A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

Project BioPhysicAl socio-economic Ad
introduction VAlued VAlued yes

& oVerView comPonents comPonents reQ
A.1 Introduction A.6 Terrain Features A.13 Employment and A.20

APPENDIX A.4I: Open Pit Geotechnical Design Income
A.1A Concordance Table to the
A.7 Water Quality A.13A Economic Impacts of the
Executive Committees Request Casino Mine Project
for Supplementary Information A.21
A.7A Variability Water Balance Model
A.14 Employability
Volume A.i: Report
A.2 First Nations and A.22
PREFACE Community
A.7B Water Quality Predictions Report
A.15 Economic
Consultation A.7c Potential Effects of Climate Change on Development and
the Variability Water Balance A
Business Sector
VOLUME
Volume A.II:
A.ii:
A.2A Traditional Knowledge
Volume A.iii:
Bibliography Volume A.iV:
A.7d Updated Appendix B5 to Appendix 7AVolume A.V:
PROJECT
Project BioPhysicAl socio-economic A.16 Community
AdditionAl A
A.7e 2008 Environmental Vitality
INTRODUCTION
introduction A.3 Project Location
VAlued VAlued
Studies Report: Final yesAA
&&oVerView
OVERVIEW comPonents comPonents
A.7F The Effect of Acid Rock Drainage onreQuirements
A.17 Community A
A.4 Project Description Casino Creek Infrastructure and
Services
A.7G Toxicity Testing Reports A
A.1 Introduction A.6
A.4ATerrain FeaturesFacility
Tailings Management A.13 Employment and A.20 Effects of the
Construction Material Alternatives Income
A.7h Appendix A2 to Casino Waste Rock A.18 Cultural
Environment on
and Ore Geochemical Static Test As- Continuity
the Project A
A.1A Concordance Table to the A.4BWater
Information on Alternative Access
A.7 Quality A.13A Economic
sessment Impacts
Report: of the
Cross-Sections
Executive Committees Request Road Alignments Casino Mine Project A.18A Heritage Resources A
for Supplementary Information A.21 Accidents and
Assessment Areas
A.4c Variability
Feasibility Water
DesignBalance
of the Heap A.7i Casino Kinetic Testwork 2014 Update
A.7A
Leach
Model
A.14 for
Employability
Ore, Waste Rock and Tailings
Malfunctions
ReportFacility A.18B Heritage Sites Summary A
A.2 First Nations and A.4d Water
A.7B ReportQuality
on thePredictions
Feasibility Report
Design of A.7j Preliminary Risk Assessment Metal A.22 Environmental
Community the Tailings Management Facility Leaching and Acid Rock Drainage
A.15 Economic Management
A.19 Land Use A
Consultation A.7c
A.4e Potential
Results ofEffects of Climate
Additional Change of
Lab Testing on Development
A.7K Casino and
Mine Site Borrow Sites and Tenure
the Variability A.22A Waste and Hazardous
Leach Ore Water Balance Business
ML/ARD Sector
Potential
Materials
A.2A Traditional Knowledge Management Plan A.23
Bibliography A.7d Updated
A.4F Waste Appendix
Storage AreaB5and
to Appendix
Stockpiles7A A.7l Casino Geochemical Source Term
Feasibility Design A.16 Development:
Community Appendix B
A.22B Spill Contingency
A.7e 2008 Environmental Vitality Management Plan
A.3 Project Location A.4G Studies
UpdatedReport:
Hydrometeorology
Final A.7m 2013-2014 Groundwater Data Report
A.24
Report A.22c Sediment and Erosion
A.7F The Effect of Acid Rock Drainage on A.17 Community
Control Management
A.4 Project Description A.4h Casino Creek Passive Treatment
Cold Climate Infrastructure
A.7n Extension of Numericaland Plan
Systems Literature Review Groundwater
Services Modelling to include Dip A.25
A.7G Toxicity Testing Reports Creek Watershed A.22d Invasive Species
A.4A Tailings Management Facility A.4i Open Pit Geotechnical Design Management Plan
Construction Material Alternatives A.7h Appendix A2 to Casino Waste Rock A.18 Cultural
and Ore Geochemical
A.4j Laboratory EvaluationStatic
of theTest As-
A.8 Air Quality
Continuity A.22e Road Use Plan
A.4B Information on Alternative Access
sessment
SO /Air andReport: Cross-Sections
Peroxide Process
Road Alignments 2
A.8A Emissions
A.18A Inventory
Heritage Resourcesfor A.22F Socio-Economic
A.4K Casino
A.7i Metal Uptake
Kinetic in Northern
Testwork 2014 Update Assessment
Construction Areas
and Operations Management Plan
A.4c Feasibility Design of the Heap
Leach Facility Constructed
for Ore, WasteWetlands
Rock and Tailings
A.18B Heritage Sites Summary A.22G Liquid Natural Gas
A.7j Preliminary RiskManagement
Assessment Metal
A.9 Noise Management Plan
A.4d Report on the Feasibility Design of A.4l Revised Tailings
the Tailings Management Facility Leaching
Facility and Acid
Seepage Rock Drainage
Assessment
A.19Fish
A.10 Land Use
and Aquatic A.22h ML/ARD
A.7K Management Plan
A.4e Results of Additional Lab Testing of A.4mCasino MineFlow
Processing Site Borrow
Sheets Sites and Tenure
Resources
Leach Ore ML/ARD Potential
A.4n Casino
A.7l Scoping Level Assessment A.10A Updated Fish Habitat Offsetting PlanA.23 Environmental
A.4F Waste Storage Area and Stockpiles Geochemical Source Term
Feasibility Design
of Casino Property
Development: Appendix B Monitoring Plans
A.4o 2013-2014
A.7m Advanced Metallurgical
Groundwater Data Report A.10B Fish Habitat Evaluation: Instream
A.4G Updated Hydrometeorology Flow and Habitat Evaluation A.24 Conclusions
Assessment of the Casino
Report Procedure Study
Copper Gold Project
A.4h Cold Climate Passive Treatment A.7n Extension of Numerical
A.4P Production
Groundwater ofModelling
Environmental
to include Dip A.25 References
Systems Literature Review
Tailings Samples for the Casino
A.11 Rare Plants and
Creek Watershed
A.4i Open Pit Geotechnical Design Deposit Vegetation Health
A.4j Laboratory Evaluation of the

A.8
A.4QAir Quality
Mine Site Borrow Materials A.12 Wildlife
Assessment Report
SO2/Air and Peroxide Process
A.8A Emissions Inventory for
A.4K Metal Uptake in Northern A.4r Construction
Report on Laboratory Geotechnical
and Operations A.12A Wildlife Mitigation and Monitoring
Constructed Wetlands Testing of Tailings Materials Plan V.1.2.
A.9 Noise A.12B Wildlife Baseline Report V.2

A.4l Revised Tailings Management
Facility Seepage Assessment
A.5 Effects Assessment
A.10 Methodology
Fish and Aquatic A.12c Moose Late Winter Habitat
A.4m Processing Flow Sheets Suitability Report
Resources
A.4n Scoping Level Assessment A.10A Updated Fish Habitat Offsetting Plan
of Casino Property
A.4o Advanced Metallurgical A.10B Fish Habitat Evaluation: Instream

Assessment of the Casino Flow and Habitat Evaluation
Copper Gold Project Procedure Study
A.4P Production of Environmental

Tailings Samples for the Casino
A.11 Rare Plants and
Deposit Vegetation Health
A.4Q Mine Site Borrow Materials A.12 Wildlife

Assessment Report
A.4r Report on Laboratory Geotechnical A.12A Wildlife Mitigation and Monitoring

Testing of Tailings Materials Plan V.1.2.
CASINO PROJECT | Supplementary Information Report | Mar 2015

A.12B Wildlife Baseline Report V.2
A.5 Effects Assessment
Methodology A.12c Moose Late Winter Habitat
Suitability Report

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT
OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN
PREPARED FOR:
Casino Mining Corporation
2050 - 1111 West Georgia St.
Vancouver, BC V6E 4M3
PREPARED BY:
Knight Pisold Ltd.
Suite 1400 750 West Pender Street
Vancouver, BC V6C 2T8 Canada
p. +1.604.685.0543 f. +1.604.685.0147
VA101-325/8-7
Knight Pisold
Rev 0 CONSULTING
October 12, 2012 www.k n i g h t p i e s o l d .com

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Casino Mining Corporation (CMC) is currently evaluating the Casino Copper-Gold Project, a
proposed copper-gold-molybdenum mine located in the Dawson Range Mountains of the Klondike
Plateau, approximately 300 km northwest of Whitehorse, Yukon Territory, Canada.
The deposit is hosted by the Casino Complex, a suite of igneous intrusive rocks with an intense
hydrothermal alteration overprint. The project site is unique as the region was not glaciated during
the Wisconsin Advance. The proposed mine calls for 120,000 tonnes per day (tpd) of ore production
using open pit methods.
Knight Pisold Ltd. (KPL) has been retained to complete a Feasibility level geotechnical assessment
and pit slope design for the proposed Casino open pit. Geotechnical site investigations were
completed by KPL in 1994, 2010, and 2011, to collect geomechanical and hydrogeological data for
open pit slope design. A preliminary pit slope geotechnical assessment was completed in 2008
based on a review of the 1994 geomechanical data and presented in the KPL report Preliminary
Open Pit Slope Design (Ref. No. VA07-01637, January 2008). Additional site investigation data
were collected by KPL during May to August of 2010 and CMC produced an updated pit shell model
the following November. KPL completed a review of the new pit shell model using the 1994 and
2010 geomechanical data and presented the results in the report Updated Open Pit Slope Design
(Ref. No. VA10-01460, February 2011). A supplementary geotechnical site investigation program
was performed in 2011 to collect additional geotechnical data in support of a Feasibility level pit
slope design. The findings of the site investigation are presented in the report 2011 Geomechanical
Site Investigation Data Report Open Pit (Ref. No. VA101-325/8-6, April 2012).
A simplified geotechnical model was developed for pit slope design, which includes four geotechnical
domains as follows:
Overburden (silty SAND and GRAVEL with trace clay, residual soils and talus)
Weathered Zone (largely within the Dawson Range Batholith unit)
Prospector Mountain Suite (Late Cretaceous, Patton Porphyry, Explosion Breccia, Intrusion
Breccia), and
Dawson Range Batholith (Middle Cretaceous, Granodiorite and Diorite).
Overburden is present as a thin veneer across most of the deposit area, but is up to 30 m thick in
localized areas near the northern edge of the proposed pit. Weathered Bedrock underlies the
overburden and varies in depth from 30 to 200 m throughout the deposit area. The Dawson Range
Batholith (DRB) domain occupies the majority of the deposit. The central and southwest portions of
the deposit are exposed within the Prospector Mountain Suite (PMS) domain.
The proposed open pit includes two major mining zones, namely the Main Pit and West Pit,
respectively. A total of eight design sectors were delineated for pit slope stability assessment based
on the projected wall geology and wall orientations. Sub sectors were defined to differentiate the
overburden and weathered zones from the fresh bedrock.
Kinematic stability analyses were performed for all design sectors using stereographic techniques to
determine the failure modes that are kinematically possible in bench and/or multi-bench scale
slopes. Multi-bench scale wedge failures are kinematically possible in the M-North and W-North
Sectors. Multi-bench planar failures are kinematically possible in the M-South and W-North Sectors.
OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN I of III VA 101-325/8-7 Rev 0

October 12, 2012
In addition, bench scale wedge, planar, and toppling features were identified in various design
sectors. Bench face angles and inter-ramp slope angles have been selected to reduce the risk from
structurally controlled wall failures.
Large-scale multi-bench rock mass slope stability was assessed through the use of limit equilibrium
modelling methods. Limit equilibrium stability models were set up for overburden slopes, inter-ramp
slopes within each geotechnical domain, and final M-North, M-Northeast, and W-West Walls,
respectively. The analysis indicates that the following pit slope angles are achievable if low damage
wall blasting practices and effective slope depressurization measures are implemented:
Bench Inter- Max Inter- Overall

Slope Bench Bench
Wall Face ramp ramp Slope Slope
Design Sector Height Height Width
Geology Angle Angle Height Angle
M m m m
30 Overburden 40 5 4 27
M-North 200 39
600 DRB 60 15 8 42
30 Overburden 40 5 4 27
M-Northeast 100(1)/200 40
600 DRB 65 15 8 45
M-South 540 PMS, DRB 65 15 8 45 200 42
Central 210 PMS 65 15 8 45 200 N/A
W-North 285 DRB 60 15 8 42 200 39
W-South 480 DRB 65 15 8 45 200 42
W-Southwest 345 PMS 65 15 8 45 200 42
W-West 210 DRB 65 15 8 45 200 42
NOTES:
1. A 100-m high inter-ramp slope is recommended for slopes developed in weathered bedrock. The maximum height for the
inter-ramp slopes in fresh rock is 200 m.
A conceptual pit water management plan was also developed for costing purposes. It includes
surface water diversion ditches, vertical pumping wells, horizontal drains, and pit dewatering
systems. Groundwater seepage into the pit was estimated to be in the order of 190 L/sec for the
final pit configuration. The pit dewatering systems were designed to remove pit water from a 1 in
10 year 24 hour storm event. It was determined that approximately 1390 L/sec would flow into the
pit during the design storm event. Two pumps operating at a combined capacity of 320 L/sec would
be required to dewater the pit over a six day period. Booster pump stations have been included at
every 100 m rise in elevation.
Careful controlled blasting should be conducted to minimize the blasting damage to the pit walls.
Catch benches should be cleaned as required to ensure effectiveness. Scaling loose material off of
the walls is recommended to reduce the hazard of falling rock. It is recommended that horizontal
drains and vertical pump wells be installed during mining operations to reduce pore water pressure in
the middle and lower slopes.
OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN II of III VA 101-325/8-7 Rev 0

October 12, 2012
An extensive geotechnical monitoring program is recommended to detect slope instabilities that may
occur during operations. Geotechnical mapping of the pit walls and any tension cracks, installation
and regular monitoring of surface prisms, and the implementation of automated pit wall deformation
monitoring systems are recommended as part of the monitoring program.
It is recommended that additional geomechanical and hydrogeological data collection be collected
during the early stages of pit operations. The data collection programs may include bench surface
mapping, piezometer installation and monitoring. Additional information will be used to enhance the
geotechnical database, update the rock mass structural model, and refine the hydrogeological
model. The pit design should be optimized when additional geotechnical information becomes
available. The final pit designs and pit dewatering plans should be reviewed by qualified
geotechnical engineers.
OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN III of III VA 101-325/8-7 Rev 0

October 12, 2012
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................................ I
TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................................................... i
1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND .................................................................................................. 1
1.2 PREVIOUS WORK ............................................................................................................... 4
1.3 SCOPE OF WORK ............................................................................................................... 5
2 GENERAL SITE SETTING ............................................................................................................. 6

2.1 PHYSIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................. 6
2.2 REGIONAL GEOLOGY ........................................................................................................ 6
2.3 CLIMATE AND HYDROMETEOROLOGY ........................................................................... 6
2.4 HYDROGEOLOGY ............................................................................................................... 7
2.5 SEISMICITY .......................................................................................................................... 7
3 FUNDAMENTALS OF PIT SLOPE DESIGN .................................................................................. 9

3.1 GENERAL ............................................................................................................................. 9
3.2 PIT SLOPE CONFIGURATIONS .......................................................................................... 9
3.3 KEY CONSIDERATIONS FOR PIT SLOPE STABILITY .................................................... 10
3.4 METHODOLOGY FOR PIT SLOPE STABILITY ................................................................ 11
3.5 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR PIT SLOPE DESIGN ...................................................... 12
4 GEOTECHNICAL CHARACTERIZATION .................................................................................... 13

4.1 GENERAL ........................................................................................................................... 13
4.2 DATA SOURCES ................................................................................................................ 13
4.3 GEOLOGY .......................................................................................................................... 15
4.3.1 Overburden ............................................................................................................ 15
4.3.2 Bedrock .................................................................................................................. 16
4.4 STRUCTURE ...................................................................................................................... 18
4.4.1 Data Collection Methods ........................................................................................ 18
4.4.2 Data Quality Control ............................................................................................... 18
4.4.3 Structural Orientations ........................................................................................... 18
4.5 ROCK MASS....................................................................................................................... 20
4.5.1 Geotechnical Domains ........................................................................................... 20
4.5.2 Intact Rock Strength .............................................................................................. 20
4.5.3 Rock Mass Quality ................................................................................................. 22
4.5.4 Overburden Strength Parameters .......................................................................... 23
4.5.5 Rock Mass Strength Parameters ........................................................................... 24
4.6 HYDROGEOLOGY ............................................................................................................. 25
OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN i of iv VA 101-325/8-7 Rev 0

October 12, 2012
5 PIT SLOPE STABILITY ASSESSMENT ....................................................................................... 27

5.1 GENERAL ........................................................................................................................... 27
5.2 PIT DESIGN SECTORS ..................................................................................................... 27
5.3 KINEMATIC SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES .................................................................... 27
5.3.1 General .................................................................................................................. 27
5.3.2 Modes of Failure .................................................................................................... 27
5.3.3 Stereographic Analysis .......................................................................................... 30
5.3.1 Bench Face Angle Analysis ................................................................................... 32
5.3.2 Implications of Kinematic Analysis Results............................................................ 33
5.4 OVERBURDEN AND ROCK MASS SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES ............................... 33
5.4.1 General .................................................................................................................. 33
5.4.2 Rock Mass Disturbance ......................................................................................... 33
5.4.3 Overburden Slope Stability Analyses .................................................................... 34
5.4.4 Rock Mass Inter-Ramp Slope Stability Analyses................................................... 35
5.4.5 Overall Slope Stability Analyses ............................................................................ 36
6 PIT WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN ............................................................................................. 41

6.1 GENERAL ........................................................................................................................... 41
6.2 SURFACE WATER DIVERSION ........................................................................................ 41
6.3 SLOPE DEPRESSURIZATION SYSTEM .......................................................................... 41
6.3.1 Vertical Pumping Wells .......................................................................................... 42
6.3.2 Horizontal Drains ................................................................................................... 42
6.4 PIT DEWATERING SYSTEM ............................................................................................. 43
6.4.1 General .................................................................................................................. 43
6.4.2 Inflows from Average Annual Precipitation ............................................................ 43
6.4.3 Groundwater Inflow Estimates ............................................................................... 44
6.4.4 Storm Event Inflows ............................................................................................... 45
7 PIT SLOPE DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION ........................................................................... 46

7.1 GENERAL ........................................................................................................................... 46
7.2 RECOMMENDED PIT SLOPE ANGLES ............................................................................ 46
7.2.1 General .................................................................................................................. 46
7.2.2 Bench Geometries ................................................................................................. 46
7.2.3 Inter-ramp Slopes .................................................................................................. 46
7.2.4 Overall Slopes ........................................................................................................ 47
7.3 OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................. 48
7.3.1 Controlled Blasting ................................................................................................. 48
7.3.2 Excavation and Scaling.......................................................................................... 48
7.3.3 Slope Depressurization .......................................................................................... 48
7.3.4 Slope Monitoring .................................................................................................... 48
7.4 PRECEDENT PRACTICE................................................................................................... 50
8 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................... 53
9 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 54
OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN ii of iv VA 101-325/8-7 Rev 0

October 12, 2012
10 CERTIFICATION ......................................................................................................................... 55
TABLES
Table 2.1 Summary of Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis ....................................................... 8

Table 3.1 Summary of Pit Slope Design Acceptance Criteria ...................................................... 12
Table 4.1 Summary of Open Pit Drillholes ................................................................................... 15
Table 4.2 Summary of Rock Mass Properties .............................................................................. 22
Table 4.3 Summary of Design Parameters of Soil and Rock ....................................................... 25
Table 5.1 Summary of Design Sectors ......................................................................................... 28
Table 5.2 Summary of Structure and Kinematically Possible Failure Modes .............................. 32
Table 5.3 Summary of Overburden Analyses .............................................................................. 34
Table 5.4 Summary of Inter-ramp Slope Stability Analyses ......................................................... 36
Table 5.5 Summary of Overall Slope Stability Analyses .............................................................. 38
Table 6.1 Open Pit Inflows and Pump Design.............................................................................. 44
Table 7.1 Recommended Open Pit Slope Angles ........................................................................ 47
Table 7.2 Recommended Open Pit Geotechnical Monitoring Practices ...................................... 50
FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Project Location Map ...................................................................................................... 2

Figure 1.2 Mine Site General Arrangement .................................................................................. 3
Figure 3.1 Typical Open Pit Slope Configurations......................................................................... 10
Figure 4.1 Open Pit Area 1994, 2010 and 2011 Investigation Plans ......................................... 14
Figure 4.2 Sub-Surficial Geology and Geotechnical Drillhole Locations ....................................... 17
Figure 4.3 Overall Rock Mass Structure ........................................................................................ 19
Figure 4.4 Projected Pit Wall Geology ........................................................................................... 21
Figure 4.5 RQD and RMR vs. Depth for Prospector Mountain Suite Domain ............................... 23
Figure 4.6 RQD and RMR vs. Depth for Dawson Range Batholith Domain.................................. 24
Figure 4.7 Summary of Rock Mass Hydraulic Conductivities ........................................................ 26
Figure 5.1 Open Pit Design Sectors .............................................................................................. 29
Figure 5.2 Typical Stereographic Analyses Results - M-South Sector - 325, 355 ..................... 31
Figure 5.3 Overburden Slope Stability Analysis Results FOS vs. Slope Angle ............................ 35
Figure 5.4 Overall Slope Stability Analyses Results M-North and M-Northeast Sectors ........... 39
Figure 5.5 Overall Slope Stability Analyses Results M-South and W-Southwest Sectors ......... 40
Figure 7.1 Slope Height versus Slope Angle Precedent for Hard Rock Surfaces...................... 52
OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN iii of iv VA 101-325/8-7 Rev 0

October 12, 2012
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A RQD AND RMR VS. HOLE DEPTHS CHARTS
APPENDIX B KINEMATIC STABILITY ANALYSES

APPENDIX B1 STEREOGRAPHIC PLOTS OF GEOMECHANICAL HOLES
APPENDIX B2 KINEMATIC STABILITY ANALYSES DETAILED RESULTS
APPENDIX C LIMIT EQUILIBRIUM STABILITY ANALYSES

APPENDIX C1 SUMMARY OF INTER-RAMP STABILITY ANALYSIS
APPENDIX C2 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS AND LIMIT EQUILIBRIUM ANALYSIS
OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN iv of iv VA 101-325/8-7 Rev 0

October 12, 2012
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND

Casino Mining Corporation (CMC) is currently evaluating the Casino Copper-Gold Project, a
proposed copper-gold-molybdenum mine, in the Yukon Territory. The project is located in the
Dawson Range Mountains of the Klondike Plateau approximately 300 km northwest of Whitehorse,
Yukon Territory, Canada, as shown on Figure 1.1. This area is unique as the region was not
glaciated during the Wisconsin Advance.
The deposit is hosted by the Casino Complex, a suite of igneous intrusive rocks with an intense
hydrothermal alteration overprint. The deposit will be mined using open pit methods with a nominal
mill throughput of 120,000 tonnes per day (tpd) of ore. The general arrangement of the project site is
shown on Figure 1.2.
OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN 1 of 55 VA 101-325/8-7 Rev 0

October 12, 2012
Figure 1.1 Project Location Map

October 12, 2012
NOTES:
1. COORDINATE GRID IS UTM (WGS84 / NAD83) ZONE 7 (m).
2. CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 25 m.
3. OPEN PIT OUTLINE PROVIDED BY CASINO MINING CORPORATION (SEPTEMBER 2012).
4. PLANT SITE AND CRUSHER LAYOUT PROVIDED BY M3 ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
(AUGUST, 2012)
5. ORE STOCKPILES ARE SHOWN AT THEIR MAXIMUM SIZE DURING OPERATIONS.
Figure 1.2 Mine Site General Arrangement

October 12, 2012
1.2 PREVIOUS WORK

Knight Pisold Ltd. (KPL) has been involved in the Casino Project since the early 1990s. Previous
work relating to the investigation and design of the Casino Open Pit included the following:
Preliminary Surficial Geotechnical Investigations Approximately 20 geotechnical trenches
were excavated for visual description and preliminary characterization of surficial materials in
1993. Representative soil samples were collected for laboratory testing, including particle size
analyses, natural moisture contents, Atterberg limits (plasticity), compaction tests and
permeability tests. The results of the site investigations are included in KPL report Report on
Preliminary Surficial Geotechnical Investigations (Ref. No. 1831/1, March 1994).
1994 Geotechnical and Hydrogeotechnical Investigations KPL drilled and logged
11 drillholes throughout the open pit area. Groundwater monitoring wells were installed in three
drillholes, and thermistors were installed in three other holes. In situ packer, falling head
permeability tests, and shut-in pressure tests were conducted within the drillholes, and
representative rock core was collected for laboratory testing. Point load testing was conducted
on site on select rock core samples. The results of the investigations are included in KPL report
Data Compilation Report on 1994 Geotechnical and Hydrogeotechnical Investigations (Ref. No.
1832/2, February 1995).
Preliminary Open Pit Slope Design A preliminary open pit geotechnical assessment of the
1995 pit shell model was completed in 2008 utilizing the available relevant geotechnical data.
Kinematic and limit equilibrium stability analyses were performed. Recommendations for bench
geometry, inter-ramp slope and overall slope angles were provided in KPL Letter Report
Preliminary Open Pit Slope Design (Ref. No. VA07-01637, January 2008).
2010 Geotechnical Site Investigation Three oriented geomechanical holes were completed
in 2010. In situ permeability testing was conducted at regular intervals during drilling. A
standpipe piezometer was installed in one drill hole and vibrating wire piezometers were installed
(by AECOM) in the remaining two holes. Packer hydraulic conductivity (Lugeon) tests were
conducted at selected intervals in all of the drillholes. The results of the investigations performed
by KPL are included in KPL report 2010 Geotechnical Site Investigation Data Report (Ref. No.
VA101-325/3-4, November 2010).
Updated Open Pit Slope Design KPL completed an updated pit slope geotechnical design for
the Pre-feasibility study. This updated geotechnical study was conducted to incorporate the
2010 Geotechnical Site Investigation data into the existing open pit pre-feasibility design.
Recommendations for bench geometry, inter-ramp slope and overall slope angles were provided
in KPL Letter Report Updated Open Pit Slope Design (Ref. No. VA10-01460, February 2011).
2011 Site Investigation Five oriented geomechanical holes were completed in the summer of
2011. In situ packer permeability testing was performed at regular intervals during drilling.
Standpipe piezometers were installed in three of the drill holes. Borehole surveys were
conducted in three holes using an acoustic televiewer. Overburden and rock core samples were
collected for laboratory testing. The results of the investigation are included in KPL report 2011
Geomechanical Site Investigation Data Report (Ref. No. VA101-325/8-6, 2012).
Additional work has been performed on site by AECOM in support of the feasibility study. AECOM
has installed a total of 2 thermistors, 7 vibrating wire piezometers, and 10 (mini) piezometers in the
open pit area between 2008 and 2010. The hydrogeological investigations by AECOM are

October 12, 2012
summarized in the report Casino Project Hydrogeological Technical Report DRAFT (Ref. No.
60146995-9, March 2011).
1.3 SCOPE OF WORK

KPL has been retained to conduct a feasibility level geotechnical design for the Casino open pit. The
geomechanical and hydrogeological information collected from the previous field programs was
utilized to develop a geotechnical database for the feasibility level pit slope design. The open pit
geotechnical assessment included:
Geotechnical characterization and geotechnical model development
Slope stability analyses
Conceptual pit water management plan, and
Pit slope recommendations.
This report presents the major findings along with recommendations for the Casino pit slope
development and pit water management.

October 12, 2012
2 GENERAL SITE SETTING
2.1 PHYSIOGRAPHY
The Casino Porphyry Copper-Gold-Molybdenum Project is located in the west-central region of the
Yukon Territory in an overlapping zone featuring the Yukon Cataclastic Terrane to the North, and the
Yukon Crystalline Terrane to the South (M3, May 2011). The site lies within the Boreal Cordillera
ecozone, which includes several mountain ranges such as the northwest trending Dawsons Range
Mountains. The region is characterized by well-rounded ridges and rolling hills that reach a maximum
elevation of 1675 masl. It also includes several extensive plateau regions. The hills are deeply cut
by a series of dendritic drainages of the Yukon River watershed, with the primary drainage channels
occurring below an elevation of 1000 masl (M3, May 2011).
The Dawsons Range exhibits unique surficial geology because the area did not experience
continental glaciation during the Pleistocene. The effects of minor alpine glaciation such as cirques
and terminal moraines are present in some areas (M3, May 2011).
2.2 REGIONAL GEOLOGY

The Casino Deposit is centered in an Upper-Cretaceous aged tonalite porphyry stock that is
elongated in the east-west direction. The stock intrudes Mesozoic granitoids of the Dawsons Range
Batholith as well as Paleozoic schists and gneisses of the Yukon Crystalline Complex (M3,
May 2011).
The intrusion of the tonalite stock caused extensive brecciation of the country rocks, which is best
developed at the eastern end of the stock where the fracture system extends up to 400 m wide in
plan view (M3, May 2011). The fractures in the stock and country rocks have copper, gold, and
molybdenum mineralization from hydrothermal fluids which flooded the brecciated rocks.
Outcrop exposure is rare as the overburden is extensive. Soils are found ranging from coarse talus
of the immature horizons at higher elevations to more mature soil horizons and thick organic layers
on the valley floors.
2.3 CLIMATE AND HYDROMETEOROLOGY

The climate of the west-central Yukon is considered sub-arctic, with widespread permafrost on north-
facing slopes and discontinuous permafrost on south-facing slopes. It is characterized by long, cold,
dry winters and short, warm, wet summers. Typical wind speeds in the region are relatively stable
throughout the year at approximately 2.3 m/s from the southwest direction (KPL, June 2010).
The mean monthly temperatures range from approximately -18.1C in January to 11.1C in July (M3,
May 2011) and are moderated by the effects of the Pacific Ocean. The daily maximum temperatures
occur in July and are typically around 30C (KPL, June 2010).
Precipitation is generally highest during the summer months of July and August and lowest during
the winter months of February to April. The estimated mean annual precipitation is approximately
500 mm, falling as snow throughout the months of November to March, as rain from May to
September, and as a mixture of the two in the remaining months. The highest humidity values are
generally 70 to 80% and are experienced in the fall and early winter. The lowest humidity values are
generally 50 to 60% and experienced in the spring and early summer (KPL, June 2010).

October 12, 2012
2.4 HYDROGEOLOGY
The Casino Project is situated on a small divide, with the North slopes draining into Canadian Creek
and Britannia Creek, which are tributaries of the Yukon River. Slopes situated on the south side of
the divide drain into Casino Creek and its subsidiary Dip Creek, which is a tributary of the Donjek
and Yukon Rivers (M3, May 2011).
Flow patterns of Big Creek, the Indian River, and the Little South Klondike River were compared
using data from 1983, 1985-1991, and 1993 in order to come up with a reasonable representation of
expected flow patterns for the site area. These water bodies were used because they are contained
within similar watersheds and occur over terrain similar to the Casino Project site (KPL, June 2010).
The analysis resulted in the production of similar bi-modal hydrographs with peak flows during the
freshet, which most commonly occurs in May as a result of spring melting. Second, smaller peaks
occur in late summer as a result of increased rainfall as well as melting of the active permafrost
layer. Low flows occur during the winter when precipitation falls as snow and many of the smaller
streams freeze solid. The approximate evapotranspiration value was determined to be 308 mm
annually (KPL, June 2010).
2.5 SEISMICITY
The region of the southwest Yukon Territory and northwest British Columbia is one of the most
seismically active areas in Canada. The seismic hazard in the region is also influenced by the
seismically active region of southeast Alaska. The coastal region has experienced many large
earthquakes, including events with magnitudes in the range of magnitude 7.0 to 8.0. In 1958 a
magnitude 7.9 earthquake occurred along the Fairweather fault (the northern extension of the Queen
Charlotte transform fault). The most significant inland zone of seismicity follows the Dalton and Duke
River segments of the Denali fault zone through the southwest Yukon. Farther inland there is only
minor seismicity between the Denali and Tintina fault systems, including the region of the Casino
Project site.
Review of historical earthquake records and regional tectonics indicates that the Casino Project site
is situated in a region of low seismic hazard. A probabilistic seismic hazard analysis has been
carried out using the database of Natural Resources Canada. The results are summarized in Table
2.1 in terms of earthquake return period, probability of exceedance (for a 23 year design operating
life) and median average maximum ground acceleration.

October 12, 2012
Table 2.1 Summary of Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis
Return Probability of Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA)

Period Exceedance(1) Median PGA(2,3) Estimated Mean PGA(3,4)
(Years) (%) (g) (g)
100 21% 0.04 0.05
475 5% 0.07 0.08
1000 2% 0.08 0.10
2500 1% 0.11 0.14
NOTES:
1. PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDANCE CALCULATED FOR A DESIGN LIFE OF 23 YEARS.
-(-L/T)
q=1
WHERE: q = PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDANCE
L = DESIGN LIFE IN YEARS
T = RETURN PERIOD IN YEARS
2. PEAK GROUND ACCELERATIONS OBTAINED FROM THE SEISMIC HAZARD DATABASE OF NATURAL RESOURCES
CANADA.
3. PEAK GROUND ACCELERATIONS ARE FOR "VERY DENSE/SOFT ROCK" (SITE CLASS C), AS DEFINED BY THE
NATIONAL BUILDING CODE OF CANADA (2005).
4. MEAN PGA VALUES ESTIMATED AS 1.2 X MEDIAN VALUES.
The corresponding maximum acceleration is 0.07g for a return period of 475 years, confirming a low
seismic hazard for the site.

October 12, 2012
3 FUNDAMENTALS OF PIT SLOPE DESIGN
3.1 GENERAL
The objective of the pit slope design is to determine the steepest, practical slope angles for the open
pit mine to maximize the extraction of the identified ore resource. This must be balanced against the
fact that over-steepened slopes may lead to the development of large instabilities that could
ultimately impact worker safety, productivity and mine profitability. The pit slope design approach is
based on achieving an acceptable level of risk and incorporating this into the stability analyses as a
Factor of Safety (FOS) and/or Probability of Failure (POF).
This section briefly introduces pit slope terminology that is used throughout this report and some of
the key geotechnical and mining factors that can impact slope design. In addition, a summary of the
analysis techniques utilized during this study and the adopted risk management approach are
discussed.
3.2 PIT SLOPE CONFIGURATIONS

The inter-relationships between bench geometry, inter-ramp slope angle and the overall slope angle
are illustrated on Figure 3.1. The primary components of a pit design are as follows:
Bench Geometry The heights of benches are typically determined by the size of the shovel
chosen for the mining operation. The bench face angle is typically selected in such a way as to
reduce the amount of material that may detach and fall from the face or crest. The bench width
is sized to prevent small wedges and blocks from the bench faces falling down the slope and
potentially impacting personnel and equipment. The resulting bench geometry will dictate the
inter-ramp slope angle. Double or triple benches can be used in certain circumstances to
steepen inter-ramp slopes.
Inter-ramp Slope The maximum inter-ramp slope angle is typically dictated by the bench
geometry. However, it is also necessary to evaluate the potential for multiple bench scale
instabilities due to large-scale structural features such as faults, shear zones, bedding planes,
foliation, etc. In some cases, these persistent features may completely control the achievable
inter-ramp angles and the slope may have to be flattened to account for their presence.
Overall Slope The overall slope angle that is achieved in a pit is typically flatter than the
maximum inter-ramp angle due to the inclusion of haulage ramps. Other factors that may
reduce the overall slope angles are things such as, rock mass strength, groundwater pressures,
blasting vibration, stress conditions and mine equipment requirements.

October 12, 2012
Figure 3.1 Typical Open Pit Slope Configurations
3.3 KEY CONSIDERATIONS FOR PIT SLOPE STABILITY

The stability of open pit slopes in rock is typically controlled by the following key geotechnical and
mining factors:
Lithology and Alteration The rock types intersected by the final pit walls and level of
alteration are main factors that impact eventual stability of the pit. Geotechnical domains are
created by grouping rock masses with similar geomechanical characteristics.

October 12, 2012
Structural Geology Large-scale structural features such as the orientation and strength of
major, continuous geological features such as faults, shear planes, weak bedding planes,
structural fabric, and/or persistent planar joints will strongly influence the overall stability of the
pit walls.
Rock Mass Structure Small-scale rock mass structural features such as the orientation,
strength, and persistence of smaller scale structural features such as joints will control the
stability of individual benches and may ultimately restrict the inter-ramp slope angles.
Rock Mass Quality and Strength Rock mass quality is characterized by using Rock Mass
Rating (RMR89), a classification system developed by Bieniawski (1989). Rock mass strength is
typically estimated via intact rock strength. Lower rock mass strength may reduce the overall
slope angles.
Groundwater Conditions High groundwater pressures and water pressure in tension cracks
will reduce the rock mass shear strength and may adversely impact slope stability. Slope
depressurization programs can reduce water pressure behind the pit walls and allow steeper pit
slopes to be developed.
Blasting Practices Production blasting can cause considerable damage to the rock mass
along interim and final pit walls. This increased disturbance can be accounted for during design
by incorporating a reduction in the effective strength of the rock mass. Controlled blasting
programs near the final wall can be implemented to reduce blasting induced disturbances and
allow steeper slopes.
Stress Conditions Mining induces stress changes due to lateral unloading within the vicinity
of the pit. Strain due to stress release can lead to reductions in the quality of the rock mass and
increases in slope displacements. Localized changes in pit wall geometry, which result in
noses, can cause a decrease in the stress regime. This decrease can result in an increased
incidence of ravelling type instability in these areas. Modifying the geometry and mining
sequence can sometimes manage these stress changes to enhance the integrity of the final pit
walls.
3.4 METHODOLOGY FOR PIT SLOPE STABILITY

The pit stability assessment was completed by defining representative geotechnical domains with
similar geology, structure, rock mass quality and strength characteristics. A series of pit design
sectors were then defined by incorporating the mine geometry into the geotechnical domains and a
number of different types of stability analyses were undertaken to determine appropriate slope
angles for a given open pit slope. Slope stability analyses undertaken in this study included:
Kinematic Stability Analyses Stereographic analyses were conducted using the structural
data to identify the kinematically possible failure modes of the pit walls. Appropriate bench face
angles and/or inter-ramp slope angles were assigned in such a way as to reduce the potential for
discontinuities to form unstable wedges or planes. Typically, it is not cost-effective to eliminate
all potentially unstable blocks and a certain percentage of bench face instability is acceptable.
Most of the smaller unstable features will be removed by the scaling process.
Rock Mass Stability Analyses Limit equilibrium analyses of the rock slopes were performed
to estimate the FOS against large-scale, multiple-bench slope failures. Inter-ramp slopes and
select overall pit slopes were modelled as part of these analyses.

October 12, 2012
3.5 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR PIT SLOPE DESIGN

The recommended pit slope configurations are developed using data interpreted from a simplified
geotechnical model, the rock mass characteristics and groundwater conditions. As this data may be
limited or variably distributed and/or of uncertain quality the target level of confidence during a
feasibility level pit slope study is typically around 50% to 70%. A general guidance to pit slope
design acceptance criteria is summarized below in Table 3.1 (after Read and Stacey, 2009);
suggested FOS targets for open pit design at Casino are highlighted in Bold.
Table 3.1 Summary of Pit Slope Design Acceptance Criteria
Acceptance Criteria
Slope Scale Consequences of Failure FOS (min) FOS (min) POF (max)
(Static) (Dynamic) P[FOS1]
Bench Low to High 1.1 N/A 25% - 50%
Low 1.15 - 1.2 1.0 25%
Inter-ramp Medium 1.2 1.0 20%
High 1.2 1.3 1.1 10%
Low 1.2 1.3 1.0 15% - 20%
Overall Medium 1.3 1.05 5% - 10%
High 1.3 1.5 1.1 5%
It is noted that there are few recorded instances in which earthquakes have been shown to produce
significant slope instability in hard rock open pits. In most cases earthquakes have produced small
shallow slides and rock falls in rock slopes, but none on a scale sufficient to disrupt mining
operations (Read and Stacey, 2009). Therefore, given the nature of the low seismic hazard at the
site, slope stability under seismic (earthquake) conditions is not a significant consideration for the pit
slope design for the Casino Project.

October 12, 2012
4 GEOTECHNICAL CHARACTERIZATION
4.1 GENERAL
The feasibility study for the open pit utilized information collected during the 1994, 2012, and 2011
geotechnical site investigation programs. The field programs included diamond drilling and logging
of oriented core, in situ permeability testing and piezometer installation.
The characterization of the open pit geotechnical conditions was based on all relevant geological,
geomechanical, and hydrogeological information from both geotechnical and exploration drill holes,
including descriptive geological and geotechnical logging, in situ tests, field testwork and laboratory
results.
4.2 DATA SOURCES

The information presented comes from a variety of sources and has been compiled to present the
basis for establishing a simplified geotechnical model for pit slope design. The compiled data
addresses the four main areas of information required for the pit slope design: geology, structure,
rock mass and hydrogeology.
The sources of information that contributed to the development of the geotechnical model for open
pit design include:
1994 Geotechnical/Hydrogeotechnical Investigations (KPL, February 1995)
1994 Exploration and Geotechnical Drilling Program (Pacific Sentinel Gold Corp., 1995)
2010 Geotechnical Site Investigation (KPL, November 2010)
2010 Hydrometeorology Report (KPL, June 2010)
2011 Geotechnical Site Investigation (KPL, April 2012)
Figure 4.1 shows the locations of the geotechnical drill holes and test pits completed within the open
pit area during the 1994, 2010 and 2011 site investigation programs. A summary of all geotechnical
drill holes completed during these programs is included in Table 4.1. Detailed results for overburden
and rock laboratory testing, rock mass quality and rock mass structure characterization are
presented in the Data Compilation Report on 1994 Geotechnical/Hydrogeotechnical Investigations
(Ref. No. 1832/2, February 1995), 2010 Geotechnical Site Investigation Data Report (Ref. No.
VA101-325/3-4, November 2010) and 2011 Geomechanical Site Investigation Data Report (Ref. No.
VA101-325/8-6, April 2012).

October 12, 2012
NOTES:
3. OPEN PIT OUTLINE PROVIDED BY CASINO MINING CORPORATION (SEPTEMBER 2012)
Figure 4.1 Open Pit Area 1994, 2010 and 2011 Investigation Plans

October 12, 2012
Table 4.1 Summary of Open Pit Drillholes
Coordinates1, 2
Total
Elevation Azimuth Dip Hole Size Depth to Bedrock
Drillhole ID Depth
Northing Easting
(m) (m) (m) () () Nominal (m) (m)

94-288 6,958,675 610,893 1,312 316 -43 HQ3 270.1 5.0
94-298 6,958,656 611,428 1,164 270 -45 HQ3 199.9 12.5
94-305 6,958,454 611,213 1,278 132 -55 HQ3 144.8 1.0
94-310 6,958,504 610,801 1,326 229 -42 HQ3 291.3 5.0
94-321 6,958,748 610,792 1,273 0 -90 HQ3 150.0 2.5
94-326 6,958,773 611,003 1,252 0 -90 HQ3 139.9 2.5
94-331 6,958,451 611,103 1,310 0 -90 HQ3 155.2 3.0
94-332 6,958,363 611,007 1,324 0 -90 HQ3 169.8 1.0
94-333 6,958,054 610,863 1,383 0 -90 HQ3 104.2 2.5
94-334 6,958,805 611,413 1,184 0 -90 HQ3 125.6 15.0
94-337 6,958,505 611,533 1,142 0 -90 HQ3 122.5 12.0
DH10-18 6,958,135 611,483 1,171 150 -70 NTW3 426.7 14.3
DH10-19 6,958,014 610,285 1,359 225 -70 NTW3 68.6 1.5
DH10-19B 6,958,015 610,287 1,359 225 -70 NTW3 397.1 1.5
DH10-20 6,958,872 610,213 1,234 030 -70 NTW3 298.7 3.1
DH11-35 6,958,210 610,044 1,296 262 -59 HTW/NTW 300.2 2.0
DH11-36 6,957,926 610,572 1,390 188 -60 HTW/NTW 368.8 4.6
DH11-37 6,958,151 611,034 1,349 172 -60 HTW/NTW 402.3 0.0
DH11-38 6,958,803 611,381 1,185 17 -62 HTW/NTW 449.3 23.6
DH11-39 6,959,007 611,019 1,220 346 -61 HTW/NTW 449.6 27.4
CAS-51 6,959,001 609,963 1,206 121 -89 HTW/NTW 268.2 -
NOTES:
1. UTM NAD 83 COORDINATES.
2. DRILLHOLE COORDINATES AND ELEVATION MEASURED USING A HANDHELD GARMIN GPS UNIT.
3. ALL DEPTH MEASUREMENTS ARE TAKEN WITH RESPECT TO GROUND SURFACE LEVEL, ALONG THE
DRILLHOLE.
4. REFLEX ACT I CORE ORIENTATION SYSTEM USED FOR ALL 2010 DRILLHOLES.
5. REFLEX ACT II RD CORE ORIENTATION SYSTEM USED FOR ALL 2011 DRILLHOLES.
4.3 GEOLOGY
4.3.1 Overburden
Mechanical weathering has played a dominant role in the production of overburden. Frost action and
weathering processes have broken down the top of the bedrock into angular cobble to silt sized
particles, referred to as residual soils by the project team. The relatively high silt content for
residual soils indicated enrichment with windblown loess.

October 12, 2012
Colluvial deposits have formed along slopes, with the windblown loess and residual soils mixing
during transportation downslope. The mixing process causes the colluvium to be locally organic rich.
Blocky talus or scree is common at the base of slopes in the deposit area.
The typical composition of the overburden is SAND to GRAVEL with some cobbles and trace clay.
The overburden is typically loose to medium dense. The thickness of overburden varies
considerably throughout the open pit area due to preferential weathering of bedrock along shear,
alteration and fault zones. Drill logs indicate that overburden is negligible in the south side of the
deposit, but as thick at 30 m along the north side of the main deposit.
4.3.2 Bedrock
The Casino deposit is centred in a complex of quartz monzonites, intrusion breccias, shallow
porphyritic intrusions, and a central breccia to microbreccia body. The major lithology units in the
deposit area (from Pacific Sentinel Corp., 1995) are summarized below:
Patton Porphyry (Late Cretaceous) The main body of the Patton Porphyry is a relatively small
stock approximately 300 by 800 m and is surrounded by an altered intrusive breccia in contact
with rocks of the Dawson Range. The Patton Porphyry also forms discontinuous dykes ranging
from less than one to tens of meters wide, intersecting both the Patton Porphyry plug and the
Dawson Range Batholith.
Intrusive/Contact Breccia (Late Cretaceous) The intrusive/contact breccia surrounding the
main Patton Porphyry body consists of granodiorite, diorite, and metamorphic fragments in a
fine-grained Patton Porphyry matrix.
Explosive Breccia Abundant fragments of the Patton Porphyry and its intrusive breccia are
present in a late explosive breccia pipe. The unit indicates multiple episodes of brecciation as it
contains 5 to 50% ragged fragments of altered intrusive breccia and host rock, with lesser
fragments of quartz-phyric Patton Porphyry.
Dawson Range Batholith (Middle Cretaceous) The Dawson Range Batholith (DRB) is the main
country rock of the deposit, and is characterized by hornblende-biotite-quartz diorite,
hornblende-biotite diorite, and biotite-hornblende granodiorite.
Minor lithological units that have been encountered in the open pit area include Yukon Metamorphic
rocks (comprised of metasediments, metavolcanics, gneiss and quartzite) and several mafic dykes.
A sub-surficial bedrock geology map is shown on Figure 4.2.
Potassic alteration is centered on and related to the microbreccia that forms the core of Patton Hill.
It produced fine grained aggregates of K-feldspar and disseminations of magnetite and biotite.
Phyllic alteration typically forms texture destructive quartz-sericite envelopes to quartz-pyrite veinlets
(Pacific Sentinel Corp., 1995).
Weathered bedrock is present through the deposit area, varying in thickness from several tens of
metres to 200 m thick. The weathered bedrock was identified during the 2010 and 2011 site
investigations as part of the geotechnical logging of the drill core. Bedrock was classified as
weathered if weathering processes have considerably weakened the rock and penetrative
discoloration has occurred.

October 12, 2012
NOTES:
3. GEOLOGY PROVIDED BY CASINO MINING CORPORATION (NOVEMBER 2010).
4. OPEN PIT OUTLINE PROVIDED BY CASINO MINING CORPORATION (SEPTEMBER 2012)
Figure 4.2 Sub-Surficial Geology and Geotechnical Drillhole Locations

October 12, 2012
4.4 STRUCTURE
4.4.1 Data Collection Methods

The structure of the bedrock within the open pit area was identified from data collected during the
1994, 2010 and 2011 site investigation programs. Oriented core logs and data from bore hole
televiewer surveys were used to create a structural database.
Twelve oriented drill holes have been completed within the open pit area. Four holes were
completed in 1994 (DH94-288, DH94-298, DH94-305 and DH94-310), three in 2010 (DH10-18 to
20), and five holes in 2011 (DH11-35 to 39). Drill core during the 2010 and 2011 geotechnical
investigations was oriented using the Reflex ACT I and ACT II RD (respectively) core orientation
systems.
Borehole televiewer surveys were completed in three drill holes (CAS-051, DH11-35 and DH11-36).
The boreholes were scanned using an acoustic televiewer (ATV) probe by the COLOG Division of
Layne Christiensen Company (COLOG) and the dip/dip direction of each fracture was calculated
from the resulting images. The fractures were also ranked based on the apparent aperture of the
feature; from 0 for sealed structures to 5 for major fractures with large openings or breakouts.
Large scale structural features, such as faults, were delineated by the Casino geologists. The
surface traces of identified faults are illustrated on Figure 4.2. Fault traces plotted onto the pit shell
model indicate that the faults are sub-vertical.
4.4.2 Data Quality Control

Overall pit structure was plotted on stereonets using the Rocscience Inc. DIPS software (DIPS). The
data was sorted by source type (oriented core and ATV) and plotted on individual stereonets. All
oriented core data and ATV data was corrected for orientation bias using borehole traverse
information. Survey Data from the ATV and a Reflex EZ-Shot survey tool was used to compile the
borehole traverses.
4.4.3 Structural Orientations

Stereographic plots of the oriented core data and ATV data are shown on Figure 4.3. Eastward and
westward trending discontinuity sets are present in both data sets. The oriented core data indicates
that these discontinuity sets are typically moderately dipping. The ATV data shows that the
east/west dipping discontinuity sets are steeply dipping.
The steeply dipping discontinuity sets presented in the ATV data can be seen as minor pole
concentrations within the oriented core data. The discrepancy between the oriented core and ATV
data sets is due to the size of each data base and the location of the drill holes in which the ATV
surveys were completed. Approximately 8000 discontinuities were measured in the oriented core
drilled throughout the open pit area, whereas the ATV survey was conducted within the western end
of the open pit and only 250 discontinuities (after filtering out rank 0 and 1 rated features) were
recorded.

October 12, 2012
Oriented Core Data
Acoustic Televiewer Data
NOTES:
1. ACOUSTIC TELEVIEWER DATA COLLECTED BY COLOG DURING THE 2011 GEOTECHNICAL SITE
INVESTIGATION PROGRAM.
2. ORIENTED CORE DATA PROVIDED BY KNIGHT PISOLD LTD. DURING THE 2010 AND 2011 GEOTECHNICAL
SITE INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAMS.
Figure 4.3 Overall Rock Mass Structure

October 12, 2012
Several faults are present within the Casino deposit area. The largest fault affecting the deposit area
on the property is the Casino Creek Fault, a broadly curved steeply dipping, strike-slip fault trending
at 310. Numerous small faults are present on the east side of the Casino Creek Fault, as indicated
by the 1994 drill holes. Most of these faults have sub-horizontal slickensides and chlorite-hematite
alteration. The Patton Fault also runs through the deposit area, and is sub-vertical with an
approximate 310 trend. This fault heads south from Canadian Creek and ends near Patton Hill. A
number of other faults have also been identified in the deposit area, and are typically sub-vertical to
vertical.
4.5 ROCK MASS
4.5.1 Geotechnical Domains

The geological units that are present on site were grouped into four geotechnical domains for the
purpose of geotechnical characterization and stability analysis. The geotechnical domains are as
follows:
Overburden The overburden is classified as loose to medium dense sand and gravel with
some cobbles and trace clay. Overburden is typically found along the northeast rim of the pit
with a maximum thickness of 30 m.
Weathered Zone The weathered diorite/granodiorite rock vary in thickness from tens to 200 m
within the deposit.
Prospector Mountain Suite (PMS) The late Cretaceous Patton Porphyry, intrusion breccia and
explosive breccia rocks comprise the PMS domain.
Dawson Range Batholith (DRB) The middle Cretaceous diorite and granodiorite that comprise
the DRB domain.
A preliminary pit shell was utilized to project the final wall geology for the Casino open pit. The
projected wall geology is presented on Figure 4.4 along with the fault traces.
4.5.2 Intact Rock Strength

Field estimates of intact rock strength were collected for each drill run. A number of core samples
were selected for laboratory point load and Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) testing. The
test results were compiled and grouped by geotechnical domain.
A summary of the laboratory rock strength values and the average rock strength by geotechnical
domain can be seen on Table 4.2. Results of the laboratory rock strength testing indicates that the
PMS and DRB domains are considered Hard rock with average UCS values of 51 and 55 MPa
respectively.
No samples from the Weathered Zone were selected for laboratory strength testing. The intact rock
strength of the weathered bedrock in each geotechnical domain was assumed to be equal to one
standard deviation below the average rock mass UCS. The strength of the weathered PMS and
DRB domains are 31 and 39 MPa, respectively, and are considered Average strength rock.

October 12, 2012
NOTES:
2. CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 15 m FOR THE PIT AND 5 m FOR THE SURROUNDING TOPOGRAPHY.
3. PIT WALL GEOLOGY PROVIDED BY CASINO MINING CORPORATION (NOVEMBER 2010).
4. FAULTS ARE ASSUMED TO BE SUB-VERTICAL
5. WEATHERED BEDROCK DEPTHS PROJECT ONTO PIT WALLS BASED ON 2010 AND 2011 GEOMECHANICAL
DRILLING DATA.
Figure 4.4 Projected Pit Wall Geology

October 12, 2012
Table 4.2 Summary of Rock Mass Properties
Rock Mass Properties Prospector Moutain Suite Dawson Range Batholith
Weathered Weathered
Zone (3) Fresh Fresh
Zone Zone
Number of Samples - 19 - 9
Mean (MPa) 31 51 39 55
Median (MPa) - 54 - 50
UCS Std. Dev. (MPa) - 19 - 16
Maxium (MPa) - 76 - 92
Minimum (MPa) - 11 - 40
Rock Hardness R3 - Average R3 - Average

R4 - Hard Rock R4 - Hard Rock
Rating Rock Rock
Young's Modulus (GPa) 26 21
Poisson's Ratio 0.14 0.18

Weathered Weathered
Zone Fresh All Fresh All
Zone Zone
Number of Runs
536 235 771 283 956 1239
Measured
Mean (%) 42 81 54 33 72 63
RQD
Median (%) 43 92 57 30 82 74
Std. Dev. (%) 30 24 33 26 29 33
Numbers of
Discontinuities 108 235 343 192 957 1149
Measured
Mean 47 59 55 41 59 56
RMR89
Median 46 61 57 40 61 58
Std. Dev. 11 10 12 11 11 13
Rock Mass Quality

FAIR FAIR FAIR FAIR FAIR FAIR
Description
Hydraulic Conductivity (m/sec) 6.E-08
4.5.3 Rock Mass Quality

RMR89 values were calculated for each drill run during the 2010 and 2011 site investigations, and the
data was compiled and organized by geotechnical domain. The drill hole RQD and RMR vs. depth
for the two rock geotechnical domains are illustrated on Figure 4.5 and Figure 4.6. It is noted that
while RQD shows trends of increasing with depth, the average RMR typically remains constant.
A summary of the RMR89 values and resulting average rock mass quality by geotechnical domain
can be seen on Table 4.2. The PMS and DRB domains are considered FAIR quality rock with
average RMR89 values of 61 for fresh bedrock. The RMR89 values for weathered bedrock are 47 and
41 for the PMS and DRB domains, as logged during the 2010 and 2011 site investigations.

October 12, 2012
NOTES:
1. "DEPTHS" ARE INCLINED DRILL HOLE DEPTHS.
Figure 4.5 RQD and RMR vs. Depth for Prospector Mountain Suite Domain
4.5.4 Overburden Strength Parameters

Samples of overburden were collected within the open pit area during the 2011 site investigation and
sent to the Knight Pisold Soil Laboratory in Denver for soil index testing and classification. No in
situ density tests of the overburden were performed; however, field logs indicate that the overburden
is typically loose to medium dense. A unit weight of 18.7 kN/m3 was assumed for the overburden
material as a typical value for medium dense soils.
The overburden is assumed to be a cohesionless material. A base friction angle (phi) of 30 was
assumed for the material as shown in Table 4.3.

October 12, 2012
NOTES:
Figure 4.6 RQD and RMR vs. Depth for Dawson Range Batholith Domain
4.5.5 Rock Mass Strength Parameters

The overall rock mass strength parameters were derived using the Hoek-Brown criterion (2002
edition). The characteristics of the rock mass are described by lithology, intact rock strength and
rock mass quality. The strength properties can be adjusted to account of the expected level of rock
disturbance. Rock mass disturbance is typically caused by blasting damage and from strains
resulting from stress changes in the pit walls due to unloading during mining. The design values of
the rock mass strength parameters are summarized in Table 4.3.

October 12, 2012
Table 4.3 Summary of Design Parameters of Soil and Rock
Unit Friction Confining

UCS(1)
Material Weight GSI (2) Angle Stress mi(5)
(kN/m3) (MPa) () (kPa)
Overburden 18.7 30(3) - -
Dawson Weathered 39 36
See
Range 26.2 1500 25
Fresh 55 54 Note 4
Batholith
Prospector Weathered 31 42
See
Mountain 26.2 1500 19
Fresh 51 54 Note 4
Suite
NOTES:
1. UCS VALUES FROM LAB TESTING OF ROCK SAMPLES. TEST RESULTS WERE AVERAGED TO PROVIDE UCS
VALUE.
2. GSI = RMR -5. RMR VALUES FROM BORE HOLE LOGS WERE AVERAGED FOR EACH GEOTECHNICAL DOMAIN
AND STATE OF WEATHERING.
3. A SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS WAS PERFORMED ON OVERBURDEN USING ASSUMED FRICTION ANGLES FO 25
TO 35.
4. FRICTION ANGLE DETERMINED USING SHEAR STRENGTH FUNCTION CALCULATED USING UCS, mi AND GSI.
5. INTACT ROCK CONSTANT, mi, ASSUMED AS TYPICAL VALUES FOR ROCK TYPE (HOEK-BROWN, 2007).
The UCS values of each geotechnical domain were determined from laboratory rock strength testing
results. The lithological factor (mi) has been estimated for each domain according to the general
rock types. The mi values are 19 for the PMS domain (representative of breccia) and 25 for the DRB
domain (representative of diorite).
The Geological Strength Index (GSI) was estimated based on the RMR values. GSI was introduced
by Hoek et. Al. (1995) to overcome issues with the RMR values for very poor quality rock masses.
For better quality rock masses (GSI > 25), the value of GSI can be estimated from Bieniawskis RMR
(1989) as GSI = RMR - 5. Therefore, as the RMR values are greater than 25, the GSI values are
assumed to be mathematically equivalent to the equation above.
4.6 HYDROGEOLOGY
The groundwater level in the deposit area typically varies from 3 m below surface to 30 m. A
groundwater depth of 100 m was observed in the southwest region of the deposit (Hole DH10-19B).
In situ hydrogeological testing performed during the 1994, 2010 and 2011 site investigations indicate
that the hydraulic conductivity of the rock mass varies between 1x10-5 m/sec to 1x10-9 m/sec within
the upper 150 m of bedrock. The permeability of the rock reduces moderately with depth, with tested
hydraulic conductivities of 1x10-7 to 1x10-9 m/sec observed. A summary of hydraulic conductivity vs.
depth is shown on Figure 4.7. The average hydraulic conductivity of the rock mass, taken as the
geometric mean of the tested permeability results, is 6x10-8 m/sec.

October 12, 2012
NOTES:
1. HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITIES PLOTTED AGAINST INCLINED DEPTH OF DRILLHOLE.
Figure 4.7 Summary of Rock Mass Hydraulic Conductivities

October 12, 2012
5 PIT SLOPE STABILITY ASSESSMENT
5.1 GENERAL
The proposed Casino open pit will extend to a maximum depth of approximately 590 m. The
feasibility pit slope design considered site specific data collected during site investigations
throughout 1994 to 2011. A series of design sectors were delineated for pit slope assessment. Both
kinematic and soil/rock mass slope stability analyses were performed to determine appropriate slope
configurations for each design sector.
5.2 PIT DESIGN SECTORS

CMC developed a pit shell model in September 2011, which contains two distinct mining zones, the
Main Pit and the West Pit, which will be developed concurrently during operations. A total of eight pit
design sectors were delineated primarily based on the nominal pit wall orientations with a secondary
consideration to pit wall geology.
Figure 5.1 shows the projected pit wall geology along with the proposed design sectors. The
thickness of the weathered bedrock within each design sector was estimated by the RQD and RMR
profiles of the geotechnical holes. The RQD and RMR vs. Inclined Depth plots of the 1994, 2010
and 2011 drill holes are presented in Appendix A with respect to each pit design sector. The depth
to fresh bedrock was indicated on the 2010 and 2011 drillhole plots and estimated based on a
comparison of RQD values in the 1994 drillholes. The estimated extent of the weathered bedrock
within the final pit walls is also illustrated on Figure 5.1. A brief description of the design sectors is
shown in Table 5.1.
5.3 KINEMATIC SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES
5.3.1 General
The purpose of these analyses was to identify the kinematically possible failure modes within each
design sector using the stereographic technique. Bench geometry was selected to reduce the
potential for small-scale discontinuities to form bench-scale instabilities. Inter-ramp angles were
determined to reduce the potential of multiple bench failure to an acceptable level.
5.3.2 Modes of Failure

Kinematically possible failure modes in rock slopes typically include planar, wedge and toppling
failures. These failure modes will occur if discontinuities are pervasive at bench scale or greater, if
weak infilling is present along the discontinuities, or if the geometry of the discontinuities is
conducive to failure. Stereographic analyses of peak pole concentrations of the discontinuity data
can be used to identify potential modes of failure. A brief introduction on each mode of failure is
provided below:
Planar Failure This failure mode is kinematically possible where a discontinuity plane sits at a
shallower inclination than the slope face (daylights) and at an angle steeper than the friction
angle.
Wedge Failure This failure mode is kinematically possible where the plunge of the intersection
of two planes (sliding vector) is inclined less than the slope face (daylights) and at an angle

October 12, 2012
greater than the combined friction angle which is determined from the characteristics of each
plane that forms the wedge. Where kinematics are the controlling factor, the recommended pit
slope angles have been adjusted to reduce the potential for large-scale, multiple bench wedge
failures.
Toppling Failure This failure mode is kinematically possible due to interlayer slip along
discontinuity surfaces where sub-vertical jointing dips into the slope at a steep angle . The
condition for toppling to occur is when > (j + (90 )), where is the slope face angle and j
is the friction angle (Goodman, 1989).
Table 5.1 Summary of Design Sectors
Weathered
Maximum Wall Overburden
Geotechnical Bedrock
Sector Slope Height Orientations Thickness
Domains Thickness
(m) () (m)
(m)
M-North 630 135, 170 DRB 30 60
195, 220, 240,

M-Northeast 630 DRB 30 250
270
M-South 540 325, 255 DRB, PMS - 125
Central 210 030, 100, 180 PMS - -
W-North 285 180, 215, 240 DRB - 50
W-South 480 000, 040 DRB - 3 to 65
W-Southwest 345 010, 090 PMS - 60
W-West 210 090, 135 DRB - 60

October 12, 2012
NOTES:
2. CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 15 m FOR THE PIT AND 5 m FOR THE SURROUNDING TOPOGRAPHY.
3. PIT WALL GEOLOGY PROVIDED BY CASINO MINING CORPORATION (NOVEMBER 2010).
4. FAULTS ARE ASSUMED TO BE SUB-VERTICAL
5. WEATHERED BEDROCK DEPTHS PROJECT ONTO PIT WALLS BASED ON 2010 AND 2011 GEOMECHANICAL
DRILLING DATA.
Figure 5.1 Open Pit Design Sectors

October 12, 2012
5.3.3 Stereographic Analysis

Stereographic analyses have been carried out for each design sector using the DIPS program
(Rocscience Inc., 2001). The analysis assumes that failures will occur as the results of sliding blocks
or wedges along the defects of rock mass. This type of analysis does not consider slope failure
within the rock mass. Stereographic plots for individual oriented core hole and televiewer survey
hole are presented in Appendix B. The drillhole rock mass structural data were grouped by design
sectors for further kinematic stability analyses.
Pit wall orientations were measured from a preliminary pit shell model provided by CMC in 2010.
Where the pit walls contain a pronounced curve, multiple analyses were conducted to account for the
changing pit wall dip direction within the sector.
A joint friction angle of 29 was used for all discontinuities. This value is based on the results of
direct shear testing performed on samples collected during the 2011 site investigation.
Multiple stereographic plots were created for each design sector in order to account for the variation
of pit wall orientations within each sector. The results of the kinematic stability analyses are
summarized on Table 5.2. A brief discussion for each design sector is provided below:
M-North Sector This sector was comprised of a curved section of pit wall with pit wall dip
directions of 135 to 170. Multi-bench wedge failure is kinematically possible within this sector.
Variation and scatter within the discontinuity sets may result in bench scale planar and wedge
failures to develop. Slightly flatter bench face and inter-ramp angles are recommended for this
sector.
M-Northeast Sector This sector encompasses the majority of the east side of the Main Pit and
includes a pronounced curve (pit wall dip direction varies from 195 to 270). Bench scale
wedge failures are kinematically possible.
M-South Sector This sector is comprised of a shallowly curved wall with pit wall dip directions
of 325 to 355. Multi-bench planar and wedge failures are kinematically possible. Slightly
flatter bench face and inter-ramp angles are recommended for this sector.
Central Sector This sector is comprised of central bottom section of the pit, with major wall
orientations of 030, 100, and 180. Multi-bench wedge failure modes are identified for the
south facing walls in the Central Sector.
W-North Sector The W-North Sector is a moderately curved wall that ranges in pit wall dip
direction from 180 to 240. Multi-bench planar and wedge failures are kinematically possible.
Therefore, slightly flatter bench face and inter-ramp angles are recommended for this sector.
W-South Sector The W-South Sector is moderately curved with pit wall dip directions ranging
from 000 to 040. Toppling failure is kinematically possible at both the inter-ramp and bench
scales.
W-Southwest Sector The W-South Sector contains a sharply curved wall with nominal pit wall
dip directions ranging of 010 and 090. The potential for kinematically controlled failures is less
significant in this sector.
W-West Sector This sector encompasses the west side of the West Pit and is moderately
curved with pit wall dip directions ranging from 090 to 135. Bench scale planar and wedge
failures are kinematically possible.

October 12, 2012
A typical stereographic analysis is illustrated on Figure 5.2. Detailed results of the kinematic stability
analyses are shown in Appendix B.
NOTES:
1. ACOUSTIC TELEVIEWER DATA NOT COLLECTED IN THE M-SOUTH SECTOR.
2. ORIENTED CORE DATA COLLECTED BY KNIGHT PISOLD LTD. DURING THE 1994, 2010 AND 2011
GEOTECHNICAL SITE INVESTIGATIONS.
Figure 5.2 Typical Stereographic Analyses Results - M-South Sector - 325, 355

October 12, 2012
Table 5.2 Summary of Structure and Kinematically Possible Failure Modes

Discontinuity Sets
(DIP / DIP DIRECTION) Wall
BFA BFA BFA IRA IRA IRA
Pit Sector Drill Hole Orientation Comment
Oriented Acoustic Planar Wedge Topple Planar Wedge Topple
()
Core Televiewer
Scatter and variation within the C3
C1 - 45/189, 135 C3 - - - - - discontinuity set may allow for the formation
DH94-288, C2 - 68/100, No Data of planar features.
M-North
DH11-39 C3 - 43/143, Available C1/C2, C1/C2, Wedge failures kinematically possible.
C4 - 27/284 170 - C1/C3, - - C1/C3, - Scatter and variation within the C1 and C3
C2/C3 C2/C3 discontinuity sets may allow for the formation
Inter-ramp scale wedge failure kinematically
195 - C2/C4 - - C2/C4 - possible, wedge slip line at limit of inter-ramp
angle.
Bench scale wedge failure is kinematically
C1 - 47/098, 220 - C2/C4 - - - - possible, wedge slip line is at limit of inter-
DH94-298, C2 - 68/136, No Data ramp angle.
Main M-Northeast
DH11-38 C3 - 84/177, Available
No possible kinematically controlled failure
C4 - 68/271 240 - - - - - -
mechanisms.
Some toppling failure possible due to scatter

270 - - - - - -
and variation in structural set C1
Planar failures kinematically possible due to

325 - - - C1 - -
DH94-305, C1 - 37/317, set C1.
No Data
M-South DH10-18, C2 - 66/066,
Available C1/C2, C1/C2,
DH11-37 C3 - 73/272 Wedge failure kinematically possible, however
355 - C1/C3, - - C1/C3, -
is at limit of assumed friction angle.
C2/C3 C2/C3

030 - - - - - -
mechanisms.
C1 - 26/207,
C2 - 29/278,
DH94-288, No Data No possible kinematically controlled failure
Central C3 - 67/092, 100 - - - - - -
DH94-310 Available mechanisms.
C4 - 41/147,
C5 - 72/232 C3/C4,
Inter-ramp scale wedge failures kinematically
180 - - - - C3/C5, -
possible.
C4/C5
Scatter and variation within the C1
180 - C1/C3 - C1 - - discontinuity set may allow for the formation
of planar features.
C1 - 49/186, Planar failures kinematically possible due to
No Data
W-North DH10-20 C2 - 41/250, 215 - C1/C2 - C1 C1/C2 - set C2. Wedge failure kinematically possible
Available
C3 - 67/104 due to interactions of sets C1 and C2.
Planar failures kinematically possible due to
240 - C1/C2 - C2 C1/C2 - set C2. Wedge failure kinematically possible
due to interactions of sets C1 and C2.
C1 - 00/267, 000 - - - - - -
mechanisms.
DH10-19B, C2 - 89/045, A1 - 58/003,
W-South
DH11-36 C3 - 79/063, A2 - 69/251
West 040 - - C2 - - - Toppling failure is kinematically possible.

010 - - - - - -
C1 - 87/043, A1 - 85/232, mechanisms.
W-Southwest DH11-35 C2 - 34/309, A2 - 64/341,
C3 - 14/179 A3 - 32/299 No possible kinematically controlled failure
090 - - - - - -
mechanisms.
Bench scale toppling failure is kinematically

090 A1 - - - - -
A1 - 59/103, possible.
No Data
W-West CAS-051 A2 - 76/204,
Available
A3 - 61/141 Bench scale wedge and toppling failure is
135 A3 A1/A3 - - - -
kinematically possible.
5.3.1 Bench Face Angle Analysis

Further bench face angle analyses were conducted using the SWEDGE limit equilibrium program
(Rocscience Inc.) for the M-North, M-Northeast, and W-North Sectors. Wedge failures are
kinematically possible in these areas. Cumulative bench scale wedge and planar failures were

October 12, 2012
estimated based on the structural discontinuity sets identified within each design sector in
comparison to the relevant bench geometry. The bench height was 15 m, the bench widths were 8
m, and the targeted bench reliability was 70%. The results of the bench face angle analyses are
shown in Appendix B.
5.3.2 Implications of Kinematic Analysis Results

The bench face angles have been reduced to 60 to offset the risk of planar and wedge failures
occurring within the M-North and W-North Sectors. The inter-ramp slopes, which are dictated by
bench geometry, will be 42 within these sectors to lower the risk of multi-bench planar/wedge
failures.
5.4 OVERBURDEN AND ROCK MASS SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES
5.4.1 General
The maximum achievable overall slope angle in large open pit mines may be controlled by the
overburden/rock mass strength. Limit equilibrium stability analyses were performed using the
SLOPE/W computer program (GEO-SLOPE International Ltd., 2007). The limit equilibrium analyses
were completed to evaluate the overall slope stability of the jointed rock mass and overburden. A
minimum FOS of 1.2 has been targeted for inter-ramp slopes, and 1.3 for the overall pit slopes
(Read & Stacey, 2009).
The overburden model utilizes soil unit weight and friction angle as the primary material parameters.
Intact rock strength, the Hoek-Brown constant for rock mass (mi), GSI, unit weight, and blast
disturbance factors are the primary material parameters used in the bedrock slope models.
5.4.2 Rock Mass Disturbance

The overall rock mass strength parameters were derived using the Hoek-Brown failure criterion
(2002 edition). The characteristics of the rock mass are described by lithology, intact rock strength
and rock mass quality. The strength properties can be adjusted to account for the expected level of
rock disturbance. Rock mass disturbance is typically caused by blast damage and from strains
resulting from stress relaxation in the pit walls due to unloading during mining.
Hoek et al., 2002 recommends that the utilized rock mass strengths be downgraded to disturbed
values to account for rock mass disturbance associated with heavy production blasting and stress
relief. He indicates that a disturbance factor of 0.7 would be appropriate for a mechanical excavation
where no blasting damage is expected. KPL experience indicates that a disturbance factor
approaching a value of 0.85 may be achievable for moderate height slopes with the application of
controlled production blasting practices (buffer blasting). A value of 1.0 is assumed for conventional
production blasting. Disturbance values of 0.85 and 1.0 were selected for the limit equilibrium
analyses to demonstrate the impact of blasting damage.
Faults were not modelled explicitly as part of the limit equilibrium analysis. The faults within the pit
are sub-vertical, and are expected to account for some localized areas of instability, but are not
considered to be controlling factors for the stability of the ultimate slopes.

October 12, 2012
5.4.3 Overburden Slope Stability Analyses

Overburden is typically negligible throughout much of the open pit deposit area; except in the
northern area of the Main Pit where it is upwards of 30 m deep.
Five overall slope angles (18, 22, 27, and 34) were modelled for a 30-m high overburden slope,
to represent the 3H:1V to 1H:1V slopes, assuming both partially saturated and fully drained (dry)
conditions. The pore water pressure within the partially saturated slopes was modelled as 20% of
the overburden stress (i.e., with a coefficient of pore water pressure, Ru, of 0.2). The purpose of
running multiple scenarios was to show the impact of steepening the overburden slope angle on the
FOS.
The friction angle of the overburden material was estimated based on experience with similar soil
materials as no laboratory testing data is available for the overburden within the open pit area. A
base case friction angle of 30 was adopted in these analyses. Further sensitivity analyses were
conducted to account for a range of potential soil friction angles. A range of friction angles from 25
to 35 was used with the assumed base case of 30 for the sensitivity analyses.
The results of the base case analyses are summarized in Table 5.3 and Figure 5.3 shows the
computed FOS with respect to various slope angles. A 2H:1V (approximately 27) overburden slope
may be achieved if the slope is completely drained and the friction angle of the overburden material
is at least 30.
Table 5.3 Summary of Overburden Analyses
Overall Slope Angle

Geotechnical Unit Groundwater Condition Factor of Safety
()
Partially Saturated 0.6

34 (1.5H:1V)
Fully Drained 0.9
27 (2H:1V)
Fully Drained 1.2
Overburden
22 (2.5H:1V)
Fully Drained 1.5
18 (3H:1V)
Fully Drained 1.7

October 12, 2012
NOTES:
1. BASE CASE SCENARIO ASSUMES A 30 m HIGH, COMPLETELY DRAINED (DRY) SLOPE.
2. FRICTION ANGLE (PHI) ASSUMED FOR THE SENSITIVITY ANALYSES.
Figure 5.3 Overburden Slope Stability Analysis Results FOS vs. Slope Angle
5.4.4 Rock Mass Inter-Ramp Slope Stability Analyses

Inter-ramp slope models were created to determine the stability of the disturbed rock mass during
mining operations in both fresh bedrock and weathered bedrock. These simplified models utilized a
single geotechnical domain with disturbed rock mass parameters (the entire model has a disturbance
factor applied).
Read and Stacey, 2009, indicate that 200 m is typically the highest practical inter-ramp slope height
that should be utilized for open pit slope design. Therefore, haulage ramps and/or step-outs should
be included as appropriate to limit the inter-ramp slope height. Models were created for slope
heights of 100 m, to show the FOS achievable under moderate slopes heights, and 200 m to show
the effect on the FOS of the inter-ramp slope at the maximum height. An inter-ramp slope angle of
45 was utilized in the analyses for both fresh and weathered bedrock. Disturbance factors of 0.85
and 1 were applied to the models to demonstrate the impact of blasting practices.
Groundwater was modelled using a piezometric line to represent the phreatic surface of the water. It
was assumed that hydrostatic conditions exist below the piezometric line. Two groundwater cases
were modelled; a fully saturated slope and the other with the phreatic surface set 30 m back
horizontally from the pit face.
Table 5.4 summarizes the results of the rock mass slope stability analyses for both geotechnical
domains, in both weathered and fresh bedrock, at an inter-ramp scale. A blasting disturbance factor
(D) of 1 was considered for the base case as it is assumed that conventional production blasting will
be utilized during interim pit wall development.

October 12, 2012
Slope laybacks or widened haul ramps should be constructed every 100 m in weathered bedrock
slopes. Fresh bedrock inter-ramp slopes can be built up to 200 m in height before slope laybacks
will be required. Groundwater depressurization measures are required in both weathered and fresh
bedrock slopes. Detailed modelling setup and results are shown in Appendix C.
Table 5.4 Summary of Inter-ramp Slope Stability Analyses
Inter-Ramp Factor of Safety

Slope Blast Groundwater
Geotechnical Slope (2)
Height Disturbance Depressurization
Unit (1) Angle Bedrock Condition
D
(degrees) (m) (m from pit wall) Weathered Fresh
0 0.6 1.5
0.85
30 1.6 2.6
100
0 0.5 1.3
1
30 1.3 2.3
DRB 45
0 0.6 1.2
0.85
30 1.1 1.8
200
0 0.5 1.0
1
30 0.9 1.6
0.85
0 0.7 1.4
30 1.6 2.4
100
0 0.6 1.2
1
30 1.3 2.1
PMS 45
0 0.6 1.1
0.85
30 1.1 1.6
200
0 0.5 1.0
1
30 0.9 1.4
NOTES:
1. DRB = DAWSON RANGE BATHOLITH, PMS = PROSPECTOR MOUNTAIN SUITE
2. GROUNDWATER DEPRESSURIZATION SET TO SIMULATE INSTALLATION OF HORIZONTAL DRAINS IN PIT
WALL
3. BOLD FONT INDICATES BASE CASE ANALYSIS SCENARIO.
5.4.5 Overall Slope Stability Analyses

The M-North, M-Northeast, M-South, and W-Southwest pit walls were analysed using limit
equilibrium techniques. These sectors contain the tallest slopes in the pit within each of the
geotechnical domains. Overall slopes angles of 40 were utilized in the analyses, based on the pit
shell model provided by CMC (November, 2010).
Disturbance factors (D) of 0.85 and 1 were applied to the face of each modelled slope. The
disturbed section was projected 60 m horizontally into the pit walls to simulate blasting damage from
production blasting (Hoek 2012). The disturbed zone was expanded near the base of the slope to
reflect increased stress caused by the relaxation and rebound of the rock mass as the pit is
excavated. The extent of the induced stress zone was established using a simplified 2D stress

October 12, 2012
model analyzed in Examine2D (Rocscience Inc.). A disturbance factor of zero was applied to the
rock mass beyond the disturbed zone as assigning a disturbance factor to the entire overall slope will
result in overly conservative model results (Hoek, 2012). The multiple disturbance factors were
utilized to show the effect of production blasting vs. controlled production blasting on the overall
stability of the open pit. The base case scenario assumes a disturbance factor of D = 1 for the final
pit walls considering additional stress-induced disturbance in very high pit slopes.
A piezometric line was utilized to establish groundwater pressure in the slope. Three groundwater
conditions were modelled to simulate a fully saturated slope, a slope where the weathered bedrock
allows drainage (is dry) but is saturated below, and a slope with drained weathered bedrock and a
phreatic surface simulating horizontal drains within the pit walls. It is conservatively assumed that
hydrostatic pressures exist below the phreatic surface. The base case stability analysis assumes the
weathered bedrock is drained and 30 m of horizontal depressurization in all pit walls.
Table 5.5 summarizes the results for the overall slope stability analyses of the M-North, M-Northeast,
M-South and W-West pit walls and their calculated FOS. The results of the overall slope stability
analyses are shown on Figure 5.4 and Figure 5.5. Detailed modelling results are shown in Appendix
C.
The weathered bedrock within the M-Northeast Sector is upwards of 250 m thick. A FOS of 1.2 is
the maximum achievable FOS within this sector. It is noted that the failure slip surface occurs
entirely within the weathered bedrock. As such, the stability of this slope will be governed by the
inter-ramp scale stability of the weathered bedrock. The M-Northeast Sector was not considered as
a base case scenario for overall slope stability.
The results of the base case stability analyses show that a FOS of 1.3 is achievable in the final pit
slopes of the M-North, M-South, and W-Southwest Sectors at overall slopes angles of 40. The
predicted failure surface runs through the blast disturbed rock. Slope depressurization by use of
horizontal drains and drainage of the weathered bedrock is required for slope stabilization. Vertical
pumping may be required if the weathered bedrock does not drain naturally and if cold winter
conditions preclude the effectiveness of the horizontal drains. This should be assessed during the
early stages of mining operations and adjusted as necessary to facilitate slope depressurization.

October 12, 2012
Table 5.5 Summary of Overall Slope Stability Analyses
Groundwater Depressurization
Total Overall Depth to
Disturbance
Slope Slope Fresh Factor
Pit Design Geotechnical Factor
Height Angle Bedrock Horizontal of
Sector Units (1)
Vertical Groundwater Safety
Depressurization(2)
(m) () (m) (D) (m) (m from pit wall)
85
(Assume
M-North DRB 630 40 85 1 drainage of 30 1.4
weathered
bedrock)
250
(Assume
M-Northeast DRB 630 40 250 1 drainage of 30 1.2
weathered
bedrock)
3
(Assume
M-South PMS and DRB 540 40 3 1 drainage of 30 1.3
weathered
bedrock)
60
(Assume
W- Southwest PMS 345 40 60 1 drainage of 30 1.6
weathered
bedrock)
NOTES:
2. GROUNDWATER DEPRESSURIZATION SET TO SIMULATE INSTALLATION OF HORIZONTAL DRAINS IN PIT
WALL

October 12, 2012
NOTES:
2. ORIENTED CORE DATA COLLECTED BY KNIGHT PIESOLD LTD. DURING THE 1994, 2010 AND 2011
GEOTECHNICAL SITE INVESTIGATION
Figure 5.4 Overall Slope Stability Analyses Results M-North and M-Northeast Sectors

October 12, 2012
NOTES:
2. ORIENTED CORE DATA COLLECTED BY KNIGHT PIESOLD LTD. DURING THE 1994, 2010 AND 2011
GEOTECHNICAL SITE INVESTIGATION
Figure 5.5 Overall Slope Stability Analyses Results M-South and W-Southwest Sectors

October 12, 2012
6 PIT WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
6.1 GENERAL
The development of the open pit will have a significant impact on the local hydrogeologic regime, as
the pit will become a groundwater discharge area. The existing groundwater table is near surface
and will gradually be lowered during pit development. Pit inflows are likely to come primarily from the
North and West edges of the pit, where topography slopes towards the final pit rim.
The pit water management systems will comprise a combination of techniques including surface
water diversion ditches, vertical pumping wells, horizontal wall drains and water collection systems.
These measures will be implemented as a staged observational approach during pit development
and will involve the installation of depressurization measures and associated monitoring of
groundwater pressures. This will enable an assessment of the pit slope drainage capability and the
requirements for additional installations.
A conceptual level pit water management plan has been developed for groundwater depressurization
and for the controlled removal of both groundwater inflows and precipitation runoff from within the pit.
The pit water management systems should include allowances for:
Diversion ditches to collect surface runoff, snowmelt and seepage along the pit crest and the
base of the Weathered Bedrock materials.
Horizontal drains installed in both interim and final pit walls
A series of pumps and collection systems which transfer water from the pit excavation to a
surface sump located near the primary crusher for recycle to the milling process, and
Modifications to the depressurization systems to account for the extreme cold during winter
months and the high inflows during the freshet period.
These depressurization/dewatering features are discussed in more along with the estimates of pit
inflows. The pit shell model provided by CMC (November, 2010) was utilized for the pit water
management assessment.
6.2 SURFACE WATER DIVERSION

Diversion ditches along the north and west pit crest are required to divert the surface runoff away
from the pit during operations. These surface runoff ditches will capture and divert the majority of all
runoff, snowmelt and infiltration before the water flows into the pit and will reduce power
requirements for pumping from the deeper levels of the pit. Ditches will need to be modified for
different stages of pit development. It may be appropriate to include low permeability glacial till or
synthetic liner materials along sections of these ditches in order to reduce ditch leakage.
6.3 SLOPE DEPRESSURIZATION SYSTEM

Pit slope depressurization reduces pore water pressure within the overburden and rock mass, which
in turn minimizes the potential of slope failures developing. Vertical wells and pumps can be used in
conjunction with horizontal drains to depressurize the slopes. Diversion ditches and pumps can be
utilized to divert surface water and seepage out and away from the pit.

October 12, 2012
6.3.1 Vertical Pumping Wells

An allowance for deep vertical pumping should be included in the feasibility study. It was assumed
for the purposes of the overall slope stability analyses that the weathered bedrock present at the
surface of the deposit will drain freely. However, the weathered bedrock varies in thickness
throughout the pit area and the permeability of weathered rock mass may vary throughout the pit.
Vertical wells may be required along the North Walls of the pit to reduce pore water pressures and
the flow of groundwater into the pit.
Several faults intersect the deposit area and may act as preferential flow paths for groundwater
inflow into the pit. The installation of wells into the faults may be required to reduce groundwater
inflow. An allowance of 20 vertical depressurization wells should be included for Feasibility costing
purposes. The typical depth of the wells is assumed to be in the order of 300 m.
Well pumping rates were estimated by determining the steady state radial flow to a well in the
presence of constant recharge. A 300 m deep well pumping at 2 L/sec is estimated to provide
sufficient drawdown for slope stabilization.
6.3.2 Horizontal Drains

Horizontal drains provide an efficient and cost effective mechanism for the control of groundwater
inflows and for depressurization of open pit slopes. The effectiveness of horizontal drain installations
is dependent upon the permeability of the rock mass along with the length and spacing of the drains.
It is impossible to accurately predict the exact location or spacing of the horizontal drains that will be
required during operations and it is essential that the dewatering program be continuously modified
throughout operations as additional information becomes available on the hydrogeologic conditions
in the open pit.
Drain holes will be drilled sub-horizontally, at approximately 3 to 5 above horizontal. It is
recommended that the horizontal drains be drilled 50 to 100 m into the middle and lower pit slopes.
Experience has shown that 100 m is a reasonable, practical and economic target length for
horizontal drain installations.
The spacing of the horizontal drains must be determined such that adequate effective drainage is
achieved at a point midway between adjacent installations. This spacing will be determined during
open pit development and through observation and monitoring of piezometric conditions within the pit
slopes. It is recognized that the actual drain spacing will likely vary across different areas of the
open pit. The M-North, M-Northeast, M-South, and W-North Sectors may require a greater density
of horizontal drains to reduce the risk of wedge failures developing.
For design purposes, the following average horizontal drain spacings have been estimated based on
experience from other open pit operations. Centre to centre drain spacing for horizontal drains
installed within interim pit slopes has been estimated at 150 m on average. Interim pit slopes are
defined as those slopes that will remain for a period of at least 2 years. The spacing for drains
installed within final pit slopes has been estimated at 60 m on average.
It is anticipated that the horizontal drains will freeze during the winter season. KPL experience on
other projects in Canada has shown that the freezing of the rock mass and drains may have an

October 12, 2012
impact on slope behaviour. Additional depressurization from vertical pumping wells may be
necessary, particularly during the winter months to maintain slope depressurization.
6.4 PIT DEWATERING SYSTEM
6.4.1 General
The estimates for water inflow volumes into the pit were developed based on meteorological and
hydrogeological data collected from the project area in conjunction with groundwater monitoring and
permeability testing conducted during the 1994, 2010, and 2011 geotechnical investigations.
Potential sources of pit inflows include:
Dewatering of fissures and fractures into the rock mass
Infiltration of precipitation into the groundwater system
Surface runoff, and
Direct precipitation into the pit.
Pit inflows were calculated using the Mass Balance Approach coupled with a simplified Dupuit
approximation equation for steady radial flow (Freeze and Cherry, 1979). The Mass Balance
Approach for estimating pit inflows has been proposed by Brown (1988). With this approach, a
rough approximation of pit inflows was estimated by assuming a percent infiltration of precipitation
into the groundwater system. The pit inflows were calculated for the final stage of pit development
for the mean annual precipitation, ten year wet year precipitation, and storm event precipitation
occurring over a 24 hour period.
Removal of water from the pit should be performed using a sump and pump system. Sumps should
be installed in the lowest point of the pit as excavation progresses. Booster pumps should be placed
every 100 m of elevation change or less. Additional sumps may be required during operations to
adequately collect all pit seepage water.
6.4.2 Inflows from Average Annual Precipitation

Values for the mean annual precipitation and runoff coefficients were taken from the 2010 Casino
Hydrometeorology Report (KP Ref. No. VA101-329/5-3). Twenty-four hour rainfall events were
calculated based on more recent hydrometeorology data.
The Casino open pit area has a mean annual precipitation of 500 mm. It is assumed that all surface
water will be diverted away from the pit through the use of diversion channels, so the average pit
inflows from precipitation will come from direct precipitation onto the pit and groundwater infiltration.
It is assumed that 66% of the surface water will infiltrate the groundwater system before collecting in
the pit sumps, and as such a runoff coefficient of 0.44 was applied. The calculated inflows from the
average annual precipitation are listed on Table 6.1. An annual pit inflow, averaged over the course
of the year, is estimated to be 49 L/sec for the final pit.
This approach does not account for groundwater inflows from underground aquifers and meteoric
water that has infiltrated the groundwater regime.

October 12, 2012
Table 6.1 Open Pit Inflows and Pump Design
Inflow from
Inflow from Total Average
1 in 10 yr. Design
Estimate of Seepage Average Annual Dewatering
24 Hour Pump
Inflow Annual Pumping Period
Pit Stage Storm Flow
Precipitation Requirement
Event
Pit Seepage 3
(m /s) (l/s) (l/s) (l/s) (l/s) (days) (l/s)
Inflow and
Pumping 1 0.022 22 14 36 398 4 130
Requirements
2 0.075 75 24 99 695 6 160
3 0.085 85 23 108 656 6 150
4 0.102 102 40 142 1,149 5 310
Final 0.140 140 49 189 1,390 6 320
Average Equivalent
Pit Bottom Average Radius of
Surface Area Plan Area Ground Radius of
Elevation Depth Influence
Pit Stage Elevation Excavation
2 2
(m ) (m ) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m)
Final Open Pit
Parameters 1 989,602 882,000 1,230 960 270 561 1,061
2 1,890,515 1,539,000 1,240 795 445 776 1,276
3 1,837,056 1,453,000 1,240 765 475 765 1,265
4 2,928,443 2,545,000 1,240 765 475 965 1,465
Final 3,565,756 3,079,000 1,240 705 535 1,065 1,565
1:10yr.
Average 10 Year Wet
24hr. Overall
Annual Annual
Storm Average K
Input Precipitation Precipitation
Event
Parameters
(mm) (mm) (mm) (m/s)
500 889 39 6.0E-08
NOTES:
1. ESTIMATED PIT SEEPAGE INFLOWS ARE CALCULATED USING THE DUPUIT APPROXIMATION EQUATION FOR
STEADY RADIAL FLOW IN AN UNCONFINED AQUIFER.
2. PIT SURFACE AND PLAN AREAS ARE CALCULATED ASSUMING THE PIT IS CONICAL WITH A CONSTANT
RADIUS AT THE CREST ELEVATION AND PIT BOTTOM. PIT RADII ARE APPROXIMATE MEASUREMENTS FROM
THE STAGED PIT SHELL MODELS.
3. THE CAPACITY OF THE PIT PUMPING SYSTEM SHOULD COVER THE SUM OF GROUNDWATER SEEPAGE AND
DIRECT PRECIPITATIONS. GROUNDWATER LEVEL IS ASSUMED TO BE NEAR THE SURFACE FOR THE
PURPOSE OF INFLOW CALCULATIONS.
4. DESIGN PUMP FLOW BASED ON 120% BASE PUMPING + 24 HOUR STORM RUNOFF REMOVED OVER THE
SPECIFIED DEWATERING PERIOD.
5. MAIN PIT AND WEST PIT EXCAVATED INTO SEPARATE PIT BOTTOMS STARTING IN STAGE 4. TWO PUMPS
WITH A COMBINED CAPACITY OF ~320 L/SEC ARE RECOMMENDED TO DEWATER THE PIT DURING THE 1 IN 10
YEAR STORM EVENT.
6.4.3 Groundwater Inflow Estimates

A simplified estimate of groundwater inflow into an open pit can be made using the Dupuit
approximation equation for steady radial flow in an unconfined aquifer. This approach assumes that
flow is horizontal and the hydraulic gradient is equal to the slope of the groundwater table at the

October 12, 2012
seepage face and does not vary with depth. Groundwater inflow estimates using this approach are
reported to be in good agreement with more detailed analytical methods when the gradient is low
and the depth of the unconfined flow is shallow. The radial inflow (Q) to the pit can be calculated as
follows:
kH 2
Q
ln( R / r )
Where:
k is the average hydraulic conductivity of the rock mass. A k value of 6x10-8 m/sec has been
assumed for the open pit, which is based on the geometric mean of test results from the 1994,
2010, and 2011 geotechnical site investigations.
H is the head drop in the pit, and the maximum drop of 535 m has been assumed for the final pit
by estimating an average slope height of 535 m and an average groundwater level of 0 m (i.e.
ground surface).
r is the equivalent radius of pit excavation and is calculated as the square root of the total pit
surface area divided by .
R is the radius of influence and it is estimated as the equivalent radius of excavation plus 500m.
The maximum seepage inflow into the final pit has been estimated as 140 l/s (2220 gpm) by using
the Dupuit Approximation equation. By including the inflows from direct precipitation of 49 l/s (based
on the long term average annual precipitation for the site of 500 mm), a total pit average annual
dewatering rate of 189 l/s (3000 gpm) has been estimated for the final pit configuration.
6.4.4 Storm Event Inflows

The dewatering system for the open pit will be required to handle the water flow resulting from a
24 hour storm period. A 1 in 10 year return period for the storm event was assumed for these
calculations, based on experience with other open pit mines in the Yukon. This return period has a
typical rainfall amount of 39 mm. The maximum operating capacity of the dewatering system was
designed to remove storm event inflows over a period of four to six days, depending on the size of
the pit at each development stage.
The open pit, once fully excavated, will take on approximately 1390 L/sec of water during a 24 hour
rainfall event, in addition to the 189 L/sec from regular average annual inflows. The dewatering
period will be adjusted by pit stage to reduce pumping requirements to approximately 300 L/sec for
any given stage of mining. A design factor of 120% was applied for the pump design flow. The final
pit dewatering system will require six days at a flow rate of 320 L/sec to dewater the pit. Table 6.1
shows the calculated inflows to the pit during the five main development stages and required
pumping rate. It is assumed that a single pump operating at 160 L/sec will be sufficient to dewater
the pit during stages one through three, as only one pit will be developed during these stages. The
Main and West pits become distinct pit with separate pit bottoms during the development of Stage 4.
It is recommended that another 160 L/sec capacity pump be installed to handle pit flows for a
combined pumping capacity of 320 L/sec.

October 12, 2012
7 PIT SLOPE DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION
7.1 GENERAL
The proposed Casino pit slopes will extend to a maximum depth of 630 m, making this pit one of the
largest in the world. This feasibility pit slope design has considered site-specific geotechnical and
hydrogeological information collected from site investigations from 1994 to 2011. Operational
considerations related to the recommended slope angles are included in this section as well as a
discussion of the experience encountered at other large open pit operations in Canada.
7.2 RECOMMENDED PIT SLOPE ANGLES
7.2.1 General
Recommended bench geometries and pit slope angles are summarized in Table 7.1. These
recommendations are based on the results of the kinematic and rock mass stability analyses.
Recommended slope angles are discussed below.
7.2.2 Bench Geometries

Bench geometries were selected to reduce the potential of small-scale discontinuities from forming
unstable wedges and blocks etc. that can affect bench face integrity and reduce the effectiveness of
rock all containment. The bench face angles derived from the kinematic analyses are as steep as
can reasonably be achieved given the characteristics of the rock masses. Small bench-scale
toppling and revelling type failures are expected due to the fractured nature of the bedrock; however,
these failures can be removed during initial excavation or controlled through a normal bench
maintenance program.
The pit benches are design to be 8 m wide with a 15 m high single bench configuration. The
kinematic stability analyses undertaken in this study indicate that a bench face angle of 65 is
expected to be achievable in the majority of pit walls throughout the pit. The exceptions to this
design are the M-North and W-North Sectors, which have exhibited the potential for multi-bench
planar and wedge failures. A bench face angle of 60 is recommended for these sectors, based on
the results of the bench face angle analyses.
7.2.3 Inter-ramp Slopes

The inter-ramp slope angle is typically dictated by the bench geometry and controlled by large-scale
structural features. A 15 m high single-bench configuration is recommended within all sectors. An
inter-ramp angle of 45 can be used for most of design sectors. The inter-ramp angles in the M-
North and W-North Sectors are recommended to be 42, to reduce the risk of multi-bench wedge
failures occurring.
Overburden should be cleared from the edges of the pit at a 2H:1V slope. A wider catcher bench
should be developed along the bedrock contact to provide additional capacity for debris containment
and seepage control.

October 12, 2012
Table 7.1 Recommended Open Pit Slope Angles
Max.
Max. Bench Inter- Max. Inter-
Bench Bench Overall
Slope Face ramp ramp Slope
Design Wall Height Width Slope
Height Angle Angle Height Comments
Sector Geology Angle
m m m m
Reduction of inter-
Overburden 40 5 4 27 ramp angle to 42 will
M-North 630 200 39 reduce the risk of
multi-bench wedge
DRB 60 15 8 42 failure in bedrock.
Weathered Zone down

100 (in
Overburden 40 5 4 27 to 250 m deep,
Weathered
additional stepouts /
M- Zone)
630 40 ramps should be
Northeast 200 (in
incorporated into the
DRB 65 15 8 45 Fresh
Weathered Zone
Bedrock)
slopes.
Potential planar and
wedge failures are
M-South 540 DRB, PMS 65 15 8 45 200 42 kinematically possible,
but at the limit of the
defect friction angle.
Central lower pit walls
with various
orientations. The
Central 210 PMS 65 15 8 45 200 N/A south facing maybe
subject to potential
wedge failure.
Reduction of the inter-
ramp slope to 42 will
W-North 285 DRB 60 15 8 42 200 39 reduce the risk of
multi-bench planar
and wedge failures.
Potential bench scale
W-South 480 DRB 65 15 8 45 200 42 toppling failure is
expected.
W-
345 PMS 65 15 8 45 200 42
Southwest
Potential bench scale
W-West 225 DRB 65 15 8 45 200 42 planar failure is
expected.
NOTES:
1. MAXIMUM SLOPE HEIGHT REPRESENTS THE HIGHEST WALL IN EACH DESIGN SECTOR.
2. RECOMMENDED SLOPE ANGLES DETERMINED BY THE KINEMATIC AND ROCK MASS STABILITY ANALYSES.
3. OVERBURDEN IS NEGLIGIBLE IN THE WESTERN AND SOUTHERN PIT WALLS.
4. THE OVERALL SLOPE ANGLES INCLUDED 1 TO 3 STEPOUTS OR HAUL RAMPS IN THE FINAL PIT WALLS.
7.2.4 Overall Slopes

The overall slope angle is determined by slope height, rock mass strength, groundwater pressure,
blasting disturbance, and is typically restricted by inter-ramp angles. The overall slopes will be

October 12, 2012
flattened by incorporating haul ramps and cleanout benches into the pit wall design. It is
recommended that the overall slope angles within the pit not be greater than 40 for the Main Pit and
42 in the West Pit.
7.3 OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
7.3.1 Controlled Blasting

Blasting disturbance is one of the controlling factors for rock mass strength and for overall stability.
Slope instabilities are often triggered by the progressive deterioration (ravelling) of the wall face and
this process often initiates with the detachment of small rock blocks bounded by the rock mass
discontinuities. The preservation of rock mass integrity during mining is critical to prevent these
progressive failures and is required to achieve the steepest bench face angles possible.
Pit slope angles are less critical in the early stages since the stripping ratio is typically controlled by
the final overall pit slopes. Conventional production blasting can be used for the interim pit wall
development. The initial pit can be developed with variable slopes and blast patterns to develop the
optimal blast design for the final pit walls. Careful controlled production blasting practices are
recommended for the final pit walls in order to reduce face damage and achieve steep slopes,
particularly for the slopes situated in weathered bedrock and the M-North and M-Northeast sector
walls. It is important that blast hole lengths be staggered so the bottom of the hole does not
intercept the crest of the bench below. Trial blasts are also recommended wherever there is a
substantial change in rock mass characteristics in order to evaluate and optimize blast performance.
7.3.2 Excavation and Scaling

It is important that the benches be kept clear and that the bench faces be maintained regularly so
that they remain functional during mining operations. Scaling will be an important part of the bench
maintenance program and may be conducted after blasting in areas where access is still available.
Routine scaling may allow the bench widths to be minimized due to a reduction in the volume of
material to be controlled.
7.3.3 Slope Depressurization

Groundwater is another key consideration for the overall pit slope stability. High water pressure can
be expected within the pit walls and the slope depressurization measures include construction of
surface ditches, perimeter pumping wells and horizontal drains are recommended for slope
stabilization. The proposed slope depressurization program has been previously discussed in
Section 6.3.
7.3.4 Slope Monitoring

Pro-active geotechnical monitoring is recommended for all stages of pit development. The
monitoring program should be implemented as a staged approach and include detailed geotechnical
and tension crack mapping, as well as a suitable combination of surface displacement monitoring
(surface prisms and wireline extensometers) and piezometers. Sufficient staffing resources should
be allocated to collect, process and interpret the geotechnical monitoring data on a weekly basis or
as frequently as required. The timely identification of accelerated movements from surface

October 12, 2012
displacement monitoring and tension cracks will be critical. Up-to-date reports on the status of
highwall stability should be compiled and discussed regularly with operation personnel. These
reports will also assist mine engineering staff in their efforts to optimize final pit slopes and improve
the effectiveness of the controlled blasting program. All seeps and springs should be inspected,
mapped and photographed. Large-scale structures should be characterized and monitored as they
have the potential to develop into tension cracks.
A typical geotechnical monitoring schedule is presented in Table 7.2. Detailed monitoring
requirements are as follows:
Geotechnical Mapping Detailed geotechnical mapping should be carried out along all newly
formed benches along the pit highwalls. Information to be noted should include the orientation of
the main fracture sets, the type, thickness, extent (persistence) and frequency of any infilling
(clay, gouge, chlorite, sericite, etc.), the distribution of joint spacings, the nature of the fracture
surfaces (smooth, planar, polished, slickensided etc.) and any observations of seepage.
Detailed maps for each bench face and a complete database should be compiled to include all of
the recorded geotechnical data. All relevant (and particularly adverse) geotechnical information
should be updated on weekly mine plans to ensure that mine planners and operations personnel
are aware of the current geotechnical conditions. The geotechnical mapping will also provide
the quantitative and qualitative information needed to conduct ongoing highwall stability
assessments during mining activities.
Tension Crack Mapping Detailed tension crack mapping should be carried out along all newly
formed benches. Information to be noted should include the surveyed location, orientation,
aperture and both vertical and lateral extents of all tension cracks. The development of all
tension cracks should be very carefully observed. The frequency of mapping and observations
should be commensurate with the rate of development of individual tension cracks. Initial
mapping and inspections should be carried out on a weekly basis. Simple extensometers should
be installed across any significant tension cracks to confirm the rate and overall extent of
movement. A detailed map and database should be compiled to include all the recorded data.
The occurrence of tension cracks should be highlighted and presented on mine plans on a
weekly basis so that mine planners and operations personnel are aware of the current ground
conditions along the pit highwalls. Areas of slope movement that are associated with the
development of tension cracks should also be monitored with surface displacement prisms as
discussed below.
Surface Prism Monitoring Surface displacement monitoring survey prisms should be
established along the highwalls to detect the onset of any possible movement/sliding at various
locations within the vertical sequence of mining development of the open pit. An initial series of
surface displacement monitoring prisms should be established along the crest of the highwalls
as early in the mine-sequence as possible so that baseline information can be obtained. A
subsequent series of surface displacement monitoring prisms should be established along all
newly exposed benches. Prism surveying should be undertaken at regular intervals to develop a
comprehensive record of highwall deformation. Data should be evaluated on an ongoing basis
to enable the early detection of instability and allow for safe mining operations.
Piezometer Installation - Enhanced depressurization will be required in order to provide an
adequate factor of safety for the highwalls. As such, the extent to which the groundwater pore
pressure decreases is important to assess. It is recommended that piezometers be installed to

October 12, 2012
allow long-term monitoring of groundwater depressurization over the life of the mine. These
piezometers will be progressively installed during operations and locations for new piezometers
should be reviewed on an annual basis.
Automated Monitoring Systems New advances in technologies allow for detailed monitoring
of pit slopes. A number of systems are available that can be implemented to provide varying
levels of monitoring detail. Slope Stability Radar utilizes a mobile radar station to continually
scan selected slope areas. This method is not affected by dust, smoke or rain, and can provide
near-real time monitoring of slope movement. Total stations can be set up as automated
systems to scan surface prisms at regular intervals. These systems are typically packaged with
operating software that allows users to specify monitoring frequency, scanning detail and scope,
as well as set alarms to be triggered if specified movement thresholds are exceeded.
Table 7.2 Recommended Open Pit Geotechnical Monitoring Practices
Estimated Suggested Monitoring Schedule

Monitoring Items
Quantity
Active Mining Area Inactive Mining Area
General Visual
N/A Daily Weekly
Inspection
Geotechnical All new bench
Monthly Twice monthly
Mapping faces
Tension Crack
As required Weekly Twice monthly
Mapping
Bi-weekly to Daily -
Surface Prism
As required Depends on the rate of Weekly
Monitoring
displacement and location
As required, monitoring As required, monitoring
As required,
Time Domain frequency should increase frequency should increase
intersecting major
Reflector System with rate of slip plane with rate of slip plane
slip planes.
movement movement
Piezometer
As required Twice monthly Monthly
Monitoring
NOTES:
1. VISUAL INSPECTIONS OF ALL FACES MAY BE REQUIRED AT THE BEGINNING OF EACH SHIFT AND WEEKLY
INSPECTIONS OF THE HIGHWALL SHOULD BE COMPLETED."
2. ADDITIONAL CRACK MAPPING AND PRISM SURVEY MONITORING SHOULD BE CONDUCTED FOLLOWING
SIGNIFICANT RAINFALL OR HEAVY BLASTING IN THE AREA."
3. SENSITIVE FACILITIES, WHERE SMALL DISPLACEMENTS WOULD RESULT IN DAMAGE TO THE FACILITY MAY
REQUIRE MORE PRECISE MONITORING METHODS AND MORE FREQUENT MEASUREMENTS."
7.4 PRECEDENT PRACTICE

Pit slope stability depends on a variety of site-specific factors (geological structure, alteration rock
strength, groundwater conditions, discontinuity characteristics and orientation, pit geometry, blasting
practices, stress conditions, climatic conditions, and time) which make it difficult to provide direct
comparisons with other operations. However, it is still quite useful to review the successes and
problems encountered at other open pit operations in order to recognize opportunities and potential

October 12, 2012
constraints for the proposed open pit development. A summary plot of pit depth vs. slope angles
achieved in various operations around the world is illustrated on Figure 7.1.
At an ultimate depth of up to 600 m, the pit slopes within the Casino open pit are significantly higher
than most operating mines in Canada. The precedent for such large open pits is very limited, but the
ultimate depths projected for some of these currently active open pits suggest that the proposed
overall slope angles for the Casino open pit will be achievable provided that the recommended
operational measures are implemented.
It is important to note that almost all of these large open pit operations, including porphyry copper
mines, have encountered slope stability problems in some area of the mine. The experiences at
most of the large open pits suggest that there is a significant likelihood that some area(s) of the pit
slope will require flattening during operations in response to slope movement. Therefore, the mine
plans should remain flexible so that extra stepouts/buttresses can be maintained in critical areas of
the pit until the end of the mine life at which point lower factors of safety can be tolerated.
This comparison also highlights the importance of developing and maintaining good controlled
blasting practices, effective groundwater depressurization measures and geotechnical data
collection. It is also noted in these case studies, that adverse structural conditions have had a major
impact on pit slope stability.

October 12, 2012
NOTES:
1. ORIGINAL DATA POINTS AFTER LUTTON 1970, HOEK AND BRAY 1981, AND SJOBERG 1996.
2. ADDITIONAL DATA FROM KNIGHT PIESOLD PROJECTS AND OTHERS.
Figure 7.1 Slope Height versus Slope Angle Precedent for Hard Rock Surfaces

October 12, 2012
8 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The fundamental consideration for the geotechnical design of the Casino Open Pit at the feasibility
stage is related to determining allowable inter-ramp and overall slope angles. These angles will
affect the stripping ratio and the amount of ore that can be economically removed from the
mineralized zone. The stability analyses confirm that the recommended pit slope angles presented
in Table 7.1 are reasonable and appropriate. However, these slope designs have a number of
operational constraints including careful controlled blasting and effective slope depressurization. An
extensive geotechnical monitoring program should also be implemented throughout the pit
operations.
It is recommended that additional geomechanical and hydrogeological data collection be conducted
during the early stages of pit operations. The data collection programs may include bench surface
mapping, piezometer installation and monitoring. Additional information will be used to fill the data
gaps, enhance the geotechnical database, update the rock mass structural model, and refine the
hydrogeological model. The pit design should be optimized when additional geotechnical information
becomes available. The final pit designs and pit dewatering plans should be reviewed by qualified
geotechnical engineers.

October 12, 2012
9 REFERENCES
Goodman, R.E., Introduction to Rock Mechanics, 2nd Edition, John Wiley, 1989.
Hoek, E., Blast Damage Factor D, Technical note for RocNews, Winter 2012 Issues, February 2,
2012.
Hoek, E. and Bray, J.W., Rock Slope Engineering, 3rd Edition, London, 1981.
Hoek, E., Carranza-Torres, C. and Corkum, B., 2002, Hoek-Brown Failure Criterion 2002 Edition,
in NARMS-TAC 2002: Mining and Tunneling Innovation and Opportunity, Vol. 1 pp 267
273. R Hammah et al, Eds. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 2002.
Knight Pisold Ltd., Casino Project Data Compilation Report on 1994
Geotechnical/Hydrogeotechnical Investigations (Ref. No. 1832/2, February 22, 1995)
Knight Pisold Ltd., Casino Copper-Gold Project Hydrometeorology Report (Ref. No. VA101-
325/3-1, June 2010)
Knight Pisold Ltd., May 2012, Casino Copper-Gold Project Baseline Hydrology Report (Ref. No.
VA101-325/12-2)
M3 Engineering & Technology Corp., May 2011, NI 43-101 Technical Report Pre-Feasibility Study
Update - Yukon Territory, Canada.
Pacific Sentinel Corp., 1994 Exploration and Geotechnical Drilling Program on the Casino Property
Copper-Gold-Molybdenum Deposit, May 16, 1995.
Read, J. and Stacey, P., Guidelines for Open Pit Slope Design, CSIRO, 2009.

October 12, 2012
APPENDIX A
RQD AND RMR VS. HOLE DEPTHS CHARTS
(Pages A-1 to A-7)
OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN VA 101-325/8-7 Rev 0

October 12, 2012
M:\1\01\00325\08\A\Report\7 - 2012 Open Pit Slope Design\Rev 0\Appendices\Appendix A - RQD, RMR vs. Hole Depths Charts\[Appendix A.1 to A.7 - Depth to Weathered Bedrock.xls]Appendix A.1 - M-NORTH Print 04/10/2012 8:55 AM
RQDvs.Depth RMRvs.Depth
RMRvs.Depth
Very Poor Poor FairFair Good Very Good
RQDvs.Depth 0
Very Poor Rock
20
Poor Rock
40
Rock
60
Good Rock
80
Very Good Rock
100
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 00
0
WeatheredRock
50 50
50 (Logged DH1139) 50
100 100
100 100
150 150
150 150
200 200
200 200
Depth(m)
Depth(m)
250 250
Depth(m)
Depth(m)
250 250
300 300
300 300
350 350
350 350
400 400
400 400
450 450
450 450
500 500
0 20 40 60 80 100
500 500
94288 DH1139 DH1139
DH1139
94288 DH1139
NOTES:

RQD AND RMR VS. DEPTH FOR
M-NORTH SECTOR
P/A NO. REF. NO.
VA101-325/8 7
0 19JUN'12 ISSUED FOR REPORT GM DAY KJB
REV
REV DATE DESCRIPTION PREP'D CHK'D APP'D APPENDIX A.1 0
A-1 of 7
M:\1\01\00325\08\A\Report\7 - 2012 Open Pit Slope Design\Rev 0\Appendices\Appendix A - RQD, RMR vs. Hole Depths Charts\[Appendix A.1 to A.7 - Depth to Weathered Bedrock.xls]Appendix A.2 - M- NORTHEAST Print 04/10/2012 8:55 AM
Very Poor Rock Poor Rock Fair Rock Good Rock Very Good Rock
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0 20 40 60 80 100

0 0
50 50
100 100
150 150
200 200
WeatheredRock
(Logged DH1138)
Depth(m)
Depth(m)
250 250
300 300
350 350
400
400
450
450
500
500
DH1138 DH1138
NOTES:

M-NORTHEAST SECTOR
P/A NO. REF. NO.
VA101-325/8 7
REV
A-2 of 7
M:\1\01\00325\08\A\Report\7 - 2012 Open Pit Slope Design\Rev 0\Appendices\Appendix A - RQD, RMR vs. Hole Depths Charts\[Appendix A.1 to A.7 - Depth to Weathered Bedrock.xls]Appendix A.3 - M- SOUTH Print 04/10/2012 8:55 AM
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0 20 40 60 80 100

0 0
50 50
100 100
150 WeatheredRock 150

(Logged DH1137)
200 200
Depth(m)
Depth(m)
250 250
300 300
350 350
400 400
450 450
DH1137 DH1018
94305 DH1018 DH1137
NOTES:

M-SOUTH SECTOR
P/A NO. REF. NO.
VA101-325/8 7
REV
A-3 of 7
M:\1\01\00325\08\A\Report\72012OpenPitSlopeDesign\Rev0\Appendices\AppendixARQD,RMRvs.
HoleDepthsCharts\AppendixA.1toA.7DepthtoWeatheredBedrock Print04/10/20128:55AM
RQDvs.Depth
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
0
50
100
150
Depth(m)
200
Weathered 250
Rock
(Inferred)
300
350
94288 94298 94310

NOTES:
1. "DEPTHS" ARE INCLINED DRILL HOLE DEPTHS. CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT
2. RMR DATA WAS NOT COLLECTED IN CAS-051
RQD VS. DEPTH FOR
M-WEST SECTOR
P/A NO. REF. NO.
VA101-325/8 7
0 19JUN'12 ISSUED FOR REPORT GM DAY KJB REV
REV DATE DESCRIPTION PREP'D CHK'D APP'D

APPENDIX A.4 A0
A-4 of 7
M:\1\01\00325\08\A\Report\7 - 2012 Open Pit Slope Design\Rev 0\Appendices\Appendix A - RQD, RMR vs. Hole Depths Charts\[Appendix A.1 to A.7 - Depth to Weathered Bedrock.xls]Appendix A.5 - W-NORTH Print 04/10/2012 8:55 AM
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0 20 40 60 80 100

0 0
WeatheredRock
(Logged DH1020)
50 50
100 100
150 150
Depth(m)
Depth(m)
200 200
250 250
300 300
350 350
DH1020 DH1020
NOTES:

W-NORTH SECTOR
P/A NO. REF. NO.
VA101-325/8 7
REV
APPENDIX A.5 0
A-5 of 7
M:\1\01\00325\08\A\Report\7 - 2012 Open Pit Slope Design\Rev 0\Appendices\Appendix A - RQD, RMR vs. Hole Depths Charts\[Appendix A.1 to A.7 - Depth to Weathered Bedrock.xls]Appendix A.6 - W-SOUTH Print 04/10/2012 8:55 AM
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0 20 40 60 80 100

0 0
50 50
WeatheredRock
(Logged DH1136)
100 100
150 150
200 200
Depth(m)
Depth(m)
250 250
300 300
350 350
400 400
450 450
DH1019B DH1136 DH1019B DH1136
NOTES:

W-SOUTH SECTOR
P/A NO. REF. NO.
VA101-325/8 7
REV
A-6 of 7
M:\1\01\00325\08\A\Report\7 - 2012 Open Pit Slope Design\Rev 0\Appendices\Appendix A - RQD, RMR vs. Hole Depths Charts\[Appendix A.1 to A.7 - Depth to Weathered Bedrock.xls]Appendix A.7 - W-WEST Print 04/10/2012 8:55 AM
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0 20 40 60 80 100

0 0
50 50
WeatheredRock
(Logged)
100 100
150 150
Depth(m)
Depth(m)
200 200
250 250
300 300
350 350
DH1135 DH1135
NOTES:

W-WEST SECTOR
P/A NO. REF. NO.
VA101-325/8 7
REV
A-7 of 7
APPENDIX B
KINEMATIC STABILITY ANALYSES
Appendix B1 Stereographic Plots of Geomechanical Holes

Appendix B2 Kinematic Stability Analyses Detailed Results

October 12, 2012
APPENDIX B1
STEREOGRAPHIC PLOTS OF GEOMECHANICAL HOLES
(Pages B1-1 to B1-15)

October 12, 2012
M:\1\01\00325\08\A\Report\7 - 2012 Open Pit Slope Design\Rev 0\Appendices\Appendix B - Stereographic Plots of Geomechanicals holes (oriented and ATV holes)\[Appendix B1 - B1.1 to B1.15
Stereographic Plots.xls]Appendix B1.1 - DH94-288 Print 04/10/2012 9:43 AM
Oriented Core Data

Set # - Dip / Dip Direction
C1 - 68 / 095
C2 - 47 / 189 CASINO MINING CORPORATION
C3 - 28 / 288 CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT
C4 - 44 / 144
STEREOGRAPHIC PLOT OF DH94-288
P/A NO. REF. NO.

VA101-325/8 7
0 12JUL'12 ISSUED WITH REPORT JBC GM KJB REV

APPENDIX B1.1 0
B1-1 of 15
M:\1\01\00325\08\A\Report\7 - 2012 Open Pit Slope Design\Rev 0\Appendices\Appendix B - Stereographic Plots of Geomechanicals holes (oriented and ATV holes)\[Appendix B1 - B1.1 to
B1.15 Stereographic Plots.xls]Appendix B1.2 - DH94-298 Print 04/10/2012 9:43 AM
Oriented Core Data

C1 - 48 / 101

P/A NO. REF. NO.

VA101-325/8 7
REV
0 12JUL'12 ISSUED WITH REPORT JBC GM KJB
APPENDIX B1.2 0
B1-2 of 15
Oriented Core Data

C1 - 36 / 313

P/A NO. REF. NO.

VA101-325/8 7
REV
APPENDIX B1.3 0
B1-3 of 15
Oriented Core Data

C1 - 26 / 199
C2 - 72 / 232
C3 - 30 / 272
C5 - 68 / 086
C6 - 55 / 112 OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN
P/A NO. REF. NO.

VA101-325/8 7

APPENDIX B1.4 0
B1-4 of 15
Oriented Core Data

C1 - 68 / 251
C4 - 55 / 208
P/A NO. REF. NO.

VA101-325/8 7

APPENDIX B1.5 0
B1-5 of 15
B1.15 Stereographic Plots.xls]Appendix B1.6 - DH10-19B Print 04/10/2012 9:43 AM
Oriented Core Data

C1 - 14 / 228

STEREOGRAPHIC PLOT OF DH10-19B
P/A NO. REF. NO.

VA101-325/8 7

APPENDIX B1.6 0
B1-6 of 15
Oriented Core Data

C1 - 49 / 186

P/A NO. REF. NO.

VA101-325/8 7

APPENDIX B1.7 0
B1-7 of 15
Oriented Core Data

C1 - 87 / 043
C3 - 14 /179 CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

P/A NO. REF. NO.

VA101-325/8 7

APPENDIX B1.8 REV
0
B1-8 of 15

A1 - 85 / 232
A2 - 64 / 341 CASINO MINING CORPORATION
A3 - 32 / 299 CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

P/A NO. REF. NO.

VA101-325/8 7

REV
APPENDIX B1.9 0
B1-9 of 15
Oriented Core Data

C1 - 90 / 195
C4 - 57 / 008
P/A NO. REF. NO.

VA101-325/8 7

APPENDIX B1.10 0
B1-10 of 15

A1 - 58 / 003

P/A NO. REF. NO.

VA101-325/8 7

REV
APPENDIX B1.11 0
B1-11 of 15
Oriented Core Data

C1 - 12 / 081

P/A NO. REF. NO.

VA101-325/8 7

APPENDIX B1.12 0
B1-12 of 15
Oriented Core Data

C1 - 77 / 250
C4 - 74 / 116
P/A NO. REF. NO.

VA101-325/8 7

APPENDIX B1.13 0
B1-13 of 15
Oriented Core Data

C1 - 79 / 250
C4 - 73 / 115
P/A NO. REF. NO.

VA101-325/8 7

APPENDIX B1.14 REV
0
B1-14 of 15
B1.15 Stereographic Plots.xls]Appendix B1.15 - CAS-051 Print 04/10/2012 9:43 AM

A1 - 59 / 103
A3 - 61 / 141 CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

STEREOGRAPHIC PLOT OF CAS-051
P/A NO. REF. NO.

VA101-325/8 7

REV
APPENDIX B1.15 0
B1-15 of 15
APPENDIX B2
KINEMATIC STABILITY ANALYSES DETAILED RESULTS
(Pages B2-1 to B2-11)

October 12, 2012
M:\1\01\00325\08\A\Report\7 - 2012 Open Pit Slope Design\Rev 0\Appendices\Appendix B - Stereographic Plots of Geomechanicals holes (oriented and ATV holes)\[Appendix B2 -B2.1 to B2.11 Kinematic Analysis and Bench Face Angle Analysis.xls]Appendix B2.1 M-No
Oriented Core Data Oriented Core Data

135 Wall 170 Wall
Orientation Orientation
Set # - Dip / Dip Direction Set # - Dip / Dip Direction
C1 - 45 / 189 C1 - 45 / 189
C2 - 68 / 100 C2 - 68 / 100
C3 - 43 / 143 C3 - 43 / 143
C4 - 27 / 284 C4 - 27 / 284
FAILURE MODES FAILURE MODES

Planar_________ Planar_________
C3
Wedge_________ Wedge_________
C1/C2, C1/C3, C2/C3
Toppling________ Toppling________
NOTES:
1. ACOUSTIC TELEVIEWER DATA NOT COLLECTED IN THE M-NORTH SECTOR. CASINO MINING CORPORATION
2. ORIENTED CORE DATA COLLECTED BY KNIGHT PIESOLD LTD. DURING THE 1994 AND 2011 GEOTECHNICAL SITE INVESTIGATIONS.

KINEMATIC ANALYSIS RESULTS
M-NORTH SECTOR - 135, 170
P/A NO. REF. NO.
VA101-325/8 7
REV
0 25APR'12 ISSUED WITH REPORT NS GM KJB
APPENDIX B2.1 0
B2-1 of 11
M:\1\01\00325\08\A\Report\7 - 2012 Open Pit Slope Design\Rev 0\Appendices\Appendix B - Stereographic Plots of Geomechanicals holes (oriented and ATV holes)\[Appendix B2 -B2.1 to B2.11 Kinematic Analysis and Bench Face Angle Analysis.xls]Appendix B2.2 M-No

195 Wall 220 Wall
C1 - 47 / 098 C1 - 47 / 098
C2 - 68 / 136 C2 - 68 / 136
C3 - 84 / 177 C3 - 84 / 177
C4 - 68 / 271 C4 - 68 / 271

Planar_________ Planar_________
Wedge_________ Wedge_________
C2/C4 C2/C4

240 Wall 270 Wall
C1 - 47 / 098 C1 - 47 / 098
C2 - 68 / 136 C2 - 68 / 136
C3 - 84 / 177 C3 - 84 / 177
C4 - 68 / 271 C4 - 68 / 271

Planar_________ Planar_________
Wedge_________ Wedge_________
NOTES:
1. ACOUSTIC TELEVIEWER DATA NOT COLLECTED IN THE M-NORTHEAST SECTOR. CASINO MINING CORPORATION
2. ORIENTED CORE DATA COLLECTED BY KNIGHT PIESOLD LTD. DURING THE 1994 GEOTECHNICAL SITE INVESTIGATION.
M-NORTHEAST SECTOR - 195, 220, 240, 270
P/A NO. REF. NO.
VA101-325/8 7
REV
0 25APR'12 ISSUED WITH REPORT NS GM KJB 0
APPENDIX B2.2
B2-2 of 11
M:\1\01\00325\08\A\Report\7 - 2012 Open Pit Slope Design\Rev 0\Appendices\Appendix B - Stereographic Plots of Geomechanicals holes (oriented and ATV holes)\[Appendix B2 -B2.1 to B2.11 Kinematic Analysis and Bench Face Angle Analysis.xls]Appendix B2.3 M-So

325 Wall 355 Wall
C1 - 37 / 317 C1 - 37 / 317
C2 - 66 / 066 C2 - 66 / 066
C3 - 73 / 272 C3 - 73 / 272

Planar_________ Planar_________
C1
Wedge_________ Wedge_________
C1/C2, C1/C3, C2/C3
NOTES:
1. ACOUSTIC TELEVIEWER DATA NOT COLLECTED IN THE M-SOUTH SECTOR. CASINO MINING CORPORATION
2. ORIENTED CORE DATA COLLECTED BY KNIGHT PIESOLD LTD. DURING THE 1994, 2010 AND 2011 GEOTECHNICAL SITE INVESTIGATIONS.

M-SOUTH SECTOR - 325, 355
P/A NO. REF. NO.
VA101-325/8 7
REV
APPENDIX B2.3 0
B2-3 of 11
M:\1\01\00325\08\A\Report\7 - 2012 Open Pit Slope Design\Rev 0\Appendices\Appendix B - Stereographic Plots of Geomechanicals holes (oriented and ATV holes)\[Appendix B2 -B2.1 to B2.11 Kinematic Analysis and Bench Face Angle Analysis.xls]Appendix B2.4 Cent

030 Wall 100 Wall
C1 - 26 / 207 C1 - 26 / 207
C2 - 29 / 278 C2 - 29 / 278
C3 - 67 / 092 C3 - 67 / 092
C4 - 41 / 147 C4 - 41 / 147
C5 - 72 / 232 C5 - 72 / 232

Planar_________ Planar_________
Wedge_________ Wedge_________
Oriented Core Data

180 Wall
Orientation
C1 - 26 / 207
C2 - 29 / 278
C3 - 67 / 092
C4 - 41 / 147
C5 - 72 / 232
FAILURE MODES
Planar_________
Wedge_________
C3/C4, C3/C5, C4/C5
Toppling________
NOTES:
1. ACOUSTIC TELEVIEWER DATA NOT COLLECTED IN THE CENTRAL SECTOR. CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CENTRAL SECTOR - 030, 100, 180
P/A NO. REF. NO.
VA101-325/8 7
REV
APPENDIX B2.4 0
B2-4 of 11
M:\1\01\00325\08\A\Report\7 - 2012 Open Pit Slope Design\Rev 0\Appendices\Appendix B - Stereographic Plots of Geomechanicals holes (oriented and ATV holes)\[Appendix B2 -B2.1 to B2.11 Kinematic Analysis and Bench Face Angle Analysis.xls]Appendix B2.5 W-No

180 Wall 215 Wall
C1 - 49 / 186 C1 - 49 / 186
C2 - 41 / 250 C2 - 41 / 250
C3 - 67 / 104 C3 - 67 / 104

Planar_________ Planar_________
C2
Wedge_________ Wedge_________
C1/C2
Toppling________
Toppling________
Oriented Core Data

240 Wall
Orientation
C1 - 49 / 186
C2 - 41 / 250
C3 - 67 / 104
FAILURE MODES
Planar_________
C2
Wedge_________
C1/C2
Toppling________
NOTES:
1. ACOUSTIC TELEVIEWER DATA NOT COLLECTED IN THE W-NORTH SECTOR. CASINO MINING CORPORATION

W-NORTH SECTOR - 180, 215, 240
P/A NO. REF. NO.
VA101-325/8 7
REV
0 25APR'12 ISSUED WITH REPORT NS GM KJB 0
APPENDIX B2.5
B2-5 of 11
M:\1\01\00325\08\A\Report\7 - 2012 Open Pit Slope Design\Rev 0\Appendices\Appendix B - Stereographic Plots of Geomechanicals holes (oriented and ATV holes)\[Appendix B2 -B2.1 to B2.11 Kinematic Analysis and Bench Face Angle Analysis.xls]Appendix B2.6 W-So
Oriented Core Data Acoustic

000 Wall Televiewer Data
Orientation 000 Wall
Set # - Dip / Dip Direction Orientation
C1 - 00 / 267 Set # - Dip / Dip Direction
C2 - 89 / 045 A1 - 58 / 003
C3 - 79 / 063 A2 - 69 / 251
FAILURE MODES
FAILURE MODES Planar_________
Planar_________
Wedge_________
Wedge_________
Toppling________
Toppling________

C2 - 89 / 045 A1 - 58 / 003
C3 - 79 / 063 A2 - 69 / 251

Planar_________ Planar_________
Wedge_________
Wedge_________
Toppling________
Toppling________
C2
NOTES:
1. ACOUSTIC TELEVIEWER DATA COLLECTED BY COLOG DURING THE 2008 AND 2011 GEOTECHNICAL SITE INVESTIGATIONS. CASINO MINING CORPORATION
2. ORIENTED CORE DATA COLLECTED BY KNIGHT PIESOLD LTD. DURING THE 2010 AND 2011 GEOTECHNICAL SITE INVESTIGATIONS.

W-SOUTH SECTOR - 000 , 040
P/A NO. REF. NO.
VA101-325/8 7
REV
APPENDIX B2.6 0
B2-6 of 11
M:\1\01\00325\08\A\Report\7 - 2012 Open Pit Slope Design\Rev 0\Appendices\Appendix B - Stereographic Plots of Geomechanicals holes (oriented and ATV holes)\[Appendix B2 -B2.1 to B2.11 Kinematic Analysis and Bench Face Angle Analysis.xls]Appendix B2.7 W-So

C2 - 34 / 309 A1 - 85 / 232
C3 - 14 / 179 A2 - 64 / 341
A3 - 32 / 299
FAILURE MODES
Planar_________ FAILURE MODES
Planar_________
Wedge_________
Wedge_________
Toppling________
Toppling________

C2 - 34 / 309 A1 - 85 / 232
C3 - 14 / 179 A2 - 64 / 341
A3 - 32 / 299
FAILURE MODES
Planar_________ FAILURE MODES
Planar_________
Wedge_________ Wedge_________
NOTES:
1. ORIENTED CORE DATA COLLECTED BY KNIGHT PIESOLD LTD. DURING THE 2011 GEOTECHNICAL SITE INVESTIGATION. CASINO MINING CORPORATION
2. ACOUSTIC TELEVIEWER DATA COLLECTED BY COLOG DURING THE 2008 AND 2011 GEOTECHNICAL SITE INVESTIGATIONS.

W-SOUTHWEST SECTOR - 010, 090
P/A NO. REF. NO.
VA101-325/8 7
REV
APPENDIX B2.7 0
B2-7 of 11
M:\1\01\00325\08\A\Report\7 - 2012 Open Pit Slope Design\Rev 0\Appendices\Appendix B - Stereographic Plots of Geomechanicals holes (oriented and ATV holes)\[Appendix B2 -B2.1 to B2.11 Kinematic Analysis and Bench Face Angle Analysis.xls]Appendix B2.8 W-We
Acoustic
Televiewer Data
090 Wall
Orientation
A1 - 59 / 103
A2 - 76 / 204
A3 - 61 / 141
FAILURE MODES
Planar_________
Wedge_________
Toppling________
Acoustic
Televiewer Data
135 Wall
Orientation
A1 - 59 / 103
A2 - 76 / 204
A3 - 61 / 141
FAILURE MODES
Planar_________
Wedge_________
A1/A3
Toppling________
NOTES:
1. ACOUSTIC TELEVIEWER DATA COLLECTED BY COLOG DURING THE 2008 AND 2011 GEOTECHNICAL SITE INVESTIGATIONS. CASINO MINING CORPORATION
W-WEST SECTOR - 090, 135
P/A NO. REF. NO.
VA101-325/8 7
REV
0 25APR12 ISSUED WITH REPORT NS GM KJB
APPENDIX B2.8 0
B2-8 of 11
M:\1\01\00325\08\A\Report\7 - 2012 Open Pit Slope Design\Rev 0\Appendices\Appendix B - Stereographic Plots of Geomechanicals holes (oriented
and ATV holes)\[Appendix B2 -B2.1 to B2.11 Kinematic Analysis and Bench Face Angle Analysis.xls]Appendix B2.9 M-No
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
CUMULATIVE PERCENT FAILURE
0.6
(FS < 1.0)
0.5
0.4
0.3
Slope Dip Direction 135
0.2
0.1
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
BENCH FACE ANGLE ()

NOTES:
1. SWEGE 5.0 SOFTWARE USED FOR ANALYSES. CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT
2. JOINT COHESION OF 50 kPa ASSUMED.
3. DRILLHOLE DATA SORTED BY DISCONTINUITY SET. OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN
BENCH FACE ANGLE ANALYSIS -
M-NORTH SECTOR
P/A NO. REF. NO.
VA101-325/8 7
0 12JUN'12 ISSUED WITH REPORT GM DAY KJB REV

APPENDIX B2.9 0
B2-9 of 11
and ATV holes)\[Appendix B2 -B2.1 to B2.11 Kinematic Analysis and Bench Face Angle Analysis.xls]Appendix B2.10 M-N
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
(FS < 1.0)
0.5
0.4
0.3

0.2
0.1
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
BENCH FACE ANGLE ()

NOTES:
3. DRILLHOLE DATA SORTED BY JOINT SET COMPRISED OF DATA OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN
FROM ALL HOLES IN SECTOR. BENCH FACE ANGLE ANALYSIS
M-NORTHEAST SECTOR
P/A NO. REF. NO.
VA101-325/8 7

APPENDIX B2.10 0
B2-10 of 11
and ATV holes)\[Appendix B2 -B2.1 to B2.11 Kinematic Analysis and Bench Face Angle Analysis.xls]Appendix B2.11 W-N
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
(FS < 1.0)
0.5
0.4
0.3

0.2
0.1
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
BENCH FACE ANGLE ()

NOTES:
3. DRILLHOLE DATA SORTED BY DISCONTINUITY SET. OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN
BENCH FACE ANGLE ANALYSIS
W-NORTH SECTOR
P/A NO. REF. NO.
VA101-325/8 7

APPENDIX B2.11 0
B2-11 of 11
APPENDIX C
LIMIT EQUILIBRIUM STABILITY ANALYSES
Appendix C1 Summary of Inter-ramp Stability Analysis

Appendix C2 Sensitivity Analysis and Limit Equilibrium Analysis

October 12, 2012
APPENDIX C1
SUMMARY OF INTER-RAMP STABILITY ANALYSIS
(Pages C1-1 to C1-2)

October 12, 2012
APPENDIX C1.1


SUMMARY OF INTER-RAMP STABILITY ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR FRESH BEDROCK
Print Oct/04/12 10:01:33

Inter-Ramp Slope Groundwater
Geotechnical Unit Slope Height
(1)
Angle Blast Disturbance Depressurization (2) Factor of Safety
(degrees) (m) (m from pit wall)
0 1.5
0.85
30 2.6
100
0 1.3
1
30 2.3
DRB 45
0 1.2
0.85
30 1.8
200
0 1.0
1
30 1.6
0 1.4
0.85
30 2.4
100
0 1.2
1
30 2.1
PMS 45
0 1.1
0.85
30 1.6
200
0 1.0
1
30 1.4
M:\1\01\00325\08\A\Report\7 - 2012 Open Pit Slope Design\Rev 0\Appendices\Appendix C - Limit Equilibrium Stability Analyses\[Appendix C1- C1-1 and C1-2.xlsm]Appen
NOTES:
2. GROUNDWATER DEPRESSURIZATION SET TO SIMULATE INSTALLATION OF HORIZONTAL DRAINS IN PIT WALL
0 29MAY'12 ISSUED WITH REPORT VA101-325/8-7 JAG GM KJB

C1-1 of 2
APPENDIX C1.2


SUMMARY OF INTER-RAMP STABILITY ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR WEATHERED BEDROCK
Print Oct/04/12 10:01:33

Inter-Ramp Slope Groundwater
Geotechnical Unit Slope Height
(1)
Angle Blast Disturbance Depressurization (2) Factor of Safety
(degrees) (m) (m from pit wall)
0 0.6
0.85
30 1.6
100
0 0.5
1
30 1.3
DRB 45
0 0.6
0.85
30 1.1
200
0 0.5
1
30 0.9
0 0.7
0.85
30 1.6
100
0 0.6
1
30 1.3
PMS 45
0 0.6
0.85
30 1.1
200
0 0.5
1
30 0.9
M:\1\01\00325\08\A\Report\7 - 2012 Open Pit Slope Design\Rev 0\Appendices\Appendix C - Limit Equilibrium Stability Analyses\[Appendix C1- C1-1 and C1-2.xlsm]Appen
NOTES:
2. GROUNDWATER DEPRESSURIZATION SET TO SIMULATE INSTALLATION OF HORIZONTAL DRAINS IN PIT WALL
0 29MAY'12 ISSUED WITH REPORT VA101-325/8-7 JAG GM KJB

C1-2 of 2
APPENDIX C2
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS AND LIMIT EQUILIBRIUM ANALYSIS
(Pages C2-1 to C2-10)

October 12, 2012
Print 04/10/2012 10:24 AM
M:\1\01\00325\08\A\Report\7 - 2012 Open Pit Slope Design\Rev 0\Appendices\Appendix C - Limit Equilibrium Stability Analyses\[Appendix C2 - C2-1 to C2-10.xls]Appendix C2.1
1.8
34 (1.5H:1V) Slope
1.6
27 (2H:1V) Slope
22 (2.5H:1V) Slope
1.4
18 (3H:1V) Slope
Factor of Safety
Target FOS
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36
Friction Angle ()
NOTES:
1. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS OF FRICTION ANGLE CONDUCTED BETWEEN 25 AND 35. CASINO MINING CORPORATION
2. MEDIAN FRICTION ANGLE IS 30.
3. HORIZONTAL TO VERTICAL SLOPE RATIOS OF 1.5:1, 2:1, 2.5:1 AND 3:1 ARE SHOWN. CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS OF OVERBURDEN
PARTIALLY SATURATED SLOPE
P/A NO. REF. NO.
VA101-325/8 7
0 25JUL'12 ISSUED WITH REPORT GM DAY KJB REV

APPENDIX C2.1 0
C2-1 of 10
Print 04/10/2012 10:24 AM
M:\1\01\00325\08\A\Report\7 - 2012 Open Pit Slope Design\Rev 0\Appendices\Appendix C - Limit Equilibrium Stability Analyses\[Appendix C2 - C2-1 to C2-10.xls]Appendix C2.2
2.2
34 (1.5H:1V) Slope
2.0
27 (2H:1V) Slope
22 (2.5H:1V) Slope
1.8
18 (3H:1V) Slope
Factor of Safety
1.6
1.4
Target FOS
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36
Friction Angle ()
NOTES:
1. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS OF FRICTION ANGLE CONDUCTED BETWEEN 25 AND 35. CASINO MINING CORPORATION
2. MEDIAN FRICTION ANGLE IS 30.
3. HORIZONTAL TO VERTICAL SLOPE RATIOS OF 1.5:1, 2:1, 2.5:1 AND 3:1 ARE SHOWN. CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS OF OVERBURDEN
FULLY DRAINED SLOPE
P/A NO. REF. NO.
VA101-325/8 7
0 25JUL'12 ISSUED WITH REPORT GM DAY KJB REV

APPENDIX C2.2 0
C2-2 of 10
M:\1\01\00325\08\A\Report\7 - 2012 Open Pit Slope Design\Rev 0\Appendices\Appendix C - Limit Equilibrium Stability Analyses\[Appendix C2 - C2-1 to C2-10.xls]Appendix C2.3 Print 04/10/2012 10:24 AM
100 m Slope Height 200 m Slope Height 100 m Slope Height 200 m Slope Height
Fully Saturated Slope Fully Saturated Slope Fully Saturated Slope Fully Saturated Slope
30 m Depressurization 30 m Depressurization 30 m Depressurization 30 m Depressurization
NOTES: Intact PMS(2) with Disturbance = 0.85

1. SLOPE ANGLE OF 45 USED FOR ALL MODELS SHOWN.
2. PMS = PROSPECTOR MOUNTAIN SUITE CASINO MINING CORPORATION
3. GROUNDWATER DEPRESSURIZATION SET TO SIMULATE INSTALLATION OF Intact PMS(2) with Disturbance = 1
HORIZONTAL DRAINS IN PIT WALL CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT
.
LIMIT EQUILIBRIUM ANALYSIS
INTER-RAMP SLOPE ANALYSIS-PMS
P/A NO. REF. NO.
VA101-325/8 7
0 18MAY'12 ISSUED WITH REPORT JAG GM KJB REV

APPENDIX C2.3 0
C2-3 of 10
NOTES: Weathered PMS(2) with Disturbance = 0.85

2. PMS = PROSPECTOR MOUNTAIN SUITE
3. GROUNDWATER DEPRESSURIZATION SET TO SIMULATE INSTALLATION OF
Weathered PMS(2) with Disturbance = 1 CASINO MINING CORPORATION
HORIZONTAL DRAINS IN PIT WALL CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT
.
INTER-RAMP SLOPE STABILITY - PMS WEATHERED
P/A NO. REF. NO.
VA101-325/8 7

APPENDIX C2.4 0
C2-4 of 10
NOTES: Intact DRB(2) with Disturbance = 0.85

2. DRB = DAWSON RANGE BATHOLITH Intact DRB(2) with Disturbance = 1 CASINO MINING CORPORATION
3. GROUNDWATER DEPRESSURIZATION SET TO SIMULATE INSTALLATION
OF HORIZONTAL DRAINS IN PIT WALL CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT
INTER-RAMP SLOPE STABILITY - DRB
P/A NO. REF. NO.
VA101-325/8 7

APPENDIX C2.5 0
C2-5 of 10
NOTES: Weathered DRB(2) with Disturbance = 0.85

2. DRB = DAWSON RANGE BATHOLITH Weathered DRB(2) with Disturbance = 1 CASINO MINING CORPORATION
3. GROUNDWATER DEPRESSURIZATION SET TO SIMULATE INSTALLATION
OF HORIZONTAL DRAINS IN PIT WALL CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT
INTER-RAMP SLOPE STABILITY - DRB WEATHERED
P/A NO. REF. NO.
VA101-325/8 7

APPENDIX C2.6 0
C2-6 of 10
M-North: 40 Overall Slope
Fully Saturated Slope Assumed Drainage of Weathered Rock 30 m Horizontal Depressurization
NOTES:
1. SLIP SURFACES SHOWN FOR STATIC CONDITIONS. Intact DRB(2) Weathered DRB(2)
2. DISTURBANCE FACTORS OF D = 1 USED FOR ALL MODELS SHOWN.
3.DRB = DAWSON RANGE BATHOLITH.
4. ESTIMATED DRAWDOWN BASED ON MEASURED GROUNDWATER LEVELS DURING
Intact DRB(2) with Disturbance Weathered DRB(2) with Disturbance
LUGEON PACKER TESTS FOR DH11-39.
HORIZONTAL DRAINS IN PIT WALL.
M-NORTH WALL
P/A NO. REF. NO.
VA101-325/8 7

APPENDIX C2.7 0
C2-7 of 10
M-Northeast: 40 Overall Slope
NOTES:
1. SLIP SURFACES SHOWN FOR STATIC CONDITIONS. Intact DRB(2) Weathered DRB(2)
Intact DRB(2) with Disturbance Weathered DRB(2) with Disturbance
M-NORTHEAST WALL
P/A NO. REF. NO.
VA101-325/8 7

APPENDIX C2.8 0
C2-8 of 10
M-South: 40 Overall Slope
NOTES:
1. SLIP SURFACES SHOWN FOR STATIC CONDITIONS. Intact DRB(2) Intact PMS(2)
4.PMS = PROSPECTOR MOUNTAIN SUITE.
Intact DRB(2) with Disturbance Intact PMS(2) with Disturbance
LUGEON PACKER TESTS FOR DH11-37. Weathered DRB(2) CASINO MINING CORPORATION
HORIZONTAL DRAINS IN PIT WALL. CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT
Weathered DRB(2) with Disturbance
M-SOUTH WALL
P/A NO. REF. NO.
VA101-325/8 7

APPENDIX C2.9 0
C2-9 of 10
W-Southwest: 40 Overall Slope
NOTES:
1. SLIP SURFACES SHOWN FOR STATIC CONDITIONS. Intact PMS(2)
3.PMS = PROSPECTOR MOUNTAIN SUITE.
Intact PMS(2) with Disturbance
5. GROUNDWATER DEPRESSURIZATION SET TO SIMULATE INSTALLATION OF Weathered PMS(2)
Weathered PMS(2) with Disturbance CASINO MINING CORPORATION

W-SOUTHWEST WALL
P/A NO. REF. NO.
VA101-325/8 7
0 18JUL'12 ISSUED WITH REPORT GM GM KJB REV

APPENDIX C2.10 0
C2-10 of 10

A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

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

A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Project BioPhysicAl socio-economic Ad

introduction VAlued VAlued yes

A.1 Introduction A.6 Terrain Features A.13 Employment and A.20

A.4j Laboratory Evaluation of the

A.9 Noise A.12B Wildlife Baseline Report V.2

A.4o Advanced Metallurgical A.10B Fish Habitat Evaluation: Instream

A.4P Production of Environmental

A.4Q Mine Site Borrow Materials A.12 Wildlife

A.4r Report on Laboratory Geotechnical A.12A Wildlife Mitigation and Monitoring

CASINO PROJECT | Supplementary Information Report | Mar 2015

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN I of III VA 101-325/8-7 Rev 0

Bench Inter- Max Inter- Overall

M-South 540 PMS, DRB 65 15 8 45 200 42

Central 210 PMS 65 15 8 45 200 N/A

W-North 285 DRB 60 15 8 42 200 39

W-South 480 DRB 65 15 8 45 200 42

W-Southwest 345 PMS 65 15 8 45 200 42

W-West 210 DRB 65 15 8 45 200 42

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN II of III VA 101-325/8-7 Rev 0

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN III of III VA 101-325/8-7 Rev 0

TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................................................... i

2 GENERAL SITE SETTING ............................................................................................................. 6

3 FUNDAMENTALS OF PIT SLOPE DESIGN .................................................................................. 9

4 GEOTECHNICAL CHARACTERIZATION .................................................................................... 13

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN i of iv VA 101-325/8-7 Rev 0

5 PIT SLOPE STABILITY ASSESSMENT ....................................................................................... 27

6 PIT WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN ............................................................................................. 41

7 PIT SLOPE DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION ........................................................................... 46

8 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................... 53

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN ii of iv VA 101-325/8-7 Rev 0

Table 2.1 Summary of Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis ....................................................... 8

Figure 1.1 Project Location Map ...................................................................................................... 2

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN iii of iv VA 101-325/8-7 Rev 0

APPENDIX A RQD AND RMR VS. HOLE DEPTHS CHARTS

APPENDIX B KINEMATIC STABILITY ANALYSES

APPENDIX C LIMIT EQUILIBRIUM STABILITY ANALYSES

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN iv of iv VA 101-325/8-7 Rev 0

1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN 1 of 55 VA 101-325/8-7 Rev 0

Figure 1.1 Project Location Map

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN 2 of 55 VA 101-325/8-7 Rev 0

Figure 1.2 Mine Site General Arrangement

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN 3 of 55 VA 101-325/8-7 Rev 0

1.2 PREVIOUS WORK

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN 4 of 55 VA 101-325/8-7 Rev 0

1.3 SCOPE OF WORK

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN 5 of 55 VA 101-325/8-7 Rev 0

2 GENERAL SITE SETTING

2.2 REGIONAL GEOLOGY

2.3 CLIMATE AND HYDROMETEOROLOGY

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN 6 of 55 VA 101-325/8-7 Rev 0

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN 7 of 55 VA 101-325/8-7 Rev 0

Table 2.1 Summary of Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis

Return Probability of Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA)

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN 8 of 55 VA 101-325/8-7 Rev 0

3 FUNDAMENTALS OF PIT SLOPE DESIGN

3.2 PIT SLOPE CONFIGURATIONS

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN 9 of 55 VA 101-325/8-7 Rev 0

Figure 3.1 Typical Open Pit Slope Configurations

3.3 KEY CONSIDERATIONS FOR PIT SLOPE STABILITY

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN 10 of 55 VA 101-325/8-7 Rev 0