17 Chapter 10 Geochemistry

8/12/2019 17 Chapter 10 Geochemistry

1/55

July 2013 Application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate / Environmental Impact Statement Seabridge Gold Inc.

REV D.1-b 10+1 Rescan Environen!al Services "!d. #$%$-01%&

$% Geoc&emistr'

An o!er!ie" of the geochemical site conditions for the 4S( 2ro5ect 6the 2ro5ect78 includingcharacteri'ation data and the de!elopment of source terms for the predicti!e "ater 9uality model

are pro!ided in this chapter. 2rediction and assessment of the potential for metal leaching andacid roc drainage 6(L:AR7 is based on the geochemistry of geological materials that "ill bedisturbed by the proposed 2ro5ect. (L:AR has the potential to ad!ersely affect surface "ater

and ground"ater 9uality during the construction8 operation8 closure8 and post-closure phases.

;n the e!ent acidic

drainage is formed8 lo" p? conditions can lead to higher rates of metal leaching 6(L7.?o"e!er8 (L can also occur at sites of neutral or alaline drainage.

The 2ro5ect is located in an area no"n as the @Golden Triangle due to its high mineral

potential and the occurrence of a number of high-profile gold pro5ects in the area.?istorical mineral e


2/55

PROJECT # ILLUSTRATION # a38282w0868-016-25 October 24, 2012

Figure10-1

Figure 10-1

ML/ARD Linkages for Effects Assessment

Access Corridorsand

Borrow Areas

Water Management

Structures

Mine Area

Pit walls

Waste rock RSF

Stockpiles

FlotationTailing Cells

CIL TailingCell

Beachesand Dams

BuildingsLaydowns

ABA block modelKinetic tests

Seeps

ABA block modelKinetic tests

Static tests

Static testsKinetic tests

MINE COMPONENTS TESTING/INPUTS EFFECTS MODELING

Qualitative Assessmentusing Professional

Judgement

Water Quality Model

Water Quality Model

DIRECTLY AFFECTED VC MITIGATION AND

MANAGEMENT

Surface Water

GroundwaterQuality

ML/ARDManagement Plan;

Aquatic EffectsMonitoring Plan

Tunnels

TMF

Non-depositProject

Construction &Infrastructure

Water ManagementPlan; GroundwaterManagement Plan


3/55

Geochemistry



$%($(- Baseline St".ies

;ffecti!e (L:AR characteri'ation8 prediction8 and management of e


4/55

Geochemistry


REV D.1-b 10+; Rescan Environen!al Services "!d. #$%$-01%&

Ta#le $%($*-( +etal Leac&in!/Aci. oc, Draina!eC&aracteri1ation Pro!ram Desi!n

+ineComponent

Geoc&emical2"estions Data Nee.e. +et&o.s

@as!e Roc5and ?re

"8,RD o!en!ial ,4, )ore saling> as!e > acido!en!ial> neu!rali=a!ion o!en!ial>solid-*ase eleen!al analysis

ineralogy Rie!veld RD and e!rogra*icanalysis

Source o( calciu andagnesiu con!en!> !o!al carbon and

inorganic carbon con!en!

Sul*ur (orin!erre!a!ion

Sul*ur secies analysis> bariucon!en!

@as!e dis!ribu!ion#roec! scale&

Sa!ial varia!ion o("8,RD c*arac!eris!ics

)ore saling> as!e > acido!en!ial> Sobe5 solid-*ase

eleen!al analysis> ,4, bloc5 odel@as!e segrega!ion#Ci!*in a deosi!&

Sa!ial varia!ion o("8,RD c*arac!eris!ics

)ore saling> coosi!e con!inuouscore sales> as!e > acid o!en!ial>

Sobe5 solid-*ase eleen!alanalysis> ,4, bloc5 odel

Develoen! o( si!e-seci(ic ,RD cri!eria

Ra!e o( dele!ion o(sul*ides and acid

neu!rali=ing inerals

uidi!y cells> (ield leac* barrels

Variabili!y o(c*arac!eris!ics Ci!*in

a deosi! andbe!Ceen deosi!s

"i!*ological coosi!iono( Cas!e roc5 over ine

li(e

)ore saling> ,4, and solid-*aseeleen!al analysis> ,4, bloc5 odel

)*eical coosi!ion o(

Cas!e roc5

)ore saling> ,4, and solid-*ase

eleen!al analysis> ,4, bloc5 odel?nse! o( acidic

condi!ionsRa!e o( dele!ion o(sul*ides and acid


uidi!y cells and lag-!iecalcula!ions

)on!ac! Ca!erc*eis!ry

"eac*ing ra!es undernon-acidic and acidic

condi!ions

uidi!y cells

Si!e-seci(ic Ca!er Buali!yda!a

7ield leac* barrels> groundCa!er sees

i! @alls Variabili!y o(c*arac!eris!ics Ci!*in

a deosi! and

be!Ceen deosi!s

"i!*ological coosi!iono( i! Calls over ine li(e

,4, bloc5 odel and ine lan

Release o( o!en!ialarae!ers o(

concern


condi!ions

uidi!y cells

)on!ac! Ca!erc*eis!ry

See Cas!e roc5 rogra See Cas!e roc5 rogra

3contin"e.4


5/55

Geochemistry


REV D.1-b 10+A Rescan Environen!al Services "!d. #$%$-01%&

Ta#le $%($*-( +etal Leac&in!/Aci. oc, Draina!eC&aracteri1ation Pro!ram Desi!n 3complete.4

+ineComponent

Geoc&emical2"estions Data Nee.e. +et&o.s

'ailing "8,RD o!en!ial ,4, e!allurgical !es!ing> as!e > acido!en!ial> neu!rali=a!ion o!en!ial>solid-*ase eleen!al analysis

ineralogy Rie!veld RD> e!rogra*ic andES),< analyses

ar!icle si=e analysis @e! sieving and laser di((rac!ion

Source o( calciuand agnesiu con!en!> !o!al carbon

and inorganic carbon con!en!

Sul*ur (or in!erre!a!ion Sul*ur secies analysis> bariucon!en!

Variabili!y o(

c*arac!eris!ics Ci!*ina deosi! andbe!Ceen deosi!s

Source o( !ailing #deosi!& e!allurgical !es!ing> 5ine!ic !es!ing o(

coosi!e sales> ine lan

?nse! o( acidiccondi!ions

Ra!e o( dele!ion o(sul*ides and acid


uidi!y cells> aging !es!s>subaBueous coluns

)*eis!ry o( '7onds and ore

Ca!er


condi!ions


"eac*ing ra!es undersub-aerial and sub-aBueous

condi!ions



6/55

Geochemistry


REV D.1-b 10+% Rescan Environen!al Services "!d. #$%$-01%&

10.1.2.2 Mine Site Characterization

10.1.2.2.1 Geology

The Sulphurets istrict is located along the eastern side of the &oast (ountains 6&retaceous to

;arly Tertiary intrusions and high grade metamorphics7 and the "estern edge of the (iddle

urassic to &retaceous $o"ser basin. The istrict is centred o!er the breached core of thenortherly plunging (cTagg anticlinorium8 "hich e


7/55

PROJECT # GIS No.0868-016-25-01 KSM-09-078_T November 21, 2012


8/55

PROJECT # GIS No.0868-016-25-01 KSM-09-76_T December 14, 2012


9/55

PROJECT # GIS No.

Figure 10.1

Geochemistry Sample Locations:Processing and Tailing ManagementArea and Treaty Creek Access Road

0868-016-25-01 KSM-09-077_T January 15, 2013


10/55

Geochemistry



Ta#le $%($*7( Aci. Base Acco"ntin! Bloc, +o.el Co.es an.Associate. Descriptions

Bloc, +o.el Co.es Description

8err

/ERR ,ll o( !*e /err deosi!S"lp&"rets

?verburden H A0 soil or glacio(luvial a!erial

6 a=el!on De(aul! (or Sul*ure!s a!erial above S'7

on=oni!e on=oni!e in!rusion

" a=el!on De(aul! (or Sul*ure!s beloC S'7

"oCer ,u =one Sul*ure!s loC grade ore =one

,u> leac*> RaeCyn =ones De(aul! (or Sul*ure!s ore =ones

6nde(ined De(aul! (or edge e((ec!s or inor uni!s

+itc&ell

?verburden H A0 soil or glacio(luvial a!erial

on=oni!e on=oni!e in!rusion

6 a=el!on De(aul! a!erial above '7 on nor!* or sou!* side o( i!c*ell )ree5

"eac* breccia8borni!e breccia i!c*ell ore =one

" a=el!on De(aul! a!erial beloC '7 on nor!* or sou!* side o( i!c*ell )ree5

6nde(ined De(aul! (or edge e((ec!s or inor uni!s

Iron Cap

IR?< ), ,ll o( !*e Iron )a deosi!

LP 9 lo)er panelUP 9 "pper panel+TF : +itc&ell T&r"st Fa"ltSTF 9 S"lp&"rets T&r"st Fa"lt

Stored acidity 6paste p? J )7 "as obser!ed in samples from (itchell L2 ?a'elton8 (itchell

Leach breccia:bornite breccia8 >ron &ap deposit8 and 4err deposit8 indicating the presence ofstored residual o


11/55

Ta#le $%($*;( S"mmar' of Aci. Base Acco"ntin! Test es"lts for a1elton Ne"tral

List of Parameters +ean p +ean p +ean p

2.:$ 2.A9 9.2$ %.$9 9.$A 9.A2

,g 0.00002 0.0000% 0.00002 0.0000; 0.00001 0.00002

,l %.02 10.%1 0.10 0.19 0.29 0.;%

,s 0.13;91 0.;0$$0 0.000:$ 0.00292 0.00132 0.0020%

4 0.0111 0.011A 0.013% 0.03:3 0.009A 0.011;

4a 0.002: 0.01A2 0.022% 0.02:; 0.2%%$ 0.;329

4e 0.0020: 0.01A91 0.00003 0.00002 0.0002$ 0.000A%

)a 23.A %9.: 22.: 33.A 21.: 29.%

)d 0.01%;1 0.03099 0.00013 0.00030 0.00011 0.000A2


20/55

Ta#le $%($*( p> an. Leac&in! ates 3m!/,!/)ee,4 from S"lp&"rets >"mi.

ABA Bloc, +o.elCo.es

SOA SLAN SUPN

S Over#"r.en Aci.ic S Lo)er A" Ne"tral S UP >a1elton Ne"tral

List of Parameters +ean p +ean p +ean p

)l :.3% 21.:; 0.;2 0.9A 0.2$ 0.;0

)o 0.1A$2 0.2993 0.0002 0.000; 0.0001 0.0002 )r 0.00;% 0.00$3 0.000$ 0.0019 0.000% 0.001A

)u 9.$932 10.132; 0.0092 0.01AA 0.00;$ 0.010;

7 0.A9 1.2: 0.9$ 1.A0 0.10 0.;3

7e 132.1%$ 2$$.;23 0.09: 0.11% 0.023 0.11%

g 0.00000001 0.00000002 0.0000103 0.0000;10 0.0000031 0.0000211

/ 1.0$ 3.A0 3.:1 :.:0 1.22 3.A2

"i 0.000% 0.000$ 0.00%A 0.01;A 0.003% 0.00A$

g 0.3$ 0.9% 2.$2 %.;1 0.%: 2.3$

n 0.939 2.91% 0.12% 0.1A: 0.03A 0.0%%

o 0.0021 0.00AA 0.030; 0.0;1; 0.29$9 0.:3%:


21/55


22/55

Ta#le $%($*( p> an. Leac&in! ates 3m!/,!/)ee,4 from +itc&ell >"mi.it

ABA Bloc, +o.elCo.es

+UPN +UPA +LPN +LPA ++O

+ UP >a1eltonNe"tral

+ UP >a1eltonAci.ic

+ LP >a1eltonNe"tral

+ LP >a1eltonNe"tral

+ +on1Ne"

List of Parameters +ean p +ean p +ean p +ean p +ean

Sn 0.000A1 0.00113 0.00109 0.002;9 0.000A$ 0.001A1 0.000;: 0.00112 0.00012

S?; 39 12: 99 100 139 $$; 39% $23 ;

Sr 0.1:0 0.;$A 0.0%3 0.1%3 0.A$$ 3.%0$ 0.;33 2.22A 0.111

'l 0.00003 0.00011 0.00010 0.000AA 0.00002 0.00011 0.0001% 0.00012 0.00011

6 0.00%:; 0.02A%% 0.003A$ 0.00:;% 0.00%13 0.021$1 0.013$: 0.0;%2$ 0.001A3

V 0.00A9; 0.019%3 0.00023 0.0009% 0.000%0 0.001;$ 0.00$;2 0.0399$ 0.00A03

Fn 0.010 0.039 0.0$% 0.1$A 0.00A 0.012 1.3:A 3.%2; 0.001

,cidi!y $.1; 1;.0: ;:.9% 99.2$ :.20 1;.0% 323.0; 9:0.:; A.:2

,l5alini!y as )?3 ;2.A A$.3 1.1 3.$ 32.9 ;$.: 0.0 2.3 A0.3

C&lori.e set to .etection limit )&en not anal'1e.al"es of p> an. al,alinit' are set to t&e t& percentiles of .ata in t&e cases )&ere t&e t& percentile is "se. as t&e conservative ca+ 9 +itc&ell .eposit

IC 9 Iron Cap .eposit

Ta#le $%($*$%( Calc"late. La! Times for +ine Site 000 1>000 1>000

S on=oni!e 19%

S 6nde(ined 91 :9 12;

"eac* breccia8borni!e breccia 0

" a=el!on 0 0 ;3

6 a=el!on %1 1;; 219

Iron )a 0 0 12%


23/55

Ta#le $%($*$$( elative Percent Differences or elative Stan.ar. Dev>"mi.it' Cells Use. in +o.el Inp"t Co.es

8A 8N SLAN SUPN SUNN +UPN +LPN +LPA

SD PD PD PD PD SD SD SD

;2 13 11 A.$ 3.; 3.1 1.3 %.0 ,cidi!y> 'o!al #as )a)?3& 119 1$ 2.A :2 A$ 3; 19 9$

,l5alini!y> 'o!al #as )a)?3& 1%2 101 $: ;.$ 33 22 22 $0

,onia as "mi.it' Cells Use. in +o.el Inp"t Co.es 3complete.

8A 8N SLAN SUPN SUNN +UPN +LPN +LPA

SD PD PD PD PD SD SD SD

agnesiu #g&-Dissolved 102 199 33 120 3.: 129 %% %2 anganese #n&-Dissolved 22 1:1 200 200 1% 10$ 32 193

ercury #g&-Dissolved $0 1A2 32 1:9 %: 1%9 99 11:

olybdenu #o&-Dissolved

1;; :$ ;.A 9% 9.0 3: 113 100


25/55

Geochemistry

July 2013 Appl ication for an Environmental Assessment Certi ficate / Environmental Impact Statement Seabridge Gold Inc.

REV D.1-b 1028 Rescan Environmental Services Ltd. (868-016)

10.1.2.2.3 Groundwater Seep Characterization

Naturally occurring groundwater seeps were samp led at the Kerr deposit (5 seeps), Sulphuretsdeposit (1 seep), Mitchell deposit (23 seeps), McTagg Creek Valle y (3 seeps), and Ted Morris

Creek Valley (5 seeps). The Mitchell deposit seeps were classified according to th e proximal

model code: LP Hazelton or UP Hazelton volcanics.

The pH values of the Kerr, Sulphurets, and Mitc hell seeps were acid ic. Sulphate concentrations

at the Kerr and Mitchell seeps frequently exceeded the British Colum bia Ministry ofEnvironment freshwater aquatic life guideline, with values as high as 7,400 mg/L. In general, the

trace metal concentrations were very high. S eep flow rates varied greatly between seeps,

e.g., K-3 at 0.03 L/s and MS-G at 77.01 L/s. Baseline monitoring of groundwater seeps indicatethat seep flow rates are usually within an order of magnitude at repeat sampling events.

A statistical summary of the elem ents with elevated con centrations at the d eposit seeps ispresented in Table 10.1-12. Full details are presented in Appendix 10-A,Section 8.

10.1.2.3 Tailing CharacterizationA multi-year (2007 to 2012) com prehensive metallurgical program has been com pleted on theKerr, Sulphurets, Mitchell, and Iron Cap deposits. The full details of this metallurgical program

are discussed in the Preliminary Feasibility Study (Appendix 4-C;Wardrop 2012).

10.1.2.3.1 Metal Leaching/Acid Rock Drainage Characterization Program

Tailing material was assessed in 33 static tailing samples, eight humidity cells, six subaqueous

columns (SAC), and three aging tests.

Static Testing

ABA test results of the 33 tailing material samples are summarized by deposit in Table 10.1-13.

Paste pH values of rougher tailing m aterial from the Kerr, Sulphurets, Mitchell, and Iron Capdeposits exhibited values above 6, indicating the absence of stored acidity.

The Mitchell sulphide tailing i ndicated stored acidity from oxidized rocks (paste pH < 6).

Concentrations of total-sul phur ranged from 0.21 to 0.38% in Mitchell rougher sam ples.Mitchell sulphide and a Mitchell 90:10 rougher/su lphide composite tailing showed the highest

total-sulphur concentrations (22.4 and 3.13%, respectively). Total- sulphur concentrations range

from 0.19 to 0.5% in a com posite of Mitchell/Kerr rougher tailing, and from 0.05 to 0.19% in

Mitchell/Sulphurets rougher composite and Iron Cap rougher tailing.

A strong correlation between total-sulphur and sul phide-sulphur concentrations is only evidentfor Mitchell rougher/sulphide tailing. Rietveld XRD analysis indicated that the m ost common

sulphide mineral was pyrite with lesser am ounts of chalcopyrite in M itchell rougher/sulphide

tailing. The prim ary mineral identified in Mitc hell sulphide tailing wa s pyrite with lesseramounts of chalcopyrite and molybdenite. Minor amounts of gypsum were identified in tailing as

another sulphur-bearing mineral.
http://../2)%20Appendices/Chapter%2010%20Appendices/Appendix%2010-A_Geochemistry_Baseline_2008-2012.pdfhttp://../2)%20Appendices/Chapter%2010%20Appendices/Appendix%2010-A_Geochemistry_Baseline_2008-2012.pdfhttp://../2)%20Appendices/Chapter%204%20Appendices/Appendix%204-C_2012%20KSM%20Prefeasibility%20Study/Appendix%204-C_2012%20KSM%20Prefeasibility%20Study.pdfhttp://../2)%20Appendices/Chapter%204%20Appendices/Appendix%204-C_2012%20KSM%20Prefeasibility%20Study/Appendix%204-C_2012%20KSM%20Prefeasibility%20Study.pdfhttp://../2)%20Appendices/Chapter%204%20Appendices/Appendix%204-C_2012%20KSM%20Prefeasibility%20Study/Appendix%204-C_2012%20KSM%20Prefeasibility%20Study.pdfhttp://../2)%20Appendices/Chapter%2010%20Appendices/Appendix%2010-A_Geochemistry_Baseline_2008-2012.pdf


26/55


27/55

Geochemistry


REV D.1-b 1030 Rescan Environmental Services Ltd. (868-016)

Bulk Sobek NP values showed strong correlation with the NP calculated from calcium andinorganic carbon values across a wide range of NP values. The strong correlation between Sobek

NP and calculated NP indicates that most of the NP of the deposits is provided by calcium

carbonate minerals. The most common carbonate minerals were calcite, dolomite, and lesseramounts of siderite. The estimation of unavailable NP was used as a standard practice (Price

2009). A value of 15 kg CaCO3/t of unavailable NP was derived from the complete 2008 to 2012KSM Project static test database. The NP was adjusted by this estimate of unavailable NP to

calculate an adjusted NP.

All tailing samples were classified as NPAG based on static ABA tests (adjusted SNPR > 2) withthe exception of Mitchell sulphide and Mitchell rougher/sulphide tailing (adjusted SNPR < 2).

The solid-phase element concentrations of tailing samples were measured by ICP-MS analysisafter strong four-acid digestion and by X-ray fluorescence whole-rock analysis.

Mitchell sulphide and Mitchell rougher/sulphide tailing material typically had silver, arsenic,

cadmium, copper, iron, molybdenum, sulphur, antimony, and selenium concentrations that weregreater than three times the shale crustal abundance. The rougher tailing material typically hadsilver, copper, molybdenum, antimony, and selenium concentrations that were greater than

three times the shale crustal abundance.

The particle size distribution of the tailing samples submitted for humidity cell tests was

analyzed by the wet sieving method (Mitchell rougher tailing) and by laser diffraction method

(Mitchell/Kerr rougher and Mitchell/Sulphurets rougher tailing). Appendix 10-A presents theparticle size analyses results.

Analysis of the Mitchell rougher tailing analysis showed that 80% by weight was finer than

75 microns. The Mitchell rougher-fine tailing analysis showed that 80% by weight was finer than

12 microns. The Mitchell rougher-coarse tailing analysis showed that approximately 80% byweight was finer than 150 microns. Mitchell/Kerr rougher tailing and Mitchell/Sulphuretsrougher tailing analyses showed that 80% by volume was finer than 84 microns and 89 microns,

respectively.

Kinetic Testing

Tailing humidity cells leachate test results were used as estimates of source concentrations

(i.e., water quality estimates) for seepage and runoff from dams and beaches in the TMF for usein the predictions of effluent and receiving environment water quality. Pilot plant supernatant

chemistry was used to predict the chemical loading from the mill to the TMF. The tailing

material leach rates are presented in Tables 10.1-14 and 10.1-15.

Based on rates of sulphate, calcium, and magnesium release, a predicted time to the depletion ofNP and the onset of ARD was calculated and used to estimate the time to the onset of ARD for

sub-aerial deposition of tailing. The rougher tailing is predicted to never become acidic.

The sulphide tailing is predicted to have a very short time to the onset of ARD (less than five years).
http://../2)%20Appendices/Chapter%2010%20Appendices/Appendix%2010-A_Geochemistry_Baseline_2008-2012.pdfhttp://../2)%20Appendices/Chapter%2010%20Appendices/Appendix%2010-A_Geochemistry_Baseline_2008-2012.pdf


28/55

Ta#le $%($*$;( p> an. Leac&in! ates from Tailin! 8inetic Tests epresefor Tailin! +ana!ement Facilit' Tailin! +aterial

List ofParameters

3m!/,!/)ee,4

+ o"!&er Coarse + o"!&er +/8 o"!&er +/S o"!&

C'clone Dams Beac&es Beac&es Beac&es

>C av all >C t& all >C av all >C t& all >C av all >C t& all >C av all >C $.0 9.9 $.0 9.9 $.0 9.$ $.3 $

Silver ,g 0.000002; 0.000002A 0.00000%0 0.000002A 0.0000023 0.000002A 0.0000023 0.00

,luinu ,l 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.0; 0.0A 0

,rsenic ,s 0.0002 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001 0.0009 0.000% 0.000$ 0.0

4oron 4 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.011 0.02A 0.00; 0

4ariu 4a 0.10 0.20 0.0: 0.20 0.0% 0.13 0.11 0

4erylliu 4e 0.00012 0.00012 0.00012 0.00012 0.00011 0.00012 0.000022 0.00

4roide 4r 0.01 0

)alciu )a 33 1A1 93 2$3 %2 1:: 12

)adiu )d 0.0000$ 0.00012 0.000002; 0.000002 0.000002A 0.000002 0.00000%1 0.00)*loride )l 0.1 0

)obal! )o 0.000023: 0.00002;$ 0.000023A 0.00002;$ 0.000022: 0.00002;A 0.000022% 0.00

)*roiu )r 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.000A 0.0012 0.000; 0.0

)oer )u 0.0012 0.0013 0.000A 0.0011 0.0009 0.0010 0.0010 0.0

7luoride 7 0.03 0.10 0.0A 0.13 0.0A 0.0: 0.0; 0

Iron 7e 0.0091 0.009; 0.009% 0.011 0.00$0 0.009; 0.010 0.

ercury g 0.000002 0.000002 0.000002 0.000002 0.000002 0.000002 0.000002 0.00

o!assiu / 1.1$ 3.;; 1.91 %.3$ 1.3A 3.01 1.1: 2

"i!*iu "i 0.002 0.001 0.002 0.00% 0.002 0.010 0.001 0.

agnesiu g 1.0: 1.33 2.09 ;.23 0.9%3 1.A; 1.0% 1

anganese n 0.03% 0.13 0.0%3 0.2% 0.02A 0.0;% 0.009; 0.

olybdenu o 0.009 0.01% 0.003 0.00A 0.003 0.00: 0.021 0.

Sodiu


29/55

Ta#le $%($*$;( p> an. Leac&in! ates from Tailin! 8inetic Tests epresefor Tailin! +ana!ement Facilit' Tailin! +aterial 3complet

List ofParameters

3m!/,!/)ee,4

+ o"!&er Coarse + o"!&er +/8 o"!&er +/S o"!&

C'clone Dams Beac&es Beac&es Beac&es

>C av all >C t& all >C av all >C t& all >C av all >C t& all >C av all >C an. al,alinit' are set to t&e t& percentiles of .ata in t&e cases )&ere t&e t& percentile is "se. as t&e conservative ca

+ 9 +itc&ell tailin! +/S 9 +itc&ell*S"lp&"rets tailin! +/8 9 +itc&ell*8err tailin! IC 9 Iron Cap tailin!


30/55

Geochemistry



Ta#le $%($*$( p> an. Concentrations 3m!/L4 from Pilot Plant Testsepresentin! So"rce Terms for t&e Ore Process CompleH

List of Parameters

o"!&er Process 3incl".in! sl".!e4 Car#on*in*Leac& 3CIL4 Process

Plant S"pernatant Plant S"pernatant

:.A $.;2Silver ,g 0.00001 0.0000$;

,luinu ,l 0.0901A 0.009A

,rsenic ,s 0.00;29A 0.011;

4oron 4 0.02A 0.02A

4ariu 4a 0.039$ 0.032:

4erylliu 4e 0.0000A 0.0002A

4roide 4r 0.111A 0.A

)alciu )a %%.: AAA

)adiu )d 0.00000A 0.0001;1

)*loride )l 1A 13

)obal! )o 0.0002A 0.0129)*roiu )r 0.000A 0.0002A

)oer )u 0.0001 0.0%9;

7luoride 7 0.$$A 0.2

Iron 7e 0.002A 0.01A

ercury g 0.00002A 0.00000A

o!assiu / 32.3 $$.;

"i!*iu "i 0.002A 0.019;

agnesiu g 1.A$ $.%;

anganese n 0.01A2A 0.03:$

olybdenu o 0.022; 0.211

Sodiu


31/55

Geochemistry


REV D.1-b 10+3; Rescan Environen!al Services "!d. #$%$-01%&

(etal leaching in humidity cells typically reflected drainage p? "ith concentrations in acidic

drainage often t"o to three orders of magnitude higher than in neutral drainage.Sulphate8 aluminum8 arsenic8 cadmium8 copper8 iron8 lead8 selenium8 and 'inc "ere high in the

acidic humidity cell relati!e to the near-neutral humidity cells.

SA& results "ere used to assess the stability of tailing material stored under a "ater co!er.SA& inetic tests performed on tailing material imply that leach rates slo"ly decline in the pore

"ater if the test ne!er becomes acidic.

10.1.2.4 Non-deposit Material Characterization

10.1.2.$.1 Metal Leaching/Acid Rock Drainage Characterization Program

,on-deposit samples "ere collected from o!erburden and roc in the proposed 2ro5ect area forthe assessment of (L:AR potential in areas that may be disturbed8 e


32/55

Geochemistry


REV D.1-b 10+3A Rescan Environen!al Services "!d. #$%$-01%&

10.1.2.$.2 %&er'rden "tatic (e)ting

A$A test results of the non-deposit o!erburden material samples are summari'ed in Table 10.1-1).

2aste p? !alues in non-deposit o!erburden material "ere abo!e )8 "ith the e


33/55

Ta#le $%($*$@( S"mmar' of Aci. Base Acco"ntin! Test es"lts forOver#"r.en +aterial

Non*.epositOver#"r.en+aterial

N"m#er ofSamples

= Samples)it& Pastep> ? @(%

an!e ofTotal*S"lp&"r

3=4

Total*S"lp&"r an.S"lp&i.e*S"lp&"r

elations&ip

an!e ofSo#e, NP

3,! CaCO7/t4 So#e, NP

'7 2 0 0.19-0.22 S!rong 11-;9 S!rong In

c'agg RS7 2 0 0.03-0.0; S!rong A;-92 S!rong In

i!c*ell RS7 2A 0 0.00A-;.A: S!rong 12-30; S!rong In


34/55

Geochemistry

January 2013 Application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate / Environmental Impact Statement Seabridge Gold Inc.


10.1.2.$.$ Acce)) Corridor)

Access to the (ine Site is proposed !ia the &&AR. The T&AR is proposed to access the tunnel

portals8 "ith a 5unction to the ,orth Treaty &ree access road 6,T&AR7 near the ,orth Treatytributary to access the T(F and Treaty 2rocess 2lant. The &&AR8 T&AR8 and ,T&AR

alignments ha!e been designed by (c;lhanney &onsulting Ser!ices for the Seabridge 4S(

2refeasibility Study 6ardrop #01#7. A detailed (L:AR potential assessment of the &&ARand T&AR is included in Appendi< 10-$.

Topographical base maps are o!erlain "ith the (L:AR potentials and the access roadalignment sections in #00 m inter!als for the &&AR 6Figure 10.1-378 T&AR8 and ,T&AR

6Figure 10.1-)7. These figures include simplified local geology and locations of (L:AR

field"or bedroc and collu!ium samples.

&oulter &ree Access Road

The distribution of (L:AR classification for each #00 m segment of the proposed &&AR ispro!ided in Table 10.1-1*. Thirty-t"o percent or 10.) m of the &&AR alignment has an

(L:AR potential of @possible or @high 6Figure 10.1-37.

Ta#le $%($*$( Distri#"tion of Co"lter Cree, Access oa. +etalLeac&in!/Aci. oc, Draina!e Classification

+L/AD an,in! N"m#er of Se!ments = of Total

ig* A 3

ossible ;$ 2:

"oC ;: 30


35/55

Geochemistry


REV D.1-b 10+3$ Rescan Environen!al Services "!d. #$%$-01%&

The (L:AR potential ranings of the &&AR are relati!ely e!enly distributed among@possible8 @lo"8 and @none. Road segments of the &&AR "ith a high (L:AR potential6%K of the alignment7 are fre9uently associated "ith fault 'ones and geological contacts8 as "ell

as those sections "here cut dominates fill. The (L:AR potential of the northern #0 m of the

&&AR alignment along &oulter &ree is possible to high and the ma5ority of the southeastern

sections along Sulphurets &ree ha!e an (L:AR potential of none.

The (L:AR potential raning of the T&AR is predominantly lo" to none "ith fe" segmentsof high or possible (L:AR potential. This raning reflects the alignment on allu!ial and

collu!ial sediments.

10.1.2.$., (nnel)

The proposed 4S( 2ro5ect "ill re9uire the construction of permanent access tunnels bet"een

the different components "ithin the (ine Site and bet"een the (ine Site and the 2T(A.The follo"ing tunnels "ill be completed during the construction phase

;ast &atchment i!ersion Tunnel8 phase 1D (cTagg T"inned i!ersion Tunnels8 phase 1D

(itchell i!ersion Tunnels8 phase 1D

(itchell-Treaty T"inned TunnelsD

Sulphurets-(itchell &on!eyor TunnelD and

SF di!ersion tunnel.

The follo"ing tunnels "ill be completed during the operation phase

;ast &atchment i!ersion Tunnel8 phase #D (itchell i!ersion Tunnels8 phase #D

(cTagg T"inned i!ersion Tunnels8 phases # and %D

(itchell underground drainage tunnelsD

(itchell underground drainage tunnelsD and

(itchell 2it north "all de"atering adit.

A preliminary assessment "as performed to calculate an appro


36/55

PROJECT # GIS No. KSM-13-049_T868-017-17 May 24, 2013


37/55

PROJECT # GIS No.

Figure 10.1

ML/ARD Potential - TreatyCreek Access Road

KSM-13-048_T868-017-17 May 24, 2013


38/55

Geochemistry


REV D.1-b 10+;3 Rescan Environen!al Services "!d. #$%$-01%&

Ta#le $%($*-%( S"mmar' of Aci. Base Acco"ntin! Test es"ltsfor Non*.eposit oc, +aterial

T"nnel

ol"meEHtracte.

3m74

= PAG 3#ase. onsamples )it&in

- ,m of ali!nment4

= PAG3#ase. on

strati!rap&'4ol"me PAG+aterial 3m

74

Eas! )a!c*en! diversion !unnel ::>A00 A0 2: ;:>$00

c'agg 'Cinned Diversion 'unnels A93>100 1$ 20 119>000

i!c*ell Diversion 'unnels :;2>:00 A2 31 ;$:>;00

i!c*ell underground drainage !unnels 391>:00 2$ 20 103>300

i!c*ell-'rea!y 'Cinned 'unnels :A$>900 2; 2: 29;>A00

i!c*ell i! nor!* Call deCa!ering adi! %A>000 A2 2% 33>900

Sul*ure!s-i!c*ell )onveyor 'unnel 1$%>000 0 2% ;9>%00

@S7 diversion !unnel 2%>100 0 20 A>300

$%(- So"rce Terms for


39/55

Geochemistry


REV D.1-b 10+;; Rescan Environen!al Services "!d. #$%$-01%&

10.2.1.3 Detection imits

The detection limits of the inetic tests !aried o!er time as analytical methods impro!ed8 "hich

resulted in a decrease in reported detection limits of one to t"o orders of magnitude for someparameters. Fre9uently8 the concentration of a gi!en parameter in the leachate "as belo" the

initial 6higher7 and second 6lo"er7 detection limits. ccasionally the parameter "ould ha!e

!alues bet"een the initial and secondary detection limits and these in-bet"een !alues couldoccur either as the detection limit changed or after the limit "as decreased. >n order to reduce the

effect of higher detection limits artificially raising the calculated mean leach rates8 the follo"ing

methodology "as used

in the case "here results "ere reported abo!e both the initial 6higher7 and secondary

6lo"er7 detection limit8 half of the reported detection limit "as usedD

"hen results "ere reported bet"een the t"o detection limits and in the "ees during or

prior to the decrease in detection limit8 half of the reported detection limit "as usedD

"hen results "ere reported bet"een the t"o detection limits and only after the second

6lo"er7 detection limit has been reported8 half of the lo"er detection limit "as used forall !alues that "ere reported as belo" either of the reported detection limitsD and

"hen results "ere reported as constantly belo" detection limit for all "ees8 half of the

second detection limit "as used for all !alues.

$%(-(- +ine Site

10.2.2.1 Scaling !actor

Release rates obser!ed for laboratory "aste roc and ore humidity cells "ere ad5usted for grain si'e

effects8 temperature effects8 and the degree of flushing or "ater contact using a bul scaling factor.

The scaling factor is calculated as follo"s

S! = "t "# "$

"here

S!Q scaling factorD"tQ ad5ustment factor to correct for temperature effects 6unitless7D

"#Q ad5ustment factor to correct for grain si'e fraction effects 6unitless7D and

"$Q ad5ustment factor to correct for the proportion of material that is in contact "ith li9uid "ater6unitless7.

The grain si'e fraction effect "as determined based on the proportion of the reacti!e fractionpresent in the (ine Site component. The reacti!e fraction is represented by the percent of

material J ) mm 6the si'e fraction of a standard humidity cell7. The effects of temperature "ere

ad5usted based on the Arrhenius e9uation for pyrite acti!ation energies of 30 and )0 :mol8 asdescribed in (;, 6#00)D Figure 10.#-17D a scaling factor "as applied to each (ine Site

component based on the estimated temperatures. The ad5ustment factor for the degree of flushing

"as determined based on the estimated portion of material in contact "ith "ater at any gi!en time.


40/55

PROJECT # ILLUSTRATION #868-017-17-03 a39622w July 23, 2013

Decrease in Oxidation Rate Predicted by the ArrheniusEquation for Activation Energies of 50 and 60 kJ/mol

Figure 10.2-1

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

50kJ/m

ol

60kJ/mo

l

0

Source: MEND (2006).

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Temperature (C)

ReactionRateRelativeto20C


41/55

Geochemistry


REV D.1-b 10+;% Rescan Environen!al Services "!d. #$%$-01%&

10.2.2.2 McTagg and Mitchell "oc# Storage !acilities

The "ater chemistry from the RSFs "as predicted for the operation phase and closure:

post-closure phases.

10.2.2.2.1 %#eration

The "aste roc and ore production schedule is identified in the mine plan8 as defined in

Table 10.#-1.

Ta#le $%(-*$( +ine Sc&e."le

Deposit ear +inin! +et&o.

i!c*ell -2 !o 23 oen i!

Sul*ure!s -2 !o % oen i!

Sul*ure!s 23 !o 29 oen i!

/err 29 !o A0 oen i!

i!c*ell 2% !o A1.A bloc5 cave

Iron )a 32 !o A1 bloc5 cave

aste roc disposal schedules for the (itchell RSF and (cTagg RSF "ere prepared by (oose

(ountain Technical Ser!ices. The "aste roc disposal schedules "ere de!eloped based on the

A$A bloc model and are presented in Table 10.#-# for the (itchell RSF and Table 10.#-% for the

(cTagg RSF. aste roc generated during the construction phase "as included in ear 1.The humidity cells for each model code used in the "ater 9uality prediction model are defined in

Section 10.1.#.#8 Table 10.1-). The "ater chemistry model inputs combined humidity cell results

from both ore and "aste roc as this approach captured more potential !ariability "ithin the "asteroc8 particularly as the definition of ore is not a fi


42/55

Sulphurets -

Overburden

Sulphurets - Au,

Leach &

Raewyn Zones

Sulphurets -

Lower Au

Zone

Sulphurets -

Lower Plate

Hazelton

Sulphurets -

Upper Plate

Hazelton

Sulphurets -

Monzonite

Sulphurets -

Undefined

Sulphurets -

Overburden R

Year

Year -3 5.7 0 0 39.3 852.6 0 54.6 700

Year -2 19 0 0 131 2,842 0 182 1,675

Year -1 302 70 423 1,515 5,562 1,970 2,520 1,318

Year 1 138 328 401 1,070 3,381 3 2,803 769 Year 2 0 1,440 219 1,099 1,570 0 2,321 755

Year 3 122 2,314 1,456 838 114 0 4,214 894

Year 4 137 2,175 952 12 0 0 1,905 575

Year 5 0 2,663 2,730 1 0 0 50 397

Year 6 to 10 0 1,505 1,072 1 0 0 0 74

Year 11 to 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Year 21 to 30 0.00 18,985.20 48,460.10 25,996.75 21,554.65 6,897.80 27,768.65 6,880.25

Year 31 to 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Year 41 to 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total by model code 718.00 29,480.20 55,713.10 30,663.75 35,023.65 8,870.80 41,763.65 13,337.25

Mitchell -

Overburden

Mitchell -

Glacial Ice

Mitchell -

Upper Plate

Hazelton

Mitchell -

Lower Plate

Hazelton

Mitchell -

Monzonite

Mitchell -

Bornite/Leach

Breccia

Mitchell -

Overburden

Mitchell -

Glacial Ice

M

P

Year

Year -3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Year -2 2,270 0 9,855 0 0 0 0 0

Year -1 4,557 0 23,513 27 1,262 0 0 0

Year 1 6,207 0 74,000 699 1,920 0 0 0

Year 2 2,724 0 109,481 851 2,255 0 0 0

Year 3 1,689 0 113,333 521 0 0 0 0

Year 4 1,129 0 74,597 20,027 495 0 0 0

Year 5 543 0 39,241 1,684 6,603 0 0 0

Year 6 to 10 2,442 0 228,394 83,392 13,431 2,054 566 452

Year 11 to 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Year 21 to 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Year 31 to 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Year 41 to 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total by model code 21,561 0 672,414 107,201 25,966 2,054 566 452 * During Iron Cap development some waste rock will be placed in the Mitchell RSF

Table 10.2-2. Waste Schedule by Model Code to Mitchell Rock

SNPRA


43/55

Sulphurets -

Overburden

Sulphurets -

Au, Leach &

Raewyn Zones

Sulphurets -

Lower Au

Zone

Sulphurets -

Lower Plate

Hazelton

Sulphurets -

Upper Plate

Hazelton

Sulphurets -

Monzonite

Sulphurets -

Undefined

Sulphurets -

Overburden

S

A

Ra

Year

Year -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Year -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Year 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Year 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Year 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Year 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Year 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Year 6 to 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Year 11 to 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Year 21 to 30 0 10,222.80 26,093.90 13,998.25 11,606.35 3,714.20 14,952.35 3,704.75

Year 31 to 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Year 41 to 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total by model code 0 10,222.80 26,093.90 13,998.25 11,606.35 3,714.20 14,952.35 3,704.75

Mitchell -

Overburden

Mitchell -

Glacial Ice

Mitchell -

Upper Plate

Hazelton

Mitchell -

Lower Plate

Hazelton

Mitchell -

Monzonite

Mitchell -

Bornite/Leach

Breccia

Mitchell -

Overburden

Mitchell -

Glacial Ice

U

Year

Year -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Year -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Year 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Year 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Year 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Year 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Year 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Year 6 to 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Year 11 to 20 1,206 0 202,860 127,307 9,623 3,771 25 2,467

Year 21 to 30 0 0 0 593 0 33 0 0

Year 31 to 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Year 41 to 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total by model code 1,206 0 202,860 127,900 9,623 3,804 25 2,467

Table 10.2-3. Waste Schedule by Model Code to McTagg Rock

SNPRA


44/55

Geochemistry


REV D.1-b 10+A1 Rescan Environen!al Services "!d. #$%$-01%&

Ta#le $%(-*;( S"mmar' of Scalin! Factors Use. for t&eoc, Stora!e Facilities

Scalin! Factor Selecte. Scalin! Factor

Grain Si=e E((ec! #/r& 0.1

'eera!ure #/!& 0.A@a!er con!ac! #/c& 0.2

4ul5 scaling (ac!or 0.01

10.2.2.2.3 Po)t+clo)re

The source terms de!eloped for "ater 9uality predictions during the operation phase apply to the

post-closure phase of the proposed 2ro5ect.

10.2.2.3 Sulphurets $it %ac#&ill

10.2.2.3.1 %#eration

nly 4err "aste roc "ill be bacfilled into the Sulphurets 2it. The "aste roc placementschedule is summari'ed in Table 10.#-3.

Ta#le $%(-*(


45/55

Geochemistry



estimated that #0K of the "aste roc in the Sulphurets 2it bacfill "ill be in contact "ith "ater

at any gi!en time.

Ta#le $%(-*@( S"mmar' of Scalin! Factors Use. for t&eS"lp&"rets Pit Bac,fill

Scalin! Factor Selecte. Scalin! Factor

Grain Si=e E((ec! #/r& 0.2

'eera!ure #/!& --

@a!er con!ac! #/c& 0.2

4ul5 scaling (ac!or 0.0;

uring the operation phase8 the mass of reacti!e roc "as ad5usted to account for the ongoing

placement of the high-density polyethylene co!er 6see &hapter + 2ro5ect escription8Section +.3.1.38 and &hapter #C Reclamation and &losure8 Section #C.+.#.# for a description of the

construction8 operation8 and closure of the mined-out Sulphurets 2it bacfilled "ith 4err "aste

roc7. For the first three years of "aste roc placement8 it is assumed that 0K of the "aste roc isco!ered. >n subse9uent years8 the amount of "aste roc co!ered increases incrementally from 0Kup to B3K by ear 31.3. Linear interpolation "as used to determine the proportion of "aste roc

that "as co!ered each year. The scaling factor in years %0 to 31.3 "ere ad5usted accordingly.

The humidity cells for the 4err "aste roc model code used in the "ater 9uality prediction

model for Sulphurets 2it are defined in Section 10.1.%.#8 Table 10.1-).

10.2.2.3.2 Clo)re

After the placement of the high-density polyethylene co!er on the final bench of the Sulphurets2it bacfill8 it is assumed that B3K of the "aste roc "ill be encapsulated under the co!er.

The "ater 9uality for the closure phase "as predicted using the same approach as the final yearof "aste roc placement during the operation phase.

10.2.2.3.3 Po)t+clo)re

The post-closure phase "as considered using the same approach as for the closure phase.

10.2.2.4 $it 'all "uno&&

The pit "all runoff "ater 9uality "as predicted for the operation phase and closure:post-closurephases.

10.2.2.$.1 %#eration

The area of e


46/55


47/55

Geochemistry


REV D.1-b 10+A; Rescan Environen!al Services "!d. #$%$-01%&

Ta#le $%(-*( Area of EHpose. Pit


48/55

Geochemistry


REV D.1-b 10+AA Rescan Environen!al Services "!d. #$%$-01%&

10.2.2.( Mitchell $it a#e

10.2.2.,.1 %#eration

The (itchell 2it Lae does not eron &ap deposits begins in ear #) and %#8 respecti!ely.$loc ca!ing generates a !olume of disturbed material that subsides into the bloc ca!e as ore

material is e


49/55

PROJECT # ILLUSTRATION # a39623w868-017-17-03

Figure10.2-2

Figure 10.2Cross Section of Pit and Block Cave

Indicating the Surface Areas for Model Inputs

December 21, 2012

2000 Z

1500 Z

1000 Z

500 Z

0 Z

6267000 N 6266500 N 6266000 N 6265500 N 6265000 N 6264500 N 6264000 N 6263500 N

D2= Distance from crest ofcrater to drawpoint elevation

D1= Distance from catchmentboundary to crest of crater

Z

Y

Year 8 Crater

Proposed Pit and Topography

Mitchell Catchment Boundary


50/55

Geochemistry



Ta#le $%(-*$$( -D Areas Associate. )it& Bloc, Cavin! of t&e +itc&ellan. Iron Cap Deposit

ear

+itc&ell Iron Cap

Footprint S"rface

Dist"r#ance 3m

-

4

Un.ist"r#e.

S"rface Area 3m

-

4

Footprint S"rface

Dist"r#ance 3m

-

4

Un.ist"r#e.

S"rface Area 3m

-

42% 31>A1A A>9%%>11A -- --

29 %$>A:A A>92:>03A -- --

2$ 221>13A A>A9%>;:A -- --

2: ;20>93$ A>39%>$:2 -- --

30 90%>;29 A>0:1>203 -- --

31 90%>;29 A>0:1>203 -- --

32 :92>:29 ;>$2;>903 ;;>$%$ 1>$%0>21%

33 :92>:29 ;>$2;>903 100>01: 1>$0A>0%A

3; 1>10;>%2% ;>%:3>00; 1$;>A%; 1>920>A20

3A 1>1:2>:%; ;>%0;>%%% 221>13A 1>%$3>:;:

3% 1>2A$>;;; ;>A3:>1$% 331>%2; 1>A93>;%0

39 1>322>20A ;>;9A>;2A ;%3>;2; 1>;;1>%%0

3$ 1>3:%>:3A ;>;00>%:A A20>%%% 1>3$;>;1$

3: 1>;31>:AA ;>3%A>%9A A%:>9A2 1>33A>332

;0 -- -- A::>;:1 1>30A>A:3

Ta#le $%(-*$-( ol"mes of Dist"r#e. +aterial )it&in t&e +itc&ell an.Iron Cap S"#si.ence ones

ear

+itc&ell Iron Cap +itc&ell Iron Cap

+ass In*sit" +aterial 3+t4 +ass of +aterial in Contact 3+t4

2% 1% -- 1$ --

29 39 -- 1$ --

2$ 120 -- 1$ --

2: 231 -- 19 --

30 393 -- 1% --

31 3AA -- 1% --

32 ;99 30.;0 1A ;.$%

33 ;A9 %;.$A 1A ;.92

3; A3A 10$.93 1A ;.A0

3A A:0 129.99 1; ;.;0

3% %09 19;.;1 1; ;.1039 %3; 23A.9A 1; 3.9A

3$ %%9 2%2.2$ 13 3.A$

3: %90 2$;.29 13 3.;;

;0 %;: 2:1.0% 13 3.3%

;1 %29 29%.3; 13 3.3%

3contin"e.4


51/55

Geochemistry


REV D.1-b 10+A$ Rescan Environen!al Services "!d. #$%$-01%&

Ta#le $%(-*$-( ol"mes of Dist"r#e. +aterial )it&in t&e +itc&ell an.Iron Cap S"#si.ence ones 3complete.4

ear

+itc&ell Iron Cap +itc&ell Iron Cap

+ass In*sit" +aterial 3+t4 +ass of +aterial in Contact 3+t4

;2 %0% 2%1.%1 13 3.3%;3 A$; 2;%.$$ 13 3.3%

;; A%2 232.1A 13 3.3%

;A A;1 21:.;3 13 3.3%

;% A1: 20:.A0 13 3.3%

;9 ;:9 202.%% 13 3.3%

;$ ;9% 1:$.22 13 3.3%

;: ;%A 1:%.02 13 3.3%

A0 ;A: 1:A.1; 13 3.3%

A1 ;A$ 1:A.01 13 3.3%

10.2.2.-.2 Clo)re

At closure8 the (itchell underground drainage tunnels "ill be plugged and the underground

"orings and (itchell 2it "ill be flooded. ater "ill continue to migrate through the >ron &ap$loc &a!e (ine during the closure phase. The source terms used during the operation phase

"ere applied to the "ater 9uality prediction model for closure phase.

10.2.2.-.3 Po)t+clo)re

The source terms used during the closure phase "ere applied to the "ater 9uality prediction

model for the post-closure phase.

$%(-(7 Processin! an. Tailin! +ana!ement Areaater and tailing management of the 2T(A is structured in fi!e stages Stage 1 years 0 to #3DStage # years #) to %0D Stage % years %1 to 31.3D Stage + years 31.3 to 3).3D and Stage 3

post-closure. ater 9uality predictions "ere de!eloped for the ,orth &ell T(F8 &entre &ell

T(F8 and South &ell T(F. 2ro5ect components contributing geochemical source terms to the"ater 9uality model include e


52/55

Geochemistry


REV D.1-b 10+A: Rescan Environen!al Services "!d. #$%$-01%&

Ta#le $%(-*$7( Tailin! +ana!ement Facilit' Component Areas 3in m-4

Sta!e Nort& Dam Nort& Cell Pon.Nort& Cell

Tailin! Beac&es Splitter DamCentre Cell

Pon.

1 %%0>23A 1>$$A>::$ 2>:1;>$;: 3AA>;30 1>A$$>9AA2

%%0>23A

9%$>%2A

;>032>A;9

3;%>213

1>%1:>2A;

3 %%0>23A 9%$>%2A ;>032>A;9 9:>A92 2>2;9>0A1; %%0>23A 9%$>%2A ;>032>A;9 9:>A92 2>2;9>0A1A %%0>23A :10>$$9 3>$9A>A%0 A;>$10 1>3:A>$1:Sta!e Sa..le Dam So"t& Cell Pon. So"t& Cell Tailin! Beac&es

So"t&eastDam

1 39%>:9A2 39$>3A: 1>2$2>;:9 ;20>;91 22:>A1A3 32>312 1>9A%>%:3 3>3A9>A32 %::>0;9; 32>312 A0$>03A ;>%0%>203 %::>0;9A ;%>A%1 90%>2A1 ;>;;1>313 %::>0;9

Ta#le $%(-*$;( Ore Pro."ction Sc&e."le 3in ,t4

ear+itc&ell

Pit+itc&ell Bloc,

Cave +ineS"lp&"rets

Pit 8err PitIron Cap Bloc,

Cave +ine Total

1 29>$A0 1 29>$A1

2 2%>9$0 19>$30 ;;>%10

3 2$>A20 1:>030 ;9>AA0

; 2$>A20 1:>030 ;9>AA0

A 2$>A20 1:>030 ;9>AA0

% 31>3A0 1%>1A0 ;9>AA0

9 !o 10 ;9>;A0 ; 1$:>$0;11 !o 20 ;9;>A00 10 ;9;>A10

21 !o 23 139>0:2 A%>901 1:3>9:3

2; A%>901 A%>901

2A A%>901 A%>901

2% %>%3: A%>901 %3>3;0

29 !o 30 2%>AA; 1$>100 ;;>%A;

31 1:>$$3 :>$10 2:>%:3

32 !o ;0 19$>:;; $$>2:0 :A>A30 3%2>9%;

;1 !o A0 1$:>;%9 12%>0$3 :9>%:A ;13>2;A

A1 1%>;$0 13A 1%>%1A

The "ater chemistry from the north and south ponds is modelled based on the chemical

contributions from the e


53/55

Geochemistry


REV D.1-b 10+%0 Rescan Environen!al Services "!d. #$%$-01%&

10.2.3.1.1 Proce)) Plant

The "ater chemistry used in the "ater 9uality prediction model to represent the contributionfrom the 2rocess 2lant to the ,orth &ell and South &ell 6based on the mine plan7 is the pilot

plant supernatant from the (itchell rougher tailing including 0.13K ?igh ensity Sludge

6Table 10.1-137. ater from the Treaty 2rocess 2lant that is directed to the &entre &ell is

post-cyanide detot is assumed that the top 0.3 m of the dams

contributes to the chemical loading.

10.2.3.1.3 #o)ed (ailing eache)

The source terms used to estimate the "ater 9uality for the eron &ap rougher tailing 6>& rougher beaches7. The mass of

eron &ap tailing.The total load off the dams into the ,orth &ell and South &ell "as determined based on the

steady state rates from the a!erage bet"een the (itchell rougher humidity cell and the >ron &ap

humidity cell. The mass of material "as determined based on the e


54/55

Geochemistry


REV D.1-b 10+%1 Rescan Environen!al Services "!d. #$%$-01%&

$%(7 Geoc&emistr' Concl"sions

A fi!e-year (L:AR characteri'ation program resulted in the analysis of o!er #8000 "aste roc8

ore8 tailing8 and non-deposit material A$A testsD +* "aste roc humidity cells 61# ore8 #* "aste

roc8 and * tailing samples7D 1C field leach barrels from "aste roc and ore samplesD si< SA&sD

and three aging tests. The laboratory and field results "ere used to de!elop source terms6e.g.8 "ater 9uality estimates7 for the predicti!e "ater 9uality model. Source terms "ere

de!eloped for RSFsD Sulphurets 2it bacfillD pit "all run-offD the (itchell 2it LaeD bloc ca!e

minesD and the ponds8 beaches8 and dams of the T(F.

The (ine Site8 2T(A8 and non-deposit components of the proposed 2ro5ect ha!e the potential toad!ersely affect surface "ater and ground"ater 9uality. &hapters 1#8 1+8 and #) pro!ide further

details on !alued component selection8 scoping8 mitigation8 the significance of residual and

cumulati!e effects8 and proposed management plans.


55/55

Geochemistry

eferences

;lboushi8 >. (. 1BC3. Amount of "ater needed to initiate flo" in rubbly roc particles. %&'rna( )*+r&(&,*8#C #C3-*+.

(;,. #00). p+ate &n .&(+ /emperat're ##e$t &n e&$hem3$a( 4eather3n,5 6D Rep&rt 157157.,atural Resources &anada8 (ine ;n!ironmental ,eutral rainage 2rogram tta"a8 ,.

(oose (ountain Technical Ser!ices. #011."S - Dr3((3n, an+ 8(at3n, 9perat3&n. (emo to Seabridge

Gold >nc. =ancou!er8 $&.

2rice8 . A. #00B. Pre+3$t3&n an'a( #&r Dra3na,e .hem3tr* #r&m S'(ph3+3$ e&(&,3$ ater3a(5

(;, Report 1.#0.1. ,atural Resources &anada8 (ine ;n!ironmental ,eutral rainage2rogram. tta"a8 ,.

ardrop. #01#. "S Pre#ea3:3(3t* St'+* p+ate 2012. 2repared by ardrop8 a Tetra Tech &ompany8

for Seabridge Gold >nc. =ancou!er8 $&.

Documents

17 Chapter 10 Geochemistry