DE BEERS GAHCHO KUÉ SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT APPLICATION Tree of Peace, Yellowknife 8:30-4:30 May 30-31, 2018
GAHCHO KUÉ MINE • Gahcho Kue is owned by a Joint Venture Partnership - De Beers (51%) - Mountain Province Diamonds (49%) • Located 280 km northeast of Yellowknife, 140 km from Lutsel K’e • Open Pit Mine - 5034 Pit - Hearne Pit - Tuzo Pit • 2 Years of Construction • 11.6 Years of Operation • 2 Years of Active Closure • 19 years of re-filling Kennady Lake The De Beers Group of Companies 1
REGULATORY HISTORY 2005 Application for a Type A Land Use Permit and Water Licence 2006 Environmental Assessment and Environmental Impact Review 2010 Environmental Impact Statement submitted 2012 EIS Supplement 2013 Responsible Ministers approved the Project 2013 Updated Project Description 2013 Early Earthworks Land Use Permit 2014 Type A Land Use Permit and Water Licence 2017 Land Use Permit Amendment #1 for Jet Fuel 2017 Land Use Permit Amendment #2 for Fine PK Facility 2018 Water Licence Amendment #1 & Land Use Permit Amendment #3 for Mine Rock 2018 Water Licence Amendment #2 for water use (Bridging amendment) The De Beers Group of Companies 2
PROJECT OJECT Gahc hcho ho Kué DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION Mi Mine ne The De Beers Group of Companies 3
A NEW CHALLENGE – JOINT SETS IN ALL THREE PITS • A jo join int is a break (fracture) of natural origin in the BFA 70° BFA 85° continuity of the rock 6m 2m • A jo join int set set is a family of parallel, evenly spaced joints Planned break-back • When jo join int sets ets are blasted, the blast pattern is affected • Rock is not only breaking along vertical blast lines, but also along the joint sets Actual break-back • Result is a reduction of the catch benches – leading to a safety issue for our workers below 24m • 5034 Pit has joint sets on the eastern wall • Issue extends to Tuzo and Hearne 90° • Necessary to re-design the slope walls to accommodate the additional break-back The De Beers Group of Companies 4
BENCH WIDTHS MUST BE PRESERVED FOR SAFETY The De Beers Group of Companies 5
HOW WILL THE PITS CHANGE AS A RESULT? • Pit wall slopes will decrease • Planned case: 41-50° Worst case: 41°east wall slopes • Pit 2013 3 2018 8 (Worst Case) UPD UPD (ha) a) (ha) a) 5034 41 50 Tuzo 43 50 Hearne 24 32 Total 108 132 Difference 24 The De Beers Group of Companies 6
WHERE TO PUT THE EXTRA ROCK? • Planned case = 65 Mt • Worst case = 100 Mt • Alternatives Analysis conducted to examine each potential option • Parameters considered: - Feedback received from Aboriginal Parties and during previous reviews - Containment within Controlled Area - Minimize footprint on land - Minimize footprint in water - Close to pits - Minimize height increase - Technical feasibility The De Beers Group of Companies 7
WEST MINE ROCK PILE – OPTION A Op Option A Capacity 130 Mt Height Increase 35 m Total Height 135 m Proximity to pits Close Land increase 7.8 ha Water increase 54.9 ha Key Features: Footprint remains within • Controlled Boundary • Drainage watercourse required at closure The De Beers Group of Companies 8
WEST MINE ROCK PILE – OPTION B Option B Op • Sufficient space for Capacity 130 Mt 130 Mt Height increase 35 m • More impact on land • Close to pits Total height 155 m • Less underwater Proximity to pits Close storage of PAG • Requires 1 drainage Land increase 23.5 ha watercourse to be Water increase constructed at closure 40.4 ha • Close to Controlled Area Key Features: Boundary • Footprint within Controlled Area Boundary • Odd configuration • Drainage watercourse difficult for large trucks required at closure • Pile up to 35m higher • Odd configuration makes it difficult for large trucks The De Beers Group of Companies 9
MINE ROCK COVERED COARSE PK PILE – OPTION C Option on C Capacity 35 Mt Height Increase 70 m Total Height 100 m Proximity to pits Far Land Footprint 32.4 ha Water Footprint 14.3 ha Key Features: • Insufficient space for material The De Beers Group of Companies 10
NEW MINE ROCK PILE IN AREA 6 – OPTION D Option on D Capacity 95 Mt Height Increase 95 m Total Height 95 m Proximity to pits Close to Hearne Land Footprint 60 ha Water Footprint 24 ha Key Features: • New mine rock pile • Insufficient space for material • Permanent removal of Area 6 Would require long drainage • connection from E Lakes The De Beers Group of Companies 11
OTHER OPTIONS CONSIDERED – AREA 7 Are rea 7 Op Opti tion 1 South of Area 7 m mostly on l land nd Key Features • Limited height due to airstrip flight obstacle limitation Area 7 Op Option 2 South of Area 7 c covering g both land and water Key Features Permanent alteration of • Area 7 • Limit Kennady Lake reconnection at closure The De Beers Group of Companies 12
WEST MINE ROCK PILE – FINAL SELECTED AND REFINED OPTION Selecte ted and Refined ed Op Option Capacity 130 Mt Height increase 35 m Total height 135 m Proximity to pits Close Land increase 7.1 ha Water increase 55.4 ha Key Features Footprint within • Controlled Boundary • Drainage watercourse required at closure The De Beers Group of Companies 13
HOW DOES THIS AFFECT OTHER ASPECTS OF MINE DEVELOPMENT? The De Beers Group of Companies 14
UPDATED PROJECT DESCRIPTION Ope peration ional al • Larger west mine rock pile • Increased footprint • Adjustments to planned discharge - Discharge from Water Management Pond to N11 for 1 additional year - Discharge from Area 7 to Area 8 periodically throughout Operations • Additional camp occupancy - Increased annual camp water intake • Additional mining equipment and operating hours • 7 months longer life of mine Closure re • Longer to refill Kennady Lake • Watercourse required for closure to reconnect Watershed D to Kennady Lake The De Beers Group of Companies 15
LARGER WEST MINE ROCK PILE DESIGN • Close to the pits 2013 2018 Drai rainag age e • Uses existing disturbance cha hannel el • Most footprint in WMP • Requires drainage channel at closure • Two ramps incorporated into design for wildlife access/egress Design gn Land d (ha) Water (ha) Total (ha) Height t (m) PAG <420.7 masl masl (Mt) t) 2013 41.7 39.6 81.3 100 3.4 2018 48.8 95.0 143.8 135 10.8 Difference 7.1 55.4 62.5 35 7.4 The De Beers Group of Companies 16
2013 UPDATED PROJECT DESCRIPTION FOOTPRINT Year Purpose Area (ha) 2014 2014 UPD 2013 1172 The De Beers Group of Companies 17
2017 APPROVED FOOTPRINT Year Purpose Area (ha) 2014 2014 UPD 2013 1172 2015 2015 Dyke L haul road 5 2015 2015 Road to temporary laydown 1 2015 2015 Temporary laydowns 19.25 2014 2014 Airstrip re-alignment 17.5 2017 2017 ROM pad area 12 2017 2017 East pad extension 9 2017 2017 Jet fuel 0.25 2017 2017 FPKC expansion and AN building 30 Total 1266 The De Beers Group of Companies 18
2018 UPDATED PROJECT DESCRIPTION FOOTPRINT Year Purpose Area (ha) 2014 2014 UPD 2013 1172 2015 2015 Dyke L haul road 5 2015 2015 Road to temporary laydown 1 2015 2015 Temporary laydowns 19.25 2014 2014 Airstrip re-alignment 17.5 2017 2017 ROM pad area 12 2017 2017 East pad extension 9 2017 2017 Jet fuel 0.25 2017 2017 FPKC expansion and AN building 30 2018 2018 Mine Rock Amendment 26 Total 1292 The De Beers Group of Companies 19
WATER MANAGEMENT – OPERATIONS • Discharge water from WMP to Lake N11 • Current W.L. = Annually for 3 years Amendment = Annually for 4 years • • Pump water from A1 to A8 • Current W.L. = Annually • Pump water from Lake N11 to A8 Dyke e H • Current W.L. = 3 out of 4 years Dyke e G Pump Water from A7 to A8 • • Amendment = Periodically The De Beers Group of Companies 20
ADDITIONAL YEAR OF DISCHARGE TO LAKE N11 (YEAR4) • 1 Additional Year of Discharge to Lake N11 (Year 4) Pipe Availability - Same annual allotment = 3.45 Mm 3 / year June - Option in water license (Part G, item 34) J M - EQC evaluation report submitted A A - Request annual discharge to carry over anniversary date - Discharge planned for Sept.1 to Nov.1 Water Quality S M O F Sept.24 N J Available D Discharge Adequate Not Adequate Period Available Not Available Lake N11 Diffuser The De Beers Group of Companies 21
DISCHARGE FROM AREA 7 TO AREA 8 (PERIODICALLY) • Discharge from A7 to A8 - Secondary source of downstream flow water - ~1.55 Mm 3 as available during Life of Mine (~4 years) - To reduce volume of water reporting to WMP - EQC evaluation report submitted • Existing W.L. permits 1 year of discharge from WMP to A8 - No discharge from WMP to A8 occurred to date - No discharge from WMP to A8 is planned • A7 as contingency storage area A8 - WMP water may be temporarily stored in A7 - WMP water would either be pumped back to the WMP or to a pit - If discharge to A8 is required, an EQC evaluation report to be submitted The De Beers Group of Companies 22
Recommend
More recommend
