For the month of: July 2014
|
Commission File Number: 001-35393
|
Exhibit
Number
|
Description of Exhibit
|
Date: July 10, 2014
|
PRETIUM RESOURCES INC.
|
|||
By:
|
/s/ Joseph J. Ovsenek
|
|||
Name:
|
Joseph J. Ovsenek
|
|||
Title:
|
Executive Vice-President, Chief Development Officer
|
Report to:
|
||
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
||
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
||
Document No. 1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
||
|
||
Report to:
|
||
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
||
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update
on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
||
Effective Date: June 19, 2014
|
||
Prepared by
|
David Ireland, C.Eng., P.Eng.
|
|
Lynn Olssen, MAusIMM (CP)
|
||
John Huang, Ph.D., P.Eng.
|
||
Pierre Pelletier, P.Eng.
|
||
Hamish Weatherly, M.Sc., P.Geo.
|
||
Harvey Wayne Stoyko, P.Eng.
|
||
Sabry Abdel Hafez, Ph.D., P.Eng.
|
||
Colm Keogh, P.Eng.
|
||
Catherine Schmid, M.Sc., P.Eng.
|
||
Brent McAfee, P.Eng.
|
||
Michael Chin, P.Eng.
|
||
Brian Gould, P.Eng.
|
||
Michael Wise, P.Eng.
|
||
Paul Greisman, Ph.D., P.Eng.
|
||
Wayne E. Scott, P.Eng.
|
||
Ali Farah, P.Eng.
|
||
George Zazzi, P.Eng.
|
||
Trevor Crozier, M.Eng., P.Eng.
|
||
Sharon Blackmore, M.Sc., P.Geo.
|
||
DI/jc
|
||
Suite 800, 555 West Hastings Street, Vancouver, British Columbia, V6B 4N6
Phone: 604.408.3788 Fax: 604.408.3722
|
1.0
|
Summary
|
1-1
|
||
1.1
|
Introduction
|
1-1
|
||
1.2
|
Property Description and Location
|
1-2
|
||
1.3
|
Geology and Mineralization
|
1-2
|
||
1.4
|
Mineral Resource Estimates
|
1-3
|
||
1.4.1
|
Drilling, Sampling, Assaying and Data Verification
|
1-3
|
||
1.4.2
|
Bulk Sample Test Work
|
1-5
|
||
1.4.3
|
Mineral Resource Estimation
|
1-6
|
||
1.5
|
Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing
|
1-9
|
||
1.5.1
|
Metallurgical Testing
|
1-9
|
||
1.5.2
|
Mineral Processing
|
1-10
|
||
1.6
|
Mineral Reserve Estimates
|
1-13
|
||
1.7
|
Mining Methods
|
1-13
|
||
1.8
|
Project Infrastructure
|
1-15
|
||
1.8.1
|
Avalanche Hazard Assessment
|
1-19
|
||
1.8.2
|
Transmission Line
|
1-19
|
||
1.8.3
|
Tailings Delivery System
|
1-19
|
||
1.9
|
Environmental
|
1-20
|
||
1.10
|
Capital Costs
|
1-20
|
||
1.11
|
Operating Costs
|
1-21
|
||
1.12
|
Economic Analysis
|
1-23
|
||
1.13
|
Project Execution Plan
|
1-23
|
||
1.14
|
Conclusions and Recommendations
|
1-24
|
||
2.0
|
Introduction
|
2-1
|
||
2.1
|
Qualified Persons
|
2-2
|
||
2.2
|
Information and Data Sources
|
2-4
|
||
3.0
|
Reliance on Other Experts
|
3-1
|
||
3.1
|
Introduction
|
3-1
|
||
3.1
|
Lynn Olssen, B.Sc., MAusIMM (CP)
|
3-1
|
||
3.2
|
Sabry Abdel Hafez, Ph.D., P.Eng.
|
3-1
|
||
4.0
|
Property Description and Location
|
4-1
|
||
4.1
|
Location
|
4-1
|
||
4.2
|
Tenure
|
4-2
|
||
4.3
|
Status of Mining Titles
|
4-3
|
||
4.4
|
Confirmation of Tenure
|
4-6
|
4.5
|
Royalties, Fees and Taxes
|
4-6
|
||
5.0
|
Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography
|
5-1
|
||
5.1
|
Climate And Physiography
|
5-1
|
||
|
5.1.1
|
Vegetation
|
5-1
|
|
5.2
|
Accessibility
|
5-1
|
||
5.3
|
Infrastructure
|
5-3
|
||
6.0
|
History
|
6-1
|
||
6.1
|
Early Exploration
|
6-1
|
||
6.2
|
Exploration by Silver Standard Resources Inc. (2001-2010)
|
6-2
|
||
6.3
|
Previous Feasibility Studies on the Property (1990)
|
6-4
|
||
6.4
|
Prior Mineral Production
|
6-4
|
||
6.5
|
Preliminary Economic Assessment (2010)
|
6-4
|
||
7.0
|
Geological Setting and Mineralization
|
7-1
|
||
7.1
|
Regional Geological Setting
|
7-1
|
||
7.2
|
Brucejack Property Geology
|
7-3
|
||
8.0
|
Deposit Types
|
8-1
|
||
9.0
|
Exploration
|
9-1
|
||
9.1
|
Bulk Sample
|
9-2
|
||
10.0
|
Drilling
|
10-1
|
||
11.0
|
Sample Preparation, Analyses, and Security
|
11-1
|
||
11.1
|
Sample Preparation and Analysis
|
11-1
|
||
11.2
|
Quality Assurance And Quality Control
|
11-2
|
||
11.3
|
Author’s Opinion on Date Sample Preparation, Security and Analytical Procedures
|
11-2
|
||
12.0
|
Data Verification
|
12-1
|
||
13.0
|
Mineral Processing and Metallurical Testing
|
13-1
|
||
13.1
|
Introduction
|
13-1
|
||
13.2
|
Historical Test Work
|
13-2
|
||
13.3
|
2009 to 2014 Test Work
|
13-3
|
||
13.3.1
|
Sample Description
|
13-4
|
||
13.3.2
|
2012 to 2014 Test Samples
|
13-4
|
||
13.3.3
|
2010 to 2011 Tests Samples
|
13-6
|
||
13.3.4
|
2009 to 2010 Test Samples
|
13-7
|
||
13.3.5
|
Sample Head Analyses
|
13-8
|
||
13.3.6
|
Ore Hardness Test Work
|
13-13
|
||
13.3.7
|
Sample Specific Gravity
|
13-15
|
||
13.3.8
|
Flotation Test Work
|
13-16
|
||
13.3.9
|
Locked Cycle Test (2012 and 2013)
|
13-52
|
13.3.10
|
Melting Test Work
|
13-55
|
||
13.3.11
|
Solids Liquid Separation Tests Work
|
13-55
|
||
13.4
|
Bulk Sample Processing
|
13-58
|
||
13.4.1
|
Sample Description and Head Assay Analysis
|
13-58
|
||
13.4.2
|
Process Description
|
13-59
|
||
13.4.3
|
Results and Discussion
|
13-61
|
||
13.5
|
Conclusions
|
13-64
|
||
13.5.1
|
Recommendations
|
13-64
|
||
13.6
|
Metallurgical Performance Projection
|
13-64
|
||
14.0
|
Mineral Resource Estimates
|
14-1
|
||
14.1
|
Input Data
|
14-1
|
||
14.2
|
Estimate Test Work in the Bulk Sample Area
|
14-2
|
||
14.3
|
Estimation
|
14-4
|
||
14.4
|
Model Validation
|
14-7
|
||
14.5
|
Classification
|
14-8
|
||
14.6
|
Resource Reporting
|
14-8
|
||
15.0
|
Mineral Reserve Estimates
|
15-1
|
||
15.1
|
General
|
15-1
|
||
15.2
|
Cut-off Grade
|
15-1
|
||
15.3
|
Net Smelter Return Model
|
15-2
|
||
15.4
|
Mining Shapes
|
15-6
|
||
15.5
|
Dilution and Recovery Estimates
|
15-6
|
||
15.6
|
Orebody Description
|
15-8
|
||
15.6.1
|
VOK Zone
|
15-8
|
||
15.6.2
|
West Zone
|
15-9
|
||
15.7
|
Mineral Reserves
|
15-10
|
||
16.0
|
Mining Methods
|
16-1
|
||
16.1
|
General
|
16-1
|
||
16.2
|
Mine Design
|
16-2
|
||
16.2.1
|
Access and Ramp Infrastructure
|
16-2
|
||
16.2.1
|
Level Development
|
16-4
|
||
16.2.2
|
Stope Design
|
16-8
|
||
16.3
|
Mining Method and Sequence
|
16-10
|
||
16.3.1
|
Block Definition
|
16-10
|
||
16.3.2
|
Stope Cycle
|
16-11
|
||
16.3.3
|
Stope Sequence
|
16-13
|
||
16.3.4
|
Backfilling
|
16-14
|
||
16.3.5
|
Paste Backfill Test Work
|
16-14
|
||
16.4
|
Development and Production Schedule
|
16-17
|
||
16.4.1
|
Production Rate
|
16-17
|
||
16.4.2
|
Pre-production Development
|
16-18
|
||
16.4.3
|
Execution and Transition Plan
|
16-23
|
||
16.4.4
|
Sustaining Development
|
16-25
|
||
16.4.5
|
LOM Production Schedule
|
16-26
|
16.5
|
Geotechnical
|
16-28
|
||
16.8
|
Ventilation
|
16-49
|
||
17.0
|
Recovery Methods
|
17-1
|
||
17.1
|
Mineral Processing
|
17-1
|
||
17.1.1
|
Introduction
|
17-1
|
||
17.1.2
|
Summary
|
17-1
|
||
17.1.3
|
Flowsheet Development
|
17-2
|
||
17.1.4
|
Plant Design
|
17-5
|
||
17.1.5
|
Process Plant Description
|
17-6
|
||
17.2
|
Annual Production Estimate
|
17-18
|
18.0
|
Project Infrastructure
|
18-1
|
||
18.1
|
Overview
|
18-1
|
||
18.2
|
Geotechnical
|
18-5
|
||
18.2.1
|
Overview
|
18-5
|
||
18.2.2
|
Foundations
|
18-5
|
||
18.2.3
|
Site Grading
|
18-6
|
||
18.3
|
Access
|
18-7
|
||
18.3.1
|
Access Roads
|
18-7
|
||
18.3.2
|
Glacier Crossing
|
18-8
|
||
18.4
|
Internal Site Roads and Pad Areas
|
18-11
|
||
18.5
|
Grading and Drainage
|
18-13
|
||
18.6
|
Avalanche Hazard Assessment
|
18-13
|
||
18.6.1
|
Background on Snow Avalanches
|
18-13
|
||
18.6.2
|
Brucejack Avalanche Hazard
|
18-16
|
||
18.7
|
Transmission Line
|
18-23
|
||
18.7.1
|
Transmission Line Interconnection and Route
|
18-23
|
||
18.7.2
|
Transmission Line Design and Construction
|
18-25
|
||
18.7.3
|
Transmission Line Operations, Maintenance and Emergency Response
|
18-27
|
||
18.7.4
|
Transmission Line Feasibility Budget Estimates
|
18-28
|
||
18.8
|
Surface Facilities
|
18-29
|
||
18.8.1
|
Architectural Design Basis
|
18-29
|
||
18.8.2
|
Mill Site Infrastructure Facility Description
|
18-30
|
||
18.9
|
Water Supply and Distribution
|
18-32
|
||
18.9.1
|
Mill Site Fresh Water Supply Infrastructure
|
18-32
|
||
18.10
|
Water Treatment Plants
|
18-33
|
||
18.10.1
|
Underground Mine and Surface Water Treatment Plant
|
18-33
|
||
18.10.2
|
Potable Water Treatment Plant
|
18-33
|
||
18.10.3
|
Sewage Treatment Plant
|
18-33
|
||
18.11
|
Waste Rock Disposal
|
18-34
|
||
18.11.1
|
Quarry
|
18-34
|
||
18.12
|
Tailings Delivery System
|
18-35
|
||
18.13
|
Brucejack Lake Suspended Solids Outflow Control
|
18-35
|
||
18.14
|
Communications
|
18-36
|
||
18.14.1
|
Site Telecommunication System
|
18-36
|
18.14.2
|
Process Plant Control
|
18-37
|
||
18.15
|
Power Supply and Distribution
|
18-39
|
||
18.16
|
Fuel Supply and Distribution
|
18-40
|
||
18.17
|
Off-site Infrastructure
|
18-40
|
||
18.17.1
|
Knipple Transfer Station Site Preparation
|
18-40
|
||
18.17.2
|
Knipple Transfer Station Facilities
|
18-41
|
||
18.17.3
|
Bowser Airstrip
|
18-43
|
||
19.0
|
Market Studies and Contracts
|
19-1
|
||
19.1
|
Markets
|
19-1
|
||
19.2
|
Smelter Terms
|
19-1
|
||
19.3
|
Logistics Plan
|
19-2
|
||
19.3.1
|
Equipment and Materials Transportation
|
19-2
|
||
19.3.2
|
Concentrate Transportation
|
19-5
|
||
20.0
|
Environmental Studies, Permitting, and Social or Community Impact
|
20-1
|
||
20.1
|
Sustainability and Environmental Matters
|
20-1
|
||
20.1.1
|
Guiding Principles and Criteria
|
20-1
|
||
20.1.2
|
Consultation
|
20-2
|
||
20.1.3
|
Environmental Setting
|
20-4
|
||
20.1.4
|
Acid Rock Drainage/Metal Leaching
|
20-9
|
||
20.1.5
|
Water Quality
|
20-13
|
||
20.1.6
|
Social Setting
|
20-14
|
||
20.1.7
|
Water Management
|
20-17
|
||
20.1.8
|
Waste Management
|
20-21
|
||
20.1.9
|
Air Emission Control
|
20-22
|
||
20.1.10
|
Closure Plan and Costs
|
20-23
|
||
20.2
|
Certification and Permit Requirements
|
20-24
|
||
20.2.1
|
Environmental Assessment Process
|
20-24
|
||
20.2.2
|
Regulatory Requirements
|
20-25
|
||
20.2.3
|
Financial Assurance
|
20-27
|
||
21.0
|
Capital and Operating Costs
|
21-1
|
||
21.1
|
Capital Cost Estimate
|
21-1
|
||
21.1.1
|
Purpose and Class of Estimate
|
21-1
|
||
21.1.2
|
Estimate Base Date and Validity Period
|
21-2
|
||
21.1.3
|
Estimate Approach
|
21-2
|
||
21.1.4
|
Responsibility Matrix
|
21-2
|
||
21.1.5
|
Work Breakdown Structure
|
21-3
|
||
21.1.6
|
Elements of Cost
|
21-3
|
||
21.1.7
|
Methodology
|
21-4
|
||
21.1.8
|
Capital Cost Exclusions
|
21-6
|
||
21.2
|
Operating Cost Estimate
|
21-7
|
||
21.2.1
|
Summary
|
21-7
|
||
21.2.2
|
Mining Operating Costs
|
21-9
|
||
21.2.3
|
Process Operating Costs
|
21-12
|
||
21.2.4
|
Backfilling Operating Costs
|
21-15
|
||
21.2.5
|
Water Treatment Operating Costs
|
21-15
|
21.2.6
|
General and Administrative, and Surface Services
|
21-16
|
||
22.0
|
Economic Analysis
|
22-1
|
||
22.1
|
Introduction
|
22-1
|
||
22.2
|
Pre-tax Model
|
22-1
|
||
22.2.1
|
Financial Evaluations
|
22-1
|
||
22.2.2
|
Metal Price Scenarios
|
22-3
|
||
22.2.3
|
Royalties
|
22-4
|
||
22.3
|
Smelter Terms
|
22-4
|
||
22.4
|
Markets and Contracts
|
22-4
|
||
22.4.1
|
Markets
|
22-4
|
||
22.4.2
|
Contracts
|
22-5
|
||
22.4.3
|
Transportation and Insurance
|
22-5
|
||
22.5
|
Sensitivity Analysis
|
22-5
|
||
22.6
|
Taxes
|
22-7
|
||
23.0
|
Adjacent properties
|
23-1
|
||
23.1
|
Kerr-Sulphurets-Mitchell
|
23-1
|
||
23.2
|
High Property
|
23-3
|
||
23.3
|
Treaty Creek Property
|
23-3
|
||
24.0
|
Other Relevant Data and Information
|
24-1
|
||
24.1
|
Project Execution Plan
|
24-1
|
||
24.1.1
|
Introduction
|
24-1
|
||
24.1.2
|
Health, Safety, Environmental and Security
|
24-1
|
||
24.1.3
|
Execution Strategy
|
24-2
|
||
24.1.4
|
Engineering
|
24-7
|
||
24.1.5
|
Procurement and Contracts
|
24-7
|
||
24.1.6
|
Construction Labour Requirement
|
24-10
|
||
24.1.7
|
Construction Camp
|
24-10
|
||
24.1.8
|
Housekeeping and Hazardous Waste Management
|
24-11
|
||
24.1.9
|
Construction Equipment
|
24-11
|
||
24.1.10
|
Communication
|
24-11
|
||
24.1.11
|
Construction Power
|
24-11
|
||
24.1.12
|
Mechanical Completion
|
24-12
|
||
24.1.13
|
Commissioning
|
24-12
|
||
24.1.14
|
Construction Methods
|
24-13
|
||
24.1.15
|
Risk Management
|
24-20
|
||
25.0
|
Interpretation and Conclusions
|
25-1
|
||
25.1
|
Mineral Resource
|
25-1
|
||
25.2
|
Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing
|
25-2
|
||
25.3
|
Mining Methods
|
25-2
|
||
25.3.1
|
Mining Risks
|
25-2
|
||
25.4
|
Project Infrastructure
|
25-3
|
||
25.4.1
|
Avalanche Hazard Assessment
|
25-3
|
||
25.4.2
|
Transmission Line
|
25-4
|
||
25.4.3
|
Geotechnical
|
25-4
|
25.4.4
|
Waste Rock Disposal
|
25-5
|
||
25.4.5
|
Brucejack Lake Outflow Monitoring and Suspended Solids Control
|
25-6
|
||
25.4.6
|
Water Management Plan
|
25-6
|
||
25.4.7
|
Hydrogeological Assessment
|
25-7
|
||
25.4.8
|
Tailings Delivery System
|
25-8
|
||
25.5
|
Environmental
|
25-8
|
||
25.5.1
|
Geochemistry
|
25-9
|
||
26.0
|
Recomendations
|
26-1
|
||
26.1
|
Geology
|
26-1
|
||
26.2
|
Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing
|
26-1
|
||
26.3
|
Market Studies and Contracts
|
26-1
|
||
26.4
|
Mining Methods
|
26-2
|
||
26.4.1
|
Geotechnical
|
26-2
|
||
26.4.2
|
Hydrogeological Recommendations
|
26-4
|
||
26.5
|
Project Infrastructure
|
26-4
|
||
26.5.1
|
Avalanche Hazard Assessment
|
26-4
|
||
26.5.2
|
Transmission Line
|
26-6
|
||
26.5.3
|
Geotechnical
|
26-6
|
||
26.5.4
|
Waste Rock Disposal
|
26-7
|
||
26.5.5
|
Tailings Delivery System
|
26-8
|
||
26.5.6
|
Brucejack Lake Outflow Monitoring Weir
|
26-8
|
||
26.5.7
|
Water Management Plan
|
26-8
|
||
26.5.8
|
Mill Site Layout
|
26-9
|
||
26.6
|
Environmental
|
26-9
|
||
26.6.1
|
Geochemistry
|
26-9
|
||
27.0
|
References
|
27-1
|
||
27.1
|
Avalanche Hazard Assessment
|
27-1
|
||
27.2
|
Internal Site Roads and Pad Areas
|
27-1
|
||
27.3
|
Brucejack Lake Outflow Monitoring Weir and Suspended Solids Control
|
27-1
|
||
27.4
|
Geotechnical
|
27-2
|
||
27.5
|
Waste Rock Disposal
|
27-2
|
||
27.5.1
|
Quarry
|
27-2
|
||
27.6
|
Water Management
|
27-2
|
||
27.7
|
Environmental
|
27-3
|
||
27.7.1
|
Water Quality
|
27-3
|
||
27.7.2
|
Acid Rock Drainage/Metal Leaching
|
27-3
|
||
27.8
|
Mining
|
27-3
|
||
27.9
|
Mining Geotechnical
|
27-4
|
||
27.10
|
Geology
|
27-5
|
||
27.11
|
Metallurgy and Recovery Methods
|
27-6
|
||
27.12
|
Capital Cost Estimate
|
27-7
|
||
27.13
|
Hydrogeological/Groundwater
|
27-8
|
||
28.0
|
Certificates of Qualified persons
|
28-1
|
28.1
|
David Ireland, C.Eng., P.Eng.
|
28-1
|
||
28.2
|
Lynn Olssen, MAusIMM(CP)
|
28-3
|
||
28.3
|
John Huang, Ph.D., P.Eng.
|
28-4
|
||
28.4
|
Pierre Pelletier, P.Eng.
|
28-5
|
||
28.5
|
Hamish Weatherly, M.Sc., P.Geo.
|
28-7
|
||
28.6
|
Harvey Wayne Stoyko, P.Eng.
|
28-8
|
||
28.7
|
Sabry Abdel Hafez, Ph.D., P.Eng.
|
28-9
|
||
28.8
|
Colm Keogh, P.Eng.
|
28-10
|
||
28.9
|
Catherine Schmid, M.Sc., P.Eng.
|
28-11
|
||
28.10
|
Brent McAfee, P.Eng.
|
28-12
|
||
28.11
|
Michael Chin, P.Eng.
|
28-13
|
||
28.12
|
Brian Gould, P.Eng.
|
28-14
|
||
28.13
|
Michael Paul Wise, P.Eng., MBA
|
28-15
|
||
28.14
|
Paul Greisman, Ph.D., P.Eng.
|
28-16
|
||
28.15
|
Wayne E. Scott, P.Eng.
|
28-17
|
||
28.16
|
Ali Farah, P.Eng.
|
28-18
|
||
28.17
|
George Zazzi, P.Eng.
|
28-19
|
||
28.18
|
Trevor Crozier, M.Eng., P.Eng.
|
28-20
|
||
28.19
|
Sharon Blackmore, M.Sc., P.Geo.
|
28-21
|
Table 1.1
|
VOK Mineral Resource Estimate Based on a Cut-off Grade of 5 g/t AuEq – December 2013(1)(4)(5)
|
1-9
|
Table 1.2
|
West Zone Mineral Resource Estimate Based on a Cut-off Grade of 5 g/t AuEq – April 2012(1)(4)(5)
|
1-9
|
Table 1.3
|
Brucejack Mineral Reserves*, by Zone and by reserve Category
|
1-13
|
Table 1.4
|
Summary of Initial Capital Cost
|
1-20
|
Table 1.5
|
Overall Operating Cost
|
1-22
|
Table 1.6
|
Key Milestone Dates
|
1-24
|
Table 2.1
|
Summary of QPs
|
2-2
|
Table 4.1
|
Mineral Claims for the Brucejack Property
|
4-3
|
Table 6.1
|
Exploration History of the Sulphurets Property Between 1960 and 2008
|
6-1
|
Table 9.1
|
Exploration of the Brucejack Deposit
|
9-1
|
Table 10.1
|
Drilling on the Brucejack Deposit
|
10-1
|
Table 13.1
|
Major Metallurgical Testing Programs
|
13-1
|
Table 13.2
|
Mineralogical Assessment (West Zone)
|
13-2
|
Table 13.3
|
Metallurgical Performance Projection
|
13-3
|
Table 13.4
|
Master Composites (2012 Test Program)
|
13-5
|
Table 13.5
|
Composite BJ-A Composition (2012 Test Program)
|
13-5
|
Table 13.6
|
Composite Samples (2013 Test Program)
|
13-6
|
Table 13.7
|
Conceptual Master Compositing List (2010/2011)
|
13-6
|
Table 13.8
|
Head Assay Comparison (2012)
|
13-8
|
Table 13.9
|
Head Assay Comparison (2013)
|
13-9
|
Table 13.10
|
Metal Contents of Composite Samples (2010 to 2011)
|
13-9
|
Table 13.11
|
Metal and Sulphur Contents of Composite Samples (2009 to 2010)
|
13-10
|
Table 13.12
|
Mineral Abundance of the Samples
|
13-12
|
Table 13.13
|
Chemical and Mineral Composition of Composite SEU & MU
|
13-13
|
Table 13.14
|
Conventional Grindability and Crushability Test Results
|
13-13
|
Table 13.15
|
SMC Test Results (2012)
|
13-14
|
Table 13.16
|
Sample Specific Gravity (2012)
|
13-15
|
Table 13.17
|
Sample Specific Gravity (2009 to 2010)
|
13-15
|
Table 13.18
|
Metallic Gold Test Results – Composite Samples (2012)
|
13-27
|
Table 13.19
|
Metallic Gold Test Results – Composite Samples (2009 to 2011)
|
13-28
|
Table 13.20
|
Metallic Gold Test Results – Individual Samples (2009 to 2010)
|
13-29
|
Table 13.21
|
Gravity Concentration Test Results (2009 to 2010)
|
13-31
|
Table 13.22
|
Gravity Concentration Modelling Results (2012)
|
13-32
|
Table 13.23
|
Gravity Separation Test Results
|
13-33
|
Table 13.24
|
Mathematical Model Results – Gold Recovery
|
13-34
|
Table 13.25
|
Precious Metal Material Balance
|
13-34
|
Table 13.26
|
Occurrences of Gold in Leach Residues
|
13-38
|
Table 13.27
|
Head Sample Cyanidation Test Results (2009-2010)
|
13-39
|
Table 13.28
|
Concentrate Cyanidation Test Results (2009 to 2010)
|
13-41
|
Table 13.29
|
Test Results - Gravity Concentration, Flotation and Cyanide Leach Combined Flowsheet (Flowsheet A) (2009 to 2010)
|
13-42
|
Table 13.30
|
Test Results – Flotation, Gravity Concentration and Cyanide Leach Combined Flowsheet (Flowsheet B) (2009 to 2010)
|
13-43
|
Table 13.31
|
Test Results - Gravity Concentration, Flotation, Secondary Gravity Concentration and Cyanide Leach Combined Flowsheet (Flowsheet C) (2010 to 2011)
|
13-45
|
Table 13.32
|
Gravity/Leaching Test Results on Re-ground Flotation Concentrate (2010 to 2011)
|
13-46
|
Table 13.33
|
Variability Test Results (2010 to 2011)
|
13-49
|
Table 13.34
|
Locked Cycle Tests Results
|
13-54
|
Table 13.35
|
Conventional Thickening Test Results for Flotation Concentrate
|
13-56
|
Table 13.36
|
Conventional Thickening Test Results for Flotation Tailings
|
13-56
|
Table 13.37
|
Recommended Thickening Design Parameters
|
13-57
|
Table 13.38
|
Filtration Test Results and Sizing Summary
|
13-58
|
Table 13.39
|
Flowsheet Difference between Bulk Sample Process Program and Proposed Process for the Project
|
13-61
|
Table 13.40
|
Bulk Sample Processing Metallurgical Performances
|
13-63
|
Table 13.41
|
Metallurgical Performance Projection – VOK Zone
|
13-65
|
Table 13.42
|
Metallurgical Performance Projection – West Zone
|
13-66
|
Table 14.1
|
December 2013 Estimation and Search Parameters Within High-grade Mineralized Domains for the VOK
|
14-6
|
Table 14.2
|
December 2013 Mineral Resource versus November 2012 Mineral Resource and Mill Results by Bulk Sample Cross-cut
|
14-7
|
Table 14.3
|
November 2012 versus December 2013 Mineral Resource Estimates Within Local Test Area above a 5 g/t AuEq Cut-off
|
14-8
|
Table 14.4
|
VOK Mineral Resource Estimate Based on a Cut-off Grade of 5 g/t AuEq – December 2013(1)(4)(5)
|
14-9
|
Table 14.5
|
West Zone Mineral Resource Estimate Based on a Cut-off Grade of 5 g/t AuEq – April 2012(1)(4)(5)
|
14-9
|
Table 15.1
|
Net Smelter Return Parameters
|
15-3
|
Table 15.2
|
Brucejack Mineral Reserves* by Zone and by Reserve Category
|
15-11
|
Table 15.3
|
Brucejack Mineral Reserves* by Mining Block
|
15-11
|
Table 16.1
|
Development Design Parameters
|
16-8
|
Table 16.2
|
Stope Design Parameters
|
16-9
|
Table 16.3
|
LOM Paste Fill Requirements
|
16-14
|
Table 16.4
|
Summary of Stage 2 UC Results
|
16-15
|
Table 16.5
|
LOM Backfilling – Waste Rock and Mill Tailings
|
16-16
|
Table 16.6
|
Crew Size During Development and Transition Phases
|
16-25
|
Table 16.7
|
LOM Development Requirements
|
16-26
|
Table 16.8
|
LOM Tonnes and Grades
|
16-28
|
Table 16.9
|
Rock Mass Properties
|
16-30
|
Table 16.10
|
Ground Support Recommendations
|
16-33
|
Table 16.11
|
Mine Infrastructure Excavations – Ground Support Recommendations
|
16-37
|
Table 16.12
|
Contractor and Pretivm Equipment during Pre-production Development
|
16-44
|
Table 16.13
|
Underground Development and Production Equipment List
|
16-45
|
Table 16.14
|
Support Equipment List
|
16-47
|
Table 16.15
|
Total Airflow Requirements
|
16-51
|
Table 16.16
|
Primary Fan Specifications
|
16-53
|
Table 16.17
|
Pump Installation Schedule
|
16-58
|
Table 16.18
|
Conveyor Parameters
|
16-64
|
Table 16.19
|
Total Water Consumption
|
16-69
|
Table 16.20
|
Propane Consumption
|
16-82
|
Table 16.21
|
Manpower by Operational Group
|
16-89
|
Table 17.1
|
Major Design Criteria
|
17-5
|
Table 17.2
|
Projected Gold and Silver Production
|
17-19
|
Table 18.1
|
Recommended Allowable Bearing Pressures and Maximum Foundation Widths
|
18-5
|
Table 18.2
|
Recommended Permanent Cut-and-Fill Slope Angles
|
18-6
|
Table 18.3
|
Canadian Classification System for Avalanche Size
|
18-15
|
Table 18.4
|
Avalanche Path or Area Label and Corresponding Element at Risk
|
18-16
|
Table 18.5
|
Mine Site Avalanche Paths or Areas
|
18-17
|
Table 18.6
|
Access Road Avalanche Paths or Areas
|
18-19
|
Table 19.1
|
Gold and Silver Prices
|
19-1
|
Table 20.1
|
Average Monthly Climate Data for the Project Site
|
20-5
|
Table 20.4
|
List of BC Authorizations, Licences, and Permits Required to Develop the Brucejack Project
|
20-26
|
Table 20.5
|
List of Federal Approvals and Licences that May be Required to Develop the Brucejack Project
|
20-27
|
Table 21.1
|
Summary of Initial Capital Costs
|
21-1
|
Table 21.2
|
Foreign Exchange Rates
|
21-2
|
Table 21.3
|
Overall Operating Cost
|
21-8
|
Table 21.4
|
LOM Underground Operating Costs by Activity
|
21-10
|
Table 21.5
|
Underground Operating Costs – Mine General Area
|
21-11
|
Table 21.6
|
Annual Underground Mine Operating Costs (Cdn$ million)
|
21-12
|
Table 21.7
|
Summary of Process Operating Cost
|
21-13
|
Table 21.8
|
Summary of Backfilling Operating Cost
|
21-15
|
Table 21.9
|
Summary of Water Treatment Operating Cost
|
21-16
|
Table 21.10
|
G&A Operating Cost
|
21-17
|
Table 21.11
|
Surface Services Operating Costs
|
21-18
|
Table 22.1
|
Metal Production Quantities
|
22-2
|
Table 22.2
|
Summary of Pre-tax NPV, IRR, and Payback by Metal Price
|
22-3
|
Table 22.3
|
Summary of Post-tax NPV, IRR, and Payback by Metal Price
|
22-4
|
Table 22.4
|
Components of the Various Taxes
|
22-7
|
Table 23.1
|
Mineral Reserve Estimates for the KSM Property as of December 31, 2012
|
23-2
|
Table 24.1
|
Significant Activity Milestone Dates to Project Handover
|
24-5
|
Table 24.2
|
Project Responsibility Matrix
|
24-16
|
Table 24.3
|
Top Ten High-level Risks
|
24-20
|
Table 26.1
|
Brucejack Avalanche Management Program Components
|
26-5
|
Figure 1.1
|
Simplified Process Flowsheet
|
1-12
|
Figure 1.2
|
Overall Site Layout
|
1-16
|
Figure 1.3
|
Mill Site Layout
|
1-17
|
Figure 1.4
|
Knipple Transfer Station Facility Layout
|
1-18
|
Figure 1.5
|
Overall Operating Cost Distribution
|
1-22
|
Figure 4.1
|
Property Location Map
|
4-2
|
Figure 4.2
|
Brucejack Property Mineral Claims
|
4-4
|
Figure 4.3
|
Pretivm Mineral Claims
|
4-5
|
Figure 5.1
|
Project Access
|
5-2
|
Figure 6.1
|
Examples of High Grade Gold Intersections in the VOK
|
6-3
|
Figure 7.1
|
Location of Brucejack and Snowfield Deposits in the Northwest-trending Structural Culmination of Lower Jurassic Rocks of the Stikine Terrane on the Western Side of the Bowser Basin
|
7-2
|
Figure 7.2
|
Geological Map of the Property Showing Location of Defined Mineralized Zones and their Association with the Arcuate Band of Quartz-sericite-pyrite Alteration (shown in yellow)
|
7-4
|
Figure 7.3
|
Brucejack Property Geology Legend for Figure 7.2
|
7-5
|
Figure 8.1
|
Schematic Showing Relative Position of the Brucejack Deposit to a Porphyry Copper-gold System
|
8-2
|
Figure 9.1
|
Planned (top) Versus Actual Completed (bottom) Bulk Sample Area Layout on the 1,345 m Level, VOK Deposit
|
9-3
|
Figure 13.1
|
Gold Recovery versus Primary Grind Size (2012)
|
13-16
|
Figure 13.2
|
Silver Recovery versus Primary Grind Size (2012)
|
13-17
|
Figure 13.3
|
Effect of Primary Grind Size on Gold Recovery (2010 to 2011)
|
13-18
|
Figure 13.4
|
Effect of Primary Grind Size on Silver Recovery (2010 to 2011)
|
13-18
|
Figure 13.5
|
Effect of Primary Grind Size on Gold Recovery (2009 to 2010)
|
13-19
|
Figure 13.6
|
Collector Screening Tests – Gold Recovery (2012)
|
13-20
|
Figure 13.7
|
Collector Screening Tests – Silver Recovery (2012)
|
13-20
|
Figure 13.8
|
Effect of Reagent and Slurry pH on Gold Recovery (2009 to 2010)
|
13-21
|
Figure 13.9
|
Effect of Cleaner Flotation on Gold Recovery (Composite, 2012)
|
13-22
|
Figure 13.10
|
Effect of Cleaner Flotation on Silver Recovery (Composite, 2012)
|
13-22
|
Figure 13.11
|
Effect of Cleaner Flotation on Gold Recovery (Interval Samples, 2012)
|
13-23
|
Figure 13.12
|
Effect of Cleaner Flotation on Gold Recovery (Composites, 2013)
|
13-24
|
Figure 13.13
|
Effect of Cleaner Flotation on Silver Recovery (Interval Samples, 2012)
|
13-24
|
Figure 13.14
|
Effect of Cleaner Flotation on Silver Recovery (Composites, 2013)
|
13-25
|
Figure 13.15
|
Effect of Cleaner Flotation on Gold Recovery (2009 to 2010)
|
13-25
|
Figure 13.16
|
Gold Recovery by Gravity Concentration – Composite Samples (2012)
|
13-30
|
Figure 13.17
|
Cumulative Stage GRG versus Grind Size for Gold and Silver
|
13-32
|
Figure 13.18
|
Gold Cyanide Extraction – Whole Ore Leach (2012)
|
13-35
|
Figure 13.19
|
Silver Cyanide Extraction – Whole Ore Leach (2012)
|
13-36
|
Figure 13.20
|
Gold Cyanide Extraction – Concentrate Leach (2012)
|
13-37
|
Figure 13.21
|
Silver Cyanide Extraction – Concentrate Leach (2012)
|
13-37
|
Figure 13.22
|
Bulk Concentrate Leach Retention Time Test Results (2010 to 2011)
|
13-39
|
Figure 13.23
|
Metal Recovery - Gravity and Bulk Flotation Flowsheet (2012)
|
13-47
|
Figure 13.24
|
Metal Recovery - Gravity Concentration (2012)
|
13-47
|
Figure 13.25
|
Gravity Concentrate Grade versus Head Grade – Gold (2012)
|
13-48
|
Figure 13.26
|
Gravity Concentrate Grade versus Head Grade – Silver (2012)
|
13-49
|
Figure 13.27
|
Variability Test Results – Gold Metallurgical Performance (2010-2011)
|
13-51
|
Figure 13.28
|
Variability Test Results – Silver Metallurgical Performance (2010-2011)
|
13-52
|
Figure 13.29
|
Flotation Concentrate CCD Wash Test Results
|
13-57
|
Figure 13.30
|
Bulk Sample Process Flowsheet
|
13-60
|
Figure 15.1
|
Sources of Stope Dilution
|
15-7
|
Figure 15.2
|
Cross-section through the VOK Zone LOM Mining Shapes
|
15-9
|
Figure 15.3
|
Cross-section through the West Zone LOM Mining Shapes
|
15-10
|
Figure 15.4
|
Reserve Shapes and Mining Blocks in the VOK Zone
|
15-12
|
Figure 15.5
|
Reserve Shapes and Mining Blocks in the West Zone
|
15-13
|
Figure 16.1
|
Mine Access and Development Infrastructure
|
16-3
|
Figure 16.2
|
Brucejack Twin Declines and Ramp System
|
16-4
|
Figure 16.3
|
VOK Zone Sublevel Arrangement – Long Section
|
16-5
|
Figure 16.4
|
Typical Level Plan – 1,200 Level in the VOK Zone
|
16-6
|
Figure 16.5
|
Standard Designs – Hanging Wall Drive
|
16-7
|
Figure 16.6
|
Standard Design – Main Decline
|
16-7
|
Figure 16.7
|
MSO Stope Shapes – VOK Zone
|
16-9
|
Figure 16.8
|
MSO Stope Shapes – West Zone
|
16-10
|
Figure 16.9
|
Typical LHOS Design
|
16-12
|
Figure 16.10
|
Example of Primary/Secondary LHOS at Brucejack Mine
|
16-13
|
Figure 16.11
|
Extent of Development Prior to Project Start
|
16-19
|
Figure 16.12
|
Extent of Mine Development at the Main Onset of VOK Stoping
|
16-22
|
Figure 16.13
|
Critical Path Construction and Development Activities
|
16-23
|
Figure 16.14
|
Life of Mine Production Schedule by Mining Block
|
16-27
|
Figure 16.15
|
LOM Production Schedule by Activity
|
16-27
|
Figure 16.16
|
Estimated Inflow to Underground Workings for Base Case Predictive Simulation and Selected Sensitivity Scenarios
|
16-42
|
Figure 16.17
|
Brucejack Ventilation System – Looking West
|
16-50
|
Figure 16.18
|
Typical Production Level
|
16-52
|
Figure 16.19
|
Conveyor Fire Isolation
|
16-54
|
Figure 16.20
|
Dewatering Plan
|
16-59
|
Figure 16.21
|
Underground Solids and Slimes Handling
|
16-61
|
Figure 16.22
|
Tipple and Ore Bin Sectional Projection
|
16-62
|
Figure 16.23
|
Crusher Feed and Crusher
|
16-63
|
Figure 16.24
|
Underground Power Requirement Profile
|
16-64
|
Figure 16.25
|
Portal Substation and Underground Single Line Diagrams
|
16-66
|
Figure 16.26
|
Mine Water Distribution Schematic
|
16-68
|
Figure 16.27
|
Fuel Bay Layout
|
16-71
|
Figure 16.28
|
Warehouse Plan and Sections
|
16-73
|
Figure 16.29
|
Bulk Emulsion Storage - Plan and Sections
|
16-75
|
Figure 16.30
|
Cap and Powder Storage - Plan and Section
|
16-76
|
Figure 16.31
|
Permanent Refuge Station
|
16-77
|
Figure 16.32
|
Underground Communications System Schematic
|
16-78
|
Figure 16.33
|
Portal Structure
|
16-80
|
Figure 16.34
|
Paste Fill Distribution System Schematic Showing Paste Pumping Zones
|
16-85
|
Figure 16.35
|
Paste Fill Distribution System Schematic
|
16-86
|
Figure 16.36
|
Pre-production Paste Fill Line Requirement
|
16-87
|
Figure 16.37
|
Manpower Loading by Year
|
16-90
|
Figure 17.1
|
Simplified Process Flowsheet
|
17-4
|
Figure 18.1
|
Brucejack Overall Site Layout
|
18-3
|
Figure 18.2
|
Brucejack Mill Site Layout
|
18-4
|
Figure 18.3
|
Knipple Glacier Access Road
|
18-9
|
Figure 18.4
|
Mine Site Area Avalanche Hazards
|
18-18
|
Figure 18.5
|
Access Road Avalanche Hazards
|
18-21
|
Figure 18.6
|
Map of Transmission Line Route
|
18-24
|
Figure 18.7
|
Photo of Typical Slopes in the Salmon River Valley
|
18-25
|
Figure 18.8
|
Helicopter Placing Steel Transmission Structure for the LLH Project
|
18-26
|
Figure 18.11
|
Knipple Transfer Station Facility Layout
|
18-42
|
Figure 18.12
|
Bowser Airstrip
|
18-44
|
Figure 20.1
|
Brucejack Lake Water Balance Model Schematic – Operations (Average Conditions)
|
20-21
|
Figure 21.1
|
Overall Operating Cost Distribution
|
21-8
|
Figure 21.2
|
Process Operating Cost Distribution
|
21-14
|
Figure 22.1
|
Pre-tax Cash Flow
|
22-3
|
Figure 22.2
|
Pre-tax NPV (5%) Sensitivity Analysis
|
22-6
|
Figure 22.3
|
Figure 22.3 Pre-tax IRR Sensitivity Analysis
|
22-6
|
Figure 22.4
|
Pre-tax Payback Period Sensitivity Analysis
|
22-7
|
Figure 24.1
|
Project Management Organization Chart
|
24-3
|
Figure 24.2
|
Level 1 Execution Schedule
|
24-6
|
Figure 24.3
|
Preliminary Contracting Structure
|
24-9
|
above mean sea level
|
amsl
|
acre
|
ac
|
ampere
|
A
|
annum (year)
|
a
|
billion
|
B
|
billion tonnes
|
Bt
|
billion years ago
|
Ga
|
British thermal unit
|
BTU
|
centimetre
|
cm
|
cubic centimetre
|
cm3
|
cubic feet per minute
|
cfm
|
cubic feet per second
|
ft3/s
|
cubic foot
|
ft3
|
cubic inch
|
in3
|
cubic metre
|
m3
|
cubic yard
|
yd3
|
Coefficients of Variation
|
CVs
|
day
|
d
|
days per week
|
d/wk
|
days per year (annum)
|
d/a
|
dead weight tonnes
|
DWT
|
decibel adjusted
|
dBa
|
decibel
|
dB
|
degree
|
°
|
degrees Celsius
|
°C
|
diameter
|
ø
|
dollar (American)
|
US$
|
dollar (Canadian) Cdn
|
Cdn$
|
dry metric ton
|
dmt
|
foot
|
ft
|
gallon
|
gal
|
gallons per minute (US)
|
gpm
|
Gigajoule
|
GJ
|
gigapascal
|
GPa
|
gigawatt
|
GW
|
gram
|
g
|
grams per litre
|
g/L
|
grams per tonne
|
g/t
|
greater than
|
>
|
hectare (10,000 m2)
|
ha
|
hertz
|
Hz
|
horsepower
|
hp
|
hour
|
h
|
hours per day
|
h/d
|
hours per week
|
h/wk
|
hours per year
|
h/a
|
inch
|
in
|
kilo (thousand)
|
k
|
kilogram
|
kg
|
kilograms per cubic metre
|
kg/m3
|
kilograms per hour
|
kg/h
|
kilograms per square metre
|
kg/m2
|
kilometre
|
km
|
kilometres per hour
|
km/h
|
kilopascal
|
kPa
|
kilotonne
|
kt
|
kilovolt
|
kV
|
kilovolt-ampere
|
kVA
|
kilovolts
|
kV
|
kilowatt
|
kW
|
kilowatt hour
|
kWh
|
kilowatt hours per tonne
|
kWh/t
|
kilowatt hours per year
|
kWh/a
|
less than
|
<
|
litre
|
L
|
litres per minute
|
L/m
|
megabytes per second
|
Mb/s
|
megapascal
|
MPa
|
megavolt-ampere
|
MVA
|
megawatt
|
MW
|
metre
|
m
|
metres above sea level
|
masl
|
metres Baltic sea level
|
mbsl
|
metres per minute
|
m/min
|
metres per second
|
m/s
|
microns
|
µm
|
milligram
|
mg
|
milligrams per litre
|
mg/L
|
millilitre
|
mL
|
millimetre
|
mm
|
million
|
M
|
million bank cubic metres
|
Mbm3
|
million bank cubic metres per annum
|
Mbm3/a
|
million tonnes
|
Mt
|
minute (plane angle)
|
'
|
minute (time)
|
min
|
month
|
mo
|
ounce
|
oz
|
pascal
|
Pa
|
centipoise
|
mPa∙s
|
parts per million
|
ppm
|
parts per billion
|
ppb
|
percent
|
%
|
pound(s)
|
lb
|
pounds per square inch
|
psi
|
revolutions per minute
|
rpm
|
second (plane angle)
|
"
|
second (time)
|
s
|
short ton (2,000 lb)
|
st
|
short tons per day
|
st/d
|
short tons per year
|
st/y
|
specific gravity
|
SG
|
square centimetre
|
cm2
|
square foot
|
ft2
|
square inch
|
in2
|
square kilometre
|
km2
|
square metre
|
m2
|
three-dimensional
|
3D
|
tonne (1,000 kg) (metric ton)
|
t
|
tonnes per day
|
t/d
|
tonnes per hour
|
t/h
|
tonnes per year
|
t/a
|
tonnes seconds per hour metre cubed
|
ts/hm3
|
volt
|
V
|
week
|
wk
|
weight/weight
|
w/w
|
wet metric ton
|
wmt
|
abrasion index
|
Ai
|
acid base accounting
|
ABA
|
acid rock drainage
|
ARD
|
acidifying potential
|
AP
|
Air Terminal Building
|
ATB
|
Alpine Solutions Avalanche Services
|
Alpine Solutions
|
ALS Chemex
|
ALS
|
ALS Global
|
ALS
|
AMC Mining Consultants (Canada) Ltd.
|
AMC
|
arsenic
|
As
|
Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering International
|
AACE
|
atomic absorption spectroscopy
|
AAS
|
atomic absorption
|
AA
|
BC Environmental Assessment Act
|
BCEAA
|
BGC Engineering Inc.
|
BGC
|
Black Hawk Mining Inc.
|
Black Hawk
|
Bond ball mill work index
|
BWi
|
Bond crushing mill work index
|
CWi
|
Bond rod mill work index
|
RWi
|
borax
|
Na2B4O2
|
British Columbia
|
BC
|
Canadian development expense
|
CDE
|
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act
|
CEAA
|
Canadian exploration expense
|
CEE
|
Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum
|
CIM
|
Canadian Pension Plan
|
CPP
|
carbon-in-leach
|
CIL
|
central equipment enclosure
|
CEE
|
CESL Limited
|
CESL
|
closed-circuit television
|
CCTV
|
construction management team
|
CMT
|
Corona Corporation
|
Corona
|
counter current decantation
|
CCD
|
cumulative distribution function
|
CDF
|
Cumulative Expenditures Account
|
CEA
|
cumulative net cash flows
|
CNCFs
|
cumulative tax credit account
|
CTCA
|
diesel engine exhaust emissions
|
DEE
|
digital elevation models
|
DEM
|
distributed control system
|
DCS
|
drop weight index
|
DWi
|
effective grinding length
|
EGL
|
Employment Insurance
|
EI
|
engineering, procurement, construction management
|
EPCM
|
environmental assessment certificate
|
EAC
|
Environmental Assessment Office
|
EAO
|
Environmental Assessment
|
EA
|
environmental impact statement
|
EIS
|
Environmental Management System
|
EMS
|
Exploration & Metallurgical Testing Inspectorate America Corporation or Metallurgical Division, Inspectorate Exploration and Mining Services Ltd.
|
Inspectorate
|
extended gravity recoverable gold and silver
|
E-GRG
|
Field Electrical Centre
|
FEC
|
FLSmidth Dawson Metallurgical
|
FLS-DM
|
FLSmidth Knelson
|
Knelson
|
fluorspar
|
CaF2
|
fly-ash
|
FA
|
Gekko Systems Pty Ltd.
|
Gekko
|
general and administration
|
G&A
|
General Purpose
|
GP
|
GeoSpark Consulting Inc.
|
GeoSpark
|
gold equivalent
|
AuEq
|
gold
|
Au
|
Granduc Mines Ltd.
|
Granduc
|
gravity recoverable gold
|
GRG
|
gravity recoverable silver
|
GRS
|
gross vehicle weight
|
GVW
|
half absolute relative difference
|
HARD
|
hazard and operability analysis
|
HAZOP
|
Hazen Research Inc.; Inspectorate
|
Hazen
|
health, safety, and environmental
|
HSE
|
high-density polyethylene
|
HDPE
|
humidity cell
|
HC
|
Impact Benefit Agreements
|
IBAs
|
inductively coupled plasma
|
ICP
|
inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectroscopy
|
ICP AES
|
input/output
|
I/O
|
Instrument Approach Procedures
|
IAP
|
Instrument Flight Rules
|
IFR
|
integrated communications cap lamp
|
ICCL
|
internal rate of return
|
IRR
|
International Organization for Standardization
|
ISO
|
Joe Zhou Mineralogy Ltd
|
JZM
|
joint venture
|
JV
|
Lacana Mining Corp.
|
Lacana
|
Land and Resource Management Plan
|
LRMP
|
lead nitrate
|
Pb(NO3)2
|
life-of-mine
|
LOM
|
Light Detection and Ranging
|
LiDAR
|
load-haul-dumps
|
LHDs
|
Local Area Network
|
LAN
|
long hole open stoping
|
LHOS
|
Long Lake Hydro
|
LLH
|
mass spectrometer
|
MS
|
Medical Service Plan
|
MSP
|
metal leaching
|
ML
|
Metal Mining Effluent Regulations
|
MMER
|
Meteorological Service of Canada
|
MSC
|
methyl isobutyl carbinol
|
MIBC
|
Met-Solve Laboratories Inc.
|
Met-Solve
|
Mineable Shape Optimizer
|
MSO
|
MineCem
|
MC
|
Mineral Titles Online
|
MTO
|
Ministry of Energy, Mines, and Natural Gas
|
MEMNG
|
Ministry of Environment
|
MOE
|
motor control centres
|
MCCs
|
Multiple Indicator Kriging
|
MIK
|
National Instrument 43-101
|
NI 43-101
|
net cash flows
|
NCFs
|
net neutralization potential
|
NNP
|
net present value
|
NPV
|
net smelter return
|
NSR
|
neutralization potential ratio
|
NPR
|
neutralization potential
|
NP
|
Newhawk Gold Mines Ltd.
|
Newhawk
|
non-acid generating
|
NAG
|
North American Datum
|
NAD
|
North American Free Trade Agreement
|
NAFTA
|
Northern Transmission Line
|
NTL
|
Obstacle Limitation Surfaces
|
OLS
|
Omni Directional Approach Lighting System
|
ODALS
|
P&E Mining Consultants Inc.
|
P&E
|
parameters of concern
|
POCs
|
Particle Mineral Analysis
|
PMA
|
Paterson & Cooke
|
P&C
|
personal protective equipment
|
PPE
|
Placer Dome Inc.
|
Placer Dome
|
Pocock Industrial Inc.
|
Pocock
|
potassium amyl xanthate
|
PAX
|
potassium permanganate
|
MnO4
|
potentially acid generating
|
PAG
|
Precision Approach Path Indicators
|
PAPI
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
Pretivm
|
Process Mineralogical Consulting Ltd.
|
PMCL
|
programmable computer
|
PC
|
programmable logic controller
|
PLC
|
project execution plan
|
PEP
|
qualified person
|
QP
|
quality assurance/quality control
|
QA/QC
|
Quantitative Evaluation of Minerals by Scanning Electron Microscopy
|
QEMSCAN
|
Reference Evapotranspiration
|
REF-ET
|
Registered Retirement Savings Plans
|
RRSPs
|
remote avalanche control system
|
RACS
|
right-of-way
|
ROW
|
Risk Management Plan
|
RMP
|
rock quality designation
|
RQD
|
run-of-mine
|
ROM
|
Runout Zone
|
RZ
|
Runway End Identifier Lights
|
REIL
|
SAG mill/ball mill
|
SAB
|
scanning electron microscopy
|
SEM
|
Science-Based Effects Benchmarks
|
SBEBs
|
semi-autogeneous grinding
|
SAG
|
SGS Canada
|
SGS
|
shake flask extracts
|
SFEs
|
silica
|
SiO2
|
Silver Standard Resources Inc.
|
Silver Standard
|
silver
|
Ag
|
Snowden Mining Industry Consultants Inc.
|
Snowden
|
Social and Community Management Systems
|
SCMS
|
sodium cyanide
|
NaCN
|
sodium nitrate
|
NaNO3
|
sodium silicate
|
Na2SiO3
|
solids liquid separation
|
SLS
|
Standards Council of Canada
|
SCC
|
sulphur
|
S
|
Sunstate Slag Blend
|
SS
|
Sustainable Resource Management Plan
|
SRMP
|
Teuton Resources Corporation
|
Teuton
|
the Brucejack Project
|
the Project or the Property
|
Traditional Knowledge/Traditional Use
|
TK/TU
|
twenty-foot equivalent units
|
TEUs
|
unconfined compressive strength
|
UCS
|
underground distribution system
|
UDS
|
uninterruptable power supply
|
UPS
|
Universal Transverse Mercator
|
UTM
|
Valard Construction
|
Valard
|
Valley of the Kings
|
VOK or VOK Zone
|
vertical shaft impact
|
VSI
|
very-high frequency
|
VHF
|
Visual Climb Area
|
VCA
|
Visual Flight Rules
|
VFR
|
VOK Domain 1
|
VOK D1
|
VOK Domain 2
|
VOK D2
|
VOK Domain 3
|
VOK D3
|
VOK Fault Zone
|
VOK FZ
|
VOK Weathered Rock Zone
|
VOK WRZ
|
Volcanic Sedimentary Facies
|
VSF
|
volcanogenic massive sulphide
|
VMS
|
Wardrop Engineering Inc.
|
Wardrop
|
water balance model
|
WBM
|
Water Quality Guidelines
|
WQGs
|
Water Treatment Plant
|
WTP
|
West Zone Fault Zone
|
WZ FZ
|
West Zone Fresh Rock
|
WZ FR
|
West Zone Weathered Rock Zone
|
WZ WRZ
|
West Zone
|
WZ
|
work breakdown structure
|
WBS
|
Workers' Compensation Board
|
WCB
|
x-ray diffraction
|
XRD
|
1.0
|
SUMMARY
|
1.1
|
Introduction
|
·
|
Tetra Tech: overall project management; mineral processing and metallurgical testing; recovery methods; access infrastructure; internal site roads and pad areas; grading and drainage; ancillary facilities; water supply and distribution; water treatment plant; communications; power supply and distribution; fuel supply and distribution; off-site infrastructure; market studies and contracts; capital cost estimate; processing operating cost estimate; financial analysis; and project execution plan
|
·
|
Snowden Mining Industry Consultants Inc. (Snowden): property description and location, accessibility, climate, and physiology, history, geological setting and mineralization, deposit types, exploration, drilling, sample preparation, data verification, adjacent properties, and mineral resource estimates
|
·
|
AMC Mining Consultants (Canada) Ltd. (AMC): mining including mine capital and operating cost estimates, mineral reserve estimates
|
·
|
ERM Rescan: environmental studies, permits, and social or community impacts; and tailings delivery system
|
·
|
BGC Engineering Inc. (BGC): geotechnical design, mine hydrogeological/groundwater; waste disposal; environmental water management and water quality, acid rock drainage (ARD) and metal leaching (ML)
|
·
|
Alpine Solutions Avalanche Services (Alpine Solutions): avalanche hazard assessment
|
·
|
Valard Construction (Valard): transmission line.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
1.2
|
Property Description and Location
|
1.3
|
Geology and Mineralization
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
1.4
|
Mineral Resource Estimates
|
1.4.1
|
Drilling, Sampling, Assaying and Data Verification
|
·
|
9 historic drillholes (579 m)
|
·
|
490 surface drillholes drilled between 2009 and 2012 (173,619 m)
|
·
|
24 surface drillholes drilled in 2013 (5,200 m)
|
·
|
409 underground drillholes drilled in 2013 (38,840 m).
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
·
|
independent sampling to verify the grade tenor
|
·
|
inspection of the underground workings to confirm the mineralization style
|
·
|
review of diamond core
|
·
|
review of site procedures
|
·
|
independent QA/QC analysis
|
|
·
|
independent data validation.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
1.4.2
|
Bulk Sample Test Work
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
·
|
Removal of channel samples as these caused local scale over-estimation.
|
·
|
Local adjustment of domain boundaries and incorporation of the north-south mineralization domains into the main stockwork domain packages. Test work using separate domaining of the north-south mineralisation resulted in over-estimation of the grade in these areas.
|
·
|
Adjustment of the estimation parameters and methodology to reduce smoothing, including the method for re-blocking the high-grade Multiple Indicator Kriging (MIK) estimates, the chosen parent cell size, and search neighbourhood parameters.
|
1.4.3
|
Mineral Resource Estimation
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
Table 1.1
|
VOK Mineral Resource Estimate Based on a Cut-off Grade of 5 g/t AuEq – December 2013(1)(4)(5)
|
Category
|
Tonnes
(million)
|
Gold
(g/t)
|
Silver
(g/t)
|
Contained(3)
|
|
Gold
(Moz)
|
Silver
(Moz)
|
||||
Measured
|
2.0
|
19.3
|
14.4
|
1.2
|
0.9
|
Indicated
|
13.4
|
17.4
|
14.3
|
7.5
|
6.1
|
M + I
|
15.3
|
17.6
|
14.3
|
8.7
|
7.0
|
Inferred(2)
|
5.9
|
25.6
|
20.6
|
4.9
|
3.9
|
|
Notes:
|
(1)
|
Mineral Resources which are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. The estimate of Mineral Resources may be materially affected by environmental, permitting, legal, marketing, or other relevant issues. The Mineral Resources in this Technical Report were estimated using the CIM Standards on Mineral Resources and Reserves, Definitions and Guidelines prepared by the CIM Standing Committee on Reserve Definitions and adopted by CIM Council.
|
|
(2)
|
The quantity and grade of reported Inferred resources in this estimation are uncertain in nature and there has been insufficient exploration to define these Inferred Resources as an Indicated or Measured Mineral Resource and it is uncertain if further exploration will result in upgrading them to an Indicated or Measured Mineral Resource category.
|
(3)
|
Contained metal and tonnes figures in totals may differ due to rounding.
|
|
(4)
|
The Mineral Resource estimate stated in Table 14.4 and Table 14.5 is defined using 5 m by 5 by 5 m blocks in the well drilled portion of West Zone (5 m by 10 m drilling or better) and 10 m by 10 m by 10 m blocks in the remainder of West Zone and in VOK.
|
|
(5)
|
The AuEq value is defined as AuEq = Au + Ag/53.
|
|
Table 1.2
|
West Zone Mineral Resource Estimate Based on a Cut-off Grade of 5 g/t AuEq – April 2012(1)(4)(5)
|
Category
|
Tonnes
(millions)
|
Gold
(g/t)
|
Silver
(g/t)
|
Contained(3)
|
|
Gold
(Moz)
|
Silver
(Moz)
|
||||
Measured
|
2.4
|
5.85
|
347
|
0.5
|
26.8
|
Indicated
|
2.5
|
5.86
|
190
|
0.5
|
15.1
|
M+I
|
4.9
|
5.85
|
267
|
0.9
|
41.9
|
Inferred(2)
|
4.0
|
6.44
|
82
|
0.8
|
10.6
|
1.5
|
Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing
|
1.5.1
|
Metallurgical Testing
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
1.5.2
|
Mineral Processing
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
·
|
one stage of crushing (located underground)
|
·
|
a surge bin with a live capacity of 2,500 t on surface
|
·
|
a semi-autogeneous grinding (SAG) mill and ball mill primary grinding circuit integrated with gravity concentration
|
·
|
rougher flotation and rougher/scavenger flotation followed by rougher flotation concentrate regrinding
|
·
|
cleaner flotation processes.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
Figure 1.1
|
Simplified Process Flowsheet
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
1.6
|
Mineral Reserve Estimates
|
|
Table 1.3
|
Brucejack Mineral Reserves*, by Zone and by reserve Category
|
Zone
|
Ore
Tonnes
(Mt)
|
Grade
|
Metal
|
|||
Au
(g/t)
|
Ag
(g/t)
|
Au
(Moz)
|
Ag
(Moz)
|
|||
VOK Zone
|
Proven
|
2.1
|
15.6
|
12
|
1.1
|
0.8
|
Probable
|
11.5
|
15.7
|
10
|
5.8
|
3.9
|
|
Total
|
13.6
|
15.7
|
11
|
6.9
|
4.6
|
|
West Zone
|
Proven
|
1.4
|
7.2
|
383
|
0.3
|
17.4
|
Probable
|
1.5
|
6.5
|
181
|
0.3
|
8.6
|
|
Total
|
2.9
|
6.9
|
279
|
0.6
|
26.0
|
|
Total Mine
|
Proven
|
3.5
|
12.2
|
161
|
1.4
|
18.2
|
Probable
|
13.0
|
14.7
|
30
|
6.1
|
12.5
|
|
Total
|
16.5
|
14.1
|
58
|
7.5
|
30.7
|
|
Notes:
|
*Rounding of some figures may lead to minor discrepancies in totals. Based on an NSR cut-off value of Cdn$180/t, US$1,100/oz gold price, US$17/oz silver price, Cdn$/US$ exchange rate = 0.92.
|
1.7
|
Mining Methods
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
1.8
|
Project Infrastructure
|
·
|
a 79 km access road at Highway 37 and travelling westward to Brucejack Lake with the last 12 km of access road to the mine site traversing the main arm of the Knipple Glacier
|
·
|
internal site roads and pad areas
|
·
|
grading and drainage
|
·
|
avalanche hazard assessment
|
·
|
mill building and process plant
|
·
|
mine site operation camp
|
·
|
transmission line and substation
|
·
|
ancillary facilities
|
·
|
water supply and distribution
|
·
|
water treatment plant
|
·
|
waste disposal
|
·
|
tailings delivery system
|
·
|
Brucejack Lake outlet control
|
·
|
communications
|
·
|
power supply and distribution
|
·
|
fuel supply and distribution
|
|
·
|
off-site infrastructure including the Bowser Airstrip and Camp and the Knipple Transfer Station facilities.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
Figure 1.2
|
Overall Site Layout
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
Figure 1.3
|
Mill Site Layout
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
Figure 1.4
|
Knipple Transfer Station Facility Layout
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
1.8.1
|
Avalanche Hazard Assessment
|
1.8.2
|
Transmission Line
|
1.8.3
|
Tailings Delivery System
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
1.9
|
Environmental
|
1.10
|
Capital Costs
|
|
Table 1.4
|
Summary of Initial Capital Cost
|
Major
Area
|
Area Description
|
Capital Cost
(US$ million)
|
Direct Costs
|
||
11
|
Mine Site
|
21.5
|
21
|
Mine Underground
|
179.5
|
31
|
Mine Site Process
|
53.8
|
32
|
Mine Site Utilities
|
30.5
|
33
|
Mine Site Facilities
|
53.5
|
34
|
Mine Site Tailings
|
3.5
|
35
|
Mine Site Temporary Facilities
|
33.4
|
36
|
Mine Site (Surface) Mobile Equipment
|
14.6
|
84
|
Off Site Infrastructure
|
89.1
|
Subtotal Direct Costs
|
479.4
|
|
91
|
Indirect Costs
|
127.5
|
98
|
Owner’s Costs
|
71.0
|
99
|
Contingency
|
69.0
|
Total Initial Capital Cost
|
746.9
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
1.11
|
Operating Costs
|
·
|
mining
|
·
|
process
|
·
|
general and administration (G&A)
|
·
|
surface services
|
·
|
backfill, including paste preparation
|
·
|
water treatment.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
Table 1.5
|
Overall Operating Cost
|
Area
|
Personnel
|
Unit Operating Cost
(Cdn$/t milled)
|
Mining*
|
351**
|
91.34
|
Processing
|
100
|
19.69
|
G&A
|
54
|
30.87
|
Surface Services
|
78
|
17.18
|
Backfilling
|
6
|
2.11
|
Water Treatment
|
4
|
1.86
|
Total
|
593
|
163.05
|
|
Notes:
|
*Average LOM mining cost including crushing cost, cement cost for backfill and back-hauling cost for the preproduction ore stocked on the surface; if excluding the ore mined during preproduction, the estimated unit cost is $91.78/t.
**351 workers during Year 3 to 12 and less mining personnel requirement is estimated for the rest of the operation years.
|
|
Figure 1.5
|
Overall Operating Cost Distribution
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
1.12
|
Economic Analysis
|
·
|
34.7% internal rate of return (IRR)
|
·
|
2.7-year payback on the US$746.9 million initial capital
|
·
|
US$2,251 million net present value (NPV) at a 5% discount rate.
|
·
|
28.5% IRR
|
·
|
2.8-year payback on the US$746.9 million initial capital
|
·
|
US$1,445 million NPV at a 5% discount rate.
|
·
|
gold – US$1,100/oz
|
·
|
silver – US$17.00/oz
|
·
|
exchange rate – 0.92:1.00 (US$:Cdn$).
|
1.13
|
Project Execution Plan
|
·
|
Stage l – early works including mine development, the environmental assessment certificate (EAC) application, permitting, access road upgrades, preliminary power transmission line right-of-way (ROW), basic engineering, and the procurement of long-lead equipment.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
·
|
Stage ll – full project execution (following permit approval), including detailed engineering, procurement, construction team mobilization, construction, and commissioning.
|
|
Table 1.6
|
Key Milestone Dates
|
Year
|
Quarter
|
Activity
|
2014
|
2
|
Feasibility Study Update Completion
|
2014
|
3
|
Start of Basic Engineering
|
2014
|
3
|
EPCM Award
|
2015
|
2
|
Start of Stage l Early Works Construction
|
2016
|
1
|
Detailed Engineering Completion
|
2016
|
1
|
Start of Stage ll Full Project Execution Construction
|
2017
|
2
|
Surface Mechanical Completion
|
2017
|
2
|
Underground Mechanical Completion
|
2017
|
3
|
Mine Site Commissioning Completion
|
2017
|
3
|
Project Handover
|
1.14
|
Conclusions and Recommendations
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
2.0
|
INTRODUCTION
|
·
|
Tetra Tech: overall project management; mineral processing and metallurgical testing; recovery methods; access infrastructure; internal site roads and pad areas; grading and drainage; ancillary facilities; water supply and distribution; water treatment plant; communications; power supply and distribution; fuel supply and distribution; off-site infrastructure; market studies and contracts; capital cost estimate; processing operating cost estimate; financial analysis; and project execution plan
|
·
|
Snowden: property description and location; accessibility, climate, and physiology; history; geological setting and mineralization; deposit types; exploration; drilling; sample preparation and analysis; data verification; adjacent properties; and mineral resource estimates
|
·
|
AMC: mining including mine capital and operating cost estimates; and mineral reserve estimates
|
·
|
ERM Rescan: environmental studies, permits, and social or community impacts; and tailings delivery system
|
·
|
BGC: geotechnical design, mine hydrogeological/groundwater; waste disposal; Brucejack outlet control; environmental water management and water quality; and ARD and ML
|
·
|
Alpine Solutions: avalanche hazard assessment
|
·
|
Valard: transmission line.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
2.1
|
Qualified Persons
|
·
|
Lynn Olssen, MAusIMM(CP) completed a site visit on August 16, 2013 for five days.
|
·
|
Dave Ireland, C.Eng., P.Eng. completed a site visit on August 7, 2012 for one day.
|
·
|
John Huang, Ph.D., P.Eng. completed a site visit on August 7, 2012 for one day.
|
·
|
Pierre Pelletier, P.Eng. completed a site visit on August 7, 2012 for one day.
|
·
|
Paul Greisman, Ph.D., P.Eng. completed a site visit on August 17, 2010 for one day.
|
·
|
Michael Wise, P.Eng. completed a site visit on August 5, 2012 for one day.
|
·
|
Brian Gould, P.Eng. completed a site visit on April 29, 2013 for two days.
|
·
|
Hamish Weatherly, P.Geo. completed a site visit on August 7, 2012 for one day.
|
·
|
Colm Keogh, P.Eng. completed a site visit on October 24, 2012 for one day.
|
·
|
Catherine Schmid, M.Sc., P.Eng. completed a site visit in February 2012 for seven days.
|
·
|
Brent McAfee, P.Eng, completed a site visit from June 6 to 12, 2012 for seven days.
|
·
|
Trevor Crozier, M.Eng., P.Eng. completed a site visit on September 5, 2013 for one day.
|
·
|
Sharon Blackmore, M.Sc., P.Geo. completed a site in September 2013 for two weeks.
|
|
Table 2.1
|
Summary of QPs
|
Report Section
|
Company
|
QP
|
1.0 Summary
|
All
|
Sign-off by Section
|
2.0 Introduction
|
Tetra Tech
|
Dave Ireland, C.Eng., P.Eng.
|
3.0 Reliance on Other Experts
|
Tetra Tech
|
Dave Ireland, C.Eng., P.Eng.
|
4.0 Property Description and Location
|
Snowden
|
Lynn Olssen, MAusIMM(CP)
|
5.0 Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure, and Physiography
|
Snowden
|
Lynn Olssen, MAusIMM(CP)
|
6.0 History
|
Snowden
|
Lynn Olssen, MAusIMM(CP)
|
7.0 Geological Setting and Mineralization
|
Snowden
|
Lynn Olssen, MAusIMM(CP)
|
8.0 Deposit Types
|
Snowden
|
Lynn Olssen, MAusIMM(CP)
|
9.0 Exploration
|
Snowden
|
Lynn Olssen, MAusIMM(CP)
|
10.0 Drilling
|
Snowden
|
Lynn Olssen, MAusIMM(CP)
|
table continues…
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
Report Section
|
Company
|
QP
|
11.0 Sample Preparation, Analyses and Security
|
Snowden
|
Lynn Olssen, MAusIMM(CP)
|
12.0 Data Verification
|
Snowden
|
Lynn Olssen, MAusIMM(CP)
|
13.0 Mineral Processing and MetallurgicalTesting
|
Tetra Tech
|
John Huang, Ph.D., P.Eng.
|
14.0 Mineral Resource Estimate
|
Snowden
|
Lynn Olssen, MAusIMM(CP)
|
15.0 Mineral Reserve Estimate
|
AMC
|
Colm Keogh, P.Eng.
|
16.0 Mining Methods
|
AMC/BGC
|
Colm Keogh, P.Eng./
George Zazzi, P.Eng./
Catherine Schmid, M.Sc., P.Eng./
Trevor Crozier, M.Eng., P.Eng.
|
17.0 Recovery Methods
|
Tetra Tech
|
John Huang, Ph.D., P.Eng.
|
18.0 Project Infrastructure
|
-
|
-
|
18.1 Overview
|
Tetra Tech
|
Dave Ireland, C.Eng., P.Eng.
|
18.2 Site Geotechnical
|
BGC
|
Brent McAfee, P.Eng.
|
18.3 Access
|
Tetra Tech
|
Dave Ireland, C.Eng., P.Eng.
|
18.4 Internal Site Roads and Pad Areas
|
Tetra Tech
|
Michael Chin, P.Eng.
|
18.5 Grading and Drainage
|
Tetra Tech
|
Michael Chin, P.Eng.
|
18.6 Avalanche Hazard Assessment
|
Alpine
Solutions
|
Brian Gould, P.Eng.
|
18.7 Transmission Line
|
Valard
|
Michael Wise, P.Eng.
|
18.8 Ancillary Facilities
|
Tetra Tech
|
Dave Ireland, C.Eng., P.Eng.
|
18.9 Water Supply and Distribution
|
Tetra Tech
|
Dave Ireland, C.Eng., P.Eng.
|
18.10 Water Treatment Plant
|
Tetra Tech
|
Dave Ireland, C.Eng., P.Eng.
|
18.11 Waste Rock Disposal
|
BGC
|
Brent McAfee, P.Eng.
|
18.12 Tailings Delivery System
|
ERM Rescan
|
Paul Greisman, Ph.D., P.Eng.
|
18.13 Brucejack Lake Outflow Monitoring Weir and Suspended Solids Control
|
BGC/
Tetra Tech
|
Trevor Crozier, M.Eng., P.Eng./
Dave Ireland, C.Eng., P.Eng.
|
18.14 Communications
|
Tetra Tech
|
Dave Ireland, C.Eng., P.Eng.
|
18.15 Power Supply and Distribution
|
Tetra Tech
|
Wayne E. Scott, P.Eng.
|
18.16 Fuel Supply and Distribution
|
Tetra Tech
|
Ali Farah, P.Eng.
|
18.17 Off-site Infrastructure
|
Tetra Tech
|
Dave Ireland, C.Eng., P.Eng.
|
19.0 Market Studies and Contracts
|
Tetra Tech
|
John Huang, Ph.D., P.Eng.
|
20.0 Environmental Studies, Permitting,
and Social or Community Impact
|
ERM Rescan/
BGC
|
Pierre Pelletier, P.Eng./
Hamish Weatherly, M.Sc., P.Geo./
Sharon Blackmore, M.Sc., P.Geo./
Trevor Crozier, M.Eng., P.Eng.
|
21.0 Capital and Operating Costs
|
-
|
-
|
21.1 Capital Cost Estimate
|
Tetra Tech
|
Harvey Wayne Stoyko, P.Eng.
|
21.2 Operating Cost Estimate
|
-
|
-
|
21.2.1 Summary
|
Tetra Tech
|
John Huang, Ph.D., P.Eng.
|
21.2.2 Mining Operating Costs
|
AMC
|
Colm Keogh, P.Eng.
|
table continues…
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
Report Section
|
Company |
QP
|
21.2.3 Process Operating Costs
|
Tetra Tech
|
John Huang, Ph.D., P.Eng.
|
21.2.4 Backfilling Operating Costs
|
Tetra Tech
|
John Huang, Ph.D., P.Eng.
|
21.2.5 Water Treatment Operating Costs
|
Tetra Tech
|
John Huang, Ph.D., P.Eng.
|
21.2.6 General and Administrative and Surface Services
|
Tetra Tech
|
John Huang, Ph.D., P.Eng.
|
22.0 Economic Analysis
|
Tetra Tech
|
Sabry Abdel Hafez, Ph.D., P.Eng.
|
23.0 Adjacent Properties
|
Snowden
|
Lynn Olssen, MAusIMM(CP)
|
24.0 Other Relevant Data
|
Tetra Tech
|
Dave Ireland, C.Eng., P.Eng.
|
25.0 Interpretations and Conclusions
|
All
|
Sign-off by Section
|
26.0 Recommendations
|
All
|
Sign-off by Section
|
27.0 References
|
All
|
Sign-off by Section
|
28.0 Certificates of Qualified Persons
|
All
|
Sign-off by Section
|
2.2
|
Information and Data Sources
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
3.0
|
RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS
|
3.1
|
Introduction
|
3.1
|
Lynn Olssen, B.Sc., MAusIMM (CP)
|
3.2
|
Sabry Abdel Hafez, Ph.D., P.Eng.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
4.0
|
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION
|
4.1
|
Location
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
Figure 4.1
|
Property Location Map
|
4.2
|
Tenure
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
4.3
|
Status of Mining Titles
|
|
Table 4.1
|
Mineral Claims for the Brucejack Property
|
Tenure
No.
|
Tenure
Type
|
Map
No.
|
Owner
|
Pretivm
Interest
|
Status
|
In Good
Standing To
|
Area
(ha)
|
509223
|
Mineral
|
104B
|
Pretium Exploration Inc.
|
100%
|
Good
|
31-Jan-25
|
428.62
|
509397
|
Mineral
|
104B
|
Pretium Exploration Inc.
|
100%
|
Good
|
31-Jan-25
|
375.15
|
509400
|
Mineral
|
104B
|
Pretium Exploration Inc.
|
100%
|
Good
|
31-Jan-25
|
178.63
|
1027396
|
Mineral
|
104B
|
Pretium Exploration Inc.
|
100%
|
Good
|
31-Jan-25
|
125.09
|
1027397
|
Mineral
|
104B
|
Pretium Exploration Inc.
|
100%
|
Good
|
31-Jan-25
|
53.63
|
1027398
|
Mineral
|
104B
|
Pretium Exploration Inc.
|
100%
|
Good
|
31-Jan-25
|
160.92
|
1027399
|
Mineral
|
104B
|
Pretium Exploration Inc.
|
100%
|
Good
|
31-Jan-25
|
983.61
|
1027400
|
Mineral
|
104B
|
Pretium Exploration Inc.
|
100%
|
Good
|
31-Jan-25
|
500.39
|
1027429
|
Mineral
|
104B
|
Pretium Exploration Inc.
|
100%
|
Good
|
31-Jan-25
|
196.61
|
1027431
|
Mineral
|
104B
|
Pretium Exploration Inc.
|
100%
|
Good
|
31-Jan-25
|
53.63
|
1027433
|
Mineral
|
104B
|
Pretium Exploration Inc.
|
100%
|
Good
|
31-Jan-25
|
143.00
|
Total (ha)
|
3,199.28
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
Figure 4.2
|
Brucejack Property Mineral Claims
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
Figure 4.3
|
Pretivm Mineral Claims
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
4.4
|
Confirmation of Tenure
|
4.5
|
Royalties, Fees and Taxes
|
·
|
“Royalty” means the amount payable by the Owner, calculated as 1.2% of the NSR, with the following exemptions:
|
-
|
gold: the first 503,386 oz produced from the Project
|
-
|
silver: the first 17,907,080 oz produced from the Project.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
5.0
|
ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSIOGRAPHY
|
5.1
|
Climate And Physiography
|
5.1.1
|
Vegetation
|
5.2
|
Accessibility
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
Figure 5.1
|
Project Access
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
5.3
|
Infrastructure
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
6.0
|
HISTORY
|
6.1
|
Early Exploration
|
|
Table 6.1
|
Exploration History of the Sulphurets Property Between 1960 and 2008
|
Date
|
Exploration
|
1960 to 1979
|
Granduc continued exploration, conducting further geological mapping, lithogeochemical sampling, trenching, and diamond drilling on known base and precious metal targets north and northwest of Brucejack Lake. This resulted in the discovery of gold-silver mineralization in the Hanging Glacier area and molybdenum on the south side of the Mitchell zone.
|
1980
|
Esso Minerals Canada Ltd. (Esso) optioned the Property from Granduc and subsequently completed an extensive program consisting of mapping, trenching, and geochemical sampling that resulted in the discovery of several showings including the Snowfield, Shore, West, and Galena zones. Gold was discovered on the peninsula at Brucejack Lake near the Shore Zone.
|
1982 and 1983
|
Exploration was confined to gold- and silver-bearing vein systems in the Brucejack Lake area at the southern end of the Sulphurets property from 1982 to 1983. Drilling was concentrated in 12 silver and gold-bearing structures, including the Near Shore and West zones, located 800 m apart near Brucejack Lake. Drilling commenced on the Shore Zone.
|
1983 and 1984
|
Esso continued work on the Sulphurets property and (in 1984) outlined a deposit on the west Brucejack Zone.
|
1985
|
Esso dropped the option on the Sulphurets property.
|
1985
|
The Sulphurets property was optioned by Newhawk Gold Mines Ltd. (Newhawk) and Lacana Mining Corp. (Lacana) from Granduc under a three-way joint venture (JV) (the Newcana JV). The Newcana JV completed work on the Snowfield, Mitchell, Golden Marmot, Sulphurets Gold, and Main Copper zones, along with lesser known targets.
|
table continues…
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
Date
|
Exploration
|
1986 to 1991
|
Between 1986 and 1991, the Newcana JV spent approximately $21 million developing the West Zone and other smaller precious metal veins, on what would later become the Bruceside property. In addition to surface work, a total of 5,276 m of exploratory underground drifting and 33,750 m of underground drilling in 442 drillholes was completed on the West Zone between 1987 and 1990.
|
1991 and 1992
|
Newhawk officially subdivided the Sulphurets claim group into the Sulphside and Bruceside properties and optioned the Sulphside property (including the Sulphurets and Mitchell zones) to Placer Dome Inc. (Placer Dome). From 1991 to 1994, joint venture exploration continued on the Bruceside property, including property-wide trenching; mapping; airborne surveys; and surface drilling, evaluating various surface targets including the Shore; Gossan Hill; Galena Hill; Maddux; and SG zones. Newhawk purchased Granduc’s interest in the Snowfield Property in early 1992.
|
1991
|
Six holes were drilled at the Shore Zone, totalling 1,200 m, to test its continuity and to determine its relationship to the West and R-8 zones. Results varied from 37 g/t gold over 1.5 m, to 13 g/t gold over 4.9 m (www.infomine.com).
|
1994
|
Exploration in the Bruceside property consisted of detailed mapping and sampling in the vicinity of the Gossan Hill Zone, and 7,352 m of diamond drilling (in 20 drillholes) primarily on the West, R-8, Shore, and Gossan Hill zones. Mapping, trenching, and drilling of the highest priority targets were conducted on 10 of the best deposits (including the West Zone).
|
1996
|
Granduc merged with Black Hawk to form Black Hawk Mining Inc. (Black Hawk).
|
1997 and 1998
|
No exploration or development work was carried out on the Snowfield and Bruceside properties (Budinski et al. 2001).
|
1999
|
Silver Standard Resources Inc. (Silver Standard) acquired Newhawk and with it, Newhawk’s 100% interest in the Snowfield property and 60% interest in the Bruceside property (www.infomine.com).
|
2001
|
Silver Standard entered into an agreement with Black Hawk whereby Silver Standard acquired Black Hawk’s 40% direct interest in the Bruceside property, giving Silver Standard a 100% interest in the Bruceside property, which it subsequently renamed the Brucejack Project.
|
1999 to 2008
|
No exploration or development work was carried out on the Snowfield and Brucejack properties during the period from 1999 to 2008.
|
6.2
|
Exploration by Silver Standard Resources Inc. (2001-2010)
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
Figure 6.1
|
Examples of High Grade Gold Intersections in the VOK
|
a
|
b
|
||
c
|
|
d
|
Notes:
|
Dendritic latticework electrum in quartz-carbonate vein in: a) discovery drillhole SU-012; b) drillhole SU-084; c) drillhole SU-115; and d) drillhole SU-452; core in photographs is HQ diameter.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
6.3
|
Previous Feasibility Studies on the Property (1990)
|
6.4
|
Prior Mineral Production
|
6.5
|
Preliminary Economic Assessment (2010)
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
·
|
Wardrop: processing, infrastructure, capital and operating cost estimates, and financial analysis
|
·
|
AMC: mining
|
·
|
P&E Mining Consultants Inc. (P&E): mineral resource estimate
|
·
|
Rescan: environmental aspects, waste and water treatment
|
·
|
BGC: tailings impoundment facility, waste rock and water management, and geotechnical design for the open pit slopes.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
7.0
|
GEOLOGICAL SETTING AND MINERALIZATION
|
7.1
|
Regional Geological Setting
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
Figure 7.1
|
Location of Brucejack and Snowfield Deposits in the Northwest-trending Structural Culmination of Lower Jurassic Rocks of the Stikine Terrane on the Western Side of the Bowser Basin
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
7.2
|
Brucejack Property Geology
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
Figure 7.2
|
Geological Map of the Property Showing Location of Defined Mineralized Zones and their Association with the Arcuate Band of Quartz-sericite-pyrite Alteration (shown in yellow)
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
Figure7.3
|
Brucejack Property Geology Legend for Figure 7.2
|
figure continues… |
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
Figure7.3 (con’t)
|
Brucejack Property Geology Legend for Figure 7.2
|
figure continues… |
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
Figure7.3 (con’t)
|
Brucejack Property Geology Legend for Figure 7.2
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
8.0
|
DEPOSIT TYPES
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
|
Figure 8.1
|
Schematic Showing Relative Position of the Brucejack Deposit to a Porphyry Copper-gold System
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
9.0
|
EXPLORATION
|
|
Table 9.1
|
Exploration of the Brucejack Deposit
|
Date
|
Exploration
|
2011
|
A bulk-tonnage resource update was released in February 2011 with a high-grade sensitivity for the VOK.
|
Brownfields exploration included detailed surface geological mapping, limited surface sampling, and limited geophysics (Spartan magnetotelluric survey; refer to Ireland et al. 2013).
|
|
A total of 178 diamond drillholes were completed, totalling 72,805 m. The program targeted previously defined high-grade intersections primarily in the VOK (60% of the total), but also in the Gossan Hill, Shore, West, and Bridge zones.
|
|
Dewatering of the historical West Zone underground development was carried out to assess the condition of the workings and determine if the workings could be used as a launching point for a development drive to the VOK.
|
|
2012
|
Detailed Brownfields surface geological mapping and associated supplementary surface geochemical sampling was continued.
|
A total of 301 drillholes were completed, totalling 105,500 m of drilling during the 2012 drilling program. Zones within 150 m of surface were drilled at 12.5 m centres, with the deeper parts (down to about 350 m below surface) being drilled at approximately 25 m centres. Drilling at greater depths was generally only able to reliably achieve 50 m centres.
|
|
The results of the 2012 drilling were incorporated into a revised Mineral Resource estimate (Jones 2012b). This resource estimate formed the basis for a feasibility study on the Property, which was completed in June 2013 (Ireland et al. 2013).
|
|
2013
|
A total of 24 surface diamond drillholes (5,200 m) were completed in drillholes SU-590 to
SU-626.
|
Surface geological mapping and supplementary surface geochemical sampling was continued albeit with a more Greenfields exploration goal (i.e., focussing on the broader area within Pretivm’s claims) than in previous years.
|
|
Pretivm elected to extract a bulk sample to further evaluate the geological interpretation and Mineral Resource estimate for the VOK deposit as discussed below.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
9.1
|
Bulk Sample
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
Figure 9.1
|
Planned (top) Versus Actual Completed (bottom) Bulk Sample Area Layout on the 1,345 m Level, VOK Deposit
|
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
10.0
|
DRILLING
|
|
Table 10.1
|
Drilling on the Brucejack Deposit
|
Date
|
Exploration
|
|
Historical 1960-1990
|
● |
452 surface diamond drillholes (60,854 m) in West Zone, Shore Zone, Galena Hill and Gossan Hill.
|
● |
442 underground diamond drillholes off the West Zone exploration ramp (33,750 m), providing a drill density of approximately 5 m centres between 5 m and 10 m spaced sections.
|
|
Silver Standard 2009
|
● |
17,846 m in 37 drillholes, of which 2,913 m in 6 drillholes were targeted at the VOK. This program successfully discovered several areas with bulk tonnage mineralization within which were locally discreet high grade intersections
|
Silver Standard 2010
|
● |
73 diamond drillholes were completed which totalled 33,480 m. Of this, 11 drillholes comprising 3,693 m were targeted at the VOK, and two drillholes, totalling 1,119 m at the footwall of West Zone. In the VOK, wide spaced drilling intersected enough high grade mineralization to confirm the exploration potential of the zone.
|
Pretium 2011
|
● |
178 drillholes were completed totalling 72,805 m, focusing on defining high grade resources. Included in this were 97 drillholes (41,219 m) targeted at the VOK, 16 drillholes (7,471 m) at West Zone, and 21 drillholes (7,220 m) targeting the surrounding areas.
|
Pretium 2012
|
● |
The 2012 diamond drill program was focused on defining the high grade resource in the VOK. 301 drillholes were completed, totalling 105,500 m of drilling during the 2012 drilling program. Zones within 150 m of surface were drilled at 12.5 m centres, with the deeper parts (down to about 350 m below surface) being drilled at approximately 25 m centres. Drilling at greater depths was generally only able to reliably achieve 50 m centres.
|
Pretium 2012
|
● |
As part of the bulk sample program, 409 underground diamond drillholes (38,840 m) were completed with 200 of these drillholes (16,640 m) being in the bulk sample area, and the remainder (209 drillholes totalling 22,200 m) testing targets outside of the bulk sample area.
|
● | Drillholes range from 12 m to 450 m in length, with most drillholes being between 50 m and 150 m in length. |
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
11.0
|
SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES, AND SECURITY
|
11.1
|
Sample Preparation and Analysis
|
·
|
Crush to 70% passing 2 mm, (-10 mesh), riffle split, and 500 g pulverized to 85% passing 75 µm (-200 mesh).
|
·
|
Gold grade determined using fire assay on a 30 g aliquot with an atomic absorption (AA) finish. A 33 element package which included silver was also assessed using a four acid digest and an ICP-AES analysis.
|
·
|
The upper limit of acceptable accuracy for gold and silver was 10 ppm gold and 100 ppm silver, respectively, using these methods. For sample results above these levels, the gold and silver content was determined by gravimetric analysis.
|
|
·
|
A total of 2,621 pulp specific gravity determinations carried out by ALS.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
·
|
As part of the 2012 surface drilling and 2013 underground drilling programs, Pretivm selected a portion of the samples (207 and 204 samples) for core density (water immersion method) as well as the pulp specific gravity measurements in order to determine the impact of porosity.
|
11.2
|
Quality Assurance And Quality Control
|
11.3
|
Author’s Opinion on Date Sample Preparation, Security and Analytical Procedures
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
12.0
|
DATA VERIFICATION
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
13.0
|
MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURICAL TESTING
|
13.1
|
Introduction
|
|
Table 13.1
|
Major Metallurgical Testing Programs
|
Year
|
Program ID
|
Laboratory**
|
Gravity
|
Flotation
|
Grindability
|
Cyanidation
|
Others
|
2014
|
1208011
|
Inspectorate
|
Ö
|
Ö
|
|||
2014
|
T1172
|
Gekko
|
Ö
|
Ö
|
Ö
|
||
2014
|
P-14066
|
FLS-DM
|
Ö
|
Ö
|
|||
2014
|
MS1542
|
Met-Solve
|
Ö
|
Ö
|
|||
2013
|
1208011
|
Inspectorate
|
Ö
|
Ö
|
Ö
|
Ö
|
Ö
|
2012
|
11489
|
Hazen
|
-
|
-
|
Ö
|
-
|
-
|
2012
|
KRTS20734-A
|
Knelson
|
Ö
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
table continues…
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
Year
|
Program ID
|
Laboratory**
|
Gravity
|
Flotation
|
Grindability
|
Cyanidation
|
Others
|
2012
|
MS1399
|
Met-Solve
|
Ö
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
2012
|
Feb2012-01
|
PMCL
|
Ö
|
||||
2012
|
-
|
Pocock
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
Ö
|
2012
|
12012
|
JZM
|
Ö
|
||||
2012
|
1106811
|
Inspectorate
|
Ö
|
Ö
|
Ö
|
Ö
|
Ö
|
2010-2011
|
1004608
|
Inspectorate
|
Ö
|
Ö
|
Ö
|
Ö
|
-
|
2009-2010
|
0906609
|
Inspectorate
|
Ö
|
Ö
|
Ö
|
Ö
|
-
|
Before 1990*
|
-
|
Various
|
Ö
|
Ö
|
Ö
|
Ö
|
Ö
|
|
Notes:
|
*From Feasibility Study Sulphurets Property by CESL
**Hazen = Hazen Research Inc.; Inspectorate = Exploration & Metallurgical Testing Inspectorate America Corporation or Metallurgical Division, Inspectorate Exploration and Mining Services Ltd.; Met-Solve = Met-Solve Laboratories Inc.; Knelson = FLSmidth Knelson; Pocock = Pocock Industrial Inc.; JZM = Joe Zhou Mineralogy Ltd; PMCL = Process Mineralogical Consulting Ltd.;
|
|
FLS-DM = FLSmidth Dawson Metallurgical; Gekko = Gekko Systems Pty Ltd.
|
13.2
|
Historical Test Work
|
|
Table 13.2
|
Mineralogical Assessment (West Zone)
|
Mineral
|
Content
(%)
|
Pyrite
|
9.7
|
Sphalerite
|
0.5
|
Tetrahedrite
|
0.1
|
Jalpaite
|
0.1
|
Ruby Silver
|
0.05
|
Galena
|
0.05
|
Chalcopyrite
|
Trace
|
Native Gold
|
Trace
|
Native Silver
|
Trace
|
Gangues
|
89.5
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
Table 13.3
|
Metallurgical Performance Projection
|
Products
|
Mass
Recovery
(%)
|
Grade
(g/t)
|
Recovery
(%)
|
||
Au
|
Ag
|
Au
|
Ag
|
||
Gravity Concentrate
|
0.2
|
1,139.0
|
3,966.0
|
22.5
|
1.1
|
Flotation Concentrate
|
4.5
|
143.4
|
12,665.0
|
66.4
|
82.4
|
Tailings
|
95.3
|
1.2
|
119.7
|
11.1
|
16.5
|
Head
|
100.0
|
9.3
|
777.6
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
13.3
|
2009 to 2014 Test Work
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
13.3.1
|
Sample Description
|
13.3.2
|
2012 to 2014 Test Samples
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
Composite
|
||||||
VOK-1
|
VOK-2
|
VOK-3
|
VOK-4
|
WZ-1
|
WZ-2
|
|
Sample Labels
|
210
|
208
|
119A
|
225
|
233
|
279
|
213
|
122B
|
119C
|
226
|
285
|
288
|
|
223
|
127A
|
122C
|
114A
|
121C
|
121B
|
|
246
|
128B
|
122D
|
122A
|
131B
|
131A
|
|
135A
|
150C
|
128A
|
157D
|
131C
|
143C
|
|
135B
|
157E
|
135C
|
163A
|
143A
|
154A
|
|
157C
|
170C
|
150A
|
163B
|
143B
|
154B
|
|
195A
|
176A
|
150B
|
170A
|
154C
|
162A
|
|
200B
|
176B
|
157A
|
170B
|
162D
|
162B
|
|
202B
|
190A
|
157B
|
190B
|
222C
|
162C
|
|
219A
|
193A
|
193C
|
202A
|
240C
|
212A
|
|
224A
|
193D
|
200A
|
237B
|
282B
|
222A
|
|
224B
|
193E
|
219C
|
241B
|
282C
|
222B
|
|
230A
|
219B
|
224D
|
252A
|
284A
|
240A
|
|
230B
|
232B
|
230B
|
252B
|
284B
|
240B
|
|
232A
|
232C
|
237A
|
252C
|
-
|
282A
|
|
238A
|
241A
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|
238B
|
250C
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|
250B
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|
253A
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|
253B
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|
Table 13.5
|
Composite BJ-A Composition (2012 Test Program)
|
Sub-
composite
|
Weight
(kg)
|
VOK-2
|
180
|
VOK-3
|
75
|
VOK-4
|
110
|
WZ-1
|
75
|
WZ-2
|
60
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
Composite
|
||||||||
SWU
|
SEU
|
SWL
|
SEL
|
NWU
|
NEU
|
NWL
|
NEL
|
|
Hole Number
|
SU-357
|
SU-315
|
SU-338
|
SU-302
|
SU-454
|
SU-334
|
SU-304
|
SU-316
|
SU-390
|
SU-394
|
SU-340
|
SU-312
|
SU-490
|
-
|
SU-350
|
SU-327
|
|
SU-447
|
SU-398
|
SU-342
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
SU-364
|
SU-334
|
|
SU-451
|
SU-468
|
SU-419
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|
SU-476
|
SU-484
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|
-
|
SU-507
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
13.3.3
|
2010 to 2011 Tests Samples
|
|
Table 13.7
|
Conceptual Master Compositing List (2010/2011)
|
Sample ID
|
Zone
|
Hole ID
|
Composite GH2 (High Grade)
|
||
SU-005
|
Galena Hill
|
SU-05
|
SU-006- A
|
Galena Hill
|
SU-06
|
SU-033
|
Galena Hill
|
SU-33
|
SU-54 A
|
Galena Hill
|
SU-54
|
SU-76 B
|
Galena Hill
|
SU-76
|
Composite BZ2 (High Grade)
|
||
SU-021-B
|
Bridge Zone
|
SU-21
|
SU-025
|
Bridge Zone
|
SU-25
|
SU-058 A
|
Bridge Zone
|
SU-58
|
SU-58 B
|
Bridge Zone
|
SU-58
|
SU-64 B
|
Bridge Zone
|
SU-64
|
SU-69 A
|
Bridge Zone
|
SU-69
|
SU-69 B
|
Bridge Zone
|
SU-69
|
SU-69 C
|
Bridge Zone
|
SU-69
|
table continues… |
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
Sample ID
|
Zone
|
Hole ID
|
SU-75 C
|
Bridge Zone
|
SU-75
|
SU-78 C
|
Bridge Zone
|
SU-78
|
SU-10 C
|
Bridge Zone
|
SU-10
|
Composite WZ1
|
||
SU-032-A
|
Gossan Hill
|
SU-32
|
SU-036-A
|
Gossan Hill
|
SU-36
|
SU-036-B
|
Gossan Hill
|
SU-36
|
SU-42 A
|
Gossan Hill
|
SU-42
|
SU-63 A
|
Gossan Hill
|
SU-63
|
SU-66A
|
Gossan Hill
|
SU-66
|
SU-032-B
|
R8 Zone
|
SU-32
|
SU-032-C
|
R8 Zone
|
SU-32
|
SU-42 B
|
R8 Zone
|
SU-42
|
SU-63 B
|
West Zone Footwall
|
SU-63
|
SU-66 B
|
West Zone Footwall
|
SU-66
|
SU-67 A
|
Gossan Hill
|
SU-67
|
SU-67 B
|
Gossan Hill
|
SU-67
|
SU-74 A
|
Gossan Hill
|
SU-74
|
SU-88 A
|
Gossan Hill
|
SU-88
|
SU-88 B
|
Gossan Hill
|
SU-88
|
SU-98
|
Main West Zone
|
SU-98
|
SU-103
|
Main West Zone
|
SU-103
|
13.3.4
|
2009 to 2010 Test Samples
|
·
|
the West Zone and the Gossan Hill Zone (Composite R8)
|
·
|
the Bridge Zone (Composite BZ)
|
|
·
|
the Galena Hill Zone (Composite GH).
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
13.3.5
|
Sample Head Analyses
|
|
Table 13.8
|
Head Assay Comparison (2012)
|
Sample ID
|
ALS
|
Inspectorate
|
||||||
Fire Assay (g/t)
|
Metallic Assay (g/t)
|
Fire Assay (g/t)
|
Metallic Assay (g/t)
|
|||||
Au
|
Ag
|
Au
|
Ag
|
Au
|
Ag
|
Au
|
Ag
|
|
VOK-1
|
5.8
|
12
|
11.7
|
20
|
11.2
|
19.7
|
6.9
|
20.1
|
VOK-2
|
19.9
|
22
|
10.0
|
13
|
16.9
|
29.6
|
9.9
|
16.6
|
VOK-3
|
26.6
|
27
|
53.2
|
43
|
45.5
|
34.8
|
102.4
|
65.6
|
VOK-4
|
1.6
|
36
|
2.7
|
45
|
10.1
|
19.9
|
3.0
|
42.5
|
WZ-1
|
4.8
|
25
|
6.4
|
32
|
6.1
|
36.1
|
5.8
|
32.5
|
WZ-2
|
6.5
|
405
|
6.5
|
421
|
4.6
|
407
|
4.9
|
478.7
|
BJ-A
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
14.1
|
55.5
|
12.9
|
52.5
|
122C
|
0.33
|
1.08
|
-
|
-
|
<1.0
|
1.2
|
-
|
-
|
135C
|
2.09
|
2.92
|
-
|
-
|
1.47
|
2
|
-
|
-
|
219C
|
76.5
|
46
|
-
|
-
|
71.59
|
67.8
|
-
|
-
|
127A
|
47
|
31
|
-
|
-
|
28.66
|
31.1
|
-
|
-
|
176B
|
1.28
|
8
|
-
|
-
|
<1.0
|
18.2
|
-
|
-
|
193A
|
0.25
|
1.05
|
-
|
-
|
<1.0
|
1.1
|
-
|
-
|
208
|
2.68
|
5.09
|
-
|
-
|
1.33
|
2.8
|
-
|
-
|
232B
|
19.95
|
15
|
-
|
-
|
10.48
|
19.1
|
-
|
-
|
135B
|
8.17
|
111
|
-
|
-
|
6.76
|
123.1
|
-
|
-
|
195A
|
12.8
|
12
|
-
|
-
|
7.39
|
5.98
|
-
|
-
|
219A
|
66
|
54
|
-
|
-
|
62.63
|
45.7
|
-
|
-
|
223
|
3.07
|
12
|
-
|
-
|
2.91
|
15.6
|
-
|
-
|
230A
|
5.31
|
9
|
-
|
-
|
2.37
|
11.9
|
-
|
-
|
238B
|
7.14
|
16
|
-
|
-
|
1.89
|
14.5
|
-
|
-
|
253B
|
4.56
|
5
|
-
|
-
|
<1.0
|
5.4
|
-
|
-
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
Table 13.9
|
Head Assay Comparison (2013)
|
Sample
ID
|
Au
|
Ag
|
Ag
|
S (tot)
(%)
|
C Graph
(%)
|
As
(ppm)
|
Metallics
(g/t)
|
ICP
(g/t)
|
|||||
SEL
|
1.44
|
27.9
|
32.9
|
4.51
|
0.08
|
655
|
NWL
|
0.91
|
4.0
|
4.9
|
2.39
|
0.07
|
249
|
SEU
|
9.47
|
9.8
|
10.0
|
4.35
|
0.08
|
822
|
NEL
|
4.89
|
15.1
|
8.0
|
2.16
|
0.08
|
399
|
NEU
|
2.59*
|
3.1
|
4.0
|
3.19
|
0.08
|
374
|
SWL
|
14.83
|
12.5
|
8.9
|
3.09
|
0.08
|
481
|
SWU
|
9.24
|
14.0
|
12.0
|
4.06
|
0.13
|
690
|
NWU
|
27.40
|
20.7
|
28.7
|
2.86
|
0.07
|
238
|
BMS**
|
1.87
|
10.1
|
10.9
|
4.11
|
0.06
|
1,154
|
MU
|
10.28
|
12.3
|
9.9
|
3.54
|
0.07
|
525
|
ML
|
5.62
|
8.3
|
9.9
|
2.69
|
0.07
|
368
|
|
Notes:
|
*Initial sample showed 500 g/t gold in coarse fraction, but re-running produced a significantly lower head as shown in Table 13.9.
**Represents a stope planned for producing a bulk sample during summer 2013. Heavy media separation test was conducted using the sample.
|
|
Table 13.10
|
Metal Contents of Composite Samples (2010 to 2011)
|
Composite
|
Head Grade (g/t)
|
|
Au
|
Ag
|
|
Composite GH2
|
4.93
|
52.9
|
Composite BZ2
|
0.91
|
7.7
|
Composite WZ1
|
1.79
|
25.4
|
Composite SU-98
|
73.30
|
2.5
|
Composite SU-76B
|
12.60
|
13.0
|
Composite SU-32C
|
11.00
|
10.4
|
Composite SU-32A
|
3.80
|
25.8
|
Composite SU-33
|
3.68
|
22.1
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
Sample ID
|
Au(1)
(g/t)
|
Au (CN)(2)
(g/t)
|
Au(3)
(g/t)
|
Ag(4)
(g/t)
|
Ag (CN)
(g/t)
|
S(-2)
(%)
|
C(org)(5)
(%)
|
Cu(4)
(ppm)
|
As
(%)
|
SU-4
|
1.86
|
-
|
1.75
|
3.9
|
-
|
2.67
|
0.22
|
57
|
0.113
|
SU-5
|
0.99
|
-
|
1.10
|
34.8
|
-
|
1.58
|
0.10
|
235
|
0.026
|
SU-6A
|
1.36
|
-
|
1.98
|
67.3
|
-
|
3.63
|
0.06
|
101
|
0.020
|
SU-6B
|
1.05
|
-
|
5.23
|
12.9
|
-
|
3.79
|
0.19
|
90
|
0.029
|
SU-10
|
0.71
|
-
|
0.76
|
8.3
|
-
|
1.89
|
0.13
|
77
|
0.011
|
SU-19
|
1.35
|
-
|
1.57
|
6.6
|
-
|
2.03
|
0.25
|
133
|
0.010
|
SU-21A
|
0.62
|
-
|
0.64
|
10.3
|
-
|
2.39
|
0.14
|
70
|
0.026
|
SU-21B
|
5.23
|
-
|
5.05
|
12.3
|
-
|
2.07
|
0.18
|
96
|
0.031
|
SU-25
|
1.64
|
-
|
2.12
|
11.4
|
-
|
1.86
|
0.22
|
34
|
0.025
|
SU-27
|
0.64
|
-
|
0.91
|
4.0
|
-
|
1.21
|
0.15
|
23
|
0.033
|
SU-032A
|
2.46
|
1.70
|
2.24
|
13.3
|
11.7
|
3.50
|
0.11
|
66
|
0.016
|
SU-032B
|
0.84
|
0.78
|
1.42
|
71.1
|
73.8
|
3.11
|
0.35
|
57
|
0.007
|
SU-032C
|
1.90
|
1.62
|
3.06
|
1.9
|
4.0
|
2.93
|
0.29
|
27
|
0.024
|
SU-033
|
2.17
|
2.10
|
3.42
|
24.5
|
29.8
|
3.08
|
0.21
|
63
|
0.018
|
SU-036A
|
1.40
|
0.68
|
1.30
|
10.2
|
8.8
|
3.23
|
0.22
|
104
|
0.046
|
SU-036B
|
0.64
|
0.41
|
0.55
|
3.8
|
3.0
|
3.56
|
0.33
|
26
|
0.028
|
Comp R8
|
1.14
|
-
|
1.44
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
60
|
0.022
|
Comp GH
|
1.65
|
-
|
1.73
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
131
|
0.022
|
Comp BZ
|
1.53
|
-
|
1.67
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
77
|
0.020
|
|
Notes:
|
(1) whole sample assay; (2) CN = cyanide soluble; (3) metallic analyses; (4) by ICP;
(5) org = organic carbon.
|
·
|
The samples are primarily composed of non-opaque gangue minerals, which include quartz, K-feldspar and muscovite with minor amounts of pyrite, carbonates, pyroxene and Mg-silicates (clinochlore).
|
·
|
The primary gold bearing mineral present in all samples is electrum. The Scanning Electron Microscopes-Energy Dispersive Spectrometer (SEM-EDS) analysis of the electrum grains indicates that the gold content ranges between 50 to 75%.
|
|
·
|
Distribution of gold between the heavy liquid separation products indicates that approximately 80% and greater of the gold was recovered into the heavy liquid sink products for most samples, excluding Sample WZ-2 which has approximately 70% of the gold recovered into the sink products.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
·
|
Gold-bearing minerals occur primarily as fine grains ranging in size from 2 to 10 µm. Samples VOK-1 and WZ-2 illustrate a fairly tight size range between 2 and 16 µm. Sample VOK-2 contains gold with a broader range of gold from 2 to 32 µm. Gold present in Samples VOK-3, VOK-4, and WZ-1 illustrates a finer distribution of gold, mainly less than 8 µm in size.
|
·
|
Textural determinations made by Backscatter Electron Imaging indicate that gold-bearing minerals occur as fracture fillings in pyrite and as disseminated grains and inclusions interstitial to grain boundaries of non-opaque gangue minerals and pyrite.
|
·
|
Optical examination of the samples yielded no evidence of organic carbon or graphitic carbon. Carbonate minerals are present in each sample in minor amounts (approximately 2 to 3%).
|
·
|
Sample VOK-3 showed that electrum was the primary Ag-bearing mineral with only minor amounts occurring as polybasite, tetrahedrite, acanthite and native silver. Trace amounts of selenopolybasite, stephanite, hessite, petzite, andorite, aguillarite and argentotennantite were also observed. Trace amounts of silver are also present in galena as shown by SEM-EDS analysis. Electrum is mainly present as liberated grains and to a lesser amount as exposed grains on pyrite and non-opaque gangue minerals.
|
·
|
Sample VOK-4 showed that silver is mainly present in polybasite and acanthite. Moderate amounts of silver are present as tetrahedrite and native silver, while minor amounts of silver are present in selenopolybasite, argentotennantite, electrum, and stephanite. Trace amounts of silver were also observed by SEM-EDS analysis within galena present in the sample. Significant amounts of silver-bearing minerals present in the sample occur as liberated grains with subordinate amounts associated with pyrite and non-opaque gangue minerals.
|
·
|
Sample WZ-2 is mainly polybasite, selenopolybasite with lesser amounts present as tetrahedrite. Minor amounts of silver are present as argentotennantite, acanthite and andorite. Trace amounts are present as electrum and as silver in galena as well as stephanite. The primary host minerals of silver occur as liberated grains with lesser amounts occurring as grains associated with non-opaque gangue minerals and reduced amounts associated with pyrite.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
Mineral
|
WZ-1
|
WZ-2
|
VOK 1
|
VOK 2
|
VOK 3
|
VOK 4
|
Quartz
|
33.9
|
46.8
|
43.3
|
37.8
|
37.8
|
41.3
|
Feldspar
|
22.4
|
18.6
|
27.5
|
31.1
|
31.1
|
29.3
|
Muscovite
|
32.3
|
20.5
|
11.0
|
10.8
|
10.8
|
10.7
|
Pyrite/Pyrrhotite
|
5.60
|
8.35
|
5.91
|
7.42
|
7.52
|
6.51
|
Carbonates
|
2.69
|
2.18
|
3.99
|
3.41
|
3.43
|
3.46
|
Mg-Silicates
|
0.21
|
0.10
|
2.96
|
2.93
|
2.96
|
1.86
|
Pyroxene
|
1.74
|
2.16
|
2.12
|
2.10
|
2.17
|
3.20
|
Plagioclase
|
0.70
|
0.44
|
2.11
|
3.06
|
3.01
|
2.79
|
Phosphates
|
0.31
|
0.33
|
0.41
|
0.52
|
0.40
|
0.36
|
Ti-Bearing Minerals
|
0.14
|
0.12
|
0.35
|
0.48
|
0.46
|
0.21
|
Garnet
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
0.08
|
0.05
|
0.05
|
0.03
|
Arsenopyrite
|
0.01
|
0.00
|
0.04
|
0.09
|
0.08
|
0.06
|
Sphalerite
|
0.04
|
0.17
|
0.02
|
0.04
|
0.03
|
0.02
|
Tungsten Minerals
|
0.02
|
0.04
|
0.02
|
0.02
|
0.03
|
0.10
|
Chalcopyrite
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
0.02
|
0.00
|
0.02
|
0.00
|
Galena
|
0.00
|
0.03
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
0.01
|
0.04
|
Other
|
0.05
|
0.18
|
0.10
|
0.09
|
0.10
|
0.14
|
Total
|
100
|
100
|
100
|
100
|
100
|
100
|
·
|
Composite SEU & MU contains in total approximately 7.5% w/w sulphide minerals. Pyrite accounts for more than 99% w/w of the total sulphide minerals. Other present sulphide minerals in trace amounts are freibergite, chalcopyrite, bornite, sphalerite, galena, molybdenite, tetrahedrite, tennantite and arsenopyrite.
|
·
|
The sulphide minerals are embraced in silicon rich non-sulphide gangue host, which dominantly incurs as quartz and muscovite/biotite. The remaining non-sulphide gangue is comprised of k-feldspar, chlorite, calcite, apatite and rutile/sphene.
|
·
|
At a primary grind size of 80% passing 87 μm, 90% of the pyrite has been liberated. The unliberated pyrite is mostly interlocked with non-sulphide gangue.
|
|
·
|
Six pieces of gold was spotted by the determination. All the gold grains are finer than 5 µm in circular diameter. The observed gold mostly occurs as liberated grains. The unliberated gold is associated with pyrite in binary form.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
Table 13.13 Chemical and Mineral Composition of Composite SEU & MU
|
Chemical Assays
|
Mineral Content (%)
|
|||||
Element
|
Unit
|
Content
|
Sulphide Minerals
|
Mass
|
Non-Sulphide Minerals
|
Mass
|
Gold
|
g/t
|
9.88
|
Freibergite
|
0.01
|
Iron Oxides
|
0.2
|
Silver
|
g/t
|
10.0
|
Chalcopyrite
|
0.02
|
Quartz
|
49.7
|
Copper
|
%
|
0.01
|
Galena
|
0.00
|
Muscovite/Biotite
|
28.3
|
Lead
|
%
|
0.01
|
Sphalerite
|
0.06
|
K-Feldspars
|
5.6
|
Zinc
|
%
|
0.03
|
Other Sulphides
|
0.00
|
Calcite
|
5.2
|
Iron
|
%
|
4.29
|
Pyrite
|
7.33
|
Chlorite
|
2.1
|
Sulphur
|
%
|
3.95
|
Arsenopyrite
|
0.04
|
Apatite
|
0.7
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
Others
|
0.7
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
Total
|
7.46
|
Total
|
92.5
|
13.3.6
|
Ore Hardness Test Work
|
|
Table 13.14
|
Conventional Grindability and Crushability Test Results
|
Sample
ID
|
BWi
(kWh/t)
|
Cut Particle
Size
(Screen
Aperture)
(µm)
|
RWi
(kWh/t)
|
CWi
(kWh/t)
|
UCS
(psi)
|
Ai
(g)
|
Inspectorate (2013)
|
||||||
MU (Upper Zone Master Composite)
|
15.6
|
106
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
ML (Lower Zone Master Composite)
|
15.0
|
106
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
Hazen (2012)
|
||||||
VOK HW 1
|
14.2
|
149
|
14.4
|
12.3
|
20,910
|
0.2254
|
VOK Ore 1
|
14.4
|
149
|
15.6
|
11.4
|
15,680
|
0.2125
|
VOK Ore 2
|
14.4
|
149
|
14.6
|
11.1
|
8,510
|
0.1384
|
VOK Ore 3
|
15.4
|
149
|
17.9
|
10.4
|
9,000
|
0.0903
|
VOK Ore 4
|
14.2
|
149
|
15.2
|
9.3
|
11,800
|
0.3820
|
VOK Ore 5
|
13.8
|
149
|
14.3
|
7.9
|
5,770
|
0.2474
|
VOK Ore 6
|
14.4
|
149
|
13.5
|
8.9
|
11,500
|
0.2385
|
WZ HW 1
|
12.2
|
149
|
13.2
|
6.9
|
2,520
|
0.0388
|
WZ Ore 1
|
16.7
|
149
|
16.7
|
11.8
|
22,390
|
0.3069
|
WZ Ore 2
|
15.3
|
149
|
15.1
|
10.7
|
15,530
|
0.3535
|
table continues… |
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
Sample
ID
|
BWi
(kWh/t)
|
Cut Particle
Size
(Screen
Aperture)
(µm)
|
RWi
(kWh/t)
|
CWi
(kWh/t)
|
UCS
(psi)
|
Ai
(g)
|
WZ Ore 3
|
15.8
|
149
|
15.5
|
10.3
|
20,310
|
0.6599
|
WZ Ore 4
|
15.5
|
149
|
17.0
|
9.5
|
26,460
|
0.2479
|
Inspectorate (2012)
|
||||||
VOK-1 Master Composite
|
15.8
|
74
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
VOK-2 Master Composite
|
15.3
|
74
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
VOK-3 Master Composite
|
15.8
|
74
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
VOK-4 Master Composite
|
15.7
|
74
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
WZ-1 Master Composite
|
17.2
|
74
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
WZ-2 Master Composite
|
15.7
|
74
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
Inspectorate (2009 to 2010)
|
||||||
BZ Composite
|
16.4
|
105
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
GH Composite
|
15.6
|
105
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
R8 Composite
|
16.2
|
105
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|
Note:
|
RWi = Bond rod mill work index; CWi = Bond crushing mill work index; UCS = unconfined compressive strength; Ai = abrasion index.
|
|
Table 13.15
|
SMC Test Results (2012)
|
Sample
ID
|
DWi
(kWh/m3)
|
A
|
b
|
Axb
|
Mia
(kWh/t)
|
Mih
(kWh/t)
|
Mic
(kWh/t)
|
ta
|
Specific
Gravity
|
VOK HW 1
|
5.76
|
52.8
|
0.92
|
48.6
|
16.7
|
12.0
|
6.2
|
0.45
|
2.79
|
VOK Ore 1
|
6.37
|
56.6
|
0.77
|
43.6
|
18.1
|
13.2
|
6.8
|
0.41
|
2.79
|
VOK Ore 3
|
7.12
|
62.9
|
0.62
|
39.0
|
20.2
|
15.0
|
7.8
|
0.40
|
2.75
|
VOK Ore 5
|
4.61
|
52.3
|
1.16
|
60.7
|
13.9
|
9.5
|
4.9
|
0.56
|
2.81
|
WZ HW 1
|
4.89
|
55.2
|
1.08
|
59.6
|
14.1
|
9.8
|
5.1
|
0.53
|
2.90
|
WZ Ore 2
|
7.08
|
66.7
|
0.59
|
39.4
|
19.9
|
14.8
|
7.7
|
0.37
|
2.76
|
WZ Ore 4
|
6.32
|
69.9
|
0.62
|
43.3
|
18.3
|
13.3
|
6.9
|
0.41
|
2.75
|
Average
|
6.02
|
59.5
|
0.82
|
47.7
|
17.3
|
12.5
|
6.5
|
0.44
|
2.79
|
Average – VOK
|
5.97
|
56.2
|
0.87
|
48.0
|
17.2
|
12.4
|
6.4
|
0.45
|
2.79
|
Average – WZ
|
6.10
|
63.9
|
0.76
|
47.4
|
17.4
|
12.6
|
6.6
|
0.44
|
2.80
|
|
Note:
|
DWi = drop weight index; Mia = coarse ore work index provided directly by SMC Test®;
|
|
Mih = high pressure grinding roll (HPGR) ore work index provided directly by SMC Test®;
|
|
Mic = crushing work index provided directly by SMC Test® ta =low-energy abrasion component of breakage
|
·
|
SAG mill/ball mill/pebble crusher (SABC) arrangement:
|
-
|
a 19 ft diameter by 8 ft long (effective grinding length (EGL)) SAG with 1,290 kW of installed power
|
-
|
a 13 ft diameter by 22 ft long ball mill with 1,470 kW of installed power (drawing 1,417 kW)
|
|
-
|
a pebble crusher with 45 to 50 kW of installed power.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
·
|
SAG mill/ball mill (SAB) arrangement:
|
-
|
a 19 ft diameter by 8 ft long (EGL) SAG with 1,290 kW of installed power
|
-
|
a 13 ft diameter by 22 ft long ball mill with 1,470 kW of installed power (drawing 1,429 kW).
|
13.3.7
|
Sample Specific Gravity
|
|
Table 13.16
|
Sample Specific Gravity (2012)
|
Sample
|
Specific
|
ID
|
Gravity
|
VOK-1 Master Composite
|
2.87
|
VOK-2 Master Composite
|
2.83
|
VOK-3 Master Composite
|
2.77
|
VOK-4 Master Composite
|
2.80
|
WZ-1 Master Composite
|
2.74
|
WZ-2 Master Composite
|
2.76
|
|
Table 13.17
|
Sample Specific Gravity (2009 to 2010)
|
Sample
ID
|
Specific
Gravity
|
Sample
ID
|
Specific
Gravity
|
|
SU-4
|
2.79
|
SU-25
|
2.71
|
|
SU-5
|
2.74
|
SU-27
|
2.74
|
|
SU-6A
|
2.82
|
SU-032A
|
2.73
|
|
SU-6B
|
2.84
|
SU-032B
|
2.73
|
|
SU-10
|
2.76
|
SU-032C
|
2.72
|
|
SU-19
|
2.76
|
SU-033
|
2.78
|
|
SU-21A
|
2.75
|
SU-036A
|
2.82
|
|
SU-21B
|
2.77
|
SU-036B
|
2.78
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
13.3.8
|
Flotation Test Work
|
|
Figure 13.1
|
Gold Recovery versus Primary Grind Size (2012)
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
Figure 13.2
|
Silver Recovery versus Primary Grind Size (2012)
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
Figure 13.3
|
Effect of Primary Grind Size on Gold Recovery (2010 to 2011)
|
|
Figure 13.4
|
Effect of Primary Grind Size on Silver Recovery (2010 to 2011)
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
Figure 13.5
|
Effect of Primary Grind Size on Gold Recovery (2009 to 2010)
|
·
|
collectors: PAX, PAX+A208, and 3418A+A208
|
|
·
|
frother: MIBC and D250
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
·
|
regulator: copper sulphate (CuSO4).
|
|
Figure 13.6
|
Collector Screening Tests – Gold Recovery (2012)
|
|
Figure 13.7
|
Collector Screening Tests – Silver Recovery (2012)
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
Figure 13.8
|
Effect of Reagent and Slurry pH on Gold Recovery (2009 to 2010)
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
Figure 13.9
|
Effect of Cleaner Flotation on Gold Recovery (Composite, 2012)
|
|
Figure 13.10
|
Effect of Cleaner Flotation on Silver Recovery (Composite, 2012)
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
Figure 13.11
|
Effect of Cleaner Flotation on Gold Recovery (Interval Samples, 2012)
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
Figure 13.12
|
Effect of Cleaner Flotation on Gold Recovery (Composites, 2013)
|
|
Figure 13.13
|
Effect of Cleaner Flotation on Silver Recovery (Interval Samples, 2012)
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
Figure 13.14
|
Effect of Cleaner Flotation on Silver Recovery (Composites, 2013)
|
|
Figure 13.15
|
Effect of Cleaner Flotation on Gold Recovery (2009 to 2010)
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
Table 13.18
|
Metallic Gold Test Results – Composite Samples (2012)
|
Sample
ID
|
Screen Tyler
Mesh
|
Grade (g/t)
|
Distribution (%)
|
|||
Au
|
Ag
|
Au
|
Ag
|
Mass
|
||
VOK-1
Composite
|
150
|
27.31
|
23.02
|
13.8
|
4.0
|
3.5
|
-150
|
6.11
|
19.98
|
86.2
|
96.0
|
96.5
|
|
Total
|
6.85
|
20.09
|
100
|
100
|
100
|
|
VOK-2
Composite
|
150
|
13.12
|
35.76
|
10.6
|
17.1
|
8.0
|
-150
|
9.59
|
14.96
|
89.4
|
82.9
|
92.0
|
|
Total
|
9.87
|
16.62
|
100
|
100
|
100
|
VOK-3
Composite
|
150
|
1,377.00
|
362.59
|
66.9
|
27.5
|
5.0
|
-150
|
35.65
|
50.05
|
33.1
|
72.5
|
95.0
|
|
Total
|
102.38
|
65.59
|
100
|
100
|
100
|
|
VOK-4
Composite
|
150
|
23.86
|
24.77
|
41.4
|
3.0
|
5.2
|
-150
|
1.83
|
43.5
|
58.6
|
97.0
|
94.8
|
|
Total
|
2.97
|
42.54
|
100
|
100
|
100
|
|
WZ-1
Composite
|
150
|
20.6
|
25.11
|
28.0
|
6.0
|
7.8
|
-150
|
4.49
|
33.1
|
72.0
|
94.0
|
92.2
|
|
Total
|
5.75
|
32.47
|
100
|
100
|
100
|
|
WZ-2
Composite
|
150
|
10.27
|
164.63
|
14.5
|
2.4
|
6.9
|
-150
|
4.49
|
501.95
|
85.5
|
97.6
|
93.1
|
|
Total
|
4.89
|
478.66
|
100
|
100
|
100
|
|
Composite
BJ-A
|
150
|
126.66
|
123.8
|
42.0
|
13.1
|
5.37
|
-150
|
9.91
|
46.8
|
58.0
|
86.9
|
94.63
|
|
Total
|
16.18
|
50.94
|
100
|
100
|
100
|
|
Composite
BJ-A
|
150
|
98.2
|
91.7
|
36
|
8.3
|
4.73
|
-150
|
8.68
|
50.6
|
64
|
91.7
|
95.27
|
|
Total
|
12.92
|
52.54
|
100
|
100
|
100
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
Table 13.19
|
Metallic Gold Test Results – Composite Samples (2009 to 2011)
|
Sample ID
|
Screen Tyler
Mesh
|
Grade
(Au g/t)
|
Distribution (%)
|
|
Mass
|
Au
|
|||
Composite R8
|
+150
|
6.95
|
4.8
|
23.1
|
-150
|
1.16
|
95.2
|
76.9
|
|
Total
|
1.44
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
|
Composite GH
|
+150
|
6.66
|
7.9
|
30.3
|
-150
|
1.31
|
92.1
|
69.7
|
|
Total
|
1.73
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
|
Composite BZ
|
+150
|
3.89
|
5.4
|
12.6
|
-150
|
1.54
|
94.6
|
87.4
|
|
Total
|
1.67
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
Sample
ID
|
Screen Tyler
Mesh
|
Grade (g/t)
|
Distribution (%)
|
Sample
ID
|
Screen Tyler
Mesh
|
Grade (g/t)
|
Distribution (%)
|
|||||||
Au
|
Ag
|
Au
|
Ag
|
Mass
|
Au
|
Ag
|
Au
|
Ag
|
Mass
|
|||||
SU-4
|
+150
|
1.91
|
1.0
|
9.4
|
4.1
|
8.6
|
SU-25
|
+150
|
2.63
|
15.0
|
9.0
|
10.7
|
7.3
|
|
-150
|
1.74
|
2.2
|
90.6
|
95.9
|
91.4
|
-150
|
2.08
|
9.8
|
91.0
|
89.3
|
92.7
|
|||
Total
|
1.75
|
2.1
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
Total
|
2.12
|
10.2
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
|||
SU-5
|
+150
|
2.99
|
29.3
|
11.5
|
3.8
|
4.2
|
SU-27
|
+150
|
2.70
|
0.5
|
7.5
|
2.5
|
2.5
|
|
-150
|
1.02
|
32.7
|
88.5
|
96.2
|
95.8
|
-150
|
0.86
|
0.5
|
92.5
|
97.5
|
97.5
|
|||
Total
|
1.10
|
32.6
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
Total
|
0.91
|
0.5
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
|||
SU-6A
|
+150
|
9.25
|
50.6
|
21.8
|
4.2
|
4.7
|
SU-32A
|
+150
|
6.49
|
15.1
|
14.2
|
4.7
|
4.9
|
|
-150
|
1.62
|
56.9
|
78.2
|
95.8
|
95.3
|
-150
|
2.02
|
15.7
|
85.8
|
95.3
|
95.1
|
|||
Total
|
1.98
|
56.6
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
Total
|
2.24
|
15.7
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
|||
SU-6B
|
+150
|
100.1
|
94.0
|
73.7
|
27.1
|
3.8
|
SU-32B
|
+150
|
8.28
|
51.0
|
38.1
|
4.7
|
6.5
|
|
-150
|
1.43
|
10.1
|
26.3
|
72.9
|
96.2
|
-150
|
0.94
|
73.1
|
61.9
|
95.3
|
93.5
|
|||
Total
|
5.23
|
13.3
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
Total
|
1.42
|
71.7
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
|||
SU-10
|
+150
|
2.11
|
2.1
|
11.4
|
2.0
|
4.1
|
SU-32C
|
+150
|
10.9
|
9.0
|
37.1
|
22.0
|
10.4
|
|
-150
|
0.70
|
4.3
|
88.6
|
98.0
|
95.9
|
-150
|
2.15
|
3.7
|
62.9
|
78.0
|
89.6
|
|||
Total
|
0.76
|
4.2
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
Total
|
3.06
|
4.2
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
|||
SU-19
|
+150
|
1.65
|
3.0
|
4.6
|
3.2
|
4.4
|
SU-33
|
+150
|
22.6
|
29.6
|
59.6
|
7.8
|
9.0
|
|
-150
|
1.57
|
4.2
|
95.4
|
96.8
|
95.6
|
-150
|
1.52
|
34.9
|
40.4
|
92.2
|
91.0
|
|||
Total
|
1.57
|
4.1
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
Total
|
3.42
|
34.4
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
|||
SU-21A
|
+150
|
0.64
|
4.3
|
3.7
|
2.0
|
3.7
|
SU-36A
|
+150
|
2.12
|
9.5
|
15.4
|
7.9
|
9.4
|
|
-150
|
0.64
|
8.2
|
96.3
|
98.0
|
96.3
|
-150
|
1.21
|
11.4
|
84.6
|
92.1
|
90.6
|
|||
Total
|
0.64
|
8.1
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
Total
|
1.30
|
11.2
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
|||
SU-21B
|
+150
|
22.0
|
2.5
|
34.8
|
3.0
|
8.0
|
SU-36B
|
+150
|
0.69
|
7.9
|
12.3
|
20.4
|
9.9
|
|
-150
|
3.58
|
6.9
|
65.2
|
97.0
|
92.0
|
-150
|
0.54
|
3.4
|
87.7
|
79.6
|
90.1
|
|||
Total
|
5.05
|
6.5
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
Total
|
0.55
|
3.8
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
Figure 13.16
|
Gold Recovery by Gravity Concentration – Composite Samples (2012)
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
Table 13.21
|
Gravity Concentration Test Results (2009 to 2010)
|
Test
ID
|
Sample
ID
|
Primary Grind/
Regrind Size
|
Grade (g/t)
|
Recovery (%)
|
||
Au
|
Ag
|
Au
|
Ag
|
|||
GF35
|
BZ
|
P80 131 µm
|
685
|
428
|
17.0
|
4.6
|
GF37
|
R8
|
P80 116 µm
|
70.5
|
677
|
2.7
|
1.8
|
GF36
|
GH
|
P80 116 µm
|
158
|
495
|
11.0
|
1.8
|
GF41
|
GH
|
P80 116 µm
|
331
|
339
|
25.7
|
1.4
|
FG38
|
R8
|
P80 <25 µm
|
1,081
|
1,222
|
35.6
|
2.6
|
FG39
|
GH
|
P80 <25 µm
|
1,918
|
3,103
|
44.8
|
4.5
|
FG40
|
BZ
|
P80 <25 µm
|
1,079
|
984
|
29.3
|
5.9
|
FG42
|
SU-32B
|
P80 <25 µm
|
801
|
4,193
|
22.6
|
1.4
|
FG43
|
SU-33
|
P80 <25 µm
|
5,810
|
8,341
|
43.9
|
4.9
|
FG44
|
SU-36A
|
P80 <25 µm
|
3,337
|
1,653
|
42.3
|
4.0
|
FG45
|
SU-36B
|
P80 <25 µm
|
217
|
337
|
10.6
|
2.4
|
·
|
With three stages of grinding and gravity concentration, the GRG value is estimated to be 80.3% and the GRS value is 9.1% at a grind size of 80% passing 74 µm.
|
·
|
The gold head grade of the samples was 17 g/t, with a final gravity gold tailings grade of 3.2 g/t. The gravity concentrate gold grain sizes corresponding to the P20, P50, and P80 values for the sample are 59, 125, and 304 µm, respectively. Accordingly, the GRG gold grains are classified as coarse to very coarse.
|
·
|
The silver head grade of the sample was 58.6 g/t.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
Figure 13.17
|
Cumulative Stage GRG versus Grind Size for Gold and Silver
|
|
Table 13.22
|
Gravity Concentration Modelling Results (2012)
|
Equipment
|
Feed to
Gravity
(t/h)
|
Circulation
Load
Treated
(%)
|
Concentrating
Cycle Time
(min)
|
Gravity
Recovery
(% total Au)
|
Gravity
|
|
Concentrate
|
||||||
|
||||||
(kg/d)
|
(g/t)
|
|||||
Centrifugal gravity concentrate upgrading by acacia reactor, assuming gold is present as native gold
|
||||||
XD20
|
40
|
11
|
15
|
46
|
1,920
|
12,445
|
XD30
|
80
|
21
|
20
|
56
|
2,520
|
11,500
|
QS40
|
140
|
37
|
30
|
63
|
2,976
|
10,857
|
2 x QS40
|
280
|
74
|
30
|
69
|
5,952
|
5,965
|
2XQS48
|
365
|
97
|
30
|
71
|
6,240
|
5,863
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
Equipment
|
Feed to
Gravity
(t/h)
|
Circulation
Load
Treated
(%)
|
Concentrating
Cycle Time
(min)
|
Gravity
Recovery
(% total Au)
|
Gravity
|
|
Concentrate
|
||||||
|
||||||
(kg/d)
|
(g/t)
|
Centrifugal gravity concentrate upgrading by tabling, assuming gold is present as native gold
|
||||||
XD20
|
40
|
11
|
15
|
38
|
1,920
|
10,168
|
XD30
|
80
|
21
|
20
|
48
|
2,520
|
9,796
|
QS40
|
140
|
37
|
30
|
55
|
2,976
|
9,528
|
2 x QS40
|
280
|
74
|
30
|
63
|
5,952
|
5,408
|
2 x QS48
|
365
|
97
|
30
|
65
|
6,240
|
5,363
|
Centrifugal gravity concentrate upgrading by acacia reactor, assuming gold is present as electrum
|
||||||
XD20
|
40
|
11
|
15
|
39
|
1,920
|
10,490
|
XD30
|
80
|
21
|
20
|
50
|
2,520
|
10,116
|
QS40
|
140
|
37
|
30
|
57
|
2,976
|
9,834
|
2 x QS40
|
280
|
74
|
30
|
65
|
5,952
|
5,567
|
2 x QS48
|
365
|
97
|
30
|
67
|
6,240
|
5,511
|
Centrifugal gravity concentrate upgrading by tabling, assuming gold is present as electrum
|
||||||
XD20
|
40
|
11
|
15
|
32
|
1,920
|
8,451
|
XD30
|
80
|
21
|
20
|
42
|
2,520
|
8,528
|
QS40
|
140
|
37
|
30
|
49
|
2,976
|
8,503
|
2 x QS40
|
280
|
74
|
30
|
57
|
5,952
|
4,954
|
2 x QS48
|
365
|
97
|
30
|
60
|
6,240
|
4,956
|
·
|
The sample had a high GRG value of 80.7%, which is in agreement with the test results produced by Knelson.
|
·
|
The extractions from the centrifugal concentrates by intensive leach were 99.2% for gold and 92.2% for silver.
|
·
|
The intensive cyanide leach option on the gravity concentrate is predicted to have better overall gold and silver recovery than the concentrate tabling process.
|
|
Table 13.23
|
Gravity Separation Test Results
|
Elements
|
Head Grade
Calculated
(g/t)
|
Recovery (%)
|
||
Gravity Concentration
Three- stage Falcon
|
Intensive
CN Leach
|
Gravity
Upgrading Table
|
||
Gold
|
18.7
|
80.7
|
99.2
|
61.1
|
Silver
|
63
|
33.7
|
92.2
|
42.5
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
Table 13.24
|
Mathematical Model Results – Gold Recovery
|
Feed
Grade
(g/t Au)
|
GRG
Content
(%)
|
Mass Split
to Gravity
(%)
|
Total Hydrocyclone
Underflow Tonnage
(t/h)
|
Total Mass
to Ball Mill
(t/h)
|
Total Mass to
Centrifugal Concentrator
(t/h)
|
Recovery to Primary
Gravity Concentrator
(% Au)
|
23.6
|
83.2
|
13.3
|
564
|
489
|
75
|
28.8
|
26.6
|
414
|
150
|
43.3
|
|||
35.0
|
367
|
197
|
49.3
|
|||
44.3
|
314
|
250
|
54.3
|
|||
70.9
|
164
|
400
|
63.3
|
|
Table 13.25
|
Precious Metal Material Balance
|
Product
|
Weight
(g)
|
Assay (g/t)
|
Distribution (%)
|
||
Au
|
Ag
|
Au
|
Ag
|
||
Table Concentrate
|
60.4
|
199,935
|
107,297
|
23.0
|
21.1
|
Table Middlings 1
|
250.7
|
40,571
|
24,715
|
19.3
|
20.2
|
Table Middlings 2
|
2655.2
|
9,058
|
5,290
|
45.7
|
45.8
|
Table Tailings
|
6308.6
|
1,000
|
629
|
12.0
|
12.9
|
Calculated Head
|
9274.9
|
5,672
|
3,309
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
·
|
the composite samples
|
·
|
the individual drill core interval samples
|
·
|
the flotation concentrates produced from the samples.
|
|
Figure 13.18
|
Gold Cyanide Extraction – Whole Ore Leach (2012)
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
Figure 13.19
|
Silver Cyanide Extraction – Whole Ore Leach (2012)
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
Figure 13.20
|
Gold Cyanide Extraction – Concentrate Leach (2012)
|
|
Figure 13.21
|
Silver Cyanide Extraction – Concentrate Leach (2012)
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
Table 13.26
|
Occurrences of Gold in Leach Residues
|
Sample ID
|
Au
(g/t)
|
Gold Distribution (%)
|
Gold in
Other
Minerals
|
Total
|
||
Microscopic
|
Submicroscopic
|
|||||
Electrum
|
Pyrite
|
Arsenopyrite
|
||||
Leach Residue C8 (VOK)
|
10.4
|
12.5
|
72.9
|
2.1
|
12.5
|
100.0
|
Leach Residue C11 (West Zone Footwall)
|
8.3
|
21.8
|
52.1
|
7.5
|
18.6
|
100.0
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
Figure 13.22
|
Bulk Concentrate Leach Retention Time Test Results (2010 to 2011)
|
|
Table 13.27
|
Head Sample Cyanidation Test Results (2009-2010)
|
Test
No.
|
Sample
ID
|
Grind Size
(P80 µm)
|
Calculated Head
(g/t)
|
Extraction
(%)
|
Residue
Grade (g/t)
|
Consumption
(kg/t)
|
||||
Au
|
Ag
|
Au
|
Ag
|
Au
|
Ag
|
NaCN
|
Lime
|
|||
C1
|
BZ
|
71
|
1.79
|
9.68
|
81.0
|
59.7
|
0.34
|
3.9
|
2.09
|
0.28
|
C2
|
BZ
|
40
|
2.01
|
10.3
|
85.1
|
63.0
|
0.30
|
3.8
|
2.17
|
0.37
|
C3
|
BZ
|
127
|
2.35
|
10.6
|
84.7
|
57.5
|
0.36
|
4.5
|
1.97
|
0.23
|
C4
|
GH
|
72
|
1.41
|
40.2
|
77.9
|
67.6
|
0.31
|
13.0
|
1.91
|
0.24
|
C5
|
GH
|
42
|
1.35
|
38.3
|
76.3
|
72.0
|
0.32
|
10.8
|
1.94
|
0.23
|
C6
|
GH
|
119
|
1.49
|
36.6
|
72.4
|
68.6
|
0.41
|
11.5
|
1.77
|
0.23
|
C7
|
R8
|
78
|
1.37
|
26.4
|
75.9
|
65.2
|
0.33
|
9.2
|
1.71
|
0.32
|
C8
|
R8
|
44
|
1.24
|
24.5
|
75.0
|
68.2
|
0.31
|
7.8
|
2.02
|
0.32
|
C9
|
R8
|
131
|
1.34
|
25.2
|
73.8
|
63.2
|
0.35
|
9.3
|
1.85
|
0.33
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
Table 13.28
|
Concentrate Cyanidation Test Results (2009 to 2010)
|
Test No.
|
Sample
ID*
|
Pre-treatment
|
Calculated Head (g/t)
|
Extraction (%)
|
Residue Grade (g/t)
|
Consumption (kg/t)
|
||||
Au
|
Ag
|
Au
|
Ag
|
Au
|
Ag
|
NaCN
|
Lime
|
|||
C10/F24
|
R8
|
Regrind
|
8.0
|
125
|
86.0
|
86.7
|
1.13
|
16.6
|
13.8
|
0.55
|
C11/F25
|
GH
|
Regrind
|
8.6
|
203
|
79.4
|
87.3
|
1.77
|
25.8
|
15.4
|
1.08
|
C12/F26
|
BZ
|
Regrind
|
11.6
|
56
|
82.6
|
79.7
|
2.02
|
11.3
|
15.6
|
0.61
|
C13/F24
|
R8
|
KMnO4 to regrind
|
8.1
|
123
|
82.7
|
85.5
|
1.40
|
17.9
|
13.7
|
0.41
|
C14/F25
|
GH
|
Regrind + oxygen in leach
|
9.2
|
129
|
72.5
|
81.2
|
2.54
|
24.3
|
16.0
|
1.77
|
C15/F26
|
BZ
|
Pb(NO3)2 to regrind
|
10.7
|
55
|
69.9
|
73.2
|
3.22
|
14.8
|
14.5
|
1.53
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
·
|
primary grind, gravity concentration, rougher/scavenger flotation, and regrind on the flotation concentrate, followed by cyanidation on the reground concentrate (Flowsheet A)
|
·
|
primary grind, rougher/scavenger flotation, regrind on the flotation concentrate, and gravity concentration on the reground concentrate, followed by cyanide leaching on gravity tailings (Flowsheet B)
|
·
|
primary grind, gravity concentration, rougher/scavenger flotation, regrind on the flotation concentrate, gravity concentration on the reground concentrate, followed by cyanide leaching on the gravity tailings, and intensive leaching on the panning tailings (Flowsheet C).
|
|
Table 13.29
|
Test Results - Gravity Concentration, Flotation and Cyanide Leach Combined Flowsheet (Flowsheet A) (2009 to 2010)
|
Test ID/Sample ID
|
Primary Grind/
Regrind Sizes
|
Grade (g/t)
|
Recovery/Extraction* (%)
|
||
Au
|
Ag
|
Au
|
Ag
|
||
GF35/Composite BZ
|
|||||
Gravity Concentrate
|
P80 131 µm
|
685
|
428
|
17.0
|
4.4
|
Flotation Concentrate
|
-
|
18.6
|
45.2
|
77.1
|
77.3
|
Leach on Flotation Concentrate
|
P90 <25 µm
|
-
|
-
|
93.7
|
86.2
|
Head
|
-
|
4.5
|
10.9
|
-
|
-
|
GF37/Composite R8
|
|||||
Gravity Concentrate
|
P80 116 µm
|
70.5
|
677
|
2.7
|
1.8
|
Flotation Concentrate
|
-
|
11.5
|
158
|
94.4
|
91.0
|
Leach on Flotation Concentrate
|
P90 <25 µm
|
-
|
-
|
91.5
|
93.7
|
Head
|
-
|
2.8
|
39.5
|
-
|
-
|
GF36/Composite GH
|
|||||
Gravity Concentrate
|
P80 116 µm
|
158
|
495
|
11.0
|
1.8
|
Flotation Concentrate
|
-
|
9.6
|
200
|
85.5
|
92.5
|
Leach on Flotation Concentrate
|
P90 <25 µm
|
84.9
|
89.6
|
||
Head
|
-
|
1.9
|
36.3
|
-
|
-
|
table continues…
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
Test ID/Sample ID
|
Primary Grind/
Regrind Sizes
|
Grade (g/t)
|
Recovery/Extraction* (%)
|
||
Au
|
Ag
|
Au
|
Ag
|
GF41/Composite GH
|
|||||
Gravity Concentrate
|
P80 116 µm
|
331
|
339
|
25.7
|
1.4
|
Flotation Concentrate
|
-
|
7.7
|
186
|
71.8
|
92.8
|
Leach on Flotation Concentrate
|
P90 <25 µm
|
-
|
-
|
83.0
|
89.9
|
Head
|
-
|
1.8
|
34.5
|
-
|
-
|
|
Notes:
|
*Extraction refers to flotation concentrate. Leach retention time: 96 hours.
Cyanide concentration: 5 g/L.
|
|
Table 13.30
|
Test Results – Flotation, Gravity Concentration and Cyanide Leach Combined Flowsheet (Flowsheet B) (2009 to 2010)
|
Primary Grind/
Regrind Sizes
|
Concentrate Grade (g/t)
|
Recovery/Extraction (%)
|
|||
Au
|
Ag
|
Au
|
Ag
|
||
GF38/Composite R8*
|
|||||
Flotation Concentrate
|
P80 128 µm
|
7.51
|
106
|
94.1
|
88.6
|
Gravity Concentrate
|
P94 33 µm
|
1,081
|
1,222
|
35.6
|
2.6
|
Gravity Tailing
|
-
|
4.68
|
103
|
58.5
|
86.0
|
Leach on Gravity Tailing
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
91.8
|
83.6
|
Head
|
-
|
2.03
|
26.5
|
-
|
-
|
GF39/Composite GH*
|
|||||
Flotation Concentrate
|
P80 141 µm
|
12.9
|
212.1
|
97.1
|
98.7
|
Gravity Concentrate
|
P90 <25 µm
|
1,918
|
3,103
|
44.8
|
4.5
|
Gravity Tailing
|
-
|
4.68
|
103.2
|
52.3
|
94.2
|
Leach on Gravity Tailing
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
86.2
|
68.7
|
Head
|
-
|
1.99
|
32.1
|
-
|
-
|
GF40/Composite BZ*
|
|||||
Flotation Concentrate
|
P80 133 µm
|
8.60
|
44.4
|
85.1
|
97.3
|
Gravity Concentrate
|
P90 <25 µm
|
1,079
|
984
|
29.3
|
5.9
|
Gravity Tailing
|
-
|
4.68
|
103
|
55.7
|
91.4
|
Leach on Gravity Tailing
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
80.9
|
68.7
|
table continues… |
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
Primary Grind/
Regrind Sizes
|
Concentrate Grade (g/t)
|
Recovery/Extraction (%)
|
|||
Au
|
Ag
|
Au
|
Ag
|
Head
|
-
|
1.70
|
7.68
|
-
|
-
|
GF42/Composite SU-32B**
|
|||||
Flotation Concentrate
|
P80 109 µm
|
4.71
|
382
|
93.1
|
90.8
|
Gravity Concentrate
|
P80 <25 µm
|
801
|
4193
|
22.6
|
1.4
|
Gravity Tailing
|
-
|
3.57
|
376
|
70.5
|
89.3
|
Leach on Gravity Tailing
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
78.7
|
78.6
|
Head
|
-
|
0.99
|
82.3
|
-
|
-
|
GF43/Composite SU-33**
|
|||||
Flotation Concentrate
|
P80 92 µm
|
13.5
|
164
|
98.5
|
93.3
|
Gravity Concentrate
|
P80 <25 µm
|
5,810
|
8,341
|
43.9
|
4.9
|
Gravity Tailing
|
-
|
7.50
|
156
|
54.6
|
88.4
|
Leach on Gravity Tailing
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
87.6
|
78.2
|
Head
|
-
|
2.32
|
29.7
|
-
|
-
|
GF44/Composite SU-36A**
|
|||||
Flotation Concentrate
|
P80 138 µm
|
8.95
|
45.7
|
97.0
|
94.5
|
Gravity Concentrate
|
P80 <25 µm
|
3,337
|
1,653
|
42.3
|
4.0
|
Gravity Tailing
|
-
|
5.05
|
43.8
|
54.7
|
90.5
|
Leach on Gravity Tailing
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
61.5
|
66.2
|
Head
|
-
|
2.12
|
11.1
|
-
|
-
|
GF45/Composite SU-36B**
|
|||||
Flotation Concentrate
|
P80 96 µm
|
2.71
|
19.3
|
91.5
|
95.0
|
Gravity Concentrate
|
P80 <25 µm
|
217
|
337
|
10.6
|
2.4
|
Gravity Tailing
|
-
|
5.05
|
43.8
|
80.9
|
92.6
|
Leach on Gravity Tailing
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
56.9
|
63.3
|
Head
|
-
|
0.58
|
4.0
|
-
|
-
|
|
Notes:
|
*Extraction is referred to gravity concentration tailings; leach retention time = 25 hours; direct cyanide leach; cyanide concentration = 5 g/L.
|
|
**Extraction is referred to gravity concentration tailings; leach retention time = 24 hours; CIL; cyanide concentration = 3 g/L.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
|
Table 13.31
|
Test Results - Gravity Concentration, Flotation, Secondary Gravity Concentration and Cyanide Leach Combined Flowsheet (Flowsheet C) (2010 to 2011)
|
Primary Grind/
Regrind Sizes
|
Concentrate Grade (g/t)
|
Recovery/Extraction (%)
|
|||
Au
|
Ag
|
Au
|
Ag
|
||
GF26/Composite GH2
|
|||||
Primary Gravity Concentrate
|
P80 125 µm
|
1,808
|
183
|
36.4
|
0.32
|
Flotation Concentrate
|
P80 125 µm
|
16
|
302
|
62.0
|
98.6
|
Secondary Gravity Concentrate
|
P80 7.1 µm
|
1,116
|
2,650
|
51.5
|
8.1
|
Gravity Rougher Tailing
|
-
|
5
|
189
|
31.3
|
76.9
|
Gravity Panning Tailing
|
-
|
70
|
927
|
17.2
|
15
|
Intensive Leach on Gravity Panning Tailing
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
93.6
|
95.6
|
Leach on Gravity Rougher Tailing
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
61.3
|
64
|
Head
|
-
|
5
|
53
|
-
|
-
|
Overall Recovery
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
90.4
|
71.2
|
GF27/Composite SU98*
|
|||||
Primary Gravity Concentrate
|
P80 123 µm
|
11,959
|
186
|
33.2
|
0.3
|
Flotation Concentrate
|
P80 123 µm
|
214
|
556
|
66.2
|
98.8
|
Secondary Gravity Concentrate
|
P80 6.9 µm
|
13,281
|
11,323
|
79.1
|
27.7
|
Gravity Rougher Tailing
|
-
|
35
|
264
|
19.6
|
61.0
|
Gravity Pan Tailing
|
-
|
69
|
1,412
|
1.4
|
11.3
|
Intensive Leach on Gravity Panning Tailing
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
95.3
|
95.8
|
Leach on Gravity Rougher Tailing
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
97.2
|
66.9
|
Head
|
-
|
73
|
205
|
-
|
-
|
Overall Recovery
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
99.1
|
78.9
|
GF25/Composite WZ1
|
|||||
Primary Gravity Concentrate
|
P80 120 µm
|
1,151
|
194
|
26.4
|
0.4
|
Flotation Concentrate
|
P80 120 µm
|
12
|
163
|
70.6
|
97
|
Secondary Gravity Concentrate
|
P80 7 µm
|
646
|
1,600
|
50.4
|
9.1
|
Gravity Rougher Tailing
|
-
|
3
|
107
|
31.0
|
77.3
|
Gravity Pan Tailing
|
-
|
71
|
716
|
18.6
|
13.6
|
Intensive Leach on Gravity Panning Tailing
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
94
|
96.5
|
Leach on Gravity Rougher Tailing
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
64.3
|
66.9
|
Head
|
-
|
2
|
25
|
-
|
-
|
Overall Recovery
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
88.7
|
72.5
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
|
Table 13.32
|
Gravity/Leaching Test Results on Re-ground Flotation Concentrate (2010 to 2011)
|
Regrind Size
|
Concentrate Grade (g/t)
|
Recovery/Extraction (%)
|
|||
Au
|
Ag
|
Au
|
Ag
|
||
GR3/C25/C29 GH2 Blended Rougher Concentrate
|
|||||
Re-ground Flotation Concentrate
|
P80 25 µm
|
23
|
458
|
-
|
-
|
Gravity Concentrate
|
-
|
2,366
|
2,849
|
37
|
3
|
Gravity Tailings
|
-
|
18.8
|
442.8
|
63
|
97
|
Leach on Gravity Tailings
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
84
|
75
|
Leach Residue Regrinding
|
P80 <10 µm
|
2.94
|
117.7
|
-
|
-
|
Leach on Reground Residue
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
11
|
52
|
Secondary Leach Residue
|
-
|
2.05
|
56.4
|
-
|
-
|
GR2/C24/C28 WZ1 Blended Rougher Concentrate
|
|||||
Reground Flotation Concentrate
|
P80 25 µm
|
8.6
|
177.4
|
-
|
-
|
Gravity Concentrate
|
-
|
941
|
1,543.5
|
29.3
|
2.6
|
Gravity Tailings
|
-
|
6.9
|
175.3
|
70.7
|
97.4
|
Leach on Gravity Tailings
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
74.8
|
82.6
|
Leach Residue Regrinding
|
P80 <10 µm
|
1.96
|
34.5
|
-
|
-
|
Leach on Reground Residue
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
14.3
|
50.4
|
Secondary Leach Residue
|
-
|
1.74
|
18
|
-
|
-
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
|
Figure 13.23
|
Metal Recovery - Gravity and Bulk Flotation Flowsheet (2012)
|
|
Figure 13.24
|
Metal Recovery - Gravity Concentration (2012)
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
|
Figure 13.25
|
Gravity Concentrate Grade versus Head Grade – Gold (2012)
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
Figure 13.26
|
Gravity Concentrate Grade versus Head Grade – Silver (2012)
|
|
Table 13.33
|
Variability Test Results (2010 to 2011)
|
Grade (g/t)
|
Recovery/Extraction (%)
|
Grind Size
|
|||
Au
|
Ag
|
Au
|
Ag
|
||
GF26/Composite GH2 – Head
|
4.9
|
52.9
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
Primary Grind Size:
P80 125 µm;
Regrind Size:
P80 7 µm
|
Primary Gravity Concentrate
|
1,808
|
183
|
36.4
|
0.32
|
|
Flotation Concentrate
|
16.5
|
302
|
62.0
|
98.6
|
|
Secondary Gravity Concentrate
|
1,116
|
2,650
|
51.5
|
8.1
|
|
Intensive Cyanide Leaching
|
-
|
-
|
93.6
|
95.6
|
|
Cyanide Leaching
|
-
|
-
|
61.3
|
64
|
|
Overall Recovery
|
-
|
-
|
91.0
|
71
|
|
GF27/Composite SU98– Head
|
73.3
|
205
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
Primary Grind Size: P80 123 µm;
Regrind Size:
P80 7 µm
|
Primary Gravity Concentrate
|
11-959
|
186
|
33.2
|
0.3
|
|
Flotation Concentrate
|
214
|
556
|
66.0
|
99.1
|
|
Secondary Gravity Concentrate
|
13-281
|
11,323
|
79.1
|
27.7
|
|
Intensive Cyanide Leaching
|
-
|
-
|
95.3
|
95.8
|
|
Cyanide Leaching
|
-
|
-
|
97.2
|
66.9
|
|
Overall Recovery
|
-
|
-
|
99.0
|
79.0
|
|
table continues…
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
Grade (g/t)
|
Recovery/Extraction (%)
|
Grind Size
|
|||
Au
|
Ag
|
Au
|
Ag
|
GF25/Composite WZ 1 – Head
|
1.8
|
25.4
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
Primary Grind Size:
P80 120 µm;
Regrind Size:
P80 7 µm
|
Primary Gravity Concentrate
|
1,151
|
194
|
26.4
|
0.44
|
|
Flotation Concentrate
|
9.1
|
128
|
70.9
|
97.5
|
|
Secondary Gravity Concentrate
|
646
|
1,600
|
50.4
|
9.1
|
|
Intensive Cyanide Leaching
|
-
|
-
|
94.0
|
96.5
|
|
Cyanide Leaching
|
-
|
-
|
64.3
|
66.9
|
|
Overall Recovery
|
-
|
-
|
89.0
|
73.0
|
|
GF32/Composite SU 33/GH – Head
|
3.68
|
22.1
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
Primary Grind Size:
P80 125 µm;
Regrind Size:
P80 7 µm
|
Primary Gravity Concentrate
|
751
|
201
|
27.0
|
1.7
|
|
Flotation Concentrate
|
9.5
|
50.4
|
71.1
|
91
|
|
Secondary Gravity Concentrate
|
690
|
818
|
53.0
|
10.0
|
|
Intensive Cyanide Leaching
|
-
|
-
|
87.8
|
83.0
|
|
Cyanide Leaching
|
-
|
-
|
74.6
|
78.4
|
|
Overall Recovery
|
-
|
-
|
92.0
|
77.0
|
|
GF30/Composite SU-32C/WZ – Head
|
11
|
10.4
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
Primary Grind Size:
P80 165 µm;
Regrind Size:
P80 7 µm
|
Primary Gravity Concentrate
|
6,006
|
201
|
58.0
|
4.2
|
|
Flotation Concentrate
|
38.0
|
37.6
|
41.2
|
89.3
|
|
Secondary Gravity Concentrate
|
678
|
1,133
|
22.2
|
21.8
|
|
Intensive Cyanide Leaching
|
-
|
-
|
96.8
|
90.9
|
|
Cyanide Leaching
|
-
|
-
|
91.2
|
68.8
|
|
Overall Recovery
|
-
|
-
|
97.7
|
79.1
|
|
GF31/Composite SU-32A/WZ – Head
|
3.8
|
25.8
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
Primary Grind Size:
P80 161 µm;
Regrind Size:
P80 7 µm
|
Primary Gravity Concentrate
|
592.6
|
203
|
35.9
|
2.3
|
|
Flotation Concentrate
|
8.6
|
64
|
61.1
|
84.4
|
|
Secondary Gravity Concentrate
|
4,142
|
2,958
|
83.4
|
23.9
|
|
Intensive Cyanide Leaching
|
-
|
-
|
89.0
|
86.0
|
|
Cyanide Leaching
|
-
|
-
|
85.0
|
71.0
|
|
Overall Recovery
|
-
|
-
|
96.0
|
71.0
|
|
GF28/Composite SU-76B/GH – Head
|
12.6
|
130
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
Primary Grind Size:
P80 116 µm;
Regrind Size:
P80 7 µm
|
Primary Gravity Concentrate
|
3617
|
196
|
49.9
|
0.3
|
|
Flotation Concentrate
|
22.8
|
374
|
48.8
|
94.6
|
|
Secondary Gravity Concentrate
|
1,893
|
5,301
|
66.5
|
11.3
|
|
Intensive Cyanide Leaching
|
-
|
-
|
95.0
|
96.0
|
|
Cyanide Leaching
|
-
|
-
|
81.0
|
67.0
|
|
Overall Recovery
|
-
|
-
|
97.0
|
80.0
|
|
·
|
There was no significant variation in metallurgical performance between the West Zone and Galena Hill Zone mineralization.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
·
|
In general, the samples tested were amenable to the combined procedure consisting of gravity separation, flotation, and cyanide leaching. The overall average gold recovery was 94.5%, which was approximately 19% higher than the average silver recovery.
|
·
|
The overall gold recovery increased, with an increase in gold head grade. It appears that the overall silver recovery variation with head grade was less significant, although silver head grade ranged widely from 10 to 205 g/t.
|
·
|
The regrind size was finer than 80% passing 10 µm.
|
|
Figure 13.27
|
Variability Test Results – Gold Metallurgical Performance (2010-2011)
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
Figure 13.28
|
Variability Test Results – Silver Metallurgical Performance (2010-2011)
|
13.3.9
|
Locked Cycle Test (2012 and 2013)
|
·
|
primary grinding targeting a moderate size of 80% passing 80 to 85 µm
|
·
|
gravity concentration
|
·
|
rougher and scavenger flotation with the scavenger concentrate recycled
|
·
|
rougher concentrate cleaner flotation.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
·
|
The average metal recoveries from the VOK Zone composites were approximately 97.8% for gold and 94.3% for silver. Approximately 53.9% of the gold and 28.6% of the silver reported to the gravity separation concentrate. The flotation concentrate contained approximately 130 g/t gold, 252 g/t silver, and 0.68% arsenic.
|
·
|
Average recoveries from the master composite of the West Zone were approximately 94.0% for gold and 90.8% for silver. Approximately one-third of the gold reported to the gravity separation concentrate. The flotation concentrate contained 48.6 g/t gold, 2,800 g/t silver, and 0.24% arsenic.
|
·
|
The addition of copper sulphate, together with regrinding of the rougher flotation concentrates, did not appear to improve the recoveries of the target metals.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
Table 13.34
|
Locked Cycle Tests Results
|
Composite
|
Test No.
|
Head Grade Calculated
|
Gravity Concentration
|
Flotation
|
||||||||||
Recovery
|
Concentrate Grade
|
Concentrate Grade
|
Recovery
|
|||||||||||
Au
(g/t)
|
Ag
(g/t)
|
S
(%)
|
Au
(%)
|
Ag
(%)
|
Au
(kg/t)
|
Ag
(kg/t)
|
Au
(g/t)
|
Ag
(g/t)
|
S
(%)
|
As
(ppm)
|
Au
(%)
|
Ag
(%)
|
||
VOK-1 to -4
|
FLC1
|
24.2
|
33.6
|
2.92
|
54.2
|
30.5
|
11.7
|
9.1
|
181.3
|
354
|
48.1
|
8,249
|
43.9
|
61.7
|
VOK-1 to -4
|
FLC2
|
24.2
|
31.8
|
2.96
|
48.6
|
27.1
|
9.9
|
7.9
|
175.6
|
341
|
46.9
|
6,930
|
49.3
|
67.0
|
WZ-1 and -2
|
FLC3
|
6.0
|
225
|
3.03
|
32.0
|
1.3
|
1.7
|
2.7
|
52.6
|
3,096
|
43.5
|
2,622
|
59.2
|
88.5
|
WZ-1 and -2
|
FLC4
|
6.3
|
240
|
3.10
|
36.5
|
1.1
|
2.5
|
2.8
|
44.6
|
2,490
|
34.7
|
2,228
|
60.2
|
90.7
|
VOK ML
|
FLC2
|
10.3
|
12.5
|
3.41
|
48.0
|
21.6
|
4.3
|
2.4
|
83.8
|
152
|
52.2
|
5,801
|
48.5
|
71.7
|
VOK MU
|
FLC1
|
12.1
|
13.4
|
2.70
|
64.9
|
35.1
|
6.0
|
3.6
|
78.1
|
160
|
49.5
|
6,059
|
33.9
|
62.4
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
13.3.10
|
Melting Test Work
|
13.3.11
|
Solids Liquid Separation Tests Work
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
|
Table 13.35
|
Conventional Thickening Test Results for Flotation Concentrate
|
Feed
Solids
(%)
|
CCD
Stage
Simulated
|
Flocculant
|
Rise
Rate
(m3/m2/h)
|
Maximum Test
|
Solids
Density
(%)
|
Unit Area
(m2/t/d)
|
||||||
Dose
(g/t)
|
Concentration
(g/L)
|
Density
(%)
|
Time
(min)
|
|||||||||
20
|
Stage 1
|
30.0
|
0.1
|
6.31
|
75.7
|
120
|
68
|
70
|
72
|
0.21
|
0.22
|
0.24
|
20
|
Stage 1
|
35.0
|
0.1
|
6.83
|
76.3
|
120
|
68
|
70
|
72
|
0.19
|
0.20
|
0.21
|
20
|
Stage 2
|
30.0
|
0.1
|
6.49
|
75.1
|
120
|
68
|
70
|
72
|
0.19
|
0.21
|
0.22
|
20
|
Stage 3
|
25.0
|
0.1
|
6.35
|
74.4
|
120
|
68
|
70
|
72
|
0.19
|
0.20
|
0.21
|
20
|
Stage 1
|
40.0
|
0.1
|
5.26
|
75.7
|
150
|
68
|
70
|
72
|
0.18
|
0.20
|
0.21
|
25
|
Stage 1
|
35.0
|
0.1
|
2.28
|
76.9
|
120
|
68
|
70
|
72
|
0.20
|
0.21
|
0.23
|
25
|
Stage 2
|
30.0
|
0.1
|
2.10
|
76.4
|
120
|
68
|
70
|
72
|
0.21
|
0.23
|
0.24
|
25
|
Stage 3
|
25.0
|
0.1
|
2.27
|
74.4
|
120
|
68
|
70
|
72
|
0.20
|
0.22
|
0.23
|
30
|
Stage 1
|
35.0
|
0.1
|
1.37
|
77.3
|
180
|
68
|
70
|
72
|
0.32
|
0.35
|
0.38
|
30
|
Stage 2
|
30.0
|
0.1
|
1.26
|
75.7
|
180
|
68
|
70
|
72
|
0.31
|
0.34
|
0.37
|
30
|
Stage 3
|
25.0
|
0.1
|
1.20
|
76.5
|
180
|
68
|
70
|
72
|
0.32
|
0.35
|
0.38
|
|
Notes:
|
Flocculant (Hychem AF 304) is a medium to high molecular weight anionic polyacrylamide, with 15% charge density.
CCD = counter current decantation.
|
|
Table 13.36
|
Conventional Thickening Test Results for Flotation Tailings
|
Feed
Solids
(%)
|
Flocculant
|
Rise Rate
(m3/m2/h)
|
Maximum Test
|
Solids
Density
(%)
|
Unit Area
(m2/t/d)
|
||||||
Dose
(g/t)
|
Concentration
(g/L)
|
Density
(%)
|
Time
(min)
|
||||||||
7.5
|
30.0
|
0.1
|
9.71
|
63.3
|
150
|
61
|
63
|
65
|
0.50
|
0.52
|
0.53
|
7.5
|
35.0
|
0.1
|
10.07
|
66.0
|
150
|
61
|
63
|
65
|
0.40
|
0.42
|
0.43
|
7.5
|
40.0
|
0.1
|
9.69
|
66.0
|
150
|
61
|
63
|
65
|
0.41
|
0.42
|
0.44
|
10.0
|
35.0
|
0.1
|
8.14
|
64.9
|
120
|
61
|
63
|
65
|
0.41
|
0.43
|
0.45
|
15.0
|
30.0
|
0.1
|
4.96
|
65.2
|
150
|
61
|
63
|
65
|
0.43
|
0.45
|
0.47
|
15.0
|
35.0
|
0.1
|
4.44
|
65.2
|
120
|
61
|
63
|
65
|
0.42
|
0.43
|
0.45
|
15.0
|
40.0
|
0.1
|
3.39
|
62.8
|
150
|
61
|
63
|
65
|
0.43
|
0.45
|
0.47
|
15.0
|
45.0
|
0.1
|
3.10
|
62.8
|
150
|
61
|
63
|
65
|
0.42
|
0.44
|
0.46
|
20.0
|
35.0
|
0.1
|
0.84
|
65.2
|
180
|
61
|
63
|
65
|
0.72
|
0.76
|
0.80
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
|
Figure 13.29
|
Flotation Concentrate CCD Wash Test Results
|
|
Table 13.37
|
Recommended Thickening Design Parameters
|
Material
|
pH
|
Flocculant
Dose
(g/t)
|
Thickener
Feed
Solids
(%)
|
Underflow
Density
(%)
|
Unit Area for
Conventional
Thickener
Sizing
(m2/t/d)
|
Hydraulic
Rate for
High Rate
Thickener
Sizing
(m3/m2/h)
|
Thickener Type
Recommended
|
Flotation
Concentrate
|
10.78
|
35 to 45
|
20
|
68 to 72
|
0.190 to
0.225
|
5.2 to 6.0
|
High-Rate or
High Density
|
Flotation
Tailings
|
10.38
|
35 to 45
|
10
|
61 to 65
|
0.430 to
0.475
|
5.0 to 5.9
|
High-Rate or
High Density
|
Flotation
Tailings
|
8.34
|
90 to 100
|
10
|
61 to 65
|
0.430 to
0.475
|
4.2 to 5.0
|
High-Rate or
High Density
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
|
Table 13.38
|
Filtration Test Results and Sizing Summary
|
Filter
Type
|
Material
|
Filter Feed
Solids
(%)
|
Bulk Cake
Density
(kg/m3)
|
Filter Sizing
Basis
(m3/t)
|
Filter Cake
Moisture
(%)
|
Filter Cycle
Time (min)
|
Horizontal
Recess
Plate
|
Flotation
Concentrate*
|
68.3
|
2155.9
|
0.580
|
12.6
|
18.1
|
Flotation
Tailings
|
58.0
|
824.7
|
1.516
|
17.6
|
19.4
|
|
Filter
Type
|
Material
|
Filter Feed
Solids
(%)
|
Bulk Cake
Density
(kg/m3)
|
Filter
Production Rate
(kg/m2/h)
|
Filter Cake
Moisture
(%)
|
Filter
Aid (g/t)
|
Horizontal
Belt
Vacuum
|
Flotation
Concentrate
|
59.5
|
1723.3
|
116.8
|
29.3
|
200 (Hychem
AF304)
|
Flotation
Concentrate
|
2047.8
|
49.7
|
24.0
|
None
|
||
Flotation
Tailings
|
59.0
|
1460.0
|
546.2
|
29.8
|
320 (Hychem
AF340)
|
|
Flotation
Tailings
|
1757.9
|
124.0
|
24.4
|
None
|
13.4
|
Bulk Sample Processing
|
13.4.1
|
Sample Description and Head Assay Analysis
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
13.4.2
|
Process Description
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
Figure 13.30
|
Bulk Sample Process Flowsheet
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
Table 13.39
|
Flowsheet Difference between Bulk Sample Process Program and Proposed Process for the Project
|
Area
|
Bulk Sample Process Flowsheet
|
Proposed Process Flowsheet
|
Comminution
|
Multi-stages of crushing + ball mill grinding.
On average, primary grind sizes were in the range of between 65% and 75% passing 200 mesh (75 µm).
|
One stage of crushing + SAG mill/ ball mill grinding.
The designed primary grind size is 80% passing 200 mesh (75 µm).
|
Gravity Circuit
|
One stage of centrifugal concentration in the primary grinding circuit (for the Cleo materials, jigging+tabling process was incorporated prior to the centrifugal concentration).
Gravity concentrate was upgraded by a Gemini table.
|
Two stages of centrifugal concentration, one in the primary grinding circuit and one in the regrind circuit.
Gravity concentrates are upgraded by two separate tables with different surface patterns.
|
Rougher Flotation Concentrate Regrinding
|
No regrinding.
|
One stage of regrinding to 80% passing 35 to 40 µm, with a centrifugal concentrator.
|
Flotation - Circuit
|
Three stages of rougher flotation, one stage of scavenger flotation, two stages of cleaner flotation.
|
Three stages of rougher flotation, one stage of scavenger flotation, three stages of cleaner flotation, one stage of 1st cleaner scavenger flotation.
|
Flotation - Reagents
|
Collector: PAX.
Frother: D250.
|
Collector: PAX.
Frother: MIBC.
|
Flotation – Feed Slurry Solids Density
|
15 to 25% solids.
|
Approximately 33% solids.
|
Flotation – Retention Time
|
Rougher Flotation: 20 to 30 min.
Scavenger Flotation: 6 to 10 min.
|
Rougher Flotation: ~80 min.
Scavenger Flotation: ~25 min.
|
Concentrate Filtration
|
Vacuum Disc Filter.
|
Filter Press.
|
13.4.3
|
Results and Discussion
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
Table 13.40
|
Bulk Sample Processing Metallurgical Performances
|
Materials
|
Feed
|
Recovery, %
|
Grade, g/t
|
||||||||||
Tonnage
|
Calculated Grade, g/t
|
Table Concentrate
|
Table Concentrate +
Table Middlings
|
Gravity+
Flotation Concentrate
|
Table Concentrate
|
Flotation Concentrate
|
|||||||
t
|
Au**
|
Ag**
|
Au*
|
Ag*
|
Au*
|
Ag*
|
Au
|
Ag
|
Au*
|
Ag*
|
Au***
|
Ag***
|
|
2013 Material
|
10,302
|
17.5
|
17.1
|
41.8
|
18.2
|
47.6
|
21.0
|
97.5
|
86.9
|
259,487
|
110,146
|
79
|
129
|
Cleo Material
|
1,203
|
82.6
|
59.7
|
47.9
|
36.6
|
56.2
|
44.0
|
98.0
|
96.3
|
247,999
|
136,877
|
398
|
402
|
Notes:
|
*Based on assay data from Contact Mill laboratory.
**Including cleanout.
***Flotation concentrate only.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
13.5
|
Conclusions
|
·
|
The Brucejack mineralization is moderately hard.
|
·
|
The test results suggest that the mineralization is amenable to the gravity/ flotation combined recovery process. The recovery flowsheet should include:
|
-
|
gravity concentration to recover coarse free gold and silver
|
-
|
flotation to produce rougher and scavenger concentrates
|
-
|
regrinding/gravity concentration on the rougher and scavenger concentrates to improve gravity gold recovery
|
-
|
cleaner flotation to produce a final concentrate for sale
|
-
|
smelting on gravity concentrate to produce gold/silver doré.
|
·
|
The test results indicate that there is a significant variation in the metallurgical performance of mineral samples taken from different parts of the deposit.
|
·
|
The test results show that flotation concentrate responds reasonably well to direct leaching using cyanide, excluding a few of samples containing higher graphite (carbon), arsenic, or electrum content. The cyanide leaching conditions have not yet been optimized.
|
·
|
The gravity concentrates responded very well to intensive leach by cyanide.
|
13.5.1
|
Recommendations
|
·
|
effect of flotation retention time on gold and silver recoveries
|
·
|
tailings thickening condition optimization
|
·
|
effect of regrinding of rougher and scavenger concentrates on metal recovery and concentrate quality
|
·
|
flotation performance for the slime that may be produced from the underground dewatering system.
|
13.6
|
Metallurgical Performance Projection
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
·
|
The gold and silver recoveries reporting to gold-silver doré were projected based on the gravity concentration test results, GRG gravity circuit simulations, the results from the bulk sample processing programs conducted during 2013 and 2014 and experience. It was assumed that the smelting recovery is 99.5%. The slag from smelting will be ground and tabled to recover gold-silver alloy grains, and the table tailings will be blended with the flotation concentrate.
|
·
|
The gold and silver recoveries reporting to the gold-silver flotation concentrate were estimated using the average locked cycle test results and the regression equations that were derived from the plots of the variability test results.
|
·
|
The flotation concentrate grade was estimated by the sulphur grade of the concentrates produced from the locked cycle tests.
|
|
Table 13.41
|
Metallurgical Performance Projection – VOK Zone
|
Head Grade
(g/t)
|
Gold and Silver Recovery
(%)
|
Doré - Gold
|
|
< 0.5
|
= 0
|
0.5 to 9.99
|
= - 0.147*((Head Grade, g/t) 2) + 5.68*(Head Grade, g/t) - 1.214
|
9.99 to 40
|
= 7.32*ln(Head Grade, g/t) + 24.012
|
> 40
|
= 52
|
Doré - Silver
|
|
< 3.0
|
= 23
|
3.0 to 130
|
= (18.5*(Head Grade, g/t) - 0.091)
|
130 to 400
|
= 10.0
|
> 400
|
= 5.0
|
Flotation Concentration - Gold
|
|
< 0.5
|
= 30
|
0.5 to 5.64
|
= 85.44*(Head Grade, g/t) 0.056 + 0.147*(Head Grade, g/t) 2 - 5.68*(Head Grade, g/t) + 2.6
|
5.64 to 9.99
|
= 1.18*ln(Head Grade, g/t) + 0.147*((Head Grade, g/t) 2) - 5.68*(Head Grade, g/t) + 94.694
|
9.99 to 40
|
= - 6.14*ln(Head Grade, g/t) + 69.558
|
> 40
|
= 46.5
|
Flotation Concentration - Silver
|
|
< 3.0
|
= 35
|
3.0 to 130
|
= 2.793*ln(Head Grade, g/t) - (18.5*((Head Grade, g/t) - 0.091)) + 78.07
|
130 to 400
|
= 82.0
|
> 400
|
= 87.5
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
|
Table 13.42
|
Metallurgical Performance Projection – West Zone
|
Head Grade
(g/t)
|
Gold and Silver Recovery
(%)
|
Doré - Gold
|
|
< 0.5
|
= 0
|
0.5 to 9.99
|
= - 0.147*((Head Grade, g/t) 2) + 5.68*(Head Grade, g/t) - 1.214
|
9.99 to 40
|
= 7.32*ln(Head Grade, g/t) + 24.012
|
> 40
|
= 52
|
Doré - Silver
|
|
< 3.0
|
= 23
|
130
|
= (34.643*(Head Grade, g/t)- 0.48)
|
130 to 500
|
= 1.5
|
> 500
|
= 1.0
|
Flotation Concentration - Gold
|
|
< 0.5
|
= 30
|
0.5 to 5.64
|
= 85.44*(Head Grade, g/t) 0.056 + 0.147*(Head Grade, g/t) 2 - 5.68*(Head Grade, g/t) + 2.0
|
5.64 to 9.99
|
= 1.18*ln(Head Grade, g/t) + 0.147*((Head Grade, g/t) 2) - 5.68*(Head Grade, g/t) + 94.094
|
9.99 to 40
|
= - 6.14*ln(Head Grade, g/t) + 68.958
|
> 40
|
= 45.9
|
Flotation Concentration - Silver
|
|
< 3.0
|
= 35
|
3.0 to 130
|
= 2.9741*ln(Head Grade, g/t) - (34.643*((Head Grade, g/t) - 0.48)) + 73.956
|
130 to 500
|
= 2.9741*ln(Head Grade, g/t) + 72.456
|
> 500
|
= 91.5
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
14.0
|
MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES
|
14.1
|
Input Data
|
·
|
9 historic drillholes (579 m)
|
·
|
490 surface drillholes drilled between 2009 and 2012 (173,619 m)
|
·
|
24 surface drillholes drilled in 2013 (5,200 m)
|
|
·
|
409 underground drillholes drilled in 2013 (38,840 m).
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
14.2
|
Estimate Test Work in the Bulk Sample Area
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
·
|
Looking at the use of channel samples to assist in defining the local grade more accurately around the bulk sample cross-cut.
|
|
-
|
These tests indicated that the use of channel samples resulted in a local overestimation of the grade in the bulk sample cross-cuts. As a result channel samples were not included in the December 2013 Mineral Resource estimate.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
●
|
Assessing the impact of constraining the north-south mineralization and estimating it separately to the dominantly east-west mineralized corridors.
|
-
|
The test work indicated that the estimate without any north-south constraint is a better local predictor of metal, with underestimation of the north-south mineralization. Based on the outcomes of the test work and bulk sample analyses, Snowden and Pretivm agreed that the more conservative approach, not using the north-south constraints, should be applied for the December 2013 Mineral Resource estimate. As a result, the December 2013 Mineral Resource estimate is considered to be a conservative estimate of the contained metal in the VOK deposit.
|
●
|
Adjusting the estimation parameters and methodology to reduce smoothing, including the method for re-blocking the high-grade MIK estimates, parent cell size, and search neighbourhood parameters.
|
-
|
Review of the estimation parameters resulted in slight adjustments to the search neighbourhood to produce a more selective estimate, and changing the re-blocking of the high-grade estimates to use the parent cell size. A parent cell size of 10 mE by 10 mN by 10 mRL was retained for the estimation of the VOK and resulted in less smoothing of the estimate.
|
●
|
Comparing ordinary kriging and inverse distance weighted estimation methods.
|
-
|
Test work using ordinary kriging and inverse distance weighted estimation methods showed that these methods, when run using a ”typical” top cut of the 99.9th percentile or lower, significantly underestimate the metal in the bulk sample cross-cuts. Given the style of mineralization, the level of selectivity required and the estimation of unrealistic high-grade areas defined by these methods, the methods were not considered appropriate for grade estimation at Brucejack.
|
14.3
|
Estimation
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
Table 14.1
|
December 2013 Estimation and Search Parameters Within High-grade Mineralized Domains for the VOK
|
Estimate
|
Parameter
|
December 2013
|
High-grade domains -
low-grade population
|
Estimation method
|
OK
|
Parent cell size
|
10 mE by 10 mN by 10 mRL
|
|
Re-blocking cell size
|
10 mE by 10 mN by 10 mRL
|
|
Search ellipse – pass 1
|
60 m by 100 m by 20 m
|
|
Minimum samples – pass 1
|
12
|
|
Maximum samples – pass 1
|
26
|
|
Search ellipse – pass 2
|
120 m by 200 m by 40 m
|
|
Minimum samples – pass 2
|
8
|
|
Maximum samples – pass 2
|
26
|
|
Maximum composites per drillhole
|
8
|
|
High-grade domains -
high-grade population
|
Estimation method
|
MIK
|
Parent cell size
|
2.5 mE by 2.5 mN by 2.5 mRL
|
|
Re-blocking cell size
|
10 mE by 10 mN by 10 mRL
|
|
Search ellipse – pass 1
|
35 m by 35 m by 20 m
|
|
Minimum samples – pass 1
|
12
|
|
Maximum samples – pass 1
|
16
|
|
Search ellipse – pass 2
|
105 m by 105 m by 60 m
|
|
Minimum samples – pass 2
|
2
|
|
Maximum samples – pass 2
|
6
|
|
Maximum composites per drillhole
|
8
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
Estimate
|
Parameter
|
December 2013
|
High-grade domains -
probability
|
Estimation method
|
MIK
|
Parent cell size
|
2.5 mE by 2.5 mN by 2.5 mRL
|
|
Re-blocking cell size
|
10 mE by 10 mN by 10 mRL
|
|
Search ellipse – pass 1
|
35 m by 35 m by 15 m
|
|
Minimum samples – pass 1
|
12
|
|
Maximum samples – pass 1
|
16
|
|
Search ellipse – pass 2
|
70 m by 70 m by 30 m
|
|
Minimum samples – pass 2
|
2
|
|
Maximum samples – pass 2
|
6
|
|
Maximum composites per drillhole
|
8
|
14.4
|
Model Validation
|
|
Table 14.2
|
December 2013 Mineral Resource versus November 2012 Mineral Resource and Mill Results by Bulk Sample Cross-cut
|
Cross-cut
|
Mill
|
November 2012
Mineral Resource
|
December 2013
Mineral Resource
|
||||||
Tonnes
|
Au
(g/t)
|
Au
(oz)
|
Tonnes
|
Au
(g/t)
|
Au
(oz)
|
Tonnes
|
Au
(g/t)
|
Au
(oz)
|
|
426555E
|
1,416
|
4.41
|
201
|
1,491
|
4.89
|
234
|
1,481
|
3.97
|
189
|
426645E
|
1,875
|
2.28
|
137
|
1,959
|
5.64
|
355
|
1,987
|
3.26
|
208
|
426585E
|
2,169
|
4.02
|
280
|
2,231
|
12.12
|
869
|
2,269
|
2.35
|
171
|
426615E
|
2,878
|
39.35
|
3,642
|
3,089
|
18.88
|
1,876
|
3,127
|
15.74
|
1,582
|
615L
|
1,964
|
25.52
|
1,611
|
1,535
|
38.78
|
1,914
|
1,574
|
38.42
|
1,945
|
Final clean out
|
-
|
-
|
52.0
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
Total
|
10,302
|
17.88
|
5,923
|
10,305
|
15.84
|
5,248
|
10,438
|
12.20
|
4,096
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
Table 14.3
|
November 2012 versus December 2013 Mineral Resource Estimates Within Local Test Area above a 5 g/t AuEq Cut-off
|
Model
|
Tonnes
|
Au
(g/t)
|
Au
(koz)
|
November 2012 Mineral Resource
|
1,745
|
16.54
|
928
|
December 2013 Mineral Resource
|
1,326
|
19.54
|
833
|
14.5
|
Classification
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
14.6
|
Resource Reporting
|
|
Table 14.4
|
VOK Mineral Resource Estimate Based on a Cut-off Grade of 5 g/t AuEq – December 2013(1)(4)(5)
|
Category
|
Tonnes
(million)
|
Gold
(g/t)
|
Silver
(g/t)
|
Contained(3)
|
|
Gold
(Moz)
|
Silver
(Moz)
|
||||
Measured
|
2.0
|
19.3
|
14.4
|
1.2
|
0.9
|
Indicated
|
13.4
|
17.4
|
14.3
|
7.5
|
6.1
|
M + I
|
15.3
|
17.6
|
14.3
|
8.7
|
7.0
|
Inferred(2)
|
5.9
|
25.6
|
20.6
|
4.9
|
3.9
|
|
Notes:
|
(1)
|
Mineral Resources which are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. The estimate of Mineral Resources may be materially affected by environmental, permitting, legal, marketing, or other relevant issues. The Mineral Resources in this Technical Report were estimated using the CIM Standards on Mineral Resources and Reserves, Definitions and Guidelines prepared by the CIM Standing Committee on Reserve Definitions and adopted by CIM Council.
|
|
(2)
|
The quantity and grade of reported Inferred resources in this estimation are uncertain in nature and there has been insufficient exploration to define these Inferred Resources as an Indicated or Measured Mineral Resource and it is uncertain if further exploration will result in upgrading them to an Indicated or Measured Mineral Resource category.
|
(3)
|
Contained metal and tonnes figures in totals may differ due to rounding.
|
|
(4)
|
The Mineral Resource estimate stated in Table 14.4 and Table 14.5 is defined using 5 m by 5 by 5 m blocks in the well drilled portion of West Zone (5 m by 10 m drilling or better) and 10 m by 10 m by 10 m blocks in the remainder of West Zone and in VOK.
|
|
(5)
|
The AuEq value is defined as AuEq = Au + Ag/53.
|
|
Table 14.5
|
West Zone Mineral Resource Estimate Based on a Cut-off Grade of 5 g/t AuEq – April 2012(1)(4)(5)
|
Category
|
Tonnes
(millions)
|
Gold
(g/t)
|
Silver
(g/t)
|
Contained(3)
|
|
Gold
(Moz)
|
Silver
(Moz)
|
||||
Measured
|
2.4
|
5.85
|
347
|
0.5
|
26.8
|
Indicated
|
2.5
|
5.86
|
190
|
0.5
|
15.1
|
M+I
|
4.9
|
5.85
|
267
|
0.9
|
41.9
|
Inferred(2)
|
4.0
|
6.44
|
82
|
0.8
|
10.6
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
15.0
|
MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES
|
15.1
|
General
|
15.2
|
Cut-off Grade
|
·
|
Mining: $91.34/t
|
·
|
Processing: $19.69/t
|
·
|
Surface Services and Others: $21.15/t
|
·
|
G&A: $30.87/t
|
·
|
Total: $163.05/t
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
15.3
|
Net Smelter Return Model
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
Table 15.1
|
Net Smelter Return Parameters
|
Items
|
Units
|
Parameters
|
||
Currency
|
Conversion Rate
|
Cdn$/US$
|
-
|
0.92
|
Metal Prices
|
Gold
|
US$/oz
|
-
|
1,1100.00
|
Silver
|
US$/oz
|
-
|
17.00
|
|
Doré
|
||||
VOK
Process
Recoveries
|
Gold
|
%
|
For Au <0.5 g/t
|
0
|
%
|
For Au ≥0.5 g/t and Au <9.99 g/t
|
-0.147 x Au2 + 5.68 x Au - 1.214
|
||
%
|
For Au ≥9.99 g/t and Au <40.00 g/t
|
7.32 x ln(Au) + 24.012
|
||
%
|
For Au ≥40.00 g/t
|
52
|
||
Silver
|
%
|
For Ag <3.00 g/t
|
23
|
|
%
|
For Ag ≥3.00 g/t and Ag <130.00 g/t
|
18.5 x Ag 0.091
|
||
%
|
For Ag ≥130.00 g/t and Ag <400.00 g/t
|
10
|
||
For Ag ≥400.00 g/t
|
5
|
|||
West Zone
Process
Recoveries
|
Gold
|
%
|
For Au <0.5 g/t
|
0
|
%
|
For Au ≥0.5 g/t and Au <9.99 g/t
|
-0.147 x Au2 + 5.68 x Au - 1.214
|
||
%
|
For Au ≥9.99 g/t and Au <40.00 g/t
|
7.32 x ln(Au) + 24.012
|
||
%
|
For Au ≥40.00 g/t
|
52
|
||
Silver
|
%
|
For Ag <3.00 g/t
|
23
|
|
%
|
For Ag ≥3.00 g/t and Ag <130.00 g/t
|
34.643 x Ag 0.48
|
||
%
|
For Ag ≥130.00 g/t and Ag <400.00 g/t
|
1.5
|
||
%
|
For Ag ≥400.00 g/t
|
0
|
||
Selling
Costs
|
Metal Payable – Gold
|
%
|
-
|
99.8
|
Metal Payable – Silver
|
%
|
-
|
99.8
|
|
Refining Charge – Gold
|
Cdn$/oz
|
-
|
1
|
|
Refining Charge – Silver
|
Cdn$/oz
|
-
|
1
|
|
Transport/Port Handling Costs
|
Cdn$/oz-gold
|
-
|
1
|
|
Insurance (Net Invoice Value)
|
% NIV
|
-
|
0.5
|
|
table continues…
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
Items
|
Units
|
Parameters
|
Flotation Concentrate
|
||||
VOK
Process
Recoveries
|
Gold
|
%
|
For Au <0.5 g/t
|
30
|
%
|
For Au ≥0.5 g/t and Au <5.64 g/t
|
85.44 x Au0.056 - (-0.147 x Au2 + 5.68 x Au - 0.714) + 2.6
|
||
%
|
For Au ≥5.640 g/t and Au <9.99 g/t
|
1.18 x ln(Au) + 0.147 x Au2 – 5.68 x Au + 94.694
|
||
%
|
For Au ≥9.99 g/t and Au <40.00 g/t
|
-6.14 x ln(Au) + 69.558
|
||
%
|
For Au ≥40.00 g/t
|
46.5
|
||
Silver
|
%
|
For Ag <3.00 g/t
|
35
|
|
%
|
For Ag ≥3.00 g/t and Ag <130.00 g/t
|
2.793 x ln(Ag) - (18.05 x Ag-0.091) + 78.07
|
||
%
|
For Ag ≥130.00 g/t and Ag <400.00 g/t
|
82
|
||
%
|
For Ag ≥400.00 g/t
|
87.5
|
||
West Zone
Process
Recoveries
|
Gold
|
%
|
For Au <0.5 g/t
|
30
|
%
|
For Au ≥0.5 g/t and Au <5.64 g/t
|
85.44 x Au0.056 - (-0.147 x Au2 + 5.68 x Au - 0.714) + 2.0
|
||
%
|
For Au ≥5.640 g/t and Au <9.99 g/t
|
1.18 x ln(Au) + 0.147 x Au2 – 5.68 x Au + 94.094
|
||
%
|
For Au ≥9.99 g/t and Au <40.00 g/t
|
-6.14 x ln(Au) + 69.958
|
||
%
|
For Au ≥40.00 g/t
|
46.9
|
||
Silver
|
%
|
For Ag <3.00 g/t
|
35
|
|
%
|
For Ag ≥3.00 g/t and Ag <130.00 g/t
|
2.9741 x ln(Ag) - (34.643 x Ag-0.48) + 73.956
|
||
%
|
For Ag ≥130.00 g/t and Ag <400.00 g/t
|
2.9741 x In(Ag) + 72.456
|
||
%
|
For Ag ≥400.00 g/t
|
91.5
|
||
Selling
Costs
|
Metal Payable – Gold
|
%
|
For Au <1.0 g/t
|
0
|
%
|
For Au ≥1.0 g/t and Au ≤3.00 g/t
|
3.968 x Au + 85.61
|
||
%
|
For Au >3.00 g/t
|
90
|
||
Metal Payable – Silver
|
%
|
For Ag ≤8.00 g/t
|
0
|
|
%
|
For Ag >8.00 g/t
|
90
|
||
table continues…
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
Items
|
Units
|
Parameters
|
Selling
Costs
|
Penalty Charge – Arsenic
|
Cdn$/t-concentrate
|
For As (ppm) / S(%) >25.4
|
0.35479 x (As (ppm) / S (%)) + 1.0061
|
Cdn$/t-concentrate
|
For As (ppm) / S(%) ≤25.4
|
0
|
||
Treatment Charge
|
Cdn$/t-concentrate
|
-
|
200
|
|
Refining Charge – Gold
|
Cdn$/oz
|
-
|
N/A
|
|
Refining Charge – Silver
|
Cdn$/oz
|
-
|
N/A
|
|
Transport/Port Handling Costs
|
Cdn$/t-concentrate
|
-
|
193.24
|
|
Concentrate Production
|
% of mill feed
|
-
|
2.29 x S(%) -0.5072
|
|
Concentrate Moisture
|
%
|
-
|
10
|
|
Insurance (Net Invoice Value)
|
% NIV
|
-
|
0.5
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
15.4
|
Mining Shapes
|
15.5
|
Dilution and Recovery Estimates
|
·
|
Longhole stopes (primary, secondary, tertiary) carry 1.0 m of dilution from paste or country rock overbreak into the design hanging wall and design footwall, and 0.3 m of backfill dilution from the floor.
|
·
|
Secondary or tertiary stopes carry an additional 1.0 m of backfill dilution on each wall that exposes a primary stope.
|
·
|
Sill pillar stopes are treated as secondary stopes, given the additional backfill dilution that can be expected from the roof.
|
|
·
|
Ore cross-cuts carry 0.5 m of dilution from rock overbreak into the design hanging wall and design footwall.
|
·
|
Production slashing of secondary stopes carries 0.5 m of backfill dilution on each wall that exposes a primary stope.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
Figure 15.1
|
Sources of Stope Dilution
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
15.6
|
Orebody Description
|
15.6.1
|
VOK Zone
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
Figure 15.2
|
Cross-section through the VOK Zone LOM Mining Shapes
|
15.6.2
|
West Zone
|
Figure 15.3
|
Cross-section through the West Zone LOM Mining Shapes
|
15.7
|
Mineral Reserves
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
|
Table 15.2
|
Brucejack Mineral Reserves* by Zone and by Reserve Category
|
Zone
|
Ore
Tonnes
(Mt)
|
Grade
|
Metal
|
|||
Au
(g/t)
|
Ag
(g/t)
|
Au
(Moz)
|
Ag
(Moz)
|
|||
VOK Zone
|
Proven
|
2.1
|
15.6
|
12
|
1.1
|
0.8
|
Probable
|
11.5
|
15.7
|
10
|
5.8
|
3.9
|
|
Total
|
13.6
|
15.7
|
11
|
6.9
|
4.6
|
|
West Zone
|
Proven
|
1.4
|
7.2
|
383
|
0.3
|
17.4
|
Probable
|
1.5
|
6.5
|
181
|
0.3
|
8.6
|
|
Total
|
2.9
|
6.9
|
279
|
0.6
|
26.0
|
|
Total Mine
|
Proven
|
3.5
|
12.2
|
161
|
1..4
|
18.2
|
Probable
|
13.0
|
14.7
|
30
|
6.1
|
12.5
|
|
Total
|
16.5
|
14.1
|
58
|
7.5
|
30.7
|
|
Note:
|
*Rounding of some figures may lead to minor discrepancies in totals. Based on Cdn$180/t cut-off grade, US$1,100/oz gold price, US$17/oz silver price, Cdn$/US$ exchange rate = 0.92.
|
|
Table 15.3
|
Brucejack Mineral Reserves* by Mining Block
|
Mining Block
|
Ore
Tonnes
(Mt)
|
NSR
($/t)
|
Grade
|
Contained Metal
|
||
Au
(g/t)
|
Ag
(g/t)
|
Au
(Moz)
|
Ag
(Moz)
|
|||
VOK Upper
|
4.3
|
578
|
16.9
|
12
|
2.3
|
1.6
|
VOK Middle
|
5.7
|
503
|
14.9
|
10
|
2.7
|
1.9
|
VOK Lower
|
3.7
|
530
|
15.5
|
9
|
1.8
|
1.1
|
VOK
|
13.6
|
534
|
15.7
|
11
|
6.9
|
4.6
|
WZ Upper
|
0.6
|
304
|
4.2
|
407
|
0.1
|
8.0
|
WZ Lower
|
2.3
|
350
|
7.6
|
245
|
0.6
|
18.1
|
WZ
|
2.9
|
340
|
6.9
|
279
|
0.6
|
26.0
|
Mining Block Total
|
16.5
|
500
|
14.1
|
58
|
7.5
|
30.7
|
|
Note:
|
*Rounding of some figures may lead to minor discrepancies in totals. Based on Cdn$180/t cut-off grade, US$1,110/oz gold price, US$17/oz silver price, Cdn$/US$ exchange rate = 0.92.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
Figure 15.4
|
Reserve Shapes and Mining Blocks in the VOK Zone
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
Figure 15.5
|
Reserve Shapes and Mining Blocks in the West Zone
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
16.0
|
MINING METHODS
|
16.1
|
General
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
16.2
|
Mine Design
|
16.2.1
|
Access and Ramp Infrastructure
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
Figure 16.1
|
Mine Access and Development Infrastructure
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
Figure 16.2
|
Brucejack Twin Declines and Ramp System
|
16.2.1
|
Level Development
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
Figure 16.3
|
VOK Zone Sublevel Arrangement – Long Section
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
Figure 16.4
|
Typical Level Plan – 1,200 Level in the VOK Zone
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
Figure 16.5
|
Standard Designs – Hanging Wall Drive
|
Figure 16.6
|
Standard Design – Main Decline
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
|
Table 16.1
|
Development Design Parameters
|
Development
Type
|
Parameter
|
|||
Width (m)
|
Height/Length
(m)
|
Arch (m)
|
Maximum
Gradient
(%)
|
|
Lateral
|
||||
Remuck
|
6.0
|
5.5
|
2.0
|
2
|
Hanging Wall Drives
|
5.0
|
5.5
|
2.0
|
15
|
Access Drive
|
6.0
|
5.5
|
2.0
|
2
|
Electric LHD Cut-out
|
5.0
|
5.5
|
2.0
|
2
|
Ramp
|
6.0
|
5.5
|
2.0
|
15
|
Return Air Drive
|
5.0
|
5.5
|
2.0
|
2
|
Decline Cross-over Drive
|
6.0
|
5.5
|
2.0
|
5
|
Conveyor Decline
|
6.0
|
6.0
|
2.0
|
15
|
Main Access Decline
|
6.0
|
5.5
|
2.0
|
15
|
Infrastructure Drive
|
5.0
|
5.5
|
2.0
|
2
|
Drainage Cut-out
|
5.0
|
5.5
|
2.0
|
2
|
Waste Cross-cut
|
5.0
|
5.0
|
2.0
|
2
|
Main Cross-over Drive
|
6.0
|
5.5
|
2.0
|
15
|
Refuge Bay Cut-out
|
5.0
|
5.5
|
2.0
|
2
|
Ore Cross-cut
|
6.0
|
5.0
|
2.0
|
2
|
Fresh Air Drive
|
5.0
|
5.5
|
2.0
|
2
|
Return Air Drive
|
5.0
|
5.5
|
2.0
|
2
|
Paste Fill Line Drive
|
5.0
|
5.5
|
2.0
|
2
|
Vertical
|
||||
Alimak Raise
|
3.0
|
3.0
|
0.0
|
|
Return Air Drive
|
3.0
|
3.0
|
0.0
|
|
Fresh Air Raise
|
3.0
|
3.0
|
0.0
|
16.2.2
|
Stope Design
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
|
Table 16.2
|
Stope Design Parameters
|
Parameter
|
Units
|
VOK Zone
|
West Zone
|
||||
Standard
|
Weathered*
|
Sill
Pillar
|
Standard
|
Weathered*
|
Sill
Pillar
|
||
NSR Cut-off
|
$/t
|
180
|
180
|
180
|
180
|
180
|
180
|
Level Spacing
|
m
|
30
|
30
|
30
|
30
|
30
|
30
|
Stope Span
|
m
|
15
|
10
|
10
|
15
|
10
|
10
|
Minimum Mining Width
|
m
|
3
|
3
|
3
|
3
|
3
|
3
|
Minimum Waste Pillar Width
|
m
|
5
|
5
|
5
|
5
|
5
|
5
|
Minimum Footwall Dip
|
degrees
|
60
|
60
|
60
|
60
|
60
|
60
|
Minimum Hanging Wall Dip
|
degrees
|
60
|
60
|
60
|
60
|
60
|
60
|
|
Note:
|
*Refers to stoping in weathered material immediately below the surface crown pillar. Weathered material extends 10 to 50 m below surface.
|
Figure 16.7
|
MSO Stope Shapes – VOK Zone
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
Figure 16.8
|
MSO Stope Shapes – West Zone
|
16.3
|
Mining Method and Sequence
|
16.3.1
|
Block Definition
|
|
·
|
Three of the six blocks contain sills: Mining these sills will expose the cemented backfill of the stopes in the block immediately above. They will be relatively more problematic to mine due to the effects of increasing ground stress and the overhead fill, with lower recovery, higher dilution, and higher costs anticipated. Therefore, the block elevation selection tended toward minimizing the grade and contained metal within the sills. Natural breaks in economic mineralization were favoured.
|
·
|
Pre-production development requirements: The VOK Upper block and the VOK Middle block are close to existing workings, and will support the ramp-up of production in a reasonable timeframe.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
·
|
Grade profile: Block definition impacts grade accessibility over time. The arrangement provided for the feasibility study assists with achieving higher grades earlier in the mine life.
|
16.3.2
|
Stope Cycle
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
|
Figure 16.9
|
Typical LHOS Design
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
16.3.3
|
Stope Sequence
|
|
Figure 16.10
|
Example of Primary/Secondary LHOS at Brucejack Mine
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
16.3.4
|
Backfilling
|
|
Table 16.3
|
LOM Paste Fill Requirements
|
Paste Type
|
LOM
Quantity
(m3)
|
28-day
Strength
(kPa)
|
Binder
Dosage
(%)
|
Density
Dry
Paste
(t/m3)
|
Mass Dry
Paste
(t)
|
Binder
Required
(t)
|
||
High-strength Paste
|
122,432
|
800
|
5.5
|
1.40
|
171,405
|
9,427
|
||
Regular Paste
|
3,701,036
|
300
|
3.9
|
1.40
|
5,181,450
|
202,077
|
||
Low-strength Paste
|
1,192,444
|
100
|
2.8
|
1.40
|
1,669,421
|
46,743
|
||
Total
|
5,015,912
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
7,022,276
|
258,247
|
16.3.5
|
Paste Backfill Test Work
|
·
|
material characterization tests in areas such as specific gravity and particle size distribution
|
·
|
determination of paste fill density at a yield stress of 250 Pa as the benchmark for the paste fill mix
|
·
|
unconfined compressive strength (UCS) tests of mixes using General Purpose (GP) cement, slag, and fly-ash blend cements to look at the effect of adding fine-ground iron blast furnace slag and fly-ash to the GP cement binder. Two slag blends were tested: MineCem (MC) containing 55% slag and Sunstate Slag Blend (SS) containing 35% slag. Medium-size fly-ash (FA) was also used.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
·
|
At 6% and 10% addition, consistently using MC binder (slag content 55%) produced a paste fill strength of more than double that of the GP mix.
|
·
|
At 6% and 10% addition, the SS binder (slag content 35%) consistently increased paste fill strengths by over 50% compared to the GP mix.
|
·
|
Using FA in the paste fill mixes reflects the expected lower strength gain in the early curing time (14 days) typical of FA mixes. However, the 28-day and final 56-day strengths steadily gained higher strength levels, showing the benefit of the FA in partly replacing the GP cement.
|
|
Table 16.4
|
Summary of Stage 2 UC Results
|
Batch
|
Tailings (%)
|
Cement/Binder
|
14 days
|
28 days
|
56 days
|
1
|
94
|
6% GP
|
405
|
448
|
565
|
2
|
90
|
10% GP
|
875
|
1,038
|
1,204
|
3
|
94
|
6% MC
|
909
|
1,145
|
1,428
|
4
|
90
|
10% MC
|
2,008
|
2,507
|
2,783
|
5
|
94
|
6% SS
|
577
|
738
|
903
|
6
|
90
|
10% SS
|
1,525
|
1,831
|
1,920
|
7
|
94
|
3% GP + 3% FA
|
340
|
537
|
681
|
8
|
90
|
5% GP + 5% FA
|
1,050
|
1,824
|
2,415
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
Table 16.5
|
LOM Backfilling – Waste Rock and Mill Tailings
|
Year
|
Ore Tonnes ('000 t)
|
Total Tailings ('000 t)
|
Waste Tonnes ('000 t)
|
Waste Fill Volume (‘000 m3)
|
Paste Fill Volume (‘000 m3)
|
Tailings Underground ('000 t)
|
Waste to Surface ('000 t)
|
-2
|
0
|
0
|
324
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
324
|
-1
|
81
|
0
|
343
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
343
|
1
|
839
|
876
|
303
|
0
|
332
|
471
|
303
|
2
|
929
|
884
|
274
|
42
|
281
|
399
|
155
|
3
|
979
|
932
|
315
|
59
|
276
|
392
|
150
|
4
|
984
|
936
|
282
|
91
|
257
|
365
|
27
|
5
|
988
|
941
|
316
|
90
|
241
|
342
|
63
|
6
|
999
|
951
|
286
|
91
|
247
|
350
|
32
|
7
|
986
|
939
|
213
|
73
|
258
|
366
|
8
|
8
|
996
|
948
|
230
|
75
|
252
|
358
|
19
|
9
|
994
|
946
|
321
|
89
|
259
|
369
|
71
|
10
|
987
|
940
|
315
|
99
|
277
|
393
|
36
|
11
|
985
|
938
|
292
|
88
|
231
|
327
|
45
|
12
|
993
|
945
|
179
|
62
|
261
|
371
|
4
|
13
|
986
|
939
|
32
|
11
|
346
|
491
|
0
|
14
|
981
|
934
|
40
|
14
|
386
|
548
|
0
|
15
|
991
|
943
|
52
|
18
|
372
|
529
|
1
|
16
|
908
|
864
|
46
|
16
|
337
|
478
|
1
|
17
|
663
|
632
|
31
|
11
|
274
|
389
|
0
|
18
|
281
|
267
|
3
|
1
|
129
|
184
|
0
|
Total
|
16,550
|
15,755
|
4,198
|
934
|
5,016
|
7,123
|
1,583
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
16.4
|
Development and Production Schedule
|
16.4.1
|
Production Rate
|
·
|
mining of any given stope proceeds at 450 t/d, inclusive all unit operations
|
|
·
|
only two stopes per level are active at any given time.
|
·
|
ventilation volume
|
·
|
pieces of equipment operating at one time
|
·
|
total workforce requirements or availability
|
·
|
backfill requirements
|
·
|
number of stopes working at any given time other than two stopes per level
|
·
|
number of levels or areas in production.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
16.4.2
|
Pre-production Development
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
Figure 16.11
|
Extent of Development Prior to Project Start
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
·
|
access development to the top and bottom of the crusher chamber, excavation and support of the crusher chamber, and installation of the crusher
|
·
|
decline development to the 1,200 Level, development of the 1,200 Level, and continuation of ventilation raise VR1 from 1,200 to 1,350 to establish a ventilation circuit in the lower part of the mine
|
·
|
twin decline development from surface and underground to allow the installation of the portal structure, main ventilation fans and underground conveyor system
|
·
|
excavation and construction of the sump, maintenance workshops, magazine, fuel bay, and other ancillary installations
|
|
·
|
development of 1,200, 1,230, 1,350 and 1,380 Levels including ventilation raise VR3 to allow commencement of stoping.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
Figure 16.12
|
Extent of Mine Development at the Main Onset of VOK Stoping
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
Figure 16.13
|
Critical Path Construction and Development Activities
|
16.4.3
|
Execution and Transition Plan
|
·
|
Mobilization period – first six months. The Contractor is building up development crews and begins underground development.
|
·
|
Peak Development period – months 7 to 12. The Contractor employs the full complement of development crews to meet scheduled development.
|
|
·
|
Initial Transition phase – months 12 to 24. The Owner’s crews begin to supplement Contractor crews. Longhole drilling will begin with Owner crews and
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
·
|
one of the Contractor’s development crews will be replaced by an Owner development crew.
|
·
|
Final Transition phase – months 25 to 30, Owner now employs three development and all production crews. Contractor continues to operate one development crew.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
|
Table 16.6
|
Crew Size During Development and Transition Phases
|
Personnel on Site
|
Month
|
||||||
1 to 3
|
4 to 6
|
7 to 12
|
13 to 18
|
19 to 24
|
25 to 30
|
30+
|
|
Contractor
|
|||||||
Staff
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
0
|
Mining
|
29
|
54
|
54
|
54
|
42
|
13
|
3
|
Maintenance/Support
|
1
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
0
|
0
|
Construction
|
0
|
0
|
3
|
20
|
20
|
6
|
0
|
Owner
|
|||||||
Staff
|
7
|
8
|
8
|
25
|
28
|
26
|
22
|
Mining
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
2
|
30
|
99
|
99
|
Maintenance/Support
|
9
|
17
|
17
|
33
|
40
|
58
|
58
|
Total On Site
|
50
|
85
|
88
|
140
|
165
|
205
|
181
|
Total Personnel
|
100
|
170
|
176
|
279
|
330
|
410
|
362
|
16.4.4
|
Sustaining Development
|
·
|
advancement of the VOK ramp downward to the 990 Level
|
·
|
development of the 990, 1,020 and 1,050 levels
|
·
|
continuation of VR1 from the 1,050 Level to the 1,200 level
|
·
|
excavation of the fresh air raise system from the 1,050 Level to the 990 Level.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
Table 16.7
|
LOM Development Requirements
|
Year
|
Capital
|
Operational
|
Total
|
|||
Lateral
(meq)
|
Vertical
(m)
|
Ore
(meq)
|
Waste
(meq)
|
Lateral
(meq)
|
Vertical
(m)
|
|
-2
|
4,660
|
117
|
0
|
809
|
5,469
|
117
|
-1
|
5,086
|
831
|
930
|
1,243
|
7,259
|
831
|
1
|
1,810
|
0
|
1,630
|
2,027
|
5,467
|
0
|
2
|
1,467
|
110
|
2,081
|
1,744
|
5,292
|
110
|
3
|
2,013
|
261
|
1,636
|
1,575
|
5,224
|
262
|
4
|
1,783
|
144
|
1,906
|
1,489
|
5,179
|
144
|
5
|
2,160
|
75
|
1,542
|
1,436
|
5,139
|
75
|
6
|
1,595
|
170
|
1,719
|
1,716
|
5,030
|
170
|
7
|
742
|
34
|
2,406
|
1,853
|
5,001
|
34
|
8
|
1,124
|
21
|
1,965
|
1,595
|
4,684
|
21
|
9
|
2,199
|
65
|
1,521
|
1,479
|
5,199
|
65
|
10
|
2,360
|
97
|
918
|
1,194
|
4,472
|
97
|
11
|
1,719
|
371
|
1,731
|
1,613
|
5,063
|
371
|
12
|
819
|
90
|
2,459
|
1,332
|
4,610
|
90
|
13
|
0
|
0
|
1,507
|
419
|
1,926
|
0
|
14
|
0
|
0
|
835
|
525
|
1,360
|
0
|
15
|
0
|
0
|
783
|
674
|
1,457
|
0
|
16
|
0
|
0
|
1,020
|
592
|
1,612
|
0
|
17
|
0
|
0
|
535
|
409
|
944
|
0
|
18
|
0
|
0
|
89
|
43
|
132
|
0
|
Total
|
29,537
|
2,386
|
27,215
|
23,767
|
80,518
|
2,386
|
16.4.5
|
LOM Production Schedule
|
Figure 16.14
|
Life of Mine Production Schedule by Mining Block
|
|
Figure 16.15
|
LOM Production Schedule by Activity
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
Table 16.8
|
LOM Tonnes and Grades
|
Year
|
Ore
(kt)
|
Au
(g/t)
|
Ag
(g/t)
|
NSR
($/t)
|
-2
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
-1
|
81
|
13.6
|
11.5
|
451
|
1
|
839
|
15.4
|
11.7
|
521
|
2
|
929
|
15.3
|
11.7
|
516
|
3
|
979
|
16.8
|
12.8
|
574
|
4
|
984
|
15.9
|
9.9
|
539
|
5
|
988
|
16.9
|
11.0
|
579
|
6
|
999
|
17.5
|
10.6
|
601
|
7
|
986
|
17.8
|
11.8
|
612
|
8
|
996
|
17.5
|
11.7
|
600
|
9
|
994
|
14.9
|
10.2
|
507
|
10
|
987
|
15.5
|
11.2
|
525
|
11
|
984
|
13.0
|
29.3
|
444
|
12
|
993
|
13.9
|
69.2
|
497
|
13
|
986
|
11.6
|
102.8
|
430
|
14
|
981
|
9.9
|
151.9
|
393
|
15
|
991
|
10.2
|
158.7
|
407
|
16
|
908
|
10.4
|
104.1
|
376
|
17
|
993
|
8.0
|
254.7
|
375
|
18
|
281
|
7.1
|
271.9
|
350
|
Total
|
16,550
|
14.1
|
57.7
|
500
|
16.5
|
Geotechnical
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
16.5.1
|
Rock Mass Properties
|
·
|
The West Zone Fault Zone (WZ FZ) unit includes fault-disturbed rock. This unit is strong (according to the methods of ISRM (1978)) with fair rock quality designation (RQD) (Bieniawski 1976) and close to moderate discontinuity spacing.
|
·
|
The West Zone Weathered Rock Zone (WZ WRZ) unit includes weathered near-surface rock. It is medium strong with good RQD and moderate discontinuity spacing.
|
·
|
The West Zone Fresh Rock (WZ FR) unit comprises all remaining rock, which is very strong with excellent RQD and wide discontinuity spacing.
|
·
|
The VOK Fault Zone (VOK FZ) unit includes fault-disturbed rock. The Fault Zone unit includes Brucejack Fault Zone rock and rock from all geologic units. It is strong with good RQD and close discontinuity spacing.
|
·
|
The VOK Weathered Rock Zone (VOK WRZ) unit comprises near-surface weathered rock. This unit is strong with good RQD and close discontinuity spacing.
|
·
|
Rock mass VOK Domain 1 (VOK D1) comprises the Argillite (ARG) geologic unit and is very strong with good RQD and moderate discontinuity spacing.
|
·
|
Rock mass VOK Domain 2 (VOK D2) comprises the Porphyry (P1) and Silicified Rock (RHY) geologic units, which are strong with excellent RQD, and moderate discontinuity spacing.
|
|
·
|
Rock mass VOK Domain 3 (VOK D3) comprises the Jurassic Conglomerate (JR), Triassic Sediment (TRS), and Andesite (ANDX) units, which are very strong with excellent RQD and wide discontinuity spacing.
|
·
|
Rock mass parameters used in design are summarized in Table 16.9.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
Table 16.9
|
Rock Mass Properties
|
Unit
|
UCS
(MPa)
|
GSI*
|
Unit Weight**
(kN/m3)
|
mi
|
mb
|
S
|
Erm
(GPa)
|
||
VOK FZ
|
89
|
60
|
26.3
|
12
|
1.110
|
0.0023
|
5.13
|
||
VOK WRZ
|
50
|
63
|
28.6
|
17
|
1.879
|
0.0037
|
0.77
|
||
VOK D1
|
116
|
72
|
27.2
|
17
|
3.211
|
0.0144
|
9.76
|
||
VOK D2
|
95
|
70
|
27.1
|
19
|
3.186
|
0.0106
|
9.02
|
||
VOK D3
|
73
|
85
|
27.3
|
26
|
10.647
|
0.103
|
14.37
|
||
WZ FZ
|
77
|
57
|
26.3
|
12
|
0.928
|
0.0015
|
4.27
|
||
WZ WRZ
|
37
|
62
|
28.6
|
17
|
1.771
|
0.0032
|
0.73
|
||
WZ FR
|
116
|
85
|
27.3
|
21
|
8.599
|
0.103
|
16.77
|
|
Notes:
|
*GSI are calculated from median rock mass parameters for each unit, where GSI = RMR '76.
|
|
**Unit weights are based on average results of specific gravity testing when possible.
|
|
The Hoek-Brown failure criteria were estimated assuming a disturbance factor ('D') of 0.8 for all units.
|
|
The Hoek-Brown curves were derived using a sigma3 maximum for a tunnel depth of 650 m.
|
16.5.2
|
Brucejack Fault Zone
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
16.5.3
|
Underground Rock Mechanics
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
Table 16.10
|
Ground Support Recommendations
|
Opening
Type
|
Cross Section
(w by h, m)
|
Ground
Support Type
|
Length
(m)
|
Spacing
(m)
|
Shotcrete
Estimate
(%)
|
Additional Notes
|
|
Main access decline, ramps, and other haulage routes
|
6 by 5.5
|
Back
|
Fully-grouted #7 Dywidag
|
2.4
|
1.8 by 1.8
|
10
|
-
|
Walls
|
Fully-grouted #7 Dywidag
|
1.8
|
1.8 by 1.8
|
10
|
|||
Level development
|
5 by 5.5
|
Back
|
Swellex Pm12
|
1.8
|
1.8 by 1.8
|
10
|
Fully-grouted #7 Dywidag can be used in direct substitution of Pm12 when desired for operational efficiency.
|
Walls
|
Swellex Pm12
|
1.8
|
1.8 by 1.8
|
10
|
|||
Intersections
|
Includes 6 by 5, 5 by 5, three-way, four-way, and herringbone layouts
|
Back
|
Pre-support: Fully-grouted #7 Dywidag
|
2.4
|
1.8 by 1.8
|
10
|
Welded wire mesh should be installed on the back and upper portion of each wall for all intersections with an effective span greater than 6 m. Strap consumption estimate: 25% of pillars; 3 straps per pillar.
|
Back
|
Long support: Coupled fully-grouted #7 Dywidag or cable bolts
|
5.0
|
2.4 by 2.4
|
10
|
|||
Walls
|
Fully-grouted #7 Dywidag
|
1.8
|
1.8 by 1.8
|
10
|
|||
Full-width undercuts
|
5 m high by 6 m wide pilot
|
Back
|
Pre-support: Swellex Pm12
|
2.4
|
1.8 by 1.8
|
N/A
|
All support must be installed prior to slashing.
|
Back
|
Long support: Bulbed cable bolts
|
6
|
2.4 by 2.4
|
N/A
|
|||
Walls
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
N/A
|
|||
15 m wide full undercut (post-slash)
|
Back
|
Swellex Pm12
|
2.4
|
1.8 by 1.8
|
25
|
All support except for shotcrete must be installed as each lateral slash is developed (prior to full width exposure)
|
|
Walls
|
Swellex Pm12
|
2.4
|
1.8 by 1.8
|
25
|
|||
Portal
|
-
|
Back
|
Fully-grouted #7 Dywidag
|
1.8
|
0.8 by 0.8
|
100
|
1 m spaced steel sets in first 10 m, contingent on encountered ground conditions, and 100% coverage with minimum 50 mm thick steel-fibre reinforced shotcrete throughout the length of the portal
|
-
|
Walls
|
Fully-grouted #7 Dywidag
|
1.8
|
1.8 by 1.8
|
-
|
||
table continues…
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
Opening
Type
|
Cross Section
(w by h, m)
|
Ground
Support Type
|
Length
(m)
|
Spacing
(m)
|
Shotcrete
Estimate
(%)
|
Additional Notes | |
Raises
|
3 by 3
|
All
|
Fully-grouted #7 Dywidag
|
1.2
|
0.8 x 0.8
|
50
|
Staggered spacing. Reduced support may be feasible if man-access is not permitted.
|
Notes:
|
Design factor of safety is 1.3.
|
|
Wall bolts must extend down to within 1.5 m of sill (floor).
|
|
Surface support should be installed when excavation intersects relatively poorer ground, faults, more persistent joints or narrower joint spacing, soft joint walls, groundwater seepage points, or “dead” sounding difficult to scale material.
|
|
Shotcrete estimate (%) is based on the percentage of total development length estimated to require shotcrete support.
|
|
Use shotcrete estimate percentage for mesh cost estimating if mesh is preferred surface support.
|
|
All estimates are provided for cost estimating purposes only.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
·
|
Primary support consisting of galvanized, resin-grouted rebar (or an equivalent) and welded wire mesh (or fibre-reinforced shotcrete). The purpose of these elements is to support and retain material between the cable bolt plates and to provide a shell of near-surface support. In addition, confining surface support (e.g. steel or heavy gauge mesh straps) is recommended for all noses and benches within the excavation to reduce the potential for unravelling. Fibre-reinforced shotcrete is recommended when infrastructure will make rehabilitation impractical.
|
|
·
|
Secondary support consisting of cable bolts in the back and walls of the excavation. The purpose of these elements is to support larger wedges and increase long-term stability of the excavation.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
Table 16.11
|
Mine Infrastructure Excavations – Ground Support Recommendations
|
Area
|
Dimension
(height x width (along
trend) by length)
(m)
|
Trend/
Plunge of
Excavation
|
Design
Factor
of Safety
|
Lifespan
|
Support
|
Cap Magazine
|
3.05 by 6.1 by 3.05
|
152/21
|
2
|
LOM
|
Galvanized, resin-grouted rebar (or equivalent); 1.8 m length; 1.75 m square spacing.
Welded wire mesh, 100% coverage on back and walls, coated with minimum 2" SFRS (shotcrete only required if rehab will not be practical due to installed infrastructure).
|
Crusher Chamber - Lower level (conveyor)
|
18.1 by 14.2 by 9.4
|
057/01
|
2
|
LOM
|
Galvanized, resin-grouted rebar (or equivalent); 1.8 m length; 1.75 m square spacing.
Welded wire mesh, 100% coverage on back and walls, coated with minimum 2" SFRS.
Cable bolts:
Walls: 5.0 m length, bulbed strand, 2.5 m square spacing
Back: 5.0 m length, bulbed strand, 2.5 m square spacing
|
Crusher Chamber - Upper level (truck)
|
17.3 by 7.6 by 9.3
|
057/01
|
2
|
LOM
|
Galvanized, resin-grouted rebar (or equivalent); 1.8 m length; 1.5 m square spacing.
Welded wire mesh, 100% coverage on back and walls, coated with minimum 2" SFRS.
Cable bolts:
Walls: 5.0 m length, bulbed strand, 2.5 m square spacing
Back: 5.0 m length, bulbed strand, 2.5 m square spacing
|
Electricians and Millwrights Shop
|
5.5 by 16.2 by 5.5
|
270/01
|
2
|
LOM
|
Galvanized, resin-grouted rebar (or equivalent); 1.8 m length; 1.75 m square spacing.
Welded wire mesh, 100% coverage on back and walls, coated with minimum 2" SFRS (shotcrete only required if rehab will not be practical due to installed infrastructure).
|
Fuel and Lube Station
|
4.5 by 35 by 8.5
|
243/06
|
2
|
LOM
|
Galvanized, resin-grouted rebar (or equivalent); 1.8 m length; 1.75 m square spacing.
Welded wire mesh, 100% coverage on back and walls, coated with minimum 2" SFRS (shotcrete only required if rehab will not be practical due to installed infrastructure).
Cable bolts:
Back: 5.0 m length, bulbed strand, 2.5 m square spacing
|
Service Bay, Maintenance Bay, and Tire Bay
|
11.5 by 42 by 10.0
|
005/00
|
2
|
LOM
|
Galvanized, resin-grouted rebar (or equivalent); 1.8 m length; 1.75 m square spacing.
Welded wire mesh, 100% coverage on back and walls, coated with minimum 2" SFRS (shotcrete only required if rehab will not be practical due to installed infrastructure).
Cable bolts:
Walls: 5.0 m length, bulbed strand, 2.5 m square spacing
Back: 5.0 m length, bulbed strand, 2.5 m square spacing
|
table continues…
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
Area
|
Dimension
(height x width (along
trend) by length)
(m)
|
Trend/
Plunge of
Excavation
|
Design
Factor
of Safety
|
Lifespan
|
Support
|
Powder Magazine
|
7.1 by 14.1 by 6.4
|
152/01
|
2
|
LOM
|
Galvanized, resin-grouted rebar (or equivalent); 1.8 m length; 1.75 m square spacing.
Welded wire mesh, 100% coverage on back and walls, coated with minimum 2" SFRS (shotcrete only required if rehab will not be practical due to installed infrastructure).
Cable bolts:
Walls: 5.0 m length, bulbed strand, 2.5 m square spacing
Back: 5.0 m length, bulbed strand, 2.5 m square spacing
|
Refuge Station and Offices
|
4.6 by 15 by 5.2
|
062/01
|
2
|
LOM
|
Galvanized, resin-grouted rebar (or equivalent); 1.8 m length; 1.75 m square spacing.
Welded wire mesh, 100% coverage on back and walls, coated with minimum 2" SFRS (shotcrete only required if rehab will not be practical due to installed infrastructure).
|
Warehouse
|
5.5 by 27 by 5.5
|
270/01
|
2
|
LOM
|
Galvanized, resin-grouted rebar (or equivalent); 1.8 m length; 1.75 m square spacing.
Welded wire mesh, 100% coverage on back and walls, coated with minimum 2" SFRS (shotcrete only required if rehab will not be practical due to installed infrastructure).
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
16.6
|
Hydrogeological/Groundwater
|
16.6.1
|
Overview
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
16.6.2
|
Conceptual Hydrogeologic Model
|
|
·
|
Triassic marine sedimentary and volcanic rocks of the Stuhini Group
|
|
·
|
Jurassic sediments and volcanics of the Hazelton Group
|
|
·
|
early Jurassic dikes, sills, and plugs of diorite, monzonite, syenite, and granite, the most common of which are grouped as the “Sulphurets Intrusions”.
|
16.6.3
|
Numerical Model Development and Calibration
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
16.6.4
|
Predictive Simulations and Inflow Estimates
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
|
Figure 16.16
|
Estimated Inflow to Underground Workings for Base Case Predictive Simulation and Selected Sensitivity Scenarios
|
|
Note:
|
Faded lines represent model stress period flows (3 x 2-month stress periods per year), while solid-colour lines represent average annual predicted flows.
|
|
·
|
S.A. Run 12 (increased K and recharge) – Increasing K alone (S.A. Run 1) resulted in a factor of 2.4 increase in groundwater flows to the underground workings, relative to the base case, while increasing recharge alone (S.A. Run 4) resulted in a factor of 1.4 increase in flows. Increasing both hydraulic conductivity and recharge (S.A. Run 12) resulted in a factor of 3.0 increase to average mine inflows, and a factor of 2.7 increase to peak annual inflows.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
·
|
S.A. Run 14 (increased K, recharge, and storage) – As with S.A. Run 12, increasing the hydraulic conductivity, recharge, and storage properties resulted in an increase to average mine inflows by a factor of 3.0. A greater increase in peak annual inflows was observed relative to S.A. Run 12 (factor of 2.9 vs. factor of 2.7) due to the increased storage in S.A. Run 14.
|
·
|
S.A. Run 16 (increased K and decreased recharge) – Increasing K alone (S.A. Run 1) resulted in a factor of 2.4 increase in groundwater flows to the underground workings, relative to the base case. Simultaneously decreasing recharge (S.A. Run 16) tempers this response, resulting in a factor of 1.9 increase in both average annual and peak annual inflows, (9,400 m3/d and 12,100 m3/d, respectively).
|
16.7
|
Mobile Equipment Requirements
|
16.7.1
|
Pre-Production Phase
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
|
Table 16.12
|
Contractor and Pretivm Equipment during Pre-production Development
|
Description
|
Contractor
|
Pretivm
|
Total
|
Two boom mining jumbo
|
1
|
3
|
4
|
LHD, 14 t, Diesal (Development)
|
1
|
3
|
4
|
LHD, 14 t, Electric (Production)
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Haulage truck, 40 t
|
0
|
4
|
4
|
Bolter
|
0
|
2
|
2
|
Cable bolter
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
Shotcrete sprayer
|
0
|
2
|
2
|
ITH long hole drill
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
TH long hole drill
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Transmixer
|
0
|
2
|
2
|
Scissor Lift
|
0
|
2
|
2
|
Explosives loader, diesel, emulsion (face charger)
|
0
|
2
|
2
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
16.7.2
|
Production Phase
|
|
Table 16.13
|
Underground Development and Production Equipment List
|
Description
|
Availability
(%)
|
Utilization (%)
|
Quantity
|
|
Peak
|
Average
|
|||
Two boom mining jumbo
|
86
|
64
|
53
|
3
|
LHD, 14 t (diesel) (development)
|
80
|
76
|
59
|
3
|
LHD, 14 t (electric) (production)
|
80
|
85
|
73
|
5
|
Haulage truck, 40 t
|
85
|
90
|
72
|
6
|
Bolter
|
76
|
82
|
58
|
3
|
Cable bolter
|
71
|
90
|
68
|
1
|
Top hammer long hole drill
|
66
|
66
|
58
|
3
|
ITH long hole drill
|
66
|
88
|
59
|
2
|
Explosives loader, diesel, emulsion (face charger, development)
|
93
|
73
|
54
|
2
|
Explosives loader, diesel, emulsion (production)
|
93
|
20
|
15
|
2
|
Shotcrete sprayer
|
87
|
53
|
27
|
2
|
Transmixer
|
87
|
57
|
30
|
2
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
16.7.3
|
Support Equipment
|
|
Table 16.14
|
Support Equipment List
|
Item
|
Description
|
Availability
(%)
|
Utilization
(%)
|
Quantity
|
|
1
|
Personnel carrier, diesel, underground
|
93
|
22
|
3
|
|
2
|
Scissor lift truck, diesel
|
87
|
39
|
2
|
|
3
|
Lubrication service truck, diesel
|
93
|
36
|
1
|
|
4
|
Boom truck, diesel
|
93
|
18
|
1
|
|
5
|
Explosives truck, diesel, emulsion (transport)
|
93
|
15
|
1
|
|
6
|
Tractor
|
93
|
22
|
11
|
|
7
|
Utility vehicle
|
93
|
22
|
19
|
|
8
|
Telehandler, diesel
|
87
|
34
|
1
|
|
9
|
Wheel loader with tire handler
|
93
|
11
|
1
|
|
10
|
Motor grader (tracks and wheels)
|
88
|
16
|
1
|
|
11
|
1500 cfm, 300hp electric, portable compressor
|
93
|
59
|
2
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
·
|
development blasters
|
·
|
backfill crew
|
·
|
mechanics
|
·
|
electricians
|
·
|
production blasters
|
·
|
diamond drillers
|
·
|
warehouse
|
·
|
managers/shifters & technical support staff
|
16.8
|
Ventilation
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
Figure 16.17
|
Brucejack Ventilation System – Looking West
|
16.8.1
|
Design Criteria
|
16.8.2
|
Total Airflow Requirements
|
·
|
three development headings advancing
|
|
·
|
three production levels with stope mucking and truck loading
|
·
|
two production levels with drilling/charging/servicing activities.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
|
Table 16.15
|
Total Airflow Requirements
|
Areas
|
Flow
(m3/s)
|
Number
|
Total
(m3/s)
|
|
Development
|
38
|
3
|
114
|
|
Production
|
Stope Mucking and Loading
|
23
|
3
|
68
|
Drilling/Charging/Services
|
10
|
2
|
20
|
|
Infrastructure
|
Crusher Chamber/Truck Loop
|
45
|
1
|
45
|
Workshop/Magazine/Fuel Bay
|
25
|
1
|
25
|
|
Lower Conveyor Leg
|
12
|
1
|
12
|
|
Leakage and Balancing
|
20%
|
-
|
-
|
57
|
Total (rounded)
|
340
|
16.8.3
|
Auxiliary Ventilation
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
Figure 16.18
|
Typical Production Level
|
·
|
to validate the operability of the ventilation circuit ensuring airflow can be provided to all the required areas
|
·
|
to ensure compliance with design criteria
|
·
|
to determine fan duties and energy requirements.
|
16.8.4
|
Permanent Primary Fans
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
Table16.16
|
Primary Fan Specifications
|
Description
|
Specification
|
Duty
|
Two each @ 170 m3/s @ 1,200 Pa
|
Fan Diameter
|
2.84 m
|
Type
|
Horizontal mount axial mine fan
|
Configuration
|
There will be two forcing fans, each connected with ducting to the main access decline and conveyor decline
|
Voltage
|
4,160 V
|
Fan Motor
|
266 kW to 710 rpm, variable frequency drive capability
|
16.8.5
|
Mine Air Heating
|
·
|
protect the health and safety of personnel working or travelling in intake airways
|
·
|
prevent the freezing of service water and discharge lines
|
·
|
ensure reliable operation of conveying and other mechanical equipment in the decline
|
·
|
maintain ice-free and safely trafficable roadways
|
·
|
prevent rock surface (or shotcrete lining) expansion/contraction damage from freezing and thawing of rock joints in the upper parts of the intake airways.
|
·
|
prevent ice build-up in airways that would potentially lead to unsafe conditions.
|
·
|
Discussion on the use of electric and propane mine air heating can be found in Section 16.9.13.
|
16.8.6
|
Conveyor Decline
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
·
|
fire retardant belt
|
·
|
fire retardant grease and lubricants
|
·
|
ventilation controls to isolate the air in the conveyor decline in the event of a fire
|
·
|
regular inspection of the conveyor decline during operation in order to detect the development of faulty rollers or belt misalignment.
|
|
Figure 16.19
|
Conveyor Fire Isolation
|
16.8.7
|
Emergency Preparedness
|
·
|
In general, ramps will be in fresh air once developed.
|
·
|
On almost all levels, escape can be either to a ramp or to the escape ladderway.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
·
|
The escape ladderway will be located in the fresh air raise installed as part of the development of the ramps.
|
·
|
In each ramp, escape may either be up the ramp or down the ramp to a safe area.
|
·
|
One permanent 40-person refuge station will be established within the shop complex and will service both the West Zone and the VOK Zone.
|
·
|
Other refuge chambers will be portable for flexibility of location at the most appropriate points in the mine.
|
·
|
While the primary means of communication will be by radio, a stench system will be in place for introduction of ethyl mercaptan into both portals concurrently in the event of fire.
|
·
|
Fire doors will be located in accordance with legislated requirements and to isolate areas of high fire potential to ensure noxious gases are not distributed through the mine workings.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
·
|
workshop
|
·
|
fuel bay
|
|
·
|
conveyor decline
|
·
|
crusher tipple.
|
16.9
|
Underground Infrastructure
|
16.9.1
|
Mine Dewatering
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
Table 16.17
|
Pump Installation Schedule
|
Dewatering
|
Year
|
|||||||||||||||||||
-2
|
-1
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
|
Service Water Pump
|
||||||||||||||||||||
VOK Intermediate Sump 1,170
|
||||||||||||||||||||
VOK Intermediate Sump 1,080
|
||||||||||||||||||||
VOK Intermediate Sump 990
|
||||||||||||||||||||
West Zone Level Sump 1,290
|
||||||||||||||||||||
West Zone Level Sump 1,210
|
||||||||||||||||||||
West Zone Level Sump 1,120
|
||||||||||||||||||||
West Zone Level Sump 1,040
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Main Sump 1,285
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Shop Sump 1,320
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Fuel Storage Pump
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
Figure 16.20
|
Dewatering Plan
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
16.9.2
|
Solids and Slimes Handling
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
Figure 16.21
|
Underground Solids and Slimes Handling
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
16.9.3
|
Materials Handling
|
|
Figure 16.22
|
Tipple and Ore Bin Sectional Projection
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
|
Figure 16.23
|
Crusher Feed and Crusher
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
Table 16.18
|
Conveyor Parameters
|
Conveyor
|
Width
|
Length
|
Speed
|
Incline Angle
|
Crusher
|
1 m (42”)
|
38.2 m (125’4”)
|
1 m/s (197 fpm )
|
4°
|
Intermediate
|
1 m (42”)
|
244.9 m (803’4”)
|
1 m/s (197 fpm )
|
8.53°
|
Main
|
1 m (42”)
|
553.2 m (1815’6”)
|
1 m/s (197 fpm)
|
8.53°
|
Mill Feed
|
1 m (42”)
|
83.5 m (273’11”)
|
1 m/s (197 fpm )
|
12°
|
16.9.4
|
Power Requirements And Electrical Distribution
|
Figure 16.24
|
Underground Power Requirement Profile
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
|
Figure 16.25
|
Portal Substation and Underground Single Line Diagrams
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
16.9.5
|
Compressed Air
|
16.9.6
|
Service Water Supply
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update
on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
Figure 16.26
|
Mine Water Distribution Schematic
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update
on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
Table 16.19
|
Total Water Consumption
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
16.9.7
|
Fueling and Lubrication
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
Figure 16.27
|
Fuel Bay Layout
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
16.9.8
|
Workshop and Stores
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
Figure 16.28
|
Warehouse Plan and Sections
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
16.9.9
|
Explosives Magazines
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
Figure 16.29
|
Bulk Emulsion Storage - Plan and Sections
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
Figure 16.30
|
Cap and Powder Storage - Plan and Section
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
16.9.10
|
Refuge Stations
|
|
Figure 16.31
|
Permanent Refuge Station
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
16.9.11
|
Communications
|
·
|
Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) MinePhones
|
·
|
cap lamps
|
·
|
asset and personnel tracking
|
|
Figure 16.32
|
Underground Communications System Schematic
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
·
|
rock box levels
|
·
|
crusher
|
·
|
conveying equipment
|
·
|
magnet
|
·
|
substations
|
·
|
sumps and pumps
|
·
|
ventilation doors
|
·
|
fuel delivery
|
·
|
traffic control
|
·
|
air quality and quantity.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
16.9.12
|
Portal Structure
|
|
Figure 16.33
|
Portal Structure
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
16.9.13
|
Heating System And Propane Storage
|
16.9.14
|
Propane Supply And Storage
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
Table 16.20
|
Propane Consumption
|
Month
|
Propane
Consumption
(L)
|
|
January
|
96,740
|
|
February
|
93,690
|
|
March
|
70,530
|
|
April
|
6,980
|
|
May
|
30
|
|
June
|
30
|
|
July
|
30
|
|
August
|
40
|
|
September
|
40
|
|
October
|
11,400
|
|
November
|
56,850
|
|
December
|
108,220
|
|
Total
|
444,580
|
·
|
An 18,000 L propane delivery truck drives from Terrace, BC to the Knipple Transfer Station.
|
·
|
The truck will transfer its load into a 24,000 L ISO tank. The ISO tanks will be modularized and skid mounted, and sized to meet the footprints and weights capable of being transported on the tracked vehicles.
|
·
|
At the mine site, the tanks will transfer propane into the site tank farm.
|
·
|
The site tanks will supply propane to the heaters by means of a buried pipeline.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
16.10
|
Paste Fill Distribution
|
·
|
The paste fill distribution will require a two-stage pumping system. A positive displacement pump in the paste fill plant will provide paste to all of the West Zone (West Zone Upper and West Zone Lower) and the lower zones of the VOK Zone (VOK, below the 1,330 Level). The paste plant pump will also feed a booster pump located near the ramp to VOK. This booster pump will pump paste up to the Upper VOK Zone and Galena Hill (1,330 Level and above).
|
·
|
The paste pumps will both be positive displacement piston pumps of 100 m3/h peak capacity with a pressure rating of 120 bar. The nominal flow rate for the system will be 80 m3/h, with a nominal design supply rate of 112 dry tonnes per hour.
|
·
|
An underground booster pump station will be required to house the positive displacement pump, the pump hopper, and a water tank with a high-pressure pump for pipeline flushing. A smaller cubby adjacent to the station will be required for the pump hydraulic packs.
|
·
|
Two large flush-out areas situated at low points in the system will be necessary for pipeline diversion during regular shutdown procedures and operation upsets. These will be sumps that can be mucked out regularly.
|
·
|
Instrumentation required to ensure controlled operation will include 10 permanent pressure gauges; three permanent cameras and four mobile cameras for the pour points; automated diversion valves at the sumps, and integrated process control with the paste fill plant.
|
·
|
Hydraulic modelling shows that this system will provide paste to the stopes at a nominal yield stress of 250 Pa with a range of 100 to 375 Pa. This equates to an cemented paste percent solids of 66.1% solids by weight (ranging from 62 to 69% solids by weight).
|
|
·
|
The piping specified for this distribution system is 8 in API 5L X52. The schedule of the pipe varies with the pressure rating of the area: borehole casing and loops in the upper VOK Zone levels will be Schedule 120, while the lower VOK Zone and all the West Zone casing and loops will be Schedule 80. The main drift piping (trunk) and level piping to the stopes will be Schedule 80 and Schedule 40, respectively. Victaulic couplings will be used as the connection method.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
16.10.1
|
Distribution System Design
|
·
|
the availability of the conveyor ramp down to the 1,300 Level, which is isolated from vehicle traffic
|
·
|
the difficulty foreseen in accessing any trenched pipelines on surface due to site conditions, especially during winter months
|
·
|
the mining schedule, which defines that the VOK Zone will be developed in the early years while the West Zone will only be developed in the second half of the mine life
|
·
|
the long distance from the paste fill plant to the underground workings (more than 800 m)
|
·
|
the location of the paste fill plant below the elevation of the top third of the VOK Zone
|
16.10.2
|
Distribution Approach
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
Figure 16.34
|
Paste Fill Distribution System Schematic Showing Paste Pumping Zones
|
16.10.3
|
Distribution System Layout
|
·
|
one pump plus installed spare at the paste fill plant
|
·
|
one booster pump plus installed spare near the ramp to VOK, 1,330 Level
|
·
|
main distribution pipeline in the conveyor decline
|
·
|
paste access drift off the conveyor ramp on the West Zone 1,370 Level
|
|
·
|
two sumps to divert paste from the pipeline during operation upsets.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
Figure 16.35
|
Paste Fill Distribution System Schematic
|
16.10.4
|
Pre-production Requirements
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
Figure 16.36
|
Pre-production Paste Fill Line Requirement
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
16.11
|
Manpower Requirements
|
16.11.1
|
Schedule
|
16.11.2
|
Organization and Manpower
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
|
Table 16.21
|
Manpower by Operational Group
|
Role
|
Head
Count
|
Role
|
Head
Count
|
||
Mining Supervision (7)
|
|||||
Underground Superintendent
|
1
|
Mine Captain
|
2
|
||
Safety/Training/First Aid
|
4
|
||||
Development Crew (68)
|
|||||
Development Shift Boss
|
4
|
LHD Operators
|
12
|
||
Jumbo Operators
|
12
|
Truck Operators
|
8
|
||
Bolter Operators
|
8
|
Blasters
|
8
|
||
Cable Bolter Operators
|
4
|
Service Installers
|
12
|
||
Production Crew (106)
|
|||||
Production Shift Boss
|
4
|
Crusher Operator
|
6
|
||
Long Hole Drillers
|
20
|
Crusher Labourer
|
4
|
||
Blasters
|
12
|
Backfill Leader
|
4
|
||
LHD (Electric) Operators
|
20
|
Timber Men
|
8
|
||
Truck Operators
|
16
|
Backfill Operator
|
8
|
||
General Labourers
|
4
|
||||
Raising (3)
|
|||||
Raise Leader (Contract)
|
1
|
Raise Mechanic (Contract)
|
1
|
||
Raise Miner (Contract)
|
1
|
1 | |||
Logistics (21)
|
|||||
Underground Chief of Logistics
|
1
|
Boom Truck/Grader Operators
|
8
|
||
Underground Warehouse Manager
|
4
|
Clerk/Labourer/Forklift Operator
|
8
|
||
Maintenance (74)
|
|||||
Maintenance Superintendent
|
1
|
Welders
|
8
|
||
Master Mechanic
|
2
|
Chief Electrician
|
1
|
||
Mechanics
|
20
|
Lead Electrician
|
1
|
||
Mill Wrights
|
8
|
Electricians
|
16
|
||
Apprentices/Labourers
|
16
|
Maintenance Planner
|
1
|
||
Technical Services (36)
|
|||||
Technical Services Manager
|
1
|
Senior Engineer
|
1
|
||
Clerk
|
2
|
Engineer
|
3
|
||
Senior Geologist
|
1
|
Mine Planning & Scheduling
|
2
|
||
Production Geologist
|
4
|
Surveyors
|
8
|
||
Geological Technologist
|
8
|
Geotechnical Engineer
|
1
|
||
Production Diamond Drillers
|
4
|
Ground Control Technician
|
1
|
||
Additional Hires (36)
|
|||||
Total Personnel
|
351
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
|
Figure 16.37
|
Manpower Loading by Year
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
17.0
|
RECOVERY METHODS
|
17.1
|
Mineral Processing
|
17.1.1
|
Introduction
|
17.1.2
|
Summary
|
·
|
one stage of crushing located underground
|
·
|
a surge bin with a live capacity of 2,500 t on surface
|
|
·
|
a primary grinding circuit integrated with gravity concentration
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
·
|
rougher flotation and scavenger flotation followed by rougher flotation concentrate regrinding
|
·
|
cleaner flotation processes.
|
17.1.3
|
Flowsheet Development
|
·
|
BWi
|
·
|
RWi
|
·
|
CWi
|
·
|
Ai
|
·
|
SAG mill comminution breakage.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
·
|
primary crushing underground
|
|
·
|
a conveying system for crushed ore
|
|
·
|
primary grinding and gravity concentration
|
|
·
|
rougher/scavenger flotation
|
|
·
|
bulk flotation concentrate regrinding and gravity concentration
|
|
·
|
cleaner flotation
|
|
·
|
gravity concentrate smelting to produce doré
|
|
·
|
flotation concentrate dewatering, bagging, and load out
|
|
·
|
tailings disposal to the tailings impoundment or to the underground mine for backfilling.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
Figure 17.1
|
Simplified Process Flowsheet
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
17.1.4
|
Plant Design
|
|
Table 17.1
|
Major Design Criteria
|
Criteria
|
Unit
|
Value
|
Daily Processing Rate
|
t/d
|
2,700
|
Operating Days per Year
|
d/a
|
365
|
Operating Schedule
|
-
|
two shifts/day; 12 hours/shift
|
Mill Feed Grades – Average
|
g/t Au
|
10 to 15
|
g/t Ag
|
40 to 100
|
|
% S
|
3
|
|
Metal Recovery – Doré
|
% Au
|
30 to 60
|
% Ag
|
1 to 30
|
|
Metal Recovery – Flotation Concentrate
|
% Au
|
30 to 70
|
% Ag
|
60 to 92
|
|
Primary Crushing (Underground)
|
||
Crushing Availability
|
%
|
65
|
Crushing Product Particle Size, 80% passing
|
mm
|
120 to 150
|
Grinding/Flotation/ Gravity Concentration
|
||
Availability
|
%
|
92
|
Milling and Flotation Process Rate
|
t/h
|
122
|
SAG Mill Feed Size, 80% passing
|
mm
|
120 to 150
|
SAG Mill Grinding Particle Size, 80% passing
|
µm
|
1,070
|
Drop Weight Breakage Parameter
|
Axb
|
41.4
|
Ball Mill Grinding Particle Size, 80% passing
|
µm
|
90
|
Ball Mill Circulating Load
|
%
|
300
|
Bond Ball Mill Work Index
|
kWh/t
|
16.0
|
Nugget Gold Recovery from Primary Grinding Circuit
|
-
|
Centrifugal and Tabling Gravity Concentration
|
Rougher Flotation Concentrate Regrind Particle Size, 80% passing
|
µm
|
35 to 40
|
Nugget Gold Recovery from Reground Concentrate
|
-
|
Centrifugal and Tabling Gravity Concentration
|
Upgrading of Gravity Separation Concentrates
|
-
|
Direct Smelting
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
17.1.5
|
Process Plant Description
|
|
·
|
a hydraulic rock breaker
|
|
·
|
a stationary grizzly
|
|
·
|
a jaw crusher (150 kW)
|
|
·
|
a vibrating grizzly feeder
|
|
·
|
associated dump pocket and belt conveyor
|
|
·
|
belt scales
|
|
·
|
a dust collection system.
|
|
·
|
two 1,066 mm wide jaw crusher discharge belt conveyors
|
|
·
|
a transfer tower located at the surface
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
·
|
a belt conveyor, 914 mm wide by 85.0 m long, to feed the SAG mill feed surge bin
|
|
·
|
a mill feed surge bin with a live capacity of 2,500 t
|
|
·
|
three belt feeders, 914 mm wide by 14.0 m long
|
|
·
|
local dust collection systems.
|
|
·
|
one SAG mill, 5,790 mm diameter by 2,590 mm long (19 ft by 8.5 ft) (EGL), driven by a 1,300 kW variable frequency drive (VFD)
|
|
·
|
one ball mill, 3,960 mm diameter by 7,260 mm long (13 ft by 23.8 ft) (EGL), powered by a 1,600 kW fixed speed drive
|
|
·
|
two hydrocyclone feed slurry pumps
|
|
·
|
four 500 mm hydrocyclones
|
|
·
|
two centrifugal gravity concentrators and ancillary screens
|
|
·
|
one particle size analyzer
|
|
·
|
one online sampler.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
·
|
four 100 m3 rougher flotation tank cells
|
·
|
two 100 m3 scavenger flotation tank cells.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
·
|
one 2,710mm diameter by 4,120 mm long (EGL) ball mill, driven by a 375 kW motor
|
|
·
|
one centrifugal gravity concentrator and ancillary screen
|
|
·
|
two cyclone feed pumps
|
|
·
|
four 250 mm hydrocyclones.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
·
|
four 30 m3 tank cells for the first cleaner flotation
|
·
|
two 30 m3 tank cells for the first cleaner/scavenger flotation
|
·
|
one 30 m3 tank cell for the second cleaner flotation
|
·
|
one 30 m3 tank cells for the third cleaner flotation.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
·
|
three gravity concentration tables – two for the coarse centrifugal gravity concentrate, and the other for the fine centrifugal gravity concentrate
|
|
·
|
one centrifugal gravity concentrator with a 12’’ concentration bowl
|
|
·
|
one table concentrate dryer
|
|
·
|
flux reagent storage
|
|
·
|
one flux mixer
|
|
·
|
one 175 kW induction melting furnace
|
|
·
|
one vault for storing doré and table concentrate
|
|
·
|
one electrostatic dust collector
|
|
·
|
one off-gas and dust scrubbing system
|
|
·
|
ancilliary equipment, including slag treatment devices.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
·
|
one 5 m diameter high-rate thickener
|
|
·
|
two slurry pumps
|
|
·
|
one concentrate filter feed stock tank (5,000 mm diameter by 6,000 mm high)
|
|
·
|
one tower-type up to 40 m2 pressure filter
|
|
·
|
one bagging system.
|
|
·
|
one 20 m diameter high-rate thickener
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
·
|
one 2,000 mm diameter by 2.500 mm high mixing tank for the tailings that will be discharged to Brucejack Lake
|
|
·
|
one backfill plant to produce the tailings paste for underground backfilling (tailings paste production is detailed in Section 18.0).
|
|
·
|
two slurry pumps.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
·
|
fire assay related furnaces and devices
|
|
·
|
one AAS
|
|
·
|
two ICP, including one ICP-mass spectrometer (MS) for environmental sample analysis
|
|
·
|
one Leco furnace.
|
|
·
|
fire water for emergency use
|
|
·
|
cooling water for mill motors and mill lubrication systems
|
|
·
|
gland water for the slurry pumps
|
|
·
|
reagent make-up
|
|
·
|
process water make-up.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
·
|
Crushing circuit – high-pressure air will be provided by an air supply system located underground for dust suppression and equipment services.
|
|
·
|
Dust collection at the transfer tower and SAG mill surge bin – high-pressure dry air will be provided by dedicated compressors and desiccators for dust suppression.
|
|
·
|
Flotation – low-pressure air for flotation cells will be provided by air blowers.
|
|
·
|
Filtration circuit – high-pressure air will be provided by dedicated air compressors for filtration and drying.
|
|
·
|
Plant air service – high-pressure air will be provided by dedicated air compressors for the various services.
|
|
·
|
Instrumentation – the service air will come from the plant air compressors and will be dried and stored in a dedicated air receiver.
|
|
·
|
underground crushing facility
|
|
·
|
process plant
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
·
|
paste backfill plant.
|
|
·
|
SAG mill feed conveyors, including the conveyors in the primary crushing facility (zero speed switches, side travel switches, emergency pull cords, and plugged chute detection)
|
|
·
|
surge bin levels (radar level, plugged chute detection)
|
|
·
|
the primary crusher when the emergency stop is activated.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
·
|
grinding circuit feed conveyors (zero speed switches, side travel switches, emergency pull cords, and plugged chute detection)
|
|
·
|
SAG and ball grinding mills, including the regrinding mill (mill speed, bearing temperatures, lubrication systems, clutches, motors, and feed rates)
|
|
·
|
particle size monitors (for grinding optimization and cyclone feed)
|
|
·
|
pump boxes, tanks, and bin levels
|
|
·
|
variable speed pumps
|
|
·
|
hydrocyclone feed density controls
|
|
·
|
thickeners (drives, slurry interface levels, underflow density, and flocculant addition)
|
|
·
|
flotation cells (level controls, reagent addition, and airflow rates)
|
|
·
|
samplers
|
|
·
|
gravity concentrators
|
|
·
|
pressure filters and load out
|
|
·
|
reagent handling and distribution systems
|
|
·
|
tailings disposal to the paste backfill plant or tailings storage in Brucejack Lake
|
|
·
|
water storage and distribution, including tank level automatic control
|
|
·
|
air compressors
|
|
·
|
paste backfill plant (vendor control system)
|
|
·
|
vendors’ instrumentation packages
|
|
·
|
gold room operations.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
17.2
|
Annual Production Estimate
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
Table 17.2
|
Projected Gold and Silver Production
|
Year
|
Mill Feed
|
Doré
|
Concentrate
|
Doré and Concentrate
|
||||||||||||
Tonnage
(t)
|
Feed Grade
|
Tonnage* (kg)
|
Recovery (%)
|
Tonnage
(t)
|
Recovery (%)
|
Grade (g/t)
|
Total Recovery (%)
|
|||||||||
Au
(g/t)
|
Ag
(g/t)
|
As
(ppm)
|
S
(%)
|
Au
|
Ag
|
Au
|
Ag
|
Au
|
Ag
|
Au
|
Ag
|
Au
|
Ag
|
|||
1
|
839,490
|
15.4
|
11.7
|
314.2
|
2.8
|
5,715
|
1,450
|
44.1
|
14.8
|
47,061
|
52.7
|
70.2
|
145
|
146
|
96.8
|
84.9
|
2
|
994,511
|
15.2
|
11.7
|
343
|
2.6
|
6,656
|
1,718
|
44.1
|
14.8
|
52,423
|
52.7
|
70.2
|
152
|
156
|
96.8
|
85.0
|
3
|
994,512
|
16.7
|
12.8
|
295
|
2.3
|
7,517
|
1,866
|
45.2
|
14.7
|
45,114
|
51.8
|
70.5
|
191
|
199
|
97.0
|
85.2
|
4
|
983,608
|
15.9
|
9.9
|
344
|
2.5
|
6,997
|
1,456
|
44.7
|
15.0
|
49,464
|
52.2
|
69.5
|
165
|
136
|
96.9
|
84.5
|
5
|
988,266
|
16.9
|
11.0
|
296
|
2.1
|
7,473
|
1,614
|
44.7
|
14.9
|
41,595
|
52.2
|
69.9
|
210
|
182
|
96.9
|
84.8
|
6
|
998,838
|
17.5
|
10.6
|
285
|
2.1
|
7,866
|
1,574
|
45.0
|
14.9
|
40,193
|
51.9
|
69.7
|
226
|
183
|
97.0
|
84.7
|
7
|
986,207
|
17.8
|
11.8
|
307
|
2.2
|
7,925
|
1,725
|
45.1
|
14.8
|
42,377
|
51.8
|
70.2
|
215
|
193
|
97.0
|
85.0
|
8
|
995,722
|
17.5
|
11.7
|
273
|
2.1
|
7,850
|
1,725
|
45.2
|
14.8
|
41,882
|
51.8
|
70.2
|
215
|
195
|
97.0
|
84.9
|
9
|
993,721
|
14.9
|
10.2
|
259
|
2.2
|
6,480
|
1,522
|
43.8
|
15.0
|
42,325
|
53.0
|
69.6
|
186
|
167
|
96.8
|
84.6
|
10
|
987,218
|
15.5
|
11.2
|
323
|
2.6
|
6,748
|
1,576
|
44.1
|
14.2
|
50,788
|
52.7
|
70.6
|
159
|
154
|
96.8
|
84.9
|
11
|
984,791
|
13.0
|
29.3
|
319
|
2.7
|
5,450
|
1,680
|
42.5
|
5.8
|
52,835
|
54.1
|
82.1
|
132
|
448
|
96.6
|
88.0
|
12
|
993,151
|
13.9
|
69.2
|
270
|
2.3
|
5,933
|
2,187
|
43.0
|
3.2
|
46,286
|
53.6
|
87.1
|
160
|
1,294
|
96.6
|
90.3
|
13
|
986,322
|
11.6
|
102.8
|
212
|
2.5
|
4,678
|
2,316
|
40.9
|
2.3
|
49,665
|
55.6
|
87.7
|
128
|
1,789
|
96.4
|
90.0
|
14
|
980,578
|
9.9
|
151.9
|
209
|
2.6
|
3,882
|
2,675
|
39.8
|
1.8
|
51,310
|
56.1
|
88.8
|
107
|
2,577
|
96.0
|
90.6
|
15
|
990,726
|
10.2
|
158.7
|
223
|
2.5
|
4,086
|
2,731
|
40.4
|
1.7
|
50,578
|
55.6
|
88.9
|
111
|
2,762
|
96.0
|
90.6
|
16
|
907,805
|
10.0
|
104.1
|
255
|
2.3
|
3,524
|
1,945
|
38.7
|
2.1
|
42,010
|
57.6
|
87.7
|
125
|
1,973
|
96.2
|
89.8
|
17
|
663,357
|
8.0
|
254.7
|
225
|
2.7
|
1,853
|
2,739
|
34.8
|
1.6
|
36,457
|
60.9
|
90.2
|
89
|
4,179
|
95.7
|
91.8
|
18
|
280,857
|
7.1
|
271.9
|
289
|
2.8
|
633
|
1,214
|
31.7
|
1.6
|
15,698
|
63.9
|
90.3
|
81
|
4,393
|
95.5
|
91.9
|
LOM
|
16,549,680
|
14.1
|
57.7
|
281
|
2.4
|
101,268
|
33,711
|
43.3
|
3.5
|
798,062
|
53.4
|
86.5
|
157
|
1,034
|
96.7
|
90.0
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
18.0
|
PROJECT INFRASTRUCTURE
|
18.1
|
Overview
|
|
·
|
an upgraded 73.5 km access road at Highway 37 and travelling westward to Brucejack Lake with the last 12 km of access road to the mine site traversing the main arm of the Knipple Glacier
|
|
·
|
a 138 kV power supply line from the substation at Long Lake Hydro Substation to the Brucejack site substation
|
|
·
|
site roads, utilidor and pads
|
|
·
|
a mill building containing process equipment, water treatment plant, paste backfill plant, potable water treatment plant and laboratory
|
|
·
|
water management infrastructure, including diversion ditches for both contact and non-contact water, interceptor ditches, and a contact water drainage collection pond and pump(s) to direct water to a water treatment plant
|
|
·
|
a water treatment infrastructure, to treat underground infill water and surface contact water with a treatment plant which will discharge to process and fresh/fire water tanks
|
|
·
|
sewage treatment infrastructure
|
|
·
|
an incinerator
|
|
·
|
solid waste management systems, including domestic waste disposal
|
|
·
|
power distribution from the mine site substation to all the facilities
|
|
·
|
process control and instrumentation
|
|
·
|
communication systems
|
|
·
|
ancillary facilities including:
|
|
-
|
on site fuel storage
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
-
|
on site explosive storage
|
|
-
|
detonator magazine storage
|
|
-
|
camp accommodation with recreation area, commissary, laundry facilities, mine dry and medical clinic.
|
|
-
|
truck shop with first aid/emergency response
|
|
-
|
a heli-pad
|
|
-
|
a laydown area
|
|
-
|
a covered storage building
|
|
-
|
an enclosed concrete batch plant and storage for cement, sand and aggregate.
|
|
·
|
a maintenance and emergency vehicle building
|
|
·
|
on-site fuel storage and dispensing
|
|
·
|
potable water treatment plant
|
|
·
|
a sewage treatment plant
|
|
·
|
an incinerator
|
|
·
|
a laydown area
|
|
·
|
a communications system
|
|
·
|
a 30-person camp
|
|
·
|
a temporary covered storage.
|
|
·
|
a gatehouse
|
|
·
|
a truck scale
|
|
·
|
a heli-pad.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
Figure 18.1
|
Brucejack Overall Site Layout
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
Figure 18.2
|
Brucejack Mill Site Layout
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
18.2
|
Geotechnical
|
18.2.1
|
Overview
|
18.2.2
|
Foundations
|
|
Table 18.1
|
Recommended Allowable Bearing Pressures and Maximum Foundation Widths
|
Foundation
Stratum
|
Foundation
|
Allowable Bearing
Pressure
(kPa)
|
|
Type
|
Maximum Width2
(m)
|
||
Bedrock
|
Mat
|
30
|
1,000
|
Spread Footings
|
10
|
1,000
|
|
Strip Footings
|
5
|
1,000
|
|
Structural Fill1
|
Spread Footings
|
3
|
200
|
|
Notes:
|
1Foundations on structural fill assume a minimum embedment of 1 m below the surrounding grade.
|
|
2A minimum foundation width of 1 m has been assumed.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
18.2.3
|
Site Grading
|
|
Table 18.2
|
Recommended Permanent Cut-and-Fill Slope Angles
|
Item1
|
Material2
|
Maximum
Height (m)
|
Maximum
Slope
|
Comments
|
Fill Slope
|
Structural fill
|
15
|
2H:1V
|
-
|
Fill Slope
|
Rock fill
|
15
|
2H:1V
|
-
|
Fill Slope
|
General Fill
|
5
|
2H:1V
|
-
|
Fill Slope
|
General Fill
|
15
|
2.5H:1V
|
-
|
Cut Slope
|
Overburden
|
5
|
2H:1V
|
May have to flatten below the water table
and/or provide drainage
|
Cut Slope
|
Overburden
|
10
|
2.5H:1V
|
May have to flatten below the water table
and/or provide drainage
|
Cut Slope
|
Rock - Unbenched
|
15
|
0.5H:1V
|
Spot bolting and scaling may be required based on
field engineer's review
|
Cut Slope
|
Rock - Benched
|
30
(refer to
comments)
|
Refer to
comments
|
6 m bench height, 5 m bench width,
75° bench face angle; spot bolting and scaling may be required based on field engineer's review
|
|
Note:
|
1All cut and fill slopes should be reviewed in the field by a qualified geotechnical engineer.
|
|
2Materials are as per descriptions provided by BGC (2014).
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
18.3
|
Access
|
18.3.1
|
Access Roads
|
|
·
|
Section 1:
|
km 0 to 35:
|
new road construction
|
|
·
|
Section 2:
|
km 35 to 59:
|
existing road upgrade
|
|
·
|
Section 3:
|
km 59 to 71:
|
Knipple Glacier road
|
|
·
|
Section 4:
|
km 71 to 74:
|
Brucejack Lake road upgrade.
|
|
·
|
L100 minimum design loading, with consideration of equivalent D9 track loading
|
|
·
|
5.0 m road width, with 0.3 m wide by 0.8 m deep ditches between km 0 and 35
|
|
·
|
6.0 m road width, with 0.3 m wide by 0.8 m deep ditches between km 64.6 and 67
|
|
·
|
30 m right-of-way width
|
|
·
|
30 km/h design speed, 35 m minimum turning radius
|
|
·
|
maximum 12% sustained grade, 18% pitches less than 150 m (with exceptions)
|
|
·
|
maximum 500 m turnout spacing, optimum 300 m spacing
|
|
·
|
7% maximum grade break per 15 m travel
|
|
·
|
Q100 flow culvert design:
|
|
-
|
drains are usually a 500 mm diameter pipe, used at low spots to redirect ditch line flows and wet depression accumulations and to broadcast these flows to natural forest floor below the road where filtration will occur
|
|
-
|
non-classifiable drainage, 500 mm or larger diameter pipe, used at very small drainages that do not meet the criteria to be a classifiable stream
|
|
-
|
S5 and S6 stream classifications, 600 mm or larger diameter pipe, used at drainages that can be classified
|
|
-
|
50 m buffer to wildlife habitat.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
|
·
|
Variable depth surfacing (pit run gravel or 3” minus shot rock, which has been compacted, of 200 to 300 mm depth) and shaping from 3 to 34 km and from 54.5 to 58 km.
|
|
·
|
Upgrading to favourable grades of 12% (14% for pitches less than 150 m) and adverse grades of 8% (10% for pitches less than 100m).
|
|
·
|
Re-work of horizontal curves to a design radius of 65 m, a MAXIMUM 3% super-elevation (or crossfall) is prescribed (1/3 of an inch per foot or 3 cm/m).
|
|
·
|
Safely address two way traffic along the Wildfire Road, in all locations with sight distances below the Minimum Site Stopping Distance of 95 m (blind vertical and horizontal curves) the road width is proposed to be widened to 10 m (double lane) to allow traffic to safely pass. The road width which would allow for safe passage of two rock trucks is 12 m.
|
|
·
|
Posted signage in both directions of travel to identify the proposed road speed zones with the exception of the 10 km zones across bridges beyond the Wildfire Bridge.
|
18.3.2
|
Glacier Crossing
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
Figure 18.3
|
Knipple Glacier Access Road
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
18.4
|
Internal Site Roads and Pad Areas
|
|
·
|
mill building/operations camp/truck shop
|
|
·
|
substation
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
·
|
laydown
|
|
·
|
detonator storage
|
|
·
|
explosives storage
|
|
·
|
Knipple Transfer Station.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
18.5
|
Grading and Drainage
|
18.6
|
Avalanche Hazard Assessment
|
18.6.1
|
Background on Snow Avalanches
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
·
|
the frequency of snowfalls and amount of snow
|
|
·
|
the wind transport of snow into the starting zone.
|
|
Table 18.3
|
Canadian Classification System for Avalanche Size
|
Size
|
Destructive Potential
|
Typical
Mass
(t)
|
Typical
Path
Length
(m)
|
Typical
Impact
Pressures
(kPa)
|
1
|
Relatively harmless to people
|
<10
|
10
|
1
|
2
|
Could bury, injure or kill a person
|
102
|
100
|
10
|
3
|
Could bury a car, destroy a small building, or break a few trees
|
103
|
1,000
|
100
|
4
|
Could destroy a large truck, several buildings, or a forest with an area up to 4 ha
|
104
|
2,000
|
500
|
5
|
Largest snow avalanches known; could destroy a village or a 40 ha forest
|
105
|
3,000
|
1,000
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
18.6.2
|
Brucejack Avalanche Hazard
|
|
Table 18.4
|
Avalanche Path or Area Label and Corresponding Element at Risk
|
Avalanche Path
or Area Label
|
Main Facility at Risk
|
TL1, TL2, …, TLx
|
Preferred transmission line alignment
|
AR1, AR2, …, ARx
|
Access road and Knipple Transfer Station
|
MS1, MS2, …, MSx
|
Facilities at or near the mine site
|
KG1, KG2, …, KGx
|
Access road and transmission line corridor on glacier
|
|
·
|
explosives storage– preliminary position
|
|
·
|
detonator storage – preliminary position
|
|
·
|
substation and generators
|
|
·
|
temporary water treatment plant
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
·
|
mill building including administration, warehouse, and water treatment
|
|
·
|
mine portals
|
|
·
|
tailings pipeline
|
|
·
|
helipad
|
|
·
|
covered laydown area
|
|
·
|
batch plant and fuel storage
|
|
·
|
pre-production ore/waste rock transfer storage
|
|
·
|
diversion channel
|
|
·
|
garbage and incinerator area
|
|
·
|
operations camp and mine dry
|
|
·
|
sump pump
|
|
·
|
site drainage collection pond
|
|
·
|
four air raise locations
|
|
·
|
site access roads (not including mine access road).
|
|
Table 18.5
|
Mine Site Avalanche Paths or Areas
|
Path or
Area ID
|
Avalanche
Atlas
Polygon
Label
|
Facility Affected
|
Approximate
Elevation of
Facility
(m)
|
Facility
Position
in Path
|
Length of
Facility
Affected
(m)
|
Estimated
Return Frequency
(events:years)
|
||
Size
2
|
Size
3
|
Size
4
|
||||||
Mine
Site 2
|
MS2
|
Pre-production ore/waste rock transfer storage and diversion channel area
|
1,390 to 1,370
|
RZ
|
300
|
-
|
1:10
|
-
|
Mine
Site 5
|
MS5
|
Site access roads
|
1,460 to 1,420
|
RZ
|
800
|
1:1
|
1:3
|
-
|
Mine Site 5
|
MS5
|
Garbage and incinerator area
|
1,420
|
RZ
|
20
|
1:1
|
1:3
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
Figure 18.4
|
Mine Site Area Avalanche Hazards
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
Table 18.6
|
Access Road Avalanche Paths or Areas
|
Path or
Area ID
|
Avalanche
Atlas
Polygon
Label
|
Facility Affected
|
Approximate
Elevation of
Facility
(m)
|
Facility
Position
in Path
|
Approximate
Length of
Facility
Affected
(m)
|
Estimated
Return Frequency
(events:years)
|
||
Size
2
|
Size
3
|
Size
4
|
||||||
Access Road 1
|
AR1
|
Access Road
|
580
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
P
|
Access Road 2
|
AR2
|
Access Road
|
580
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
P
|
table continues…
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
Path or
Area ID
|
Avalanche
Atlas
Polygon
Label
|
Facility Affected
|
Approximate
Elevation of
Facility
(m)
|
Facility
Position
in Path
|
Approximate
Length of
Facility
Affected
(m)
|
Estimated
Return Frequency
(events:years)
|
||
Size
2
|
Size
3
|
Size
4
|
Access Road 4
|
AR4
|
Access Road
|
400
|
RZ
|
600
|
1:1
|
1:3
|
-
|
Access Road 5
|
AR5
|
Access Road
|
440
|
RZ
|
540
|
>1:1
|
1:1
|
-
|
Access Road 6
|
AR6
|
Access Road
|
420
|
RZ
|
140
|
>1:1
|
-
|
-
|
Access Road 6.5
|
AR6.5
|
Access Road
|
470
|
RZ
|
250
|
1:1
|
-
|
-
|
Access Road 7
|
AR7
|
Access Road
|
600 to 470
|
RZ
|
1,000
|
-
|
1:3
|
1:10
|
Access Road 7
|
AR7
|
Knipple Transfer Station (west end only)
|
470
|
RZ
|
100
|
-
|
-
|
1:100
|
Access Road 8
|
AR8
|
Access Road
|
730 to 660
|
RZ
|
700
|
1:1
|
1:3
|
-
|
Knipple Glacier 1
|
KG1
|
Access Road
|
730 to 650
|
RZ
|
700
|
1:1
|
1:3
|
-
|
Mine
Site 1
|
MS1
|
Access Road
|
1,440 to 1,370
|
RZ
|
2,000
|
>1:1
|
1:1
|
-
|
Mine
Site 2
|
MS2
|
Access Road
|
1,370
|
RZ
|
300
|
1:1
|
1.10
|
-
|
Mine
Site 5
|
MS5
|
Access Road
|
1,420 to 1,440
|
RZ
|
600
|
>1:1
|
1:3
|
-
|
Mine
Site 9
|
MS9
|
Access Road
|
1,455
|
RZ
|
100
|
1:3
|
-
|
-
|
Mine
Site 10
|
MS10
|
Access Road
|
1,455
|
RZ
|
150
|
1:3
|
-
|
-
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
Figure 18.5
|
Access Road Avalanche Hazards
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
18.7
|
Transmission Line
|
18.7.1
|
Transmission Line Interconnection and Route
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
Figure 18.6
|
Map of Transmission Line Route
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
Figure 18.7
|
Photo of Typical Slopes in the Salmon River Valley
|
18.7.2
|
Transmission Line Design and Construction
|
|
·
|
the moderate to steep slopes immediately above the existing road to the Granduc Mine, limiting the suitability of this corridor for a transmission due to impacts and significant risk of upslope hazards (tree fall, debris slides, etc)
|
|
·
|
the lack of road access from the Granduc Mine site to the Knipple Glacier, significantly increasing the access costs (on a per-structure basis)
|
|
·
|
the snow avalanches on many slopes in the area, limiting the technically viable routes – particularly in the Knipple Glacier area
|
|
·
|
the movement of the Knipple Glacier, presenting foundation conditions not suitable for transmission towers
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
·
|
the bedrock-dominated terrain along the proposed transmission route, which is favourable for rockbolt-type foundations.
|
|
Figure 18.8
|
Helicopter Placing Steel Transmission Structure for the LLH Project
|
|
·
|
the selection of 138 kV as the operating voltage to eliminate the need for a substation at LLH interconnection
|
|
·
|
the use of two conductors, selected to accommodate corona effects due to elevations above 3,000 m and provide the necessary tensile strength to span the snowfields on the south slopes above the Knipple Glacier
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
·
|
the design of special towers to span the snowfields and larger snow avalanche areas
|
|
·
|
the use of single-steel monopole towers with helicopter placement, to lengthen the spans between structures and eliminate the need for an access road or track along the transmission route
|
|
·
|
limited tree clearing with no removal (trees bucked and left in place along the corridor).
|
18.7.3
|
Transmission Line Operations, Maintenance and Emergency Response
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
18.7.4
|
Transmission Line Feasibility Budget Estimates
|
|
·
|
The estimate includes the direct costs for procurement, construction, and commissioning of the transmission line for the preferred route.
|
|
·
|
The estimate also includes the indirect costs for the Project including engineering, project management/administration, and other common costs for large transmission or construction projects.
|
|
·
|
This estimate does not contain permitting costs or other development costs. Additionally, costs for management and engineering are based on an engineer-procure-contract (EPC) delivery model.
|
|
·
|
The clearing estimate is based on the following parameters:
|
|
-
|
A 30 m wide right-of-way and average clearing width, with tree sizes and stand density as observed during aerial reconnaissance of the proposed route.
|
|
-
|
Very limited new and upgraded road, as almost all of the towers will be placed with helicopters.
|
|
-
|
Clearing along forested portions of the route, to be confirmed by forest engineering as part of detailed cost estimate; this estimate also assumes that the felled trees will be left in place with some bucking and limbing, as they are small and likely not merchantable.
|
|
-
|
These costs also assume that Pretivm will provide access (or permits for access) along the road to the Granduc Mine and the use of the tide staging area prior to line construction mobilization.
|
|
·
|
Foundation conditions were estimated based on 10% soil, and 90% rock. The foundation estimates also include specialized foundations for the longer spans across the snowfields south of the Knipple Glacier.
|
|
·
|
Transmission structure assumptions include the assumption that single steel poles will be placed on suitable bedrock foundations for most of the transmission line route.
|
|
·
|
Helicopter stringing support will be carried out along the entire route.
|
|
·
|
Note that this estimate assumes site planning/preparation and construction over two field seasons, as per the proposed construction schedule. In the event the Project schedule stretches over a longer period of time, or compressing of the schedule is necessary due to delayed construction start, increased costs may be incurred.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
18.8
|
Surface Facilities
|
18.8.1
|
Architectural Design Basis
|
|
·
|
SAG mill feed surge bin
|
|
·
|
process equipment including grinding mills, flotation cells and tanks, reagent storage, thickeners, and concentrate handling and load out and gold room
|
|
·
|
paste backfill plant
|
|
·
|
administration offices
|
|
·
|
electrical and control rooms
|
|
·
|
assay and metallurgical laboratories
|
|
·
|
potable water treatment plant
|
|
·
|
water treatment plant
|
|
·
|
five repair bays to service both surface and underground vehicles
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
·
|
welding bay
|
|
·
|
truck wash bay
|
|
·
|
emergency vehicle bays
|
|
·
|
first aid and emergency equipment storage
|
|
·
|
warehouse
|
|
·
|
mechanical room
|
|
·
|
electrical room
|
|
·
|
washrooms
|
18.8.2
|
Mill Site Infrastructure Facility Description
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
18.9
|
Water Supply and Distribution
|
18.9.1
|
Mill Site Fresh Water Supply Infrastructure
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
18.10
|
Water Treatment Plants
|
18.10.1
|
Underground Mine and Surface Water Treatment Plant
|
|
·
|
metal removal
|
|
·
|
biological nitrification and de-nitrification
|
|
·
|
polishing.
|
18.10.2
|
Potable Water Treatment Plant
|
18.10.3
|
Sewage Treatment Plant
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
18.11
|
Waste Rock Disposal
|
18.11.1
|
Quarry
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
18.12
|
Tailings Delivery System
|
18.13
|
Brucejack Lake Suspended Solids Outflow Control
|
|
·
|
install one or more lines of turbidity curtains at the outlet of the lake to contain suspended solids
|
|
·
|
install a flow monitoring weir across Brucejack Creek downstream from the lake outlet to facilitate monitoring
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
18.14
|
Communications
|
18.14.1
|
Site Telecommunication System
|
|
·
|
a VoIP telephone system for buildings, camps, and offices
|
|
·
|
satellite communications for critical voice and data needs
|
|
·
|
Ethernet cabling for site infrastructure and wireless internet access
|
|
·
|
very-high frequency (VHF) two-way radio system with eight public channels
|
|
·
|
four remotely located VHF repeaters
|
|
·
|
satellite TV and Internet for the camp at the mill site and the camp at the transfer station, including a wireless access tower for communications to the transfer station and airport location.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
18.14.2
|
Process Plant Control
|
|
·
|
underground crushing
|
|
·
|
process plant
|
|
·
|
paste plant.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
·
|
SAG feed conveyors (zero speed switches, side travel switches, emergency pull cords, and plugged chute detection)
|
|
·
|
surge bin levels (radar level, plug chute detection).
|
|
·
|
grinding conveyors (zero speed switches, side travel switches, emergency pull cords, and plugged chute detection)
|
|
·
|
SAG and ball grinding mills (mill speed, bearing temperatures, lubrication systems, clutches, motors, and feed rates)
|
|
·
|
particle size monitors (for grinding optimization and cyclone feed)
|
|
·
|
pump boxes, tanks, and bin levels
|
|
·
|
variable speed pumps
|
|
·
|
cyclone feed density controls
|
|
·
|
thickeners (drives, slurry interface levels, underflow density, and flocculent addition)
|
|
·
|
flotation cells (level controls, reagent addition, and airflow rates)
|
|
·
|
samplers (for flotation optimization)
|
|
·
|
gravity concentrators, pressure filters, and load out
|
|
·
|
reagent handling and distribution systems
|
|
·
|
tailings disposal to paste backfill or tailings storage
|
|
·
|
water storage, reclamation, and distribution, including tank level automatic control
|
|
·
|
air compressors
|
|
·
|
paste plant (vendor control system)
|
|
·
|
fuel storage
|
|
·
|
vendors’ instrumentation packages.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
18.15
|
Power Supply and Distribution
|
|
·
|
Four existing 500 kW, 600 V diesel generators will be installed at the main substation and will connect to the main power distribution bus for use as emergency power for operations. Two new 1,250 kW, 4,160 V diesel generators will be purchased for construction power and will also be installed at the main substation and connected to the main power distribution bus to further augment emergency power supply. Although the primary function of these units is to power critical loads underground and in the mill, select critical loads throughout the site can be powered as well.
|
|
·
|
An additional 500 kW, 600 V diesel generator will be purchased for construction activities and will be re-deployed as a dedicated back-up power supply for the permanent camp.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
·
|
load optimization/load shedding to ensure line limits are not exceeded, while maximizing electricity use for mine heating
|
|
·
|
power control during emergency power operations to ensure correct sequencing and operations of critical loads.
|
18.16
|
Fuel Supply and Distribution
|
18.17
|
Off-site Infrastructure
|
18.17.1
|
Knipple Transfer Station Site Preparation
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
18.17.2
|
Knipple Transfer Station Facilities
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
Figure 18.11
|
Knipple Transfer Station Facility Layout
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
18.17.3
|
Bowser Airstrip
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
Figure 18.12
|
Bowser Airstrip
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
19.0
|
MARKET STUDIES AND CONTRACTS
|
19.1
|
Markets
|
|
Table 19.1
|
Gold and Silver Prices
|
Metal
|
Units
|
Spot
|
3 Years
|
5 Years
|
Gold
|
US$/oz
|
1,272
|
1,523
|
1,399
|
Silver
|
US$/oz
|
19.7
|
27.7
|
25.5
|
19.2
|
Smelter Terms
|
|
·
|
doré:
|
|
-
|
gold and silver – pay 99.8% of gold and silver content. A refining and transport charge of US$2.00/troy oz will be deducted from the metal price.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
|
·
|
concentrate:
|
|
-
|
gold and silver – pay 95% of gold and silver content. A treatment charge of US$184.00/dmt of concentrate is applied. A penalty charge for arsenic in the flotation concentrate is US$9.20 per each 0.1% of arsenic if the arsenic concentration is above 0.2%.
|
19.3
|
Logistics Plan
|
19.3.1
|
Equipment and Materials Transportation
|
|
·
|
truck
|
|
·
|
rail
|
|
·
|
barge
|
|
·
|
ship transport
|
|
·
|
air freight.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
|
·
|
pipes
|
|
·
|
paving equipment
|
|
·
|
camp trailers
|
|
·
|
gravel
|
|
·
|
bags of concentrate.
|
|
·
|
length not to exceed 11,600 mm
|
|
·
|
width not to exceed 2,600 mm
|
|
·
|
weight not to exceed 36,000 kg.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
19.3.2
|
Concentrate Transportation
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
20.0
|
ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, PERMITTING, AND SOCIAL OR COMMUNITY IMPACT
|
20.1
|
Sustainability and Environmental Matters
|
20.1.1
|
Guiding Principles and Criteria
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
1.
|
avoiding adverse impacts, where feasible
|
|
2.
|
mitigating unavoidable adverse impacts
|
|
3.
|
compensating for adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated.
|
20.1.2
|
Consultation
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
20.1.3
|
Environmental Setting
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
Table 20.1
|
Average Monthly Climate Data for the Project Site
|
Month
|
Average
Temperature
(°C)
|
Average Precipitation (mm)
|
Average
Evaporation/
Sublimation
(mm)
|
||
Lower End
|
Upper End
|
January
|
-9.3
|
233
|
249
|
-9.3
|
|
February
|
-7.8
|
200
|
214
|
-7.8
|
|
March
|
-5.7
|
169
|
181
|
-5.7
|
|
April
|
-1.3
|
91
|
97
|
-1.3
|
|
May
|
3.4
|
82
|
88
|
3.4
|
|
June
|
7.1
|
63
|
67
|
7.1
|
|
July
|
9.0
|
78
|
83
|
9.0
|
|
August
|
8.7
|
130
|
139
|
8.7
|
|
September
|
4.8
|
193
|
207
|
4.8
|
|
October
|
-0.7
|
231
|
247
|
-0.7
|
|
November
|
-7.1
|
201
|
215
|
-7.1
|
|
December
|
-9.1
|
231
|
247
|
-9.1
|
|
Average/Total
|
-0.7
|
1,900
|
2,034
|
-0.7
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
·
|
sockeye, coho, and chinook salmon
|
|
·
|
resident and anadromous trout (rainbow and steelhead)
|
|
·
|
resident char (Dolly Varden and bull trout)
|
|
·
|
mountain whitefish
|
|
·
|
coarse fish species.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
·
|
air emissions and fugitive dust
|
|
·
|
water management
|
|
·
|
tailings and waste rock
|
|
·
|
diesel and tailings pipelines
|
|
·
|
concentrate load out
|
|
·
|
ARD/ML containment
|
|
·
|
materials management
|
|
·
|
erosion control and sediment
|
|
·
|
spill contingency and emergency response
|
|
·
|
fish and fish habitat
|
|
·
|
wildlife management
|
|
·
|
waste management
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
·
|
archaeological and heritage site protection.
|
|
·
|
federal MMER monitoring requirements
|
|
·
|
permit and license compliance monitoring
|
|
·
|
environmental effects monitoring
|
|
·
|
reclamation research and monitoring.
|
20.1.4
|
Acid Rock Drainage/Metal Leaching
|
|
·
|
waste rock
|
|
·
|
tailings, paste, sludge (from the Water Treatment Plant (WTP)) and ore (stockpile)
|
|
·
|
surface materials involving overburden, excavated material and cut and fill materials at:
|
|
-
|
the mine site (including the plant foundation, overburden and roads)
|
|
-
|
proposed air strip (the Bowser Aerodrome)
|
|
-
|
the Brucejack Access Road
|
|
-
|
the proposed non-potentially acid-generating (non-PAG) quarry site.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
·
|
static tests (acid base accounting (ABA) and elemental analysis)
|
|
·
|
mineralogical analyses (optical mineralogy, X-ray diffraction (XRD) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM))
|
|
·
|
shake flask extracts (SFEs)
|
|
·
|
kinetic tests (humidity cells, subaqueous columns and field barrels).
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
20.1.5
|
Water Quality
|
|
·
|
a WTP which will treat contact water from the plant site and the underground
|
|
·
|
a sewage treatment plant where treated water will be discharged to Brucejack Creek during construction and to Brucejack Lake during operations
|
|
·
|
disposal of tailings and waste rock into Brucejack Lake which will act as a natural sedimentation pond where any TSS remaining in suspension will be managed using sediment control curtains.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
20.1.6
|
Social Setting
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
·
|
IBAs
|
|
·
|
community engagement meetings
|
|
·
|
training
|
|
·
|
participation in community events
|
|
·
|
reporting and feedback mechanisms.
|
20.1.7
|
Water Management
|
|
·
|
provide a basis for management of freshwater on site, especially with the changes to flow pathways and drainage areas
|
|
·
|
protect ecologically sensitive sites and resources, and avoid harmful impacts on fish and wildlife habitat
|
|
·
|
provide and retain water for mine operations
|
|
·
|
define required environmental control structures
|
|
·
|
manage water to ensure that any discharges are in compliance with the applicable water quality levels and guidelines.
|
|
·
|
protecting disturbed areas from water erosion, and collecting surface water from disturbed areas and treating it to meet discharge standards prior to release
|
|
·
|
minimizing the use of fresh water through recycling of water whenever possible
|
|
·
|
monitoring the composition of release water and treating it to remove or control contaminants as required to meet discharge standards
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
·
|
constructing diversion channels to direct undisturbed runoff away from mining activities.
|
|
·
|
the upper laydown area where the waste rock transfer and pre-production ore will be stored
|
|
·
|
the mill building and portal site, which require an extensive cut into bedrock (some of which is currently assumed to be PAG)
|
|
·
|
groundwater seepage to the underground mine tunnels.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
·
|
treated underground seepage water
|
|
·
|
ore moisture (approximately 3% by weight)
|
|
·
|
reclaim from the lake.
|
|
·
|
a final tailings settled dry density of 1.6 t/m3 for the lake deposition and of 1.46 t/m3 for the underground mine deposition
|
|
·
|
a solids specific gravity of 2.68 is assumed for tailings and 2.71 for paste backfill
|
|
·
|
a nominal mill throughput of 2,700 t/d with:
|
|
-
|
219 t/d (8.1% of total production) sent to an off-site facility as concentrate for secondary processing in a slurry of 88% solids by weight (30 m3/d of slurry water)
|
|
-
|
1,307 t/d (48.4% of total production) will be deposited at depth in Brucejack Lake in a slurry of 35% solids by weight (2,427 m3/d of slurry water)
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
-
|
1,245 t/d (43.5% of total production including 5 to 6% bonder) will be deposited in the underground mine in a backfill paste of 65% solids by weight (670 m3/d of slurry water)
|
|
·
|
an average mill loss of about 7 m3/d
|
|
·
|
an average annual precipitation of 1,900 mm and potential lake evaporation and sublimation losses of 167 mm
|
|
·
|
annual average runoff of about 1,820 mm from undisturbed ground.
|
|
·
|
The model accounts for the displacement of lake water resulting from tailings and waste rock deposition.
|
|
·
|
Numerical groundwater modelling of the site indicates that during mine operations, the natural groundwater flow pattern will be altered and a cone of depression will form around the underground workings, as seepage water is pumped from the underground and used in process. In response, the baseflow inputs to Brucejack Lake will also be altered during this period. The undisturbed runoff value in the flow schematic accounts for these reduced baseflows.
|
|
·
|
With a settled dry density of 1.46 t/m3 and a slurry consisting of 65% solids by weight, the paste backfill will exude some water during the curing phase. It is assumed that this additional water will be pumped out with the seepage water and sent to treatment.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
Figure 20.1
|
Brucejack Lake Water Balance Model Schematic – Operations (Average Conditions)
|
20.1.8
|
Waste Management
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
20.1.9
|
Air Emission Control
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
·
|
the use of clean, high-efficiency technologies for diesel mining equipment
|
|
·
|
the use of appropriate emissions control equipment such as scrubbers
|
|
·
|
the use of low-sulphur diesel fuel when practical
|
|
·
|
the use of a vehicle fleet powered by diesel engines with low emissions of nitrous oxide and hydrocarbons (greenhouse gases)
|
|
·
|
preventative maintenance to ensure optimum performance of light-duty vehicles, diesel mining equipment, and incinerators
|
|
·
|
the implementation of a recycling program to reduce the amount of incinerated wastes, and hence CO2 emissions
|
|
·
|
the segregation of waste prior to incineration to minimize toxic air emissions.
|
20.1.10
|
Closure Plan and Costs
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
20.2
|
Certification and Permit Requirements
|
20.2.1
|
Environmental Assessment Process
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
20.2.2
|
Regulatory Requirements
|
|
·
|
Environment and Land Use Act (BC)
|
|
·
|
Environmental Management Act (BC)
|
|
·
|
Health Act (BC)
|
|
·
|
Forest Act (BC)
|
|
·
|
Forest and Range Practices Act (BC)
|
|
·
|
Fisheries Act (BC)
|
|
·
|
Land Act (BC)
|
|
·
|
Mines Act (BC)
|
|
·
|
Soil Conservation Act (BC)
|
|
·
|
Water Act (BC)
|
|
·
|
Wildlife Act (BC)
|
|
·
|
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
|
|
·
|
Canada Transportation
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
·
|
Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act
|
|
·
|
WHMIS
|
|
·
|
Safety Act.
|
|
Table 20.4
|
List of BC Authorizations, Licences, and Permits Required to Develop the Brucejack Project
|
BC Government Permits and Licences
|
Enabling Legislation
|
Environmental Assessment Certificate
|
BCEAA
|
Permit Approving Work System and Reclamation Program
(mine site – initial development and preproduction)
|
Mines Act
|
Reclamation Program (bonding)
|
Mines Act
|
Amendment to Permit Approving Work System and Reclamation Program (mine plan production)
|
Mines Act
|
Permit Approving Work System and Reclamation Program
(gravel pit/wash plant/rock borrow pit)
|
Mines Act
|
Mining Lease – Mine Area and Mine Site Facilities
|
Mineral Tenure Act
|
Water Licence – Changes in and about a stream
|
Water Act
|
Water Licence – Storage and Diversion
|
Water Act
|
Water Licence – Use
|
Water Act
|
Licence to Cut – Transmission Line, Gravel Pits, Borrow Areas, Construction Laydown Areas
|
Forest Act
|
Licence of Occupation – Transmission Line
|
Land Act
|
Waste Management Permit – Effluent (tailings and sewage)
|
Environmental Management Act
|
table continues…
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
BC Government Permits and Licences
|
Enabling Legislation
|
Waste Management Permit – Air (crushers, concentrator, incinerators)
|
Environmental Management Act
|
Waste Management Permit – Refuse
|
Environmental Management Act
|
Camp Operation Permits (drinking water, sewage, disposal, sanitation and food handling)
|
Drinking Water Protection Act/Health Act/Municipal Wastewater Act
|
Special Waste Generator Permit (waste oil)
|
Environmental Management Act
(Special Waste Regulations)
|
|
Table 20.5
|
List of Federal Approvals and Licences that May be Required to Develop the Brucejack Project
|
Federal Government Approvals and Licences
|
Enabling Legislation
|
CEAA Approval
|
CEAA 2012
|
Alteration of flow on international river
|
International Rivers Improvement Act
|
MMER
|
Fisheries Act/Environment Canada
|
Navigable Water: stream crossings authorization
|
Navigation Protection Act
|
Navigable Water: sub-aqueous disposal of waste rock and tailings
|
Navigation Protection Act
|
Explosives Factory Licence
|
Explosives Act
|
Ammonium Nitrate Storage Facilities
|
Canada Transportation Act
|
Radio Licences
|
Radio Communication Act
|
Radioisotope Licence (nuclear density gauges/x-ray Analyzer)
|
Atomic Energy Control Act
|
20.2.3
|
Financial Assurance
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
21.0
|
CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS
|
21.1
|
Capital Cost Estimate
|
|
Table 21.1
|
Summary of Initial Capital Costs
|
Major
Area
|
Area Description
|
Capital Cost
(US$ million)
|
11
|
Mine Site
|
21.5
|
21
|
Mine Underground
|
179.5
|
31
|
Mine Site Process
|
53.8
|
32
|
Mine Site Utilities
|
30.5
|
33
|
Mine Site Facilities
|
53.5
|
34
|
Mine Site Tailings
|
3.5
|
35
|
Mine Site Temporary Facilities
|
33.4
|
36
|
Mine Site (Surface) Mobile Equipment
|
14.6
|
84
|
Off Site Infrastructure
|
89.1
|
Subtotal Direct Costs
|
479.4
|
|
91
|
Indirect Costs
|
127.5
|
98
|
Owner’s Costs
|
71.0
|
99
|
Contingency
|
69.0
|
Total Initial Capital Costs
|
746.9
|
21.1.1
|
Purpose and Class of Estimate
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
21.1.2
|
Estimate Base Date and Validity Period
|
21.1.3
|
Estimate Approach
|
|
Table 21.2
|
Foreign Exchange Rates
|
Base Currency
|
Foreign Currency
|
Cdn$1.00
|
US$0.92
|
Cdn$1.00
|
AUD$1.00
|
Cdn$1.00
|
€0.81
|
21.1.4
|
Responsibility Matrix
|
|
·
|
Tetra Tech – processing, infrastructure, mine site facilities, mine site temporary facilities, Knipple Transfer Station, borrow quarry, overall preparation of the capital cost estimate
|
|
·
|
AMC – underground mining (preproduction, equipment, infrastructure) including mine capital and operating cost estimates
|
|
·
|
Aran – paste backfill plant
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
·
|
ERM Rescan – environmental aspects including closure and tailings delivery system design
|
|
·
|
BGC –waste rock disposal and water management
|
|
·
|
Valard – off-site transmission line
|
|
·
|
BC Hydro – BC Hydro System Upgrade
|
|
·
|
EBA – airstrip
|
|
·
|
Allnorth – off-site access road and crossings
|
|
·
|
Alpine Solutions – avalanche hazard assessment.
|
21.1.5
|
Work Breakdown Structure
|
|
·
|
Level 1 = Major Area
|
|
·
|
Level 2 = Area
|
|
·
|
Level 3 = Sub-Area.
|
21.1.6
|
Elements of Cost
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
21.1.7
|
Methodology
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
·
|
design basis
|
|
·
|
planning basis
|
|
·
|
cost basis.
|
|
·
|
equipment list and process flow sheets
|
|
·
|
site layout drawings
|
|
·
|
equipment data sheets
|
|
·
|
quantity take-offs for civil bulk materials
|
|
·
|
quantity take-offs for concrete, steel, architectural, HVAC, piping and electrical, instrumentation/controls
|
|
·
|
costs for pre-production mining and mining equipment
|
|
·
|
quantities and costs for tailings delivery system, water management, waste rock disposal and geotechnical design
|
|
·
|
base rate
|
|
·
|
vacation and statutory holiday pay
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
·
|
fringe benefits and payroll burdens
|
|
·
|
overtime and shift premiums
|
|
·
|
small tools
|
|
·
|
consumables
|
|
·
|
contractor’s personal protective equipment
|
|
·
|
non-productive time (such as tool box briefing, breaks, safety briefings, etc.)
|
|
·
|
supervision
|
|
·
|
overhead and profit.
|
|
·
|
general economy/competing projects
|
|
·
|
project supervision labour relationship
|
|
·
|
job conditions
|
|
·
|
construction equipment and tools
|
|
·
|
weather
|
|
·
|
level of estimate detail.
|
21.1.8
|
Capital Cost Exclusions
|
|
·
|
working or deferred capital
|
|
·
|
financing costs
|
|
·
|
refundable taxes and duties
|
|
·
|
land acquisition
|
|
·
|
currency fluctuations
|
|
·
|
lost time due to severe weather conditions
|
|
·
|
lost time due to force majeure
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
·
|
additional costs for accelerated or decelerated deliveries of equipment , materials, labor or services resultant from a change in project schedule
|
|
·
|
warehouse inventories other than those supplied in initial fills
|
|
·
|
any project sunk costs (studies, exploration programs, etc.)
|
|
·
|
sustaining capital costs (included in the financial model)
|
|
·
|
mine reclamation costs (included in financial model)
|
|
·
|
mine closure costs (included in financial model)
|
|
·
|
escalation costs
|
|
·
|
permitting costs
|
|
·
|
community relations.
|
21.2
|
Operating Cost Estimate
|
21.2.1
|
Summary
|
|
·
|
mining
|
|
·
|
process
|
|
·
|
G&A
|
|
·
|
surface services
|
|
·
|
backfill, including paste preparation
|
|
·
|
water treatment.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
Table 21.3
|
Overall Operating Cost
|
Area
|
Personnel
|
Unit Operating Cost
(Cdn$/t milled)
|
Mining*
|
351**
|
91.34
|
Processing
|
100
|
19.69
|
G&A
|
54
|
30.87
|
Surface Services
|
78
|
17.18
|
Backfilling
|
6
|
2.11
|
Water Treatment
|
4
|
1.86
|
Total
|
593
|
163.05
|
|
Notes:
|
*Average LOM mining cost including crushing cost, cement cost for backfill and back-hauling cost for the preproduction ore stocked on the surface; if excluding the ore mined during preproduction, the estimated unit cost is Cdn$91.78/t.
**351 workers during Years 3 to 12 and less mining personnel requirement is estimated for the rest of the operation years.
|
|
Figure 21.1
|
Overall Operating Cost Distribution
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
21.2.2
|
Mining Operating Costs
|
|
·
|
mine design and method
|
|
·
|
production and development schedule
|
|
·
|
waste and backfill schedule
|
|
·
|
power, heating and ventilation requirements.
|
|
·
|
waste development –waste cross cut development for stope access
|
|
·
|
ore development – ore cross cut development and full-width production slashing for long hole stopes
|
|
·
|
long hole stoping
|
|
·
|
backfill
|
|
·
|
mine general
|
|
·
|
mine maintenance.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
·
|
technical services and supervisory: 45% of full complement
|
|
·
|
production crew: 15% of full complement
|
|
·
|
development crew: 35% of full complement
|
|
·
|
maintenance crew: 20% of full complement.
|
|
Table 21.4
|
LOM Underground Operating Costs by Activity
|
Activity
|
Total Cost
(Cdn$ million)
|
Unit Cost
(Cdn$/t of ore)
|
Percentage of Total
(%)
|
Waste Development
|
116.3
|
7.03
|
7.7
|
Ore Development
|
144.7
|
8.74
|
9.6
|
Long Hole Stoping
|
507.2
|
30.65
|
33.6
|
Backfill
|
198.4
|
11.99
|
13.1
|
Mine Maintenance
|
270.5
|
16.35
|
17.9
|
Mine General
|
274.5
|
16.59
|
18.2
|
Total
|
1,511.7
|
91.34
|
100.0
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
·
|
power: Cdn$0.053 /kWh at full production and Cdn$0.35/kWh during construction
|
|
·
|
propane: Cdn$0.650/L
|
|
·
|
diesel: Cdn$1.179/L.
|
|
Table 21.5
|
Underground Operating Costs – Mine General Area
|
Area
|
Total Cost
(Cdn$ million)
|
Unit Cost
(Cdn$/t of ore)
|
Power
|
34.6
|
2.09
|
Heating
|
5.1
|
0.31
|
Crushing and Conveying
|
10.6
|
0.64
|
Support Equipment
|
23.0
|
1.39
|
Labour – Mine Management
|
23.8
|
1.44
|
Labour – Technical Services
|
87.5
|
5.28
|
Technical Services Consumables
|
10.9
|
0.66
|
Mine General Consumables
|
49.4
|
2.99
|
PPE
|
3.3
|
0.20
|
Freight
|
13.8
|
0.83
|
Definition Drilling
|
12.5
|
0.76
|
Total
|
274.5
|
16.59
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
Table 21.6
|
Annual Underground Mine Operating Costs (Cdn$ million)
|
Year
|
Waste
Development
|
Ore
Development
|
Long Hole
Stoping
|
Backfill
|
Mine
Maintenance
|
Mine
General
|
Total
|
1
|
11.6
|
9.1
|
24.3
|
12.4
|
15.1
|
16.2
|
88.7
|
2
|
8.4
|
10.1
|
24.7
|
11.1
|
15.8
|
15.4
|
85.6
|
3
|
7.5
|
7.8
|
26.5
|
11.2
|
16.0
|
15.7
|
84.7
|
4
|
7.2
|
9.3
|
26.8
|
11.0
|
16.0
|
15.8
|
86.1
|
5
|
7.0
|
7.6
|
30.5
|
11.6
|
16.2
|
16.3
|
89.1
|
6
|
8.3
|
8.4
|
32.1
|
10.8
|
16.2
|
16.6
|
92.3
|
7
|
9.1
|
12.1
|
32.2
|
10.8
|
16.2
|
16.7
|
97.1
|
8
|
8.1
|
10.2
|
32.0
|
11.0
|
16.2
|
16.5
|
94.1
|
9
|
7.1
|
7.5
|
30.3
|
10.9
|
16.2
|
16.4
|
88.4
|
10
|
6.1
|
4.8
|
28.3
|
11.2
|
16.0
|
15.9
|
82.3
|
11
|
7.6
|
8.5
|
27.5
|
10.0
|
16.0
|
16.0
|
85.5
|
12
|
6.8
|
13.0
|
28.7
|
10.8
|
16.0
|
16.0
|
91.4
|
13
|
2.6
|
9.4
|
31.0
|
12.1
|
15.6
|
15.4
|
86.2
|
14
|
4.1
|
6.4
|
32.0
|
13.2
|
15.6
|
15.4
|
86.7
|
15
|
5.0
|
5.7
|
32.0
|
12.8
|
15.0
|
15.4
|
86.0
|
16
|
4.1
|
7.1
|
31.9
|
12.2
|
14.9
|
15.1
|
85.3
|
17
|
4.2
|
5.3
|
25.1
|
10.3
|
11.8
|
13.0
|
69.8
|
18
|
1.3
|
2.4
|
11.3
|
5.0
|
5.8
|
6.5
|
32.3
|
Total
|
116.3
|
144.7
|
507.2
|
198.4
|
270.5
|
274.5
|
1,511.7
|
21.2.3
|
Process Operating Costs
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
Table 21.7
|
Summary of Process Operating Cost
|
Description
|
Labour
Force
|
Annual Cost
(Cdn$)
|
Unit Cost
(Cdn$/t milled)
|
Labour Force
|
|||
Operating Staff
|
21
|
2,475,000
|
2.69
|
Operating Labour
|
40
|
3,291,200
|
3.58
|
Maintenance Labour
|
39
|
3,721,700
|
4.05
|
Subtotal Labour Force
|
100
|
9,487,900
|
10.32
|
Major Consumables
|
|||
Metal Consumables
|
-
|
2,812,500
|
3.06
|
Reagent Consumables
|
-
|
856,300
|
0.93
|
Subtotal Major Consumables
|
-
|
3,668,800
|
3.99
|
Supplies
|
|||
Maintenance Supplies
|
-
|
1,946,500
|
2.12
|
Operating Supplies
|
-
|
925,500
|
1.01
|
Power Supply
|
-
|
2,071,100
|
2.25
|
Subtotal Supplies
|
-
|
4,943,100
|
5.38
|
Total (Process)
|
-
|
18,099,800
|
19.69
|
|
·
|
labour force requirements, including supervision, operation, and maintenance, salary/wage levels based on current labour rates in comparable operations in BC. The annual salary includes holiday and vacation pay. A benefit burden of approximately 30.4% for the labour includes Registered Retirement Savings Plans (RRSPs), various life and accident insurances, extended medical benefits, BC Medical Service Plan (MSP), Canadian Pension Plan (CPP), Employment Insurance (EI), Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) insurance, tool allowance, and other benefits.
|
|
·
|
mill liner and mill grinding media consumptions, estimated from the Bond grinding media/liner consumption estimate equations and the Tetra Tech database; the steel ball and mill liner prices based on the quotations from the potential suppliers.
|
|
·
|
maintenance supply costs, based on approximately 7% of process equipment capital costs.
|
|
·
|
laboratory supplies, building maintenance and other costs, based on Tetra Tech’s in-house database and industry experience; the assay including the samples from geological and mining department.
|
|
·
|
reagent costs, based on the consumption rates from test results and quoted budget prices or the Tetra Tech database.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
·
|
service vehicle costs, including fuel consumables and maintenances, are included in the surface service cost estimates.
|
|
Figure 21.2
|
Process Operating Cost Distribution
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
21.2.4
|
Backfilling Operating Costs
|
|
Table 21.8
|
Summary of Backfilling Operating Cost
|
Description
|
Labour
Force
|
Annual Cost
(Cdn$)
|
Unit Cost
(Cdn$/t milled)
|
Labour Force
|
|||
Operating Labour
|
4
|
360,000
|
0.39
|
Maintenance Labour
|
2
|
195,600
|
0.21
|
Subtotal Labour Force
|
6
|
555,600
|
0.60
|
Major Consumables (Included in Mining Operating Cost)
|
|||
Supplies
|
|||
Maintenance Supplies
|
-
|
326,500
|
0.36
|
Operating Supplies
|
-
|
779,200
|
0.85
|
Power Supply
|
-
|
275,400
|
0.30
|
Subtotal Supplies
|
-
|
1,381,100
|
1.51
|
Total (Backfilling)
|
-
|
1,936,700
|
2.11
|
21.2.5
|
Water Treatment Operating Costs
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
Table 21.9
|
Summary of Water Treatment Operating Cost
|
Description
|
Labour
Force
|
Annual Cost
(Cdn$)
|
Unit Cost
(Cdn$/t milled)
|
Labour Force
|
|||
Operating Labour
|
4
|
276,400
|
0.30
|
Subtotal Labour Force
|
4
|
276,400
|
0.30
|
Major Consumables
|
|||
Reagent Consumables
|
-
|
1,147,400
|
1.25
|
Subtotal Major Consumables
|
-
|
1,147,400
|
1.25
|
Supplies
|
|||
Maintenance Supplies
|
-
|
180,000
|
0.20
|
Operating Supplies
|
-
|
10,000
|
0.01
|
Power Supply
|
-
|
100,500
|
0.11
|
Subtotal Supplies
|
-
|
290,500
|
0.32
|
Total (water treatment)
|
-
|
1,714,300
|
1.87
|
21.2.6
|
General and Administrative, and Surface Services
|
|
·
|
labour costs for administrative personnel, including the benefit burden outlined in Section 21.2.3
|
|
·
|
expenses for the services related to travel, human resources, safety and security
|
|
·
|
site communications, including technical services support and spare parts
|
|
·
|
site medical services
|
|
·
|
allowances for insurance, regional taxes and licenses allowance
|
|
·
|
sustainability including environment, community liaison, and engineering consulting
|
|
·
|
transportation of personnel, including air transportation and travel time allowances
|
|
·
|
camp accommodation costs.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
Table 21.10
|
G&A Operating Cost
|
Description
|
Labour
Force
|
Total Cost
(Cdn$/a)
|
Unit Cost
(Cdn$/t milled)
|
G&A Labour Force
|
|||
G&A
|
42
|
4,627,100
|
5.03
|
G&A Hourly Personnel
|
12
|
949,200
|
1.03
|
Subtotal Labour Force
|
54
|
5,576,300
|
6.06
|
G&A Expense
|
|||
General Office Expense
|
-
|
250,000
|
0.27
|
Computer Supplies Including Software
|
-
|
61,000
|
0.07
|
Communications
|
-
|
610,000
|
0.66
|
Travel
|
-
|
150,000
|
0.16
|
Audit
|
-
|
85,000
|
0.09
|
Consulting/External Assays
|
-
|
250,000
|
0.27
|
Environmental
|
-
|
375,000
|
0.41
|
Insurance
|
-
|
1,343,000
|
1.46
|
Regional Taxes and Licenses Allowance
|
-
|
401,000
|
0.44
|
ERP Purchase (SAP, etc.)
|
200,000
|
0.22
|
|
Legal Services
|
100,000
|
0.11
|
|
Warehouse
|
200,000
|
0.22
|
|
Recruiting; including Relocation Expense
|
-
|
500,000
|
0.55
|
Entertainment/Memberships
|
-
|
50,000
|
0.05
|
Medicals and First Aid Supplies
|
-
|
100,000
|
0.11
|
Medicals and First Aid Contract Services
|
-
|
702,000
|
0.76
|
Training/Safety
|
250,000
|
0.27
|
|
Accommodation/Camp Costs
|
-
|
7,547,300
|
8.21
|
Crew Transportation (Flight and Bus)
|
-
|
8,567,800
|
9.32
|
Liaison Committee/Sustainability/Sponsorships
|
-
|
200,000
|
0.22
|
Small Vehicles, included in Surface Services
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
Satellite Office - Smithers
|
-
|
716,000
|
0.78
|
Others
|
-
|
150,000
|
0.16
|
Subtotal Expense
|
-
|
22,808,100
|
24.81
|
Total
|
54
|
28,384,400
|
30.87
|
|
·
|
labour costs for surface service personnel, including transport drivers, site and access road maintenance operators, surface equipment maintenance operators, mine dry cleaners, and the operators at the Knipple Transfer Station; the annual labour cost includes the benefit burden outlined in Section 21.2.3.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
·
|
surface mobile equipment and light vehicle operations, including transportation between the mine site and the Knipple Transfer Station, as well as snow removal.
|
|
·
|
portable water and waste management
|
|
·
|
general maintenance including yards, roads, fences, and building maintenance
|
|
·
|
off-site operation expenses, excluding satellite office operation in Smithers
|
|
·
|
building heating
|
|
·
|
access road maintenance
|
|
·
|
avalanche control
|
|
·
|
airstrip maintenance and operations
|
|
·
|
maintenance of the power line supplying power to the mine and process plant.
|
|
Table 21.11
|
Surface Services Operating Costs
|
Surface Service
|
Labour
Force
|
Total Cost
(Cdn$/a)
|
Unit Cost
(Cdn$/t milled)
|
Surface Service Labour Force
|
|||
Surface Service Personnel
|
78
|
6,806,200
|
7.40
|
Subtotal Labour Force
|
78
|
6,806,200
|
7.40
|
Surface Service Expense
|
|||
Potable Water and Waste Management
|
-
|
320,000
|
0.35
|
Supplies
|
-
|
150,000
|
0.16
|
Building Maintenance
|
-
|
300,000
|
0.33
|
Building Heating, Ventilations & Others Loads
|
-
|
1,259,000
|
1.37
|
Road Maintenance
|
-
|
1,440,000
|
1.56
|
Avalanche Control (Contract)
|
-
|
600,000
|
0.65
|
Power Line Maintenance
|
-
|
164,000
|
0.18
|
Mobile Equipment - Maintenance
|
-
|
1,400,000
|
1.52
|
Mobile Equipment - Fuel
|
-
|
2,499,000
|
2.72
|
Airstrip Instrumentation Maintenance
|
-
|
20,000
|
0.02
|
Helicopter Supports
|
-
|
540,000
|
0.59
|
Off-site Operation - Transfer Station
|
-
|
200,000
|
0.22
|
Others
|
100,000
|
0.11
|
|
Subtotal Expense
|
8,992,000
|
9.78
|
|
Total
|
78
|
15,798,200
|
17.18
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
22.0
|
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
|
22.1
|
Introduction
|
|
·
|
34.7% IRR
|
|
·
|
2.7-year payback on the US$746.9 million initial capital
|
|
·
|
US$2,251 million NPV at a 5% discount rate.
|
|
·
|
28.5% IRR
|
|
·
|
2.8-year payback on the US$746.9 million initial capital
|
|
·
|
US$1,445 million NPV at a 5% discount rate.
|
|
·
|
gold – US$1,100/oz
|
|
·
|
silver – US$17.00/oz
|
|
·
|
exchange rate – 0.92:1.00 (US$:Cdn$).
|
22.2
|
Pre-tax Model
|
22.2.1
|
Financial Evaluations
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
Table 22.1
|
Metal Production Quantities
|
Years 1 to 10
|
LOM
|
|
Total Tonnes to Mill ('000)
|
9,762
|
16,550
|
Annual Tonnes to Mill ('000)
|
976
|
919
|
Average Grade
|
||
Gold (g/t)
|
16.348
|
14.138
|
Silver (g/t)
|
11.250
|
57.686
|
Total Production
|
||
Gold ('000 oz)
|
4,972
|
7,274
|
Silver ('000 oz)
|
2,996
|
27,626
|
Average Annual Production
|
||
Gold ('000 oz)
|
497
|
404
|
Silver ('000 oz)
|
300
|
1,535
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
Figure 22.1
|
Pre-tax Cash Flow
|
22.2.2
|
Metal Price Scenarios
|
|
·
|
base case
|
|
·
|
lower prices case
|
|
·
|
higher prices case.
|
|
Table 22.2
|
Summary of Pre-tax NPV, IRR, and Payback by Metal Price
|
Economic Returns
|
Unit
|
Base
Case
|
Lower
Price
|
Higher
Price
|
NCF
|
US$ million
|
4,160
|
2,020
|
6,353
|
NPV at 5.0% Discount Rate
|
US$ million
|
2,251
|
985
|
3,540
|
Project IRR
|
%
|
34.7
|
20.3
|
47.0
|
Payback
|
Years
|
2.7
|
4.4
|
2.0
|
Exchange Rate
|
US$:Cdn$
|
0.92
|
0.92
|
0.92
|
Gold Price
|
US$/oz
|
1,100
|
800
|
1,400
|
Silver Price
|
US$/oz
|
17.00
|
15.00
|
21.00
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
Table 22.3
|
Summary of Post-tax NPV, IRR, and Payback by Metal Price
|
Economic Returns
|
Unit
|
Base
Case
|
Lower
Price
|
Higher
Price
|
NCF
|
US$ million
|
2,724
|
1,344
|
4,134
|
NPV at 5.0% Discount Rate
|
US$ million
|
1,445
|
620
|
2,279
|
Project IRR
|
%
|
28.5
|
16.5
|
38.7
|
Payback
|
Years
|
2.8
|
4.5
|
2.1
|
Exchange Rate
|
US$:Cdn$
|
0.92
|
0.92
|
0.92
|
Gold Price
|
US$/oz
|
1,100
|
800
|
1,400
|
Silver Price
|
US$/oz
|
17.00
|
15.00
|
21.00
|
22.2.3
|
Royalties
|
|
·
|
gold: the first 503,386 oz produced from the Property
|
|
·
|
silver: the first 17,907,080 oz produced from the Property.
|
22.3
|
Smelter Terms
|
|
·
|
doré:
|
|
-
|
gold and silver – pay 99.8% of gold and silver content. A refining and transport charge of US$2.00/troy oz will be deducted from the metal price.
|
|
·
|
concentrate:
|
|
-
|
gold and silver – pay 95% of gold and silver content. A treatment charge of US$184.00/dmt of concentrate is applied. A penalty charge of US$9.20 per each 0.1% of arsenic above 0.2% is also applied.
|
22.4
|
Markets and Contracts
|
22.4.1
|
Markets
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
22.4.2
|
Contracts
|
22.4.3
|
Transportation and Insurance
|
22.5
|
Sensitivity Analysis
|
|
·
|
gold price
|
|
·
|
silver price
|
|
·
|
exchange rate
|
|
·
|
operating cost
|
|
·
|
capital cost.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
Figure 22.2
|
Pre-tax NPV (5%) Sensitivity Analysis
|
|
Figure 22.3
|
Pre-tax IRR Sensitivity Analysis
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
Figure 22.4
|
Pre-tax Payback Period Sensitivity Analysis
|
22.6
|
Taxes
|
|
Table 22.4
|
Components of the Various Taxes
|
Tax Component
|
LOM Amount
(US$ million)
|
Corporate Tax (Federal)
|
510.52
|
Corporate Tax (Provincial)
|
392.76
|
Provincial Mineral Taxes
|
532.83
|
Total Taxes
|
1,436.11
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
Federal Income Tax Rate:
|
15%
|
Provincial (BC) Income Tax Rate:
|
11%
|
Machinery and Equipment:
|
Prior to 2021, assets purchased prior to commercial production are added to a Class 41(a) pool and are deducted at an accelerated rate, at up to 100% of the balance, to the extent of taxable income from the mine.
|
Changes from the 2013 Federal Budget phases out the accelerated deduction over the 2017 to 2020 years. One hundred percent of the accelerated rate will be permitted in 2013 to 2016, 90% in 2017, 80% in 2018, 60% in 2019, and 30% in 2020.
|
|
Assets purchased after commencement of production are added to a Class 41(b) pool and are deducted at up to 25% of the balance.
|
|
Mine Acquisition Costs:
|
This includes costs of land, exploration and mining rights, licenses, permits and leases.
|
Costs are added to a Canadian development expense (CDE) pool, and can be deducted at up to 30% of the balance in a year.
|
|
Pre-production Mine Expenditures:
|
This includes both exploration and mine development costs.
|
Prior to 2015, exploration and mine development are added to a Canadian exploration expense (CEE) pool. One hundred percent of the balance can be deducted in a year, but the deduction is also limited to the income from the mine.
|
|
Pre-production mine development costs incurred subsequent to 2017 will be treated as CDE instead of CEE. The transition will be phased-in beginning in 2015, with 20% of costs being allocated proportionately to CDE and 80% to CEE in 2015, 40% to CDE and 60% to CEE in 2016, and 70% to CDE in 2017 and 30% to CEE in 2017.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
Net Current Proceeds (2%) Tax:
|
Two percent is levied on amount by which gross revenues exceed current operating costs.
|
Hedging income and losses, royalties and financing costs are excluded.
|
|
Capital costs including exploration, preproduction development costs and leasing costs are excluded.
|
|
Capital costs are relevant for Net Revenue Tax (below).
|
|
Net current proceeds tax is added to a cumulative tax credit account (CTCA) and is available to offset net revenue tax payable.
|
|
Net Revenue (13%) Tax
|
Tax is levied at 13% of net revenue.
|
All capital expenditures, both mine development costs and fixed asset purchases, are accumulated in a Cumulative Expenditures Account (CEA) account.
|
|
Net revenue is defined as 13% of gross revenues less the current operating costs for the year, less any accumulated CEA balance.
|
|
Therefore, for net revenue tax, all current and capital expenditures are fully deductible in the year they are incurred or in the following year.
|
|
Net revenue does not become assessable until the costs of all preproduction capital expenditures have been recovered.
|
|
A “new mine allowance” is also provided to encourage new mine development in BC. The allowance allows a mine operator to add 133% of its capital expenditures incurred prior to commencing production to the CEA account if the mine began producing minerals in reasonable commercial quantities before January 1, 2016.
|
|
The model is calculated on the assumption that as the mine will not commence production until 2017, that the new mine allowance would not be available to the company.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
23.0
|
ADJACENT PROPERTIES
|
23.1
|
Kerr-Sulphurets-Mitchell
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
Table 23.1
|
Mineral Reserve Estimates for the KSM Property as of December 31, 2012
|
Zone
|
Mining
Method
|
Reserve
Category
|
Tonnes
(Mt)
|
Average Grades
|
Contained Cetal
|
||||||
Gold
(g/t)
|
Copper
(%)
|
Silver
(g/t)
|
Molybdenum
(ppm)
|
Gold
(Moz)
|
Copper
(Mlb)
|
Silver
(Moz)
|
Molybdenum
(Mlb)
|
||||
Mitchell
|
Open Pit
|
Proven
|
476
|
0.67
|
0.17
|
3.05
|
60.9
|
10.3
|
1,798
|
47
|
64
|
Probable
|
497
|
0.61
|
0.16
|
2.78
|
65.8
|
9.8
|
1,707
|
44
|
72
|
||
Block Cave
|
Probable
|
438
|
0.53
|
0.17
|
3.48
|
33.6
|
7.4
|
1,589
|
49
|
32
|
|
Iron Cap
|
Block Cave
|
Probable
|
193
|
0.45
|
0.20
|
5.32
|
21.5
|
2.8
|
834
|
33
|
9
|
Sulphurets
|
Open Pit
|
Probable
|
318
|
0.59
|
0.22
|
0.79
|
50.6
|
6.0
|
1,535
|
8
|
35
|
Kerr
|
Open Pit
|
Probable
|
242
|
0.24
|
0.45
|
1.2
|
0.0
|
1.9
|
2,425
|
9
|
0
|
Proven
|
476
|
0.67
|
0.17
|
3.05
|
60.9
|
10.3
|
1,798
|
47
|
64
|
||
Probable
|
1,688
|
0.51
|
0.22
|
2.65
|
40.1
|
27.9
|
8,090
|
144
|
149
|
||
Total
|
2,164
|
0.55
|
0.21
|
2.74
|
44.7
|
38.2
|
9,888
|
191
|
213
|
Note:
|
Cut-off values used to report the Mineral Reserve Figures were defined based on NSR values and the mining method. The reader should refer to the information provided by Seabridge Gold to get an accurate appreciation of the definition of the cut-off values for reporting.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
23.2
|
High Property
|
23.3
|
Treaty Creek Property
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
24.0
|
OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION
|
24.1
|
Project Execution Plan
|
24.1.1
|
Introduction
|
24.1.2
|
Health, Safety, Environmental and Security
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
24.1.3
|
Execution Strategy
|
·
|
Stage l – early works including mine development, the EAC application, permitting, access road upgrades, preliminary power transmission line ROW, basic engineering, and the procurement of long-lead equipment.
|
·
|
Stage ll – full project execution (following permit approval), including detailed engineering, procurement, construction team mobilization, construction, and commissioning.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
Figure 24.1
|
Project Management Organization Chart
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
·
|
project organization, key names, and communication procedures
|
·
|
reporting requirements including project systems, project meetings, minutes, and a communications matrix
|
·
|
identification of the division of responsibilities among the Project stakeholders using a responsibility matrix format
|
·
|
risk management procedures
|
·
|
project data management, format, and distribution/filing requirements of project correspondence and documentation
|
·
|
cost management and accounting procedures
|
·
|
drawing and specification preparation including numbering, revision tracking, and transmittal procedures
|
·
|
document control procedures
|
·
|
equipment and materials procurement procedures
|
·
|
project scheduling requirements, tools, formats, and frequency of delivery
|
·
|
project accounting methods including cost reporting and forecasting systems
|
·
|
construction contract procedures including bidding and awarding the work
|
·
|
site administration procedures including camp administration rules
|
·
|
site security
|
·
|
field engineering
|
·
|
safety procedures
|
·
|
quality assurance expectations
|
·
|
site and office personnel rules and regulations
|
·
|
emergency site procedures and contact information
|
·
|
construction temporary facilities (power, water, offices, and camp)
|
·
|
site housekeeping and hazardous waste management
|
·
|
mechanical completion expectations including lock-out procedures
|
·
|
commissioning procedures
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
·
|
project close-out and hand-over procedures
|
·
|
other administrative matters and issues specific to the Project for use by the Team.
|
|
Table 24.1
|
Significant Activity Milestone Dates to Project Handover
|
Year
|
Quarter
|
Activity
|
2014
|
2
|
Feasibility Study Update Completion
|
2014
|
3
|
Start of Basic Engineering
|
2014
|
3
|
EPCM Award
|
2015
|
2
|
Start Stage I Early Works Construction
|
2016
|
1
|
Detailed Engineering Completion
|
2016
|
1
|
Start Stage II Full Project Execution Construction
|
2017
|
2
|
Surface Mechanical Completion
|
2017
|
2
|
Underground Mechanical Completion
|
2017
|
3
|
Mine Site Commissioning Completion
|
2017
|
3
|
Production Start
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
Figure 24.2
|
Level 1 Execution Schedule
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
·
|
Continue basic engineering to support permitting and Stage l activities.
|
·
|
Select the general EPCM contractor, the mine design firm, and the mining contractor.
|
·
|
Establish project procedures and standard forms.
|
·
|
Establish the cost reporting system based on the approved capital cost estimate.
|
·
|
Prepare procurement and contract documents to support Stage l activities.
|
·
|
Order long delivery and early engineering information for capital equipment.
|
·
|
Confirm that the Schedule coincides with the Project’s actual start date.
|
24.1.4
|
Engineering
|
24.1.5
|
Procurement and Contracts
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
Figure 24.3
|
Preliminary Contracting Structure
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
·
|
the availability of detailed engineered information
|
|
·
|
the availability of resources
|
|
·
|
cost advantages
|
|
·
|
scheduling issues
|
|
·
|
permits and approvals
|
|
·
|
cash flow.
|
24.1.6
|
Construction Labour Requirement
|
24.1.7
|
Construction Camp
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
24.1.8
|
Housekeeping and Hazardous Waste Management
|
24.1.9
|
Construction Equipment
|
24.1.10
|
Communication
|
24.1.11
|
Construction Power
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
24.1.12
|
Mechanical Completion
|
|
·
|
water is available for hydro testing of piping and tanks
|
|
·
|
air is available to test the pneumatics
|
|
·
|
permanent power is available to test the motors.
|
24.1.13
|
Commissioning
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
24.1.14
|
Construction Methods
|
|
·
|
Conduct HSE policy training and enforcement for all site and contractor staff. Site hazard management tools and programs will be employed to achieve the no harm/zero accident objective.
|
|
·
|
Implement the contracting and construction infrastructure strategies to support the project execution plan.
|
|
·
|
Develop and implement a construction-sensitive and cost-effective master project schedule.
|
|
·
|
Establish a project cost control system to ensure effective cost reporting, monitoring, and forecasting as well as schedule reporting and control. The EPCM contractor will be responsible for evaluating costs on an ongoing basis, and will provide comparisons of budgeted and actual project trending for the cost report on a monthly basis.
|
|
·
|
Establish a field contract administration system to effectively manage, control, and coordinate the work performed by the contractors.
|
|
·
|
Manage the catering contractor (by contract) to ensure that services meet the expected quality standards for the facilities, staff qualifications, hygiene, food handling, storage, and provision of meals.
|
|
·
|
Apply an effective field constructability program as a continuation of the constructability reviews performed in the design office.
|
|
·
|
Organize bulk materials purchases, assemble contract tendering documents, establish qualified bid lists, tender the work, analyze and make recommendations to the Owner for the most suitably qualified contractors, and prepare the executed contracts for issue.
|
|
·
|
Receive, inspect, and log all incoming materials, assign storage locations, and maintain a database of the status of all materials received and dispensed to the contractors. Ongoing reconciliation with the procurement system (including reconciliation to the freight consolidation point) will confirm that the materials ordered for the Project were correctly received, and that the suppliers were paid. An allowance has been included in the construction budget for lease or equipment, temporary structures, and other equipment required during construction.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
·
|
Develop a detailed field logistics and material control plan to maintain the necessary flow and control of material and equipment to support construction operations.
|
|
·
|
project management:
|
|
-
|
camp management
|
|
-
|
camp catering and housekeeping
|
|
-
|
camp installation
|
|
-
|
insurance, WCB, general liability, third-party and auto
|
|
-
|
labour relations plan and site work rules-supported by Owner
|
|
-
|
freight logistics and deliveries
|
|
-
|
overall project cost control, monitoring and reporting system
|
|
-
|
scheduling
|
|
-
|
site offices
|
|
-
|
site topographical survey
|
|
-
|
site utilities for field offices
|
|
·
|
design:
|
|
-
|
concrete batch plant requirements
|
|
-
|
commissioning-assisted by engineering and Owner
|
|
-
|
communications system for construction
|
|
-
|
document control-general project and construction
|
|
-
|
constructability reviews-with support from engineering and Owner
|
|
·
|
purchasing and expediting:
|
|
-
|
equipment and consumables inventory management-construction and commissioning
|
|
-
|
spare parts inventory management-start-up and commissioning
|
|
-
|
vendor representatives-erection support and commissioning
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
·
|
construction:
|
|
-
|
HSE policy implementation and enforcement
|
|
-
|
site construction management
|
|
-
|
warehouse and laydown area
|
|
-
|
security personnel (by contract)
|
|
-
|
contracting plan
|
|
-
|
contract bid documents
|
|
-
|
contract tendering
|
|
-
|
contract execution and administration
|
|
-
|
earthworks and civil site supervision
|
|
-
|
mechanical and piping site supervision
|
|
-
|
structural site supervision
|
|
-
|
electrical and instrumentation site supervision
|
|
-
|
commissioning-assist Owner, and engineering and procurement
|
|
-
|
on-site monitoring of construction equipment condition and safe operating capability
|
|
-
|
survey and layout (by contract)
|
|
-
|
site quality control (by contract)
|
|
-
|
cost reporting and controls-with engineering and procurement, and Owner support
|
|
-
|
as-built drawings (by contractors).
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
Table 24.2
|
Project Responsibility Matrix
|
WBS
|
Area
|
Pretivm
|
EPCM
Team
|
Underground
Mining
Team
|
Geotechnical
Team
|
11
|
Mine Site
|
||||
111
|
General Development
|
||||
111100
|
Bulk Earthworks/Site Preparation
|
X
|
|||
111200
|
Site Roads
|
X
|
|||
111300
|
Helicopter Pad
|
X
|
|||
111400
|
Site Drainage
|
X
|
|||
111500
|
Fencing/Gates (Site Control)
|
X
|
|||
111600
|
Control System
|
X
|
|||
111700
|
Communication and Material Management System
|
X
|
|||
111800
|
Fire Alarm System
|
X
|
|||
111950
|
Mine Site Utilidor
|
X
|
|||
21
|
Mine Underground
|
||||
211100
|
Lateral Development (Capital)
|
X
|
|||
211200
|
Vertical Development (Capital)
|
X
|
|||
211300
|
Infrastructure Development (Capital)
|
X
|
|||
211350
|
Pre-Production Mine Power/Propane
|
X
|
|||
211400
|
Ventilation Shafts
|
X
|
|||
212
|
Underground Mining Equipment
|
||||
212100
|
Mobile Equipment
|
X
|
|||
212200
|
Fixed Equipment
|
X
|
|||
212250
|
Material Handling System
|
X
|
|||
212300
|
Ancillary, Survey and Tech Equipment
|
X
|
|||
212400
|
Mine Rescue Team Equipment
|
X
|
|||
213
|
Underground Infrastructure
|
||||
213050
|
Underground Electrical Sub and Distribution
|
X
|
|||
213100
|
Underground Pump Station
|
X
|
|||
213150
|
Underground Workshop, Systems and Mine Services
|
X
|
|||
213200
|
Underground Explosive Magazine
|
X
|
|||
213250
|
Mobile Refuge Chambers
|
X
|
|||
213300
|
Underground Backfill Distribution
|
X
|
|||
213350
|
Portal Entry and Infrastructure
|
X
|
|||
table continues…
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
WBS
|
Area
|
Pretivm
|
EPCM
Team
|
Underground
Mining
Team
|
Geotechnical
Team
|
213400
|
Controls and Instrumentation
|
X
|
|||
213425
|
Primary Crushing
|
S
|
X
|
||
213450
|
Primary Ventilation Fans (Main RAR Fans)
|
X
|
|||
213500
|
Secondary Vent Fans (Development Fans)
|
X
|
|||
213550
|
Mine Heating (Main FAR/FAW)
|
X
|
|||
213600
|
Backfill Piping and Distribution (Underground)
|
X
|
|||
213700
|
Canteen facilities
|
X
|
|||
213750
|
Safety Equipment Storage and Lamps etc.
|
X
|
|||
213800
|
Surface Works, Ventilation Fans, etc.
|
X
|
S
|
||
213850
|
Backfill Piping and Distribution (Surface)
|
X
|
S
|
||
213900
|
Underground Piping (Air, Water, Fuel)
|
X
|
|||
213950
|
Underground Fuel Storage and Distribution
|
X
|
|||
31
|
Mine Site Process
|
||||
311
|
Crushing
|
||||
311400
|
SAG Mill Feed Surge Bin and Conveyors
|
X
|
|||
312
|
Grinding, Flotation and Dewatering
|
||||
312200
|
Primary Grinding
|
X
|
|||
312225
|
Concentrate Regrinding
|
X
|
|||
312250
|
Process Reagents Preparation/Storage
|
X
|
|||
312300
|
Flotation
|
X
|
|||
312400
|
Concentrate Dewatering
|
X
|
|||
312500
|
Concentrate Storage and Load Out
|
X
|
|||
312600
|
Tailings Dewatering
|
X
|
|||
312700
|
Smelting and Gold Room
|
X
|
|||
312800
|
Paste Plant
|
X
|
|||
312825
|
Slime Flotation
|
X
|
|||
32
|
Mine Site Utilities
|
||||
321
|
Utilities – Power and Electrical
|
||||
321100
|
HV Switchyard and Substation
|
X
|
|||
321200
|
Power Distribution
|
X
|
|||
321300
|
Emergency Power
|
X
|
|||
321400
|
Lightning Protection
|
X
|
|||
321500
|
Area Lighting
|
X
|
|||
322
|
Utilities –Fuel, Storage and Distribution
|
||||
322100
|
Propane
|
X
|
|||
322200
|
Diesel
|
X
|
|||
table continues…
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
WBS
|
Area
|
Pretivm
|
EPCM
Team
|
Underground
Mining
Team
|
Geotechnical
Team
|
322300
|
Gasoline
|
X
|
|||
322400
|
Lube Oil
|
X
|
|||
322500
|
Waste Oil Disposal
|
X
|
|||
323
|
Utilities – Water Systems
|
X
|
|||
323100
|
Water Distribution System
|
X
|
|||
323200
|
Potable Water
|
X
|
|||
323300
|
Process Water
|
X
|
|||
323400
|
Fire Water
|
X
|
|||
323500
|
Site Drainage and Collection Pond
|
X
|
|||
323600
|
Water Treatment Plant
|
X
|
|||
323800
|
Gland Water
|
X
|
|||
323900
|
Reclaim Water from Lake
|
X
|
|||
324
|
Utilities – Waste Disposal
|
||||
324100
|
Solid Waste Disposal
|
X
|
|||
324200
|
Sewage – STP
|
X
|
|||
324300
|
Waste Oil Disposal
|
X
|
|||
324400
|
Incinerator
|
X
|
|||
325
|
Utilities - Other
|
||||
325100
|
Plant and Instrument Air
|
X
|
|||
33
|
Mine Site Buildings
|
||||
331
|
Ancillary Buildings
|
||||
331050
|
Mill Building
|
||||
331300
|
Permanent Camp
|
X
|
|||
331700
|
Truck Shop
|
X
|
|||
331950
|
Crushing and Batch Plant
|
X
|
|||
331952
|
Surface Explosive Storage
|
X
|
|||
34
|
Mine Site Tailings (Brucejack Lake)
|
||||
341
|
Tailings
|
||||
341100
|
Tailings Delivery System
|
X
|
S
|
||
341200
|
Waste Rock Disposal
|
X
|
S
|
||
341600
|
Lake Outlet Control Structure
|
X
|
|||
341800
|
Environmental
|
X
|
|||
35
|
Mine Site Temporary Facilities
|
||||
351
|
Temporary Facilities
|
||||
351150
|
Temporary Cold Storage
|
X
|
|||
351200
|
Construction Catering
|
X
|
|||
351300
|
Construction Laydown Area
|
X
|
|||
36
|
Mine Site (Surface) Mobile Equipment
|
||||
361
|
Surface Mobile Equipment
|
||||
361100
|
Surface Mobile Equipment
|
X
|
|||
table continues…
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
WBS
|
Area
|
Pretivm
|
EPCM
Team
|
Underground
Mining
Team
|
Geotechnical
Team
|
61
|
Off-site Infrastructure
|
||||
611
|
Off-site Infrastructure
|
||||
611100
|
Off-site Power Transmission
|
X
|
|||
611300
|
BC Hydro Stewart Substation Upgrade
|
X
|
|||
612
|
Knipple Transfer Station
|
||||
612225
|
Knipple Scale
|
X
|
|||
612250
|
Knipple Helipad
|
X
|
|||
612255
|
Knipple Cold Storage
|
X
|
|||
612300
|
Knipple Transfer Station
|
X
|
|||
612400
|
Knipple Services and Utilities
|
X
|
|||
612500
|
Knipple Mobile Equipment
|
X
|
|||
613
|
Airstrip
|
||||
613700
|
Airstrip
|
X
|
|||
614
|
Borrow Quarry
|
||||
614800
|
Borrow Quarry
|
X
|
|||
615
|
Off-Site Access Road
|
||||
615
|
Off-Site Access Road
|
X
|
|||
616
|
Bowser Camp
|
||||
616
|
Bowser Camp (Existing)
|
X
|
S
|
||
617
|
Avalanche Control
|
||||
617600
|
Avalanche Control
|
X
|
S
|
||
91
|
Indirects
|
||||
911
|
Indirects – Mine Site
|
||||
911100
|
Mine Site-Construction Indirects
|
X
|
|||
911200
|
Mine Site-Initial Fills
|
X
|
|||
911300
|
Mine Site-Spares
|
X
|
|||
911400
|
Mine Site-Freight and Logistics
|
X
|
|||
911500
|
Mine Site-Commissioning and Start-up
|
X
|
|||
911600
|
Mine Site-EPCM
|
X
|
|||
911800
|
Mine Site-Vendor Commissioning
|
X
|
|||
913
|
Indirects Off-site Infrastructure
|
||||
913100
|
Off-site Construction Indirects
|
X
|
|||
913500
|
Off-site Commissioning and Start-Up
|
X
|
|||
913600
|
Off-site EPCM
|
X
|
|||
913700
|
Off-Site Vendor Commissioning and Assistance
|
X
|
|||
98
|
Owners Costs
|
||||
981
|
Owner’s Costs
|
X
|
|||
981100
|
Owner’s Costs
|
X
|
|||
981200
|
Owner’s Risk and Contingency
|
X
|
|||
table continues…
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
WBS
|
Area
|
Pretivm
|
EPCM
Team
|
Underground
Mining
Team
|
Geotechnical
Team
|
99
|
Contingency
|
||||
991
|
Contingency
|
||||
991100
|
Contingency
|
X
|
24.1.15
|
Risk Management
|
|
·
|
49 high-level risks
|
|
·
|
135 medium-level risks
|
|
·
|
246 low-level risks.
|
|
Table 24.3
|
Top Ten High-level Risks
|
Threat/Hazard
|
Mitigation
|
·Availability of skilled labour, contractors, and equipment causing delays to the project schedule, project cost, and safety of workers.
|
·Develop a contracting strategy that will capture and retain a skilled workforce.
·Conduct contractor prequalification to ensure contractors have sufficient skilled workforce for the project.
·Review hiring and training policy to retain a skilled workforce.
|
table continues…
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
Threat/Hazard
|
Mitigation
|
· Inadequate supply of consumables for construction and operation causing delays to project schedule and production resulting in a potential increase project cost and loss of production.
|
· Detailed evaluation of supply logistics and consumable consumptions.
· Pre-qualification of suppliers.
· Develop contingency plans.
|
· Inadequately trained mine rescue and underground emergencies.
|
· Ensure training policy includes emergency response training.
· Develop emergency plan for construction and operations.
· Update operations and maintenance procedures in compliance with BC Mines Act.
|
· Vehicle collisions.
|
· Prepare traffic management plan.
· Site orientation and driver training.
· Prepare standard operating procedures for site vehicle operations.
· Procedural controls for personnel movement around site and safe work procedures.
|
· Insufficient geological/geotechnical information causing delays in schedule, increased costs, and loss in production.
|
· Ground control management.
· Stress measurement and structural model.
· Additional drilling once design is closer to final.
|
· Explosion/detonation causing personnel incidents, damage to equipment, delays in schedule and production.
|
· BC Mines Act and federal Explosives Act procedural controls.
· Enforcement of safe work polices and personal protective equipment (PPE) requirements.
· Develop emergency plan.
|
· Inadequate refuge chamber and supplies.
|
· Review of refuge chamber design.
· Develop emergency plan.
· Site health and safety inspection.
· Procedures.
|
· Paste quality and barricade failure causing delays in production.
|
· Review barricade design and installation procedures.
· Standard operating procedures for paste backfill.
|
· Avalanche hazard.
|
· Develop procedural controls and emergency plan.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
|
·
|
a process where action outcomes are recorded and managed to ensure they are properly closed out
|
|
·
|
risks and action plans are reviewed monthly on an individual basis and updated in the monthly report
|
|
·
|
risk reviews are undertaken at strategic stages of the Project life cycle.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC
|
25.0
|
INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS
|
25.1
|
Mineral Resource
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
25.2
|
Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing
|
25.3
|
Mining Methods
|
25.3.1
|
Mining Risks
|
|
·
|
Inferred Mineral Resource blocks in the resource model have been treated as waste and have been assigned zero grades. Stope shapes that incorporate Inferred blocks due to the practical constraints of mining may realize an increase in grade.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
|
·
|
Mineralized material produced from development activities during the pre-production phase that is below the Cdn$180/t NSR cut-off value has been considered as waste. There may be an opportunity to stockpile this material for future processing depending on both the mine and mill ramp up performance. Considering sunk costs, a marginal NSR cut-off value of $40/t to cover milling costs and some rehandling costs would be appropriate.
|
|
·
|
A conservative view has been taken for the mining recovery and suitable stope dimensions in proximity to the Brucejack Fault. Further drilling as level development approaches the Fault Zone may assist in the identification of areas where less conservative assumptions could provide better results.
|
|
·
|
If development advance targets are not achieved during the pre-production phase, the ramp-up schedule to full production may be compromised.
|
|
·
|
The ability to achieve full production in the early years of mine life is dependent on the development of infrastructure for both the VOK lower block and the VOK middle block. This infrastructural waste development program must be realized in an environment of competing priorities.
|
|
·
|
The Brucejack orebody hosts multiple economic lenses in close proximity to each other creating both mine sequence related and geotechnical complexity. Definition drilling and Mineral Resource modelling must precede mining in a timely manner or the loss of resources and/or an increase in ore dilution could occur.
|
25.4
|
Project Infrastructure
|
25.4.1
|
Avalanche Hazard Assessment
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
25.4.2
|
Transmission Line
|
|
·
|
The preferred route for the transmission line is along the moderate slopes on the west side of the Salmon Glacier valley. These slopes have exposed or near surface bedrock along most of the route, along with short and sparse tree cover. No harvesting activities exist in the area, although a number of mining exploration trails exist near the southernmost portion of the transmission route.
|
|
·
|
Although road access exists to the old Granduc Mine site, the best route for the transmission line is higher on the slopes. No road access exists from the Granduc Mine site to the terminus of the Knipple Glacier. Given the lack of road access along the route, helicopter construction is a means to eliminate the need for road access along the route.
|
|
·
|
Helicopter construction and near-surface bedrock are favourable constraints for a steel monopole design for the transmission towers. Such a design will also lengthen the conductor span between towers and eliminate the need for road access, thus reducing the construction costs. Detailed topography and further engineering along the route could well provide the basis for lengthening the spans and decreasing the number of structures, resulting in lesser costs for the line.
|
|
·
|
A review of the site conditions along the route concluded that the subsurface conditions and upslope snow avalanche hazards can be mitigated through detailed design and construction measures, as well as operational requirements.
|
25.4.3
|
Geotechnical
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
25.4.4
|
Waste Rock Disposal
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
25.4.5
|
Brucejack Lake Outflow Monitoring and Suspended Solids Control
|
25.4.6
|
Water Management Plan
|
|
·
|
the upper laydown area where the waste rock transfer and pre-production ore will be stored
|
|
·
|
the mill building and portal site which requires an extensive cut into bedrock, some of which is currently assumed to be potentially acid-generating material
|
|
·
|
groundwater seepage to the underground mine tunnels.
|
|
·
|
treated underground seepage water
|
|
·
|
ore moisture (approximately 5% by weight)
|
|
·
|
reclaim from the lake.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
25.4.7
|
Hydrogeological Assessment
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
25.4.8
|
Tailings Delivery System
|
25.5
|
Environmental
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
25.5.1
|
Geochemistry
|
|
·
|
The ABA assessments of waste rock according to geological model units and lithology groupings both show the majority of waste rock at Brucejack is PAG material, with the exception of one geological model unit and one lithological group:
|
|
·
|
The Office P1 unit contains predominantly non-PAG waste rock, as per results from frequency analyses conducted on waste rock static tests.
|
|
·
|
Mafic volcanics are generally non-PAG material, as 83% of samples submitted for static testing present NPR values greater than 2.
|
|
·
|
The VSF, Fragmental and Conglomerate units account for 85% of the total generated waste rock and contain 77 to 85% PAG material. These three geological model units constitute 87% and 88% of the waste rock destined for the underground mine and Brucejack Lake, respectively.
|
|
·
|
Due to the absence of a clear distinction in ABA characteristics between lithology groups or geological units it is difficult to propose recommendations for waste rock segregation. Exceptions to this general observation are the andesites from the VSF and Fragmental units that clearly have different ABA characteristics.
|
|
·
|
Materials with the shortest lag times (less than 15 years) typically have paste pH values below 7, very low NP values (5 to 15 kg CaCO3/t) and high sulphide-S values (3 to 8%) and weather readily and quickly.
|
|
·
|
The elements As, Cd, Cu, Pb, Se and Zn are considered parameters of concern (POCs), based on leachate concentrations from humidity cells and field barrels containing waste rock.
|
|
·
|
Subaqueous columns with waste rock show elevated leachate concentrations of As, Sb, Mo, Se and Zn, which may be a concern under more reducing conditions.
|
|
·
|
Only ore and sludge samples are characterized as PAG materials, whereas tailings and paste samples are considered non-PAG materials.
|
|
·
|
Based on the humidity cells and subaqueous column tests, tailings are not expected to generate ARD.
|
|
·
|
POCs in the leachates from humidity cells and subaqueous columns with tailings are As, Sb, Mo and Se.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
26.0
|
RECOMENDATIONS
|
26.1
|
Geology
|
|
·
|
Extend a ramp down to the 1,260 m level and open up that level to provide access to complete high density definition drilling down dip of the current underground drilling and along trend to the east.
|
|
·
|
Extend a ramp up to the 1,410 m level and open that level to provide access to complete high density definition drilling up dip of the current underground drilling and along strike to the west.
|
|
·
|
Extend the 1,260 m level approximately 400 m to the east and complete resource definition drilling of the far eastern Inferred Resources.
|
|
·
|
Take into account orientation bias associated with variable vein directions in the mineralized stockwork system, when planning further drilling programs.
|
|
·
|
$9.0 million for development of 500 m of access ramp and lateral drift
|
|
·
|
$3.5 million for drilling of 15,000 m of underground drilling off the access drift.
|
26.2
|
Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing
|
26.3
|
Market Studies and Contracts
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
26.4
|
Mining Methods
|
|
·
|
Average LOM operational costs have been estimated at Cdn$163.05/t. The NSR cut-off value of Cdn$180/t used in estimating Mineral Reserves has an average Cdn$16.95/t operational margin for ore mined. Currently, the deposit has not been optimized with regards to overall project value or in terms of other key metrics such as cash flow using cut-off value. AMC recommends further study work on NSR cut-off value optimization. Budgetary estimates for this optimization work are Cdn$40,000.
|
|
·
|
Opportunities to improve the grade profile in the early years of operation should be investigated through further analysis. This analysis has an estimated cost of Cdn$30,000.
|
|
·
|
Opportunities exist to reduce the ventilation requirement by adopting the CANMET ventilation recommendations for the underground diesel equipment fleet. This could lead to savings in mine power and air heating costs. The estimated cost for this work is Cdn$10,000.
|
|
·
|
Further test work is recommended to identify the potential benefit of light classification of paste backfill by cycloning. Cycloning has the potential to remove clays and result in the production of a coarser particle size distribution to improve the filtering process and give a higher-quality paste. The estimated cost for this work is Cdn$10,000.
|
|
·
|
Further test work using locally available binders, preferably slag based cement, should be undertaken to determine the appropriate cement dosages for paste backfill. Both local or international suppliers of high slag based cement capable of supplying the required quantities should be contacted. The estimated cost for this work is Cdn$35,000.
|
26.4.1
|
Geotechnical
|
|
·
|
An authoritative structural geology model for the Project area has not yet been developed. BGC generated a structural model based on historic maps, a limited review of historic drillhole data, and a structural geologic report generated for an adjacent property. BGC assumed that the Brucejack Fault Zone is the only major structure that intercepts the proposed mining footprint. The geotechnical reliability of the underground designs could be improved if further geological modelling work could define the location, orientation, and geotechnical characteristics of major geologic structures.
|
|
·
|
The lack of a West Zone geology model and lack of in situ stress data limits the potential of the MAP3D model. Additional refinement of inputs, and calibration to underground observations, are required before quantitative characterization of the rock mass response is possible. This would allow optimization of excavation and pillar dimensions and associated ground support.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
|
·
|
The stope dimensions provided in this report assume stope-scale geologic structures are present sub-parallel to the stope walls. As additional exploration drillholes are drilled, a structural model is developed for the Property, and particularly as additional underground developments are exposed, the structural database and subsequent structural domains should be reviewed to refine the assumptions inherent in the stope span recommendations. Tighter definition of structural domains may allow less-conservative assumptions with respect to stope-scale structure, with a subsequent increase in recommended maximum stope spans.
|
|
·
|
The proposed portal site has moved approximately 60 m to the west since the feasibility study site investigations were completed. Therefore, there is no site-specific geotechnical data available for the proposed location shown in the feasibility study update mine plan. The portal excavation design and ground support recommendations assume that the rock mass at the proposed locations is of similar quality as the rock mass encountered in the two drill holes completed at the original feasibility study portal site. Overburden thickness estimates based on those holes should not be used for material takeoff estimates for the new location.
|
|
·
|
Eight to ten geotechnical drillholes should be completed, with the associated data used to confirm the geological interpretations and the geotechnical parameters of the rock mass for final design. The program should include packer testing above, below and across/within faults or geologic contacts. Key areas include the Brucejack Fault Zone, the proposed underground crusher excavation, exhaust raise developments, the West Zone ramp, and the new proposed portal site. Laboratory testing should focus on samples within the VOK D1 domain, the weathered rock zone, and fault zones, as these geotechnical units are under-represented in the current testing database.
|
|
·
|
Additional refinements are required for the 3D geological model of the VOK Zone, and a 3D geological model should be developed for the West Zone. Further work should also be completed on the interpretation and modelling of large and intermediate scale faults. The presence of unknown major structures or splays off the Brucejack Fault Zone has the potential to significantly affect rock mass stability. The updated model should be reviewed to determine if updates to the geotechnical assessments are required.
|
|
·
|
Numerical stress modeling has identified potential instability zones in stope clusters around the sill pillars and the crown pillar. The model should be updated with the West Zone geology model, in situ stress measurements, and a detailed stope-by-stope extraction plan, all of which are currently unavailable. The updated model should be calibrated using any ground deformation observations recorded during development or sampling activities. The calibration data can then be used to increase confidence in the modelling results. This will facilitate a more detailed study of the mine sequencing effects on the rock mass stability, including pillars, stope hanging walls, mine abutments, and excavations through the Brucejack Fault Zone.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
26.4.2
|
Hydrogeological Recommendations
|
|
·
|
Further investigation of hydraulic conductivities (K) in the area of the Brucejack Fault is recommended to support the distribution of K in the model and inform fault-related sensitivity analyses. Additional packer testing is recommended for additional geotechnical boreholes targeting the Brucejack Fault as part of the detailed design.
|
|
·
|
Inflow estimates are sensitive to the hydraulic properties of the project area bedrock as well as recharge applied to the model. Further consideration should be given to, and potentially further investigation made of, glacial contributions to baseflow and groundwater recharge.
|
|
·
|
The current model does not include the potential lake outlet structure. The next phase of modeling should include the effects of this structure, if it is carried into the detailed design, which, depending upon how it is operated, could alter the elevation of Brucejack Lake and potentially local groundwater flow conditions.
|
26.5
|
Project Infrastructure
|
26.5.1
|
Avalanche Hazard Assessment
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
|
Table 26.1
|
Brucejack Avalanche Management Program Components
|
Component
|
Inputs to Capital
Cost Estimate
|
Inputs to Operating
Cost Estimate
|
Comments
|
Personal protective equipment
|
Avalanche transceivers
|
Maintenance and replacement as required
|
Numbers of PPE should include enough for all personnel that are working in or transiting avalanche hazard areas
|
Avalanche rescue equipment
|
Avalanche rescue caches
Mobile avalanche rescue packs
|
Maintenance and replacement as required
|
Up to four avalanche rescue caches located in strategic locations
|
Explosives program
|
Two explosives magazines
Two pneumatic explosive launchers (avalaunchers) mounted on mobile platforms
|
Explosives and associated materials
|
Magazines located in strategic locations – most likely one magazine at mine site, and one in Bowser Valley
|
Remote telemetry weather stations
|
Two weather stations (Bowser Valley and ridge top location)
|
Maintenance of all associated equipment
|
Optimal locations of weather stations to be determined before or during mine start up
|
Tracked snow vehicles
|
One tracked vehicle with enclosed cab
|
Maintenance
|
Snowmobiles optional
|
|
·
|
The area affected by icefall hazard at Path AR8 should receive constant monitoring throughout the winter, and be regularly controlled using explosives to limit the chance of large icefall events impacting a vehicle.
|
|
·
|
The segment of the access road which transits the Knipple Glacier should be re-assessed on a regular basis due to the effects of glacial recession on avalanche runout distance on the glacier.
|
|
·
|
During winter, snow berms should be constructed in areas at the mine site affected by short slopes or avalanches to Size 2, in order to reduce the frequency of small avalanches reaching facilities.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
|
·
|
Transmission line structures (towers) should be located away from avalanche paths in order to reduce the requirement for avalanche mitigation. If this is not possible, additional analysis should be completed to determine the most optimal mitigation option. Mitigation may include designing towers for avalanche impact, diversion structures, or earthworks upslope of the tower.
|
|
·
|
The final design of the transmission line should involve collaboration with an Avalanche Specialist in order to optimize structure (tower) and conductor locations.
|
|
·
|
Construction of the transmission line during avalanche season should include an avalanche management program to reduce risk to personnel and infrastructure.
|
|
·
|
Any changes to layout of facilities and roads should be re-assessed for avalanche hazard.
|
26.5.2
|
Transmission Line
|
|
·
|
Specialized steel structures should be used to allow for longer spans and limit the number of structures. This will reduce the overall cost of the transmission line, and allow for spanning of many snow avalanche areas along the route.
|
|
·
|
An active snow avalanche program must be used to manage the operational risk for personnel around snow avalanches to the transmission line. Snow avalanches, particularly on the east side of the Salmon Glacier valley, may pose a risk to the transmission line. In this area, towers will be located outside the snow avalanche zones to limit the risk of impact from snow avalanches.
|
|
·
|
Careful planning as well as detailed design and construction will be required to maximize the relatively short construction season and the use of helicopters for construction of the transmission line. Receiving construction permits late and/or unfavourable weather will significantly affect the construction schedule and limit the ability to construct the line to meet the target in-service date for mine operations. Such planning and design are best carried out by staff who have considerable experience in the planning, design, and construction of transmission lines in the terrain of the BC Northwest.
|
26.5.3
|
Geotechnical
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
|
·
|
Additional investigations (e.g. geotechnical drilling and test pit excavations) to further evaluate subsurface conditions within the footprints of: all the mine site roads and development areas (i.e. the “pads”); all mine site facilities, including the truck shop, operations camp, substation, explosive storage, and detonator storage; the Knipple Transfer area; and any borrow sources. Further investigations may also be required if any changes are made to the proposed layout of the mine site infrastructure.
|
|
·
|
Laboratory testing of rock and overburden samples to further evaluate the properties and behaviour of these materials.
|
26.5.4
|
Waste Rock Disposal
|
|
·
|
Point load testing and laboratory analyses of drill core obtained from the quarry to further evaluate the intact strength of the bedrock. This will provide blast designers with more detailed information for their designs.
|
|
·
|
Trial crushing to assess fines generation from the quarry rock types.
|
|
·
|
Based on available information for the site, the quarry is located between two areas identified as avalanche hazard zones. A study should be completed to assess if the quarry location is susceptible to potential avalanches.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
26.5.5
|
Tailings Delivery System
|
|
·
|
Tailings slurry rheology should be determined over a range of solids concentrations from at least as low as 35% solids by weight. The estimated cost for this work is $10,000.
|
|
·
|
If discharge of tailings as a paste to Brucejack Lake is contemplated then a design needs to be developed including investigation of the behaviour of paste flow under water and the transport of tailings fines to the surface during lake turnover. The design should include the configuration of a paste discharge system, system hydraulics and flushing, start-up and shut-down procedures.
|
26.5.6
|
Brucejack Lake Outflow Monitoring Weir
|
26.5.7
|
Water Management Plan
|
|
·
|
Existing climate and hydrometric stations must continue to be monitored and maintained with an appropriate level of quality control. The data from the climate and hydrometric stations near Brucejack Lake should be reviewed during the next stage of engineering design to confirm assumptions being used for precipitation and runoff.
|
|
·
|
There is currently uncertainty with the watershed area reporting to BJL-H1. If the watershed area was only 8.5 km2, the implication is that average precipitation at site is on the order of 2560 mm, rather than the current estimate of 1900 mm to 2040 mm. This difference in precipitation would not invalidate the water balance model or water quality results summarized here-in, as the model is calibrated to streamflow, not precipitation. However, confidence in the site precipitation estimates is important for evaluating peak flows and runoff volumes for drainage ditches and collection ponds. Therefore, it is recommended that a site visit be conducted in June 2014 to evaluate runoff patterns at the east end of Brucejack Lake. The purpose of the site visit would be to try and confirm the watershed area reporting to BJL-H1.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
26.5.8
|
Mill Site Layout
|
|
·
|
further defined schedule constraints
|
|
·
|
coordination with mining to review re-alignment of the portals.
|
26.6
|
Environmental
|
|
·
|
The completion of other permitting requirements including major permits under the Mines Act and Environmental Management Act, among others (estimated cost at $2 million).
|
|
·
|
The development of a five year, detailed reclamation and closure plan in conjunction with Mines Act permitting. The detailed reclamation and closure plan will require a final site plan and a detailed description of the various facilities and activities that will occur in the first five years of the Project starting with the Construction phase,
|
|
·
|
The continuation with the consultation and the development of a good working relationships with local First Nations including the Skii km Lax Ha and Tahltan First Nation as well as the Nisga’a Nation.
|
26.6.1
|
Geochemistry
|
|
·
|
The ROM waste (tailings and waste rock) and the waste rock from the plant site (construction) destined for (1) the underground mine and (2) Brucejack Lake, will need to be sampled for an assessment of the ARD potential (PAG or non-PAG material).
|
|
·
|
On-site monitoring of quarry excavation will identify any changes to bulk lithology and (potentially) its ML/ARD characteristics. In scenarios of observed changes additional samples of excavated quarry material will be collected and submitted for static testing, to continually validate its characterization as a non-PAG rock source for construction at the Project site and update (if required) quarry source terms used in the water quality model.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
|
·
|
Ongoing kinetic tests (of waste rock and tailings) need to be continued to provide better steady state chemistry data for an update of the source terms used in the water quality model.
|
|
·
|
The sampling and chemical analysis of underground seeps (groundwater) and sumps (mine water) should continue during mining for an update of the source terms used in the water quality model.
|
|
·
|
The sludge produced by the upgraded Water Treatment Plant (WTP) should be tested (static tests, mineralogy, SFEs and columns) and the data should be used to validate the ML/ARD characteristics for the detrital component of sludge, as well as characterize the secondary mineral precipitate component of sludge materials. Additionally, this data will inform whether the tailings source term used in the water quality model will need to be updated to account for the incorporation of sludge materials with tailings destined for subaqueous disposal in Brucejack Lake.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
27.0
|
REFERENCES
|
27.1
|
Avalanche Hazard Assessment
|
|
Alpine Solutions Avalanche Services (ASAS), 2012. Brucejack Avalanche Hazard Assessment and Risk Analysis. Draft Memorandum submitted May 31, 2012.
|
|
Alpine Solutions Avalanche Services, 2013. Pretivm Inc. – Brucejack Project Avalanche Hazard Assessment. June 5, 2013.
|
|
Canadian Avalanche Association (CAA), 2002. Guidelines for Snow Avalanche Risk Determination and Mapping in Canada. McClung, D.M., Stethem, P. A. Schaerer, and J.B. Jamieson (eds.), Canadian Avalanche Association, 23 pp.
|
|
McClung, D.M., and Schaerer, P.A., 2006. The Avalanche Handbook. 3rd Edition. Seattle, Washington. The Mountaineers.
|
|
Mears, A., 1992, Snow-Avalanche Hazard Analysis for Land Use Planning and Engineering. Colorado Geological Survey Bulletin Department of Natural Resources, Denver, Colorado.
|
27.2
|
Internal Site Roads and Pad Areas
|
|
Transportation Association of Canada, 1999. Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads. September 1999, updated December 2011.
|
27.3
|
Brucejack Lake Outflow Monitoring Weir and Suspended Solids Control
|
|
BGC Engineering Inc., 2013. Brucejack Lake Outlet Control Structure – Scoping Level Study. June 2013.
|
|
BGC Engineering Inc., 2014a. Brucejack Project 2013 Site Investigation for the Proposed Outlet Control Structure. Report prepared for Pretium Resources Inc., April 2014.
|
|
BGC Engineering Inc., 2014b. Brucejack Project – Brucejack Lake Outlet Control. Memorandum prepared for Pretium Resources Inc., June 2014.
|
|
BGC Engineering Inc., 2014c. Brucejack Project – Brucejack Lake Outlet Stability. Memorandum prepared for Pretium Resources Inc., June 2014.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
|
BGC Engineering Inc. 2014. Brucejack Lake Outlet Control. Project Memorandum prepared for Pretivm Resources Inc. June 9, 2014.
|
|
Lorax Environmental Services Ltd. 2014. Brucejack Gold Project: Water Quality Predictions for Construction, Operations and Post-Closure Mine Phases. Report Prepared for Pretivm Exploration Inc. June 3, 2014.
|
27.4
|
Geotechnical
|
|
BGC Engineering Inc., 2014. Feasibility Level Geotechnical Analysis and Design of the Plant Site Foundations. April 30, 2014.
|
27.5
|
Waste Rock Disposal
|
|
BGC Engineering Inc., 2014. Geotechnical Stability Assessment of Waste Rock Deposition in Brucejack Lake. April 30, 2014.
|
27.5.1
|
Quarry
|
|
BGC Engineering Inc., 2014. Geotechnical Analysis and Design of the Quarry Excavation. April 28, 2014.
|
27.6
|
Water Management
|
|
BGC Engineering Inc., 2014. Brucejack Project Environmental Assessment, Water Management Plan. Report prepared for Pretium Resources Inc., June 2014.
|
|
BGC Engineering Inc., 2014. Brucejack Project 2013 Site Investigation for the Proposed Outlet Control Structure. Report prepared for Pretium Resources Inc., April 2014.
|
|
BGC Engineering Inc., 2014. Brucejack Project – Brucejack Lake Outlet Control. Memorandum prepared for Pretium Resources Inc., June 2014.
|
|
BGC Engineering Inc., 2014. Brucejack Project – Brucejack Lake Outlet Stability. Memorandum prepared for Pretium Resources Inc., June 2014.
|
|
Environment Canada, 2012. Climatic Design Data for Brucejack Project. Prepared for Tetra Tech, May 2012. Document No. TetraBCKenNg20120515 F-15349.
|
|
Wang, T., Hamann, A, Spittlehouse, DL, Murdock, T. 2012. ClimateWNA - High-Resolution Spatial Climate Data for Western North America. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 51, 16-29.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
27.7
|
Environmental
|
|
BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. Forest Practices Code Biodiversity Guidebook. 1995.
|
27.7.1
|
Water Quality
|
|
British Columbia Ministry of Environment Water Quality Guidelines for Protection of Freshwater Aquatic Life and Drinking Water (BC MOE 2010) - accessed May 2014.
|
|
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, 2012b. Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life. - accessed May 2014.
|
|
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. 2013. Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines. Guidelines for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement for an environmental assessment conducted pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012. Brucejack Gold Mine Project. Pretium Resources Inc. May 24, 2013.
|
|
Government of Canada, Metal Mining Effluent Regulations, 2013. Published by the Minister of Justice, Canada. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2002-222/.
|
|
Lorax (2013). Hydrodynamic Modelling of Brucejack Lake: Effect of Proposed Tailings Discharge. Prepared for Pretivm Resources Inc.
|
|
Lorax (2014). Brucejack Gold Project: Water Quality Predictions for Construction Operations and Post-Closure Mine Phases. Prepared for Pretivm Resources Inc.
|
|
Pretium Resources Inc. 2014. Brucejack Gold Mine Project Application Information Requirements As Approved by Environmental Assessment Office on May 2, 2014.
|
27.7.2
|
Acid Rock Drainage/Metal Leaching
|
|
BGC (2014a). Brucejack Environmental Assessment – ML/ARD Baseline Report. Prepared for Pretivm Resouces Inc. June, 2014, 477p.
|
|
BGC (2014b). Brucejack Environmental Assessment – ML/ARD Management Plan. Prepared for Pretivm Resources Inc. June 2014, 88p.
|
27.8
|
Mining
|
|
Ghaffari, H., Huang, J, Pelletier, P., Armstrong, T., Brown, F.H., Newcomen, H.W., Weatherly, H., Logue, C., Mokos, P. 2011: Technical Report and Preliminary Economic Assessment of the Brucejack Project. NI43-101 Technical Report prepared for Pretium Resources Inc., by Tetra Tech, Wardrop, P&E Mining Consultants Inc., BGC Engineering Inc., Rescan Environmental Services Ltd., AMC Mining Consultants (Canada) Ltd. 309pp. Effective Date 3 Jun 2011.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
|
Ghaffari, H., Huang, J., Hafez, S. A., Pelletier, P., Armstrong, T., Brown, F.H., Vallat, C.J., Newcomen, H.W., Weatherly, H., Wilchek, L., Mokos, P. 2012: Technical Report and Updated Preliminary Economic Assessment of the Brucejack Project. NI43-101 Technical Report prepared for Pretium Resources Inc., by Tetra Tech, Wardrop, Rescan Environmental Services Ltd., P&E Mining Consultants Inc., Geospark Consulting Inc., BGC Engineering Inc., AMC Mining Consultants (Canada) Ltd. 328pp. Effective Date 20 Feb 2012.
|
|
Ireland, D., Jones, I.W.O., Huang, J., Pelletier, P., Weatherly, H., Stoyko, H.W., Hafez, S.A., Keogh, C., Schmid, C., Cullen, V., McGuiness, M., McAfee, B., Chin, M., Gould, B., Wise, M., Greisman, P., Richards, C., Scott, W.E., Farah, A., Halisheff, K., Sriskandafumar, S., and Molavi, M., 2013. Feasibility Study and Technical Report on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC. Tetra Tech NI 43-101 Technical Report for Pretium Resources. Effective Date June 21, 2013. 492 pp.
|
27.9
|
Mining Geotechnical
|
|
Bieniawski, Z.T. 1976. Rock mass classification in rock engineering. In Exploration for rock engineering, proc. of the symp., (ed. Z.T. Bieniawski) 1, 97-106. Cape Town: Balkema.
|
|
ERSi (Earth Resource Surveys Inc.), 2010. KSM Project Area Structural Geology Assessment - Draft.
|
|
Grimstad, E. and Barton, N., 1993. Updating of the Q-system for NMT. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Sprayed Concrete. Modern Use of Wet Mix Sprayed Concrete for Underground Support, Fagemes. Norwegian Concrete Association, Oslo.
|
|
Hudyma, M.R., 1988. Development of Empirical Rib Pillar Design Criterion for Open Stope Mining. M.A.Sc. Thesis, University of British Columbia.
|
|
International Society for Rock Mechanics (ISRM), 1978. Suggested Method for Quantitative Description of Discontinuities in Rock Masses.
|
|
International Society of Rock Mechanics (ISRM), 1985. Suggested Method for Determining Point Load Strength.
|
|
Mine Modelling Pty. Ltd., 2013. MAP3D software. www.map3d.com
|
|
Rocscience Inc., 2003. Unwedge Version 3.0 – Underground Wedge Stability Analysis. www.rocscience.com, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
|
|
Silver Standard Resources Inc., 2010. Brucejack Fault surface. Provided via email in DXF format. May 21, 2010.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
27.10
|
Geology
|
|
Budinski D., McKnight R and Wallis C. 2001. Sulphurets-Bruceside Property British Columbia technical report. Pincock Allen & Holt Ltd. report for Silver Standard Resources.
|
|
Evenchick, C.A., McMechan, M.E., McNicoll, V.J., and Carr, S.D., 2007. A synthesis of the Jurassic-Cretaceous tectonic evolution of the central and southeastern Canadian Cordillera: Exploring links across the orogen, In: J.A. Sears, T.A. Harms, and C.A. Evenchick (Eds.), Whence the Mountains?: Inquiries Into the Evolution of Orogenic Systems: A Volume in Honor of Raymond A. Price, Special paper 433, The Geological Society of America, Boulder, Colorado, 419pp.
|
|
Gagnon, J.-F., Barresi, T., Waldron, J.W.F., Nelson, J.L., Poulton, T.P., and Cordey, F., 2012. Stratigraphy of the upper Hazelton Group and the Jurassic evolution of the Stikine terrane, British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 49(9): 1027-1052.
|
|
Ghaffari, H., Huang, J., Pelletier, P., Armstrong, T., Brown, F., Newcomen, H.W., Wetherly, H., Logue, C., and Mokos, P., 2011. Technical Report and Preliminary Economic Assessment of the Brucejack Project. Wardrop NI 43-101 Technical Report for Pretium Resources Inc., Effective Date June 3, 2011. 309 pp.
|
|
Ireland, D., Jones, I.W.O., Huang, J., Pelletier, P., Weatherly, H., Stoyko, H.W., Hafez, S.A., Keogh, C., Schmid, C., Cullen, V., McGuiness, M., McAfee, B., Chin, M., Gould, B., Wise, M., Greisman, P., Richards, C., Scott, W.E., Farah, A., Halisheff, K., Sriskandafumar, S., and Molavi, M., 2013. Feasibility Study and Technical Report on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC. Tetra Tech NI 43-101 Technical Report for Pretium Resources. Effective Date June 21, 2013. 492 pp.
|
|
Jones, I. 2012a. Pretium Resources Inc: Brucejack Project, Mineral Resources Update Technical Report. NI43-101 technical report prepared by Snowden Mining Industry Consultants on behalf of Pretium Resources Inc. 3 April 2012.
|
|
Jones, I. 2012b. Pretium Resources Inc: Brucejack Project, Mineral Resources Update Technical Report. NI43-101 technical report prepared by Snowden Mining Industry Consultants on behalf of Pretium Resources Inc. 18 September 2012.
|
|
Jones, I. 2013. Pretium Resources Inc: Brucejack Project, Mineral Resources Update Technical Report. NI43-101 technical report prepared by Snowden Mining Industry Consultants on behalf of Pretium Resources Inc. 19 December 2013.
|
|
Kirkham, R.V. and Margolis, J. 1995. Overview of the Sulphurets area, northwestern British Columbia, in: .Porphyry Deposits of the Northwestern Cordillera of North America. CIMM Special Volume 46, T.G. Schroeter, ed., p. 473-482.
|
|
Nelson, J., and Colpron, M., 2007. Tectonics and metallogeny of the British Columbia, Yukon and Alaskan Cordil¬lera, 1.8 Ga to the present. In: Goodfellow, W.D., ed.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
|
Mineral Deposits of Canada: A Synthesis of Major Deposit-Types, District Metallogeny, the Evolution of Geological Provinces, and Exploration Methods. Geological Associa¬tion of Canada, Mineral Deposits Division, Special Publication No. 5, pp. 755-791.
|
|
Nelson, J., Colpron, M., and Israel, S. 2013. The Cordillera of British Columbia, Yukon, and Alaska: Tectonics and Metallogeny. In: Colpron, M., Bissig, T., Rusk, B.G., and Thompson, J.F.H., eds. Tectonics, Metallogeny and Discovery: The North American Cordillera and Similar Accretionary Settings. Society of Economic Geologists, Special Publication No. 17, pp. 53-109.
|
|
Wardrop Engineering Inc., 2010. Technical Report and Preliminary Assessment of the Snowfield-Brucejack Project Document No. 1053750400-REP-R0001-04.
|
|
Highway 37: http://www.highway37.com
|
|
Infomine: http://www.infomine.com
|
|
Seabridge Gold Inc.: http://www.seabridgegold.net
|
|
Teuton Resources Corporation: http://www.teuton.com
|
|
American Creek Resources Ltd.: http://www.americancreek.com
|
27.11
|
Metallurgy and Recovery Methods
|
|
Cominco Engineering Services Ltd, March 1990. Feasibility Study Sulphurets Property Newhawk Gold Mines Ltd.
|
|
Contract Support Services, Inc. November 29, 2012. JK Simulation Results for Brucejack Project.
|
|
Dawson Metallurgical Laboratories, FLSmidth Ltd, May 29, 2014. Letter Report - Brucejack Tabling and Smelting
|
|
F. Wright Consulting Inc., February 08, 2013. Metallurgical Data - Brucejack Gold Silver Project.
|
|
F. Wright Consulting Inc., May 7, 2013. Gravity/Flotation Response - Valley of the Kings, Brucejack Project.
|
|
F. Wright Consulting Inc., June 10, 2014. Low Grade Response - Valley of the Kings, Brucejack Project.
|
|
FLSmidth Knelson, A Division of FLSmidth Ltd., August 09, 2012. Gravity Test Work Report.
|
|
FLSmidth Knelson, A Division of FLSmidth Ltd., July 11, 2012. Gravity Modeling Report.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
|
Gekko Systems Pty Ltd. May 06, 2014, Brucejack Python Study Update
|
|
Gekko Systems Pty Ltd. April 28, 2014, Metallurgical Testwork Reports (Low Grade, Medium and High Grade Samples)
|
|
Hazen Research Inc., July 13, 2012. Comminution Testing with SMC Results.
|
|
Joe Zhou Mineralogy Ltd., February 20, 2012. Deportment Study of Gold and Silver in Cyanide Leach Residues from Brucejack Lake Project, Part I, Part II and Part III.
|
|
Metallurgical Division at Inspectorate America Corp., December 2009 to July 2010. Data Reports.
|
|
Metallurgical Division at Inspectorate America Corp., September 2010 to April 2011. Data Reports.
|
|
Metallurgical Division at Inspectorate Exploration and Mining Services Ltd., May 15, 2014. Mineralogical Assessments on the Process Stream Samples.
|
|
Met-Solve Laboratories Inc., July 10, 2012. Gravity Test Report - MS1399.
|
|
Met-Solve Laboratories Inc., March 14, 2013. Gravity Circuit Modeling - MS1418.
|
|
Met-Solve Laboratories Inc., May 21, 2014. Letter Report - MS1542.
|
|
Met-Solve Laboratories Inc., June 02, 2014. Letter Report - MS1542.
|
|
Pocock Industrial, Inc., November 2012. Sample Characterization, Particle Size Analysis, Flocculant Screening, Gravity Sedimentation, Pulp Rheology/Paste Vacuum Filtration and Pressure Filtration Studies.
|
|
Process Mineralogical Consulting Ltd., June 01, 2012. A Mineralogical Description of Six Samples from the Brucejack Project, Northwestern British Columbia.
|
27.12
|
Capital Cost Estimate
|
|
Adventurine Engineering Inc., Mine and Mill Equipment Costs, An Estimators Guide (2012) published by InfoMine USA Inc., CostMine Division.
|
|
Page, John S., Estimator’s General Construction Man-Hour Manual, Second Edition, 1999, Butterworth-Hinemann, ISBN-12: 978-0-87201-320-9.
|
|
Page, John S., Estimator’s Equipment Installation Man-Hour Manual, Third Edition, 1999, Gulf Professional Publishing, ISBN-13: 978-0-88415-287-3.
|
|
Page, John S., Estimator’s Piping Man-Hour Manual, Fifth Edition, 1999, Butterworth-Heinemann/(originally published by Gulf Publishing Company), ISBN-13: 978-0-88415-259-0.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
|
Petroleum Human Resources Council 2014 (Enform, BuildForce Canada, Construction Owners Association of Alberta, Alberta Government), Oil Sands Construction, Maintenance and Operations Labour Demand Outlook to 2023.
|
|
Petroleum Human Resources Council 2014 (Enform, BuildForce Canada, Construction Owners Association of Alberta, Alberta Government), The Decade Ahead: Labour Market Outlook to 2022 for Canada’s Oil and Gas Industry.
|
|
RSMeans Costworks (2014), Reed Construction Data, Heavy Construction Cost Data (2014 Cost Data) Electronic Database.
|
|
Salzere, Krist Noyes (2010), Canadian Mines Salaries, Wages & Benefits, 2010 Survey Results, InfoMine USA, Inc.
|
27.13
|
Hydrogeological/Groundwater
|
|
BGC Engineering Inc., 2013. Brucejack Project Environmental Assessment – Numerical Hydrogeologic Model. June 18, 2013.
|
|
BGC Engineering Inc., 2014. Brucejack Project Environmental Assessment – Numerical Hydrogeologic Model. June 6, 2014.
|
|
BGC Engineering Inc. 2014. Brucejack Project Environmental Assessment - Hydrogeology Baseline Report. June 13, 2014.
|
|
Environmental Simulations Inc. 2011. Groundwater Vistas – Version 6. Available online at http://www.groundwatermodels.com/Groundwater_Vistas.php.
|
|
Harbaugh, A.W., E.R. Banta, M.C. Hill & M.G. McDonald. 2000. Modflow 2000. The U.S. Geological Survey Modular Ground-water Model – User Guide to the Modularization Concepts and Ground-water Flow Process. U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 00-92, 130 pp.
|
|
HydroGeoLogic Inc. 2012. Modflow-Surfact – A Code for Analyzing Subsurface Systems.http://www.hglsoftware.com/Modflow.cfm.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
28.0
|
CERTIFICATES OF QUALIFIED PERSONS
|
28.1
|
David Ireland, C.Eng., P.Eng.
|
|
·
|
I am a Senior Project Manager with Tetra Tech WEI Inc. with a business address at #800 – 555 West Hastings Street, Vancouver, British Columbia, V6B 1M1.
|
|
·
|
This certificate applies to the technical report entitled “Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC”, dated June 19, 2014 (the “Technical Report”).
|
|
·
|
I am a graduate of John Moores University in Liverpool, UK (B.Sc. Mechanical Engineering (Hon.), 1977). I am a member in good standing of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia, License #23419. My relevant experience is consulting engineering and project management for more than 30 years. I have been involved on projects throughout Canada, the UK, the US and Australia including the successful development of two major mine projects with capital expenditures exceeding $2.5 billion and a port selection study for an iron ore marine export facility with capital expenditures exceeding $4.5 billion. I am a “Qualified Person” for the purposes of National Instrument 43-101 (the “Instrument”).
|
|
·
|
My most recent personal inspection of the Property was August 7, 2012 for one day.
|
|
·
|
I am responsible for Sections 1.1, 1.8 (except 1.8.1 to 1.8.3), 1.13, 1.14, 2.0, 3.0, 18.1, 18.3, 18.8, 18.9, 18.10, 18.13, 18.14, 18.17.2, 18.7.3, 24.0, 25.4.5, 26.5.8, and 28.1 of the Technical Report.
|
|
·
|
I am independent of Pretium Resources Inc. as defined by Section 1.5 of the Instrument.
|
|
·
|
I have had prior involvement with the Property that is the subject of the Technical Report. I co-authored the Technical Report entitled “Feasibility Study and Technical Report on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC”, dated June 21, 2013.
|
|
·
|
I have read the Instrument and the sections of the Technical Report that I am responsible for has been prepared in compliance with the Instrument.
|
|
·
|
As of the date of this certificate, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the sections of the Technical Report that I am responsible for contains all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the Technical Report not misleading.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
Original document signed and sealed by
David Ireland, C.Eng., P.Eng.
|
David Ireland, C.Eng., P.Eng.
Senior Project Manager
Tetra Tech WEI Inc.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
28.2
|
Lynn Olssen, MAusIMM(CP)
|
|
·
|
I am a Senior Principal Consultant with Snowden Mining Industry Consultants Inc. with a business address at 87 Colin Street, West Perth, Western Australia, 6005.
|
|
·
|
This certificate applies to the technical report entitled “Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC”, dated June 19, 2014 (the “Technical Report”).
|
|
·
|
I am a graduate of The University of Western Australia, (1993). I am a member in good standing of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, member number 206421. My relevant experience is over 20 years in the mining industry including 7 years as a mine geologist working on gold deposits and 13 years as a consultant during which time I have worked on numerous resource estimates for stockwork and narrow vein gold deposits. I am a “Qualified Person” for the purposes of National Instrument 43-101 (the “Instrument”).
|
|
·
|
My most recent personal inspection of the Property was August 16, 2013 for five days.
|
|
·
|
I am responsible for the preparation of Sections 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 4.0 to 12.0, 14.0, 23.0, 25.1, 26.1, 27.10, and 28.2 of the Technical Report.
|
|
·
|
I am independent of Pretium Resources Inc. as defined by Section 1.5 of the Instrument.
|
|
·
|
I have had prior involvement with the Property that is the subject of the Technical Report. I co-authored the Technical Report entitled “Feasibility Study and Technical Report on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC”, dated June 21, 2013. Also, I have completed three prior technical reports dated April 30, 2012, September 18, 2012 and November 20, 2012. I have also reviewed a technical review prepared by Dr. W. Board of Snowden in 2010 and additional grade modelling work by Dr. Board during 2011.
|
|
·
|
I have read the Instrument and the sections of the Technical Report that I am responsible for has been prepared in compliance with the Instrument.
|
|
·
|
As of the date of this certificate, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the sections of the Technical Report that I am responsible for contains all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the Technical Report not misleading.
|
Original document signed and sealed by
Lynn Olssen, MAusIMM(CP)
|
Lynn Olssen, MAusIMM(CP)
Senior Principal Consultant
Snowden Mining Industry Consultants
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
28.3
|
John Huang, Ph.D., P.Eng.
|
|
·
|
I am a Senior Metallurgist with Tetra Tech WEI Inc. with a business address at #800 – 555 West Hastings Street, Vancouver, British Columbia, V6B 4N6.
|
|
·
|
This certificate applies to the technical report entitled “Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC”, dated June 19, 2014 (the “Technical Report”).
|
|
·
|
I am a graduate of North-East University (B.Eng., 1982), Beijing General Research Institute for Non-ferrous Metals (M.Eng., 1988), and Birmingham University (Ph.D., 2000). I am a member in good standing of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia, License #30898. My relevant experience with respect to mineral engineering includes more than 30 years of involvement in mineral process for base metal ores, gold and silver ores, and rare metal ores. I am a “Qualified Person” for the purposes of National Instrument 43-101 (the “Instrument”).
|
|
·
|
My most recent personal inspection of the Property was August 7, 2012 for one day.
|
|
·
|
I am responsible for Sections 1.5, 1.11, 13.0, 17.0, 19.0, 21.2 (except 21.2.2), 25.2, 26.2, 26.3, 27.11, and 28.3 of the Technical Report.
|
|
·
|
I am independent of Pretium Resources Inc. as defined by Section 1.5 of the Instrument.
|
|
·
|
I have had prior involvement with the Property that is the subject of the Technical Report. I co-authored the Technical Report entitled “Feasibility Study and Technical Report on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC”, dated June 21, 2013.
|
|
·
|
I have read the Instrument and the sections of the Technical Report that I am responsible for has been prepared in compliance with the Instrument.
|
|
·
|
As of the date of this certificate, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the sections of the Technical Report that I am responsible for contains all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the Technical Report not misleading.
|
Original document signed and sealed by
Jianhui (John) Huang, Ph.D., P.Eng.
|
Jianhui (John) Huang, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Senior Metallurgist
Tetra Tech WEI Inc.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
28.4
|
Pierre Pelletier, P.Eng.
|
|
·
|
I am the Division Managing Director of ERM Rescan with a business address at 1111 West Hastings Street, 15th Floor, Vancouver, British Columbia, V6E 2J3.
|
|
·
|
This certificate applies to the technical report entitled “Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC”, dated June 19, 2014 (the “Technical Report”).
|
|
·
|
I am a graduate of the University of Montana, Montana College of Mineral Science and Technology (Environmental Engineering, 1993). I am a member in good standing of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia, License #27928. My relevant experience is an environmental engineer with 20 years of experience in mining and the environment. Over the last 15 years, I have managed several environmental and social impact assessments. I have also permitted treatment plants and mine closure plans, led due diligences and environmental audits and I have been the “Qualified Person” for environmental and social aspects of several preliminary economic assessments, prefeasibility and feasibility studies. I am a “Qualified Person” for the purposes of National Instrument 43-101 (the “Instrument”).
|
|
·
|
My most recent personal inspection of the Property was August 7, 2012 for one day.
|
|
·
|
I am responsible for Sections 1.9, 20.0 (except 20.1.4, 20.1.5, and 20.1.7), 25.5 (except 25.5.1), 26.6 (except 26.6.1), 27.7 (except 27.7.1 and 27.7.2) and 28.4 of the Technical Report.
|
|
·
|
I am independent of Pretium Resources Inc. as defined by Section 1.5 of the Instrument.
|
|
·
|
I have had prior involvement with the Property that is the subject of the Technical Report. I co-authored the Technical Report entitled “Feasibility Study and Technical Report on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC”, dated June 21, 2013.
|
|
·
|
I have read the Instrument and the sections of the Technical Report that I am responsible for has been prepared in compliance with the Instrument.
|
|
·
|
As of the date of this certificate, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the sections of the Technical Report that I am responsible for contains all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the Technical Report not misleading.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
Original document signed and sealed by
Pierre Pelletier, P.Eng.
|
Pierre Pelletier, P.Eng.
Division Managing Director
ERM Rescan
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
28.5
|
Hamish Weatherly, M.Sc., P.Geo.
|
|
·
|
I am a Senior Hydrologist with BGC Engineering Inc. with a business address at Suite 800 – 1045 Howe Street, Vancouver, British Columbia, V6Z 2A9.
|
|
·
|
This certificate applies to the technical report entitled “Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC”, dated June 19, 2014 (the “Technical Report”).
|
|
·
|
I am a graduate of the University of British Columbia, (M.Sc., 1995). I am a member in good standing of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia, License #25567. My relevant experience is 18 years as a consultant specializing in water resources management. I am a “Qualified Person” for purposes of National Instrument 43-101 (the “Instrument”).
|
|
·
|
My most recent personal inspection of the Property was August 7, 2012 for one day.
|
|
·
|
I am responsible for Sections 20.1.3 (the Climate section only), 20.1.7, 25.4.6, 26.5.7, 27.6, and 28.5 of the Technical Report.
|
|
·
|
I am independent of Pretium Resources Inc. as defined by Section 1.5 of the Instrument.
|
|
·
|
I have had prior involvement with the Property that is the subject of the Technical Report. I co-authored the Technical Report entitled “Feasibility Study and Technical Report on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC”, dated June 21, 2013.
|
|
·
|
I have read the Instrument and the section of the Technical Report that I am responsible for has been prepared in compliance with the Instrument.
|
|
·
|
As of the date of this certificate, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the section of the Technical Report that I am responsible for contains all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the technical report not misleading.
|
Original document signed and sealed by
Hamish Weatherly, M.Sc., P.Geo.
|
Hamish Weatherly, M.Sc., P.Geo.
Senior Hydrologist
BGC Engineering Inc.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
28.6
|
Harvey Wayne Stoyko, P.Eng.
|
|
·
|
I am a Manager of Estimating with Tetra Tech WEI Inc. with a business address at #800 – 555 West Hastings Street, Vancouver, British Columbia, V6B 4N6.
|
|
·
|
This certificate applies to the technical report entitled “Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC”, dated June 19, 2014 (the “Technical Report”).
|
|
·
|
I am a graduate of the University of Saskatchewan (B.Sc. Mechanical Engineering, 1985). I am a member in good standing of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia, License #17092. My relevant experience with respect to mine development and costing includes over 20 years in mine expansion, capital cost engineering for both green and brownfield construction, planning, costing and execution of mine/concentrate handling facilities including plant, road, rail and port and the preparation of studies. I am a “Qualified Person” for the purposes of National Instrument 43-101 (the “Instrument”).
|
|
·
|
I did not complete a personal inspection of the Property.
|
|
·
|
I am responsible for Sections 1.10, 21.1, 27.12, and 28.6 of the Technical Report.
|
|
·
|
I am independent of Pretium Resources Inc. as defined by Section 1.5 of the Instrument.
|
|
·
|
I have had prior involvement with the Property that is the subject of the Technical Report. I co-authored the Technical Report entitled “Feasibility Study and Technical Report on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC”, dated June 21, 2013.
|
|
·
|
I have read the Instrument and the sections of the Technical Report that I am responsible for has been prepared in compliance with the Instrument.
|
|
·
|
As of the date of this certificate, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the sections of the Technical Report that I am responsible for contains all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the Technical Report not misleading.
|
Original document signed and sealed by
Harvey Wayne Stoyko, P.Eng.
|
Harvey Wayne Stoyko, P.Eng.
Manager of Estimating
Tetra Tech WEI Inc.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
28.7
|
Sabry Abdel Hafez, Ph.D., P.Eng.
|
|
·
|
I am a Senior Mining Engineer with Tetra Tech WEI Inc. with a business address at #800 – 555 West Hastings Street, Vancouver, British Columbia, V6B 4N6.
|
|
·
|
This certificate applies to the technical report entitled “Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC”, dated June 19, 2014 (the “Technical Report”).
|
|
·
|
I am a graduate of Assiut University (B.Sc Mining Engineering, 1991; M.Sc. in Mining Engineering, 1996; Ph.D. in Mineral Economics, 2000). I am a member in good standing of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia, License #34975. My relevant experience is in mine evaluation. I have more than 19 years of experience in the evaluation of mining projects, advanced financial analysis, and mine planning and optimization. My capabilities range from the conventional mine planning and evaluation to the advanced simulation-based techniques that incorporate both market and geological uncertainties. I have been involved in the technical studies of several base metals, gold, coal, and aggregate mining projects in Canada and abroad. I am a “Qualified Person” for the purposes of National Instrument 43-101 (the “Instrument”).
|
|
·
|
I did not complete a personal inspection of the Property.
|
|
·
|
I am responsible for Sections 1.12, 22.0, and 28.7 of the Technical Report.
|
|
·
|
I am independent of Pretium Resources Inc. as defined by Section 1.5 of the Instrument.
|
|
·
|
I have had prior involvement with the Property that is the subject of the Technical Report. I co-authored the Technical Report entitled “Feasibility Study and Technical Report on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC”, dated June 21, 2013.
|
|
·
|
I have read the Instrument and the sections of the Technical Report that I am responsible for has been prepared in compliance with the Instrument.
|
|
·
|
As of the date of this certificate, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the sections of the Technical Report that I am responsible for contains all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the Technical Report not misleading.
|
Original document signed and sealed by
Sabry Abdel Hafez, Ph.D., P.Eng.
|
Sabry Abdel Hafez, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Senior Mining Engineer
Tetra Tech WEI Inc.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
28.8
|
Colm Keogh, P.Eng.
|
|
·
|
I am a Principal Mining Engineer with AMC Mining Consultants (Canada) Ltd with a business address at Suite 202, 200 Granville Street, Vancouver, British Columbia, V6C 1S4.
|
|
·
|
This certificate applies to the technical report entitled “Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC”, dated June 19, 2014 (the “Technical Report”).
|
|
·
|
I am a graduate of the University of British Columbia (BASc Mining Engineering, 1988). I am a member in good standing of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia, License #37433. My relevant experience is approximately 20 years in the mining industry, specifically underground base metal and precious metal operations in Canada and Europe. I am a “Qualified Person” for the purposes of National Instrument 43-101 (the “Instrument”).
|
|
·
|
My most recent personal inspection of the Property was October 24, 2012 for one day.
|
|
·
|
I am responsible for Sections 1.6, 1.7, 15.0, 16.0 (except 16.5, 16.6, 16.9 and 16.10), 21.2.2, 25.3, 25.3.1, 26.4 (except 26.4.1 and 26.4.2), 27.8, and 28.8 of the Technical Report.
|
|
·
|
I am independent of Pretium Resources Inc. as defined by Section 1.5 of the Instrument.
|
|
·
|
I have had prior involvement with the Property that is the subject of the Technical Report. I co-authored the Technical Report entitled “Feasibility Study and Technical Report on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC”, dated June 21, 2013.
|
|
·
|
I have read the Instrument and the sections of the Technical Report that I am responsible for has been prepared in compliance with the Instrument.
|
|
·
|
As of the date of this certificate, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the sections of the Technical Report that I am responsible for contains all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the Technical Report not misleading.
|
Original document signed and sealed by
Colm Keogh, P.Eng.
|
Colm Keogh, P.Eng.
Principal Mining Engineer
AMC Mining Consultants (Canada) Ltd
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
28.9
|
Catherine Schmid, M.Sc., P.Eng.
|
|
·
|
I am a Senior Geotechnical Engineer with BGC Engineering Inc. with a business address at 234 St. Paul Street, Kamloops, British Columbia, V2C 6G4.
|
|
·
|
This certificate applies to the technical report entitled “Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC”, dated June 19, 2014 (the “Technical Report”).
|
|
·
|
I am a graduate of Queen’s University, Master of Science (Engineering), 2005. I am a member in good standing of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia, License #33195. My relevant experience is 10 years of mining rock mechanics projects, including consulting and operations experience. I am a “Qualified Person” for purposes of National Instrument 43-101 (the “Instrument”).
|
|
·
|
My most recent personal inspection of the Property was February 2012 for 7 days.
|
|
·
|
I am responsible for Sections 16.5, 26.4.1, 27.9, and 28.9 of the Technical Report.
|
|
·
|
I am independent of Pretium Resources Inc. as defined by Section 1.5 of the Instrument.
|
|
·
|
I have had prior involvement with the Property that is the subject of the Technical Report. I co-authored the Technical Report entitled “Feasibility Study and Technical Report on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC”, dated June 21, 2013.
|
|
·
|
I have read the Instrument and the sections of the Technical Report that I am responsible for has been prepared in compliance with the Instrument.
|
|
·
|
As of the date of this certificate, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the sections of the Technical Report that I am responsible for contains all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the technical report not misleading.
|
Original document signed and sealed by
Catherine Schmid, M.Sc., P.Eng.
|
Catherine Schmid, M.Sc., P.Eng.
Senior Geotechnical Engineer
BGC Engineering Inc.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
28.10
|
Brent McAfee, P.Eng.
|
|
·
|
I am a Geotechnical Engineer with BGC Engineering Inc. with a business address at 234 St. Paul Street, Kamloops, British Columbia, V2C 6G4.
|
|
·
|
This certificate applies to the technical report entitled “Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC”, dated June 19, 2014 (the “Technical Report”).
|
|
·
|
I am a graduate of the University of British Columbia, (Bachelor of Applied Science, 2006). I am a member in good standing of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia, License #38494. My relevant experience is seven years of geotechnical engineering design for mine development projects including the Ajax Project, B.C.; Eagle Gold Project, Yukon; and Donlin Creek Gold Project, Alaska. I am a “Qualified Person” for purposes of National Instrument 43-101 (the “Instrument”).
|
|
·
|
My most recent personal inspection of the Property was June 6 to 12, 2012 for seven days.
|
|
·
|
I am responsible for Sections 18.2, 18.11, 25.4.3, 25.4.4, 26.5.3, 26.5.4, 27.4, 27.5, 27.5.1, and 28.10 of the Technical Report.
|
|
·
|
I am independent of Pretium Resources Inc. as defined by Section 1.5 of the Instrument.
|
|
·
|
I have had prior involvement with the Property that is the subject of the Technical Report. I co-authored the Technical Report entitled “Feasibility Study and Technical Report on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC”, dated June 21, 2013.
|
|
·
|
I have read the Instrument and the sections of the Technical Report that I am responsible for has been prepared in compliance with the Instrument.
|
|
·
|
As of the date of this certificate, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the sections of the Technical Report that I am responsible for contains all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the technical report not misleading.
|
Original document signed and sealed by
Brent McAfee, P.Eng.
|
Brent McAfee, P.Eng.
Geotechnical Engineer
BGC Engineering Inc.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
28.11
|
Michael Chin, P.Eng.
|
|
·
|
I am the Chief Civil Engineer with Tetra Tech WEI Inc. with a business address at #800 – 555 West Hastings Street, Vancouver, British Columbia, V6B 1M1.
|
|
·
|
This certificate applies to the technical report entitled “Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC”, dated June 19, 2014 (the “Technical Report”).
|
|
·
|
I am a graduate of the University of Alberta (Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering, 1985). I am a member in good standing of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia, License #17172. My relevant experience is 28 years of civil engineering design and construction for mines, power plants, highways, and other heavy civil project. I am a “Qualified Person” for the purposes of National Instrument 43-101 (the “Instrument”).
|
|
·
|
I did not complete a personal inspection of the Property.
|
|
·
|
I am responsible for Sections 18.4, 18.5, 18.7.1, 27.2, and 28.11 of the Technical Report.
|
|
·
|
I am independent of Pretium Resources Inc. as defined by Section 1.5 of the Instrument.
|
|
·
|
I have had prior involvement with the Property that is the subject of the Technical Report. I co-authored the Technical Report entitled “Feasibility Study and Technical Report on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC”, dated June 21, 2013.
|
|
·
|
I have read the Instrument and the sections of the Technical Report that I am responsible for have been prepared in compliance with the Instrument.
|
|
·
|
As of the date of this certificate, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the sections of the Technical Report that I am responsible for contain all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the technical report not misleading.
|
Original document signed and sealed by
Michael Chin, P.Eng.
|
Michael Chin, P.Eng.
Chief Civil Engineer
Tetra Tech WEI Inc.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
28.12
|
Brian Gould, P.Eng.
|
|
·
|
I am a Senior Avalanche Specialist/Engineer with Alpine Solutions Avalanche Services with a business address at PO Box 417, Squamish, British Columbia, V8B 0A4.
|
|
·
|
This certificate applies to the technical report entitled “Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC”, dated June 19, 2014 (the “Technical Report”).
|
|
·
|
I am a graduate of the University of British Columbia (B.A.Sc. in Civil Engineering, 1992). I am a member in good standing of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia, License # 31663. My relevant experience is 21 years in the avalanche industry and 9 years as an engineer/planner for avalanche risk control projects. I am a “Qualified Person” for the purposes of National Instrument 43-101 (the “Instrument”).
|
|
·
|
My most recent personal inspection of the Property was April 29, 2013 for two days.
|
|
·
|
I am responsible for Sections 1.8.1, 18.6, 25.4.1, 26.5.1, 27.1, and 28.12 the Technical Report.
|
|
·
|
I am independent of Pretium Resources Inc. as defined by Section 1.5 of the Instrument.
|
|
·
|
I have had prior involvement with the Property that is the subject of the Technical Report. I co-authored the Technical Report entitled “Feasibility Study and Technical Report on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC”, dated June 21, 2013.
|
|
·
|
I have read the Instrument and the sections of the Technical Report that I am responsible for has been prepared in compliance with the Instrument.
|
|
·
|
As of the date of this certificate, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the sections of the Technical Report that I am responsible for contains all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the technical report not misleading.
|
Original document signed and sealed by
Brian Gould, P.Eng.
|
Brian Gould, P.Eng.
Senior Avalanche Specialist/Engineer
Alpine Solutions Avalanche Services
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
28.13
|
Michael Paul Wise, P.Eng., MBA
|
|
·
|
I am a Director, Project Development Valard LP with a business address at Suite 1790, 999 West Hasting Street, Vancouver, British Columbia, V6C 2W2.
|
|
·
|
This certificate applies to the technical report entitled “Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC”, dated June 19, 2014 (the “Technical Report”).
|
|
·
|
I am a graduate of the University of British Columbia (B.A.Sc., Geological Engineering, 1989; and M.A.Sc. Civil Engineering, 1996) and Simon Fraser University (Executive MBA, 2007). I am a member in good standing of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia, License #18891. My relevant experience is over 20 years in resource roads and infrastructure projects, including transmission lines, resource roads, forestry activities, and other aspects of linear project development. I am a “Qualified Person” for the purposes of National Instrument 43-101 (the “Instrument”).
|
|
·
|
My most recent personal inspection of the Property was August 5, 2012 for one day.
|
|
·
|
I am responsible for Section 1.8.2, 18.7, 25.4.2, 26.5.2, and 28.13 of the Technical Report.
|
|
·
|
I am independent of Pretium Resources Inc. as defined by Section 1.5 of the Instrument.
|
|
·
|
I have had prior involvement with the Property that is the subject of the Technical Report. I co-authored the Technical Report entitled “Feasibility Study and Technical Report on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC”, dated June 21, 2013.
|
|
·
|
I have read the Instrument and the sections of the Technical Report that I am responsible for has been prepared in compliance with the Instrument.
|
|
·
|
As of the date of this certificate, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the sections of the Technical Report that I am responsible for contains all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the Technical Report not misleading.
|
Original document signed and sealed by
Michael Paul Wise, P.Eng., MBA
|
Michael Paul Wise, P.Eng., MBA
Director, Project Development
Valard LP
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
28.14
|
Paul Greisman, Ph.D., P.Eng.
|
|
·
|
I am a Technical Director of ERM Rescan with a business address at 1111 West Hastings Street, 15th Floor, Vancouver, British Columbia, V6E 2J3.
|
|
·
|
This certificate applies to the technical report entitled “Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC”, dated June 19, 2014 (the “Technical Report”).
|
|
·
|
I am a graduate of The Cooper Union (B.E., 1968), New York University (M.S., 1969) and the University of Washington (Ph.D., 1976). I am a member in good standing of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia, License #13952. My relevant experience over the past 23 years is the design of subaqueous tailings placement systems and their effects on suspended solids concentrations in receiving waters. I am a “Qualified Person” for the purposes of National Instrument 43-101 (the “Instrument”).
|
|
·
|
I completed a personal inspection of the Property on August 17, 2010 for one day.
|
|
·
|
I am responsible for Sections 1.8.3, 18.12, 25.4.8, 26.5.5, and 28.14 of the Technical Report.
|
|
·
|
I am independent of Pretium Resources Inc. as defined by Section 1.5 of the Instrument.
|
|
·
|
I have had prior involvement with the Property that is the subject of the Technical Report. I co-authored the Technical Report entitled “Feasibility Study and Technical Report on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC”, dated June 21, 2013.
|
|
·
|
I have read the Instrument and the sections of the Technical Report that I am responsible for has been prepared in compliance with the Instrument.
|
|
·
|
As of the date of this certificate, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the sections of the Technical Report for which I am responsible for contain all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the Technical Report not misleading.
|
Original document signed and sealed by
Paul Greisman, Ph.D., P.Eng.
|
Paul Greisman, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Technical Director
ERM Rescan
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
28.15
|
Wayne E. Scott, P.Eng.
|
|
·
|
I am a Mining Divisional Manager, Electrical with Tetra Tech WEI Inc. with a business address at 725 Hewitson Street, Thunder Bay, Ontario, P7B 6B5.
|
|
·
|
This certificate applies to the technical report entitled “Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC”, dated June 19, 2014 (the “Technical Report”).
|
|
·
|
I am a graduate of Lakehead University (Bachelor of Engineering (Electrical), 1985). I am a member in good standing of the Association of Professional Engineers Ontario, License #41302506. I am also a member in good standing of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Saskatchewan, License #16893. My relevant experience is 25 years as an electrical engineer in engineering design, process optimization and mill operations. My expertise includes design and integration of control systems, power system design, LV/MV motor controls and switchgear. I have been the lead electrical engineer on major underground mining projects and acted as the project engineer. I am a “Qualified Person” for the purposes of National Instrument 43-101 (the “Instrument”).
|
|
·
|
I did not complete a personal inspection of the Property.
|
|
·
|
I am responsible for Sections 18.15 and 28.15 of the Technical Report.
|
|
·
|
I am independent of Pretium Resources Inc. as defined by Section 1.5 of the Instrument.
|
|
·
|
I have had prior involvement with the Property that is the subject of the Technical Report. I co-authored the Technical Report entitled “Feasibility Study and Technical Report on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC”, dated June 21, 2013.
|
|
·
|
I have read the Instrument and the sections of the Technical Report that I am responsible for has been prepared in compliance with the Instrument.
|
|
·
|
As of the date of this certificate, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the sections of the Technical Report that I am responsible for contains all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the Technical Report not misleading.
|
Original document signed and sealed by
Wayne E. Scott, P.Eng.
|
Wayne E. Scott, P.Eng.
Mining Divisional Manager, Electrical
Tetra Tech WEI Inc.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
28.16
|
Ali Farah, P.Eng.
|
|
·
|
I am a Lead Mechanical Engineer with Tetra Tech WEI Inc. with a business address at #800 – 555 West Hastings Street, Vancouver, British Columbia, V6B 1M1.
|
|
·
|
This certificate applies to the technical report entitled “Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC”, dated June 19, 2014 (the “Technical Report”).
|
|
·
|
I am a graduate of Shiraz University (B.Sc.Eng. in Mechanical Engineering, 1984). I am a member in good standing of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia, License #144443. My relevant experience includes 20 years of experience with hydraulic calculations, equipment design/selection and design of pumping systems. I am a “Qualified Person” for the purposes of National Instrument 43-101 (the “Instrument”).
|
|
·
|
I did not complete a personal inspection of the Property.
|
|
·
|
I am responsible for Sections 18.16 and 28.16 of the Technical Report.
|
|
·
|
I am independent of Pretium Resources Inc. as defined by Section 1.5 of the Instrument.
|
|
·
|
I have had prior involvement with the Property that is the subject of the Technical Report. I co-authored the Technical Report entitled “Feasibility Study and Technical Report on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC”, dated June 21, 2013.
|
|
·
|
I have read the Instrument and the sections of the Technical Report that I am responsible for has been prepared in compliance with the Instrument.
|
|
·
|
As of the date of this certificate, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the sections of the Technical Report that I am responsible for contains all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the Technical Report not misleading.
|
Original document signed and sealed by
Ali Farah, P.Eng.
|
Ali Farah, P.Eng.
Lead Mechanical Engineer
Tetra Tech WEI Inc.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
28.17
|
George Zazzi, P.Eng.
|
|
·
|
I am a Principal Mining Engineer with AMC Mining Consultants (Canada) Ltd with a business address at Suite 202, 200 Granville Street, Vancouver, British Columbia, V6C 1S4.
|
|
·
|
This certificate applies to the technical report entitled “Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC”, dated June 19, 2014 (the “Technical Report”).
|
|
·
|
I am a graduate of the British Columbia Institute of Technology (Diploma of Mining Engineering, 1993) and the University of British Columbia (BASc in Metallurgical Engineering, 1989). I am a member in good standing of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia, License #28636. I have worked as a Mining Engineer for a total of 21 years since my graduation from university and have relevant experience in project management, feasibility studies and technical report preparations for mining projects in North America. I am a “Qualified Person” for the purposes of National Instrument 43-101 (the “Instrument”).
|
|
·
|
I did not complete a personal inspection of the Property.
|
|
·
|
I am responsible for Sections 16.9, 16.10 and 28.17 of the Technical Report.
|
|
·
|
I am independent of Pretium Resources Inc. as defined by Section 1.5 of the Instrument.
|
|
·
|
I have had prior involvement with the Property that is the subject of the Technical Report. I assisted with the completion of the Technical Report entitled “Feasibility Study and Technical Report on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC”, dated June 21, 2013.
|
|
·
|
I have read the Instrument and the sections of the Technical Report that I am responsible for has been prepared in compliance with the Instrument.
|
|
·
|
As of the date of this certificate, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the sections of the Technical Report that I am responsible for contains all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the Technical Report not misleading.
|
Original document signed and sealed by
George Zazzi, P.Eng.
|
George Zazzi, P.Eng.
Principal Mining Engineer
AMC Mining Consultants (Canada) Ltd
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
28.18
|
Trevor Crozier, M.Eng., P.Eng.
|
|
·
|
I am a Principal Hydrogeological Engineer with BGC Engineering Inc. with a business address at Suite 800 – 1045 Howe Street, Vancouver, British Columbia, V6Z 2A9.
|
|
·
|
This certificate applies to the technical report entitled “Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC”, dated June 19, 2014 (the “Technical Report”).
|
|
·
|
I am a graduate of the University of British Columbia (B.A.Sc., 1992; M.Eng. (Geological Engineering), 2003). I am a member in good standing of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia, License #22194. My experience with respect hydrogeology includes 22 years as a geotechnical engineering consultant specialized in groundwater hydrology. Select relevant experience includes the KSM Project (BC), the Donlin Gold Project (AK), the Eagle Gold Project (YT), Red Lake Gold Mines (ON), Gibraltar Mine (BC), Los Helados (Chile), and La Coipa (Chile). I am a “Qualified Person” for the purposes of National Instrument 43-101 (the “Instrument”).
|
|
·
|
My most recent personal inspection of the Property was September 5, 2013 for one day.
|
|
·
|
I am responsible for Sections 16.6, 18.13 (outlet flow control structure only), 20.1.5, 25.4.5 (outlet flow control only), 25.4.7, 26.4.2, 26.5.6, 27.3, 27.7.1, 27.13, and 28.18 of the Technical Report.
|
|
·
|
I am independent of Pretium Resources Inc. as defined by Section 1.5 of the Instrument.
|
|
·
|
I have no prior involvement with the Property that is the subject of the Technical Report.
|
|
·
|
I have read the Instrument and the sections of the Technical Report that I am responsible for has been prepared in compliance with the Instrument.
|
|
·
|
As of the date of this certificate, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the sections of the Technical Report that I am responsible for contains all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the Technical Report not misleading.
|
Original document signed and sealed by
Trevor Crozier, M.Eng., P.Eng.
|
Trevor Crozier, M.Eng., P.Eng.
Principal Hydrogeological Engineer
BGC Engineering Inc.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
28.19
|
Sharon Blackmore, M.Sc., P.Geo.
|
|
·
|
I am an Intermediate Hydrogeochemist with BGC Engineering Inc. with a business address at Suite 800 – 1045 Howe Street, Vancouver, British Columbia, V6Z 2A9.
|
|
·
|
This certificate applies to the technical report entitled “Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC”, dated June 19, 2014 (the “Technical Report”).
|
|
·
|
I am a graduate of the University of Western Ontario (B.Sc. 2003; M.Sc. (Geology), 2005). I am a member in good standing of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia, License #37460. My relevant experience with respect to ML/ARD and hydrogeochemistry includes work for the Brucejack Project, Los Helados (Chile), the Antamina Mine (Antamina, Peru), Buckreef Project (Tanzania), and Red Lake Gold Mines (Red Lake, Ontario). I have been involved in the mining and exploration industry since 2001 and continuously since 2006. I am a “Qualified Person” for the purposes of National Instrument 43-101 (the “Instrument”).
|
|
·
|
My most recent personal inspection of the Property was September 2013 for two weeks.
|
|
·
|
I am responsible for Sections 20.1.4, 25.5.1, 26.6.1, 27.7.2, and 28.19 of the Technical Report.
|
|
·
|
I am independent of Pretium Resources Inc. as defined by Section 1.5 of the Instrument.
|
|
·
|
I have no prior involvement with the Property that is the subject of the Technical Report.
|
|
·
|
I have read the Instrument and the sections of the Technical Report that I am responsible for has been prepared in compliance with the Instrument.
|
|
·
|
As of the date of this certificate, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the sections of the Technical Report that I am responsible for contains all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the Technical Report not misleading.
|
Original document signed and sealed by
Sharon Blackmore, M.Sc., P.Geo.
|
Sharon Blackmore, M.Sc., P.Geo.
Intermediate Hydrogeochemist
BGC Engineering Inc.
|
Pretium Resources Inc.
|
|
1491990100-REP-R0001-01
|
Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project,
Stewart, BC
|
`!@H*5,=6Y4RB20=:R*O MG)<0VM'3P65F]I(>/C.?GG%'^=,<6B.:-W%.G600(O-:><&O]#(O@9RDXX/4 M]U0WO=
/">V3K?MXA*P_'G5Q5@:R-)'3&6$S,69LWT@2<"W:
M"18D;!$@@<0J$T1%L:0Q4$,JT5%5_W^]-$O`@1&Q/$P7*#O2&>\Q-L-]#^:I
M';9QTCJQGSI9$'ZSDQ",J^+-CT\]')Q]$7\2F0+1#$.Z,)$VE@VN6(VN_)
MJXW7(T:J%X`7SRMQ!`8IK``>X`(.X+A98D47:261VR?A'IP20_4!(X9C(6LB
MG-0Q-NVD. 05-B82TC;1I]H].YFQ7[\_@KY0,56
M-70SI2U#*R5"AP5([6E!\,PO] ZS`5A[N9`W9T]-[O$F`-W02B4
MYT!IH4I.V\[@K,:.'H!D+Z;*G4N)H8]_74\FIIP*]"03C1W`45>K9:UMJG$L
M$MJ1OY4]#]/<04^F385I?L'+Y/81#_$A.'I0BV2"<728P/\*^&!#?>U:/$"_
MVJY5C%Q8RQ9T:Q:[I82J)=G;JK)*DFFL"7(".AN0]+&S:LSC*.)EASY"F^`D
MO`@=_COOEH:X#M\@I24B($IVIK*7R)1GL@V"J'?Z@PYMG,=I$)::UFS$U@Q#
M*@<\"#"8SQ6G\Y797"B14@\`4($-P'D#&H@SG`$@%`@0H`DD-C%;LK3&5/GO
M2RX>231BO+AJ&.,KO"'S5BCW%86M2E]W:PEO].44Z$C#>*52ATL4N@-V+&,.
M=51H3*3,E^L`P6-26C6K6^WJ5Z_:T"*A\DBVD[66D!,=YOFK#O^XG)?DM\R!
M3#-DT,47R:"9V+<*I"8UZ8[H!1+_,/%P43S^J1(EE<4+?*Z`GU5,$E5A58!;
M=1 `!
M-EL\S(,FS1[RJ)YD\%-V?!]><`>DG(J`*%0+U9Y^`!-6.(7764;8;06I;=W.
MP%[5X(5D644%;0DQ?)]O?*!ES`0R-`,,X81-X&`.ZN`.(L,0U/^!\SV?VT7?
M2$Q<2(R.38!0/WF?(@$&/YG* F!#QXQK5MJSGT$9:,.[JH2I5H3P
MBIV7.C0)2S;/$D'T3%;C@R!8D3G6\8YY7$C5V!C(01:RC8.%CA9LX@Z$0`
M_!!.3I#1(@]X:2@X48-":./(94BPNXC5%2]_N1I"05$TQJP]L!RAEAYD,;(L
MHM`$Z-,Q&1.HPW1G3"A1)LP"92JK]MPJ-JEX(VI:\Z!M9E%E]?((^?](!\>"
M1>BP;F(3-6C]C@"92Z`,'(D+(J8M%&)7&=1*!Q
M-IENMM:^KX%\@T2E@N<5@Z#C'13^UNPNR6>S!-J0`)"A-9-!1>[A8>,2'>[!
MR_:5FQ+1<8TB&>@`!`US/ID%(P#![L@^",20(
YRV?J!DD_2MG3&RJDZ-P+$5@%1E#3
MR<&&K:;FCETHS0W&9W,:>!YX#N["1;%M4+S;X#"=H,8="ZZ'$O+KTEPL(F`"
MP`YTD(,=--O9S];!LZ7][!RL]![#T]B,%_MI;G>;*,;AP59\A;#`[*4M;Y8,
M"WVRR9JHLS3!GAIO+
7BF*>-`*^%.8G]`]P[$Z,GL@
MR?BZAK@E.%J".7A`N:N^E[B/G-"A#>F26(,));,5]RN3O"!!^3'!$T1!%(R?
M%'0?"R'!FU.("I2[A)#!J%*^_?_#0;4[C@#C'+^:0'/3B:(@NA_3GN5*/]4Q
M0(C@#8E@APT
;9-<#,^F7Z&PN:8NZ)3*\%"AXW'A#LPI&>Y3O>0R0
M17P,CTS$GIS(->A'(FO0"!$@(,<$284,Q1W6VZS'"/41+);_\MCYC]M@B+R6
M#US81FN,!'J`\9'XD7%\LF,QBN-`4"N.1"0+!@0)
P3%H3&61AMM8[$>X3<-6:Q+!KBZ/$#ZT8I2JV$3T"1^9;1Y7TKD2W_VJ
ML&'^4F#[%X(.WBELX0H'38<5[J[<
MAOB@N`/^R1$`T,O#E)W.V'VU7V+M%72<0`>=^B-)DL$%MF]AP.B0PA8.`!5T
M-"PJ68>+L:OR:*Y/'0J3C8G=VR[T,.>`)13`,U#T6Q(QD^4($$!XPJ/PR(26
M2&,*@<]D#@JQ:5!RW2$*=@WCQY+0I"IAP@IC/#IV0)PWH67M;)][K`"/!CC_)T_N+-XHT8VA^1Y\
!=^0L46!T86R]=H%AA7.Y@2M73[D'M/9@UNI;5IO+_%OD]?N"Q,'
M,M*HH+6@YEV*XQ],P$"OHMCK2ZK1ETO`("\H4``9!Z@+!.7%A
'3BHSD
MAJAU-<1JJUVH\-;-Q'6N<'5O3N9RMKXJ"+`(%6Q1O#"CWC14RP/6[6.7$EF'
M3+8G%<[K718".9$V*<28TYQI?5O1#3,M(J+;AP_@+%N;4('.H(5)Q"+"4P*_
MJ(5X#LGL:E?
[9_A+5W
M'+1A;"-32X@(C;7-688><4594Q8Z&,,Q:/96$`=:?K8Q./5GZ_;T:C579!^H
M=%I+"'=P$_=P&W=IZXT(92V3[O55"*E7.#$1_Y=S)W/V;EOW4T>W#`+69;'9
M$0!!IWWW(G;W=[?$=V]C)Y($!C7W&R+(:C,J2;@V96DN>=S<=!?QOUQW?MMS
M;V\=!;@@K`'XJZW$4MJ1[GPUMS;,6&M<:!_,$&>%.MFV9U>W?E/XVF:W%/KW
M92U6@'/X-N:K3CR@5[1WP[QWK3&XNSCXBT9X9^-VA;NXVEYX9(@1,>R`E&PX
MA\/:-@*`2+-(;E_J>K.I@L=X1*7X51A63WMV,+[XDO?*>;51U-@<@QE/H(H'
M/L2W9!#L?]OXC2/!JE%)E"1!ET^)F,^(TP#1IXZX`I6X2%RY^"GXVZSX4S/H
M
X_M:5V>:>VX,WAQ,R$"%`HD^@X(2CA49:!!&4
M;OKI``,\(0<12#K8YZRU?BFT2AU^".+W*$B")(N5BZDX"I;P>">09Q6LUO_0
M=)C3M-7BE/,().[$E@"1!>O0VY^(W>FQK5LJ+N?D>#:<\@70[KQB5O7-:.
MQ47GB)0BKN:(*/?IH:*(*K!#<
MOEU<)?HF_PAQ%?W.B-W?C0_L\>$B/YYYA&E#!XAA!^P8,\"K]_"A:!RZIQIV
M[KF]S-1U_FF)DNM^?;5K&U29Y85T)VR.]WT:/%UD[->L>2B'7PD=WAOS/W\!
M!(FQF$,]`1X0@89QV_CFUSJ[00AEK3F?0)"`+0JV!'-R``@ZYD/G(*@.)6'ZE&..
MZ0T5!)[J\7A8]%`S:SS#+,PRLC^?55R:9T\M:^\BM42"`Q]\+5N#8\&6<`FY
MIP:D_\U2,?4]#G2H!N0P2VAM,`P=0J.$JD$]:6)=9<.&UD%,U116>V)8%.*"
MD"*B@B4)O@)TU*;#9*)[E@=6*&)6B@-0*6`.EJI##0=9DY6O#*4L&0+-ADQC
M#R)>?\=Z0$H0F\LL1Y9D1Y8'`NZ+IK1*A660:F6HD`$(]JPCTA">9BVI)(-X
MUG4:BJ&6!HE8)H(=%O$^.?0G:+)B"*16UB$SI.?5'B-S0BBIMI-/1<-?;2E7
M_C5!;[0%*1:C5-`BCK$H-U9C.U;<-*-S'"M%MC%)IK5,JM4ZY^-;XU8)YU9N
MYP$'*+52"=0[/4(ET:$T>7`?XN$R&*,B?.DI:\TCK!.8$O_T'@27]HJ/?R)6
MDNZ#/-$!'P2WVVC/>QZW4CR"61$&'::!<*,A.%*"")VB/+>6:^_):PMK?<)6
M;&N,;$.B5H;))6W'J2*%YH!T:".5,*HA#"!--JGT-GLF`U=7>507>5\I`\'6
M06HI=AUD=@>(`C@G-&S')A;51=B6@P9SJ=X+*[#B*J;B&L27O:KA!T(-T@+T
M4HO79EIW>1-C8N/7F5K7>4UF2#-6?U6#?Y<3-%I"1A`H,:
MS&`3ZB`-C&&J@I5KYP&RZIDP!DEL+2*:;8RH8W=F```$8.`&:J`&8,`%4,"&
MM^XT[[>A0?AY58-LFRO%/M0WFXM9KL:8'$M8;HE8(.,K-E<]PGDF1MH]T*$0
MX*"5RX((E*`0OG,ECJ$%AMF"@3H^[E;EZF`(3I&I\/KT0MIP""\)229`#R;3
ML2/S#A@@.!C[L1_[#A1`-!]@C"M[,O.``9(:`$A@!5;@`Q)@`!0`!?\8L%TO
M""/4ADA?&[9C6[9G>ZM)-S,J3%7*
M0``L8@+,H+S->Q/*8``L`@+(P+T'M`T0`+3K`#+#X`@&8%,9\!XDXC\"A$C)
M!K8-O,!K"<%5)L$5O+;_3`T[B!SAZ:P)@E
ZFX/JOH097J0O9&N>2#[5
M`0<^P?Q1X1/0'Q7,H`1JH!-2(?W-W_PO@0UX(`D\GCDZ/MAR_F-P$B#8[=AW
M[4B.??O0';F'#-V^:DL2YD"V+UHT`,3VL5L2;0FZ'.SV+2%&C"+"D]6.'*G&
MKJ5+=NN6'$%V[Z3-FSASZMQY.[DN*
MD!#3ID+SP$&Z\^8]``!JVJQFYXR93V$8-&!0HM;_)U6;[B@(V;6NW;MX\^K=
MR[
`-BP6*D;R3U.M/08'US3M(\%^'-!G$^DZ/:V\R@@2A-SC/HQR16Y66)Q%.I%0IQLE]YIAL/4I MR /?#'_DLGC7_`*[S_P#I0:]AKQ[X8_\`)9/&O_7>?_TH->PTL9_% M^2_(K!?POF_S"BBBN,[`HHHH`****`"BBB@`HHHH`****`"BBB@`HHHH`*** M*`"BBB@`HHHH`****`/*_CCHMY-I>F>(-/7 &- [F$11NX!;`8>A%=@RJZ%'4,K#!4C((K@]3^#/A# M4KQ[A;6>S9SEDM9=J9]E(('T&!79"I2G35.K?39HXYTZL*CJ4K:[IG1?\)IX M6_Z&71__``/B_P#BJ/\`A-/"W_0RZ/\`^!\7_P`57(?\*)\)?\]-2_[_`*__ M`!-'_"B?"7_/34O^_P"O_P`33Y<+_,_N%SXK^5?>=?\`\)IX6_Z&71__``/B M_P#BJ/\`A-/"W_0RZ/\`^!\7_P`57(?\*)\)?\]-2_[_`*__`!-'_"B?"7_/ M34O^_P"O_P`31RX7^9_<'/BOY5]YU_\`PFGA;_H9='_\#XO_`(JL[7/B9X5T M739+D:Q:7TJJ?+@LYEE:1NP^4G'U-8/_``HGPE_STU+_`+_K_P#$U:L/@IX/ ML;I9I+>YO-IR([F?*Y]PH&?H>*%'"+5MOY`Y8MZ**7S,3X)Z9?75UK7BS4$\ ML:I*1%_MDN6=A[9P!]#7K=-CC2&)8H46.-`%5%&`H'8"G5A6JNK4 C2]E3 M4-PHHHK$V"BBB@`HHHH`****`"BBB@`HHHH`****`"BBB@`HHHH`****`"BB MB@`HHHH`****`"BBB@`HHHH`****`"BBB@`HHHH`****`"BBB@`HHHH`**** ?`"BBB@`HHHH`****`"BBB@`HHHH`****`"BBB@#_V3\_ ` end
$-*7)NF 0Z$S1_%![_!U\Z`= [`"Z4RV%
M,OCW1V6I Z6&0L<&SSHS1]RA[1#\&0!&,P!@CW
M"T\L5I+G#[;0!"CPT#RQ>.&LQ00;<[CAF OR8),_I[<@\>+GX%#UY\
M0A(>/USUF/U":9"*P34&<3'CAP*7NF%,`.S -'0@&NE_`'33EG*5;:R:+&LY<(VV REJ@_IT&`#T2PJ 0GVZ=*$0A6DOY/'UHT(5ZK$,:AW:)%3BO^B@T(4%\>7V!"I2A@<^G-`!+
M3'!L$/M<'2@'OC<@YZ6PA>%/8?5-:*A7QG89H,D&/P*9#^_K=P6QT[=2.9!"
M%'BGDW.,0Q[K&,$,JP,`UI`,54`.-RD&)9MX-QYVX)!)E.E`C?/A+[,"*R=S=(8+O511X47+^*
M\<`3TIH_#-%!+88TZ:V3].51D2HZ*#0`$
MD+D_9I(;O5.>=S]CZ+?K9QEYCPUV4X#W\/>8@36M)*7Y!1[8$4N"+ R65-BESQTJQ/4B38@SC]TR>ZORO(N$K"SITF+#[?^:
M]VZ7P&OOW#3SYTT2G&OTEDR0$W65A2XQ@U')19$A/5Y4<%%DARJ7/GL2<2V3
M[<2?/59GF/NC1\6O6*Y;O9L.+WX\^95/GO#S]V0AE7OR=/$KQLS?FGNXBI&T
M]\A"!@PP?/XU43^5P($++M8`QLX4;Q"#BS*1-'&-.Y+(P0T5S6S3!#+VH$*&
M9Z")5IZ(XJDBV3MQ*)C+:]&4<],I4,0#(8#^R)($'OV@<@8Q4:`QU"HPP,-+
M'.XP$0
P#]S,#O2D`%K$`%;DUP3!S<5`UG/#PN""4=4>8,8`\$/BW=58O0\`0`L"00!65`XB+A!5_0[^
M``#X].$$X=?&80H`4`"9X->_3-9U0M.6\]`@S-\]Q18_BMP-`9G_D`.KIR4\
M+A@X+1(B/D8B`=[TA.3_P`\"(!)W/1!63@("T=0&0=8O?0I[GM@[_]W3'P4`
MD7P08GYT9%Y$G`T8:EX#.GXG;]XAC[ZHR9U&4X<8`9H*.+[@HWU8F^[&>J'<
M;I?I''+JN//&;Z'9=HIQK"XA_3T(L.X6FJVS/%?K$=+6J.[B94C.KTQO!!SL
MD7X]^BN^Q?YMQ_[JJ<[IZ]OLS?;LC9KLGF/$"N$//;C0NN7K$$)$@A`(Y%[N
MYBX(B:`%6[`%5W`%7B`'=1#O\C[O\2X'2'P1.E?N?S`(B4#O_E[OS0"%%_OM
MI7Y8]!#+OEM+*U:#GG81]"`)2:!+%:"Y-3A.^FQ:X![N6I#P"O_,&M#P%F$/
M5Z!+2(`!SYQD&N!O]$KPU%[M69`$2A#S,O\_\S0?\POO9QDPV`[A.?-F#UF@
M2TQ0`<%[`
IAF&&N"6NJZEH06JEK
MVI2BZA2B\3H<@4BO5052MF=K`?^V;#_)K_ZZB`#+KUI*L,VVG?F0#Y@'3#EP
M6[M57]ODJ%!P8T[:;!+K>Z,)`]?JE1V;L5"I8-]WM1\K@\?7&22+KB=+$.F0
M@2K;BS[@LGGB#EH@L[%IKS.Z9J^%BCO0LZG%KS2P`XIIMXM(L'[[`*!%`UX(
M`U#0G8JE`TI[>SE0;ER`FD4+M29(K5X`>$\`#%@0F@.*M5
0+S15#.ZV48O$+Z,T`*S+$9%4DN2
MU$"@<\NW_,*JJ+BU6(A388NTU(B(@B3_(P&/8D")B,LR+?N\-*0D%`P?\R`O
M<@L/`].;H/0:OF(*<;,.F3$9Y60)=-`8T(`B;5$]?N0PD804=X,WZ4G(H\@W
MD30S"5&OZYM-VNQ`I;B7A%((W;0+WMPMWV0Q\'@XD9#!*;E)\X`FPXC%J(O#
MZLI'`_O-I%@]@HB1*X.FL<#.7XF"FI@&C?D)+1"NZ0C/H]`GD7R&?2@Q@6#-
M5%3/S!C/P^E*]_3&N#I)^5POW+M-P9(;*='/P.!/X+P!*4`)TUN]]+`]8H$`
M>OP1`,*P?!2N!LU%DZ/.ZIQ0R<0;V*$"#/42&``*+:B,#\6!$+W"Y(B&[BHE
M9D**]90,F6-1_[8DO/B4T
-':EM.ZYXK-^PY@S@
M[3&.#HO(I=X7V`$)G)Z_T0RE`(VW1FF%$^=QYE[_EY9-F`:VO8X0$?;KFC8?
MIN""';S;D&"+SFNA!G85(RZJQN6QTY/HMOC/?:C#JCTPWHP?U.:=WHF2A(.C
M`OT=M4&*7L4P[J`!$2$WDBM@B;`["'AM'541$]ZK#NF/LHIKW)YKNMYM#MY:
M&=-KX/[:\%L(YOX7+K`+.W9'[F!NGQYFI7N`:WDAT"O%0N8Z]3A'A_N(&JC:
M1JWE[A;D@[KP%V!H9#G(&3)R#S_P%QJYZOE!QZ'2EK9`-%-)<1Q5"!$W+OGI9REY
M`!Y6D6T;9!8')IY`:-Z1<>F]@9VK"']9"!N70+7U3J:0H)_XN\Q@A7:(\G5P
MAR$G