17 Chapter 10 Geochemistry

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 including
characteri'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 and
acid roc1 drainage 6(L:AR07 is based on the geochemistry of geological materials that "ill be
disturbed by the proposed 2ro5ect. (L:AR0 has the potential to ad!ersely affect surface "ater
and ground"ater 9uality during the construction8 operation8 closure8 and post-closure phases.
;<tensi!e geochemical characteri'ation studies from #00* to #01# "ere completed to characteri'e
the potential for (L:AR0 from geological materials and "astes that "ill be e<posed and produced
during the life of the proposed 2ro5ect 6Appendi< 10-A7. The results "ere used to de!elop the
(etal Leaching and Acid Roc1 0rainage (anagement 2lan 6Section #).1+7 and to de!elop
estimates of chemical loadings 6i.e.8 "ater 9uality estimates7 for contact "ater for use in the
predictions of effluent and recei!ing en!ironment "ater 9uality 6see &hapter 1+7.
=alued components 6=&s7 directly affected by (L:AR0 are described in the effects assessments
of ground"ater 9uality 6&hapter 1#7 and surface "ater 9uality 6&hapter 1+7. (L:AR0 lin1ages
to surface "ater and ground"ater 9uality are demonstrated in Figure 10-1.
$%($ Geoc&emistr' Settin!
$%($($ e!ional Overvie)
;<posure of roc1 or other geologic materials to o<ygen and "ater results in natural "eathering
processes including chemical o<idation and leaching of solid-phase constituents 6e.g.8 metals7.
.here sulphide minerals such as pyrite are present8 o<idation can create acid roc1 drainage
6AR078 unless sufficient 9uantities of neutrali'ing minerals are a!ailable. >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 al1aline drainage.
The 2ro5ect is located in an area 1no"n as the @Golden TriangleA due to its high mineral
potential and the occurrence of a number of high-profile gold pro5ects in the area.
?istorical mineral e<ploration and mining acti!ities include the Granduc (ine 61BC0 to 1BC*D
1B*0 to 1B*+78 the Sulphurets Ad!anced ;<ploration 2ro5ect 61B*) to 1BB078 and the ;s1ay
&ree1 (ine 61BB3 to #00*7. The highly minerali'ed roc1 in the region has produced acti!e
o<idation and leaching of sulphides8 producing prominent and e<tensi!e copper sulphate
precipitates at the surface8 and acidic conditions in ground"ater seeps in the deposit areas and
the upper reaches of (itchell &ree1. .ater and sediment 9uality baseline studies in the regional
study area 6RSA7 include the cumulati!e effects of historical mining acti!ities and naturally
occurring (L:AR0. ;le!ated concentrations of metals "ere obser!ed in the (itchell8
Sulphurets8 and Enu1 "atersheds. (inerali'ation is also e!idenced by mineral e<ploration in the
upper reaches of Treaty &ree1 and ele!ated concentrations of some metals "ere also obser!ed in
the Treaty &ree1 "atershed.

PROJECT # ILLUSTRATION # a38282w 0868-016-25 October 24, 2012
F
i
g
u
r
e

1
0
-
1
Figure 10-1
ML/ARD Linkages for Effects Assessment
Access Corridors
and
Borrow Areas
Water Management
Structures
Mine Area
Pit walls
Waste rock RSF
Stockpiles
Flotation
Tailing Cells
CIL Tailing
Cell
Beaches
and Dams
Buildings
Laydowns
ABA block model
Kinetic tests
Seeps
ABA block model
Kinetic tests
Static tests
Static tests
Kinetic tests
MINE COMPONENTS TESTING/INPUTS EFFECTS MODELING
Qualitative Assessment
using Professional
Judgement
Water Quality Model
Water Quality Model
DIRECTLY AFFECTED VC MITIGATION AND
MANAGEMENT
Surface Water
Groundwater
Quality
ML/ARD
Management Plan;
Aquatic Effects
Monitoring Plan
Tunnels
TMF
Non-deposit
Project
Construction &
Infrastructure
Water Management
Plan; Groundwater
Management Plan
Geochemistry
$%($(- Baseline St".ies
;ffecti!e (L:AR0 characteri'ation8 prediction8 and management of e<ca!ated and e<posed
geological materials are critical in pre!enting deleterious effects to the recei!ing en!ironment.
The proposed 2ro5ect areas of disturbance include the follo"ing deposit and non-deposit
geological materials and "astes produced during construction and miningF
(ine Site deposit roc1 including pit "alls8 "aste roc18 and oreD
tailing materialD and
non-deposit roc1 including bedroc1 and o!erburden e<ca!ated or e<posed during
construction of surface collection and di!ersion channels8 tunnels8 access roads8 borro"
areas8 9uarries8 buildings8 and laydo"n areas.
The ob5ecti!e of the geochemical program "as to characteri'e and predict the potential for
(L:AR0 due to de!elopment of the proposed 2ro5ect and includes "aste roc18 ore8 pit "alls8
tailing material8 non-deposit material8 and ground"ater seep geochemistry. The 2ro5ect
components that "ere characteri'ed in the geochemical program are defined in Table 10.1-1.
Ta#le $%($*$( Brea,.o)n of Pro/ect Components
Pro/ect Component S"#*component Spatial Bo"n.ar' Temporal Bo"n.ar'
0ine Si!e 1i! Calls 0ine Si!e ?-era!ion + -os!-closure
RS7 0ine Si!e ?-era!ion + -os!-closure
?re s!oc5-iles 0ine Si!e ?-era!ion + closure
'ailing '07 ?-era!ion + -os!-closure
<on-de-osi! Roc5 @a!er anageen!
s!ruc!ures
0ine Si!e and '07 )ons!ruc!ion + -os!-closure
,ccess corridors En!ire 1ro2ec! area )ons!ruc!ion + -os!-closure
4orroC areas En!ire 1ro2ec! area )ons!ruc!ion - o-era!ion
Euarries En!ire 1ro2ec! area )ons!ruc!ion - o-era!ion
4uilding and laydoCn
areas
En!ire 1ro2ec! area )ons!ruc!ion + -os!-closure
SF0 oc, Stora!e Facilit'
T+F0 Tailin! +ana!ement Facilit'
10.1.2.1 Characterization Method
The ob5ecti!e of the geochemical program "as to characteri'e and predict the potential for
(L:AR0 of the proposed 2ro5ect and includes "aste roc18 ore8 pit "alls8 tailing8 non-deposit
material8 and ground"ater seep geochemistry. A summary of the design basis for
characteri'ation of (L:AR0 potential is pro!ided in Table 10.1-#.
Geochemistry
REV D.1-b 10+; Rescan Environen!al Services "!d. #$%$-01%&
Ta#le $%($*-( +etal Leac&in!/Aci. oc, Draina!e
C&aracteri1ation Pro!ram Desi!n
+ine
Component
Geoc&emical
2"estions Data Nee.e. +et&o.s
@as!e Roc5
and ?re
0"8,RD -o!en!ial ,4, )ore sa-ling> -as!e -D> acid
-o!en!ial> neu!rali=a!ion -o!en!ial>
solid--*ase eleen!al analysis
0ineralogy Rie!veld GRD and -e!rogra-*ic
analysis
Source o( <1 Sobe5 <1> Rie!veld GRD> calciu and
agnesiu con!en!> !o!al carbon and
inorganic carbon con!en!
Sul-*ur (or
in!er-re!a!ion
Sul-*ur s-ecies analysis> bariu
con!en!
@as!e dis!ribu!ion
#1ro2ec! scale&
S-a!ial varia!ion o(
0"8,RD c*arac!eris!ics
)ore sa-ling> -as!e -D> acid
-o!en!ial> Sobe5 <1> solid--*ase
eleen!al analysis> ,4, bloc5 odel
@as!e segrega!ion
#Ci!*in a de-osi!&
S-a!ial varia!ion o(
0"8,RD c*arac!eris!ics
)ore sa-ling> co-osi!e con!inuous
core sa-les> -as!e -D> acid -o!en!ial>
Sobe5 <1> solid--*ase eleen!al
analysis> ,4, bloc5 odel
Develo-en! o( si!e-
s-eci(ic ,RD cri!eria
Ra!e o( de-le!ion o(
sul-*ides and acid
neu!rali=ing inerals
Duidi!y cells> (ield leac* barrels
Variabili!y o(
c*arac!eris!ics Ci!*in
a de-osi! and
be!Ceen de-osi!s
"i!*ological co-osi!ion
o( Cas!e roc5 over ine
li(e
)ore sa-ling> ,4, and solid--*ase
)*eical co-osi!ion o(
Cas!e roc5
)ore sa-ling> ,4, and solid--*ase
?nse! o( acidic
condi!ions
sul-*ides and acid
Duidi!y cells and lag-!ie
calcula!ions
)on!ac! Ca!er
c*eis!ry
"eac*ing ra!es under
non-acidic and acidic
condi!ions
Duidi!y cells
Si!e-s-eci(ic Ca!er Buali!y
da!a
7ield leac* barrels> groundCa!er see-s
1i! @alls Variabili!y o(
a de-osi! and
be!Ceen de-osi!s
"i!*ological co-osi!ion
o( -i! Calls over ine li(e
,4, bloc5 odel and ine -lan
Release o( -o!en!ial
-arae!ers o(
concern
condi!ions
Duidi!y cells
)on!ac! Ca!er
c*eis!ry
See Cas!e roc5 -rogra See Cas!e roc5 -rogra
3contin"e.4
Geochemistry
REV D.1-b 10+A Rescan Environen!al Services "!d. #$%$-01%&
Ta#le $%($*-( +etal Leac&in!/Aci. oc, Draina!e
C&aracteri1ation Pro!ram Desi!n 3complete.4
+ine
Component
Geoc&emical
2"estions Data Nee.e. +et&o.s
'ailing 0"8,RD -o!en!ial ,4, 0e!allurgical !es!ing> -as!e -D> acid
-o!en!ial> neu!rali=a!ion -o!en!ial>
0ineralogy Rie!veld GRD> -e!rogra-*ic and
EE0S),< analyses
1ar!icle si=e analysis @e! sieving and laser di((rac!ion
Source o( <1 Sobe5 <1> Rie!veld GRD> calciu
and agnesiu con!en!> !o!al carbon
and inorganic carbon con!en!
Sul-*ur (or in!er-re!a!ion Sul-*ur s-ecies analysis> bariu
con!en!
Variabili!y o(
a de-osi! and
be!Ceen de-osi!s
Source o( !ailing #de-osi!& 0e!allurgical !es!ing> 5ine!ic !es!ing o(
co-osi!e sa-les> ine -lan
?nse! o( acidic
condi!ions
sul-*ides and acid
Duidi!y cells> aging !es!s>
subaBueous coluns
)*eis!ry o( '07
-onds and -ore
Ca!er
condi!ions
subaBueous coluns
sub-aerial and sub-aBueous
condi!ions
subaBueous coluns
<on-de-osi!
0a!erial
0"8,RD -o!en!ial ,4, ?verburden and ou!cro- sa-ling>
-as!e -D> acid -o!en!ial> Sobe5 <1>
Sur(ace-soluble leac*ing
(ro non-de-osi! or
cons!ruc!ion a!erials
?verburden and ou!cro- sa-ling>
s*a5e-(las5 e.!rac!ion o( overburden>
and e!eoric Ca!er obili!y
-rocedure o( non-de-osi! roc5
ABA0 aci.*#ase acco"ntin!
5D0 5*ra' .iffraction
NP0 ne"trali1ation potential
2E+SCAN0 6"antitative eval"ation of minerals #' scannin! electron microscop'
The (L:AR0 prediction program "as used forF
"aste and "ater management planningD and
the assessment of en!ironmental effects.
Figures 10.1-1 to 10.1-% sho" the locations of drill holes8 outcrop8 and unconsolidated materials
that "ere sampled for the (L:AR0 characteri'ation program for three areas of the proposed
2ro5ectF &oulter &ree1 Access &orridor 6&&A&78 (ine Site8 and Tailing (anagement Facility
6T(F7 including the Treaty &ree1 access road 6T&AR7.
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 0istrict 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
Gurassic to &retaceous $o"ser basin. The 0istrict is centred o!er the breached core of the
northerly plunging (cTagg anticlinorium8 "hich e<poses roc1s of the Stuhini Group8
unconformably o!erlain by the ?a'elton Group roc1s. The Epper Triassic Stuhini Group has t"o
main subdi!isionsF 17 lo"er dominantly sedimentary unitsD and #7 upper dominantly !olcanic and
!olcanoclastic units. The Lo"er Gurassic ?a'elton Group is inferred to represent a
!olcanosedimentary island arc and bac1 arc comple< containing basal sediments o!erlain
successi!ely by !olcanic:!olcanoclastic units8 felsic pyroclastic units8 and marine sedimentary units.
The northern portions of the 2ro5ect are dominated by roc1s of the (iddle Gurassic to (iddle
&retaceous $o"ser La1e Group8 a marine and continental sedimentary succession inferred to
ha!e accumulated in a bac1 arc en!ironment. The ?a'elton se9uence is intruded by ;arly
Gurassic porphyritic intrusions collecti!ely referred to as the (itchell >ntrusion or Te<as &ree1
2lutonic Suite. Regional tectonic e!ents attributed to the accretion of terranes ha!e resulted in
thrust faulting and "idespread folding in the district. Figures of the regional geology can be
found in the 2ro5ect 0escription 6&hapter +8 Figures +.+-1 and +.+-#7.
Results from the (L:AR0 characteri'ation program "ere used to de!elop an acid-base
accounting 6A$A7 bloc1 model "ith a resolution of #3 m H #3 m H 13 m. This spatial scale
represents a !olume suitable for large e<ca!ators to segregate materials on a pit-bench.
The geochemical results in the follo"ing sections are described for the model codes outlined in
Table 10.1-%. The bloc1 modelling "as underta1en by (r. (ichael Lechner 62.Geo.8 R2G8 &2G
and /ualified 2erson for the 2ro5ect ,> +%-101 resource model7. The A$A bloc1 model uses
three geostatistical methods se9uentially from highest confidence to lo"est confidence. As a
result "here there is good control8 due to a sample or pro<imity to samples8 the bloc1 is assigned
the highest confidence !alue in preference to the lo"er confidence !alues.
10.1.2.2.2 Metal Leaching/Acid Rock Drainage Characterization Program
.aste roc18 ore8 and potential pit "all material "ere assessed in #80%0 A$A and solid-phase
elemental analyses 61811C "aste roc18 B11 ore8 and # unclassified samples78 +0 "aste roc1
humidity cells 61# ore and #* "aste roc1 samples78 and 1C field leach barrels from "aste roc1
and ore samples. A detailed presentation of the geochemistry characteri'ation program results is
pro!ided in Appendi< 10-A. The distribution of ore !ersus "aste chemistries is summari'ed in
Appendi< 10-&8 "hich is a supplement to Appendi< 3.1-1 of Appendi< 10-A.
Static Testing
A$A test results of the #80%0 "aste roc18 pit "all8 and lo"-:high-grade ore material samples are
summari'ed8 by deposit8 in Table 10.1-+.

PROJECT # GIS No.
Goechemistry Sample Locations:
Coulter Creek Access Corridor
0868-016-25-01 KSM-09-078_T
F
i
g
u
r
e

1
0
.
1
-
1
Figure 10.1-1
November 21, 2012
PROJECT # GIS No.
Locations of Geochemistry Samples
in Relation to Mine Site Infrastructure
0868-016-25-01 KSM-09-76_T
F
i
g
u
r
e

1
0
.
1
-
2
Figure 10.1-2
December 14, 2012
PROJECT # GIS No.
Figure 10.1-3
Geochemistry Sample Locations:
Processing and Tailing Management
Area and Treaty Creek Access Road
0868-016-25-01 KSM-09-077_T January 15, 2013
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 de-osi!
S"lp&"rets
?verburden H A0I soil or glacio(luvial a!erial
61 Da=el!on De(aul! (or Sul-*ure!s a!erial above S'7
0on=oni!e 0on=oni!e in!rusion
"1 Da=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 A0I soil or glacio(luvial a!erial
0on=oni!e 0on=oni!e in!rusion
61 Da=el!on De(aul! a!erial above 0'7 on nor!* or sou!* side o( 0i!c*ell )ree5
"eac* breccia8borni!e breccia 0i!c*ell ore =one
"1 Da=el!on De(aul! a!erial beloC 0'7 on nor!* or sou!* side o( 0i!c*ell )ree5
6nde(ined De(aul! (or edge e((ec!s or inor uni!s
Iron Cap
IR?< ),1 ,ll o( !*e Iron )a- de-osi!
LP 9 lo)er panel
UP 9 "pper panel
+TF : +itc&ell T&r"st Fa"lt
STF 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 of
stored residual o<idation products. Stored acidity "as not obser!ed in Sulphurets deposit samples.
&oncentrations of sulphur ranged from 0.01 to 1B.03K "ith8 sulphide-sulphur being the
dominant sulphur species. Riet!eld L-ray diffraction 6LR07 analysis indicated that the most
common sulphide mineral "as pyrite 6FeS
#
7 "ith lesser amounts of chalcopyrite 6&uFeS
#
78
chalcocite 6&u
#
S78 sphalerite 66Mn8Fe7S78 galena 62bS78 and molybdenite 6(oS
#
78 and trace
amounts of bornite 6&u
+
FeS
+
78 enargite 6&u
%
AsS
+
78 and tennantite 6&u
1#
As
+
S
1%
7.
Gypsum 6&aS
+
.#?
#
7 and anhydrite 6&aS
+
7 "ere identified in some samples from the 4err
and Sulphurets deposits.
$ul1 Sobe1 neutrali'ation potential 6,27 !alues sho"ed strong correlation "ith the ,2
calculated from calcium and inorganic carbon !alues across a "ide range of ,2 !alues.
The strong correlation bet"een bul1 Sobe1 ,2 and calculated ,2 indicates that most of the ,2
of the deposits is pro!ided by calcium carbonate minerals. The most common carbonate minerals
identified by mineralogical analysis "ere calcite8 dolomite:an1erite8 and lesser amounts
of siderite.

Ta#le $%($*;( S"mmar' of Aci. Base Acco"ntin! Test es"lts for <aste oc, an.
Potential Pit <all +aterial
Deposit +o.el Co.e
=
Samples
)it&
Paste p>
? @(%
Total*
S"lp&"r
3=4
Total*S"lp&"r
an. S"lp&i.e*
S"lp&"r
elations&ip
So#e, NP
3,! CaCO
7
/t4
So#e, NP
Correlation
= Samples
)it&
A./"ste.
SNP ? -(%
= <aste
oc, )it&
A./"ste.
SNP ? -(%
/err /err 1$ 0.01 !o 13.$1 S!rong 0 !o ;$2 S!rong )a )a<1 $2.0 ::
Sul-*ure!s S ?verburden 0 0.0% !o 3.;9 S!rong 9 !o 1$3 S!rong )a )a<1 AA.% 0.1
S ,u> "eac*>
RaeCyn
0 0.2 !o %.%2 S!rong A !o 1;2 S!rong )a )a<1 :0.2 ;.%
S "oCer ,u 0 0.$ !o %.23 S!rong 2% !o 199 S!rong )a )a<1 $9.1 :.A
S "1 Da=el!on 0 0.;3 !o 9.01 S!rong 2: !o 3A0 S!rong )a )a<1 %A.0 A.2
S 61 Da=el!on 0 0.01 !o %.%2 S!rong $ !o 2%% S!rong )a )a<1 33.3 A.;
S 0on=oni!e 0 0.03 !o 2.2 S!rong : !o 2A3 S!rong )a )a<1 :.; 1.A
S 6nde(ined 0 0.09 !o 9.A S!rong 12 !o 30% S!rong )a )a<1 3$.$ %.%
0i!c*ell 0 ?verburden 0 0.A !o 2.91 S!rong $ !o 12A S!rong )a )a<1 91.; 1.A
0 61 Da=el!on 0 0.02 !o 12.9A S!rong 9 !o 2;1 S!rong )a )a<1 $9.2 A:.0
0 "1 Da=el!on 9.; 0.09 !o $.:9 0odera!e 0 !o 2%3 0odera!e Inorg <1 :2.0 1A.$
0 0on=oni!e 0 0.03 !o ;.;3 S!rong 9 !o 3;2 S!rong )a )a<1 3A.0 2.;
0 "eac*
breccia8borni!e
breccia
30.; 1.:% !o 1:.0A S!rong 0 !o A9 0odera!e Inorg <1 100.0 0.;
Iron )a- Iron )a- 9.% 0.11 !o 11.$% S!rong 0 !o 2A$ S!rong )a )a<1 :2.0 100
NP 9 ne"trali1ation potential
SNP 9 s"lp&i.e net potential ratio
Ca CaNP 9 calci"m calc"late. ne"trali1ation potential
Inor! NP 9 inor!anic ne"trali1ation potential
UP 9 "pper panel
LP 9 lo)er panel
<aste roc, )it& a./"ste. SNP .ata )ere provi.e. in t&e ABA #loc, mo.el

Geochemistry
July 2013 Application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate / Environmental Impact Statement Seabridge Gold inc.
REV D.1-b 10+1A Rescan Environen!al Services "!d. #$%$-01%&
The estimation of una!ailable ,28 i.e.8 the ma<imum ,2 that corresponds to a paste p? belo"
).08 "as used as a standard practice 62rice #00B7. $ased on the relationship bet"een paste p?
and bul1 Sobe1 ,2 !alues8 up to 13 1g &a&
%
:t of measured ,2 could be associated "ith acidic
paste p? !alues. This !alue "as deri!ed from the complete #00*8 #00B8 and #010 4S( 2ro5ect
static test database. The data indicate that the una!ailable ,2 of 13 1g &a&
%
:t is !alid for the
4err8 (itchell8 and >ron &ap deposits. An una!ailable ,2 of * 1g &a&
%
:t is !alid for the
Sulphurets deposit.
The neutrali'ation potential "as assessed using the bul1 Sobe1 method for the ma5ority of
samples. Si< samples collected along the T&AR alignment "ere analy'ed using the modified
Sobe1 method. The bul1 Sobe1 method may o!erestimate ,2 due to the sub5ecti!e nature of acid
addition during the test 62rice #00B7. A conser!ati!e una!ailable ,2 number "as applied as a
correction to the bul1 Sobe1 results. Follo"ing this correction8 good correlation "as obser!ed
bet"een measured carbonate ,2 !alues and bul1 Sobe1 ,2 !alues indicating that ,2 has been
appropriately assessed. >f re9uired8 additional analyses can be completedD ho"e!er8 based on the
abo!e discussion8 it is considered unnecessary. Figure 10.1-+ displays the relationship bet"een
Total &arbon ,2 and Sobe1 ,2. There is good agreement bet"een the t"o parameters indicating
that Total &arbon by Leco can be used to calculate ,2 as outlined in the management plans in
Sections #).1+.+.1.1 and #).1+.+.#.1.
;ach Roc1 Storage Facility 6RSF7 "ill be composed of a mi< of alteration types and roc1s from
se!eral deposits and therefore the conser!ati!e estimate of una!ailable ,2 is applied across all
deposits model codes. The neutrali'ation potential "as ad5usted by this estimate of una!ailable
,2 to calculate an ad5usted ,2.
2otential "aste roc18 ore8 and pit "all materials collected from 4err deposit 6*#K78 Sulphurets
deposit 6++K78 (itchell deposit 6*)K78 and >ron &ap deposit 6B#K7 "ere classified as potentially
acid generating 62AG7 based on static A$A tests 6ad5usted sulphide net potential ratio
NS,2RO J #7 "ith the e<ception of materials designated by model codes Sulphurets E2 ?a'elton8
Sulphurets (on'onite8 and (itchell (on'onite.
The solid-phase element concentrations of "aste roc18 pit "all8 and lo"-:high-grade ore material
"ere measured by inducti!ely coupled plasma mass spectrometry 6>&2-(S7 analysis after strong
four-acid 6hydrofluoric8 hydrochloric8 nitric8 and perchloric acids7 digestion and by L-ray
fluorescence "hole-roc1 analysis. The solid-phase multi-element analysis results can be used as
a screening tool to determine elements that occur in anomalously high concentrations in the
solid-phase that may be of concern in drainage chemistry. The presence of the elements
identified as anomalous do not pro!ide information about the mineral source8 potential leaching
rates8 or en!ironmental significance. Some of these elements could be inert or sparingly soluble
"ithin silicates. Leaching rates "ere determined by 1inetic tests results.
The results sho"ed that the elements "ith contents fre9uently higher than three times the a!erage
basalt crustal abundance "ere sil!er8 arsenic8 barium8 bismuth8 cadmium8 cesium8 copper8 mercury8
potassium8 molybdenum8 lead8 rubidium8 sulphur8 antimony8 selenium8 thallium8 tungsten8 and
'inc. ;lements "ith contents fre9uently higher than three times the a!erage shale crustal
abundance "ere sil!er8 arsenic8 barium8 cadmium8 copper8 mercury8 molybdenum8 lead8 sulphur8
antimony8 selenium8 tungsten8 and 'inc. These results are further detailed in Appendi< 10-A.
PROJECT # ILLUSTRATION #
Inorganic Carbon Neutralization Potential versus Sobek Neutralization
Potential by Deposit, Model Code, and Ore/Waste Designation
a42812w 868-028 May 24, 2013
F
i
g
u
r
e

1
0
.
1
-
4
Figure 10.1-4
Kerr Sulphurets
Mitchell Iron Cap
T
o
t
a
l

C
a
r
b
o
n

N
e
u
t
r
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

(
k
g

C
a
C
O
3
/
t
)
Bulk Neutralization Potential (kg CaCO
3
/t)
T
o
t
a
l

C
a
r
b
o
n

N
e
u
t
r
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

(
k
g

C
a
C
O
3
/
t
)
3
/t)
T
o
t
a
l

C
a
r
b
o
n

N
e
u
t
r
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

(
k
g

C
a
C
O
3
/
t
)
3
/t)
T
o
t
a
l

C
a
r
b
o
n

N
e
u
t
r
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

(
k
g

C
a
C
O
3
/
t
)
3
/t)
Overburden
UP Hazelton
LP Hazelton
Monzonite
Leach breccia/
bornite breccia
O
r
e
W
a
s
t
e
Overburden
Hazelton
Diorite
Monzonite
Undefined
O
r
e
W
a
s
t
e
Overburden
Undefined
CL-PR
QSP
Weak CLQSP
O
r
e
W
a
s
t
e
Premier dike
Overburden
Au, Leach,
Raewn zones
Lower Au zone
LP Hazelton
UP Hazelton
O
r
e
W
a
s
t
e
Monzonite
Undefined
0.1
1
10
100
1,000
0.1 1 10 100 1,000
Unavailable NP = 15
0.1
1
10
100
1,000
0.1 1 10 100 1,000
Unavailable NP = 15
0.1
1
10
100
1,000
0.1 1 10 100 1,000
Unavailable NP = 15
0.1
1
10
100
1,000
0.1 1 10 100 1,000
Unavailable NP = 15
Geochemistry
4inetic Testing
A$A testing of humidity cell and field leach barrel material "as completed prior to initiali'ing
the 1inetic testing. The ad5usted S,2R from these A$A results "as compared to the results of all
static tests for the rele!ant model code. The results sho"ed that samples used for 1inetic testing
had ad5usted S,2R !alues "ithin the inter9uartile range 6bet"een the #3th and C3th percentiles7
of all static results for most model codes8 indicating that the samples selected for 1inetic testing
are representati!e of the static database and proposed "aste roc1 and pit "alls.
?umidity cells used in this assessment ha!e been operating for more than +0 "ee1ly cycles and
in some instances more than 100 "ee1ly cycles8 and most ha!e reached a steady state.
?umidity cells "ith less than #0 "ee1s of data "ere not included in the assessmentD ho"e!er8 the
data are a!ailable in Appendi< 10-&. .aste roc1 and ore humidity cell leachate data "ere used
as estimates of chemical loadings 6i.e.8 "ater 9uality estimates7 for seepage and runoff from the
RSFs8 pit "alls8 and lo"-grade ore stoc1piles for use in the predictions of effluent and recei!ing
en!ironment "ater 9uality.
The humidity cell leach rates represent the ma5ority of the #01# A$A bloc1 model codes
6Table 10.1-37. >n the cases "here a bloc1 model code "as not represented by an e<isting
humidity cell8 chemical loadings "ere ta1en from a pro<y for use in the "ater 9uality model as
outlined in Table 10.1-) and subse9uent te<t.
Ta#le $%($*B( >"mi.it' Cell epresentivit'
Percent of Total
<aste oc, N"m#er of >"mi.it' Cells
= Propose. <aste
oc, epresente.
PAG NPAG PAG NPAG PAG NPAG
8err
/ ?verburden 3.0I 0.0I 0 0 0.0I 0.0I
/ )1-1R 3.1I 0.0I 2 0 3.1I 0.0I
/ ES1 31.2I 0.2I 1 0 31.2I 0.0I
/ @ea5 )"ES1 1%.%I 0.0I 1 0 1%.%I 0.0I
/ 1reier Di5e 2.1I 0.0I 0 0 0.0I 0.0I
/ 6nde(ined ;3.1I 0.%I 0 0 0.0I 0.0I
Total B%(C= %(%=
S"lp&"rets
S ?verburden 0.1I 2.1I 1 0 0.1I 0.0I
S ,u> "eac*>
RaeCyn =ones
;.%I 0.1I 0 0 0.0I 0.0I
S "oCer ,u =one :.AI 0.0I 2 0 :.AI 0.0I
S "1 Da=el!on A.2I 0.3I 0 0 0.0I 0.0I
S 61 Da=el!on A.AI 1;.0I 1 1 A.AI 1;.0I
S 0on=oni!e 1.AI 1$.1I 0 0 0.0I 0.0I
S 6nde(ined %.%I 32.;I 2 0 %.%I 0.0I
Total -$(D= $;(%=
+itc&ell
0 ?verburden 1.AI 0.0I 0 0 0.0I 0.0I
0 61 Da=el!on A$.:I 1.2I $ 0 A:.0I 0.0I
0 "1 Da=el!on 1A.$I 0.;I 12 0 1A.$I 0.0I
3contin"e.4
Geochemistry
REV D.1-b 10+1$ Rescan Environen!al Services "!d. #$%$-01%&
Ta#le $%($*B( >"mi.it' Cell epresentivit' 3complete.4
Percent of Total
<aste oc, N"m#er of >"mi.it' Cells
= Propose. <aste
oc, epresente.
PAG NPAG PAG NPAG PAG NPAG
+itc&ell 3contE.4
0 0on=oni!e 2.;I 1:.1I 0 1 0.0I 1:.1I
0 "eac* breccia8
borni!e breccia
0.;I 0.0I 1 0 0.;I 0.0I
0 6nde(ined 0.0I 0.0I 0 0 0.0I 0.0I
Total DB($= $C($=
Iron Cap
I) ?verburden 0.0I 0.0I 0 0 0.0I 0.0I
I) Da=el!on %$.2I 0.0I 0 0 0.0I 0.0I
I) Diori!e 0.0I 0.0I 2 0 0.0I 0.0I
I) 0on=oni!e 2:.1I 0.0I 0 0 0.0I 0.0I
I) 6nde(ined 2.%I 0.0I ; 0 2.%I 0.0I
Total 100.0I 0.0I % 0 -(@= %(%=
SNP0 S"lp&i.e Net Potential atio
Ta#le $%($*@( <aste oc, >"mi.it' Cells epresentin! +ine Site
<aste oc, in t&e <ater 2"alit' +o.el
<ater 2"alit' +o.el Co.e +et&o.
/< /err neu!ral ,ll Cee5s D) 20
)ycle 1-2$ D) 22
/, /err acidic ,ll Cee5s D) 21
,ll Cee5s a(!er cycle 2$ D) 22
,ll Cee5s D) 23
S?< S ?verburden neu!ral 1ro.y3 S 6nde(ined neu!ral
S?, S ?verburden acidic ,ll Cee5s D) S-0%-0A
S,6< S ,u> leac*> RaeCn neu!ral 1ro.y3 S "oCer ,u neu!ral
S,6, S ,u> leac*> RaeCn acidic 1ro.y3 S ?verburden acidic
S",< S "oCer ,u neu!ral ,ll Cee5s D) 2;
,ll Cee5s D) 2A
S",, S "oCer ,u acidic 1ro.y3 S ?verburden acidic
S"1< S "1 Da=el!on neu!ral 1ro.y3 S 6nde(ined neu!ral
S"1, S "1 Da=el!on acidic 1ro.y3 S ?verburden acidic
S61< S 61 Da=el!on neu!ral ,ll Cee5s D) S-0%-0;
,ll Cee5s D) 19
S61, S 61 Da=el!on acidic 1ro.y3 S ?verburden acidic
S0?< S 0on=oni!e neu!ral 1ro.y3 D) S-0%-0;
S0?, S 0on=oni!e acidic 1ro.y3 S ?verburden acidic
S6<< S 6nde(ined neu!ral ,ll Cee5s D) 1$
,ll Cee5s D) 1:
S6<, S 6nde(ined acidic 1ro.y3 S ?verburden acidic
061< 0 61 Da=el!on neu!ral ,ll Cee5s D) 0-09-33
,ll Cee5s D) 0-09-;;
,ll Cee5s D) 3
,ll Cee5s D) 10
,ll Cee5s D) 13
,ll Cee5s D) 1;
3contin"e.4
Geochemistry
REV D.1-b 10+1: Rescan Environen!al Services "!d. #$%$-01%&
Ta#le $%($*@( <aste oc, >"mi.it' Cells epresentin! +ine Site
<aste oc, in t&e <ater 2"alit' +o.el 3complete.4
<ater 2"alit' +o.el Co.e +et&o.
061, 0 61 Da=el!on acidic ,ll Cee5s D) 2
0"1< 0 "1 Da=el!on neu!ral ,ll Cee5s D) A
,ll Cee5s D) %
,ll Cee5s D) 9
,ll Cee5s D) $
,ll Cee5s D) :
,ll Cee5s D) 11
,ll Cee5s D) 12
,ll Cee5s D) 1%
,ll Cee5s D) 2%
0"1, 0 "1 Da=el!on acidic ,ll Cee5s D) 0-0%-1;
,ll Cee5s D) 0-09-;3
,ll Cee5s D) 1
00?< 0 0on=oni!e neu!ral ,ll Cee5s D) 0-09-30
,ll Cee5s D) <0-0A-03
00?, 0 0on=oni!e acidic 1ro.y3 0 61 Da=el!on acidic
044< 0 "eac* breccia8borni!e breccia neu!ral <o a!erial o( !*is !y-e in Cas!e roc5 sc*edule
044, 0 "eac* breccia8borni!e breccia acidic ,ll Cee5s D) 1A
06<< 0 6nde(ined neu!ral <o a!erial o( !*is !y-e in Cas!e roc5 sc*edule
06<, 0 6nde(ined acidic <o a!erial o( !*is !y-e in Cas!e roc5 sc*edule
I)< Iron )a- neu!ral ,ll Cee5s D) I)1
,ll Cee5s D) I)2
)ycles 0-: D) I);
,ll Cee5s D) I)A
)ycles 0-% D) I)%
I), Iron )a- acidic ,ll Cee5s D) I)3
,ll Cee5s a(!er cycle : D) I);
,ll Cee5s a(!er cycle % D) I)%

The follo"ing rationale "as used to determine the pro<ies outlined in Table 10.1-)F
?umidity cell ?& # "as used as a pro<y for ( (on'onite acidic because the material in
this test "as classified a porphyry mon'onite in the original drill log.
S Endefined neutral "as used for S !erburden neutral and S L2 ?a'elton neutral
because undefined material incorporates some o!erburden and L2 ?a'elton and the range
of !alues in S !erburden neutral data spans most other model codes.
S Lo"er Au neutral "as used for S Au8 leach Rae"yn neutral because both model codes
are ore material.
S !erburden acidic "as used to represent all acidic Sulphurets model codes because this
"as the only humidity cell that produced acidic leachate.
?umidity cell SS-0)-0+ "as used as a pro<y for S (on'onite neutral because the sample
"as classified as mon'onite based on the drill log8 e!en though the A$A bloc1 model
classified the bloc1 that the sample occupies as S Endefined.
Geochemistry
REV D.1-b 1020 Rescan Environmental Services Ltd. (868-016)
Leachate predictions from PAG material were developed using the results following the
generation of acidic leachate in humidity cells (pH < 6.0). Leachate predictions from not
potentially acid generating (NPAG) material were developed using the results with neutral
leachate (pH greater than 6.0). This approach results in neutral pH leachate from humidity cells
that are classified as PAG being used to predict neutral pH leachate from NPAG material.
Tables 10.1-7, 10.1-8, and 10.1-9 present the leachate results for each model code. Individual
humidity cell results are documented in Appendix 10-A. The average leachate rates and the
95th percentile leachate rates were used as source terms in the water quality model
(see Section 10.2).
The average neutral leach rates were generated by calculating the mean of neutral weeks from
each humidity cell and then taking the mean of all cells of a specific model code (as outlined in
Tables 10.1-7, 10.1-8, and 10.1-9). The process was repeated for average acidic leach rates using
only acidic weeks as outlined in Tables 10.1-7, 10.1-8, and 10.1-9. Ninety-fifth percentile leach
rates were generated by calculating the 95th percentile of all available results for humidity cells
of a specific model code.
Based on rates of sulphate, calcium, and magnesium release, a predicted time to the depletion of
bulk Sobek NP and the onset of ARD was calculated. When a humidity cell was predicted to
never become acid generating, the lag time was arbitrarily set to a default of 1,000 years. The lag
time for model codes that are predicted to become acid generating based on static test results
range from 0 to 1,000 years (Table 10.1-10).
Metal leaching typically reflected drainage pH with leach rates in acidic drainage often two to
three orders of magnitude higher than in neutral drainage from the same model code. Sulphate,
aluminum, arsenic, cadmium, copper, iron, lead, and zinc leach rates were higher in the acidic
humidity cells relative to the near-neutral humidity cells across various model codes.
The uncertainty associated with using many humidity cells to represent various block mode
codes was assessed using either the relative percent differences (RPD) or the relative standard
deviation (RSD; Table 10.1-11). RPD were calculated to determine the difference between two
humidity cells used in model codes when only two representative humidity cells were used:
where: RPD = 100|rep1-rep2|/[(rep1+rep2)/2]
The RSD was calculated to show the variability of humidity cells used for model codes with
more than two humidity cells:
where: RSD = 100x[StDev/mean]
The RPD and RSD quantify the inherent variability and uncertainty due to the laboratory
protocol, environmental heterogeneity, and/or sampler handling.

Ta#le $%($*D( p> an. Leac&in! ates 3m!/,!/)ee,4 from 8err an. Iron Cap >"mi.it' Cells
ABA Bloc, +o.el
Co.es
8N 8A ICN ICA
8err Ne"tral 8err Aci.ic Iron Cap Ne"tral Iron Cap Aci.ic
List of Parameters +ean pCB +ean pCB +ean pCB +ean pCB
-D %.:1 %.3% ;.39 3.32 9.1$ %.$1 3.92 2.$1
,g 0.00001 0.00003 0.0001A 0.00022 0.00001 0.00002 0.00030 0.000$1
,l 0.02 0.10 ;.%$ 1$.99 0.19 0.39 11.0: 22.09
,s 0.000A$ 0.001;2 0.02223 0.0$%22 0.003%9 0.00$19 0.02312 0.09:3;
4 0.0103 0.01;9 0.011$ 0.01$$ 0.0%:A 0.09:; 0.0%A: 0.0$0%
4a 0.02$$ 0.0A2; 0.0A;0 0.1A1A 0.11A0 0.13$3 0.0$$; 0.200A
4e 0.00002 0.00002 0.002:0 0.002:9 0.0001$ 0.0001; 0.009;2 0.01$$2
)a 39.$ A1.3 ;3.3 2$.% ;$.% 92.3 39.1 9;.;
)d 0.00021 0.00031 0.00209 0.00%%0 0.00121 0.000:A 0.03339 0.13%2;
)l 0.;A 0.;3 0.%2 0.%A 3.13 10.%$ 0.:9 1.::
)o 0.0019 0.003: 0.039$ 0.0A%0 0.0090 0.00;A 0.1133 0.2A11
)r 0.000$ 0.001$ 0.002: 0.003: 0.0002 0.0003 0.00%9 0.0231
)u 0.12%: 0.3A0: 2$.%A22 ;:.91;3 0.01%$ 0.03A1 11.A$:3 2%.92::
7 0.11 0.29 0.33 0.$1 1.2: 2.12 13.9: ;0.9;
7e 0.0;% 0.0A2 3%.:A$ %0.%$1 0.01% 0.092 ;9.A0: 13A.%22
Dg 0.00000A9 0.0000;21 0.0000222 0.0000;;0 0.00000;: 0.00000%3 0.000010: 0.000030;
/ 2.:% $.92 2.:A 3.93 1A.29 3;.3: %.30 1A.;2
"i 0.0022 0.00%0 0.0031 0.0012 0.00A2 0.01;% 0.002: 0.00A:
0g A.3$ 10.9; A.0: 12.:% 3.%% 9.AA 1.;2 A.$2
0n 1.0%1 2.11; 0.:2A 2.3:1 1.0:3 0.%23 1.1:: ;.231
0o 0.0122 0.0;31 0.000: 0.0031 0.00:0 0.02;% 0.000$ 0.002$
<a 0.%: 1.1$ 2.32 0.33 A.2A $.$A 1.91 3.0%
<i 0.000% 0.0012 0.01;: 0.0193 0.0013 0.0013 0.01A1 0.03%3
1b 0.0009 0.001: 0.00%A 0.013$ 0.003; 0.003A 0.2%90 1.2:A0
Sb 0.0012 0.0032 0.00A2 0.01$% 0.0229 0.023$ 0.0129 0.0;;0
Se 0.00$1 0.0111 0.02%9 0.0A3: 0.01%% 0.029A 0.01$2 0.0%0%
Si 1.0A 2.19 3.:3 $.0; ;.33 A.$A 13.9; 21.39
3contin"e.4

Ta#le $%($*D( p> an. Leac&in! ates 3m!/,!/)ee,4 from 8err an. Iron Cap >"mi.it' Cells
3complete.4
ABA Bloc, +o.el
Co.es
8N 8A ICN ICA
8err Ne"tral 8err Aci.ic Iron Cap Ne"tral Iron Cap Aci.ic
Sn 0.00039 0.000:3 0.000AA 0.001;% 0.000A9 0.0013A 0.0011% 0.00313
S?
;
102 12: 330 32% 12$ 23: 31; A91
Sr 0.301 0.;2$ 0.A$% 0.:%$ 0.$93 1.30% 0.;09 1.3;1
'l 0.00003 0.00002 0.00009 0.00002 0.0001$ 0.0002% 0.000A1 0.00130
6 0.00003 0.0000: 0.0019; 0.00331 0.00;1$ 0.01A0A 0.0:;92 0.2::%1
V 0.0001% 0.000%2 0.000A; 0.001;0 0.00103 0.003AA 0.001;$ 0.0031A
Fn 0.00% 0.012 0.3:A 1.;%% 0.03$ 0.0A1 3.1;3 12.2;%
,cidi!y :.%3 13.;: 1:2.:1 32A.:% 3.$9 :.2% 2$$.3A %$;.;A
,l5alini!y as D)?
3
1$.1 3%.; 0.0 %.2 2$.% 9A.0 0.0 0.$
C&lori.e set to t&e .etection limit )&en not anal'1e.
Fal"es of p> an. al,alinit' are set to t&e Bt& percentiles of .ata in t&e cases )&ere t&e CBt& percentile 3pCB4 is "se. as t&e conservative case
8 9 8err .eposit
S 9 S"lp&"rets .eposit
Ta#le $%($*G( p> an. Leac&in! ates 3m!/,!/)ee,4 from S"lp&"rets >"mi.it' Cells
ABA Bloc, +o.el
Co.es
SOA SLAN SUPN SUNN
S Over#"r.en Aci.ic S lo)er A" Ne"tral S UP >a1elton Ne"tral S Un.efine. Ne"tral
-D 2.:$ 2.A9 9.2$ %.$9 9.$A 9.A2 9.3: 9.A:
,g 0.00002 0.0000% 0.00002 0.0000; 0.00001 0.00002 0.00002 0.00009
,l %.02 10.%1 0.10 0.19 0.29 0.;% 0.10 0.1$
,s 0.13;91 0.;0$$0 0.000:$ 0.00292 0.00132 0.0020% 0.000:3 0.00231
4 0.0111 0.011A 0.013% 0.03:3 0.009A 0.011; 0.00;% 0.00:A
4a 0.002: 0.01A2 0.022% 0.02:; 0.2%%$ 0.;329 0.0A00 0.0:1;
4e 0.0020: 0.01A91 0.00003 0.00002 0.0002$ 0.000A% 0.00002 0.00002
)a 23.A %9.: 22.: 33.A 21.: 29.% 33.0 ;2.9
)d 0.01%;1 0.03099 0.00013 0.00030 0.00011 0.000A2 0.00;0: 0.01%;2
3contin"e.4

Ta#le $%($*G( p> an. Leac&in! ates 3m!/,!/)ee,4 from S"lp&"rets >"mi.it' Cells 3complete.4
ABA Bloc, +o.el
Co.es
SOA SLAN SUPN SUNN
S Over#"r.en Aci.ic S Lo)er A" Ne"tral S UP >a1elton Ne"tral S Un.efine. Ne"tral
)l :.3% 21.:; 0.;2 0.9A 0.2$ 0.;0 0.2% 0.22
)o 0.1A$2 0.2993 0.0002 0.000; 0.0001 0.0002 0.000% 0.001;
)r 0.00;% 0.00$3 0.000$ 0.0019 0.000% 0.001A 0.000$ 0.001%
)u 9.$932 10.132; 0.0092 0.01AA 0.00;$ 0.010; 0.001$ 0.003$
7 0.A9 1.2: 0.9$ 1.A0 0.10 0.;3 0.0$ 0.22
7e 132.1%$ 2$$.;23 0.09: 0.11% 0.023 0.11% 0.013 0.0;2
Dg 0.00000001 0.00000002 0.0000103 0.0000;10 0.0000031 0.0000211 0.00000AA 0.0000210
/ 1.0$ 3.A0 3.:1 :.:0 1.22 3.A2 1.3: ;.31
"i 0.000% 0.000$ 0.00%A 0.01;A 0.003% 0.00A$ 0.0030 0.00:A
0g 0.3$ 0.9% 2.$2 %.;1 0.%: 2.3$ 1.9: A.09
0n 0.939 2.91% 0.12% 0.1A: 0.03A 0.0%% 0.19$ 0.9%A
0o 0.0021 0.00AA 0.030; 0.0;1; 0.29$9 0.:3%: 0.00:3 0.01$9
<a 0.;1 0.A% 1.93 A.0A 0.$% 1.%: 0.;2 0.$9
<i 0.0$2A 0.1;2$ 0.000% 0.001; 0.000A 0.000$ 0.000% 0.001;
1b 0.0009 0.0023 0.000% 0.002% 0.0002 0.000$ 0.031A 0.0:$2
Sb 0.019: 0.032% 0.00$1 0.01:; 0.003% 0.011$ 0.003A 0.01A0
Se 0.00:: 0.012% 0.002$ 0.00%3 0.00A3 0.011; 0.00A0 0.01A%
Si $.;$ 12.39 1.3% 2.32 2.00 3.1$ 1.30 2.19
Sn 0.00011 0.00011 0.0009; 0.001$2 0.0003A 0.0011A 0.000;3 0.00109
S?
;
A$9 112A ;1 9: 1; 3; A% $9
Sr 0.13$ 0.;;3 0.%$: 1.A:% 0.A%$ 2.;0% 0.91: 2.1A%
'l 0.00093 0.00111 0.00001 0.00002 0.0000% 0.00011 0.00002 0.00002
6 0.01;09 0.090:9 0.001;9 0.00;%2 0.00139 0.00%01 0.00120 0.0030$
V 0.0022; 0.00913 0.0010; 0.002A2 0.00;$: 0.0112; 0.003A: 0.00$32
Fn A.:1% 11.A3A 0.00A 0.011 0.00; 0.010 0.101 0.;0A
,cidi!y AA2.$$ 10:;.29 :.33 13.$1 9.1: 12.A1 9.:; 13.2:
,l5alini!y as D)?
3
0.0 2.3 3:.2 AA.% A2.2 %1.2 ;3.1 A;.3
C&lori.e set to t&e .etection limit )&en not anal'1e.
Fal"es of p> an. al,alinit' are set to t&e Bt& percentiles of .ata in t&e cases )&ere t&e CBt& percentile 3pCB4 is "se. as t&e conservative case
S 9 S"lp&"rets .eposit

Ta#le $%($*C( p> an. Leac&in! ates 3m!/,!/)ee,4 from +itc&ell >"mi.it' Cells
ABA Bloc,
+o.el
Co.es
+UPN +UPA +LPN +LPA ++ON +BBA
+ UP >a1elton
Ne"tral
+ UP >a1elton
Aci.ic
+ LP >a1elton
Ne"tral
+ LP >a1elton
Ne"tral
+ +on1onite
Ne"tral
+ Leac&
#reccia/#ornite
#reccia Aci.ic
List of
Parameters +ean pCB +ean pCB +ean pCB +ean pCB +ean pCB +ean pCB
-D 9.A; 9.21 ;.:3 ;.;1 9.32 %.:A 3.3A 2.$; 9.:0 9.9A 2.A$ 2.1:
,g 0.00003 0.00011 0.0000% 0.0001A 0.00003 0.0000: 0.00011 0.00029 0.00001 0.00001 0.00139 0.002A3
,l 0.13 0.33 1.1$ 3.1; 0.0$ 0.30 :.%3 20.:A 0.3A 0.A; 19.01 2%.:3
,s 0.00300 0.01A9; 0.00102 0.0029A 0.0019% 0.00A:2 0.00319 0.00;$: 0.000:: 0.0011$ 0.202:9 0.391:9
4 0.00%9 0.011: 0.0100 0.0AA: 0.00A% 0.011; 0.010; 0.0122 0.0109 0.011% 0.00%0 0.00:;
4a 0.090; 0.1A;9 0.0332 0.0A9; 0.0%1$ 0.1A00 0.039% 0.09;% 0.3;30 0.$220 0.01AA 0.0310
4e 0.00011 0.000A3 0.0009$ 0.001%3 0.00002 0.000A3 0.00;:$ 0.02031 0.000A3 0.000A$ 0.001:9 0.00$A;
)a 29.$ 93.0 %.1 1%.% %1.3 39%.2 12.1 31.3 1:.: 29.3 :3.3 211.$
)d 0.000$9 0.00;30 0.00200 0.0032$ 0.00010 0.000A3 0.01%1; 0.0;2%9 0.0009A 0.00A2: 0.00101 0.001;2
)l 0.3; 0.%0 0.2$ 0.%A 0.3; 0.$1 0.00 2.10 0.00 0.00 9.AA 21.00
)o 0.0023 0.0020 0.1;30 0.232; 0.0003 0.001: 0.0;29 0.09A: 0.0001 0.0001 0.2190 0.3$9A
)r 0.000$ 0.0019 0.0010 0.0020 0.000$ 0.001% 0.00;3 0.0111 0.000% 0.000% 0.03;% 0.1A%3
)u 0.010A 0.023% 1$.%%:: 2%.19:$ 0.00A0 0.01;: $.0AAA 19.3;;3 0.00;1 0.00:2 1.100; 3.2192
7 0.;$ 1.%$ 0.:3 1.19 0.31 1.91 1.0: 2.:% 0.2; 1.32 1.%3 3.32
7e 0.020 0.0;9 0.099 0.31; 0.11% 0.0%% 92.;03 23;.;0: 0.099 0.212 10AA.2A2 1$A:.3::
Dg 0.00001%0 0.0000;2% 0.00001$A 0.0000;2A 0.000022: 0.0000;21 0.00000A3 0.0000111 0.00000003 0.00000001 0.000031; 0.00013;3
/ 1.$A A.02 2.39 %.0: 2.01 9.03 2.;A :.3$ 1.%0 3.31 1.:% A.A1
"i 0.002$ 0.00A9 0.00;: 0.009% 0.001: 0.00A% 0.01:% 0.0A;9 0.00A3 0.00A$ 0.029$ 0.0A3;
0g 1.22 A.01 0.90 1.:$ 1.:; A.19 :.2$ 19.%9 0.A2 1.1A 12.2$ 21.::
0n 0.229 0.$A% 10.$:A 1:.21; 0.232 0.A02 ;.02; 19.23: 0.0;% 0.11; 2.0A2 3.%2$
0o 0.0202 0.0:;0 0.002: 0.0111 0.0299 0.0:1$ 0.000$ 0.0012 0.0101 0.0;;1 0.011% 0.029%
<a 0.;: 0.:1 0.9$ 1.;; 0.9; 1.1% ;.10 2.1A 0.3; 0.A: %.92 $.31
<i 0.000% 0.0013 0.02:; 0.0;11 0.000$ 0.002: 0.0100 0.0212 0.000A 0.000% 0.02%% 0.0;3:
1b 0.001% 0.00$% 0.00%1 0.0220 0.000A 0.001$ 0.31A9 1.;A3: 0.0001 0.0001 0.03AA 0.092%
Sb 0.0A%: 0.;;2: 0.0011 0.00A; 0.0090 0.02;% 0.000A 0.0011 0.000: 0.0012 0.0011 0.0022
Se 0.00$1 0.0290 0.0101 0.013$ 0.00%% 0.020% 0.01A; 0.0;$0 0.00;3 0.0112 0.2%0; 0.;:2A
Si 1.A$ 2.%% 3.%A A.00 1.0$ 2.3$ :.:% 1$.0; 2.;3 3.39 ;0.11 9$.10
3contin"e.4

Ta#le $%($*C( p> an. Leac&in! ates 3m!/,!/)ee,4 from +itc&ell >"mi.it' Cells 3complete.4
ABA Bloc, +o.el
Co.es
+UPN +UPA +LPN +LPA ++ON +BBA
+ UP >a1elton
Ne"tral
+ UP >a1elton
Aci.ic
+ LP >a1elton
Ne"tral
+ LP >a1elton
Ne"tral
+ +on1onite
Ne"tral
+ Leac&
#reccia/#ornite
#reccia Aci.ic
List of Parameters +ean pCB +ean pCB +ean pCB +ean pCB +ean pCB +ean pCB
Sn 0.000A1 0.00113 0.00109 0.002;9 0.000A$ 0.001A1 0.000;: 0.00112 0.00012 0.00012 0.000:9 0.0021:
S?; 39 12: 99 100 139 $$; 39% $23 ; : 3>A3: %;9:
Sr 0.1:0 0.;$A 0.0%3 0.1%3 0.A$$ 3.%0$ 0.;33 2.22A 0.111 0.320 0.190 0.30;
'l 0.00003 0.00011 0.00010 0.000AA 0.00002 0.00011 0.0001% 0.00012 0.00011 0.00012 0.0002$ 0.000$3
6 0.00%:; 0.02A%% 0.003A$ 0.00:;% 0.00%13 0.021$1 0.013$: 0.0;%2$ 0.001A3 0.00;:2 0.019$9 0.0;3:0
V 0.00A9; 0.019%3 0.00023 0.0009% 0.000%0 0.001;$ 0.00$;2 0.0399$ 0.00A03 0.0111$ 0.01$32 0.02$$A
Fn 0.010 0.039 0.0$% 0.1$A 0.00A 0.012 1.3:A 3.%2; 0.001 0.001 0.202 0.392
,cidi!y $.1; 1;.0: ;:.9% 99.2$ :.20 1;.0% 323.0; 9:0.:; A.:2 10.;$ 3>3;A.11 A>AAA.A%
,l5alini!y as D)?3 ;2.A A$.3 1.1 3.$ 32.9 ;$.: 0.0 2.3 A0.3 %;.2 0.2 0.2
C&lori.e set to .etection limit )&en not anal'1e.
Fal"es of p> an. al,alinit' are set to t&e Bt& percentiles of .ata in t&e cases )&ere t&e CBt& percentile is "se. as t&e conservative case
+ 9 +itc&ell .eposit
IC 9 Iron Cap .eposit
Ta#le $%($*$%( Calc"late. La! Times for +ine Site <aste oc, #' +o.el Co.e
La! Time 3'ear4
+o.el Co.e +in -Bt& +e.ian +ean
/err 0 1; 2$ 2$
S,6 A;1
S ?verburden 0
S "oCer ,u $1 311 A;1 A;1
S "1 Da=el!on 12;
S 61 Da=el!on 1>000 1>000 1>000 1>000
S 0on=oni!e 19%
S 6nde(ined 91 :9 12; 12;
0 "eac* breccia8borni!e breccia 0
0 "1 Da=el!on 0 0 ;3 21;
0 61 Da=el!on %1 1;; 219 320
Iron )a- 0 0 12% 2A3

Ta#le $%($*$$( elative Percent Differences or elative Stan.ar. Deviation #et)een
>"mi.it' Cells Use. in +o.el Inp"t Co.es
8A 8N SLAN SUPN SUNN +UPN +LPN +LPA ++ON ICN ICA
SD PD PD PD PD SD SD SD PD SD SD
-D ;2 13 11 A.$ 3.; 3.1 1.3 %.0 1.3 3.$ 10
,cidi!y> 'o!al #as )a)?
3
& 119 1$ 2.A :2 A$ 3; 19 9$ 13 1A 3A
,l5alini!y> 'o!al #as )a)?
3
& 1%2 101 $: ;.$ 33 22 22 $0 %.$ ;2 20
,onia as <
4roide #4r&
)*loride #)l& 122 102 ;.1 200 0.3 1A $2 12
7luoride #7& 1A; ;0 19; :9 0.3 1$$ 223 A3 11$ 3A 110
<i!ra!e #as <&
Sul-*a!e #S?
;
& 12: 113 ;A ;3 2.% 11A 212 90 19 22 3$
,luinu #,l&-Dissolved 1;A 1%% 91 $0 $0 $2 30 %; :.1 ;$ 33
,n!iony #Sb&-Dissolved 1%; 1A1 3: A2 ;9 2;1 1;9 9; ;2 ;% $3
,rsenic #,s&-Dissolved 102 10: 2% A3 $2 1$9 A: %0 29 ;2 3A
4ariu #4a&-Dissolved 92 $% 2: 99 $; $% %2 $9 192 %A ;:
4erylliu #4e&-Dissolved 10: 21 ;.1 1$A 0.3 1%$ ;.1 A% 0.A 1: $.3
4oron #4&-Dissolved 1; 12% 22 :2 22 %% 23 A; 0.A $.; 1:
)adiu #)d&-Dissolved 110 :9 1A: 1;: 200 1$; 9$ :% 90 :% 111
)alciu #)a&-Dissolved $3 %9 %$ 29 1: 9: 199 A: 1.3 29 %0
)*roiu #)r&-Dissolved 1A1 3: 1: ; 0 ;9 1A 9; 2$ $.: 2;
)obal! #)o&-Dissolved 123 191 12% %1 1A$ 23A 1%A ;: 0.A AA 3:
)o--er #)u&-Dissolved 9% 19A 33 102 %1 A9 101 A% 1;A 2% ;1
Iron #7e&-Dissolved 1;A 1$% 1:$ :2 1%: %$ 31 12% 10A 39 A1
Iron #7e&-Dissolved 1: 12% 1;3 12$ 1:% 19% :2 123 0.2 90 9:
"ead #1b&-Dissolved 11A A% ;3 13% 0.3 10A 2.A 9$ 0.A A3 3:
"i!*iu #"i&-Dissolved 112 1:1 9: ;A ;9 19% 11% 9A 193 %2 :%
3contin"e.4

Ta#le $%($*$$( elative Percent Differences or elative Stan.ar. Deviation #et)een
>"mi.it' Cells Use. in +o.el Inp"t Co.es 3complete.4
8A 8N SLAN SUPN SUNN +UPN +LPN +LPA ++ON ICN ICA
SD PD PD PD PD SD SD SD PD SD SD
0agnesiu #0g&-Dissolved 102 199 33 120 3.: 129 %% %2 1$1 32 $0
0anganese #0n&-Dissolved 22 1:1 200 200 1% 10$ 32 193 0.A 9.; 2A
0ercury #Dg&-Dissolved $0 1A2 32 1:9 %: 1%9 99 11: 1$A AA ;%
0olybdenu #0o&-
Dissolved
1;; :$ ;.A 9% 9.0 3: 113 100 12 :.; %1
<ic5el #<i&-Dissolved A; 1%; %1 :3 %9 3% 22 9: 10; 2; 1$
1o!assiu #/&-Dissolved 3; 1;$ 0.9 10 1;9 $0 119 $% 19% ;: 3%
Seleniu #Se&-Dissolved 133 %1 $; %; 32 31 2$ %3 :.1 29 3%
Silicon #Si&-Dissolved 12$ ;: ; A1 1;A 10% 99 11$ 0.A 1: A2
Silver #,g&-Dissolved ;9 1A; 9$ A9 3; A$ 2: A 109 ;1 ;0
Sodiu #<a&-Dissolved ;$ 11$ 9A 99 AA 99 1:0 %$ :3 1% ;$
S!ron!iu #Sr&-Dissolved 3.3 A9 1%2 13% 0.3 10A 2.A %3 0.A 2$ 93
'*alliu #'l&-Dissolved $.9 A1 39 13A :.2 9A ;: A% A% 9: 1$
'in #Sn&-Dissolved 111 11; 132 $1 1:; 12% 12% $3 1$3 22 3:
6raniu #6&-Dissolved 139 1%1 109 23 1%0 12% 3A 1%3 11; 90 32
Vanadiu #V&-Dissolved 1%0 91 :3 32 1:9 11A 3: 123 0.A 99 100
Finc #Fn&-Dissolved ;2 13 11 A.$ 3.; 3.1 1.3 %.0 1.3 3.$ 10

Geochemistry
J uly 2013 Application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate / Environmental Impact Statement Seabridge Gold Inc.
10.1.2.2.3 Groundwater Seep Characterization
Naturally occurring groundwater seeps were samp led at the Kerr deposit (5 seeps), Sulphurets
deposit (1 seep), Mitchell deposi t (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 acidic. Sulphate concentrations
at the Kerr and Mitchell seeps frequently exceeded the British Colum bia Ministry of
Environment 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 indicate
that 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 is
presented in Table 10.1-12. Full details are presented in Appendix 10-A, Section 8.
10.1.2.3 Tailing Characterization
A multi-year (2007 to 2012) com prehensive metallurgical program has been completed on the
Kerr, 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 tail ing 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 Cap
deposits 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 evident
for 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 lesser
amounts of chalcopyrite and molybdenite. Minor amounts of gypsum were identified in tailing as
another sulphur-bearing mineral.

Ta#le $%($*$-( Statistical S"mmar' of Selecte. Elements in Gro"n.)ater Seeps
Parameter
3m!/L4
8err Deposit +itc&ell Falle' Nort& +itc&ell Falle' So"t& Te. +orris an. +cTa!! Falle's
+aH +e.ian +in +aH +e.ian +in +aH +e.ian +in +aH +e.ian +in
-D 9.2: 3.;% 1.2A 9.A2 %.2; 2.9: :.A; ;.30 2.02 9.9; 9.02 A.2A
'o!al 7luoride 1.00 0.A0 0.0A0 2.0A 0.$3% 0.0%3 1$.0A 1.$$ 0.2:: ;.9: 0.$:3 0.0;0
'o!al ,luinu $.9: A.3% 0.00A3 3.:0A 0.%3: 0.0033 1:A 9.1; 0.0015 %9.$ 0.09A9 0.0015
'o!al ,rsenic 0.0293 0.000: 0.00005 0.00;%2 0.0001%A 0.00005 1.1: 0.00311 0.00005 0.023 0.0002A 0.00005
'o!al )adiu 0.0032; 0.001$: 0.000005 0.00929 0.0022; 0.000005 0.233A 0.01:1 0.0000$$ 0.199 0.0; 0.00001%
'o!al )*roiu 0.00;2 0.00131 0.00005 0.000A 0.0001 0.00005 0.0;0; 0.000;03 0.00005 0.01%A 0.000A 0.00005
'o!al )obal! 0.03:1 0.022: 0.00005 0.0119 0.001:9 0.00005 0.A%2 0.02%2A 0.0003% 0.2$1 0.030% 0.00005
'o!al )o--er ;.23 1.$1 0.000$$ 2.1A 0.3;$ 0.00099 :1 3.%% 0.000$1 1.9; 0.00%3 0.0001%
'o!al Iron 99.A 1:.; 0.015 23.% 0.01A 0.015 2;30 23.A 0.015 32.0 3.1: 0.015
'o!al "ead 0.00;$ 0.000%0A 0.00002A 0.00%$$ 0.0010% 0.00002A 0.A9: 0.01:: 0.000025 0.0021: 0.00010 0.000025
'o!al 0anganese ;.13 2.;3 0.0011$ 0.$$: 0.209 0.000909 32.$A 2.33 0.0132 11 2.3% 0.0001$2
'o!al 0ercury 0.0000A: 0.000005 0.000005 0.00001 0.000005 0.000005 0.00001A 0.00000A 0.000005 0.00001 0.00000A 0.000005
'o!al Seleniu 0.0010$ 0.0003: 0.00005 0.00;:A 0.001$$ 0.00005 0.23$ 0.0013: 0.00005 0.01% 0.00;3 0.00015
'o!al Silver 0.0000A 0.000011 0.000005 0.000111 0.00002 0.000005 0.002%: 0.0000%1A 0.000005 0.000;13 0.000022 0.000005
'o!al Vanadiu 0.013$ 0.001 0.0001 0.001AA 0.000A 0.0001 0.2$: 0.0020A 0.0005 0.00%A 0.001 0.0005
'o!al Finc 0.A22 0.2$ 0.0002 0.;9; 0.13% 0.001A 1A 1.19 0.0202 10.; 2.;A 0.001
Italici1e. val"es are #elo) t&e .etection limit
Ta#le $%($*$7( S"mmar' of Aci. Base Acco"ntin! Test es"lts for Tailin! +aterial
Tailin!
N"m#er of
Samples
Samples
)it& Paste
p> ? @(%
Total*S"lp&"r
3=4
Total*S"lp&"r an.
S"lp&i.e*S"lp&"r
elations&ip
So#e, NP
3,! CaCO7/t4
So#e, NP
Correlation
Samples )it&
A./"ste.
SNP ? -(%
0i!c*ell roug*er 1 0 0.3$ @ea5 2$ S!rong Inorg <1 0
0i!c*ell sul-*ide 1 1 22.; S!rong % S!rong )a <1 1
0i!c*ell roug*er8sul-*ide :0310 1 0 3.13 S!rong 22 S!rong Inorg <1 1
0i!c*ell roug*er-(ine 1 0 0.3$ @ea5 31 S!rong Inorg <1 0
0i!c*ell roug*er-coarse 1 0 0.21 @ea5 31 S!rong Inorg <1 0
0i!c*ell8/err roug*er 1% 0 0.1:-0.A @ea5 12-2% S!rong Inorg <1 0
0i!c*ell8Sul-*ure!s roug*er ; 0 0.11-0.1: @ea5 ;1-;% S!rong Inorg <1 0
Iron )a- roug*er $ 0 0.0A-0.0$ @ea5 2;-2$ S!rong Inorg <1 0
NP 9 ne"trali1ation potentialI SNP 9 s"lp&i.e net potential ratioI Ca NP 9 calci"m calc"late. ne"trali1ation potentialI Inor! NP 9 inor!anic ne"trali1ation potential
Geochemistry
Bulk Sobek NP values showed strong correlation with the NP calculated from calcium and
inorganic 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 lesser
amounts of siderite. The estimation of unavailable NP was used as a standard practice (Price
2009). A value of 15 kg CaCO
3
/t of unavailable NP was derived from the complete 2008 to 2012
KSM 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) with
the 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 analysis
after 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 were
greater than three times the shale crustal abundance. The rougher tailing material typically had
silver, 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 the
particle 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% by
weight was finer than 150 microns. Mitchell/Kerr rougher tailing and Mitchell/Sulphurets
rougher 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 use
in 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 of
NP 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).

Ta#le $%($*$;( p> an. Leac&in! ates from Tailin! 8inetic Tests epresentin! So"rce Terms
for Tailin! +ana!ement Facilit' Tailin! +aterial
List of
Parameters
3m!/,!/)ee,4
+ o"!&er Coarse + o"!&er +/8 o"!&er +/S o"!&er IC o"!&er
C'clone Dams Beac&es Beac&es Beac&es Beac&es
>C av all >C CBt& all >C av all >C CBt& all >C av all >C CBt& all >C av all >C CBt& all >C av all >C CBt& all
-D $.0 9.9 $.0 9.9 $.0 9.$ $.3 $.1 $.2 $.1
Silver ,g 0.000002; 0.000002A 0.00000%0 0.000002A 0.0000023 0.000002A 0.0000023 0.000002A 0.000002% 0.000002A
,luinu ,l 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.0; 0.0A 0.0: 0.03 0.0A
,rsenic ,s 0.0002 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001 0.0009 0.000% 0.000$ 0.001; 0.000A 0.000%
4oron 4 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.011 0.02A 0.00; 0.013 0.003 0.00%
4ariu 4a 0.10 0.20 0.0: 0.20 0.0% 0.13 0.11 0.1% 0.0: 0.1A
4erylliu 4e 0.00012 0.00012 0.00012 0.00012 0.00011 0.00012 0.000022 0.00002A 0.000022 0.00002A
4roide 4r 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
)alciu )a 33 1A1 93 2$3 %2 1:: 12 1% 11 1A
)adiu )d 0.0000$ 0.00012 0.000002; 0.000002 0.000002A 0.000002 0.00000%1 0.00001; 0.0000103 0.000019
)*loride )l 0.1 0.1 0.; 0.;
)obal! )o 0.000023: 0.00002;$ 0.000023A 0.00002;$ 0.000022: 0.00002;A 0.000022% 0.00002;$ 0.000022; 0.00002;A
)*roiu )r 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.000A 0.0012 0.000; 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
)o--er )u 0.0012 0.0013 0.000A 0.0011 0.0009 0.0010 0.0010 0.001% 0.000A 0.0009
7luoride 7 0.03 0.10 0.0A 0.13 0.0A 0.0: 0.0; 0.12 0.31 0.39
Iron 7e 0.0091 0.009; 0.009% 0.011 0.00$0 0.009; 0.010 0.021 0.00$3 0.01%
0ercury Dg 0.000002 0.000002 0.000002 0.000002 0.000002 0.000002 0.000002 0.000003 0.000002 0.000002
1o!assiu / 1.1$ 3.;; 1.91 %.3$ 1.3A 3.01 1.1: 2.3% 1.93 ;.2%
"i!*iu "i 0.002 0.001 0.002 0.00% 0.002 0.010 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.001
0agnesiu 0g 1.0: 1.33 2.09 ;.23 0.9%3 1.A; 1.0% 1.3; 0.$2: 0.:9:
0anganese 0n 0.03% 0.13 0.0%3 0.2% 0.02A 0.0;% 0.009; 0.019 0.02; 0.0;0
0olybdenu 0o 0.009 0.01% 0.003 0.00A 0.003 0.00: 0.021 0.0;1 0.00% 0.012
Sodiu <a 0.2; 0.3$ 0.32 0.:3 0.20 0.A2 0.20 0.;1 0.1: 0.A1
3contin"e.4

Ta#le $%($*$;( p> an. Leac&in! ates from Tailin! 8inetic Tests epresentin! So"rce Terms
for Tailin! +ana!ement Facilit' Tailin! +aterial 3complete.4
List of
Parameters
3m!/,!/)ee,4
+ o"!&er Coarse + o"!&er +/8 o"!&er +/S o"!&er IC o"!&er
C'clone Dams Beac&es Beac&es Beac&es Beac&es
>C av all >C CBt& all >C av all >C CBt& all >C av all >C CBt& all >C av all >C CBt& all >C av all >C CBt& all
<ic5el <i 0.000%03 0.00330 0.000;33 0.00229 0.00011; 0.00012 0.00011A 0.00013 0.000112 0.00012
"ead 1b 0.000012 0.00001 0.000012 0.00001 0.000021 0.0000; 0.0000%$ 0.0001% 0.0000:% 0.0002;
,n!iony Sb 0.000$9A 0.0012A 0.000229 0.0002A 0.000%;; 0.000$; 0.0013;1 0.003A% 0.002$19 0.00;12
Seleniu Se 0.001%3% 0.002;A 0.001A22 0.002;9 0.00129A 0.002;A 0.000%00 0.00190 0.000:A1 0.001%$
Silicon Si 0.A 0.: 0.% 0.9 0.% 0.9 1.0 1.A 0.: 1.1
'in Sn 0.00002 0.00002 0.00003 0.00002 0.00002 0.00002 0.00002 0.00002 0.00002 0.00002
Sul-*a!e S0
;
%; 339 1%1 %$3 133 ;9% 12 A$ : 21
S!ron!iu Sr 0.3 1.2 0.$ 2.; 0.9 1.: 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3
'*alliu 'l 0.00002; 0.00002A 0.00002; 0.00002A 0.000023 0.00002A 0.000002 0.000002 0.000013 0.00002;
6raniu 6 0.00013 0.000%3 0.0003A 0.0013 0.00022; 0.000%; 0.0002% 0.000;3 0.00099 0.0011
Vanadiu V 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.000A 0.001; 0.0002 0.0002
Finc Fn 0.00092 0.0009; 0.00091 0.0009; 0.0011; 0.00123 0.00113 0.0012A 0.000%9 0.0009;
,cidi!y 1 2 2 3 1 3 1 2 1 2
,l5alini!y as D)?
3
20 22 23 2$ 1: 2A 2; 2$ 23 2:
Fal"es of p> an. al,alinit' are set to t&e Bt& percentiles of .ata in t&e cases )&ere t&e CBt& percentile is "se. as t&e conservative case
+ 9 +itc&ell tailin!I +/S 9 +itc&ell*S"lp&"rets tailin!I +/8 9 +itc&ell*8err tailin!I IC 9 Iron Cap tailin!

Geochemistry
Ta#le $%($*$B( p> an. Concentrations 3m!/L4 from Pilot Plant Tests
epresentin! 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
-D :.AJ $.;2
Silver ,g 0.00001 0.0000$;
,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
)o--er )u 0.0001 0.0%9;
7luoride 7 0.$$A 0.2
Iron 7e 0.002A 0.01A
0ercury Dg 0.00002A 0.00000A
1o!assiu / 32.3 $$.;
"i!*iu "i 0.002A 0.019;
0agnesiu 0g 1.A$ $.%;
0anganese 0n 0.01A2A 0.03:$
0olybdenu 0o 0.022; 0.211
Sodiu <a 1: ;2:
<ic5el <i 0.000A 0.0039
"ead 1b 0.0001 0.00012A
,n!iony Sb 0.0002A 0.01$
Seleniu Se 0.00;$9A 0.0A;3
Silicon Si 0.;2: 3.2
'in Sn 0.002A 0.0002A
Sul-*a!e S?
;
209 1%20
S!ron!iu Sr 0.;$% 1.%2
'*alliu 'l 0.00002A 0.00002A
6raniu 6 0.0000A 0.00002A
Vanadiu V 0.002A 0.002A
Finc Fn 0.002A 0.02%
,cidi!y 0.2A 0.A
,l5alini!y as
D)?
3

11.1A 23A
Elements )it& val"es #elo) t&e met&o. .etection limit in all t&e so"rces0 BrA CrA BeA BA P#A TlA SnA an. F
J Estimate. p> of Treat' Process Plant effl"ent
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& 1inetic 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 roc1 in the proposed 2ro5ect area for
the assessment of (L:AR0 potential in areas that may be disturbed8 e<posed8 or e<ca!ated
during proposed mining acti!ities such as infrastructure de!elopment. ,on-deposit material
assessed for this characteri'ation includes o!erburden samples collected from drill holes and
grab samples from hand-dug test pits8 and roc1 samples collected from drill holes and grab
samples hammered from outcrops. A detailed presentation of the non-deposit samples
characteri'ation is pro!ided in Appendi< 10-A.
,on-deposit o!erburden material is li1ely to be used for reclamation and as fill material for
construction of buildings and roads. As such it "ill li1ely be mo!ed during the life of the
operation and remain e<posed to physical and chemical "eathering and erosion conditions
similar to current conditions. !erburden material had significant !ariability based on the
sampling site8 from organic silts to "ell-graded fine to coarse gra!els.
,on-deposit roc1 material is li1ely to be e<posed during road construction or in locations "here
bedroc1 "ill be blasted to ma1e le!el surfaces 6e.g.8 building or dam foundations78 or used as fill
material during construction of buildings and potentially in roads. As such8 it "ill li1ely be
mo!ed during the life of the operation and remain e<posed to physical and chemical "eathering
and erosion. The non-deposit roc1 samples !ary bet"een sedimentary and !olcanic roc1 types
and come from the Stuhini8 ?a'elton8 $o"ser La1e groups8 and one sample from the Mippa
(ountain 2lutonic &omple<.
,on-deposit material "as assessed in #%* A$A tests8 four sha1e flas1 e<traction leachate tests
on o!erburden material8 and three meteoric "ater mobility protocol leachate e<tractions on
composites of material from abo!e the (itchell 2it "alls.
The sampling locations of the (ine Site and 2rocessing and Tailing (anagement Area 62T(A78
including the T&AR and &&A& non-deposit (L:AR0 samples are presented in Figures 10.1-1
to 10.1-%.

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<ception of (itchell
material. The (itchell non-deposit o!erburden presented stored acidity from o<idi'ed roc1s
6paste p? J )7 in #3K of the samples. &oncentrations of total-sulphur ranged from belo" the
detection limit 60.01K7 to ).C*K. A strong correlation bet"een total-sulphur and sulphide-
sulphur concentrations "as e!ident in all samples.
,2 !alues ranged from ) to %0+ 1g &a&
%
:t. (itchell samples had slightly lo"er ,2 !alues than
other locations. The Sobe1 ,2 correlated reasonably "ell "ith ,2 calculated from calcium and
inorganic carbon8 but not "ith ,2 calculated from calcium and magnesium8 indicating that most
of the ,2 is from calcium-bearing carbonates. (ean and median unad5usted S,2R !alues "ere
consistently abo!e #.0 for non-deposit o!erburden located outside the (itchell 2it8 indicating
that the ma5ority of o!erburden material is ,2AG.
The e<traction from four o!erburden sha1e flas1 e<tractions had ele!ated concentrations for
sulphate8 aluminum8 arsenic8 cadmium8 chromium8 cobalt8 copper8 iron8 lead8 manganese8
molybdenum8 nic1el8 selenium8 and 'inc abo!e recei!ing en!ironment "ater 9uality guidelines
indicating the potential for (L from non-deposit o!erburden.
10.1.2.$.3 *on+de#o)it Rock "tatic (e)ting
A$A test results of the non-deposit roc1 material samples are summari'ed in Table 10.1-1C.
2aste p? !alues "ere typically abo!e ).0 "ith the e<ception of #)K of the (itchell and #BK of
proposed Sulphurets 2it samples.
&oncentrations of total-sulphur ranged from belo" the detection limit 60.01K7 to 1%.0CK.
The proposed (itchell 0i!ersion Tunnels 6(0T78 near (itchell 2it8 near Sulphurets 2it8 and
Sulphurets laydo"n area locations had the highest total-sulphur concentrations. A strong
correlation bet"een total-sulphur and sulphide-sulphur concentrations "as e!ident in all samples.
$ul1 Sobe1 ,2 !alues !aried among sample locations. The &&A&8 (0T8 (itchell 2it8 and
Sulphurets 2it had paste p? !alues J ).08 indicating some una!ailable ,2. $ased on ad5usted
S,2R !alues8 samples from the proposed T&AR8 (cTagg T"inned 0i!ersion Tunnels8 and
Sulphurets laydo"n area demonstrated a lo" potential for acid generation. (aterial from .ater
Storage dam 9uarries "ith ad5usted S,2R !alues greater than %.0 "ill be used during initial
construction of the .ater Storage dam prior to the e<ca!ation of the Sulphurets 9uarry.
Three (itchell high"all composites "ere sub5ected to a meteoric "ater mobility protocol
leachate e<traction. The concentrations of sulphate8 aluminum8 arsenic8 boron8 chromium8
copper8 phosphorus8 selenium8 !anadium8 and 'inc in the e<traction reflected acidic e<traction
conditions. This result indicates that the (itchell high"all material "ould be unsuitable as
construction material outside of the .ater Storage Facility 6.SF7 catchment.

Ta#le $%($*$@( S"mmar' of Aci. Base Acco"ntin! Test es"lts for Non*.eposit
Over#"r.en +aterial
Non*.eposit
Over#"r.en
+aterial
N"m#er of
Samples
= Samples
)it& Paste
p> ? @(%
an!e of
Total*S"lp&"r
3=4
Total*S"lp&"r an.
S"lp&i.e*S"lp&"r
elations&ip
an!e of
So#e, NP
3,! CaCO
7
/t4 So#e, NP Correlation
= Samples )it&
A./"ste. SNP
? -(%
'07 2 0 0.19-0.22 S!rong 11-;9 S!rong Inorg> )a <1 0
0c'agg RS7 2 0 0.03-0.0; S!rong A;-92 S!rong Inorg> )a <1 0
0i!c*ell RS7 2A 0 0.00A-;.A: S!rong 12-30; S!rong Inorg> )a <1 2;
<ear 0i!c*ell 1i! ; 2A 0.0A-%.9$ S!rong :-19 S!rong Inorg> )a <1 9A
Sul-*ure!s laydoCn
area
1 0 0.0A S!rong 11 S!rong Inorg> )a <1 0
'ed 0orris Valley A 0 0.02-0.19 S!rong :-1$ S!rong Inorg> )a <1 0
@S7 10 0 0.0%-1.;9 S!rong :-2;2 S!rong Inorg> )a <1 10
Ca NP 9 calci"m calc"late. ne"trali1ation potential
Ta#le $%($*$D( S"mmar' of Aci. Base Acco"ntin! Test es"lts for Non*.eposit oc, +aterial
Non*.eposit oc,
+aterial
N"m#er of
Samples
= Samples
)it& Paste
p> ? @(%
an!e of
Total*S"lp&"r
3=4
Total*S"lp&"r an.
S"lp&i.e*S"lp&"r
elations&ip
an!e of
So#e, NP
3,! CaCO
7
/t4 So#e, NP Correlation
= Samples )it&
A./"ste. SNP
? -(%
'07 2; 0 0.02-1.02 S!rong ;-2%1 S!rong Inorg> )a <1 33
<ear 0i!c*ell 1i! 29 2% 0.01-%.%1 S!rong 0.;-33A 0odera!e Inorg> )a <1 ;$
<ear Sul-*ure!s 1i! 1; 2: 0.01-3.2 S!rong 0-13; S!rong Inorg> )a <1 ;3
Sul-*ure!s
laydoCn area
3 0 0.3-0.9A S!rong $;-12A S!rong Inorg> )a <1 0
@S7 2 0 0.02-1.%$ S!rong 1:3-;1A S!rong )a <1 0
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 &ree1 access road 6,T&AR7 near the ,orth Treaty
tributary 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 6.ardrop #01#7. A detailed (L:AR0 potential assessment of the &&AR
and T&AR is included in Appendi< 10-$.
Topographical base maps are o!erlain "ith the (L:AR0 potentials and the access road
alignment 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:AR0
field"or1 bedroc1 and collu!ium samples.
&oulter &ree1 Access Road
The distribution of (L:AR0 classification for each #00 m segment of the proposed &&AR is
pro!ided in Table 10.1-1*. Thirty-t"o percent or 10.) 1m of the &&AR alignment has an
(L:AR0 potential of @possibleA or @highA 6Figure 10.1-37.
Ta#le $%($*$G( Distri#"tion of Co"lter Cree, Access oa. +etal
Leac&in!/Aci. oc, Draina!e Classification
+L/AD an,in! N"m#er of Se!ments = of Total
Dig* A 3I
1ossible ;$ 2:I
"oC ;: 30I
<one %2 3$I
'o!al 1%; 100I

Treaty &ree1 Access Road
The distribution of (L:AR0 classification for each #00 m segment of the proposed T&AR and
,T&AR are pro!ided in Table 10.1-1B and sho"n on Figure 10.1-). ,o segments of the T&AR
or ,T&AR alignments "ere classified as ha!ing a high (L:AR0 potential.
Ta#le $%($*$C( Distri#"tion of t&e Treat' Cree, Access oa. +etal
Leac&in!/Aci. oc, Draina!e Classification
+L/AD an,in! N"m#er of Se!ments = of Total
Dig* 0 0I
1ossible A0 23I
"oC A 2I
<one 1%3 9AI
'o!al 21$ 100I

Geochemistry
REV D.1-b 10+3$ Rescan Environen!al Services "!d. #$%$-01%&
The (L:AR0 potential ran1ings of the &&AR are relati!ely e!enly distributed among
@possible8A @lo"8A and @none.A Road segments of the &&AR "ith a high (L:AR0 potential
6%K of the alignment7 are fre9uently associated "ith fault 'ones and geological contacts8 as "ell
as those sections "here cut dominates fill. The (L:AR0 potential of the northern #0 1m of the
&&AR alignment along &oulter &ree1 is possible to high and the ma5ority of the southeastern
sections along Sulphurets &ree1 ha!e an (L:AR0 potential of none.
The (L:AR0 potential ran1ing of the T&AR is predominantly lo" to none "ith fe" segments
of high or possible (L:AR0 potential. This ran1ing 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 phaseF
;ast &atchment 0i!ersion Tunnel8 phase 1D
(cTagg T"inned 0i!ersion Tunnels8 phase 1D
(itchell 0i!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 phaseF
;ast &atchment 0i!ersion Tunnel8 phase #D
(itchell 0i!ersion Tunnels8 phase #D
(cTagg T"inned 0i!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<imate !olume of 2AG material to
be e<ca!ated from each tunnel 6Table 10.1-#07. The assessment subdi!ided each tunnel
alignment based on the stratigraphic unit of the bedroc1 along the tunnel alignment.
.here samples e<isted8 the percentage of the tunnel segment classified as 2AG 6ad5 S,2R J #7
"as based on all samples "ithin # 1m of the tunnel alignment and "ithin the same stratigraphic
unit. This result "as compared to the percentage of all non-deposit samples collected from the
same stratigraphic unit "ith an ad5usted S,2R less than t"o. The greater of the t"o percentages
"as used to calculate the !olume of 2AG material 6Table 10.1-#07.
PROJECT # GIS No.
ML/ARD Potential - Coulter Creek Access Road
F
i
g
u
r
e

1
0
.
1
-
5
Figure 10.1-5
KSM-13-049_T 868-017-17 May 24, 2013
PROJECT # GIS No.
Figure 10.1-6
ML/ARD Potential - Treaty
Creek Access Road
KSM-13-048_T 868-017-17 May 24, 2013
Geochemistry
REV D.1-b 10+;3 Rescan Environen!al Services "!d. #$%$-01%&
Ta#le $%($*-%( S"mmar' of Aci. Base Acco"ntin! Test es"lts
for Non*.eposit oc, +aterial
T"nnel
Fol"me
EHtracte.
3m
7
4
= PAG 3#ase. on
samples )it&in
- ,m of ali!nment4
= PAG
3#ase. on
strati!rap&'4
Fol"me PAG
+aterial 3m
7
4
Eas! )a!c*en! diversion !unnel ::>A00 A0 2: ;:>$00
0c'agg 'Cinned Diversion 'unnels A93>100 1$ 20 119>000
0i!c*ell Diversion 'unnels :;2>:00 A2 31 ;$:>;00
0i!c*ell underground drainage !unnels 391>:00 2$ 20 103>300
0i!c*ell-'rea!y 'Cinned 'unnels :A$>900 2; 2: 29;>A00
0i!c*ell 1i! nor!* Call deCa!ering adi! %A>000 A2 2% 33>900
Sul-*ure!s-0i!c*ell )onveyor 'unnel 1$%>000 0 2% ;9>%00
@S7 diversion !unnel 2%>100 0 20 A>300
$%(- So"rce Terms for <ater 2"alit' +o.ellin!
This section pro!ides the source terms that "ere used in the "ater 9uality prediction model that
"as de!eloped to predict "ater 9uality and inform "ater management planning. The model
inputs discussed in this section includeF mined ore and "aste roc18 tailing8 and chemical loading
contributions from the Treaty 2rocess 2lant supernatant and high density sludge. Surface "ater
9uality prediction results are presented in &hapter 1+.
$%(-($ So"rce Term +et&o.olo!'
10.2.1.1 Data Sources
Source terms "ere de!eloped using e<pected characteristics of each 2ro5ect component including
roc1 type8 grain si'e distribution8 predicted release rates8 mine plan8 and 2ro5ect schedule.
.ater chemistry source terms "ere de!eloped from humidity cell release rates that are presented
in tables in Section 10.1 and are fully documented in Appendi< 10-A. Roc1 types "ere defined
based on the A$A bloc1 model in Appendi< 10-A. The mine plan and schedule "ere obtained
from the 2reliminary Feasibility Study 6.ardrop #01#7.
10.2.1.2 Chemical oading Calculations
To calculate the load or mass flu< mo!ing from the solid material into the a9ueous phase8 the
rate of release "as scaled and multiplied by the mass of solid material a!ailable for reaction as
follo"sF
L = R
"hereF
L Q Load or mass flu< 6mg:"ee17
R Q Rate of release 6mg:N1g H "ee1O7
Q (ass of material 61g7
Geochemistry
REV D.1-b 10+;; Rescan Environen!al Services "!d. #$%$-01%&
10.2.1.3 Detection imits
The detection limits of the 1inetic 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 some
parameters. 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 could
occur 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 usedF
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 "ee1s 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 for
all !alues that "ere reported as belo" either of the reported detection limitsD and
"hen results "ere reported as constantly belo" detection limit for all "ee1s8 half of the
second detection limit "as used for all !alues.
$%(-(- +ine Site
10.2.2.1 Scaling !actor
Release rates obser!ed for laboratory "aste roc1 and ore humidity cells "ere ad5usted for grain si'e
effects8 temperature effects8 and the degree of flushing or "ater contact using a bul1 scaling factor.
The scaling factor is calculated as follo"sF
S! = "
t
"
#
"$
"hereF
S! Q scaling factorD
"
t
Q 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 "ater
6unitless7.
The grain si'e fraction effect "as determined based on the proportion of the reacti!e fraction
present 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 1G:mol8 as
described in (;,0 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.
PROJECT # ILLUSTRATION # 868-017-17-03 a39622w July 23, 2013
Decrease in Oxidation Rate Predicted by the Arrhenius
Equation 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
5
0
k
J
/m
o
l
6
0
k
J
/m
o
l
0
Source: MEND (2006).
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Temperature (C)
R
e
a
c
t
i
o
n

R
a
t
e

R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

t
o

2
0
C
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 roc1 and ore production schedule is identified in the mine plan8 as defined in
Table 10.#-1.
Ta#le $%(-*$( +ine Sc&e."le
Deposit Lear +inin! +et&o.
0i!c*ell -2 !o 23 o-en -i!
Sul-*ure!s -2 !o % o-en -i!
Sul-*ure!s 23 !o 29 o-en -i!
/err 29 !o A0 o-en -i!
0i!c*ell 2% !o A1.A bloc5 cave
Iron )a- 32 !o A1 bloc5 cave

.aste roc1 disposal schedules for the (itchell RSF and (cTagg RSF "ere prepared by (oose
(ountain Technical Ser!ices. The "aste roc1 disposal schedules "ere de!eloped based on the
A$A bloc1 model and are presented in Table 10.#-# for the (itchell RSF and Table 10.#-% for the
(cTagg RSF. .aste roc1 generated during the construction phase "as included in Rear 1.
The humidity cells for each model code used in the "ater 9uality prediction model are defined in
Section 10.1.#.#8 Table 10.1-). The "ater chemistry model inputs combined humidity cell results
from both ore and "aste roc1 as this approach captured more potential !ariability "ithin the "aste
roc18 particularly as the definition of ore is not a fi<ed !alue. As described in Section 10.1.#.#8
leachate "as modelled based on neutral and acidic rates. Leachate from 2AG material "as
modelled using the results follo"ing the generation of acidic leachate in humidity cells 6p? J ).07.
Leachate from ,2AG material "as modelled using the results "ith neutral leachate 6p? P ).07.
The scaling factors for the RSFs are summari'ed in Table 10.#-+. The reacti!e fraction in the
(itchell and Sulphurets "aste roc1 is estimated to be 10K of the total mass based on computer
blasting simulation soft"are 6SA$R;L7 modeling completed by (oose (ountain Technical
Ser!ices 6#0117. The scaling factor for the internal temperature of the RSFs considers the mean
annual ambient temperature and the possibility of hot spots in the RSF. A scaling factor of 0.3
"as used8 "hich corresponds to an internal temperature of 13S&. Appro<imately #0K of the
"aste roc1 in the reacti!e grain si'e fraction "ill be in contact "ith "ater at any gi!en time8
therefore a scaling factor of 0.# "as used 6;lboushi 1BC37. The bul1 scaling factor for the RSFs
"as determined to be 0.01.
10.2.2.2.2 Clo)re
The source terms de!eloped for "ater 9uality predictions during the operation phase apply to the
closure phase of the proposed 2ro5ect.

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
Sulphurets -
Au, Leach &
Raewyn Zones
Sulphurets -
Lower Au
Zone
Sulphurets -
Lower Plate
Hazelton
Sulphurets -
Upper Plate
Hazelton
Sulphurets -
Monzonite
Sulphurets -
Undefined
Year
Year -3 5.7 0 0 39.3 852.6 0 54.6 700 0 0 0 1,886 0 873
Year -2 19 0 0 131 2,842 0 182 1,675 0 0 0 4,402 0 2,039
Year -1 302 70 423 1,515 5,562 1,970 2,520 1,318 0 0 1,267 8,660 8,460.2 8,287
Year 1 138 328 401 1,070 3,381 3 2,803 769 0 0 281 5,635 8,410 14,556
Year 2 0 1,440 219 1,099 1,570 0 2,321 755 49 0 170 3,780 2,606 7,690
Year 3 122 2,314 1,456 838 114 0 4,214 894 0 0 183 4,119 471 5,921
Year 4 137 2,175 952 12 0 0 1,905 575 0 0 40 11 0 4,027
Year 5 0 2,663 2,730 1 0 0 50 397 6 105 0 0 0 2,180
Year 6 to 10 0 1,505 1,072 1 0 0 0 74 0 90 0 0 0 65
Year 11 to 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 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 6,880.25 631.80 73.45 670.15 59,874.75 74,310.60 151,840.65
Year 31 to 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Year 41 to 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 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 13,337.25 686.80 268.45 2,611.15 86,481.75 94,257.80 196,605.65
Mitchell -
Overburden
Mitchell -
Glacial Ice
Mitchell -
Upper Plate
Hazelton
Mitchell -
Lower Plate
Hazelton
Mitchell -
Monzonite
Mitchell -
Bornite/Leach
Breccia
Mitchell -
Overburden
Mitchell -
Glacial Ice
Mitchell - Upper
Plate Hazelton
Mitchell -
Lower Plate
Hazelton
Mitchell -
Monzonite
Mitchell -
Bornite/Leach
Breccia
Year SNPRA<2 SNPRA2
Year -3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Year -2 2,270 0 9,855 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Year -1 4,557 0 23,513 27 1,262 0 0 0 3,467 63 6,627 0 0 0
Year 1 6,207 0 74,000 699 1,920 0 0 0 2,188 240 2,913 0 0 0
Year 2 2,724 0 109,481 851 2,255 0 0 0 0 5 3,080 0 0 0
Year 3 1,689 0 113,333 521 0 0 0 0 327 0 1,375 0 0 0
Year 4 1,129 0 74,597 20,027 495 0 0 0 2,136 2,168 3,840 0 177 0
Year 5 543 0 39,241 1,684 6,603 0 0 0 0 72 1,982 0 891 0
Year 6 to 10 2,442 0 228,394 83,392 13,431 2,054 566 452 7,262 2,231 111,461 0 0 0
Year 11 to 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Year 21 to 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Year 31 to 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Year 41 to 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 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 15,380 4,779 131,278 0 1,068* 0
* 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 Storage Facility (in kt)
IC
SNPRA<2 SNPRA2
SNPRA2 SNPRA<2
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
Sulphurets -
Au, Leach &
Raewyn Zones
Sulphurets -
Lower Au
Zone
Sulphurets -
Lower Plate
Hazelton
Sulphurets -
Upper Plate
Hazelton
Sulphurets -
Monzonite
Sulphurets -
Undefined
Year
Year -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Year -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Year 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Year 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Year 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Year 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Year 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Year 6 to 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Year 11 to 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 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 3,704.75 340.20 39.55 360.85 32,240.25 40,013.40 81,760.35
Year 31 to 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Year 41 to 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 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 3,704.75 340.20 39.55 360.85 32,240.25 40,013.40 81,760.35
Mitchell -
Overburden
Mitchell -
Glacial Ice
Mitchell -
Upper Plate
Hazelton
Mitchell -
Lower Plate
Hazelton
Mitchell -
Monzonite
Mitchell -
Bornite/Leach
Breccia
Mitchell -
Overburden
Mitchell -
Glacial Ice
Mitchell -
Upper Plate
Hazelton
Mitchell -
Lower Plate
Hazelton
Mitchell -
Monzonite
Mitchell -
Bornite/Leach
Breccia
Year SNPRA<2 2<=SNPRA
Year -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Year -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Year 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Year 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Year 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Year 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Year 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Year 6 to 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 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 2,448 1,790 152,792 0 15,724 0
Year 21 to 30 0 0 0 593 0 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Year 31 to 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Year 41 to 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 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 2,448 1,790 152,792 0 15,724 0
Table 10.2-3. Waste Schedule by Model Code to McTagg Rock Storage Facility (in kt)
IC
SNPRA<2 SNPRA2
SNPRA2 SNPRA<2
Geochemistry
REV D.1-b 10+A1 Rescan Environen!al Services "!d. #$%$-01%&
Ta#le $%(-*;( S"mmar' of Scalin! Factors Use. for t&e
oc, Stora!e Facilities
Scalin! Factor Selecte. Scalin! Factor
Grain Si=e E((ec! #/
r
& 0.1
'e-era!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 roc1 "ill be bac1filled into the Sulphurets 2it. The "aste roc1 placement
schedule is summari'ed in Table 10.#-3.
Ta#le $%(-*B( <aste Sc&e."le #' +o.el Co.e for
S"lp&"rets Pit Bac,fill 3in ,t4
Lear
8err
SNPA?- SNPAM-
Kear -2 0 0
Kear -1 0 0
Kear 1 0 0
Kear 2 0 0
Kear 3 0 0
Kear ; 0 0
Kear A 0 0
Kear % !o 10 0 0
Kear 11 !o 20 0 0
Kear 21 !o 30 103>91A 1>%99
Kear 31 !o ;0 3A$>:$; 1
Kear ;1 !o A0 1:%>9:A 3>$21
'o!al by odel code %A:>;:; A>;::

The scaling factor for Sulphurets 2it is summari'ed in Table 10.#-). 4err "aste roc1 has a higher
percentage of fines than the (itchell and Sulphurets "aste roc1 because it "ill be crushed for
transport on a con!eyorD therefore8 the reacti!e fraction of 4err "aste roc1 is estimated to be
#0K of the total mass. The o<idation of sulphide minerals is an e<othermic reaction that is
anticipated to ele!ate the internal temperatures of bac1filled "aste roc1 abo!e ambient
temperatures and is assumed to be #3S&. Therefore8 no temperature ad5ustment "as applied. >t is
Geochemistry
estimated that #0K of the "aste roc1 in the Sulphurets 2it bac1fill "ill be in contact "ith "ater
at any gi!en time.
Ta#le $%(-*@( S"mmar' of Scalin! Factors Use. for t&e
S"lp&"rets Pit Bac,fill
r
& 0.2
'e-era!ure #/
!
& --
@a!er con!ac! #/
c
& 0.2
4ul5 scaling (ac!or 0.0;

0uring the operation phase8 the mass of reacti!e roc1 "as ad5usted to account for the ongoing
placement of the high-density polyethylene co!er 6see &hapter + 2ro5ect 0escription8
Section +.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 bac1filled "ith 4err "aste
roc17. For the first three years of "aste roc1 placement8 it is assumed that 0K of the "aste roc1 is
co!ered. >n subse9uent years8 the amount of "aste roc1 co!ered increases incrementally from 0K
up to B3K by Rear 31.3. Linear interpolation "as used to determine the proportion of "aste roc1
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 roc1 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 Sulphurets
2it bac1fill8 it is assumed that B3K of the "aste roc1 "ill be encapsulated under the co!er.
The "ater 9uality for the closure phase "as predicted using the same approach as the final year
of "aste roc1 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 $it 'all "uno&&
The pit "all runoff "ater 9uality "as predicted for the operation phase and closure:post-closure
phases.
10.2.2.$.1 %#eration
The area of e<posed pit "all by pit8 model code8 and year for the "ater 9uality prediction model
are defined in Tables 10.#-C8 10.#-*8 and 10.#-B.
For the "ater 9uality prediction model8 the mass of e<posed and reacti!e pit "alls "as calculated
based on the e<posed surface area8 an estimated reacti!e depth of 0.3 m for inter-bench areas8
and a reacti!e depth of 1 m for benches.

Ta#le $%(-*D( Area of EHpose. Pit <all in S"lp&"rets Pit #' +o.el Co.e
Lear SAUA SLAA SLPA SUPA S+OA SUNA SON SAUN SLAN SLPN SUPN S+ON SUNN
Total
Area
-2 1$.09$ 0 22.0:A %$.2:; :.03: %.02% 1A.0%A 0 0 0.000 130.A%2 1:;.$3: ;2.1$2 A0%.19:
-1 A1.0:2 1.00; ;0.$9; 11;.;;9 20.;39 %0.2$: 1%.3A0 0 0 1A.32$ 1%;.A19 2A:.A;$ 220.91$ :%;.%03
1 10%.%$3 1:.;1A ;%.2:% 13;.$%3 20.12: A9.3%9 19.110 0 0 $.0A2 1%9.090 2;9.A$A 3;2.1:1 1>1%%.9%1
2 1:A.9;0 3$.2;A 91.:0; 11:.$;1 1:.:93 ;%.:3$ 19.:9% 0.::: 0 12.:$3 1:9.939 22A.900 30;.A:A 1>2A2.%30
3 310.2%3 93.:02 %;.%$0 11%.222 20.213 $3.$$2 20.213 0 0 13.13$ 1%;.932 22%.3$0 2$1.:%A 1>39A.A$:
; 3;$.%:3 129.33: %9.;AA 11:.3;; 20.9A% A$.11A 1$.%$0 A.1$: 0 11.;1% 1%9.0$2 232.;%2 30%.1;; 1>;$2.%9A
A 33:.$%0 20$.A:3 %A.29$ 11:.1A$ 20.923 AA.:A3 22.9:% 2.092 ;.1;A 12.;3; 1%%.$22 232.100 2$3.:0$ 1>A33.$;1
10 329.AA1 313.:A% %:.01% 12A.:$1 21.:10 A:.1A% 23.00A 2.1:1 9.%%$ 13.1;% 19%.39; 2;A.3:0 301.2%0 1>%$%.%0;
20 339.13% 39:.03: 91.03A 12:.%%$ 22.AA1 %0.$$$ 23.%9$ 2.2AA 9.$:3 13.A31 1$1.A3A 2A2.A90 310.09A 1>9:1.$AA
30 3;3.321 3:0.131 1A:.$;1 A:.%A: 3%.021 $9.$00 2;.9%; 1.12% 22.A13 0 2%0.023 ;:0.9$0 1>3$;.A;0 3>2%0.A20
;0 3;0.;02 1>303.;:; 1A$.;$2 A:.1A2 3A.91; $9.0A; 2;.AA; 1.11% 22.321 0 2A9.$13 ;$%.%0$ 1>392.9%: ;>1;:.;9:
A0 3;;.%9A 1>2:2.;12 1%0.;92 A:.$:; 3%.1%3 $$.1;9 2;.$%2 1.130 22.%02 0 2%1.0;: ;:2.91% 1>3:0.003 ;>19;.12A
A1.A 3;;.%9A 1>30$.%39 1%0.;92 A:.$:; 3%.1%3 $$.1;9 2;.$%2 1.130 22.%02 0 2%1.0;: ;:2.91% 1>3:0.003 ;>1:0.3A0
Ta#le $%(-*G( Area of EHpose. Pit <all in +itc&ell Pit #' +o.el Co.e
Lear +OA +UPA +LPA ++OA +BBA +ON +GN +UPN +LPN ++ON Total Area
-2 2%.112 220.:A1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2;9.0%;
-1 39.$0$ ;;0.;1A 9.1A3 29.A:0 0 0 0 A9.223 9.1A3 9A.%1% %A2.:A$
1 A$.39; 1>;33.19% ;10.%2: 12.099 0 0 0 22.1;2 ;%.2:% %9.;32 2>0A0.12%
2 3%.:A1 2>0%9.2A2 %31.1%1 2.::% 0 0 0 21.:91 A9.:23 10%.$A$ 2>:2A.111
3 2:.30$ 2>3$%.0:1 $%3.09% 2.021 0 0 0 23.2;; %1.%;$ 11:.2A; 3>;$;.%;2
; 1A.A%9 2>33%.03A 1>3$3.3A% 30.0:% 0 0 0 1%.%0; 132.$3A 1A2.AA3 ;>0%9.0;%
A 12.;3; 2>$11.101 1>AA1.131 ;0.;10 0 0 0 1%.A9: 131.A:2 190.:%% ;>93;.213
10 2A.1:% 3>030.123 2>999.0%A $9.%3: %1.3;9 1.0:A ;.3$2 ;1.%2: 292.999 910.:93 9>012.229
20 1%.:13 3>;09.;;A 3>A:3.;:0 3%.0$1 ::.22; 0 3.3$3 2$.1$: 3:2.3$% $2%.;:1 $>;03.%03
30 1%.$$A 3>;01.%:2 3>A$$.A;: 3%.021 :9.:31 0 3.399 2$.1;1 3:1.92; $2A.0:% $>3$:.;1A
;0 1%.9;1 3>392.991 3>AA$.03: 3A.91; :9.0:$ 0 3.3;$ 29.:02 3$$.3:3 $1$.0$1 $>31$.0$$
A0 1%.:A1 3>;1A.112 3>%02.90% 3%.1%3 :$.319 0 3.3:0 2$.2A2 3:3.2%: $2$.3A1 $>;22.A13
A1.A 1%.:A1 3>;1A.112 3>%02.90% 3%.1%3 :$.319 0 3.3:0 2$.2A2 3:3.2%: $2$.3A1 $>;22.A13

Geochemistry
REV D.1-b 10+A; Rescan Environen!al Services "!d. #$%$-01%&
Ta#le $%(-*C( Area of EHpose. Pit <all in 8err Pit #' +o.el Co.e
Lear 8A 8N S"m
-2 0 0 0
-1 0 0 0
1 0 0 0
2 0 0 0
3 0 0 0
; 0 0 0
A 0 0 0
10 0 0 0
20 0 0 0
30 :;A.A;0 0 :;A.A;0
;0 2>%A$.;$; 1.11% 2>%A:.%01
A0 3>%33.21: ;2.:;3 3>%9%.1%2
A1.A 3>%33.21: ;2.:;3 3>%9%.1%2

The scaling factors used in the pit "all "ater 9uality predictions are summari'ed in
Table 10.#-10. The grain si'e and temperature effects for the pit "alls "ere assumed to be the
same as in the RSF8 "ith the reacti!e fraction of the total mass estimated to be 10K 6scaling
factor of 0.17. The pit "all surfaces "ill be e<posed to precipitation and 100K of the pit "alls "ill
be in contact "ith runoff mobili'ing all sulphide mineral o<idation productsD therefore8 no "ater
contact ad5ustment "as applied. The bul1 scaling factor for the pit "all "as determined to be 0.03.
Ta#le $%(-*$%( S"mmar' of Scalin! Factors Use. for t&e Pit <alls
r
& 0.1
'e-era!ure #/
!
& 0.A
@a!er con!ac! #/
c
& 1
4ul5 scaling (ac!or 0.0A

The humidity cells used to predict the "ater 9uality from the pit "alls are defined in
Section 10.1.#.#8 Table 10.1-). The "ater chemistry representing each model code is defined in
Table 10.#-C for Sulphurets 2it8 Table 10.#-* for (itchell 2it8 and Table 10.#-B for 4err 2it.
10.2.2.$.2 Clo)re
At closure8 the full e<tent of the 4err 2it and the e<tent of the Sulphurets 2it that is not co!ered
by 4err "aste roc1 bac1fill "ill be e<posedD therefore8 pit "all runoff "as modelled using the
same method as during the operation phase. The (itchell 2it "ill be flooded at the end of the
operation phaseD therefore runoff is not included in the "ater 9uality model.
10.2.2.$.3 Po)t+clo)re
The post-closure phase "as considered using the same approach as the closure phase.
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 La1e does not e<ist during the operation phase of the proposed 2ro5ect.
10.2.2.,.2 Clo)re
The (itchell 2it "ill begin to fill "ith "ater after the completion of bloc1 ca!ing in Rear 31.3.
The (itchell 2it La1e "ill de!elop o!er fi!e years8 "ith "ater inputs from the (0T8
precipitation8 and catchment surface "ater runoff. The (0T sub-glacial "ater "as estimated based
on stream "ater from the north and south slopes of the (itchell =alley and glacial melt "ater.
10.2.2.,.3 Po)t+clo)re
The post-closure phase "as considered using the same approach as closure.
10.2.2.) %loc# Ca*ing
10.2.2.-.1 %#eration
$loc1 ca!ing of the (itchell and >ron &ap deposits begins in Rear #) and %#8 respecti!ely.
$loc1 ca!ing generates a !olume of disturbed material that subsides into the bloc1 ca!e as ore
material is e<tracted from the ca!e underground. This area is called the @subsidence 'oneA and is
e<pressed at the surface as a crater. >n order to predict the 9uality of the "ater in the underground
"or1ings8 the flo" path of "ater through the bloc1 ca!e subsidence 'one must be defined.
2recipitation that falls "ithin the (itchell and >ron &ap crater areas flo"s directly do"n through
the disturbed material. 2recipitation that falls on the (itchell 2it "alls and runoff that bypasses
surface di!ersions flo"s along the e<posed roc1 of the pit "alls8 represented by line 01 in
Figure 10.#-#. Runoff then preferentially flo"s through a !ery narro" 'one of disturbed material
"ithin the subsidence 'one and fractured roc1 at the outer edge of the subsidence 'one8
represented by line 0# in Figure 10.#-#.
The scaling factor for the subsidence 'one "as determined using the same temperature and "ater
contact as the RSFs. $ecause the subsidence 'one is not blasted roc18 the proportion of fines is
lo"er than the RSFs and is estimated to be 1K. Therefore8 a bul1 scaling factor of 0.001 "as
used for the subsidence 'one. The crater surface area is presented in Table 10.#-11 and "as used
to determine the mass loading due to "ater flo" from direct precipitation. The mass of disturbed
material in the subsidence 'one "as used to determine the mass loading contribution from "ithin
the subsidence 'one. The mass of material in contact "ith "ater each year for the (itchell and
>ron &ap deposits is presented in Table 10.#-1#.
The "ater chemistry used in the model to predict drainage "ater 9uality through the (itchell
$loc1 &a!e (ine included the (itchell bornite breccia:leach breccia acidic8 lo"er panel
?a'elton acidic8 and neutral 6model codes ($$A8 (L2A and (L2,8 respecti!ely7 humidity
cells 6Table 10.1-B7. The >ron &ap "ater chemistry "as predicted using the >ron &ap neutral and
acidic humidity cells8 and model codes >&, and >&A8 respecti!ely 6Table 10.1-C7.
PROJECT # ILLUSTRATION # a39623w 868-017-17-03
F
i
g
u
r
e

1
0
.
2
-
2
Figure 10.2-2
Cross 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
D
2
= Distance from crest of
crater to drawpoint elevation
D
1
= Distance from catchment
boundary to crest of crater
Z
Y
Year 8 Crater
Proposed Pit and Topography
Mitchell Catchment Boundary
Geochemistry
Ta#le $%(-*$$( -D Areas Associate. )it& Bloc, Cavin! of t&e +itc&ell
an. Iron Cap Deposit
Lear
+itc&ell Iron Cap
Footprint S"rface
Dist"r#ance 3m
-
4
Un.ist"r#e.
S"rface Area 3m
-
4
Footprint S"rface
Dist"r#ance 3m
-
4
Un.ist"r#e.
S"rface Area 3m
-
4
2% 31>A1A A>9%%>11A -- --
29 %$>A:A A>92:>03A -- --
2$ 221>13A A>A9%>;:A -- --
2: ;20>93$ A>39%>$:2 -- --
30 90%>;29 A>0:1>203 -- --
31 90%>;29 A>0:1>203 -- --
32 :92>:29 ;>$2;>903 ;;>$%$ 1>$%0>21%
33 :92>:29 ;>$2;>903 100>01: 1>$0A>0%A
3; 1>10;>%2% ;>%:3>00; 1$;>A%; 1>920>A20
3A 1>1:2>:%; ;>%0;>%%% 221>13A 1>%$3>:;:
3% 1>2A$>;;; ;>A3:>1$% 331>%2; 1>A93>;%0
39 1>322>20A ;>;9A>;2A ;%3>;2; 1>;;1>%%0
3$ 1>3:%>:3A ;>;00>%:A A20>%%% 1>3$;>;1$
3: 1>;31>:AA ;>3%A>%9A A%:>9A2 1>33A>332
;0 -- -- A::>;:1 1>30A>A:3
Ta#le $%(-*$-( Fol"mes of Dist"r#e. +aterial )it&in t&e +itc&ell an.
Iron Cap S"#si.ence Nones
Lear
+itc&ell Iron Cap +itc&ell Iron Cap
+ass In*sit" +aterial 3+t4 +ass of +aterial in Contact 3+t4
2% 1% -- 1$ --
29 39 -- 1$ --
2$ 120 -- 1$ --
2: 231 -- 19 --
30 393 -- 1% --
31 3AA -- 1% --
32 ;99 30.;0 1A ;.$%
33 ;A9 %;.$A 1A ;.92
3; A3A 10$.93 1A ;.A0
3A A:0 129.99 1; ;.;0
3% %09 19;.;1 1; ;.10
39 %3; 23A.9A 1; 3.9A
3$ %%9 2%2.2$ 13 3.A$
3: %90 2$;.29 13 3.;;
;0 %;: 2:1.0% 13 3.3%
;1 %29 29%.3; 13 3.3%
3contin"e.4
Geochemistry
REV D.1-b 10+A$ Rescan Environen!al Services "!d. #$%$-01%&
Ta#le $%(-*$-( Fol"mes of Dist"r#e. +aterial )it&in t&e +itc&ell an.
Iron Cap S"#si.ence Nones 3complete.4
Lear
+itc&ell Iron Cap +itc&ell Iron Cap
+ass In*sit" +aterial 3+t4 +ass of +aterial in Contact 3+t4
;2 %0% 2%1.%1 13 3.3%
;3 A$; 2;%.$$ 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
"or1ings and (itchell 2it "ill be flooded. .ater "ill continue to migrate through the >ron &ap
$loc1 &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.
$%(-(7 Processin! an. Tailin! +ana!ement Area
.ater and tailing management of the 2T(A is structured in fi!e stagesF Stage 1 years 0 to #3D
Stage # years #) to %0D Stage % years %1 to 31.3D Stage + years 31.3 to 3).3D and Stage 3
post-closure. .ater 9uality predictions "ere de!eloped for the ,orth &ell T(F8 &entre &ell
T(F8 and South &ell T(F. 2ro5ect components contributing geochemical source terms to the
"ater 9uality model include e<posed tailing beaches8 cycloned tailing dams8 supernatant from the
Treaty 2rocess 2lant8 and high density sludge from the (ine Site .ater Treatment 2lant.
10.2.3.1 +peration
As described in Section 10.1.#.%8 results from humidity cells8 SA&s8 and pilot plant supernatant
"ere used to estimate the "ater 9uality in the T(F. The tailing and plant supernatant source
terms are presented in Tables 10.1-1+ and 10.1-13. There are fi!e stages in the de!elopment of
the 2T(A and the total areas representing each stage for the calculation of mass loadings is
presented in Table 10.#-1%. The source terms for each stage are defined belo". Tailing "ill be
deposited in the ,orth &ell T(F from Rear 1 until it reaches its ma<imum capacity in
appro<imately Rear #). The ore production schedule is presented in Table 10.#-1+.
Geochemistry
REV D.1-b 10+A: Rescan Environen!al Services "!d. #$%$-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 Dam
Centre Cell
Pon.
1 %%0>23A 1>$$A>::$ 2>:1;>$;: 3AA>;30 1>A$$>9AA
2 %%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>0A1
A %%0>23A :10>$$9 3>$9A>A%0 A;>$10 1>3:A>$1:
Sta!e Sa..le Dam So"t& Cell Pon. So"t& Cell Tailin! Beac&es
So"t&east
Dam
1 39%>:9A
2 39$>3A: 1>2$2>;:9 ;20>;91 22:>A1A
3 32>312 1>9A%>%:3 3>3A9>A32 %::>0;9
; 32>312 A0$>03A ;>%0%>203 %::>0;9
A ;%>A%1 90%>2A1 ;>;;1>313 %::>0;9
Ta#le $%(-*$;( Ore Pro."ction Sc&e."le 3in ,t4
Lear
+itc&ell
Pit
+itc&ell Bloc,
Cave +ine
S"lp&"rets
Pit 8err Pit
Iron Cap Bloc,
Cave +ine Total
1 29>$A0 1 29>$A1
2 2%>9$0 19>$30 ;;>%10
3 2$>A20 1:>030 ;9>AA0
; 2$>A20 1:>030 ;9>AA0
A 2$>A20 1:>030 ;9>AA0
% 31>3A0 1%>1A0 ;9>AA0
9 !o 10 ;9>;A0 ; 1$:>$0;
11 !o 20 ;9;>A00 10 ;9;>A10
21 !o 23 139>0:2 A%>901 1:3>9:3
2; A%>901 A%>901
2A A%>901 A%>901
2% %>%3: A%>901 %3>3;0
29 !o 30 2%>AA; 1$>100 ;;>%A;
31 1:>$$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<posed beaches8 and the cyclone sand dams. The "ater chemistry for the
&entre &ell is estimated based on the contributions from the cyanide deto<ification "ater
treatment process 6Appendi< +-L7 and from runoff.
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 contribution
from 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 0ensity Sludge
6Table 10.1-137. .ater from the Treaty 2rocess 2lant that is directed to the &entre &ell is
post-cyanide deto<ification and acti!ated carbon "ater treatment 6Table 10.1-137.
10.2.3.1.2 Cycloned (ailing Dam)
The source term used to estimate the "ater 9uality from the ,orth &ell and South &ell dams
included the a!erage release rate for the (itchell rougher-course humidity cell for all "ee1s
6( rougher dams7. The surface area of dams in each stage of de!elopment "as estimated for
each stage of the T(F operation 6Table 10.#-1%7. >t is assumed that the top 0.3 m of the dams
contributes to the chemical loading.
10.2.3.1.3 ./#o)ed (ailing 0eache)
The source terms used to estimate the "ater 9uality for the e<posed tailing beaches included the
o!erall a!erage leaching rate from humidity cells for (itchell rougher tailing 6( rougher
$eaches78 (itchell:4err rougher tailing 6(:4 rougher beaches78 (itchell:Sulphurets rougher
tailing 6(:S rougher beaches78 and >ron &ap rougher tailing 6>& rougher beaches7. The mass of
e<posed tailing in the ,orth &ell is estimated based on the assumption that 0.3 m of tailing
contributes to the mass loading. The surface area of the e<posed tailing for each stage is
presented in Table 10.#-1%.
10.2.3.2 Closure
The Treaty 2rocess 2lant "ill be decommissioned at the end of the operation phaseD therefore8 no
contribution from the Treaty 2rocess 2lant is included in the "ater 9uality prediction model for
closure. The source terms used during the operation phase for the cyclone tailing dams and
e<posed tailing beaches in the north and south cells "ere applied to the "ater 9uality prediction
model for the closure phase.
(itchell and >ron &ap ore "ill be the last ore deposits mined and processed. Therefore8 at closure
the e<posed material in the dams "ill consist predominantly of (itchell and >ron &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<posed area of the dams "ith
a reacti!e depth of 0.3 m contributing to the load.
The only "ater chemistry source term for the &entre &ell at closure is runoff8 as the tailing
remains flooded.
10.2.3.3 $ost-closure
The source terms used during the closure phase "ere applied to the "ater 9uality prediction
model for the post-closure phase.
Geochemistry
$%(7 Geoc&emistr' Concl"sions
A fi!e-year (L:AR0 characteri'ation program resulted in the analysis of o!er #8000 "aste roc18
ore8 tailing8 and non-deposit material A$A testsD +* "aste roc1 humidity cells 61# ore8 #* "aste
roc18 and * tailing samples7D 1C field leach barrels from "aste roc1 and ore samplesD si< SA&sD
and three aging tests. The laboratory and field results "ere used to de!elop source terms
6e.g.8 "ater 9uality estimates7 for the predicti!e "ater 9uality model. Source terms "ere
de!eloped for RSFsD Sulphurets 2it bac1fillD pit "all run-offD the (itchell 2it La1eD bloc1 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 to
ad!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.

Geochemistry
eferences
;lboushi8 >. (. 1BC3. Amount of "ater needed to initiate flo" in rubbly roc1 particles. %&'rna( &#
)*+r&(&,*8 #CF #C3-*+.
(;,0. #00). -p+ate &n .&(+ /emperat're 0##e$t1 &n 2e&$hem3$a( 4eather3n,5 06D Rep&rt 157157.
,atural Resources &anada8 (ine ;n!ironmental ,eutral 0rainage 2rogramF tta"a8 ,.
(oose (ountain Technical Ser!ices. #011. "S - Dr3((3n, an+ 8(a1t3n, 9perat3&n1. (emo to Seabridge
Gold >nc.F =ancou!er8 $&.
2rice8 .. A. #00B. Pre+3$t3&n an'a( #&r Dra3na,e .hem31tr* #r&m S'(ph3+3$ 2e&(&,3$ ater3a(15
(;,0 Report 1.#0.1. ,atural Resources &anada8 (ine ;n!ironmental ,eutral 0rainage
2rogram.F tta"a8 ,.
.ardrop. #01#. "S Pre#ea13:3(3t* St'+* -p+ate 2012. 2repared by .ardrop8 a Tetra Tech &ompany8
for Seabridge Gold >nc.F =ancou!er8 $&.

17 Chapter 10 Geochemistry

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

17 Chapter 10 Geochemistry

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

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%&

Potrebbero piacerti anche