUSE)

9


11 here. So just that IR was for De Beers would review

12 the Ekati site-specific water quality objective for

13 nitrate to ensure it is valid for Gahcho Kue.


15 Environment and Natural Resources. That is correct.

16


18 De Beers to review the Ekati Site

19 Specific Water Quality Objective to

20 see if this is appropriate for Gahcho

21 Kue by February 24

22

23 THE CHAIRPERSON: I hear De Beers

24 laughing. Is this like they can't believe their good

25 fortune, or...



227

1 MR. PETER CHAPMAN: Natasha was

2 coming to kill me.

3 THE CHAIRPERSON: You have the

4 permission of the Chair to continue, Natasha.

5

6 (BRIEF PAUSE)

7

8 MS. ANGELA LOVE: This is Angela --

9 Angela, with the Board. So I had captured eleven

10 (11) commitments, the first one being: De Beers

11 commits to providing a detailed standard operating

12 procedure for placement of rock during operations.

13 This will appear in the Geochemical Characterization

14 Plan.

15 The second one is: De Beers commits

16 to undertaking -- actually that's -- that's something

17 I'm -- I missed a word there -- for the contact water

18 in regards to the SNP, and the details will be

19 hammered out and submitted again under the

20 Geochemical Characterization Plan. No, hold on.

21 That's not...

22

23 (BRIEF PAUSE)

24




228

1 Chisholm with De Beers. Is -- that's the comparison

2 with Ekati? Is that the Information Request -- oh,

3 it's something else -- or commitment?

4 MS. SHANNON SHAW: Shannon Shaw. I

5 think it's referring to the commitment to undertake

6 field tests to use as validation for your source term

7 predictions.


9 Chisholm, with De Beers. Yeah, I was missing the

10 word "field tests" and, so, yes. Thank you.

11 MS. ANGELA LOVE: Angela Love, with

12 the Board again. So got that in for number 2, is the

13 field tests.

14 So, number 3: De Beers will commit to

15 review options for storing over-burden, so the -- De

16 Beers needs to identify areas where over-burden can

17 be stockpiled and this will be incorporated into the

18 Operations Plan.

19 The fourth one: De Beers will commit

20 to listen and have an open conversation with

21 organizations, but is not committing to anything

22 specific because those talks have not been -- have

23 not occurred yet.


25 that was with reference to closure planning.



229

1 MS. ANGELA LOVE: Okay, yes, that is

2 Angela, from the Board. So I guess I should put

3 headings on these too then. But, yes, that's in

4 relation to the C&R Plan.

5

6 (BRIEF PAUSE)

7

8 MS. ANGELA LOVE: Okay. The fifth

9 one: De Beers is committed to parta -- participating

10 in a closure and reclamation working group.

11 6. De Beers will confirm the cover

12 characterizations on the figures submitted. I need

13 to go back and...

14 THE CHAIRPERSON: Neil here. That

15 was with reference to thickness of covers -- coarse

16 PK versus win -- mine rock?

17

18 (BRIEF PAUSE)

19

20 MS. ANGELA LOVE: Angela, with the --

21 Angela with the Board again.

22 So number 7, I have, is: De Beers

23 commits to submitting information on their model to

24 the MVLWB and to AANDC. This is in relation to the

25 closure and reclamation. I'm going to stop there for



230

1 a second.

2

3 (BRIEF PAUSE)

4


6 Chisholm, with De Beers. I think that relates to the

7 water quality input parameters that we submitted as

8 part of the environmental impact statement, and that

9 we -- our commitment was to extract those tables and

10 then submit them to Mackenzie Valley Land and Water

11 Board.

12 Does that sound accurate?

13

14 (BRIEF PAUSE)

15

16 MS. ANGELA LOVE: Angela, for the

17 Board. Yes, that is in relation to the -- extracting

18 the tables from the EIR. So noted.

19 Number 8 -- thank you. Angela, for

20 the Board. Number 8 was De Beers commits to gather

21 and use existing information on the best practices

22 for reclamation.


24 Chisholm, for De Beers. That was specific around

25 vegetation and vegetation restoration and vegetation



231

1 trials. So you may want to put that in brackets.

2

3 (BRIEF PAUSE)

4

5 MS. ANGELA LOVE: Angela, for the

6 Board. Noted.

7 Number 9 is De Beers to confirm that

8 information is on the public registry in relation to

9 the AANDC. We hadn't gone back to that, so I still

10 have it down as the commitment.

11 Number 10, De Beers to update the

12 Closure and Reclamation Plan to reflect the

13 suggestions 1 to 3, which were outlined in the EIR.

14 And 11, was De Beers to commit to

15 providing a reference to pit wall stability as a part

16 of the EIR, by February 13th, by tomorrow. Commits

17 to providing the refer -- yeah, the references that

18 were made.

19

20 (BRIEF PAUSE)

21


23 Chisholm, from De Beers. It's reference to the

24 location, but if you send out the commitments, can we

25 just have a look at them just in Word, and then any -



232

1 - any suggested edits we'd do and track changes, so

2 that our understanding is consistent with

3 expectations by parties and the Board staff.

4 THE CHAIRPERSON: Neil here. And

5 that's something that we could then just present

6 tomorrow morning first thing. Sure.

7

8 (BRIEF PAUSE)

9

10 THE CHAIRPERSON: Great. Thanks,

11 Angela. So I think we can just call it a day and

12 dismiss until tomorrow morning at nine o'clock.

13 Thanks to everybody.

14

15 --- Upon adjourning at 4:12 p.m.

16

17 Certified Correct,

18

19

20 _____________________

21 Bob Keelaghan, Mr.

22

23

24

25

MVLWB re GAHCHO KUE TECH 02-12-2014 Page 233 of 289


>

> 8:23,24136:7,8

0

0.1 46:25

47:1248:17,20,25 49:1073:3 82:889:14

02 92:2

06 92:3

1

1 13:9 17:11

19:19 23:129:1 32:441:16,2242:7 43:2346:1247:1150:1152:15,2253:455:13,14,23 62:1963:1065:2166:11,1967:21,2468:2,9,1274:19,2075:176:1,277:3 86:2391:23,2492:2093:11 94:197:3 99:24100:3101:9103:6106:17,18109:4,8111:12,23112:5,22113:9136:16,25137:13,20150:2153:11

158:6160:8161:3166:22167:2,3,4,6,10168:1,2170:20174:5,20175:8180:5184:19187:5190:8206:16,21223:19231:13

1,188 42:24

1,200 64:6

1,238 46:10

1,254 43:11

1,500 24:14

1/2 24:17

25:11122:9

1:10 123:4

1:15 14:21

122:25

10 6:16 9:6

60:25124:22169:8175:14,17200:18214:13,25218:2231:11

10:25 77:17

10:42 77:18

10:45 77:15

100 8:12

71:15

100,000 50:2

66:1467:2071:2072:2473:20

74:19 76:7

108 5:18

11 5:7 6:22

9:9 191:24200:1217:1,5218:1,10,16 227:10231:14

11:49 123:3

110 111:10

113 5:19

12 1:23 7:3

9:14 41:1160:2561:10163:18176:20201:19213:13226:17

12:30

14:17,18,20 122:24

120 111:10

124 6:21

126 41:10

127 8:18

12-metre

40:23

13 9:19 10:6

205:23223:5

1-3 9:24

208:1

136 8:24

138 9:5

13th 231:16

14 9:22

121:3137:21138:20207:23

15 5:10 10:3

25:12,14

49:157:1,562:2063:1867:11,1672:2 76:1978:14112:8120:11153:18206:4223:1

154 5:22

16 13:23

112:19

164 5:23

169 9:8

18 41:17,19

19 5:11

191 9:13

1998 13:5,8

2

2 1:24 11:6

23:8 24:1325:4,1428:24 39:344:2446:18 47:156:2 57:1265:22 66:672:18 77:378:7 81:1387:11110:10112:1122:9,16128:8,11,12 129:4130:20136:25137:2144:1158:13166:7,22167:4,6,10,25 170:21174:6183:24192:25

202:2206:21228:12

2.2-1 12:9

2.4 111:12

112:1,9,24114:23115:5118:14119:19

20 24:22,23

109:22199:2213:13

2004 40:20

41:2

2008 40:20

41:3

201 9:18

2010

13:7,8,9,10 40:1386:24

2011

13:5,7,18,19 41:15

2012

13:21,2340:1358:1161:16107:2130:20134:20,23156:15177:2191:15

2013 12:11

13:5,8,2514:3 15:1440:1442:13105:25106:13130:20134:25135:1156:15

2014 1:23



23:1540:16131:6135:3,4,5156:17162:6

205 9:21

207 9:25

21 87:5

217 6:25

223 10:6

226 7:6

232 5:25

24

6:7,9,15,21,25 7:628:3 37:2143:1284:25212:24217:9226:21

24th

37:8,10,11204:24216:23

27 6:7 90:23

27th 37:12

3

3 1:24 11:6

13:6 24:1725:1127:1842:1344:17122:4,5137:23142:22170:22177:11193:1194:2196:13206:22211:8217:25228:14

231:13

3,100 145:6

3:10 206:7

3:30 206:5

3:36 206:8

30

71:17,21,22 73:10,2374:4,888:4101:12

309,000

189:16

31 71:12

74:16 79:3

34 41:12

106:12

35 100:4

36 101:13,18

37 6:11

38 214:16

39 5:14

4

4 41:6 55:16

63:3,17109:8112:5,20,23 118:13145:1146:9,22148:7149:15158:8,11177:9195:8218:1

4.2 112:17

118:15

4.2-million-

tonne

119:11

4.3.7 106:13

4.8 46:19,23

4:1 113:11

4:12 232:15

40 210:13

211:14

42 25:16

45 220:5,14

46 138:3

49 55:14

5

5 8:3 47:24

48:8 55:2456:2570:17 84:692:593:13,15104:1,6,14105:2,3,7112:7118:13128:5,12129:1134:17146:22155:2175:14,17193:4,7205:17211:1,10

5.5 47:14

50 25:2

59:21 60:6214:13,20

5034 40:18

63:5 64:24112:20163:4219:3220:16

51 5:15

528 41:9

555 111:11

6

6 5:4 8:7

24:2540:22 63:8100:24118:13,22

149:23219:4229:11

60 139:3

140:4

6-metre

40:22

7

7 6:4 8:13

27:16,2563:864:23,25112:21127:19161:21,24163:9,13177:7229:22

7.3.1 122:1

7.5 46:8

70 150:23

721 114:15

731 125:12

75th 45:4,7

7th

212:4,8,16

8

8 5:5 6:8,25

8:19 37:1944:17 50:266:14,15,18 67:20,2371:15,1972:2373:2074:18,2576:1,4136:1153:13163:11176:20217:3,8230:19,20

8.2 40:12

191:16

8.3 40:13

8.32 44:16

84 6:15 8:6

86 112:21

9

9 6:12 9:3

84:22 87:688:25138:12218:2231:7

9:06 11:1

93 46:9

A

a.m 11:1

77:17,18123:3

A1 109:23

110:1,3

AANDC 3:10

6:8 9:1312:2321:13,1524:10,1926:1927:11,1428:2130:16 32:335:3,1837:4,10,17,2051:15,2071:9,1274:15,1675:2585:23,2486:2113:21114:1,12116:7117:10120:13121:3125:16,22126:6128:24136:12,14



137:21,23138:3,9,18140:21143:7144:15146:20147:13148:12,19150:7,25152:13153:1160:9165:2,4,25166:21168:15169:14170:16172:2,10175:6176:16177:19178:22181:7182:9186:3188:14190:25191:21192:4,7208:13210:10,12,13 211:14212:13214:6,15215:9216:5217:18219:18220:5,14221:13223:11,17224:4,9229:24231:9

AANDC-13

144:22

AANDC-14

138:19

AANDC-3

138:24144:16

AANDC's

212:1

AB 55:18

ABA 40:9

50:1255:1869:1571:22 74:8

ability 34:8

78:12

able 15:17

27:382:10,11,15 83:10122:10196:1199:14203:7

Aboriginal

32:25130:23131:7132:23134:17135:14156:10162:2171:20

absence

180:16213:18

Absolutely

204:15209:15

ac 31:3

accedence

33:24

accept 91:9

132:9

acceptable

27:1529:17 31:360:14216:11

acceptance

215:16

accepted

91:11

access 102:1

126:17,21196:2

accessed

127:16

accessible

200:8205:20

accordingly

187:1

account

174:3,12176:13183:12

accounted

146:17174:1

accounting

62:12114:21183:25

accounts

59:21185:4,13

accurate

184:24230:12

achievable

156:7

achieve

22:11156:23

acid 44:4,18

45:1,4,647:4,17,2548:2 55:2456:2564:2168:1969:18,2489:15106:22

acid-

generating

46:6,758:1661:2464:22

acidic

47:7,8,1448:5 91:2193:7 94:2

acidity

44:10,2346:15

acknowledge

101:24128:21

across 40:22

41:4 53:1169:25

Act 221:8

acted 18:6

acting

109:22

action 16:14

18:2019:1,21,2520:822:6,929:2 30:2231:7,11,22,2332:9,1436:18 39:8105:8146:24202:10,11

actions

31:2070:19139:16159:5210:19

active 156:3

177:4,5,7178:24179:1187:17188:11198:16,18,21199:5,6,16212:24,25

actively

162:2,7200:17

activities

28:24 81:8126:22130:15135:18139:23141:20151:8156:5,14160:19161:3,8195:12210:20212:25

activity

151:6203:18

acts 46:14

actual 134:4

209:10

actually

17:2222:1429:2230:22 32:743:5 56:558:9 62:2294:8 110:7112:2115:23127:3128:16130:14146:23163:12171:7174:23175:3178:14196:22206:4208:8227:16

adaptive

96:19103:9105:16140:5

adaptively

139:21

add 58:23

60:19



80:13102:9103:10146:12156:18174:17180:1,24190:8

adding

206:19

addition

50:20 51:1180:12

additional

23:1243:1549:2050:1251:2,460:16,2167:12,2568:2270:2073:8,2474:9,1075:19 76:682:14 98:6113:9,12135:3154:8161:15180:13189:5190:16213:15,25219:3,14

address 27:3

36:3 40:441:16,2463:13 68:185:1892:2096:1998:23125:13132:10140:5154:9203:4206:25207:9222:5

addressed

92:21 97:5138:20,22220:15

addresses

74:16206:20

adds 154:8

adjourning

232:15

adjust 29:9

30:1068:24186:25188:1,10

adjustments

103:16

advance

82:4,5,23158:11

advanced

82:20128:10

advantage

162:18

adverse 57:4

AEMP 5:9

6:8,1111:1615:2,7,10,24 16:9,1919:7,1820:2421:13,2422:4,8,1424:2,628:19,2231:6 32:1733:20,2135:437:20,2238:10

AEMPs 18:23

22:2431:18

Affairs

171:20

affected

159:19

afternoon

108:23123:1137:25151:8

agenda 126:1

137:18

aggradation

152:5176:13177:20183:13

aggregate

53:11

ago 39:3

agreement

94:12

ahead 115:2

128:4223:19

ah-ha 148:12

air 120:20

123:8

airstrip

163:7198:14

al 138:22

Alberta

201:14

Alexander

4:4

align 194:22

alignment

195:2

Allan 2:16

alleviate

32:19147:2

Alliance 4:9

Allison 3:3

allow 39:17

98:25169:24170:8

187:6216:22222:18

allowing

15:20

allows 127:4

alluding

189:22

alone 17:23

89:16

already

86:1390:1693:23119:5133:20138:22145:17154:7205:7222:12,15

altered

42:18,2552:8,954:6159:21203:21

alternative

70:18131:2

aluminum

106:2

am 15:24

75:2586:20 90:4206:18

amenable

206:19

amendment

219:10

among 189:18

amount 41:6

53:5 68:2574:2187:16105:4110:8150:22

159:13161:2174:10184:22

ample 187:25

analog 59:5

61:8 62:195:6

analysis

6:17 40:1041:1044:1969:1571:2073:9,2474:1979:1692:2499:7,13104:5111:7,17123:11179:18181:20189:14,19190:9

Andrew 2:19

53:2454:2055:1167:14179:22

Angela 2:8

11:8,1112:20154:25205:5212:4224:16,19227:8,9228:11229:1,2,8,20,21230:16,19231:5232:11

Angela's

224:24

Anne 3:17

201:13



Annex

13:9,16

annexes

13:16197:2

annual

189:15221:7,10

answer 6:10

18:7 21:826:2237:2251:23 56:665:8 67:169:1272:2088:1392:2495:18,19116:7,11117:20122:22164:20171:2178:4181:25182:3,4188:3198:8209:5217:15223:25

answered

78:4 90:17222:13

anticipated

194:1213:2

anticipating

24:11152:15

anxiously

197:8

anybody

155:10223:21

anymore

224:9

anyone 89:25

anyone's

40:11

anything

34:9 69:19130:3137:16186:3210:9211:19,20223:17,20,22 228:21

anyway

144:17214:14

anyways

148:3

anywhere

166:2

AP 43:16

44:5,15,2046:18,2568:15,20

apatite 42:4

apologize

26:4 45:17101:23157:9162:21

appear

227:13

APPEARANCES

2:1 3:14:2

appendices

13:17 90:1

appendix

12:12,1513:15,1640:12,1342:12191:14,16

applicable

157:19

application

101:16,19103:1155:14219:8,10,1

6

APPLICATIONS

1:5

applied

17:1918:11

apply 96:19

139:25157:19209:24

applying

56:2259:2462:7,8,9

appreciate

15:18 34:335:2 70:1299:1 127:3129:18135:20199:21200:24202:16225:25

appreciated

95:13

appreciative

208:15

approach

16:1718:10,1329:1758:1,2,360:11,17,22 62:469:1491:1,3,12,13,16,2092:2593:2,494:8,9,16,19,2197:17,1898:7,10103:8104:9180:10,13

approached

191:5

approaches

60:14 93:1

approaching

104:1,6,21

appropriate

7:5 23:727:10 28:929:2230:1931:1148:1858:13,2064:1 85:1193:294:2,16159:4171:23226:20

appropriatel

y 44:14

approved

19:25

approximatel

y 24:22

145:6167:25

aquatic

15:10 33:636:6136:24160:5194:16215:17

arbitrary

94:10

Arctic 160:6

ARD 50:13

103:14104:6120:1,2

area 6:24

16:3 60:1367:9,1074:21 82:999:10110:9112:5,13129:3,8,12137:4

142:13,18143:10,12,13 144:23148:20149:4,9,15150:11151:17,20161:3,21,24,25163:5,9,11,13 166:3174:8186:14195:22196:1,17198:14199:7202:6211:13216:6217:3,8218:1,17219:22220:19

areas 8:15

22:20113:4127:14,22131:8,9132:6144:2180:1198:1,17199:20201:15228:16

aren't 24:4

57:4 98:5133:14

arising

14:14 57:4

Arrhenius's

62:11

arsenic

106:3

aside 64:16

74:4

aspect 18:24

40:1

aspects



21:1833:14 74:5141:20170:21172:14

assess 33:4

68:11

assessing

180:2

assessment

27:7 34:2535:5,2536:8 47:2450:6103:25120:17181:3196:21204:21215:22216:2220:23221:9,20,22

assign 48:8

assigned

189:12,20190:1

assignment

48:2

assist

143:21

associated

52:19 93:3100:6102:15175:1179:6188:22

Associates

2:20 3:239:2452:1356:1157:2560:1963:23 67:168:7 72:1875:9 76:1287:15

89:2192:1895:18 96:7106:15119:25123:17146:11174:1,16176:5178:4187:3188:6,7189:4190:19191:12

assume 62:13

189:24

assumed

28:1247:24183:16188:16

assuming

25:3 121:6152:10180:13208:22211:17

assumption

197:20,23

assumptions

50:8 91:16152:4178:9,15182:24184:21190:15

assurance

143:2

attached

121:5151:20

attendance

15:16

attention

126:12

audience

16:21

August

134:22135:1

authorized

143:16

availability

125:9

available

16:2518:1744:2261:16,1764:2487:2297:13106:18107:1,2,4112:14,18118:17,25119:12,13,20126:15,22135:12146:21147:17153:25164:13,20186:18187:21196:4201:17218:15220:22,25223:24

average

66:1867:23,2575:3122:18174:2

averaged

174:14

avoid 156:3

awaiting

197:8

aware 22:3

30:2

away 45:14

68:1070:1796:17

158:2206:17

awesome

223:20

B

backfilling

164:12

background

59:1177:14200:2

balance

59:20 60:168:20148:23189:13218:5

Barrett 3:4

base 16:24

49:13,14,16 58:161:2165:24 66:470:23 73:5122:8,11123:22125:1131:14

based 25:5

31:16 51:759:3,2068:23,2469:3,1171:481:8,1483:4 87:2189:12111:6130:18,19131:15165:15179:1189:13,19190:19191:9219:6

baseline

12:4,11,17,23

16:22,2418:1623:13,16,19,24116:22131:9135:5160:4194:17197:2,4,14204:10

base-line

131:11

basically

16:1359:2472:2476:20108:25109:21110:19111:9,15114:25172:3173:5174:8185:12211:15

basis 56:5

70:2,1576:21104:8122:3153:20157:16170:14171:15172:10183:17184:16189:15194:18221:7,10

beach 129:8

beat 11:5

become 30:10

93:7164:13

becomes

64:24 70:697:19



139:21

becoming

143:22

beds 53:9

Beers 1:6

2:125:10,14,18,226:4,10,12,16,22 7:38:3,7,13,199:3,6,9,14,19,2210:311:19,2414:2015:1,7,919:4,2420:4,7,1621:3,13,2523:2225:1726:7,1327:1628:1,629:1334:1,336:19,2337:2,2139:10,13,21 49:2350:1751:1453:2554:2155:12 65:770:1276:1778:1979:22,2581:3 82:283:1884:4,6,13,18,2385:1398:17 99:6100:14,24101:23103:24105:2107:22

108:4,10114:5115:17117:20123:9124:2,7,23125:11127:2,19128:8130:9132:9,13134:13136:1138:2,5,12139:2140:11142:9145:5147:9148:7154:4,18,21,24155:8,13161:19162:9165:13168:9,20,25 169:8171:14172:8179:23183:1,8,14,22 184:7186:6,18190:21191:19,24192:11,24193:14194:12195:25196:20198:7199:11200:4201:11,19202:15203:15204:15205:2,15,23207:3,14,23 209:15211:15,24213:12

214:24215:20216:13217:1,6218:15,23221:1,6222:4223:1,8,24225:7,14,21226:3,11,18,23227:10,15228:1,9,14,16,19229:9,11,22230:6,20,24231:7,11,14,23

Beers's

126:21129:22132:17

begin 164:8

195:9,11

beginning

59:14118:21195:6

behind 70:25

202:11

believe

19:2441:1842:1246:1054:1361:18 69:273:1796:21101:13106:21123:18129:4161:11184:7187:11192:21195:25212:16

226:24

believes

199:6

belong 153:3

benched

193:17

benches

122:14,15,16

benchmarks

18:2029:3,1132:9104:12216:9

benefit

60:23

benthics

16:10

berm

109:10,16,17

best 9:15

87:2497:11,12162:8194:24199:12,24201:8,21230:21

better 54:9

70:2074:12108:12115:8141:22191:1,3216:16219:1

beyond 194:1

biannual

67:7 70:1571:3 76:21

biassed

73:18

Bill 2:13

3:8 24:1596:12

107:25108:11,16109:15119:6,18,23 128:13147:24151:9,13,18 152:20163:23166:9,10,24 167:12173:1,12174:18190:7

Bill's 122:7

bind 31:22

Binion 4:8

biological

33:1197:4,14

biologist

197:21

biologists

196:22201:1

biology 33:5

Bishop 4:11

bit 11:15

23:5 25:1626:13 27:129:435:4,11,1243:16,1944:2245:1152:1858:2560:1967:19 89:690:2194:1695:19,2596:24121:16129:10136:14143:13177:1179:25191:2



195:19199:9210:21215:25

Blackie 2:14

15:8,9

blast 43:21

50:1 72:673:6 75:1376:15 79:680:4,1093:18,21,24

blasted 50:3

blasting

67:10

blasts 81:8

blend 89:8

blended

43:2244:1,3,7

blending

86:11

blends 93:21

Board 1:2

12:113:10,14,22 14:9,1215:19 22:225:2327:9,1328:12,1829:16,2031:2,8,14,17,2234:2436:1,2,15,24 38:139:777:1,7,9,21 78:2,2280:18 81:683:9,2384:1385:7,1786:5 90:1299:4101:9,13102:12

103:6104:19105:14107:9123:7,25125:25137:20153:7,11155:16183:7191:21205:10,20206:4,11210:8,9211:18,22212:3223:16227:9228:12229:2,21230:11,17,20 231:6232:3

Board's 22:3

90:23105:25

Bob 232:21

bodies 219:2

body 48:21

175:9

bottom 66:6

118:11122:15

boundary

12:1563:18

brackets

231:1

breach 159:6

160:1163:19

breached

164:3

break 14:17

77:9,10,14205:6206:5,17

breaking

170:13

breakout

25:25

brief 15:5

26:1028:1537:6,1438:6 39:1940:8 48:1151:17 52:353:14,2256:8 57:2264:1066:23 68:469:8 70:972:15 75:676:9 79:1983:6 90:992:1595:15 96:498:14100:11103:3,21104:16,25105:11,19106:9107:15108:7,14109:13113:23115:14116:4,19117:17118:6119:16121:22123:14125:19126:24130:6140:8142:6145:24147:6,22149:12150:4,13152:23154:1155:5157:7165:10,22167:17168:6169:20

170:3172:24173:10,23177:16178:1179:20182:6184:4185:9190:5193:11198:4218:20221:3222:1224:6,12,21 225:18226:8227:6,23229:6,18230:3,14231:3,20232:8

briefly 40:7

48:13182:9

bring 62:11

166:18208:18

Brodie 3:13

51:19 52:553:1654:1055:6,21,2256:1657:1462:1563:1164:1265:1167:1869:1075:2485:17,19114:11,12116:6117:9118:8,9125:17126:10128:23,24148:17,18

150:6,7,24151:12,14,15152:12,25165:3,24166:11168:14172:1,9175:5177:18178:21182:8188:13190:24,25192:6

broken 210:2

buffer 44:23

45:6 46:14

buffering

44:25

build 46:1

65:15208:11

building

61:1064:20112:3

builds

209:10

built 31:5

58:2496:2,1097:7,17112:16142:12

bul 133:7

bulk

58:15,1688:14133:7

bullet

46:22,2347:22

bunch 43:23

buried

133:23

business

125:6



busy 20:18

butt 109:24

110:11

C

C&R 8:24

9:21 136:8206:1229:4

C-1 12:13

calculating

105:4

calculation

182:23

camp 199:7

Canada 1:6

2:12 3:165:10,14,18,22 15:738:1839:2253:2554:2155:1286:9,20108:10154:22171:20179:23

Canadian

11:5 30:2

CanNor 4:4

capability

79:16

capacity

44:8,25112:1,24118:25119:4,11218:7,18

capture

84:16100:17124:18

captured

100:19171:16

227:9

carbonate

44:19,2245:5 93:5

carbonates

44:25

care 156:4

157:1

carefully

34:24

caribou

197:17

carry 206:12

carrying

158:17

case 17:17

31:3,1356:1264:7,869:3104:12128:12153:22178:8180:18184:9225:24

cases 91:11

catch 34:10

catered

153:19

cause 33:23

131:23147:4163:18

causes 33:9

caveat

199:17,22

CC 22:2

CCME 30:1

33:12,1438:16

cell 41:20

47:5,10,1348:2 55:2556:3,18,22

57:17,1958:14,20,2159:4,5,1560:4 62:691:2,794:2,12,13,24 95:399:7

cells 48:6

59:7,8,1760:3

central

109:9

centre 67:5

75:13 76:5109:11,16

certain

188:22201:1214:9

certainly

27:2 74:799:4 117:6138:10156:16162:10168:11187:10194:15196:2197:1,8198:10200:5,11,25 203:2,17207:14,16216:19219:1,12

Certificate

5:25

Certified

232:17

cetera 80:6

116:10163:24177:20

Chair 122:20

227:4

Chairperson

1:14 2:211:3 14:1119:1620:5,2221:1125:22 26:627:1228:11,1734:1 36:1437:8,2538:8 39:651:1276:2577:2084:1285:1,16,2186:4,1590:6,1199:3105:21107:8,12,17 108:1113:17122:19123:6,24124:9,12,17 125:5,24136:10137:19144:10153:6154:13164:24168:23182:2183:6185:1,22188:2192:9205:9206:3,10208:4210:7216:25217:11222:21223:13224:2,14,23226:10,23227:3228:24229:14

232:4,10

challenges

22:7

challenging

23:7

chance 20:9

49:20140:12,18

change 8:23

16:5 25:629:1030:2532:1733:2,1538:23104:8136:7160:23178:9187:15188:9

changes

11:1133:4,855:10120:25121:2,17,19 176:3217:22232:1

changing

31:11

Chapman 2:17

29:24227:1

characterist

ics 9:7

68:1387:21 88:7168:25169:9

characteriza

tion 71:11

77:685:10,14100:19104:13116:16227:13,20



characteriza

tions

229:12

Characterize

8:12 101:6

check 41:19

205:5,8

checkup 67:7

chemical

156:25188:24

chemistry

95:9173:20

Chisholm

2:1211:23,2420:3,4,15,16 21:2,326:12,1328:5,634:2,339:12,1365:6,770:11,1278:18,1979:21,2281:2,382:1,283:17,1884:3,4,17,1885:12,1398:16,17100:13,14101:22,23102:18103:23,24105:1,2107:21,22108:3,4114:4,5115:16,17116:21117:19,20124:6,7,10,15127:1,2130:8,9132:12,13134:12,13

138:1,2140:10,11142:8,9144:13147:8,9148:6,7154:3,4,23,24155:7,8,13157:9165:12,13167:19168:8,9,19,20 169:2171:13,14172:7,8184:6,7191:18,19192:23,24193:13,14194:11,12195:24,25196:19,20197:19198:6,7199:10,11200:3,4201:10,11202:14,15203:14,15204:14,15205:1,2,14,15207:2,3,13,14209:14,15211:23,24212:15213:11,12214:15,23,24215:19,20216:12,13218:22,23221:5,6222:3,4223:7,8,23,24225:20,21227:25228:1,8,9230:5,6,23,24

231:22,23

chloride

145:3,7,12,18

chlorides

145:20181:14,15

Chorley 2:21

chose 57:18

106:2,6

chosen 6:18

86:2597:1899:14

Chouinard

2:780:17,1883:8,9,22,23 85:6,7101:8,9102:11,12103:5,6104:18,19105:13,14

circuit

147:2

Clancy 3:20

clarificatio

n

101:10,16,21 105:9142:12193:7

clarify 17:2

19:2431:2532:1738:14 65:782:18 83:9103:17107:7119:23143:8149:6202:19221:24

clarity 35:3

36:24104:20

126:19128:25129:18189:5193:1196:7,9,13203:3216:16

classificati

on 42:20

43:4

classified

43:5

clean 163:12

clear 14:8

64:1365:10 77:580:18 81:3101:25102:12127:2,5133:15134:16172:2203:11

cleared 71:7

115:25

clearing

74:16

climate 93:4

clo 158:14

close 95:11

129:7195:7,10

closed

108:22111:15

closely

43:1690:22

closer 62:20

closing

126:7149:8163:3

closure 5:21

6:239:4,22

97:22,24107:25108:23110:16111:14113:6114:9115:3,18121:5126:22128:10,15129:16130:2,16131:3,4,5,18132:2,10134:23135:1,5,15,23136:14,18,20137:2,15,16,17,21,24138:6,13151:3,8,17153:3154:18,21155:15,22156:2,5,6,8,14,17,22,23157:13,15,20,22,23158:4,15,25 159:16160:17,20161:18162:4,5,19,22163:17,20,21,24164:14,15,16,18165:1,15166:4167:24168:13,21170:17,20171:21174:20175:25183:10184:10189:6,7



190:13,23192:14194:2,7195:5,11,14,15,22196:3197:11198:19,21199:11200:12202:4203:17,25206:12,19207:16,24208:9,19209:16,18210:3,16,17,20,21212:20,24,25 213:1215:22216:18217:2,7220:5,6223:15228:25229:10,25231:12

coarse

87:1,11,17,20 98:4110:17,18113:8129:8131:9148:24149:1,15,19150:16,17,19,20162:25163:25166:6,22167:4,6,10168:1169:24170:6171:4,8189:9194:21195:1198:23229:15

cognizant

35:7

collect

23:24144:24148:15

collected

13:4 40:2145:1067:2073:1074:18123:22125:1163:10180:6

collecting

71:5224:24

collection

23:15 51:3

column 41:21

combination

46:16189:8

combinations

87:2

combined

47:2 88:20

comes 26:13

101:10,14132:8212:4

comfortable

32:1065:15182:19225:8,15226:5

coming 27:1

47:2078:1296:1199:20110:3,9141:6150:22174:21,24178:7,10,1

9185:14,20186:1,21189:16222:5227:2

comme 209:5

commencing

11:1

commends

208:8

comment 19:6

29:13,16,22 71:12,1981:16,1989:2,590:2395:1296:8,24106:6135:1136:15137:20,22138:3139:2,6,12140:23142:9144:20145:2147:10,13177:19183:5202:20209:4217:13,20

comments 5:7

9:21 14:2321:1926:16,19,20 33:2035:2 38:1056:277:23,2478:3 86:1690:3,13,17135:15136:11,12142:3144:20157:13160:8161:18

168:10170:17,19171:12196:8202:17,23203:6206:1208:14209:11,24210:14212:10

commit

8:13,1979:25100:14127:19132:19136:1228:14,19231:14

commitment

19:3 26:565:10 84:6100:17,24117:25126:21127:3,5,10,16,19131:6132:2,13,21 134:14135:2,8,9136:1138:8,12139:7144:11161:9,19,23 162:5165:14168:24169:8191:24192:10198:9199:18201:7,19205:12,23207:23216:20222:22223:1,9228:3,5230:9

231:10

commitments

5:5 8:19:1 10:114:6 83:10115:3160:22,23161:1169:4196:4222:17224:17,19227:10231:24

commits

8:3,79:9,1410:3 84:6100:24191:24201:19223:1227:11,15229:23230:20231:16

committed

9:3 100:9138:12214:25229:9

committing

8:21 136:5228:21

communicated

34:16159:9

communicatio

n 80:5

communities

130:24134:20,24

community

130:20,25135:3159:10

companies

31:19193:4



Company

31:7,15133:11134:8,10192:20196:9,17199:6203:12207:8

compare

95:8,22107:3123:19124:2,23

compared

56:4

comparing

6:19

comparison

12:1695:3,2099:20106:1123:10228:1

compatible

157:3160:16194:4,22

compensation

161:10,14

compilation

23:16,20

compiled

14:1

complete

99:7221:20

completed

63:6

completeness

171:22

completing

63:7

complic

157:19

complication

s 147:4

compo 17:16

component

17:16,2379:14140:17143:21146:15147:20

components

16:9 17:1496:25141:11173:20196:23211:2

component's

97:3

composite

87:3,12,23,24 88:21

composition

146:17

compounds

39:1

compu 194:4

con 54:12

85:18116:9132:3

conceivable

203:20

concentrated

175:14

concentratio

n 12:8

25:13,15,18 53:1859:3,992:6 95:2174:3181:15185:25

concentratio

n-based

91:10

concentratio

ns

12:11,14,16 47:6,1656:4,2157:17,18,20 58:859:8,1061:15,2062:8,1091:2,894:11,18,25 95:4,6,8145:2,20174:21175:15,16176:11,18178:18182:17185:16186:19

concept 25:7

63:15

concepts

158:13

conceptual

22:15155:15208:9210:16215:11220:6

concern 23:3

27:2032:2033:1035:1254:13,1871:10 72:977:2378:1281:2291:1896:1197:20,2298:10145:16183:10202:9204:6210:23211:1220:12

221:19

concerned

69:20 89:6182:10209:8

concerns

17:977:8,1085:1886:1198:24124:18144:5203:4220:9

concise

51:22

conclude

69:15

concluded

35:9

condition

59:2380:13,1985:9 158:2160:4174:19,23

conditions

31:5 47:1557:4 59:2583:1388:12178:8184:13194:14,17197:5220:11

Conduct

161:17

conducted

40:2043:12 69:3151:2

conference

58:11

confidence

99:24184:23

configuratio

n 56:14

111:16

confirm

9:6,1950:5,2576:1783:16,2499:5 123:9125:16168:25169:3,8205:23229:11231:7

confirmation

212:5

confirmed

54:14 84:1161:9,19

confused

67:19121:16

connects

163:6

conse 132:3

consensus

132:4,7

conservatism

58:2460:20 62:596:297:7,16181:3185:3187:4

conservative

27:1730:4,8,960:1091:12,1392:694:19,2096:2297:19 98:7152:11175:3180:9,13181:12183:11,24



184:8,9,19,22 185:5187:11191:4,10225:6,8

conservative

ly 91:5

consider

36:2548:1858:1,1359:2 60:970:1897:1298:2,20142:1,19147:16172:18174:7,19177:12178:13215:3225:22

consideratio

n 93:4

consideratio

ns 45:22

89:22

considered

25:18 29:834:2453:11146:13185:15194:13

considering

33:8 128:9142:24174:22175:3195:14

consist

50:1,24

consistent

53:1104:10155:24222:16232:2

constituents

182:11

constitutes

103:18

construct

109:10,15

constructabi

lity

172:14

constructed

76:23112:4119:21193:18

constructing

140:6163:5

construction

6:14 48:1950:1667:11,1673:775:17,2276:1878:13 79:180:3,2181:5,12,17,21,2582:6,17,2283:11,1984:14,2593:19114:22,25116:9120:10126:6137:23139:1,4,8,17,21,23140:1141:3,7,17,22143:11,20153:17154:16163:17

construction

-specific

141:1

consultants

38:19

consultation

79:7

Consulting

3:13,14

Con't 3:1

4:2 7:19:1 10:1

contact 8:8

100:5101:1174:24179:4227:17

contained

142:17

containment

172:4179:12

contaminants

204:5

contaminatio

n 42:10

contend

17:24

content

45:1146:13,1747:11 50:452:17,2353:5 74:2189:1691:2393:12,17,25

CONTENTS 5:2

context 17:2

25:8 79:17100:7105:16144:4154:8175:2

contingencie

s 186:17

218:14219:12,14220:21

contingency

64:3,14149:7

contingent

24:2221:22

continue

14:2523:1178:20135:7,16,18,21156:19160:23162:19223:25227:4

continues

137:12

continuing

40:5

contradictio

n 168:10

control 16:3

170:14

controlled

58:18,22142:13,18143:12,13218:1219:21

conventional

57:1960:11

conversation

8:20 17:1132:12132:15,20,22 133:17134:21,23135:21136:3228:20

conversation

s 135:23

202:16213:25

convert

56:18

cop 14:4

copies 155:9

copper 106:3

copy 14:4

155:11

core 17:17

34:11,15,20 54:2473:16151:17

correct

12:2520:2,462:4 75:25107:22108:4124:11,16149:6,10152:19,21166:8,9167:9172:6,8189:2207:20226:15232:17

corrected

26:17168:18

correction

62:9

correctly

24:25176:19188:23

cost 171:1,7

costing

213:6

costs 170:23

Council 30:2

counter 53:8

couple 63:10

106:15118:10148:16,19

course 15:25

16:1 18:7



80:3 113:8118:16158:24171:16191:8

cover 9:6

27:2065:18111:13113:7,9,12128:17129:2,4,7,13 151:24152:4157:11159:14163:24165:8166:5,14167:11168:3,25169:3,9,15,16,17,23171:6172:2,10177:8,9,11178:25186:22,23,24,25187:15188:9,11189:10229:11

covered

15:23 21:7154:5168:2177:5

covering

115:7208:24

covers

112:15113:6129:13167:24168:21177:12229:15

CP 9:8

169:10

Craig 2:14

15:8,919:17,20108:5

create

129:25131:22143:9148:24150:10160:15219:14

creating

143:12165:6

creation

144:1

creeping

35:13

criteria

6:23 40:1046:6 66:2169:17,2570:6 74:2489:17215:10,16216:18,24217:2,7

cross 110:13

211:24

cross-

referencin

g 207:18

cross-

sections

121:5

crush 82:21

109:22

cryoconcentr

ated

175:11,16

cryoconcentr

ates

183:15

cryoconcentr

ation

145:17172:21

176:6,24181:13182:14183:12,20185:6,15,24

cubed 189:16

cubic

24:13,17,22,23 25:1155:10114:23115:6

curious

94:23114:1116:7

current

102:19114:5,7153:21165:16168:4176:7

currently

13:2522:24 50:382:23,24100:15114:9130:14162:13165:13,20171:19198:12,20200:6203:13,18,24

cursory 98:5

cut 16:4

74:23192:17

cutoff 74:23

Cymbalisty

2:5

D

D/E 17:5,8

Dan 3:6 63:2

64:19121:24,25146:1149:14150:15163:8169:22170:5

data 13:5

16:22 17:423:13,1440:2 42:2143:247:5,2352:2160:21 61:170:2371:4,597:13106:18123:22124:4125:1213:19

database

187:21

date

20:12,2164:5 69:470:2485:3,5119:21120:25130:19131:2135:10161:1204:24

dates 212:7

Dave 3:14

24:9,1826:3 27:2228:19,2029:2530:1538:11,12113:25

Dave's 32:21

David 4:4

24:9,1825:24

27:20

day 1:24

11:7 21:20117:4136:15137:3220:1232:11

days 139:3

140:4

De 1:6 2:12

5:10,14,18,226:4,9,12,16,22 7:38:3,7,13,199:3,6,9,14,19,2210:311:19,2414:1915:1,7,919:4,2420:4,7,1621:3,13,2423:2225:1726:7,1327:1628:1,629:1334:1,336:19,2337:2,2139:10,13,21 49:2350:1751:1453:2554:2155:12 65:770:1276:1778:1979:22,2581:3 82:283:1884:4,6,13,18,2385:1398:17 99:6



100:14,24101:23103:24105:2107:22108:4,9114:5115:17117:20123:9124:1,7,23125:11126:21127:2,19128:8129:22130:9132:9,13,17 134:13136:1138:2,5,12139:2140:11142:9145:5147:9148:7154:4,18,21,24155:8,13161:19162:9165:13168:9,20,24 169:8171:14172:8179:23183:1,8,14,22 184:7186:6,18190:21191:19,24192:10,24193:14194:12195:25196:20198:7199:11200:4201:11,19202:15203:15

204:15205:2,15,23207:3,14,23 209:15211:15,24213:12214:24215:20216:13217:1,6218:15,23221:1,6222:4223:1,8,24225:7,14,21226:3,11,18,23227:10,15228:1,9,14,15,19229:9,11,22230:6,20,24231:7,11,14,23

deadline

37:4

deal 44:14

dealing 46:4

187:22

dealt 31:18

86:14157:13

deb 79:6

December

12:1113:10

decide 89:17

deciding

69:25

decision

66:20 70:672:1174:2481:20142:23161:5

207:19215:23219:5225:11

decision-

making

80:9

decisions

35:8 71:472:5139:20

declining

61:22

decrease

59:9178:15186:1

Deem 67:23

deemed 58:19

deep 66:8

deeper 179:6

defaulting

33:7

defence

60:17

define 88:7

158:1219:1

defined

115:22155:17164:15

definite

171:2

definitely

23:2232:1584:20187:18

definition

52:1678:25215:13

deflected

36:2

degree 32:3

204:12

delineate

70:2075:15 76:782:13

deliver

98:21

demonstrate

177:22186:24199:15

demonstrates

41:1

demonstratin

g 158:16

Dene 102:22

161:18197:9198:10199:21202:24203:7

depend 75:9

dependent

67:2151:23

depending

23:15 43:376:22 80:782:1188:6,8129:11152:3190:15

depends

56:1374:11170:11

deportation

42:3

deposit

43:2552:1053:2,1169:5,6,1473:2291:2592:1,10

144:22158:9163:2

deposited

109:8145:14146:16188:21

depositing

148:8

depths 219:2

derivation

14:19225:4

derived

91:19

describe

52:1,653:20 70:6149:5182:23186:6193:9196:16198:1199:24204:5,9

described

33:12 55:365:2367:1468:11 71:3129:6148:21166:6178:25200:1

describes

204:9

describing

146:8

description

6:3 7:28:2 9:210:2 16:1114:16121:4,25125:12149:1



220:6

descriptions

211:16

design 15:24

24:5 26:20120:15121:10,17,19 132:18139:4,5,17,18 140:3174:17177:12195:6

designed

78:9 91:794:24,2596:14108:25158:23160:19189:6194:10

designing

158:14,15194:6

designs

120:23139:8

desirable

116:9

desire 134:1

desires

132:11133:12

detail 36:7

116:11120:3209:2212:2,11

detailed 8:4

22:1642:1479:1380:2,1584:7 121:4139:19140:3203:6209:10,12

211:15227:11

details 8:10

40:1260:17100:18101:3108:20139:5,18141:13212:10227:18

detect 82:4

detectable

57:7

detected

55:15

detecting

104:4

determinatio

n 68:22

determine

30:19,2450:12,1355:4 82:1583:3 88:1093:1103:25196:24213:19

determined

50:15104:1

develop

30:3,538:2150:17 80:8110:24116:1136:22161:10

developed

19:7,2230:18 39:179:6 89:2590:2136:23156:8209:3

developing

50:18161:13201:5

development

24:6 125:8136:18138:22162:3171:20180:19

deviate

184:12,14

devos 2:20

39:14,2348:1352:1256:1057:1060:1863:2266:25 68:672:17 75:876:1187:14,1589:2092:1795:1799:17106:14107:11,13119:22,24123:16173:25176:4178:3180:23187:2188:5,7190:18

Devos 52:12

dewatering

16:2 17:624:16141:1,13,14 144:3

DFO 3:23

diabase

42:19,2552:20

diamond

162:12173:5200:10

diamonds

149:18

Diavik 61:6

95:22111:1132:6134:8143:18162:13176:18200:19

Diavik's

133:1143:16177:1

difference

109:2143:14204:10,12

differences

58:1288:1094:18109:1143:18

different

16:6 23:824:5 30:1233:1450:2056:2171:13,1488:2091:17,1993:4 97:2102:17104:11105:8109:5133:1,4,5144:1189:8,12195:19

differentiat

e 46:6

differently

16:2 50:14

difficult

26:21162:21177:21200:23213:17

digging

184:17

dike

109:17,21,23,25110:1,5,6,10,11,14,15 126:6137:23138:25139:4140:15141:3,7,22143:17,20154:15163:5,12,19 164:3170:11216:19

dikes

52:19,20116:10139:10,17,25 140:6141:18142:12,13,14143:8,11,18,23 144:2159:6,25163:4

dilute 56:4

dilution

14:1993:23

diorite

52:19

direct

116:15

direction

70:24

directions



55:9

directly

206:25

dis 27:18

disagree

38:18133:9

disagreement

36:16

disappear

111:6

disappointin

g 134:10

discharge

6:624:11,1625:10,1527:19 28:2109:4,10,16 110:4175:18217:23

discharged

175:15

discharging

97:23

discrepancy

166:19

discretion

73:11

discuss

14:18111:19113:10156:14196:9199:3

discussed

15:2516:10,2517:8,1521:1823:10120:4163:23180:3199:4

discussing

162:10182:9

discussion

11:1316:14,1617:13,20,25 18:1820:11,2425:24 32:436:4,2138:9 39:2540:677:2,2289:3,2390:21105:15120:17122:24131:12132:24135:13137:24153:3157:15179:16181:8,10182:20186:3223:19

discussions

20:16 34:636:5 86:12165:5171:19200:25213:25

discussion's

166:1

dismiss

232:12

displace

110:19

dispose

159:3

disputing

72:4

dissolves

182:11

distance

49:5

distinction

142:19

distribute

20:19

distributed

43:2554:2,7

distribution

41:2 52:2553:1 75:1094:6

disturbed

159:21161:3

divided

86:22,2588:19

dividing

87:10

document

13:2116:2418:1723:16,2033:2138:24131:11168:24196:23

documentatio

n 181:2

documented

171:22197:3,14

documents

77:7 181:1

dominant

150:22

Don 2:21

done 14:20

23:2539:3,441:7 47:956:23 57:959:2167:1379:11,14

107:18110:25130:16139:13146:3152:9161:15173:4,13174:4179:13180:16181:4,20182:25188:10189:14220:23221:7225:4

downstream

16:4215:18

downwards

175:7

DR 31:1

draft 12:10

22:1571:11161:14208:9209:6

drainage

40:1557:16106:22159:1

draw 126:11

drawing

139:5166:12,17,18168:17,21

drifting

159:14

drill 40:18

54:2455:14,1973:1582:22

drilling

75:2082:4,20116:11218:25219:6

drink 34:10

drive 155:1

driving 98:1

due 152:5

182:14

dump 44:11

duplicated

87:7

during 8:6

16:2 17:624:11 36:860:5 75:1784:10 85:388:15 89:4111:8112:12119:13120:16139:8,16,22,25141:24142:21143:11163:9,14180:4188:1189:24190:12195:12213:14220:5221:14227:12

dust 159:15

170:14

E

E-4 12:15,18

EA 111:8

151:21

earlier 54:4

55:3 67:1469:1161:22



162:1174:18218:5223:21

early 156:12

172:17200:15

easier

191:22

easily

191:15193:25200:7

easy 165:4

eat 34:10

EBA 3:8

24:15108:12,17119:7128:14147:24151:9,19189:14190:8

ecological

216:2

ecologist

197:22

economic

134:3

ecosystem

33:6131:22,24160:5194:16

ecosystems

129:25130:1157:25

edge 49:1

67:12,17109:24152:7

edges 76:19

edit 11:11

edits 11:10

232:1

effect 49:8

54:8 91:1793:24

effectively

81:24

effects

15:10 36:6136:24137:1172:19

efficient

78:10

effort 75:14

eight

44:16,1750:266:13,15,18 67:20,2371:15,1972:2373:2074:18,2576:1,4176:20

eighteen

41:17,19

eighty-eight

42:24

EIR 9:11,25

10:6 192:2208:2223:5230:18231:13,16

EIS 13:9

40:13,1447:23 51:8117:5181:1,2191:15

either 39:9

40:21 48:563:465:13,2473:4 92:3182:15188:9201:7209:15

Ejeckam 3:18

86:19,2088:16 90:4

Ejeckam's

86:10

Ekati 6:20

7:3 60:2461:4,795:5,9,21,22,2499:21106:1107:2109:1,3,4111:1123:10,22124:4,7125:2128:5,9,14129:1132:6133:1134:8162:12176:17,25200:18214:25225:9226:12,18228:2

elaborate

57:9

elements

185:2204:7

elevated

55:15182:16184:20195:1

elevation

63:6,7111:11119:5

elevations

166:14

eleven 42:23

227:9

eliminate

49:20

else 94:7

137:16148:25186:4210:9221:14223:17,21228:3

em 65:22

email

12:1,1920:20154:25

emailed 11:8

emerged

132:4

emission

176:2

employed

65:22

encounter

62:2463:16 81:582:3,788:12

encountered

44:12 61:364:1480:10 88:9

encourage

89:25130:11,13,16 210:24

encouraged

19:9 89:11

encouragemen

t 130:18

endeavour

117:3

end-land

160:1165:15

endpoint

188:14

endpoints

196:11

end-use

56:14134:11

Energy 3:6

engage 162:2

200:17

engaged

79:10201:14

engagement

130:15131:4134:15,16135:2,7,8,18156:11,15,20 160:19162:18165:16197:13200:14203:18

engaging

132:14

engineering

3:8 139:18

engineers

80:6 163:8

enhance

172:16181:15

ENR 3:20

86:7106:12208:5,8223:14

ensure

63:20,2566:8 73:478:1298:5,8102:24156:6170:12171:21,22199:19221:11226:13



ensuring

79:1193:20

entering

163:13

entire 25:3

30:2334:1853:19110:17188:17,24

entry 66:4

environment

3:16 13:1216:4 30:338:1856:1386:9,20105:24107:6131:14208:7209:21215:17225:2226:2,15

environmenta

l 13:22

30:1134:5,2535:5,2436:8 50:6116:24155:16161:5,22180:4196:21204:17,20205:3207:19215:21223:11230:8

envision

69:1180:20165:8

EPA 173:1

EQC

12:10,13,1

8 14:1935:25 36:1122:24

EQCs 91:18

98:1

equal 91:24

109:4

equals 82:8

equipment

169:25210:2

Eric 4:8

erosion

128:19140:13,22141:18,25158:21170:14

especially

112:2

essentially

49:20 55:4104:8118:20162:9

established

136:21137:7,14160:10

establishing

194:16208:13

establishmen

t 160:13

estimate

171:17,21215:1

estimated

214:9

estimates

151:25174:13176:8181:12213:23

estimation

170:22

181:23215:7

et 80:6

116:10163:24177:20

evaluate

76:23103:15165:15

evaluated

27:6 34:494:17115:17

evaluating

32:8 70:15

evaluation

182:18

event 186:18

217:22218:15220:7,20

events 174:6

eventually

110:10171:24

everybody

14:14,2437:1167:22232:13

everyone

11:415:9,17,1819:1077:21206:11

everything

34:13 94:7205:16208:13

evidence

16:1718:10,1328:2431:16103:8104:11

133:15

evolution

151:16152:2

evolve 81:7

131:3156:19157:21160:23162:14,15

evolving

127:10128:15

ex 18:12

exact 129:23

222:8

exactly

119:8,10129:11144:24

examination

149:24

example 18:4

54:24104:2158:7193:15202:25203:2

examples

195:14

exceed 105:3

exceedance

30:21105:7

exceeded

31:7

exceeding

104:6,21

except

173:15

exception

75:16

exceptional

33:17

excess 44:8

45:16 47:4113:1

exclude

203:24

excluded

225:5,12

Excuse 32:3

exhausted

224:10

existed

196:25

existing

9:15111:24145:20194:14,23195:2201:20230:21

exists

204:11218:4

expanded

218:11,16

expect 44:9

47:20 51:752:6,1057:6 61:462:2 63:569:5 75:11110:23131:16152:17172:15173:2

expectations

114:2232:3

expected

45:1550:13 61:3

expecting

95:6 130:2

expel

173:15,19

expelled

173:18



175:13

experience

38:1656:17 58:3

expertise

99:10

explain

119:8,9169:18

explaining

32:12

explanation

18:12 74:2

explicitly

135:19

exposed 57:5

112:12

exposure

24:3

expressed

130:25135:19

expulsion

172:21173:7

extent 17:7

18:1 68:1151:22160:15161:2172:16

extra 49:3

extract 9:10

191:19192:1230:9

extracting

230:17

extremely

162:20

F

facilities

108:22148:22158:5164:11

198:15200:12211:12

facility

108:19,24,25109:2,3,5,7,11,16,18,20110:3,5,7,14,17,21,23 111:7113:8145:15,21146:7148:9151:24152:3158:10162:24,25163:22173:2174:24175:4180:19185:14188:21189:7

fact 23:3

48:1 52:2491:4 93:5131:5180:20

factor 91:25

factors

62:7,994:10

fair 54:19

94:16

fairly 18:22

41:1 42:653:1 56:498:7108:17113:10152:1,7155:23164:17

falling

105:25

familiar

59:6

farther

219:5

faster

112:17

features

156:25194:21198:20

Feb 10:6

212:7223:5

February

1:236:7,9,15,21,25 7:628:337:10,2184:25134:19212:3,16216:23217:9226:21231:16

feedback

16:2021:2322:15 28:9

feel 49:2

62:394:1,3,15192:17

felt 94:7

fi 128:11

field 8:8

56:6 59:2594:13100:4,8,15,22,25228:6,10,13

fifteen

24:1476:19206:4

fifth 229:8

fifty 43:10

214:13,20

figure 32:4

113:3

figures 9:7

169:5,10211:16229:12

file 43:18

102:23134:18

fill 148:23

149:8206:24

filled 24:1

119:5213:3

filling

149:9

filter

109:21,22110:15139:9

final 20:21

65:3 84:19139:4142:2160:16172:5181:18194:3208:14,19

finally

16:16110:20

fine 31:21

87:1,17,1997:1,998:4108:24109:8,24110:24113:8125:22128:14,17,19 129:3131:10133:9141:19

144:23146:15147:14148:3,8,9,19,22149:4,9150:8,10,18151:2,17,19 153:7162:24166:3,6168:16170:7,12172:3,12,19 173:8,13174:22,25175:1,8178:24179:2,4180:15,19,22 182:12183:9,13,17,18,19188:17,21,25189:7,9,23190:1,16193:5194:21195:7

finger 222:8

finish 65:3

finished

206:13224:15

finishing

149:8

firm 182:4

first 15:13

28:2132:9,1933:1 42:1746:23 56:657:11,1559:3,4,1960:2472:2078:1795:18113:21



115:25118:20,22142:21143:16144:1148:20163:3165:4192:21208:7,10211:9217:24227:10232:6

fish 16:11

17:18,1934:10159:20160:11161:10196:1214:11

Fisheries

161:12

fishes 17:10

fit 63:17

69:17

fits 16:18

five 41:8

47:14128:12134:17155:2175:14,17193:4205:16223:25

flagged 82:9

114:25

flagging

50:19

flash 155:1

flesh 100:18

flexibility

96:18

flexible

15:20129:10

flip 125:25

flood

49:14,17,18 66:5119:4

flooding

65:24

flow 6:24

159:12178:18187:6,9188:17217:3,7

flowing

142:15178:17

flows 185:18

fluids

175:11

flush

59:3,4,19199:8

flushed

189:21

flushing

183:16188:25

focus 23:2

39:14113:19131:21174:4194:15

focussed

96:24170:20

folks 14:8

16:2120:1780:23132:4134:7

follow-up

12:1917:1234:1949:24153:11

201:8220:4223:14

follow-ups

21:9

footprint

161:4162:23

forget 204:7

form 44:25

104:8111:3115:8144:11148:3186:6194:20,23196:24198:19203:7

formal 117:7

format 45:19

formation

54:17

formatting

45:1846:21157:10

forms 156:5

162:23198:22

formulae

14:19

formulate

27:15

formulated

123:8

forth

77:2,12117:7,23144:7186:17

fortune

37:10225:24226:25

forty-nine

55:14

forty-two

25:16

forward

19:11 35:340:5 59:1683:4 144:8156:16157:15162:10203:5208:10209:22210:5219:18

foundation

204:20

fourth

228:19

FPK 9:8

169:11

fra 87:11

fraction

93:14

fractions

87:1,11

fracture

54:5

fram 103:9

frame 97:23

98:12,18

framed 203:4

framework

16:13,1918:2,2119:2228:23 29:131:5,2433:21103:9

frameworks

31:18

fre 146:24

free 31:10

146:15192:17

freeze

152:16,18173:3

freezing

66:2172:17,19179:9190:16

frequencies

71:15

frequency

17:2272:10214:20

frequently

76:22

fresh 146:25

freshet

59:6,20,2160:5187:6,9188:17189:24

Friday

212:8,13,14,15

friendly

132:5

fringe

153:18

fro 147:20

front

175:7,11,19

frost 172:20

173:4,5,13,14175:7,10177:20178:7179:7180:16,19182:14190:10,11

frozen 62:13

152:14175:20178:6



179:9

frustrating

134:9

fulfills

212:1

full 46:11

137:24206:23

fully 63:14

216:21

functioning

160:5

fundamental

26:14 27:334:2136:1670:24

fundamentall

y 194:13

future

152:17157:3

G

Gahcho 1:4

7:6100:16,20106:1131:8143:19161:20226:4,13,20

gain 196:2

199:19

gap 127:8

gaps 23:25

gather 9:14

20:19201:19230:20

general

31:19,23,24 48:1849:7 50:1672:2473:13 99:9

107:20108:17113:18126:4136:15139:25171:7223:15

generally

22:5 29:630:1659:11 83:2144:8

generate

44:1089:15

generates

150:16

generating

45:16 46:447:448:1,250:1555:25 57:158:15,1764:2268:1969:18,24

generation

47:17

generic

38:16 52:1

geo 105:21

geochem

101:11111:3

geochemical

8:11 40:151:5,654:13,1868:2169:2271:1185:10,1486:7100:19101:5104:13227:13,20

geochemist

50:2273:11 88:5

geochemistry

2:10 5:1311:1839:15,2186:3 104:3105:22107:18126:2154:15

geologic

54:17

geological

42:20

geologist

43:3 50:23

geology 69:4

116:12117:1

geometry

172:15

geotechnical

111:17116:16220:23

gets 121:10

209:3

getting

22:1031:1571:25 81:183:1 87:1093:23120:21188:19196:10212:7

Giant 131:23

gist 99:9

given 26:19

28:7 92:6129:17132:25172:15215:5225:22

gives 49:3

111:21122:12

GK 61:3

glean 117:2

global 111:5

151:24152:5

GNWT 3:25

goal 129:24

210:18

goals 131:17

157:5210:21

Golder 2:20

3:2 13:2138:2439:2452:1356:1157:2560:1963:23 67:168:7 72:1875:8 76:1287:1589:2192:1895:18 96:799:18106:14119:25123:17146:11174:1,16176:5178:4180:23187:3188:6,7189:4190:19191:12

gone 117:23

231:9

go-round

154:14

govern 80:9

Government

4:11 60:15

grabs 17:17

graded

111:14202:6

grading

202:11,12

grain 94:6

granatic

61:5

granite

42:18,2443:9 47:954:6 59:1866:4

granites

42:2553:6,7,9

granitoids

42:19

granodi 52:8

granodiorite

42:18 52:9

granodiorite

s 43:1

grayling

160:6

great 15:17

21:1283:23154:17208:4222:25223:13232:10

greater

46:12,17,2448:7,20,2549:1050:1152:1574:20 75:176:2 93:17

grind 150:17

gross 122:1



ground 57:6

159:14

group 9:5

16:22 22:823:1232:25 87:289:18136:21137:10,11,14138:7,15229:10

groups 33:10

137:7156:10

grow 130:4

187:24

guess 16:7

17:2 19:321:19 23:527:8 41:2451:13,20,25 56:17,2460:2469:1171:1872:2290:1192:11,18,23 95:20104:19113:13115:10116:14119:7120:14137:9138:20,24139:11140:22141:13142:3143:13,15144:4145:11,16,22 146:20147:15150:8,16176:21177:3178:22180:23

184:17186:5,9,21188:19189:22192:19209:4210:13,22212:25213:12214:19215:2217:19,21219:7,19222:7226:2229:2

guidance

143:4171:23

guide 214:18

guideline

215:25

guidelines

30:3,1738:15,16,17,22,25155:25156:1157:20,21

guiding

155:21

gun 151:7

guys 86:10

194:5

H

ha 77:22

habitat

130:13,17132:6134:11159:20196:24197:18

habitats

159:18196:15,18197:15

half 55:10

68:20122:9123:7166:15

half-an-hour

107:18

Hall 3:2

hammered

8:10 101:4227:19

hand 95:12

handle

145:15

handled

141:24

handling

57:12

hang 188:6

happen

80:4,682:7176:22181:14210:25

happened

20:1186:13160:24181:13

happens

36:1244:23 45:370:15174:23

happy 117:7

137:10200:12201:16

haven't

92:21135:24174:4179:12187:5216:21

having 22:5

24:2120:17

132:15133:19140:25141:3191:6193:24199:4

Hayden 2:25

hazardous

209:23

head 145:4,8

169:15

headings

229:3

health 16:11

216:2

hear 65:13

133:10134:1186:3199:1201:4204:3226:23

heard 16:20

78:583:15,2496:11126:13130:15,19144:11150:8153:16167:8183:14,23188:3199:5

hearing 19:5

20:7 37:1069:25 70:177:2 80:23129:19193:5

hearings

36:20

Hearne 40:18

63:564:21,23109:9

112:19146:24163:2219:3220:15

heave 172:20

173:4,5,13

heaving

173:6,14

heels 184:17

height

111:10

held 1:19

137:11

Hello 86:17

help 23:14

32:1998:23120:19136:16,21137:7143:4159:12170:22181:22184:1188:15197:7,11200:5215:23

helpful

192:7222:20

helps 190:25

202:19213:15

Hence 55:2

here's

207:11224:2

Herrell 2:23

57:24,2596:6,7146:10,11174:15,16185:11,12189:3,4191:11,12



herringbone

128:18129:6

Hey 207:11

Hi 86:8

136:13

hide 70:25

high 41:22

45:1252:1788:22145:12,18,20146:13,17147:2150:19180:6,10

higher 42:8

45:8,1052:7,9,14,23 54:1662:19 73:293:11176:11178:18183:21186:19

highlight

164:7

highlighting

138:19

highly 25:6

151:23

hill 134:5

history

176:21

hit 75:12,21

hockey 11:5

hold 15:20

36:20153:4227:20

holds 47:7

hole 40:18

50:1 55:1465:16,18

holes 40:21

55:17,2079:6

honestly

215:2

hope 71:7

134:1137:11219:9220:4,18

hoped 197:7

hopefully

40:4 117:3178:4186:15214:2

hopes 197:10

hoping 65:13

207:9

Horne 2:13

3:8 24:15107:25108:11,16109:15119:6,18,23 128:13147:24151:9,13,18 152:20163:23166:9,10,24 167:12173:1,12190:7

host 19:4

hosted

15:9,13

hosting

156:17

hot 69:23

hours 173:17

Huebert 3:14

24:9,1826:3 27:2228:20,2130:1538:12,13113:25

huge 53:5

human 216:2

humidity

41:2047:5,10,1355:2556:3,18,2257:17,1958:14,20,2159:4,5,7,8,17 60:2,462:691:2,694:2,12,2495:3 99:7

hundred

24:1441:8,942:2343:10 46:964:6111:10

hunt 196:1

Hutchinson

1:14 2:214:1119:1620:2225:2228:11,1736:14 39:651:1276:2584:1285:16 86:5123:6,24125:7136:11153:6154:13183:6185:1,22205:9206:11210:7226:10

hydrology

16:10 17:918:25 19:122:21,23

I

ICARD 58:10

ice 145:17

173:7178:17

ICRP 192:21

193:23,25209:7211:4,8

ICRPs 136:20

I'd 51:25

77:23114:12118:9125:25174:16191:2193:1216:15,22,23 222:10

idea 22:5,11

27:14 77:3139:24

identified

14:13189:14218:3

identify

8:15 33:2378:9127:9,14,22 153:23228:16

identifying

153:19

ignored

144:15,16

I'll

13:11,2314:8,923:19,2233:19,2540:745:20,2148:13 56:671:978:4,16,1784:18

92:2095:18101:24109:25117:3,14,25 124:17128:4138:4140:17145:22148:15153:4154:25157:11167:21173:21176:17185:12191:8195:17,18197:1200:12201:11202:21205:17212:18214:14216:15223:9

im 68:11

120:16

I'm 11:25

12:5,2525:1729:2535:4,11,1837:25 38:140:5 51:2152:5,855:2156:22,2357:3,861:1162:1663:1464:1365:2067:1969:20,2470:1,2477:2 89:1191:4,1492:3,4



94:2397:18102:12103:17104:19110:12114:1116:7117:11,21121:5126:9,18128:4,7,21129:22,23132:19133:14135:22137:10140:11,17143:3,15,25 144:23145:11146:20147:10148:3151:4,7,10153:15154:6155:8,9,20162:22165:25166:13,16,19 167:20175:6,25181:17183:5,22188:19,23190:25191:3193:5197:20,21200:23201:6,16202:17203:23204:4208:17,22211:17212:1,4,7214:7216:13,19217:21220:2221:23222:8,16

224:10227:17229:25

immediately

33:7

impact 13:12

27:7 34:535:2047:24 56:1116:24120:16155:16161:6,23180:4181:4184:12,14196:21204:17205:3207:19212:19215:21222:16223:11230:8

impacts 24:5

33:8 57:6145:19177:22

imperviable

186:24

implications

68:12

implied 89:9

important

34:2242:1743:2045:1488:18142:19144:17158:13162:16176:5178:12196:6,11213:5

inaccurate

168:17

inadvertentl

y 167:5

Inc

5:10,14,18,22 15:739:22108:10154:22

include

32:1833:2289:2395:23102:14,20106:5131:5158:20207:21

included

34:7 82:17115:24116:22135:11184:21207:15

includes

71:2

including

6:19 18:2542:2 89:2498:4102:25162:12180:10201:15209:16

inconsistenc

ies 101:24

167:14

inconsistent

116:10

incorporate

8:17 118:3127:25

incorporated

1:6 156:2157:4158:14228:17

incorporatin

g 199:12

incorrect

128:7,21

increase

61:14171:9185:25186:2

increased

176:19181:14185:16

increasing

32:14 49:462:3103:13,15

independentl

y 182:15

indicate

44:6 64:772:1088:18

indicated

139:3174:18180:5185:17205:16

indicates

23:1747:16122:2

indicators

18:5

indirectly

207:4

individual

59:1887:9,1988:2,6,14,18,23,25

individuals

14:4

industry

30:12 91:398:8

inert 208:21

infiltrate

179:4189:25

infiltrating

178:11

infiltration

176:8180:17182:13

inflows 97:2

219:24

influence

97:4

influenced

106:22

inform 182:4

184:1197:7,11200:5213:15215:23

information

5:4 6:27:19:10,15,1911:912:1,6,2113:11 14:822:1724:1926:2427:11,16,25 37:1940:2 50:559:2 61:1566:16 67:776:2084:15,2298:11,22106:19116:22,23117:1,6,10121:7,19123:8,21124:1,22,25 135:6,10141:19143:1156:18



171:23176:1187:21191:14,25197:10200:4,8,13,25201:13,21203:8204:17205:7,18,24 210:19216:17217:5222:6,23225:14226:3,17228:2229:23230:21231:8

informed

71:5214:24225:23

informs

16:18

infrastructu

re 159:4

198:14208:20

inhibit

180:16

initial

24:16 51:788:25119:14149:15,23180:8

initially

40:21150:1173:3

initiate

103:18

initiated

41:15

initiation

193:23

inner 187:9

input 9:12

95:8 156:9192:3230:7

inputs 48:3

94:20 98:3191:16

inside 73:4

inspection

50:21,2473:12140:14

instability

220:20

instance

134:5

instances

44:6

integrated

195:15

intend 201:9

intending

102:16

intent 19:24

102:14111:13114:10169:23203:16

intention

67:9 85:4102:18

intentions

102:4116:1

intents

53:12

interested

14:2 40:1190:1155:11

interim

114:8128:14136:20203:17

209:18

interior

142:13

interject

77:1

internally

217:25

interpretati

on 114:21

interval

40:22

intervals

40:22,2373:22

intervention

s 20:10

22:8,10

introduces

58:4

introducing

94:5

intu 29:20

investigate

74:3,5

involved

193:24

ions 27:18

IR 28:7

36:2560:1577:1178:2379:1283:12 99:6106:1123:18151:21154:7205:11217:1223:10225:4226:11

iron 42:9

IRs 35:16

40:4 43:14

isn't 11:25

92:7130:18134:10143:22149:3182:20

isolated

54:22179:10

issuance

211:5

issue 58:10

63:1497:19,24139:22

issues 17:9

133:4,8157:10174:20

it'd 146:4

item 79:3

183:10

items 17:12

38:9

iteration

162:3204:1211:7

iterations

114:8

iterative

136:19

it'll 40:4

108:20152:17

it's

12:6,18,2518:11,2220:1721:1422:14,15,16 23:1025:1 26:2027:1,3,5,628:8,2529:2530:19

31:1632:2,2533:1134:2235:11,1737:3,838:1239:1442:1743:20,2444:2,1649:1,3,751:1953:3,16,1854:7,10,2555:6,2256:11,12,13,16,1757:14,2458:15,1760:1661:1862:1563:11,2064:1265:1167:18 70:371:8,1272:5,2474:1475:2476:12,1380:11 83:185:11,1986:1,888:1889:1792:5,896:6,897:22,2499:13,25102:14103:7104:21105:25106:2,12108:25109:5,23110:6,7112:3,14,21,22113:10115:21,22,24 116:6,9



117:9119:12120:5,6,8,12,13122:16125:21,22126:19128:23129:8,10130:14131:20,24133:3,9,18,24 134:9136:13138:17139:18140:20142:1,17,18 143:6144:3,14,17146:8,10,16,19147:12148:4,18149:23150:1,17151:6,15152:6,7,12,14,25153:10,13,20 156:3159:1,6161:11,12165:3,19166:15,20,22 167:10168:14169:13,23170:15172:1174:8,15175:5,15176:15177:11,18178:21179:8,9181:6,22182:8,13,14 185:11186:8187:14188:13189:3,7,15

190:7,24191:11192:6,17,24 195:15196:21198:7199:1200:23,24203:19,20205:5,18206:5207:4,15208:18,19210:3,11,13 212:13213:3,5,17214:5,12,15 215:8216:4217:1,17,18 218:6,24219:17220:3221:7,12222:4224:8225:13226:4228:3,5231:23

I've 28:25

29:6 39:2471:7 78:16116:11123:17130:16,19149:6154:7161:8183:14,23192:16193:3198:9201:1212:5220:3225:23

J

January

40:16

JDS 3:6 63:2

121:25146:1149:14150:15169:22170:5

Jen 2:9

Jericho

109:1

job 14:24

John 3:13

51:19 52:553:16,2554:10,2155:6,21,2256:11,1657:10,1462:1563:3,1164:1265:1167:1869:1070:1675:2485:17,1991:4114:11116:6,21117:9,21118:8125:17126:10128:23148:17,18150:6,24151:12,14,15152:12,25165:3,19,24 166:11167:5168:14169:3172:1,9175:5177:18178:21179:23182:8185:17188:13

190:24191:13,21192:6

John's 71:25

74:17121:11

Johnson 3:6

63:2 64:19121:24,25146:1149:14150:15169:22170:5

ju 192:19

judging

166:16

jump 115:2

151:7

jumping

221:14

June 60:6

134:25

justificatio

n 207:17

K

Kathy 2:4,6

31:1103:10

ke 120:24

Keelaghan

232:21

Ken 2:20

39:14,2348:1351:1352:12 54:455:3 56:1057:1060:1863:2266:25 68:672:17 75:876:1187:1489:2092:17

95:1799:17106:14107:10,11,13119:22,24123:16124:1173:25176:4178:3179:25180:22,23185:12187:2188:5,7189:22190:18

Kennady 6:24

12:5159:8,13,22 160:3,10163:16164:4175:21194:14196:25198:17204:12212:19213:3215:5,6,11,17 216:11217:3,8219:15

Ken's 177:19

key 18:15

45:22106:21,23116:25174:20

kicking

43:24

kill 227:2

kilogram

56:20 91:694:5

kimberlite

5:1741:9,11,12,13 42:5



87:18 88:3107:24108:9,18113:20128:6130:3145:14,16148:8,9,10154:15158:8,9,10162:24,25163:22,25164:10171:4186:14195:8198:23211:13

kinds 31:19

52:11

kinetic

41:1143:12

Kirk 12:12

18:6 23:4

knew 22:23

knowledge

34:7,12,17131:11197:6,9

Kramers 3:11

Kristine

2:22

Kue 1:4 7:6

100:16,20106:1131:8143:19161:20226:5,13,21

L

lab 79:16

81:20 82:383:184:1,2

labs 81:23

Laidlow 3:3

lake 6:6,24

12:4,5,11,12,16,2413:2,314:20 16:318:623:2,424:2125:3,527:5,1828:3 95:22100:15110:3111:24112:11119:5142:15159:8,12,13,22160:3,6,9,10163:16,19164:2,4174:9,10175:9,13,21,24 176:3177:23182:17183:9194:14,15,19 196:25198:17200:7204:13206:22,23212:19,21213:3215:5,6,11,17216:7,10,11 217:3,8219:15

lakes 16:6

17:5,6,8,11,13 18:1923:6,8,1724:1,4220:12

land 1:1,5

13:10,14102:13

115:8130:19131:13,17132:15134:2155:14,19156:5157:4162:22191:20194:12,20,23 195:21196:24198:19,21205:19208:14,22230:10

landfill

208:21

landforms

156:24157:2163:21

landowners

137:3

landscape

156:5160:16194:4,23195:2196:23

land-use

102:17,21,24 103:1157:2

language

84:19

large 53:11

69:16,2293:22112:15174:8,9180:7194:25204:16

large-bodied

17:19

larger 49:10

194:25

last 11:8

24:2047:2261:1062:25 63:964:20103:6105:21128:16154:14167:23212:14,24220:2,3,16

lately 212:6

later 63:19

64:1665:1983:13,2085:3,5108:22112:4119:21124:13129:16136:14137:24147:4,17,25 149:19151:8153:4217:22218:6

laterally

175:12,19179:5

latter 40:23

55:13

laughing

226:24

layer 49:4

62:25110:16,20122:8,11169:24170:6,9,24172:11,12177:4,5,7178:7,24179:2187:17188:11

layers 128:8

laying 71:1

layout

142:24

le 186:23

leachate

48:1,556:1,3,2257:1662:6,10

leachates

48:5 56:18

leaching

47:6103:14180:18

Leaching/

Acid 40:15

lead 106:3

leap 216:14

learned

162:17

least 22:2

32:1872:1992:20105:8130:24149:6172:16,17176:1

leave 26:4

55:21117:15214:14

leaves

190:22

led 16:16

17:10

length 180:4

215:6

lengthy

25:23181:10

lenses

145:17



173:7

less 25:16

46:18 47:148:1767:24 83:2170:8180:20185:5

lesser 17:7

lessons

162:17

less-

permeable

186:23

let's 86:4,5

113:19133:21192:12205:7210:9

letter

155:17

level

31:7,1232:9 33:736:7 62:598:5112:11212:2,11

levels 16:14

18:2019:1,21,2520:822:6,929:2 36:1842:6

level's 39:8

liaise 162:7

licence 1:5

20:1 22:626:1580:1483:14 85:5143:16155:14,19192:25211:4219:9

licences

31:4,6

licensing

19:23

life 62:23

109:19112:12115:9118:22147:4,25158:6190:12218:7,11,15 221:23

likely 42:25

43:1 57:1285:13 88:6176:12

limit 29:7

30:12,21180:20

limitations

92:9

limited

87:16102:9106:17

limiting

65:23 66:3

limits 30:24

Lindsey 2:5

Lindsey's

14:24

line 45:20

46:20131:14160:21164:5,6166:1

lineaments

54:5

lines 32:6

139:20

linked 80:25

85:9 103:9

list 6:8

37:20

91:1797:25200:13201:8,12

listen 8:19

136:2228:20

listening

132:14135:13

litre 145:6

little 29:25

43:16,1944:2245:1152:1858:2560:1975:1590:2195:19,2596:2499:25128:24129:10134:9147:11179:25190:16191:2195:19196:12199:9202:17

LLCF

176:19,21,25

load 60:7

155:1174:2175:23176:12185:14,15188:25

loading 58:1

60:12174:3183:17,20185:19,20186:1

loadings

174:13176:10178:14180:21186:19

local 159:20

located 55:1

location

10:4 52:2254:1 65:467:3 122:1127:9223:3231:24

locations

40:9,1850:20 51:252:23 54:494:13131:12153:14,24

logging

54:23

logistically

22:7

logistics

45:25

long 51:21

77:1399:23112:23133:17152:13176:21213:9,18

longer 81:10

158:8159:5

longer-term

221:21

long-term

25:18156:3,4157:1,14158:2159:16221:17

loop 90:20

loss 158:21

161:11

lost 45:18

46:20147:11159:21

lot 16:20

21:6,1722:16,2340:2 58:459:1360:13 69:578:11 79:893:1096:9,11108:20111:20157:12163:10164:18170:18171:11181:24187:8205:6210:18212:6

lots 67:4

75:11

Love 2:8

227:8228:11229:1,8,20230:16231:5

low 42:6

47:6,16,1789:13 92:5176:10219:23

lower 58:7

160:11,13176:12178:20

lowers 45:12

low-level

32:1433:21



low-sulphur

91:25

L's 110:14

lumpers

224:18

lunch 14:17

98:20 99:1107:1,10,19 122:21123:9125:7

lunchtime

26:1122:22

M

ma 188:14

Mackenzie

1:113:9,13,22191:20205:19230:10

magnitude

109:5178:19

maintain

219:22220:11

maintaining

29:18220:7

maintenance

102:15130:1157:24158:3

major 143:21

majority

132:7133:7190:11

Man 141:18

manage 45:23

66:2078:1081:24

139:10217:25

management

12:5,934:1939:1148:14,1649:2562:18 64:170:18 71:478:9 84:1496:13,18,19 102:3103:9105:16107:20108:19111:19113:19,20120:9126:4,6137:22,23139:1,23140:5,13,22,25141:2,12,15,18,23,25142:16,20,23,25143:9,10,17 144:2,23146:24147:1,3,19153:8,12154:14162:8183:9190:3199:12,25201:9208:18209:11,23216:6217:14,24218:8,17219:21220:18

managing

139:21

manner 78:10

79:12183:13

mapping

105:4

March 13:23

15:1320:18

marked 82:10

Mason 2:22

mass 53:19

55:2,859:24122:3174:2188:20

material

21:747:17,2550:2,3,10,19 52:954:6 55:2557:2,559:1862:1863:9,12,1664:14,15,21 65:4,1766:8,13,1467:3,4,568:1 72:674:2175:2,476:3,480:21,2581:1182:12,16,21 83:2587:1693:13,16104:5114:17115:7,12,20,22116:8,12,13117:11,14,24 118:11119:1122:10127:7,10,17 133:22134:4148:22,24

149:2150:8,19,22 159:4170:25172:17173:6,7,14,15,18,19175:8,9,24178:24179:5187:14,16188:18,21

materials

42:2243:11,13,21 46:147:19,2148:19,2449:6,16,17,1850:8,19,2551:5,652:1153:1859:1861:2462:24 82:587:21,2593:20116:16120:7,8180:18189:8,11,18,21208:21

material's

67:8

Materials

48:16

mathematical

67:25

mathematics

70:2,25

matter

183:15186:4207:4

maximum 12:8

48:4 60:291:8

111:11

may 22:6

23:12,1426:2342:10 45:748:2050:12,1552:18 54:372:2074:1081:23 88:995:11 98:9109:24111:5131:16,23134:24138:2147:4150:7159:20167:7176:11180:6193:22203:21213:2,6,10,25 214:19216:16,18219:4,5231:1

maybe 29:16

38:14,1777:9,10,2478:4,16,23105:8117:14118:20122:21141:14166:15,21175:25182:1183:22186:6188:15205:5210:14214:4

McLean 2:15

McMillan

3:16 86:8

mean 31:9



42:1845:8,1153:5 63:2368:7 75:1685:5 87:1593:20120:1149:3175:21199:14207:15218:24219:2222:8

meaningful

156:9

means 54:17

105:9170:25

measurable

156:7

measure

94:25186:16

measured

13:7

measures

35:21,2364:15

measuring

61:20166:17

median 44:15

meet 29:8

210:21

meeting

21:16 22:832:8130:20137:11

meetings

130:25135:3159:11

meets 161:11

memory 24:10

mention

213:1

mentioned

18:1622:13,2154:4 100:1112:7113:6149:20151:20164:2173:2180:3187:5194:6

mercury 17:9

meromictic

220:10

meromixis

222:6,24

metal 40:14

47:6103:14

metals 47:20

181:13

method 70:7

182:22209:12

methodology

17:14 24:2180:25182:24

Metis 4:8

metre 40:22

55:1063:18113:9120:18129:4153:18166:6,15,16,22167:4,6,10168:1,2177:11

metres

24:13,17,22,23 25:1149:155:8,20

62:20 66:667:11,1772:2 78:14111:10,11114:23115:6120:11128:5129:1166:7,22167:4,6,10,25177:7,10189:16

Michael 2:23

57:24 96:6146:10174:15185:11189:3191:11

middle

29:20,2165:16,18

migrate 49:5

175:12

migration

179:14180:14182:11

Mike 57:24

95:19 96:6146:10174:15185:11189:3191:11

Mike's 95:25

milligram

91:6 94:4

milligrams

56:19145:6

millimetre

109:22

milling

102:21103:1

million

24:13,17,22,23 25:1157:2,5112:1,8,17,19,21,24114:23115:6118:14,15119:20149:23

min 42:14

mind 49:22

54:11194:9212:4

mine 1:4

5:13,1711:17 27:439:11,15,21 40:942:17 43:744:348:14,16,22 61:2162:17,2363:3,564:2576:1478:8,1479:780:2,3,5,15 81:1586:24 88:397:1,3,898:3103:11107:19,24108:9,19109:1,3,5110:20111:1,9,13,18,23112:3,10,12,14,25113:4,5,7,9,11,18,20114:2,6,10115:9,19,24,25 116:2117:23118:21119:12

120:11121:4123:20,23124:3,8,24125:2126:4130:9,11,22 131:9132:17,18,25 133:6137:22138:21143:22147:4,25153:12154:14158:6159:19,21161:3162:7,23,25 163:1164:1,8,11165:17167:25168:2170:1,9171:5177:4,5,6,8 187:20189:9,10190:12193:19194:25195:9,11,16 198:24200:17,22210:18217:22218:11,15221:8,23229:16

mined 54:16

63:10112:19,20

mined-out

49:16 63:464:25 65:5

mineral

42:3,952:7 54:22

mineralized

52:7



mineralogy

42:2,1474:10

minerals

42:4 43:2447:1952:1454:1,3,2555:5 69:693:23

mines 110:25

160:25162:12,15173:5,13200:10203:22

minimal

156:4161:4

minimize

156:25161:2

minimizing

158:21

minimum

170:9

mining 3:7

66:13 81:983:12,2188:15102:6,13,20,25

Ministers

30:2

minor 47:18

minute

223:19

minutes

155:3205:17206:5

misconceptio

ns 18:9

Misery 129:2

misheard

166:21167:7

misleading

118:24

misreading

166:14

missed

202:24227:17

missing

45:2070:1378:2397:21 98:9223:22228:9

mitigate

32:13184:11,25

mitigated

141:10

mitigation

33:2268:2388:11186:7187:13188:4,8

mitigations

65:23,2566:7 139:9

mix 89:9

mixed 167:5

189:19

mixes 93:21

mixing 12:14

25:3,7,1926:2206:23

ML/ARD 40:14

61:1689:23107:2

MMER 106:3

model 6:5,18

9:12 25:1927:17 28:258:5,2559:2,560:5

96:2,2297:17152:2174:4,18,19 176:7177:22178:5,8,9180:11183:11,24184:11185:4,6,13189:1,6,12190:15191:16192:3229:23

modelled

183:8186:20191:1204:6

modelling

30:1959:21111:3122:24123:20124:3,24145:19146:12151:2,10,12,16,19152:9180:9182:25187:4188:16

models

184:8,18,23,24

moderately

47:13

modified

129:5

modify 132:9

moment

148:12

Monday

15:3,11,1616:25

18:1819:2121:9,1623:10,14,21 32:5,23

monitor 91:7

100:1184:24

monitored

61:2187:19

monitoring

13:2015:1116:2,522:1934:19 36:740:1149:2561:9,1263:2466:1270:1471:1,2,372:25 78:885:1495:24103:24104:2136:24137:1139:13,14140:16153:17,20155:18160:14184:10,14186:11187:20190:20213:2,6,9,14,16,19,20 214:2,19

month 60:6

months 25:1

118:22

monzonite

42:4

morning 11:6

15:8 86:13111:20

112:7113:2126:2,13129:19153:16154:7161:9222:11,19,25232:6,12

move 11:17

20:2439:1050:1962:16 65:973:2275:1386:4,5118:9144:19154:17160:12165:25170:25182:12188:25192:12,18208:5212:18

moved 175:24

218:10

movement

27:4 179:6183:8,18

moves 59:16

175:11

moving 38:9

45:2590:12128:11144:7175:7,19178:11210:8216:5217:13

mud 61:6

mulling

24:20

MV2005C0032



1:7

MV2005L2-001

5 1:7

MV-38 103:7

MV-5 101:13

MVEIRB

206:21

MVLWB 2:2,3

9:12 192:4229:24

myself

197:21

N

N11 6:6

12:4,12,16,2413:2,3,1914:20 17:724:12,17,21 25:1427:5,1828:3159:12206:22216:7,10

narrative

34:6 35:21

Natasha

227:1,4

Nate 201:13

Nathan 3:5

Nathen 3:12

14:5 16:2318:2321:14,1532:235:17,1836:2237:3,9,1638:2 41:2471:874:14,1575:10 86:1120:12,13122:21125:11,13,15,21,22

136:13,14138:17,18140:12,20,21 142:11143:6,7144:14,15146:11,19,20147:9,12,13148:11,12166:20,21167:1168:10169:13,14170:15,16176:15,16181:6,7182:2,9185:17186:8,9210:11,12212:8,12,13,17213:12214:5,6,17215:2,8,9216:4,5,14217:12,17,18 218:24219:17,18221:12224:8

Nathen's

19:6 41:25125:7

national

30:6

natural

25:13105:24107:6110:4159:1208:7209:21212:22217:2225:2226:2,15

nature

210:14

navigation

160:1

navigational

159:24

necessarily

39:8 56:1273:1381:11 92:8187:14

necessary

29:3 188:1

Neil 1:14

2:2 11:2414:1119:16,1920:4,5,2225:2227:1228:11,1736:14 38:139:6 51:1276:2577:2084:1285:1,1686:4 90:1199:3 107:8122:19123:6,24125:6,24136:11137:19144:10153:6154:13164:24168:23182:2183:6185:1,22188:2192:9205:9206:3,10208:5210:7216:25217:12222:21223:13224:14,23226:10

228:24229:14232:4

net 161:11

185:20

network

139:14

neutral 48:6

neutralizati

on 44:4,17

45:5 46:1489:15 93:6

neutralizing

44:8 45:16

Nevitt 2:3

29:19,20

news 16:24

nice 14:12

115:22181:20

nickel 106:3

night 11:8

24:20

nine 87:6

88:25232:12

ninety-three

46:8

nitrate

225:3,9,16226:4,13

Nobody's

134:6

nod 153:8

Noel 4:11

non-acid

45:15 46:347:3 50:1558:15,17

non-acid-

generating

44:789:6,10,18

non-AG 61:25

noncompliant

29:9

none 70:2

180:7

non-PAG 75:3

78:13 79:1

non-

potentiall

y 46:7

non-

traditiona

l 160:7

noon 26:4

nor 67:16

normal

212:22

North 4:8

22:25 29:594:14200:11201:16

north/south

109:17

northern

160:6162:12171:20

Northwest

50:23

note 11:7

77:7 96:21101:12115:3

noted 18:6

230:18231:6

notes 14:21

notice 45:7

noticed

28:25 92:1212:23

NP 43:16

44:4,15,2046:18,2547:468:15,19



NT 1:22

nuggety 54:8

nuisance

170:13

O

objective

7:4 39:9129:22202:13226:12,19

objectives

33:16 34:835:22131:17156:7157:14158:19159:17160:22202:3,5,24203:3,12,15,21,25210:17,21216:9

observation

6:20

obtain 41:3

180:6

obtained

180:5

obviously

16:5 18:1963:1281:10120:23122:12144:6168:3176:23181:9193:2194:22218:12220:16221:18,19

occur 54:3

56:5

occurred

228:23

occurrence

55:8

occurrences

54:23,2555:7,9

occurring

195:22

occurs

186:12190:12

Oceans

161:12

o'clock

14:17122:20224:1232:12

offer 225:21

offset

161:12,13

off-site

79:1681:20,2382:284:1,2

oftentimes

201:4

oh 13:15

129:24151:13214:17228:2

okay 11:3

14:1519:1920:5,2326:6 37:1739:9 45:377:13,14,20 85:2488:16105:14122:19125:5,25128:3,20144:21148:13,15

154:12,17166:11173:12193:3,21196:5197:24204:2206:10212:17214:17218:9229:1,8

Oleniuk 2:18

ones 38:16

87:7 137:5

one's 208:8

ongoing

77:2195:24131:4197:13200:14

on-land

148:22

online 121:6

onsite

156:18

on-site

79:1581:20

onto 13:12

56:24117:8155:1171:18,24205:4

open 8:20

13:5,615:1 49:1673:5 122:9132:15133:11134:10,14135:13,21136:2138:5,10142:10196:10224:3

228:20

opened

105:24

opening 5:7

14:23

openness

132:2

operating

6:13 8:450:1878:2479:24 80:181:4,7,14,16 82:1983:19,2084:8,24154:6,9209:24227:11

operation

122:4137:1141:4142:22143:24146:9163:17190:12211:2217:23

operational

24:12 85:296:16141:11143:22145:9151:6153:20158:6,11218:7221:14,23

operationall

y 186:11

operations

8:6,1822:1929:8,9,1583:1384:10 85:396:20

128:1141:9,16,25 144:4145:1149:3158:18163:9,14184:10188:1195:12220:10227:12228:18

operators

162:8

opinion

185:7195:13

opportunitie

s 20:20

118:1126:3127:6,17130:10161:21,25164:8,19196:3198:13,16

opportunity

26:19 28:851:23117:13134:25156:14158:10159:11175:12214:3224:18

opposed

163:13

option

30:4,763:7,965:2 216:5

options 8:14

20:1765:20,21127:20133:14,21,25 220:25



228:15

order 27:10

55:2063:20148:24175:17196:24203:4213:19214:12215:7219:13

orders

178:19

ore 219:1

organization

s 8:21

136:4228:21

organize

51:22

oriented

34:14

original

55:19112:11175:18

originally

85:8 110:8129:4,14

others 18:11

19:7 51:2352:2496:12179:15201:3

otherwise

98:9

ourselves

182:22

outcome

19:22132:19161:22199:18203:17225:23

outcomes

18:16 21:4131:15135:22199:13200:10

outer 63:20

64:1767:1175:2276:1978:14120:11

outlier

180:10

outlined

9:24 208:1231:13

outlining

38:24

outside 72:2

191:8

overall

15:22,2445:15 46:352:21 57:168:1369:14 70:2100:2,21104:1,9,11105:9111:11129:24174:13178:14195:15210:17

overarching

80:8,12156:21157:5

overburden

8:14,16114:14,17,22,24115:6,11,20 117:24126:14,16,22127:7,17,21,23

133:22165:7

over-burden

228:15,16

overly

225:6,8

over-predict

58:7

overtop

111:24120:19128:6166:7172:12

oxidation

49:6,2158:1959:1363:13

oxygen

49:5,1965:23 66:3120:20

P

p.m 123:4

206:7,8232:15

PAG 57:2,5

72:2 74:2276:4,1378:1080:10 81:582:4 84:1591:20 92:3104:2,5105:6111:20,22112:5,6,7,17,22118:11120:18125:9129:2153:13,19,23

Page 5:3 6:3

7:2 8:29:2 10:2

pan 149:25

paper 58:11

papers 201:5

paragraph

207:10

parameter

97:21

parameters

91:1797:2598:6,9106:2,6,7,20,21,24116:13123:9230:7

paraphrase

197:17

parta 229:9

partially

112:12

participants

11:9 20:13

participate

135:12

participated

135:12

participatin

g 9:4

15:19138:5,13229:9

participatio

n 19:9

particular

31:1342:1155:4,1758:2,1462:4 94:496:13100:5104:12136:12140:19158:12161:25

198:1204:5214:22

particularly

24:125:7,2032:4,2258:5 102:7135:23162:16163:14164:10176:25202:18211:13

parties

19:1038:10 77:386:6127:11131:7132:23134:18135:14143:1156:10162:3164:19202:18203:8232:3

Partway

122:5

party 77:3,4

135:14192:18

passive

156:4

past 19:21

35:25 36:5165:25218:16

patchy

115:22

path 83:3

pathway 58:6

Patrick

3:11,20

pattern 72:6



75:19128:18129:6

patterns

159:1

pause 15:5

26:1028:1537:6,1438:6 39:1948:1151:17 52:353:14,2256:8 57:2264:1066:23 68:469:8 70:972:15 75:676:9 79:1983:6 90:992:1595:15 96:498:14100:11103:3,21104:16,25105:11,19106:9107:15108:7,14109:13113:23115:14116:4,19117:17118:6119:16121:22123:14125:19126:24130:6140:8,17142:6145:24147:6,22149:12150:4,13152:23154:1155:5157:7165:10,22

167:17168:6169:20170:3172:24173:10,23177:16178:1179:20182:6184:4185:9190:5193:11198:4218:20221:3222:1224:6,12,21 225:18226:8227:6,23229:6,18230:3,14231:3,20232:8

peak 59:9

penalty

30:12

Pending

117:10

penetrating

49:19

penetration

190:11,12

people 15:15

17:1 18:1820:9,1832:5 91:5126:3137:3155:2163:9195:25200:18221:18

per 33:9

50:2,2156:19,2059:2466:14

67:2071:15,17,19,21 72:2373:20 74:591:694:4,5122:14,17145:6

percent

25:2,12,1546:8,13,18,19,24,2547:12,2548:8,17,20,25 49:1050:1152:1555:2456:2559:22 60:762:1966:1967:2170:17 73:374:20 76:282:8 91:2492:593:11,13,15 94:1104:2,7,14105:3,7112:7150:23

percentile

45:4,8

Perfect

147:14

performed

41:1250:21

perhaps 29:5

30:9 79:1397:20128:21179:25213:22215:23

perimeter

142:14

period

5:11,15,19

,23 6:613:7 19:1527:19 28:351:11113:16118:21122:10141:24159:19164:23187:24190:13,14193:22211:6213:2,6,10,14 214:9221:16

periodically

174:5

periods

82:22

permafrost

110:23,24111:2151:23152:2,3,4,8 174:19175:3176:13,14183:12,19,25 185:6

permeable

109:23

permission

227:4

permit 1:5

102:13,17,21,24103:1155:14,19

perspective

23:23 33:3120:9186:22213:9

perspectives

132:22

Peter 2:17

18:1129:24

227:1

pH 47:14

phase 2:10

35:1075:1781:15,21141:3

phases 24:12

phone 3:18

86:10,18,19 88:1690:4

phonetic

201:13

phosphorous

174:21179:13180:2,6,11181:9,10

phosphorus

41:16,2242:1,5,8,9184:20

phrase 27:21

physical

18:24 19:1118:18156:24172:4202:6,10

phytoplankto

n 214:10

pick 94:10

picked 48:7

picking

151:4

picture

46:11175:7

pieces

209:10210:4

pike 160:6

pile

44:1,3,6,945:15 46:3



47:3,2548:9,2249:1,1355:2456:15,2561:2462:1363:1,18,21,2564:18,2065:15,1866:4,967:4,5,12,1768:13,2069:1672:1,7,8,12 73:474:2275:2,13,2376:5,15,20,23 78:1586:1288:1289:4,5,7,893:6,14,1596:25 97:8111:15,16,23112:3,10,14,16,25113:5,11115:24,25116:2118:15,16,17119:3,12,19,20120:11121:10,13122:2,3,6,14,17125:8126:14,20129:2130:3,9,22138:21153:18163:1164:1165:17174:11176:14178:6,10,1

1 179:7,14180:15181:16185:17,21187:7189:17,21190:2,21193:19195:11

piles 6:21

44:1145:24 46:249:13,1461:1,2,8,9,10,21,2362:21 63:665:2466:5,669:2373:1475:1199:21111:9,13,18 113:1114:6,10115:1,7,19117:23118:11,19120:16,23122:13124:4,8129:17130:12131:9,10132:18133:6149:21164:11165:6,8168:3177:5193:9,20194:25195:9198:24208:23

pit 10:5

40:19 41:452:2563:5,1964:16,21,23,2465:1,9

72:12,1373:5 97:2109:9112:19,20145:10146:2,4,5,6,21,24147:16,17148:1,2163:2,3216:6217:14218:3,4,10,12,13219:23220:7,12,16,20,21,24221:6,14,16 222:7,24223:3231:15

pits 41:5

49:1663:4,10,1365:5 81:9145:11146:2,16,22 148:5,10164:13208:24,25221:10,18

PK 87:17,20

97:1,998:4108:24109:8,24110:17,18,24 113:8126:2128:14,17,19129:3,17131:10144:19,23146:16147:20148:3,10,20,22,24149:1,4,9,15,19150:8,11,16,17,18,21151:2,17,1

9 153:8166:3,6,7,22167:4,7,10168:1169:24170:6,7,12171:4,8172:3,12,19 173:8,13174:4,22,25175:1,8,9178:24179:2,5180:15,19,22 182:12183:9,13,17,19188:17,21189:1,7,9,23190:1,17194:21195:1229:16

PKC 145:19

171:5177:11181:16

pla 76:24

placed 49:12

50:2562:19 67:8121:12171:24

placement

6:14 8:540:1083:2584:9,24115:1148:21153:24227:12

places 55:1

placing

122:5

plan 8:12,24

9:23 15:2426:15 27:4

30:22 31:834:2249:23,2550:4 64:171:11,13,14 72:180:20 84:485:10,1496:13,18100:19101:6,11102:3111:19113:20114:5,7117:21,22118:4126:7128:10,15130:14,16131:3,4,5,18132:2,10,17,25135:2,8,15136:8,18137:15,23139:23,25140:13,22,25141:2,7,12,15,19,23,25142:16,20,25143:9,17145:9149:7,18155:15,22156:2,8,22157:5,13,15,18,21,22160:18,20161:10,13,14,16,19162:4163:20164:8,15,16165:15,16,20168:4,13170:20194:10,18



195:15,16197:11,25198:20199:12,22202:4203:25206:19207:16,25208:9,11,19209:11,16210:16212:20213:1215:11217:18,22219:1,21220:6227:14,20228:18229:4231:12

plankton

16:1017:21,23

planned

76:24151:3203:19

planners

79:7

planning

30:2280:2,3,16102:5114:9115:18126:7136:19137:2,7,15,21 223:15228:25

plans 8:18

77:7 82:18107:24114:10121:4128:1136:20,22139:1150:1155:17,18,

24209:18,24211:12

plant 145:10

148:2150:21175:15,18198:14

plays 15:25

please 11:10

103:10128:7

plus 163:18

pocket 93:16

pockets 54:3

point 16:5

23:19 27:229:2332:8,21,2534:12,1738:19,20,21,23 44:1645:1447:1467:24 68:271:25 73:274:17 75:189:14 92:2101:10,21111:12112:9132:16139:12141:4183:4188:10190:9191:13192:20193:6196:6197:4,14202:24212:10219:13

pointed

18:2328:2590:18

points 36:17

97:2

pond 12:9

109:18110:16,19129:7147:1,3,19175:20,21183:9190:3217:14,24218:8219:21220:18

ponder

122:21215:4

poor 49:3

182:11

populations

160:5

pore 172:21

175:19176:18,24186:16188:22,24

portage

102:2,7

portion

112:16119:13189:25204:16

portions

11:18

position

132:19216:13

positive

19:11

possible

93:1698:19158:4159:1,9177:24195:10

possibly

75:20

182:16

post-closure

204:11213:2,9,15,20 214:19215:1,11216:3,11,24220:11,21221:17

posted 14:22

poster 58:10

potential

33:8,2444:4,5,1845:1,4,5,6,1646:14,1547:1864:2269:2174:2284:1589:1591:18 93:697:21120:3133:22138:25145:2,16,18 149:22175:23181:3,11182:10213:6218:4219:20,22,24

potentiality

150:2

potentially

23:8 46:661:2368:1969:18139:13147:2149:17152:16198:17203:20

214:18

Potten 2:9

pr 42:24

practical

115:4132:16,25156:3157:3159:15160:16161:2,7

practicality

134:3

practice

29:5 38:1549:7 120:6

practices

9:16 162:8199:13,25200:21201:9,22230:21

precipitatio

n 179:10

180:17

precisely

213:19

predicted

12:8,14,1696:17100:2151:16152:2180:21

predicting

57:7

prediction

57:16 96:9105:2

predictions

47:2450:6,956:1,2057:3 60:1092:9 96:1597:6,1499:15100:8



111:6146:18175:2176:3179:15180:25181:1184:12,15215:22216:3228:7

preface

170:16171:11

prefer 132:4

153:23

preference

157:23

preferential

53:17153:24

preferential

ly

49:11,12

preferred

131:13

prejudge

135:22

pre-leached

92:1

pre-leaching

47:8,9

preliminary

6:22216:24217:6

premise

34:18

pre-

operation

141:8,21

preparation

136:24170:18

prepare

211:12215:16

219:8

prepared

23:20 66:7136:23

present

39:10 55:5197:25203:7232:5

presentation

5:9,13,17,21 14:515:721:1,5,622:1439:15,2158:10 89:4108:2,9,18118:12,13,24 119:9120:1,4122:8154:19,21164:17166:3,4,13,25167:13,21,25 169:1193:7212:23

presentation

s 155:10

presented

12:17 27:655:23196:20

presume

177:21

presuming

52:8

presuppose

178:6

pretty

22:16,1888:2293:21115:7,21,22 128:5,10141:5

prevent

120:20159:14

preventing

120:20

previous

120:5122:8222:23

previously

114:19

primarily

102:9

primary

40:19188:8

principle

34:22140:5

principles

155:21156:21

prior 15:21

19:4,580:21123:8139:4140:4211:16215:17220:23

pro 120:22

probably

14:1021:2522:22 32:563:8 67:674:9 78:1185:1190:22 95:397:22,24117:25121:6131:24143:24149:3160:10170:16172:10,13

179:2,5182:20191:3197:20207:3218:5219:4

problem 66:8

69:22 70:392:8139:22

problems

143:24

proc 133:7

procedure

6:13 8:549:8 50:1859:1678:24 80:881:4,8,1682:3,1984:9,24154:10227:12

procedures

79:2480:1,2481:1483:11,19,20 84:1485:3 154:6

proceed

21:10122:17155:9171:15209:19223:9

process

19:2329:2130:2334:5,1535:1,9,13,25 36:1180:9,1587:6,8111:8136:19148:1149:16

150:21151:21156:11,13161:23176:7177:20180:5181:4193:25198:14200:16201:4203:17206:24219:16222:16223:12

processed

5:1741:10,13107:23108:9,18113:19128:6130:3145:13,15146:14148:8,9154:15158:7,9162:24163:22,25164:10171:4186:14195:8198:22,23211:13

processes

172:20179:7182:14,15193:25

processing

145:10,13147:1,16,19

produce

83:11

produced

44:24



46:15

producing

115:8

product

150:20,21

production

45:1

productive

15:2221:16

products

59:13

professional

50:23 58:3

profile 13:5

program

15:11,1316:1521:1822:1934:14,1936:740:1,11,19,2441:3,1549:25 55:368:2470:2471:1,279:1391:21 92:896:14100:1136:24139:14

programs

72:23156:15

progress

22:12

progression

24:6120:15,23

progressive

151:3,6158:5,11,15 159:5164:9

193:8195:9210:24,25211:10

progressivel

y 158:20

211:3

project 16:1

34:25 58:275:17114:16121:25125:12126:12149:1202:8204:4,23

projects

19:8 35:660:13136:17,25

promote

202:7

proper

183:13

properly

183:23

properties

51:6 58:16117:12188:11

property

95:7

Proponent

31:10206:18208:8,11

proportion

91:2092:4,5105:5,6

proportioned

189:18

propose

153:23182:22186:7

proposed

22:1926:1536:1866:13129:1,3139:9168:4169:16215:15

proposing

16:1548:16,2480:19129:12172:3

protect

33:13,1834:20

protected

32:2434:16

protecting

34:11

protection

30:11 49:4

protective

30:13

provide

6:4,8,12,16,22 11:2014:7,1420:1721:2423:1326:7,2027:11,1628:1,935:3,1537:2058:2581:5,1583:18,2084:14,20,23 106:6114:14126:16,20143:1156:13172:4184:22189:4

191:20203:3204:18205:12,21209:2,5215:7,25216:16217:2,6222:23223:12

provided

69:12134:24,25135:10181:1201:13204:18208:14211:16,18,21,24

provides

20:2099:16158:10203:1,8

providing

8:3 10:330:1170:23 80:184:7 99:24139:3223:2227:11231:15,17

public 9:20

11:1313:13 14:319:5106:20171:18,25200:24205:20,25231:8

publically

61:15106:18107:2

publicly

222:15

pull

13:11,23

88:17200:12201:11,12,16

pulled 43:18

pump 146:6

purpose 41:2

74:4

purposely

144:15

purposes

48:1950:1653:12114:23,25115:5

pursuing

133:16

push 110:18

pushing

193:4

putting

45:2463:1295:10171:18185:5208:21220:23

Q

qualify 78:5

qualities

57:16

quality 6:18

7:4 9:1112:17,2413:4,19,2018:530:3,1732:2433:2,9,13,15 35:2238:15,22,25 39:947:2348:2,349:3



60:5,1096:9,1697:5,1499:15100:2,6,8146:12,18163:16164:4175:2192:2204:10,11215:17216:8220:11226:12,19230:7

quantify

171:15

quantities

114:17

quantity

112:6114:14122:15

quarries

101:11,17,18

quarry 53:9

102:1,2,4

quarrying

102:5,14,24

quarters

166:15

question

5:11,15,19,2312:3,22,2418:419:15,2034:3 39:541:2551:11 52:156:657:11,1566:11 67:270:1272:19 79:985:2486:20

92:11 99:6101:10103:7107:9113:16114:13115:10116:14117:15119:2121:11125:13127:4135:17138:9,25139:19147:10,15148:20153:12164:23165:4172:18178:5179:11,24182:4183:3,5184:2185:3186:5188:3,15195:4,19198:7199:2206:16212:18215:9217:20218:24220:2224:25225:3

questioning

165:1

questions

6:9 11:2014:14 16:717:3,1819:13,17,20 21:8,1228:18 35:536:2337:2,2138:4 39:16

40:551:14,21,23 56:357:1279:2385:2286:2,690:3,792:1998:23100:3103:10105:22110:22113:14,18114:13,20117:7118:10120:5126:4,5,6134:19148:16,19153:1,2,7157:12164:18,20167:3170:19192:14,17202:3206:14223:14,16,25224:1,3,10,16

quick 140:21

205:5,8

quickly

159:8196:16

quite 23:5

25:1646:11 74:177:5133:15148:4177:20,23

R

ra 27:21

Racher 2:4,6

31:1

Rainie 2:24

raise

77:10,24122:14144:17

raised 11:21

17:5,7144:20220:9224:1

range 133:21

ranging

15:2316:22

rarely 54:24

rate 49:6

50:2 56:1957:17,20176:2,8,10185:18

rates 59:15

60:12 91:795:1178:20

rather 25:19

43:1788:24 91:8179:16190:2

rating 47:4

ratio

44:16,2045:8,1246:18 47:158:7

rationale

31:13121:1128:11

ratios 43:17

44:5

re 150:10

reach 59:15

160:1

reaction

59:15

readily

44:22

reading

114:20

ready 113:13

155:9223:8

real 215:13

realistic

65:25

really 18:13

23:1838:20 39:343:2,852:1653:1069:2573:24 75:978:779:9,1591:22110:2112:21113:10119:12126:20127:4137:16146:8152:5,7153:3,17176:5183:4188:8196:17215:12222:20

reason 58:13

59:1263:24106:23166:12225:5,11

reasonable

41:1

reasons

120:2

Rebecca 2:7

80:1783:8,2285:2,6



101:8102:11103:5104:18105:13

recall 24:13

26:17138:2

received

60:15

receiving

23:6 203:5

Recently

55:13

recessing

77:17123:3206:7

reclaim

146:2,6148:25161:21

reclaimed

211:3213:4

reclaiming

158:20

reclamation

5:219:5,16,23115:5,12116:8117:14118:4128:15134:18,19,22 136:20137:15138:6,14149:20150:10151:4,7154:18,21155:22156:2,8,22157:21158:11,16,17,19161:8,17162:4,17

164:9170:18,23171:17176:17,23177:2181:23193:8,23194:3,18195:10201:15,22207:24210:24,25211:10229:10,25230:22231:12

recognize

96:8156:12162:20168:9213:21

recognizing

91:22

recommend

31:1049:12

recommendati

on 137:9

142:2

recommendati

ons 137:13

recommended

31:23136:17

reconnect

215:10

reconnecting

215:18

reconnection

216:18

recontouring

193:16,19

reconvene

14:18206:5

reconvening

122:23

record 12:7

14:2228:10106:20111:8127:5138:9140:14161:24167:9168:11169:18171:18,25205:20213:18222:13,15

recover

115:4161:7

recovery

149:17

recycling

146:4

reduce 49:19

62:7 94:10159:13188:11224:19

reduced

214:20218:8

reducing

49:5

re-establish

202:12

re-evaluate

29:3

reevaluation

103:19

refer 58:11

216:1222:10231:17

reference

10:417:11,1318:1923:2,7,8,17 24:1,3,4

90:24118:12181:9205:21207:5209:17216:1222:12,23223:2,10,12 228:25229:15231:15,23

referenced

215:24

references

116:25200:1201:8204:19205:3,13231:17

referencing

70:22114:15

referred

60:16125:11

referring

86:23 87:4228:5

refill 159:8

160:9,14163:18

refilled

164:2220:12

refilling

159:13207:16,17212:19213:13215:6216:7

refine 80:12

214:3

refined

80:15156:9209:18

refinement

79:4

refinements

81:10

refining

18:19132:1

reflect 9:23

35:8,1479:15 92:3168:21207:25222:14231:12

reflected

118:1161:5

reflecting

71:3 164:6

refresh

24:10

reg 3:18

60:2186:10,17,19,20 88:1690:4,7

regarded

87:12

regarding

12:3,2336:6 86:2194:21

regardless

148:5

regards 8:9

60:21101:2202:3227:18

region

159:18

registry

9:20 12:2013:13,2314:3 35:1561:17,18117:8204:23



205:2,4,25231:8

regular

73:21

regulators

156:9193:2

regulatory

29:6,1830:2135:6,1036:2,11

re-handle

64:1665:14

reiterate

208:12

rela 52:24

related 8:8

101:1

relates

69:1390:2299:25230:6

relating

28:1857:1566:12104:13153:13

relation

79:4 103:7170:17229:4,24230:17231:8

relationship

25:9 62:11

relative

52:2499:21107:3131:14200:19

relatively

174:12219:23

221:22

release

56:1957:17,1991:7 94:25142:20174:5176:9,10

released

60:7174:25177:2

relevant

32:21

relied 79:17

reluctant

182:22

rely 220:10

relying

62:1281:22111:2

remain 49:14

remaining

110:18

remember

24:24 32:6140:24145:3,4146:22176:19177:8207:8212:7216:9

remembered

154:25

remind 163:9

reminder

14:16 20:6

Remove

159:3,6

removed

175:23

removing

133:25

repeat 57:11

72:21185:12199:4

replace

25:1,3159:20

replanting

201:3

replicate

41:2194:24

replicated

180:8

replies

191:9

reply 107:10

report

12:10,1313:20,2540:14,1542:1361:1686:2389:2390:1995:21107:2,4123:12140:19146:23147:18148:2151:21161:5197:9206:21207:19220:18222:11,19

reports

12:1868:21116:17145:10146:22155:18197:2,6

represent

57:1 58:21

59:20 60:587:24

representati

on 97:12

representati

ve 41:3

123:20,21,22124:3,7,25125:2132:23

representati

ves 131:7

represented

76:3

reprocess

150:1

reprocessed

149:2

reprocessing

149:17,24150:16

request

26:2427:8,16,2537:1978:2384:15,2298:1,11,1999:13121:7123:8124:1,22125:8176:1181:21207:6216:17217:5222:6225:4,14226:3,17228:2

requested

155:15

requesting

101:15

requests 5:4

6:2 7:1

11:9 98:22151:21222:24

require

23:12,1495:3 130:1157:24158:2212:11

required

51:2 68:23120:8155:18159:5169:4181:22184:25186:25192:24211:4,8212:21213:3,22214:19221:7

requirement

85:4 102:8159:25212:2221:10

requirements

29:1848:15

research

176:17,23177:2,3,6200:10

reserve

112:4

reserved

223:18

residence

24:24

resolve

77:11,25

resolved

16:8192:12

resource

218:3



resources

105:24107:6208:7209:21219:5225:2226:2,15

respect 19:1

40:8 47:2259:1 60:2061:6 68:1272:2274:12 80:983:2487:1792:2395:20101:11133:3190:22

respond

11:1120:1035:19117:8203:2

responded

26:18199:3223:10

responding

14:24133:11

response

16:12,1918:2,2019:22 26:727:1028:23 29:130:2031:5,8,18,24 36:1360:1771:18,21,24 79:2101:17,19102:22103:12114:15117:7

120:14121:3,6126:12,15127:11135:17138:3,24139:2145:5148:14161:17179:23196:9209:22210:13211:14214:7220:4,14222:9,17

responses

11:2031:10 33:135:1590:18101:12,14167:3,15207:8

responsibili

ty 183:1

responsive

25:6

rest 123:1

173:18

restoration

9:17201:24230:25

restore

158:25159:19,24161:25

restoring

6:23217:2,7

restrictions

180:14

result 49:2

58:1293:2494:18151:3

158:22159:21165:5172:21180:8182:16184:19

resulting

91:18

results

23:1656:2158:6,14,2159:2361:13 62:668:9 79:1781:1,2382:1183:1,2,384:188:22,2491:21 92:795:22,24186:23219:6

resuming

77:18123:4206:8

return

159:17160:3212:22214:10,11

returning

196:14

revegetate

114:6,10130:10

revegetated

198:2

revegetating

115:19116:2

re-

vegetating

130:22

revegetation

114:2

198:13,21199:20,22,25200:6,21

re-

vegetation

133:23165:17

review 7:3

8:1313:12,2214:9 17:134:5,15,2435:9,13,2036:19 39:2116:17117:10127:20140:18155:17157:16161:6,23180:4207:19211:5212:19222:16223:11224:16226:4,11,18 228:15

reviewed

114:19116:11128:16173:3225:3

reviewing

71:10

revise 29:3

revised 20:8

22:9

revisit 29:2

225:10,14

revisited

203:16

Richardson

4:12

Richea 3:12

21:14,1532:2,335:17,1837:3,4,9,16 71:8,974:14,1586:1,2120:12,13125:15,21,22136:13,14138:17,18140:20,21143:6,7144:14,15146:19,20147:12,13148:11,12166:20,21167:1169:13,14170:15,16176:15,16181:6,7186:8,9210:11,12212:12,13,17214:5,6,17215:8,9216:4,5217:17,18219:17,18221:12,13224:8,9

Rick 3:10

rise 118:19

119:3

risk 158:21

216:2

risk-based

215:21

road 53:9

102:1,2,7,15,20,25

roads 198:13

199:7

rock 5:13,17

6:14,218:5 11:1739:11,21



40:9,1542:1743:6,744:3,1145:15,23,2546:4,7,19,2448:14,16,22 49:2450:13,1452:8 53:1954:18,2255:2,858:1759:1961:1,2,4,5,21,23,2462:17,21,2563:1,4,6,18,21,24,2564:2,17,22,25 65:367:10,13,15 68:1071:1672:1,2,7,8,1273:4,1474:1975:1876:13,14,18 77:678:8,13,1479:1 80:1081:2482:3,583:2584:10,15,25 86:1287:18 88:389:4,1891:20 92:393:19,2196:25 97:899:20105:5106:22107:19,24108:9,19110:20111:9,13,18,22,23

112:3,5,6,7,10,14,17,25113:5,7,10,11,18,20114:2,6,10115:1,7,19,23,24,25116:2117:23118:10,17,19119:3,11120:10,11,16121:4,11,14122:1,3,6123:20,23124:3,4,8,24125:2,10126:4,20128:6,17129:2,7,12,13,17130:3,9,12,22 131:9132:18133:6137:22138:21149:21153:8,12,14,18,19154:14162:25163:1164:1,11165:6,8,17166:7,23167:5,6,10,25 168:2170:9171:5172:12,16177:4,5,6,8 189:9,10193:8,19194:25195:9,11198:24208:23227:12

229:16

rocks 39:16

42:1949:1954:1289:10

Rodel 2:16

rolls 79:23

room 15:15

19:18 67:475:11

roughly

122:16150:23

round 105:21

113:21206:13

routes

159:24

routine

72:25 78:888:1

run 29:14

134:5178:5190:2

runoff 59:22

158:22178:10187:10

rush 216:20

Russell 3:25

S

safe 159:7

197:20,22214:21216:7

safety

221:8,19

sake 36:24

38:3

sample 13:1

40:9,1841:10,2342:7,8,10,11 46:19

47:1155:1366:1968:8,1273:2 75:182:8,2586:2287:3,989:2491:23123:21180:5,11184:19

sampled

13:1,3

samples 13:4

17:1740:2141:2,4,7,9,1742:15,16,2443:3,4,1145:9,1046:8,12,2447:8,1050:2 51:352:15 64:666:14,1567:2068:16,17,1871:17,19,21,22 72:2373:1,10,12,13,14,20,21,2374:4,8,13,18,20,2575:1076:1,2,479:586:21,24,2587:5,6,7,9,13,18,19,23,2488:2,5,6,14,19,21,23,2589:1,1292:193:8,9,11

95:23180:7

sampling

13:8,1817:2240:19,2445:25 51:255:3 64:566:12,2067:1368:1,2469:370:5,1471:14,15,17 72:10,2373:18,1975:20 76:678:2579:1380:24 84:288:1153:16

Sarah 2:15

Sarah-Lacey

3:1686:8,9

satisfied

203:12

saturated

49:15174:22187:14,16189:9,10190:1

saw 66:19

73:1211:19

scale 69:16

109:6166:16

scaled 59:22

scaling 58:6

60:12 94:5

scattered

54:1

scenario

146:8178:16221:17



scenarios

87:21

scene 179:24

schedule

11:1615:20118:18119:3122:21146:23223:20

scheduled

71:16114:24

Schmidt 3:5

science 33:3

scope 98:18

102:9

scoped

101:17102:14

screening-

level

38:17

se 33:9

Sean 3:21

4:12 37:11105:22,23106:11,12107:5208:6209:19,20224:24225:1226:1,14

search

191:22

seasonal

17:24

second 12:22

15:1146:2272:21 73:978:2583:12176:18227:15230:1

section

86:2395:21106:13110:13136:12206:19207:10

sections

205:13211:25

security

170:18171:17,21181:23186:22213:7,23223:15

sediment

13:2017:15,16140:12,22141:18,24158:21

seeing 22:22

50:7 68:2573:1574:1176:22104:4182:21199:5

seek 161:21

193:1196:8,12

seeking

171:23

seem 24:12

207:7

seems 71:19

88:21115:5116:10118:18128:9172:10175:22179:8

seen 41:16

54:7 59:7

179:1,12193:4211:25

seepage 6:19

51:261:9,1295:9,2499:20123:11,21124:4125:1189:13,19

sees 196:17

segregate

65:9,1466:7

segregated

67:15

segregating

153:19210:1

segregation

209:12

select 20:21

selected

88:5 93:996:2397:11106:2,7

selecting

93:8

selection

106:23

selectively

122:10

self 131:23

self-

sustaining

129:25131:22157:25

semi-

finished

125:6

send 14:9

23:2233:20,25

231:24

sense 66:3,9

79:8 118:3120:15148:13191:9

sensitivitie

s 91:15

92:12,2598:2

sensitivity

6:16 40:1044:19 45:268:1669:1592:2394:17 95:499:7,13

sent 55:17

211:20

separate

28:2489:12102:16141:3,7170:7

separately

57:1388:23115:11

separating

172:11

sequence

121:9,12122:12138:21

sequencing

125:8

service

60:12

session 1:8

14:2225:2526:22191:8198:10

sessions

11:14

15:21123:1127:12130:20211:17

setting 74:4

settles

146:15

several

59:17114:8

Shannon

2:10,2577:22,24,25 78:1,2181:1885:2290:14,1594:2297:1598:1899:10,12,18,22124:18,19153:10154:5,11228:4

shape 122:13

Sharpe 2:24

Shaw 2:10

77:2278:1,2,21,22 81:1890:15,1694:2297:1599:12,13,22 124:19153:10154:11228:4

sheeting

187:10

shell 75:22

short 22:10

88:13112:23118:21152:15,17



164:17165:4193:24196:18211:4

shorter

187:17

shorter-term

221:15

short-term

157:14158:19220:8

showed 42:3

67:2174:20 75:176:2148:20151:5166:5,13173:14

showing

52:23113:3178:23

shown 218:5

shows 40:17

166:13176:24

shutdown

220:8

sic 71:15

142:16

sides 36:16

183:24

sign 14:25

significant

47:20141:5175:23

similar

42:20 61:368:1571:1077:8,2378:3,19108:25111:16

136:22140:23159:18160:3194:16196:15210:14211:25

Similarly

141:17

simple

177:22

simply 25:19

45:9 62:265:2293:10113:11202:5

simulates

60:1

single

43:8,10

site 7:3

30:5,10,1450:2455:1756:1257:2,658:1559:2362:2,571:673:12,2574:682:23,2488:2 93:295:2596:13100:16102:5110:25120:9130:21131:6,8134:22135:4137:5,11152:1,7156:16,25158:12,22159:3,17

160:17162:6190:22194:5196:14200:22210:2213:4225:3,9226:18

sites 132:3

158:20179:1187:20200:17

site-

specific

30:17,2433:1535:2238:14,21,25 39:8226:12

situated

131:10

situation

25:21 66:1221:1

six 24:25

41:10 92:2118:22

sixth 75:1

sixty 139:3

140:4

size 94:6

215:5

skews 45:11

88:24

skip 128:4

Slack 4:6

11:2512:2132:23126:8128:3,20129:15131:19133:2135:20

192:15,16193:3,21195:17,18196:5197:16,24198:25199:23201:6202:1203:10204:2,3,22206:15207:7

Slave 4:8

slide 17:12

40:17 41:645:14,17,19,20 69:15151:5153:13162:21167:22,23193:7194:2196:13

slides 39:25

40:8 51:955:2362:17118:13148:21157:10212:1

slightly

55:1561:22111:1

slope 111:11

158:23193:16,17

slopes

111:14113:11158:22193:19

slow 176:7

177:20179:13183:18

slowed 152:5

slowly 179:9

slurry

145:15

small 17:18

54:2,23,2555:7,975:1587:1193:14,16110:8119:13133:4149:17174:12177:23

smaller

109:19185:18

Snap 95:22

100:15200:7

snow 151:24

152:4

SNP 8:9

96:14100:1101:3104:3227:18

sof 184:20

soil

115:4,22116:25117:11159:14161:7

solubility

58:18,22

soluble

59:13

solutes

183:8185:25

solution

29:10181:18

solutions

58:18,21



157:23

somehow 66:8

70:5

someone

128:7

Someone's

205:15

somewhat

69:20140:14

somewhere

38:2148:25

sooner 18:7

sorry 13:15

52:20 90:6128:22129:23141:1147:9151:10,15174:9183:5184:13195:18202:2204:13217:11222:8

sort 16:6

20:1322:2231:1932:2336:2,3,438:17104:22105:25120:19121:9138:19139:12,24140:2,5165:7170:20184:17194:8200:2207:5212:24

213:4,24217:19218:14,17220:21,22,25 222:18

sorted 45:19

sought 196:8

sound 38:15

230:12

sounds

205:10

source 6:17

33:23 42:159:2390:2091:1,10,1592:1396:2397:8,1098:399:8,14,21100:5123:19124:2,23174:25189:12,19,23 190:2228:6

sources

97:11

south 111:15

112:3,14113:4118:15119:11,19121:13163:1,25

space 112:2

118:19

spaced 158:5

spacing

55:19

sparse

210:22

spatial 18:1

41:1

spe 218:11

speak 95:25

107:24,25137:17176:17

speaking

51:20195:4

speaks

139:18140:14162:4

species

201:2214:11

specific 7:4

9:1730:5,10,1441:1952:2256:1373:15100:18114:24131:12132:25141:9,10,22 156:23201:23202:21204:19205:12207:10211:12225:4226:5,19228:22230:24

specifically

26:135:21,2342:1 61:1199:19120:24121:9141:7143:5168:15182:23197:1198:22206:20210:19211:20

218:11

specifics

170:23

speculate

165:18213:18

speculating

219:8

speeding

206:24

spent 21:20

spills

217:19

split 87:23

141:14

splits 88:9

89:24

splitters

224:18

spot 95:11

spots 69:23

90:18

SSWQO 225:9

226:4

SSWQOs 36:1

216:8

st 81:13

stability

10:5111:18156:24,25172:4193:20220:7,13221:7,8,11,15,16,20,21222:6,7,24223:4231:15

stabilizing

158:22

stable

158:23

staff 2:3

77:8,9

126:9210:9223:16232:3

stage 19:8

31:935:6,13219:25

standard

6:12 8:429:5,1450:1878:2479:24 80:181:4,7,14,16 82:1983:19,2084:8,2398:8154:5,9155:23227:11

standards

157:20

Stantec 3:14

start

11:4,7,1621:1,1230:7 39:2545:251:13,2570:19 71:9113:21114:12122:4126:10131:20141:4,21144:16155:20160:12164:25173:16176:12209:9211:2,11224:3

started

59:1386:24

starting



45:2351:1560:2494:10134:19192:20212:9

state 6:5

14:25 28:1157:17159:17168:17196:15212:22

stated 34:23

69:1103:13167:4

statement

54:19 89:9116:24204:17205:4215:21230:8

statements

34:635:20,21

states 43:9

static 41:8

51:4 74:9

stating

168:16

stay 112:10

steady 6:4

28:1 61:22

steady-state

25:13,1827:1759:3,15

Steeper

111:14

step 19:11

32:19 68:9162:22208:10

stepped 32:7

steps 144:1

sticking

129:16

stockpile

63:19117:13118:2127:6,9,15,17

stockpiled

8:16 72:13115:11126:16127:24149:15150:1228:17

stockpiles

123:23125:3

stockpiling

117:24

stones 61:6

stop 128:19

145:22171:9229:25

storage 98:4

111:25112:15,24118:11,25119:4,11,19 120:7125:9153:14,24208:23

stored

118:16

storing 8:14

127:20210:2228:15

straight

177:4,6

straighten

128:7

strategies

88:11

strategy

150:9151:4

straying

70:17

streams

100:6

stressed

130:21

strings

186:13

stripping

119:14

structure

52:21

structures

158:23,24194:23

struggling

202:22

stuck

183:2,4

studied 27:5

studies 42:3

stuff 22:24

23:13171:10210:1

su 184:11

sub 46:22

subaqueous

41:21125:9

subject

219:15

submerged

111:23112:10,13113:4

submission

85:15133:13177:3211:9212:5,20

submissions

135:15137:8225:24

submit 14:3

31:8 74:780:14154:6155:15204:9,23230:10

submitted

8:11 9:812:1013:9,2123:2136:1940:1647:12 51:473:24101:4102:19116:23140:13164:15169:6,10192:22211:15212:3227:19229:12230:7

submitting

9:9 20:736:23,2580:20191:25212:6229:23

subsequent

47:1082:14157:24

success

199:15,19200:19201:2

successes

162:11

successful

158:17

sucked

173:19

sufficiently

69:22220:15

suggest 64:6

118:25

suggested

11:1062:18 85:895:5118:14232:1

suggesting

48:15,23

suggestion

207:5,11

suggestions

9:24 21:2323:21206:21207:1208:1231:13

suitable

24:4117:12215:4,13,14

suits 125:23

sulfide

45:1147:11,18,1952:14,16,17,23 53:2554:3,2455:5 58:1968:25 69:693:11,17,22,25

sulfide-type

53:18

sulphide

43:24

sulphur

43:17



44:1246:5,13,17,24 47:1248:17,20,25 49:1150:4,1152:7,953:5 54:1655:1562:1967:2171:2072:25 73:374:18,2076:282:8,989:13,1691:23 92:2

sum 40:8

summarize

21:23 78:4

summarized

13:8,19191:17

summarizes

114:16

summary 15:2

40:8111:21122:1

summer 135:5

162:6

superior

33:13

supervision

50:22

supplement

40:13191:15

supplemental

13:2041:15,18,20 51:3159:12

supplying

42:4

support

22:5,11

63:14160:4

supported

130:23

supporting

117:12

suppose 98:1

supposed

33:13 51:1127:12220:17

sure 38:1

51:4,2275:2192:3,497:1899:12123:25126:3128:5148:4164:3175:6184:1188:3200:24205:6208:17212:1219:9220:2221:20,23232:6

surface

120:18148:24150:10172:5175:10179:4182:13187:10

surfaces

165:6

surficial

116:12117:1

surprise

26:14 27:1

surprised

29:4,2556:23 57:3

surrounding

17:4 67:13196:17

surveillance

139:14

suspect 42:9

65:4,17160:24169:5

sustaining

131:24

switch

167:21

synthesis

16:2418:17

system 25:5

60:8160:14

T

table 5:2

12:9,13,15,18 38:951:1471:12 86:6106:12114:15,18,20 121:25125:12133:25144:20153:14192:13

tables 9:10

191:19192:1230:9,18

taiga/tundra

197:17

tail 177:5

tailings

110:11129:3146:3

172:5

taking 88:6

188:24

talk 25:25

33:14 40:745:2148:1373:19108:21,23111:20112:6129:24133:12,13194:8202:5

talked 8:23

11:15 17:534:6,836:2371:14108:19113:1119:25136:6144:17,22163:6177:3187:4193:8196:14

talking 26:1

32:22 43:852:14 53:666:3 77:1288:4 132:8178:13

talks 141:23

228:22

Tasha 3:2

TDS

145:3,8,12,18146:13,17147:3

te 139:19

team 11:5,6

21:8

technical

1:8 15:21

21:6127:12139:19170:21180:1198:10211:17

Teed 3:25

temperature

62:9 66:294:7186:12

temporary

220:5,8

ten 60:25

175:14,17200:18214:12,25

tend 33:5

tens 55:8

term 59:23

98:3152:13,15,17 174:25189:12,20,23 190:2228:6

terms 6:17

18:15 41:742:1,16,20,22 45:2348:14 49:450:1952:13,17,21 56:1958:24 61:462:17,2368:8 70:2379:5 87:1988:1 90:2191:1,10,1592:1393:2496:22,2397:8,1098:2299:8,14,16,21 100:5104:9,20115:8



123:19124:2,23132:1142:23163:20164:5168:12171:7172:11,14,19174:2,9,10,17 178:17180:18,21187:13,22192:19194:9199:20201:2203:3215:4216:2219:7

Terri-Lee

2:18

Territories

50:23

test 41:7,17

47:559:12,14,16 87:2088:1191:2193:1299:15100:9173:16,18

testing

47:1350:1,1251:4,755:1867:1270:2071:2,2373:874:8,978:7 79:1482:14,2584:2 88:1493:9 94:12153:16163:16

tests

41:8,11,18,21 42:243:1247:10 91:294:13,2499:8100:4,15173:4,5,13228:6,10,13

TG-10 60:16

thank 11:24

14:10,1221:11,1427:1328:1329:1835:16,1737:25 38:451:1354:1162:1665:1274:14,1585:1786:1589:19 90:699:1,4,18107:12113:17118:9120:12,13124:16125:21,24136:10139:7140:3,20143:6144:14146:19147:12148:11150:25153:4154:12164:21,24169:13170:15176:15181:6185:2192:7,10,1

1 196:6204:22,25206:3209:21210:5,8,11212:12214:5215:8216:4217:17219:17222:21223:12,14225:21228:10230:19

thanks 15:19

19:1720:6,2377:2178:2190:2,1994:2397:1699:23105:14107:6,8116:21121:20123:1125:23126:8128:3167:1180:22191:12192:9,15193:21197:24202:2206:11213:10232:10,13

that'll

14:2018:17 80:4115:23

that's 13:16

14:520:4,622:2223:20 24:7

25:12,1527:1328:1229:5,7,13,14,15,1730:831:12,21,23 33:234:18,2136:10,1338:19 39:440:14 45:950:3,2451:9 52:1654:11,1455:8 57:960:7 61:1762:163:23,2564:6,865:9 68:169:370:16,2371:23 74:376:20 79:284:4,2086:13 89:191:3 93:1795:1096:10104:6,10105:17106:22107:9,22108:4110:11,12111:15,18112:8,10,20 114:6116:7119:18121:6,15124:11,15125:22130:13,23133:9135:10137:8139:1140:2,16142:2143:3144:4,8,15146:17

147:14150:16152:9,20153:12,22154:8,12157:4158:1159:9,11,22,25160:3,16,18 161:4162:14,25163:2164:14165:25166:9,24167:7,8,12168:3,15171:11172:8175:1178:25179:3182:25183:4184:17185:23186:2192:10,12,25 193:5194:16,18195:2,6196:3,6,11197:20,22198:22199:1200:7203:23204:2,3,16208:22209:1,3,4212:2218:9,25219:25220:17221:11222:12227:16,21228:1229:3232:5

thaw 152:16

thawing



181:15

there'd

219:12

therefore

20:7 64:2469:18

there'll

71:2283:25109:9186:11193:18

there's

17:2420:1622:16 23:433:1440:2,2541:143:1,22,2346:1352:13,2253:3,1758:4 60:2361:6 65:1667:468:9,1169:2172:1,1873:18,2575:11 78:679:15,2281:1388:1093:5,1097:1,3,7101:15106:15,19108:1113:7114:23117:6120:22139:22142:13143:13,18147:17149:22,25151:21156:22161:15163:10

164:18179:11181:21186:12,15187:3,8,9,10188:20,22189:8200:1211:5,11212:20,25213:1214:8215:13218:2224:1

thermal

111:7145:19151:2,12,16,19 190:9

thermal-

modelling

178:23

thermistor

186:13

they'll

111:14143:12193:17194:25

they're

40:12 51:153:854:2,2555:161:20,2177:4,587:11,1294:2597:11128:5129:11153:2155:11158:23174:14201:4203:4,12205:16226:5

they've 39:1

43:561:1,8,978:3 129:5160:24183:16200:21201:1

thick 166:16

thicker

186:22,24

thickness

165:7,18170:11,24177:4,9187:15188:9,12229:15

thicknesses

172:13

thirty

71:17,21,22 73:10,2374:4,888:4101:12

thirty-eight

46:9

thirty-four

41:12

thirty-six

101:18

tho 43:11

184:16

thorough

221:21

thoroughly

157:11

thoughts

51:22144:24145:12148:16214:22224:24

thresholds

72:3,4

throughout

54:155:1,296:19101:11102:6109:19163:17184:10214:2

thumbs 212:7

Thursday

11:13

tier

78:11,25

tiers 78:7

ties 108:21

tight 122:20

till 21:25

115:20120:19177:8,9

Tim 3:4

timeline

164:14194:1214:3

timely 79:12

81:23

time-wise

22:7

titanium

42:9

Tlicho 4:11

60:15

today

11:15,1714:16 15:1104:23126:1142:4157:16170:19174:18181:19186:11223:21,22224:16,17

Todd 4:6

11:2512:2032:23126:7,8127:4128:3,20129:15131:19133:2157:4192:15193:3,15,21 194:13195:17,18196:5197:15,16,20,24198:7,25199:23200:13201:6202:1,21203:10204:2,3,22205:7206:13,15207:4,7210:15

tomorrow

105:15117:4208:19209:11222:11,24231:16232:6,12

tone 124:14

tonight

14:10

tonnes 50:3

66:1467:2071:16,2072:2473:2074:19 76:7112:1,8,17,20,21,24118:14,15119:20149:23



tons 57:2,5

top 62:20

122:15126:1145:4,8170:10178:23

topic 107:20

topics 15:23

tops 53:8

total 43:17

46:5,13,17,24 47:1248:17,20,25 49:1150:4,1159:2271:1672:25 73:382:987:4,1288:2189:12161:2176:9,12183:16185:14,19188:20

totally

129:21

touch 177:1

210:12215:12

touched

16:2390:17210:16

touching

140:2

towards

62:22109:17153:19175:12,20

toxicity

16:11

trace 47:19

track 232:1

traditional

34:7,12,17131:11137:4157:3160:7197:6,9

traffic

169:25170:8

trafficabili

ty 171:9

Transcript

5:25

transition

141:8169:24170:6

translation

46:21

transparent

129:21

transplantin

g 201:2

travel 179:5

treat 43:9

76:3,12,14

treated

47:2350:14

treatment

68:8219:24

trend 32:13

70:16103:15,18

trending

96:17

trends 96:16

103:13

trials 8:8

9:18100:22,25161:17,20198:11199:14,19200:6,20

201:25231:1

tried 35:22

119:7,9

trigger

103:15105:7

triggered

18:3 32:15

triggers

18:2 33:2236:7

trophics

160:11,13

trout

160:6,9

true 47:7

try 14:10

32:1633:18 55:487:24120:15157:11209:17

trying

22:7,1135:1838:2345:1851:2153:2070:2575:14 88:798:17115:2120:24121:17142:25144:23151:7171:15195:7214:7225:23

TSS

139:10,21

turn 19:12

124:17173:21

turns 30:8

Tuzo 40:19

163:4216:6217:14218:3,4,10,12 219:4220:16,21,24

twelve 14:17

41:1143:10 46:960:2561:10 64:6122:20163:18176:20213:13

twenty 41:9

213:13

twenty-eight

41:8

twenty-four

43:12

twenty-one

87:5

twice 50:21

type 24:5

35:5 36:952:7 57:2092:9 93:12128:18146:9203:8

types 43:6

53:6,7,861:5 132:6155:17

typical

56:18

typically

35:2556:21136:23211:3

U

ultimate

66:2

unavailable

118:20

unbiassed

73:18,19,21

uncertain

94:8152:13202:18

uncertaintie

s 16:7

17:3 88:892:19 93:394:6

uncertainty

58:5 96:9

unclear

65:1071:13

undergo

71:22172:20

underground

218:4

underlying

34:18,21

underneath

62:25

understand

33:3 42:1743:2074:12 78:690:25 95:598:18121:1,14126:18132:22142:25143:17148:14,25149:6171:8,14176:6177:10184:18185:2202:8,22213:5



219:2

understandin

g 21:3

22:1828:22 39:746:3 69:475:2578:2094:20 99:5117:2132:14183:7188:23191:1,3232:2

understandin

gs 153:21

understood

185:24

undertake

135:3198:16228:5

undertaken

200:7210:20221:9

undertaking

8:7100:21,25141:5198:11227:16

undertook

115:18204:19

underwater

118:16121:12,15

undesirable

116:8

undifferenti

ated 42:21

undue 30:11

unexpected

30:20

unfolding

214:1

Unfortunatel

y 11:25

uniform

53:19

uniformly

54:2,7

unit 43:8,10

59:24 60:389:18

University

201:14

unknown 42:8

unless 93:22

166:13220:3

unlikely

149:18

unthawed

175:10

unusual 30:1

update 9:22

21:440:14,1542:13102:19,23105:25106:13127:11155:16168:18,20169:4207:21,23231:11

updated

86:23114:16209:16

updates

131:17

upgrades

102:2,7

upon 11:1

77:17,1879:17123:3,4206:7,8

232:15

uppermost

129:8

USA 11:6

usable 112:2

useful

25:8,2027:23179:15203:1207:1

usual 51:15

usually

211:8

utilize

82:12,15195:8196:1

utilizing

82:5164:12

V

valid 226:13

validate

96:15184:24

validation

228:6

Valley 1:1

13:10,13,22 191:20205:19230:10

value 34:20

149:16

values

34:11,1541:22 42:862:3 94:3

variability

17:24 23:5

various

13:1717:14 39:141:443:5,9

54:3 55:174:5 87:2088:11114:22197:2

vege 133:23

vegetate

128:19

vegetated

165:6

vegetation

9:17,18117:13129:6,9130:11133:17161:20197:22198:11,16,18199:7,14,16,19200:20201:23,24202:7,12230:25

verbal 99:11

verification

153:21

verify 100:4

205:4,18

verifying

100:7

Vero 167:19

Veronica

2:1211:22,2314:1220:3,15,2321:1,226:1227:1328:5,1332:7 34:239:12 65:670:1178:1879:21 81:282:1 83:17

84:3,1785:8,1296:1298:16100:13101:22102:18103:23105:1107:20,21108:3114:4115:16116:21117:19123:12124:6,10,15 127:1130:8132:12134:12138:1140:10142:8144:13147:8148:6154:3,19,23 155:7,12157:9164:25165:12167:19168:8,19169:2171:13172:7184:6191:18192:23193:13,14194:11195:24196:19197:19198:6199:10200:3201:10202:14203:14204:14,15205:1,13,14 207:2,13



209:14211:23212:15213:11214:15,23215:19216:12218:22221:5222:3223:7,23225:20227:25228:8230:5,23231:22

Veronica's

11:19

Veronique'Am

ours-

Gauthier

3:23

versus

17:17,1957:17,1971:16 72:781:20173:6229:16

vetted 34:14

view 32:25

34:12,1738:19132:16141:5197:4,15

vision

129:17195:23196:22

visit 131:7

visited

134:20

visits

130:21134:22135:4

void 118:19

148:23

volume 24:21

25:2,355:5 59:24112:22118:17150:19170:25171:3,5174:9,10175:13183:17186:1188:20,24189:17219:22

volumes

24:11189:15219:23

vs 9:8

169:11

W

wait 18:4

137:17

Walbourne

3:10

walk 158:1

walk-away

157:25

wall 10:5

220:7,12,20221:6,15,16 222:24223:4231:15

warm 152:1,7

warmer 111:1

warming

111:5151:25152:5

washed 59:14

wasn't 38:20

117:21,22

waste 6:20

41:5 53:19

58:1759:1972:1,7,877:6 86:1289:4 96:2598:4 99:20100:6115:1118:10122:1,6124:4128:17149:21150:21153:8166:22167:5,6,10183:9208:18,23209:11,23

wasting

75:14

wat 121:14

140:24

water 1:2,5

6:18 7:48:9 9:1112:4,9,17,2313:4,5,7,10,14,1918:5 19:2320:1 26:1527:430:3,1732:2433:2,9,15,1734:10,1935:2238:15,22,25 39:847:2348:1,349:3 57:1659:2060:1,4,1063:1283:1496:8,13,16,1897:5,14

99:14100:2,6,8101:2109:18110:2,5,7,8,10,16,18,19 111:23120:18122:11134:5140:25141:12,15142:14,16,20,21143:9144:2145:9,10,12,18146:3,5,6,12,13,14,15,18,21,23,25147:3,16,18,19148:1,2155:14,19163:10,11,13,16164:4172:22173:6,15,19174:10,24175:2,13,19176:9,18,24 178:17179:3,6180:15182:12183:18186:16187:8188:22189:13,15,16,17,25190:3191:21192:2204:10,11205:19211:3215:12,16216:6,7,8

217:13,24,25218:5,7,12,17219:9,21,24220:11,17,18,24226:12,19227:17230:7,10

waters 33:12

water's

62:14 66:5218:9

watershed

12:12 23:424:23110:9

water-to-

mass 56:5

water-to-

rock 58:7

ways 96:1

we'd 26:25

28:6 33:2450:5 68:1970:19 74:980:1299:1,4104:2,13137:6138:10139:7163:16,25171:17178:16198:11,15200:13,16213:20219:8221:11225:22232:1

weeds 36:9

week 14:2

22:1 56:2083:2 91:694:5



212:14

weight 16:17

18:10,1328:2346:2548:17,20,25 50:1162:19 82:8103:8104:11

Wek'eezhi

61:18

Wek'eezhii

31:17

Welcome 11:3

we'll 11:12

14:1,2519:2,520:1921:1222:12 28:935:1439:13 45:351:1357:1163:24 64:765:1577:14 82:283:2088:13100:17,21103:24105:4106:25108:21,23109:15113:21114:7117:20118:1120:14122:23135:17,20137:14160:14163:4,24164:12167:20168:20,24169:3170:21171:15

186:10187:24190:20196:9199:5,12,13 200:9205:17,18,20 206:11208:5209:15,16213:13214:2218:25223:25224:3225:25

wells 186:15

we're 11:16

16:1419:9,1120:23 21:826:129:19,2134:1335:4,7,1036:3,10,1243:845:19,2348:15,2350:7 52:1453:6 54:2360:2362:7,8,9,10,12 68:2570:13,14,17,22,2571:5,672:4 73:1574:1176:2277:1180:2,18,2282:4,2483:2188:4,794:9,1096:2497:2098:8,1799:9101:25102:5104:1,4,7,

22 105:5,6106:17107:18,22,23108:5,17109:10111:2112:2113:13120:24121:16,17127:15129:15,19133:19134:2135:9,21138:18142:10,24148:7152:8156:12158:17159:11161:13163:3164:14,20171:19,23172:2176:9178:13181:17,19182:19183:2,3184:9,14,17,23186:21187:11190:20195:3,5,7197:8198:12199:15200:15203:7207:12208:15209:7211:9216:10223:8,24

west 64:20

111:15,23112:10,25

113:5118:15119:19,20121:13122:3,6163:1164:1

Wetzel 24:25

we've 11:15

15:1216:2318:1627:5,631:1734:13 36:439:9 43:1250:8 60:962:3 82:2583:2496:1,11103:25108:19112:24117:23134:16,18,21135:1,7,8,13138:8,19,22160:17,22163:15,23170:9179:1184:8,20187:4192:11197:3,5220:9222:13,14224:15

wha 52:1

166:18,25

whatever

31:3 32:1733:1854:16131:23149:21204:24214:3,4

Whenever

158:4

When's

37:4,10

Whereas

48:19

whether

17:18 28:844:2 50:1368:22,2372:6,10,1276:2379:1581:1982:1591:14,1692:1298:2,10100:7,8101:16130:11,12152:8,14176:2182:13183:10184:24185:4225:9226:5

Whitaker

3:21 37:11105:23106:11,12107:5208:6209:20225:1226:1,14

whole 21:20

43:2361:25 73:589:8 109:3110:21218:25

who's 89:25

201:14

wildlife

130:13,17132:5134:11197:21



Williams

2:1953:24,2554:20,2155:11,12179:22,23

Wilson 3:17

win 229:16

windrow

118:2

winter 13:3

102:1,6,15,20,25

women's 11:5

wonder 77:8

211:21

wondering

25:1729:12 52:557:8 91:14103:17104:20117:11126:9140:11153:15166:19175:25201:6204:4206:18213:8225:7

wording

11:10 28:7123:18129:23

wordsmith

124:13

work

22:11,2223:11 36:939:4 41:799:15100:9102:1120:14121:15161:15

162:14181:24191:7201:15202:6208:15209:2,6219:3

working 9:5

19:2 22:823:1136:10 71:6136:21,23137:6,10,14 138:6,14164:14208:10210:6221:18229:10

works

16:13,17162:13

workshop 5:9

6:1115:2,7,10,12,21,2319:4,1820:1221:5,7,937:23131:6,16132:8,24134:15,24135:4,23156:17162:5

workshops

20:9

worried 35:4

worry

44:11,13

worst 180:18

worth 149:23

wou 18:4

wrap 169:14

written 38:2

135:14151:22

202:20203:13

wrong 12:25

Y

year's 109:4

Yellowknife

1:22

Yellowknives

102:22126:9131:20133:3,16134:17135:11161:18192:13,16195:18196:7,8197:9198:9199:1,21,24202:2,9,23203:6,11204:4206:16

Yellowknives

's 133:13

yesterday

11:9,2114:7,2515:2516:2320:2524:20 28:832:2241:2596:12114:13140:23142:3180:3181:10204:8218:6225:5

yet 8:23

79:10125:14,16

132:20135:24136:7181:18216:14228:23

yield 24:23

25:6,9,13

YKDFN 4:6

9:20 126:5199:2200:1205:25207:8208:13

YKDFN-12

126:12

YKDFN-14

128:4

you'll 54:22

89:10103:13107:9205:12222:22

you've 28:7

36:2254:1481:1995:5,8,1297:16,17188:16191:1,4194:6211:25

Z

Zabey 2:3

29:19,2031:2

zero 89:14

92:2

zinc 106:4

zone 12:15

25:7,1943:23 53:463:2064:17 72:275:22

82:14

zones 26:2

41:4,549:9,1054:5,12,15,18 64:465:3 69:2170:19,2173:1575:1593:22120:10

zooplankton

214:10

Documents

1 MACKENZIE VALLEY LAND AND WATER BOARD GAHCHO KUE …mail.tscript.com/trans/mvlwb/feb_12_14/MVLWB-gahcho-tech... · 2014. 5. 12. · DE BEERS CANADA INCORPORATED MV2005L2-0015 AND