a.04i open pit geotechnical design

117
CASINO PROJECT | Supplementary Information Report | Mar 2015 VOLUME A.II: PROJECT INTRODUCTION & OVERVIEW Introduction First Nations and Community Consultation A.4 Project Description A.3 Project Location A.1A Concordance Table to the Executive Committee’s Request for Supplementary Information A.2A Traditional Knowledge Bibliography A.1 A.2 A.5 Effects Assessment Methodology A.4A Tailings Management Facility Construction Material Alternatives A.4B Information on Alternative Access Road Alignments A.4C Feasibility Design of the Heap Leach Facility A.4D Report on the Feasibility Design of the Tailings Management Facility A.4F Waste Storage Area and Stockpiles Feasibility Design A.4E Results of Additional Lab Testing of Leach Ore A.4G Updated Hydrometeorology Report A.4H Cold Climate Passive Treatment Systems Literature Review A.4I Open Pit Geotechnical Design A.4L Revised Tailings Management Facility Seepage Assessment A.4M Processing Flow Sheets A.4N Scoping Level Assessment of Casino Property A.4O Advanced Metallurgical Assessment of the Casino Copper Gold Project A.4P Production of Environmental Tailings Samples for the Casino Deposit A.4Q Mine Site Borrow Materials Assessment Report A.4R Report on Laboratory Geotechnical Testing of Tailings Materials A.4J Laboratory Evaluation of the SO 2 /Air and Peroxide Process A.4K Metal Uptake in Northern Constructed Wetlands VOLUME A.II: PROJECT INTRODUCTION & OVERVIEW APPENDIX A.4I: Open Pit Geotechnical Design

Upload: doquynh

Post on 11-Dec-2016

224 views

Category:

Documents


3 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

CASINO PROJECT | Supplementary Information Report | Mar 2015

Volume A.ii: Project introduction & oVerView

Volume A.iii: BioPhysicAl VAlued comPonents

Volume A.V: AdditionAl yesAA reQuirements

Volume A.iV: socio-economic VAlued comPonents

Introduction Employment and Income

Employability

Community Vitality

Community Infrastructure and Services

Economic Development and Business Sector

Cultural Continuity

Land Use and Tenure

First Nations and Community Consultation

A.4 Project Description

A.3 Project Location

A.5 Effects Assessment Methodology

A.1A Concordance Table to the Executive Committee’s Request for Supplementary Information

A.4A Tailings Management Facility Construction Material Alternatives

A.2A Traditional Knowledge Bibliography

A.4B Information on Alternative Access Road Alignments

A.4c Feasibility Design of the Heap Leach Facility

A.4d Report on the Feasibility Design of the Tailings Management Facility

A.4F Waste Storage Area and Stockpiles Feasibility Design

A.4e Results of Additional Lab Testing of Leach Ore

A.4G Updated Hydrometeorology Report

A.4h Cold Climate Passive Treatment Systems Literature Review

A.4i Open Pit Geotechnical Design

A.4l Revised Tailings Management Facility Seepage Assessment

A.4m Processing Flow Sheets

A.4n Scoping Level Assessment of Casino Property

A.4o Advanced Metallurgical Assessment of the Casino Copper Gold Project

A.4P Production of Environmental Tailings Samples for the Casino Deposit

A.4Q Mine Site Borrow Materials Assessment Report

A.4r Report on Laboratory Geotechnical Testing of Tailings Materials

A.4j Laboratory Evaluation of the SO2/Air and Peroxide Process

A.4K Metal Uptake in Northern Constructed Wetlands

Effects of the Environment on the Project

Accidents and Malfunctions

Environmental Management

Environmental Monitoring Plans

Conclusions

References

Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Plan

Spill Contingency Management Plan

Sediment and Erosion Control Management Plan

Invasive Species Management Plan

ML/ARD Management Plan

Liquid Natural Gas Management Plan

Socio-Economic Management Plan

Road Use Plan

Economic Impacts of the Casino Mine Project

Heritage Resources Assessment Areas

Heritage Sites Summary

Terrain Features

Water Quality

Air Quality

Noise

Fish and AquaticResources

Wildlife

Rare Plants and Vegetation Health

Variability Water Balance Model Report

Water Quality Predictions Report

Potential Effects of Climate Change on the Variability Water Balance

Updated Appendix B5 to Appendix 7A

2008 Environmental Studies Report: Final

Casino Mine Site Borrow Sites ML/ARD Potential

2013-2014 Groundwater Data Report

Emissions Inventory for Construction and Operations

Casino Geochemical Source Term Development: Appendix B

Extension of Numerical Groundwater Modelling to include Dip Creek Watershed

The Effect of Acid Rock Drainage on Casino Creek

Casino Kinetic Testwork 2014 Update for Ore, Waste Rock and Tailings

Preliminary Risk Assessment Metal Leaching and Acid Rock Drainage

Toxicity Testing Reports

Appendix A2 to Casino Waste Rock and Ore Geochemical Static Test As-sessment Report: Cross-Sections

Updated Fish Habitat Offsetting Plan

Wildlife Mitigation and Monitoring Plan V.1.2.

Moose Late Winter Habitat Suitability Report

Fish Habitat Evaluation: Instream Flow and Habitat Evaluation Procedure Study

Wildlife Baseline Report V.2

A.1

A.2

A.6

A.7

A.13 A.20

A.21

A.22

A.23

A.24

A.25

A.14

A.16

A.17

A.15

A.18

A.19

A.7A

A.22A

A.22B

A.22c

A.22d

A.22h

A.22G

A.22F

A.22e

A.7B

A.7c

A.13A

A.18A

A.18B

A.7d

A.7e

A.7K

A.7m

A.8A

A.7l

A.7n

A.7F

A.7i

A.7j

A.7G

A.7h

A.8

A.9

A.10

A.12

A.11

A.10A

A.12A

A.12c

A.10B

A.12B

Volume A.i: PREFACE

Volume A.ii: Project introduction & oVerView

Volume A.iii: BioPhysicAl VAlued comPonents

Volume A.V: AdditionAl yesAA reQuirements

Volume A.iV: socio-economic VAlued comPonents

Introduction Employment and Income

Employability

Community Vitality

Community Infrastructure and Services

Economic Development and Business Sector

Cultural Continuity

Land Use and Tenure

First Nations and Community Consultation

A.4 Project Description

A.3 Project Location

A.5 Effects Assessment Methodology

A.1A Concordance Table to the Executive Committee’s Request for Supplementary Information

A.4A Tailings Management Facility Construction Material Alternatives

A.2A Traditional Knowledge Bibliography

A.4B Information on Alternative Access Road Alignments

A.4c Feasibility Design of the Heap Leach Facility

A.4d Report on the Feasibility Design of the Tailings Management Facility

A.4F Waste Storage Area and Stockpiles Feasibility Design

A.4e Results of Additional Lab Testing of Leach Ore

A.4G Updated Hydrometeorology Report

A.4h Cold Climate Passive Treatment Systems Literature Review

A.4i Open Pit Geotechnical Design

A.4l Revised Tailings Management Facility Seepage Assessment

A.4m Processing Flow Sheets

A.4n Scoping Level Assessment of Casino Property

A.4o Advanced Metallurgical Assessment of the Casino Copper Gold Project

A.4P Production of Environmental Tailings Samples for the Casino Deposit

A.4Q Mine Site Borrow Materials Assessment Report

A.4r Report on Laboratory Geotechnical Testing of Tailings Materials

A.4j Laboratory Evaluation of the SO2/Air and Peroxide Process

A.4K Metal Uptake in Northern Constructed Wetlands

Effects of the Environment on the Project

Accidents and Malfunctions

Environmental Management

Environmental Monitoring Plans

Conclusions

References

Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Plan

Spill Contingency Management Plan

Sediment and Erosion Control Management Plan

Invasive Species Management Plan

ML/ARD Management Plan

Liquid Natural Gas Management Plan

Socio-Economic Management Plan

Road Use Plan

Economic Impacts of the Casino Mine Project

Heritage Resources Assessment Areas

Heritage Sites Summary

Terrain Features

Water Quality

Air Quality

Noise

Fish and AquaticResources

Wildlife

Rare Plants and Vegetation Health

Variability Water Balance Model Report

Water Quality Predictions Report

Potential Effects of Climate Change on the Variability Water Balance

Updated Appendix B5 to Appendix 7A

2008 Environmental Studies Report: Final

Casino Mine Site Borrow Sites ML/ARD Potential

2013-2014 Groundwater Data Report

Emissions Inventory for Construction and Operations

Casino Geochemical Source Term Development: Appendix B

Extension of Numerical Groundwater Modelling to include Dip Creek Watershed

The Effect of Acid Rock Drainage on Casino Creek

Casino Kinetic Testwork 2014 Update for Ore, Waste Rock and Tailings

Preliminary Risk Assessment Metal Leaching and Acid Rock Drainage

Toxicity Testing Reports

Appendix A2 to Casino Waste Rock and Ore Geochemical Static Test As-sessment Report: Cross-Sections

Updated Fish Habitat Offsetting Plan

Wildlife Mitigation and Monitoring Plan V.1.2.

Moose Late Winter Habitat Suitability Report

Fish Habitat Evaluation: Instream Flow and Habitat Evaluation Procedure Study

Wildlife Baseline Report V.2

A.1

A.2

A.6

A.7

A.13 A.20

A.21

A.22

A.23

A.24

A.25

A.14

A.16

A.17

A.15

A.18

A.19

A.7A

A.22A

A.22B

A.22c

A.22d

A.22h

A.22G

A.22F

A.22e

A.7B

A.7c

A.13A

A.18A

A.18B

A.7d

A.7e

A.7K

A.7m

A.8A

A.7l

A.7n

A.7F

A.7i

A.7j

A.7G

A.7h

A.8

A.9

A.10

A.12

A.11

A.10A

A.12A

A.12c

A.10B

A.12B

Volume A.i: PREFACE

VOLUME A.II: PROJECT INTRODUCTION & OVERVIEW

APPENDIX A.4I: Open Pit Geotechnical Design

Page 2: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

  

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

CASINO MINING CORPORATIONCASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

PREPARED FOR:

Casino Mining Corporation 2050 - 1111 West Georgia St. Vancouver, BC V6E 4M3

VA101-325/8-7 Rev 0 October 12, 2012

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN

Knight Piésold www.knightp ieso ld .com

C O N S U L T I N G

PREPARED BY:

Knight Piésold Ltd.Suite 1400 – 750 West Pender Street

Vancouver, BC V6C 2T8 Canada p. +1.604.685.0543 • f. +1.604.685.0147

Page 3: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design
Page 4: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN I of III VA 101-325/8-7 Rev 0October 12, 2012

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 Piésold 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.

Page 5: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

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

Design Sector

Slope Height

Wall Geology

Bench Face Angle

Bench Height

Bench Width

Inter-ramp Angle

Max Inter-ramp Slope

Height

Overall Slope Angle

M ° m m ° m °

M-North 30 Overburden 40 5 4 27

200 39 600 DRB 60 15 8 42

M-Northeast 30 Overburden 40 5 4 27

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.

Page 6: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

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

Page 7: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

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

Page 8: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

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

Page 9: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

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

Page 10: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

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

Page 11: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

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

Page 12: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN 2 of 55 VA 101-325/8-7 Rev 0October 12, 2012

Figure 1.1 Project Location Map

Page 13: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

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

Page 14: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN 4 of 55 VA 101-325/8-7 Rev 0October 12, 2012

1.2 PREVIOUS WORK

Knight Piésold Ltd. (KPL) has been involved in the Casino Project since the early 1990’s. 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

Page 15: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

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

Page 16: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN 6 of 55 VA 101-325/8-7 Rev 0October 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 Dawson’s 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 Dawson’s 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 Dawson’s 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 -18.1°C in January to 11.1°C 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 30°C (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).

Page 17: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

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

Page 18: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

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

q = 1-(-L/T)

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.

Page 19: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

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

Page 20: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

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

Page 21: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN 11 of 55 VA 101-325/8-7 Rev 0October 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.

Page 22: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN 12 of 55 VA 101-325/8-7 Rev 0October 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

Slope Scale Consequences of Failure

Acceptance Criteria

FOS (min)

(Static)

FOS (min)

(Dynamic)

POF (max)

P[FOS≤1]

Bench Low to High 1.1 N/A 25% - 50%

Inter-ramp

Low 1.15 - 1.2 1.0 25%

Medium 1.2 1.0 20%

High 1.2 – 1.3 1.1 10%

Overall

Low 1.2 – 1.3 1.0 15% - 20%

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.

Page 23: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN 13 of 55 VA 101-325/8-7 Rev 0October 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).

Page 24: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN 14 of 55 VA 101-325/8-7 Rev 0October 12, 2012

NOTES: 1. COORDINATE GRID IS UTM (WGS84 / NAD83) ZONE 7 (m). 2. CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 5 m. 3. OPEN PIT OUTLINE PROVIDED BY CASINO MINING CORPORATION (SEPTEMBER 2012)

Figure 4.1 Open Pit Area – 1994, 2010 and 2011 Investigation Plans

Page 25: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN 15 of 55 VA 101-325/8-7 Rev 0October 12, 2012

Table 4.1 Summary of Open Pit Drillholes

Drillhole ID

Coordinates1, 2

Elevation Azimuth Dip Hole Size Total Depth

Depth to Bedrock 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.

Page 26: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN 16 of 55 VA 101-325/8-7 Rev 0October 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.

Page 27: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN 17 of 55 VA 101-325/8-7 Rev 0October 12, 2012

NOTES: 1. COORDINATE GRID IS UTM (WGS84 / NAD83) ZONE 7 (m). 2. CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 5 m. 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

Page 28: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN 18 of 55 VA 101-325/8-7 Rev 0October 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.

Page 29: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN 19 of 55 VA 101-325/8-7 Rev 0October 12, 2012

NOTES: 1. ACOUSTIC TELEVIEWER DATA COLLECTED BY COLOG DURING THE 2011 GEOTECHNICAL SITE

INVESTIGATION PROGRAM. 2. ORIENTED CORE DATA PROVIDED BY KNIGHT PIÉSOLD LTD. DURING THE 2010 AND 2011 GEOTECHNICAL

SITE INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAMS.

Figure 4.3 Overall Rock Mass Structure

Oriented Core Data

Acoustic Televiewer Data

Page 30: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN 20 of 55 VA 101-325/8-7 Rev 0October 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.

Page 31: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN 21 of 55 VA 101-325/8-7 Rev 0October 12, 2012

NOTES: 1. COORDINATE GRID IS UTM (WGS84 / NAD83) ZONE 7 (m). 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

Page 32: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN 22 of 55 VA 101-325/8-7 Rev 0October 12, 2012

Table 4.2 Summary of Rock Mass Properties

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.

Zone(3) Weathered Zone

Weathered Zone

Number of Samples - -

Mean (MPa) 31 39

Median (MPa) - -

Std. Dev. (MPa) - -

Maxium (MPa) - -

Minimum (MPa) - -

Rock Hardness Rating

R3 - Average Rock

R3 - Average Rock

Weathered Zone

Fresh AllWeathered

ZoneFresh All

Number of Runs Measured

536 235 771 283 956 1239

Mean (%) 42 81 54 33 72 63

Median (%) 43 92 57 30 82 74

Std. Dev. (%) 30 24 33 26 29 33

Numbers of Discontinuities

Measured108 235 343 192 957 1149

Mean 47 59 55 41 59 56

Median 46 61 57 40 61 58

Std. Dev. 11 10 12 11 11 13

Rock Mass Quality Description

FAIR FAIR FAIR FAIR FAIR FAIR

Dawson Range Batholith

Fresh

9

55

50

16

92

40

R4 - Hard Rock

21

0.18

6.E-08

Rock Mass Properties

Zone

RQD

UCS

Hydraulic Conductivity (m/sec)

Fresh

Young's Modulus (GPa) 26

Poisson's Ratio 0.14

RMR89

R4 - Hard Rock

19

51

54

19

76

11

Prospector Moutain Suite

Page 33: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN 23 of 55 VA 101-325/8-7 Rev 0October 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 Piésold 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.

Page 34: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN 24 of 55 VA 101-325/8-7 Rev 0October 12, 2012

NOTES: 1. "DEPTHS" ARE INCLINED DRILL HOLE DEPTHS.

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.

Page 35: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN 25 of 55 VA 101-325/8-7 Rev 0October 12, 2012

Table 4.3 Summary of Design Parameters of Soil and Rock

Material

Unit Weight

UCS(1)

GSI(2)

Friction Angle

Confining Stress mi

(5)

(kN/m3) (MPa) (°) (kPa)

Overburden 18.7 30(3) - -

Dawson Range

Batholith

Weathered 26.2

39 36 See

Note 4 1500 25

Fresh 55 54

Prospector Mountain

Suite

Weathered 26.2

31 42 See

Note 4 1500 19

Fresh 51 54

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 Bieniawski’s 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.

Page 36: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN 26 of 55 VA 101-325/8-7 Rev 0October 12, 2012

NOTES: 1. HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITIES PLOTTED AGAINST INCLINED DEPTH OF DRILLHOLE.

Figure 4.7 Summary of Rock Mass Hydraulic Conductivities

Page 37: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN 27 of 55 VA 101-325/8-7 Rev 0October 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

Page 38: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN 28 of 55 VA 101-325/8-7 Rev 0October 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 β. The condition for toppling to occur is when β > (ϕj + (90 – Ψ)), where Ψ is the slope face angle and ϕj is the friction angle (Goodman, 1989).

Table 5.1 Summary of Design Sectors

Sector

Maximum Slope Height

(m)

Wall Orientations

(°)

Geotechnical Domains

Overburden Thickness

(m)

Weathered Bedrock

Thickness

(m)

M-North 630 135, 170 DRB 30 60

M-Northeast 630 195, 220, 240,

270 DRB 30 250

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

Page 39: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN 29 of 55 VA 101-325/8-7 Rev 0October 12, 2012

NOTES: 1. COORDINATE GRID IS UTM (WGS84 / NAD83) ZONE 7 (m). 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

Page 40: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN 30 of 55 VA 101-325/8-7 Rev 0October 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.

Page 41: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN 31 of 55 VA 101-325/8-7 Rev 0October 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 PIÉSOLD LTD. DURING THE 1994, 2010 AND 2011

GEOTECHNICAL SITE INVESTIGATIONS.

Figure 5.2 Typical Stereographic Analyses Results - M-South Sector - 325°, 355°

Page 42: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN 32 of 55 VA 101-325/8-7 Rev 0October 12, 2012

Table 5.2 Summary of Structure and Kinematically Possible Failure Modes

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

Oriented Core

Acoustic Televiewer

135° C3 - - - - -Scatter and variation within the C3

discontinuity set may allow for the formation of planar features.

170° -C1/C2,C1/C3,C2/C3

- -C1/C2,C1/C3,C2/C3

-Wedge failures kinematically possible.

Scatter and variation within the C1 and C3 discontinuity sets may allow for the formation

195° - C2/C4 - - C2/C4 -Inter-ramp scale wedge failure kinematically

possible, wedge slip line at limit of inter-ramp angle.

220° - C2/C4 - - - -Bench scale wedge failure is kinematically possible, wedge slip line is at limit of inter-

ramp angle.

240° - - - - - -No possible kinematically controlled failure

mechanisms.

270° - - - - - -Some toppling failure possible due to scatter

and variation in structural set C1

325° - - - C1 - -Planar failures kinematically possible due to

set C1.

355° -C1/C2,C1/C3,C2/C3

- -C1/C2,C1/C3,C2/C3

-Wedge failure kinematically possible, however

is at limit of assumed friction angle.

030° - - - - - -No possible kinematically controlled failure

mechanisms.

100° - - - - - -No possible kinematically controlled failure

mechanisms.

180° - - - -C3/C4, C3/C5,C4/C5

-Inter-ramp scale wedge failures kinematically

possible.

180° - C1/C3 - C1 - -Scatter and variation within the C1

discontinuity set may allow for the formation of planar features.

215° - C1/C2 - C1 C1/C2 -Planar failures kinematically possible due to

set C2. Wedge failure kinematically possible due to interactions of sets C1 and C2.

240° - C1/C2 - C2 C1/C2 -Planar failures kinematically possible due to

set C2. Wedge failure kinematically possible due to interactions of sets C1 and C2.

000° - - - - - -No possible kinematically controlled failure

mechanisms.

040° - - C2 - - - Toppling failure is kinematically possible.

010° - - - - - -No possible kinematically controlled failure

mechanisms.

090° - - - - - -No possible kinematically controlled failure

mechanisms.

090° A1 - - - - -Bench scale toppling failure is kinematically

possible.

135° A3 A1/A3 - - - -Bench scale wedge and toppling failure is

kinematically possible.

C1 - 47/098,C2 - 68/136,C3 - 84/177,C4 - 68/271

No Data Available

DH94-288,DH94-310

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

West

A1 - 58/003,A2 - 69/251

W-North DH10-20C1 - 49/186,C2 - 41/250,C3 - 67/104

No Data Available

W-SouthDH10-19B,DH11-36

C1 - 00/267,C2 - 89/045,C3 - 79/063,

W-Southwest DH11-35C1 - 87/043,C2 - 34/309,C3 - 14/179

A1 - 85/232,A2 - 64/341,A3 - 32/299

W-WestA1 - 59/103,A2 - 76/204,A3 - 61/141

Pit SectorWall

Orientation(°)

IRA Planar

Comment

Discontinuity Sets(DIP / DIP DIRECTION)

IRA Wedge

IRA Topple

Drill HoleBFA

PlanarBFA

Wedge

Main

Central

M-NorthDH94-288,DH11-39

C1 - 45/189,C2 - 68/100,C3 - 43/143,C4 - 27/284

M-SouthDH94-305,DH10-18,DH11-37

C1 - 37/317,C2 - 66/066,C3 - 73/272

M-NortheastDH94-298,DH11-38

BFA Topple

No Data Available

CAS-051No Data Available

No Data Available

No Data Available

Page 43: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN 33 of 55 VA 101-325/8-7 Rev 0October 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.

Page 44: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN 34 of 55 VA 101-325/8-7 Rev 0October 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

Geotechnical Unit Overall Slope Angle

(°) Groundwater Condition Factor of Safety

Overburden

34 (1.5H:1V) Partially Saturated 0.6

Fully Drained 0.9

27 (2H:1V) Partially Saturated 0.9

Fully Drained 1.2

22 (2.5H:1V) Partially Saturated 1.1

Fully Drained 1.5

18 (3H:1V) Partially Saturated 1.4

Fully Drained 1.7

Page 45: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN 35 of 55 VA 101-325/8-7 Rev 0October 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.

Page 46: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN 36 of 55 VA 101-325/8-7 Rev 0October 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

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

(degrees) (m) (m from pit wall) Weathered Fresh

0 0.6 1.530 1.6 2.60 0.5 1.3

30 1.3 2.30 0.6 1.2

30 1.1 1.80 0.5 1.0

30 0.9 1.60 0.7 1.4

30 1.6 2.40 0.6 1.2

30 1.3 2.10 0.6 1.1

30 1.1 1.60 0.5 1.0

30 0.9 1.4

Geotechnical

Unit (1)

Inter-Ramp Slope Angle

Slope Height

Blast Disturbance

D

Groundwater

Depressurization (2)

Factor of Safety

Bedrock Condition

0.85

1

PMS 45

100

0.85

1

200

0.85

1

DRB 45

100

0.85

1

200

Page 47: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN 37 of 55 VA 101-325/8-7 Rev 0October 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.

Page 48: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN 38 of 55 VA 101-325/8-7 Rev 0October 12, 2012

Table 5.5 Summary of Overall Slope Stability Analyses

Pit Design Sector

Geotechnical Units (1)

Total Slope Height

Overall Slope Angle

Depth to Fresh

Bedrock

Disturbance Factor

Groundwater Depressurization

Factor of

Safety Vertical Horizontal

Groundwater Depressurization(2)

(m) (°) (m) (D) (m) (m from pit wall)

M-North DRB 630 40 85 1

85 (Assume

drainage of weathered bedrock)

30 1.4

M-Northeast DRB 630 40 250 1

250 (Assume

drainage of weathered bedrock)

30 1.2

M-South PMS and DRB 540 40 3 1

3 (Assume

drainage of weathered bedrock)

30 1.3

W- Southwest PMS 345 40 60 1

60 (Assume

drainage of weathered bedrock)

30 1.6

NOTES: 1. DRB = DAWSON RANGE BATHOLITH, PMS = PROSPECTOR MOUNTAIN SUITE 2. GROUNDWATER DEPRESSURIZATION SET TO SIMULATE INSTALLATION OF HORIZONTAL DRAINS IN PIT

WALL

Page 49: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN 39 of 55 VA 101-325/8-7 Rev 0October 12, 2012

NOTES: 1. ACOUSTIC TELEVIEWER DATA NOT COLLECTED IN THE M-SOUTH SECTOR. 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

Page 50: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN 40 of 55 VA 101-325/8-7 Rev 0October 12, 2012

NOTES: 1. ACOUSTIC TELEVIEWER DATA NOT COLLECTED IN THE M-SOUTH SECTOR. 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

Page 51: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN 41 of 55 VA 101-325/8-7 Rev 0October 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.

Page 52: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN 42 of 55 VA 101-325/8-7 Rev 0October 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

Page 53: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN 43 of 55 VA 101-325/8-7 Rev 0October 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.

Page 54: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN 44 of 55 VA 101-325/8-7 Rev 0October 12, 2012

Table 6.1 Open Pit Inflows and Pump Design

Pit Seepage Inflow and Pumping

Requirements

Pit Stage

Estimate of Seepage Inflow

Inflow from Average Annual

Precipitation

Total Average Annual

Pumping Requirement

Inflow from 1 in 10 yr. 24 Hour Storm Event

Dewatering Period

Design Pump Flow

(m3/s) (l/s) (l/s) (l/s) (l/s) (days) (l/s)

1 0.022 22 14 36 398 4 130

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

Final Open Pit Parameters

Pit Stage Surface Area Plan Area

Average Ground

Elevation

Pit Bottom Elevation

Average Depth

Equivalent Radius of

Excavation

Radius of Influence

(m2) (m2) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m)

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

Input Parameters

Average Annual

Precipitation

10 Year Wet Annual

Precipitation

1:10yr. 24hr. Storm Event

Overall Average K

(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

Page 55: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN 45 of 55 VA 101-325/8-7 Rev 0October 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:

)/ln(

2

rR

kHQ

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.

Page 56: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN 46 of 55 VA 101-325/8-7 Rev 0October 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.

Page 57: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN 47 of 55 VA 101-325/8-7 Rev 0October 12, 2012

Table 7.1 Recommended Open Pit Slope Angles

Design Sector

Max. Slope Height

Wall Geology

Bench Face Angle

Bench Height

Bench Width

Inter-ramp Angle

Max. Inter-ramp Slope

Height

Max. Overall Slope Angle

Comments

m ° m m ° m °

M-North 630

Overburden 40 5 4 27

200 39

Reduction of inter-ramp angle to 42° will reduce the risk of multi-bench wedge failure in bedrock. DRB 60 15 8 42

M-Northeast

630

Overburden 40 5 4 27 100 (in

Weathered Zone) 200 (in Fresh

Bedrock)

40

Weathered Zone down to 250 m deep, additional stepouts / ramps should be incorporated into the Weathered Zone slopes.

DRB 65 15 8 45

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

Potential planar and wedge failures are kinematically possible, but at the limit of the defect friction angle.

Central 210 PMS 65 15 8 45 200 N/A

Central lower pit walls with various orientations. The south facing maybe subject to potential wedge failure.

W-North 285 DRB 60 15 8 42 200 39

Reduction of the inter-ramp slope to 42° will reduce the risk of multi-bench planar and wedge failures.

W-South 480 DRB 65 15 8 45 200 42

Potential bench scale toppling failure is expected.

W-Southwest

345 PMS 65 15 8 45 200 42

W-West 225 DRB 65 15 8 45 200 42

Potential bench scale 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

Page 58: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN 48 of 55 VA 101-325/8-7 Rev 0October 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

Page 59: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN 49 of 55 VA 101-325/8-7 Rev 0October 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

Page 60: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN 50 of 55 VA 101-325/8-7 Rev 0October 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

Monitoring Items Estimated Quantity

Suggested Monitoring Schedule

Active Mining Area Inactive Mining Area

General Visual Inspection

N/A Daily Weekly

Geotechnical Mapping

All new bench faces

Monthly Twice monthly

Tension Crack Mapping

As required Weekly Twice monthly

Surface Prism Monitoring

As required Bi-weekly to Daily -

Depends on the rate of displacement and location

Weekly

Time Domain Reflector System

As required, intersecting major

slip planes.

As required, monitoring frequency should increase

with rate of slip plane movement

As required, monitoring frequency should increase

with rate of slip plane movement

Piezometer Monitoring

As required Twice monthly Monthly

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

Page 61: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN 51 of 55 VA 101-325/8-7 Rev 0October 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.

Page 62: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN 52 of 55 VA 101-325/8-7 Rev 0October 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

Page 63: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN 53 of 55 VA 101-325/8-7 Rev 0October 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.

Page 64: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN 54 of 55 VA 101-325/8-7 Rev 0October 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 Piésold Ltd., Casino Project – Data Compilation Report on 1994 Geotechnical/Hydrogeotechnical Investigations (Ref. No. 1832/2, February 22, 1995)

Knight Piésold Ltd., Casino Copper-Gold Project – Hydrometeorology Report (Ref. No. VA101-325/3-1, June 2010)

Knight Piésold 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.

Page 65: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design
Page 66: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN VA 101-325/8-7 Rev 0October 12, 2012

APPENDIX A

RQD AND RMR VS. HOLE DEPTHS CHARTS

(Pages A-1 to A-7)

Page 67: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

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

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

0 20 40 60 80 100

Depth (m

)

RQD vs. Depth

94‐288 DH11‐39

NOTES:1. "DEPTHS" ARE INCLINED DRILL HOLE DEPTHS.

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGNRQD AND RMR VS. DEPTH FOR

M-NORTH SECTOR

APPENDIX A.1

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

REV0

P/A NO. VA101-325/8

REF. NO.7

0 19JUN'12 ISSUED FOR REPORT GM DAY KJB

DATE DESCRIPTION PREP'D CHK'D APP'DREV

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

0 20 40 60 80 100

Depth (m

)

RMR vs. Depth

DH11‐39

Poor Fair Good Very GoodVery Poor

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Depth (m

)

RQD vs. Depth

94‐288 DH11‐39

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

0 20 40 60 80 100

Depth (m

)

RMR vs. Depth

DH11‐39

Poor Rock Fair Rock Good Rock Very Good RockVery Poor Rock

Weathered Rock(Logged ‐ DH11‐39)

A-1 of 7

Page 68: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

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

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Depth (m

)

RQD vs. Depth

DH11‐38

NOTES:1. "DEPTHS" ARE INCLINED DRILL HOLE DEPTHS.

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGNRQD AND RMR VS. DEPTH FOR

M-NORTHEAST SECTOR

APPENDIX A.2

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

REV0

P/A NO. VA101-325/8

REF. NO.7

0 19JUN'12 ISSUED FOR REPORT GM DAY KJB

DATE DESCRIPTION PREP'D CHK'D APP'DREV

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

0 20 40 60 80 100

Depth (m

)

RMR vs. Depth

DH11‐38

Poor Rock Fair Rock Good Rock Very Good RockVery Poor Rock

Weathered Rock(Logged ‐ DH11‐38)

A-2 of 7

Page 69: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

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

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Depth (m

)

RQD vs. Depth

94‐305 DH10‐18 DH11‐37

NOTES:1. "DEPTHS" ARE INCLINED DRILL HOLE DEPTHS.

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGNRQD AND RMR VS. DEPTH FOR

M-SOUTH SECTOR

APPENDIX A.3

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

REV0

P/A NO. VA101-325/8

REF. NO.7

0 19JUN'12 ISSUED FOR REPORT GM DAY KJB

DATE DESCRIPTION PREP'D CHK'D APP'DREV

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0 20 40 60 80 100

Depth (m

)

RMR vs. Depth

DH11‐37 DH10‐18

Poor Rock Fair Rock Good Rock Very Good RockVery Poor Rock

Weathered Rock(Logged ‐ DH11‐37)

A-3 of 7

Page 70: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

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 Print04/10/20128:55 AM

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%Depth (m

)RQD vs. Depth

94‐288 94‐298 94‐310

NOTES:1. "DEPTHS" ARE INCLINED DRILL HOLE DEPTHS.2. RMR DATA WAS NOT COLLECTED IN CAS-051

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGNRQD VS. DEPTH FOR

M-WEST SECTOR

APPENDIX A.4

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

REVA0

P/A NO. VA101-325/8

REF. NO.7

0 19JUN'12 ISSUED FOR REPORT GM DAY KJB

DATE DESCRIPTION PREP'D CHK'D APP'DREV

Weathered Rock

(Inferred)

A-4 of 7

Page 71: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

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

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Depth (m

)

RQD vs. Depth

DH10‐20

NOTES:1. "DEPTHS" ARE INCLINED DRILL HOLE DEPTHS.

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGNRQD AND RMR VS. DEPTH FOR

W-NORTH SECTOR

APPENDIX A.5

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

REV0

P/A NO. VA101-325/8

REF. NO.7

0 19JUN'12 ISSUED FOR REPORT GM DAY KJB

DATE DESCRIPTION PREP'D CHK'D APP'DREV

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 20 40 60 80 100

Depth (m

)

RMR vs. Depth

DH10‐20

Weathered Rock(Logged ‐ DH10‐20)

Poor Rock Fair Rock Good Rock Very Good RockVery Poor Rock

A-5 of 7

Page 72: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

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

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Depth (m

)

RQD vs. Depth

DH10‐19B DH11‐36

NOTES:1. "DEPTHS" ARE INCLINED DRILL HOLE DEPTHS.

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGNRQD AND RMR VS. DEPTH FOR

W-SOUTH SECTOR

APPENDIX A.6

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

REV0

P/A NO. VA101-325/8

REF. NO.7

0 19JUN'12 ISSUED FOR REPORT GM DAY KJB

DATE DESCRIPTION PREP'D CHK'D APP'DREV

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0 20 40 60 80 100

Depth (m

)

RMR vs. Depth

DH10‐19B DH11‐36

Weathered Rock(Logged ‐ DH11‐36)

Poor Rock Fair Rock Good Rock Very Good RockVery Poor Rock

A-6 of 7

Page 73: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

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

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Depth (m

)

RQD vs. Depth

DH11‐35

NOTES:1. "DEPTHS" ARE INCLINED DRILL HOLE DEPTHS.

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGNRQD AND RMR VS. DEPTH FOR

W-WEST SECTOR

APPENDIX A.7

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

REV0

P/A NO. VA101-325/8

REF. NO.7

0 19JUN'12 ISSUED FOR REPORT GM DAY KJB

DATE DESCRIPTION PREP'D CHK'D APP'DREV

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 20 40 60 80 100

Depth (m

)

RMR vs. Depth

DH11‐35

Poor Rock Fair Rock Good Rock Very Good RockVery Poor Rock

Weathered Rock(Logged)

A-7 of 7

Page 74: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN VA 101-325/8-7 Rev 0October 12, 2012

APPENDIX B

KINEMATIC STABILITY ANALYSES

Appendix B1 Stereographic Plots of Geomechanical Holes Appendix B2 Kinematic Stability Analyses Detailed Results

Page 75: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN VA 101-325/8-7 Rev 0October 12, 2012

APPENDIX B1

STEREOGRAPHIC PLOTS OF GEOMECHANICAL HOLES

(Pages B1-1 to B1-15)

Page 76: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

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

0 12JUL'12 ISSUED WITH REPORT JBC GM KJB

DATE DESCRIPTION PREP'D CHK'D APP'DREV

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGNSTEREOGRAPHIC PLOT OF DH94-288

APPENDIX B1.1

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

REV0

P/A NO. VA101-325/8

REF. NO.7

Oriented Core DataSet # - Dip / Dip DirectionC1 - 68 / 095C2 - 47 / 189C3 - 28 / 288C4 - 44 / 144

B1-1 of 15

Page 77: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

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

0 12JUL'12 ISSUED WITH REPORT JBC GM KJB

DATE DESCRIPTION PREP'D CHK'D APP'DREV

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGNSTEREOGRAPHIC PLOT OF DH94-298

APPENDIX B1.2

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

REV0

P/A NO. VA101-325/8

REF. NO.7

Oriented Core DataSet # - Dip / Dip DirectionC1 - 48 / 101C2 - 85 / 179C3 - 67 / 270

B1-2 of 15

Page 78: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

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 B1.3 - DH94-305 Print 04/10/2012 9:43 AM

0 12JUL'12 ISSUED WITH REPORT JBC GM KJB

DATE DESCRIPTION PREP'D CHK'D APP'DREV

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGNSTEREOGRAPHIC PLOT OF DH94-305

APPENDIX B1.3

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

REV0

P/A NO. VA101-325/8

REF. NO.7

Oriented Core DataSet # - Dip / Dip DirectionC1 - 36 / 313C2 - 52 / 339C3 - 44 / 187

B1-3 of 15

Page 79: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

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 B1.4 - DH94-310 Print 04/10/2012 9:43 AM

0 12JUL'12 ISSUED WITH REPORT JBC GM KJB

DATE DESCRIPTION PREP'D CHK'D APP'DREV

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGNSTEREOGRAPHIC PLOT OF DH94-310

APPENDIX B1.4

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

REV0

P/A NO. VA101-325/8

REF. NO.7

Oriented Core DataSet # - Dip / Dip DirectionC1 - 26 / 199C2 - 72 / 232C3 - 30 / 272C4 - 45 / 315C5 - 68 / 086C6 - 55 / 112

B1-4 of 15

Page 80: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

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 B1.5 - DH10-18 Print 04/10/2012 9:43 AM

0 12JUL'12 ISSUED WITH REPORT JBC GM KJB

DATE DESCRIPTION PREP'D CHK'D APP'DREV

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGNSTEREOGRAPHIC PLOT OF DH10-18

APPENDIX B1.5

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

REV0

P/A NO. VA101-325/8

REF. NO.7

Oriented Core DataSet # - Dip / Dip DirectionC1 - 68 / 251C2 - 66 / 045C3 - 78 / 001C4 - 55 / 208C5 - 41 / 272

B1-5 of 15

Page 81: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

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 B1.6 - DH10-19B Print 04/10/2012 9:43 AM

0 12JUL'12 ISSUED WITH REPORT JBC GM KJB

DATE DESCRIPTION PREP'D CHK'D APP'DREV

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGNSTEREOGRAPHIC PLOT OF DH10-19B

APPENDIX B1.6

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

REV0

P/A NO. VA101-325/8

REF. NO.7

Oriented Core DataSet # - Dip / Dip DirectionC1 - 14 / 228C2 - 71 / 089

B1-6 of 15

Page 82: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

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 B1.7 - DH10-20 Print 04/10/2012 9:43 AM

0 12JUL'12 ISSUED WITH REPORT JBC GM KJB

DATE DESCRIPTION PREP'D CHK'D APP'DREV

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGNSTEREOGRAPHIC PLOT OF DH10-20

APPENDIX B1.7

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

REV0

P/A NO. VA101-325/8

REF. NO.7

Oriented Core DataSet # - Dip / Dip DirectionC1 - 49 / 186C2 - 41 / 250C3 - 67 / 104

B1-7 of 15

Page 83: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

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 B1.8 - DH11-35 Print 04/10/2012 9:43 AM

0 12JUL'12 ISSUED WITH REPORT JBC GM KJB

DATE DESCRIPTION PREP'D CHK'D APP'DREV

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGNSTEREOGRAPHIC PLOT OF DH11-35

APPENDIX B1.8

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

REV0

P/A NO. VA101-325/8

REF. NO.7

Oriented Core DataSet # - Dip / Dip DirectionC1 - 87 / 043C2 - 34 / 309C3 - 14 /179

B1-8 of 15

Page 84: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

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 B1.9 - DH11-35 Print 04/10/2012 9:43 AM

0 12JUL'12 ISSUED WITH REPORT JBC GM KJB

DATE DESCRIPTION PREP'D CHK'D APP'DREV

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGNSTEREOGRAPHIC PLOT OF DH11-35

APPENDIX B1.9

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

REV0

P/A NO. VA101-325/8

REF. NO.7

Acoustic Televiewer DataSet # - Dip / Dip DirectionA1 - 85 / 232A2 - 64 / 341A3 - 32 / 299

B1-9 of 15

Page 85: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

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 B1.10 - DH11-36 Print 04/10/2012 9:43 AM

0 12JUL'12 ISSUED WITH REPORT JBC GM KJB

DATE DESCRIPTION PREP'D CHK'D APP'DREV

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGNSTEREOGRAPHIC PLOT OF DH11-36

APPENDIX B1.10

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

REV0

P/A NO. VA101-325/8

REF. NO.7

Oriented Core DataSet # - Dip / Dip DirectionC1 - 90 / 195C2 - 09 / 076C3 - 68 / 261C4 - 57 / 008

B1-10 of 15

Page 86: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

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 B1.11 - DH11-36 Print 04/10/2012 9:43 AM

0 12JUL'12 ISSUED WITH REPORT JBC GM KJB

DATE DESCRIPTION PREP'D CHK'D APP'DREV

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGNSTEREOGRAPHIC PLOT OF DH11-36

APPENDIX B1.11

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

REV0

P/A NO. VA101-325/8

REF. NO.7

Acoustic Televiewer DataSet # - Dip / Dip DirectionA1 - 58 / 003A2 - 69 / 251

B1-11 of 15

Page 87: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

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 B1.12 - DH11-37 Print 04/10/2012 9:43 AM

0 12JUL'12 ISSUED WITH REPORT JBC GM KJB

DATE DESCRIPTION PREP'D CHK'D APP'DREV

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGNSTEREOGRAPHIC PLOT OF DH11-37

APPENDIX B1.12

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

REV0

P/A NO. VA101-325/8

REF. NO.7

Oriented Core DataSet # - Dip / Dip DirectionC1 - 12 / 081C2 - 59 / 057

B1-12 of 15

Page 88: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

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 B1.13 - DH11-38 Print 04/10/2012 9:43 AM

0 12JUL'12 ISSUED WITH REPORT JBC GM KJB

DATE DESCRIPTION PREP'D CHK'D APP'DREV

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGNSTEREOGRAPHIC PLOT OF DH11-38

APPENDIX B1.13

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

REV0

P/A NO. VA101-325/8

REF. NO.7

Oriented Core DataSet # - Dip / Dip DirectionC1 - 77 / 250C2 - 38 / 200C3 - 26 / 100C4 - 74 / 116C5 - 65 / 279

B1-13 of 15

Page 89: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

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 B1.14 - DH11-39 Print 04/10/2012 9:43 AM

0 12JUL'12 ISSUED WITH REPORT JBC GM KJB

DATE DESCRIPTION PREP'D CHK'D APP'DREV

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGNSTEREOGRAPHIC PLOT OF DH11-39

APPENDIX B1.14

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

REV0

P/A NO. VA101-325/8

REF. NO.7

Oriented Core DataSet # - Dip / Dip DirectionC1 - 79 / 250C2 - 38 / 201C3 - 27 / 101C4 - 73 / 115C5 - 65 / 279

B1-14 of 15

Page 90: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

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 B1.15 - CAS-051 Print 04/10/2012 9:43 AM

0 12JUL'12 ISSUED WITH REPORT JBC GM KJB

DATE DESCRIPTION PREP'D CHK'D APP'DREV

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGNSTEREOGRAPHIC PLOT OF CAS-051

APPENDIX B1.15

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

REV0

P/A NO. VA101-325/8

REF. NO.7

Acoustic Televiewer DataSet # - Dip / Dip DirectionA1 - 59 / 103A2 - 76 / 204A3 - 61 / 141

B1-15 of 15

Page 91: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN VA 101-325/8-7 Rev 0October 12, 2012

APPENDIX B2

KINEMATIC STABILITY ANALYSES DETAILED RESULTS

(Pages B2-1 to B2-11)

Page 92: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

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

NOTES:1. ACOUSTIC TELEVIEWER DATA NOT COLLECTED IN THE M-NORTH SECTOR.2. ORIENTED CORE DATA COLLECTED BY KNIGHT PIESOLD LTD. DURING THE 1994 AND 2011 GEOTECHNICAL SITE INVESTIGATIONS.

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGNKINEMATIC ANALYSIS RESULTSM-NORTH SECTOR - 135°, 170°

APPENDIX B2.1

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

REV0

P/A NO. VA101-325/8

REF. NO.7

0 25APR'12 ISSUED WITH REPORT NS GM KJBDATE DESCRIPTION PREP'D CHK'D APP'DREV

Oriented Core Data135° Wall OrientationSet # - Dip / Dip DirectionC1 - 45 / 189C2 - 68 / 100C3 - 43 / 143C4 - 27 / 284

FAILURE MODESPlanar_________C3

Wedge_________

Toppling________

Oriented Core Data170° Wall OrientationSet # - Dip / Dip DirectionC1 - 45 / 189C2 - 68 / 100C3 - 43 / 143C4 - 27 / 284

FAILURE MODESPlanar_________

Wedge_________C1/C2, C1/C3, C2/C3

Toppling________

B2-1 of 11

Page 93: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

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

NOTES:1. ACOUSTIC TELEVIEWER DATA NOT COLLECTED IN THE M-NORTHEAST SECTOR.2. ORIENTED CORE DATA COLLECTED BY KNIGHT PIESOLD LTD. DURING THE 1994 GEOTECHNICAL SITE INVESTIGATION.

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGNKINEMATIC ANALYSIS RESULTS

M-NORTHEAST SECTOR - 195°, 220°, 240°, 270°

APPENDIX B2.2

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

REV0

P/A NO. VA101-325/8

REF. NO.7

0 25APR'12 ISSUED WITH REPORT NS GM KJBDATE DESCRIPTION PREP'D CHK'D APP'DREV

Oriented Core Data195° Wall OrientationSet # - Dip / Dip DirectionC1 - 47 / 098C2 - 68 / 136C3 - 84 / 177C4 - 68 / 271

FAILURE MODESPlanar_________

Wedge_________C2/C4

Toppling________

Oriented Core Data220° Wall OrientationSet # - Dip / Dip DirectionC1 - 47 / 098C2 - 68 / 136C3 - 84 / 177C4 - 68 / 271

FAILURE MODESPlanar_________

Wedge_________C2/C4

Toppling________

Oriented Core Data240° Wall OrientationSet # - Dip / Dip DirectionC1 - 47 / 098C2 - 68 / 136C3 - 84 / 177C4 - 68 / 271

FAILURE MODESPlanar_________

Wedge_________

Toppling________

Oriented Core Data270° Wall OrientationSet # - Dip / Dip DirectionC1 - 47 / 098C2 - 68 / 136C3 - 84 / 177C4 - 68 / 271

FAILURE MODESPlanar_________

Wedge_________

Toppling________

B2-2 of 11

Page 94: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

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

NOTES:1. ACOUSTIC TELEVIEWER DATA NOT COLLECTED IN THE M-SOUTH SECTOR.2. ORIENTED CORE DATA COLLECTED BY KNIGHT PIESOLD LTD. DURING THE 1994, 2010 AND 2011 GEOTECHNICAL SITE INVESTIGATIONS.

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGNKINEMATIC ANALYSIS RESULTS

M-SOUTH SECTOR - 325°, 355°

APPENDIX B2.3

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

REV0

P/A NO. VA101-325/8

REF. NO.7

0 25APR'12 ISSUED WITH REPORT NS GM KJBDATE DESCRIPTION PREP'D CHK'D APP'DREV

Oriented Core Data325° Wall OrientationSet # - Dip / Dip DirectionC1 - 37 / 317C2 - 66 / 066C3 - 73 / 272

FAILURE MODESPlanar_________C1

Wedge_________

Toppling________

Oriented Core Data355° Wall OrientationSet # - Dip / Dip DirectionC1 - 37 / 317C2 - 66 / 066C3 - 73 / 272

FAILURE MODESPlanar_________

Wedge_________C1/C2, C1/C3, C2/C3

Toppling________

B2-3 of 11

Page 95: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

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

NOTES:1. ACOUSTIC TELEVIEWER DATA NOT COLLECTED IN THE CENTRAL SECTOR.2. ORIENTED CORE DATA COLLECTED BY KNIGHT PIESOLD LTD. DURING THE 1994 GEOTECHNICAL SITE INVESTIGATION.

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGNKINEMATIC ANALYSIS RESULTS

CENTRAL SECTOR - 030°, 100°, 180°

APPENDIX B2.4

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

REV0

P/A NO. VA101-325/8

REF. NO.7

0 25APR'12 ISSUED WITH REPORT NS GM KJBDATE DESCRIPTION PREP'D CHK'D APP'DREV

Oriented Core Data030° Wall OrientationSet # - Dip / Dip DirectionC1 - 26 / 207C2 - 29 / 278C3 - 67 / 092C4 - 41 / 147C5 - 72 / 232

FAILURE MODESPlanar_________

Wedge_________

Toppling________

Oriented Core Data100° Wall OrientationSet # - Dip / Dip DirectionC1 - 26 / 207C2 - 29 / 278C3 - 67 / 092C4 - 41 / 147C5 - 72 / 232

FAILURE MODESPlanar_________

Wedge_________

Toppling________

Oriented Core Data180° Wall OrientationSet # - Dip / Dip DirectionC1 - 26 / 207C2 - 29 / 278C3 - 67 / 092C4 - 41 / 147C5 - 72 / 232

FAILURE MODESPlanar_________

Wedge_________C3/C4, C3/C5, C4/C5

Toppling________

B2-4 of 11

Page 96: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

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

NOTES:1. ACOUSTIC TELEVIEWER DATA NOT COLLECTED IN THE W-NORTH SECTOR.2. ORIENTED CORE DATA COLLECTED BY KNIGHT PIESOLD LTD. DURING THE 2010 GEOTECHNICAL SITE INVESTIGATION.

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGNKINEMATIC ANALYSIS RESULTS

W-NORTH SECTOR - 180°, 215°, 240°

APPENDIX B2.5

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

REV0

P/A NO. VA101-325/8

REF. NO.7

0 25APR'12 ISSUED WITH REPORT NS GM KJBDATE DESCRIPTION PREP'D CHK'D APP'DREV

Oriented Core Data180° Wall OrientationSet # - Dip / Dip DirectionC1 - 49 / 186C2 - 41 / 250C3 - 67 / 104

FAILURE MODESPlanar_________

Wedge_________

Toppling________

Oriented Core Data215° Wall OrientationSet # - Dip / Dip DirectionC1 - 49 / 186C2 - 41 / 250C3 - 67 / 104

FAILURE MODESPlanar_________C2

Wedge_________C1/C2

Toppling________

Oriented Core Data240° Wall OrientationSet # - Dip / Dip DirectionC1 - 49 / 186C2 - 41 / 250C3 - 67 / 104

FAILURE MODESPlanar_________C2

Wedge_________C1/C2

Toppling________

B2-5 of 11

Page 97: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

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

NOTES:1. ACOUSTIC TELEVIEWER DATA COLLECTED BY COLOG DURING THE 2008 AND 2011 GEOTECHNICAL SITE INVESTIGATIONS.2. ORIENTED CORE DATA COLLECTED BY KNIGHT PIESOLD LTD. DURING THE 2010 AND 2011 GEOTECHNICAL SITE INVESTIGATIONS.

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGNKINEMATIC ANALYSIS RESULTSW-SOUTH SECTOR - 000° , 040°

APPENDIX B2.6

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

REV0

P/A NO. VA101-325/8

REF. NO.7

0 25APR'12 ISSUED WITH REPORT NS GM KJB

DATE DESCRIPTION PREP'D CHK'D APP'DREV

Oriented Core Data040° Wall OrientationSet # - Dip / Dip DirectionC1 - 00 / 267C2 - 89 / 045C3 - 79 / 063

FAILURE MODESPlanar_________

Wedge_________

Toppling________C2

Oriented Core Data000° Wall OrientationSet # - Dip / Dip DirectionC1 - 00 / 267C2 - 89 / 045C3 - 79 / 063

FAILURE MODESPlanar_________

Wedge_________

Toppling________

AcousticTeleviewer Data000° Wall OrientationSet # - Dip / Dip DirectionA1 - 58 / 003A2 - 69 / 251

FAILURE MODESPlanar_________

Wedge_________

Toppling________

Acoustic Televiewer Data040° Wall OrientationSet # - Dip / Dip DirectionA1 - 58 / 003A2 - 69 / 251

FAILURE MODESPlanar_________

Wedge_________

Toppling________

Oriented Core Data040° Wall OrientationSet # - Dip / Dip DirectionC1 - 00 / 267C2 - 89 / 045C3 - 79 / 063

FAILURE MODESPlanar_________

Wedge_________

Toppling________C2

Oriented Core Data000° Wall OrientationSet # - Dip / Dip DirectionC1 - 00 / 267C2 - 89 / 045C3 - 79 / 063

FAILURE MODESPlanar_________

Wedge_________

Toppling________

AcousticTeleviewer Data000° Wall OrientationSet # - Dip / Dip DirectionA1 - 58 / 003A2 - 69 / 251

FAILURE MODESPlanar_________

Wedge_________

Toppling________

Acoustic Televiewer Data040° Wall OrientationSet # - Dip / Dip DirectionA1 - 58 / 003A2 - 69 / 251

FAILURE MODESPlanar_________

Wedge_________

Toppling________

B2-6 of 11

Page 98: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

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

NOTES:1. ORIENTED CORE DATA COLLECTED BY KNIGHT PIESOLD LTD. DURING THE 2011 GEOTECHNICAL SITE INVESTIGATION.2. ACOUSTIC TELEVIEWER DATA COLLECTED BY COLOG DURING THE 2008 AND 2011 GEOTECHNICAL SITE INVESTIGATIONS.

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGNKINEMATIC ANALYSIS RESULTS

W-SOUTHWEST SECTOR - 010°, 090°

APPENDIX B2.7

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

REV0

P/A NO. VA101-325/8

REF. NO.7

0 25APR'12 ISSUED WITH REPORT NS GM KJBDATE DESCRIPTION PREP'D CHK'D APP'DREV

Oriented Core Data010° Wall OrientationSet # - Dip / Dip DirectionC1 - 87 / 043C2 - 34 / 309C3 - 14 / 179

FAILURE MODESPlanar_________

Wedge_________

Toppling________

Oriented Core Data090° Wall OrientationSet # - Dip / Dip DirectionC1 - 87 / 043C2 - 34 / 309C3 - 14 / 179

FAILURE MODESPlanar_________

Wedge_________

Toppling________

Acoustic Televiewer Data010° Wall OrientationSet # - Dip / Dip DirectionA1 - 85 / 232A2 - 64 / 341A3 - 32 / 299

FAILURE MODESPlanar_________

Wedge_________

Toppling________

Acoustic Televiewer Data090° Wall OrientationSet # - Dip / Dip DirectionA1 - 85 / 232A2 - 64 / 341A3 - 32 / 299

FAILURE MODESPlanar_________

Wedge_________

Toppling________

B2-7 of 11

Page 99: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

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

NOTES:1. ACOUSTIC TELEVIEWER DATA COLLECTED BY COLOG DURING THE 2008 AND 2011 GEOTECHNICAL SITE INVESTIGATIONS.

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGNKINEMATIC ANALYSIS RESULTS

W-WEST SECTOR - 090°, 135°

APPENDIX B2.8

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

REV0

P/A NO. VA101-325/8

REF. NO.7

0 25APR12 ISSUED WITH REPORT NS GM KJB

DATE DESCRIPTION PREP'D CHK'D APP'DREV

Acoustic Televiewer Data135° Wall OrientationSet # - Dip / Dip DirectionA1 - 59 / 103A2 - 76 / 204A3 - 61 / 141

FAILURE MODESPlanar_________

Wedge_________A1/A3

Toppling________

AcousticTeleviewer Data090° Wall OrientationSet # - Dip / Dip DirectionA1 - 59 / 103A2 - 76 / 204A3 - 61 / 141

FAILURE MODESPlanar_________

Wedge_________

Toppling________

B2-8 of 11

Page 100: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

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

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

CU

MU

LA

TIV

E P

ER

CE

NT

FA

ILU

RE

(F

S <

1.0

)

BENCH FACE ANGLE (°)

Slope Dip Direction 135°

Slope Dip Direction 170°

NOTES:1. SWEGE 5.0 SOFTWARE USED FOR ANALYSES.2. JOINT COHESION OF 50 kPa ASSUMED.3. DRILLHOLE DATA SORTED BY DISCONTINUITY SET.

0 12JUN'12 ISSUED WITH REPORT GM DAY KJB

DATE DESCRIPTION PREP'D CHK'D APP'DREV

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGNBENCH FACE ANGLE ANALYSIS -

M-NORTH SECTOR

APPENDIX B2.9

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

REV0

P/A NO. VA101-325/8

REF. NO.7

B2-9 of 11

Page 101: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

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 B2.10 M-N

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

CU

MU

LA

TIV

E P

ER

CE

NT

FA

ILU

RE

(F

S <

1.0

)

BENCH FACE ANGLE (°)

Slope Dip Direction 195°

Slope Dip Direction 220°

Slope Dip Direction 240°

Slope Dip Direction 270°

NOTES:1. SWEGE 5.0 SOFTWARE USED FOR ANALYSES.2. JOINT COHESION OF 50 kPa ASSUMED.3. DRILLHOLE DATA SORTED BY JOINT SET COMPRISED OF DATA FROM ALL HOLES IN SECTOR.

0 12JUN'12 ISSUED WITH REPORT GM DAY KJB

DATE DESCRIPTION PREP'D CHK'D APP'DREV

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGNBENCH FACE ANGLE ANALYSIS

M-NORTHEAST SECTOR

APPENDIX B2.10

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

REV0

P/A NO. VA101-325/8

REF. NO.7

B2-10 of 11

Page 102: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

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 B2.11 W-N

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

CU

MU

LA

TIV

E P

ER

CE

NT

FA

ILU

RE

(F

S <

1.0

)

BENCH FACE ANGLE (°)

Slope Dip Direction 180°

Slope Dip Direction 215°

Slope Dip Direction 240°

NOTES:1. SWEGE 5.0 SOFTWARE USED FOR ANALYSES.2. JOINT COHESION OF 50 kPa ASSUMED.3. DRILLHOLE DATA SORTED BY DISCONTINUITY SET.

0 12JUN'12 ISSUED WITH REPORT GM DAY KJB

DATE DESCRIPTION PREP'D CHK'D APP'DREV

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGNBENCH FACE ANGLE ANALYSIS

W-NORTH SECTOR

APPENDIX B2.11

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

REV0

P/A NO. VA101-325/8

REF. NO.7

B2-11 of 11

Page 103: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN VA 101-325/8-7 Rev 0October 12, 2012

APPENDIX C

LIMIT EQUILIBRIUM STABILITY ANALYSES

Appendix C1 Summary of Inter-ramp Stability Analysis Appendix C2 Sensitivity Analysis and Limit Equilibrium Analysis

Page 104: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN VA 101-325/8-7 Rev 0October 12, 2012

APPENDIX C1

SUMMARY OF INTER-RAMP STABILITY ANALYSIS

(Pages C1-1 to C1-2)

Page 105: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

(degrees) (m) (m from pit wall)0 1.530 2.60 1.330 2.30 1.230 1.80 1.030 1.60 1.430 2.40 1.230 2.10 1.130 1.60 1.030 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:

3. BOLD FONT INDICATES BASE CASE ANALYSIS SCENARIO.

APPENDIX C1.1

Factor of Safety

Groundwater

Depressurization (2)

DRB

PMS

SUMMARY OF INTER-RAMP STABILITY ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR FRESH BEDROCKOPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECTCASINO MINING CORPORATION

Print Oct/04/12 10:01:33

Slope HeightBlast Disturbance

45

100

200

0.85

2. GROUNDWATER DEPRESSURIZATION SET TO SIMULATE INSTALLATION OF HORIZONTAL DRAINS IN PIT WALL

Inter-Ramp Slope Angle

100

200

45

0.85

1

0.85

1

Geotechnical Unit (1)

1. DRB = DAWSON RANGE BATHOLITH, PMS = PROSPECTOR MOUNTAIN SUITE

1

0.85

1

0 29MAY'12 JAG GMISSUED WITH REPORT VA101-325/8-7 KJB

DATE DESCRIPTION PREP'D CHK'D APP'DREV

C1-1 of 2

Page 106: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

(degrees) (m) (m from pit wall)0 0.630 1.60 0.530 1.30 0.630 1.10 0.530 0.90 0.730 1.60 0.630 1.30 0.630 1.10 0.530 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 WALL3. BOLD FONT INDICATES BASE CASE ANALYSIS SCENARIO.

APPENDIX C1.2

SUMMARY OF INTER-RAMP STABILITY ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR WEATHERED BEDROCK

Print Oct/04/12 10:01:33

2000.85

1

DRB 45

1000.85

1

200

PMS 45

1000.85

1. DRB = DAWSON RANGE BATHOLITH, PMS = PROSPECTOR MOUNTAIN SUITE

CASINO MINING CORPORATIONCASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN

0.85

1

Factor of SafetyGeotechnical Unit

(1)

Inter-Ramp Slope Angle

Slope HeightBlast Disturbance

Groundwater

Depressurization (2)

1

0 29MAY'12 JAG GMISSUED WITH REPORT VA101-325/8-7 KJB

DATE DESCRIPTION PREP'D CHK'D APP'DREV

C1-2 of 2

Page 107: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN VA 101-325/8-7 Rev 0October 12, 2012

APPENDIX C2

SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS AND LIMIT EQUILIBRIUM ANALYSIS

(Pages C2-1 to C2-10)

Page 108: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

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 C2.1Print 04/10/2012 10:24 AM

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

Fac

tor

of

Saf

ety

Friction Angle (°)

34° (1.5H:1V) Slope

27° (2H:1V) Slope

22° (2.5H:1V) Slope

18° (3H:1V) Slope

NOTES:1. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS OF FRICTION ANGLE CONDUCTED BETWEEN 25° AND 35°.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.

0 25JUL'12 ISSUED WITH REPORT GM DAY KJB

DATE DESCRIPTION PREP'D CHK'D APP'DREV

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGNSENSITIVITY ANALYSIS OF OVERBURDEN

PARTIALLY SATURATED SLOPE

APPENDIX C2.1

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

REV0

P/A NO. VA101-325/8

REF. NO.7

Target FOS 

C2-1 of 10

Page 109: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

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 C2.2Print 04/10/2012 10:24 AM

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

Fac

tor

of

Saf

ety

Friction Angle (°)

34° (1.5H:1V) Slope

27° (2H:1V) Slope

22° (2.5H:1V) Slope

18° (3H:1V) Slope

NOTES:1. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS OF FRICTION ANGLE CONDUCTED BETWEEN 25° AND 35°.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.

0 25JUL'12 ISSUED WITH REPORT GM DAY KJB

DATE DESCRIPTION PREP'D CHK'D APP'DREV

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGNSENSITIVITY ANALYSIS OF OVERBURDEN

FULLY DRAINED SLOPE

APPENDIX C2.2

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

REV0

P/A NO. VA101-325/8

REF. NO.7

Target FOS 

C2-2 of 10

Page 110: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

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

NOTES:1. SLOPE ANGLE OF 45 USED FOR ALL MODELS SHOWN.2. PMS = PROSPECTOR MOUNTAIN SUITE3. GROUNDWATER DEPRESSURIZATION SET TO SIMULATE INSTALLATION OF HORIZONTAL DRAINS IN PIT WALL.

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGNLIMIT EQUILIBRIUM ANALYSIS

INTER-RAMP SLOPE ANALYSIS-PMS

APPENDIX C2.3

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

REV0

P/A NO. VA101-325/8

REF. NO.7

0 18MAY'12 ISSUED WITH REPORT JAG GM KJB

DATE DESCRIPTION PREP'D CHK'D APP'DREV

Fully Saturated Slope Fully Saturated Slope

30 m Depressurization 30 m Depressurization

100 m Slope Height 200 m Slope Height 100 m Slope Height 200 m Slope Height

Fully Saturated Slope Fully Saturated Slope

30 m Depressurization 30 m Depressurization

Intact PMS(2) with Disturbance = 0.85

Intact PMS(2) with Disturbance = 1

C2-3 of 10

Page 111: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

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 C2.4 Print 04/10/2012 10:24 AM

NOTES:1. SLOPE ANGLE OF 45 USED FOR ALL MODELS SHOWN.2. PMS = PROSPECTOR MOUNTAIN SUITE3. GROUNDWATER DEPRESSURIZATION SET TO SIMULATE INSTALLATION OF HORIZONTAL DRAINS IN PIT WALL.

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGNLIMIT EQUILIBRIUM ANALYSIS

INTER-RAMP SLOPE STABILITY - PMS WEATHERED

APPENDIX C2.4

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

REV0

P/A NO. VA101-325/8

REF. NO.7

0 18MAY'12 ISSUED WITH REPORT JAG GM KJB

DATE DESCRIPTION PREP'D CHK'D APP'DREV

Fully Saturated Slope Fully Saturated Slope

30 m Depressurization 30 m Depressurization

100 m Slope Height 200 m Slope Height 100 m Slope Height 200 m Slope Height

Fully Saturated Slope Fully Saturated Slope

30 m Depressurization 30 m Depressurization

Weathered PMS(2) with Disturbance = 0.85

Weathered PMS(2) with Disturbance = 1

C2-4 of 10

Page 112: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

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 C2.5 Print 04/10/2012 10:24 AM

NOTES:1. SLOPE ANGLE OF 45 USED FOR ALL MODELS SHOWN.2. DRB = DAWSON RANGE BATHOLITH3. GROUNDWATER DEPRESSURIZATION SET TO SIMULATE INSTALLATION OF HORIZONTAL DRAINS IN PIT WALL

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGNLIMIT EQUILIBRIUM ANALYSIS

INTER-RAMP SLOPE STABILITY - DRB

APPENDIX C2.5

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

REV0

P/A NO. VA101-325/8

REF. NO.7

0 18MAY'12 ISSUED WITH REPORT JAG GM KJB

DATE DESCRIPTION PREP'D CHK'D APP'DREV

100 m Slope Height 200 m Slope Height

Fully Saturated Slope Fully Saturated Slope

30 m Depressurization 30 m Depressurization

100 m Slope Height 200 m Slope Height

Intact DRB(2) with Disturbance = 0.85

Intact DRB(2) with Disturbance = 1

Fully Saturated Slope Fully Saturated Slope

30 m Depressurization 30 m Depressurization

C2-5 of 10

Page 113: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

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 C2.6 Print 04/10/2012 10:24 AM

NOTES:1. SLOPE ANGLE OF 45 USED FOR ALL MODELS SHOWN.2. DRB = DAWSON RANGE BATHOLITH3. GROUNDWATER DEPRESSURIZATION SET TO SIMULATE INSTALLATION OF HORIZONTAL DRAINS IN PIT WALL

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGNLIMIT EQUILIBRIUM ANALYSIS

INTER-RAMP SLOPE STABILITY - DRB WEATHERED

APPENDIX C2.6

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

REV0

P/A NO. VA101-325/8

REF. NO.7

0 18MAY'12 ISSUED WITH REPORT JAG GM KJB

DATE DESCRIPTION PREP'D CHK'D APP'DREV

100 m Slope Height 200 m Slope Height

Fully Saturated Slope Fully Saturated Slope

30 m Depressurization 30 m Depressurization

100 m Slope Height 200 m Slope Height

Fully Saturated Slope Fully Saturated Slope

30 m Depressurization 30 m Depressurization

Weathered DRB(2) with Disturbance = 0.85

Weathered DRB(2) with Disturbance = 1

C2-6 of 10

Page 114: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

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 C2.7 Print 04/10/2012 10:24 AM

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGNLIMIT EQUILIBRIUM ANALYSIS

M-NORTH WALL

APPENDIX C2.7

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

REV0

P/A NO. VA101-325/8

REF. NO.7

0 18MAY'12 ISSUED WITH REPORT JAG GM KJB

DATE DESCRIPTION PREP'D CHK'D APP'DREV

M-North: 40° Overall Slope

Fully Saturated Slope 30 m Horizontal DepressurizationAssumed Drainage of Weathered Rock

NOTES:1. SLIP SURFACES SHOWN FOR STATIC CONDITIONS.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 LUGEON PACKER TESTS FOR DH11-39.5. GROUNDWATER DEPRESSURIZATION SET TO SIMULATE INSTALLATION OF HORIZONTAL DRAINS IN PIT WALL.

Intact DRB(2)

Intact DRB(2) with Disturbance

Weathered DRB(2)

Weathered DRB(2) with Disturbance

M-North: 40° Overall Slope

Fully Saturated Slope 30 m Horizontal DepressurizationAssumed Drainage of Weathered Rock

C2-7 of 10

Page 115: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

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 C2.8 Print 04/10/2012 10:24 AM

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGNLIMIT EQUILIBRIUM ANALYSIS

M-NORTHEAST WALL

APPENDIX C2.8

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

REV0

P/A NO. VA101-325/8

REF. NO.7

0 18MAY'12 ISSUED WITH REPORT JAG GM KJB

DATE DESCRIPTION PREP'D CHK'D APP'DREV

M-Northeast: 40° Overall Slope

Fully Saturated Slope 30 m Horizontal DepressurizationAssumed Drainage of Weathered Rock

NOTES:1. SLIP SURFACES SHOWN FOR STATIC CONDITIONS.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 LUGEON PACKER TESTS FOR DH11-38.5. GROUNDWATER DEPRESSURIZATION SET TO SIMULATE INSTALLATION OF HORIZONTAL DRAINS IN PIT WALL.

Intact DRB(2)

Intact DRB(2) with Disturbance

Weathered DRB(2)

Weathered DRB(2) with Disturbance

C2-8 of 10

Page 116: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

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 C2.9 Print 04/10/2012 10:24 AM

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGNLIMIT EQUILIBRIUM ANALYSIS

M-SOUTH WALL

APPENDIX C2.9

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

REV0

P/A NO. VA101-325/8

REF. NO.7

0 18MAY'12 ISSUED WITH REPORT JAG GM KJB

DATE DESCRIPTION PREP'D CHK'D APP'DREV

M-South: 40° Overall Slope

Fully Saturated Slope 30 m Horizontal DepressurizationAssumed Drainage of Weathered Rock

NOTES:1. SLIP SURFACES SHOWN FOR STATIC CONDITIONS.2. DISTURBANCE FACTORS OF D = 1 USED FOR ALL MODELS SHOWN.3.DRB = DAWSON RANGE BATHOLITH.4.PMS = PROSPECTOR MOUNTAIN SUITE.5. ESTIMATED DRAWDOWN BASED ON MEASURED GROUNDWATER LEVELS DURING LUGEON PACKER TESTS FOR DH11-37.6. GROUNDWATER DEPRESSURIZATION SET TO SIMULATE INSTALLATION OF HORIZONTAL DRAINS IN PIT WALL.

Intact DRB(2)

Intact DRB(2) with Disturbance

Intact PMS(2)

Intact PMS(2) with Disturbance

Weathered DRB(2)

Weathered DRB(2) with Disturbance

C2-9 of 10

Page 117: A.04I Open Pit Geotechnical Design

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 C2.10 Print 04/10/2012 10:24 AM

OPEN PIT GEOTECHNICAL DESIGNLIMIT EQUILIBRIUM ANALYSIS

W-SOUTHWEST WALL

APPENDIX C2.10

CASINO MINING CORPORATION

CASINO COPPER-GOLD PROJECT

REV0

P/A NO. VA101-325/8

REF. NO.7

0 18JUL'12 ISSUED WITH REPORT GM GM KJB

DATE DESCRIPTION PREP'D CHK'D APP'DREV

W-Southwest: 40° Overall Slope

Fully Saturated Slope 30 m Horizontal DepressurizationAssumed Drainage of Weathered Rock

NOTES:1. SLIP SURFACES SHOWN FOR STATIC CONDITIONS.2. DISTURBANCE FACTORS OF D = 1 USED FOR ALL MODELS SHOWN.3.PMS = PROSPECTOR MOUNTAIN SUITE.4. ESTIMATED DRAWDOWN BASED ON MEASURED GROUNDWATER LEVELS DURING LUGEON PACKER TESTS FOR DH11-35.5. GROUNDWATER DEPRESSURIZATION SET TO SIMULATE INSTALLATION OF HORIZONTAL DRAINS IN PIT WALL.

Intact PMS(2)

Intact PMS(2) with Disturbance

Weathered PMS(2)

Weathered PMS(2) with Disturbance

C2-10 of 10